In the week since an (under) waterfront stadium proposal was publicised in this paper, critics have taken a good look at it.
Understandably, they find it unsettling. A sports stadium largely below the waterline is an idea hard to get used to. Provision can be made for predicted sea level rise and king tides, storm surges and even tsunami. But how would it feel to sit below water level, looking down on a field 15m below the seabed?
Probably it would feel strange - once, then spectators would get involved in the game and not give the harbour another thought. That is another objection critics have made. The location, they argue, deserves amenities that enable Aucklanders to appreciate their stunning waterfront. A stadium is inward-focused. Inside, it does not matter where it is. That is true of an opera house too and Sydney has no regrets.
The proposal for Bledisloe Wharf might not be a standout building, the design concept appears to rise not far above wharf level, under a low roof of translucent material. But around it there would be public walkways and space to enjoy the harbour. It may provide steps to the water.
Ports of Auckland have been notably silent considering it would lose one of its largest wharves, albeit used mainly for receiving shipments of cars. It would stand to lose that business to another port, but if Bledisloe Wharf has to be enlarged for the stadium, and for residential apartments to help pay for it, the structure would provide a quay long enough for the latest generation of cruise ships to tie up, solving one of the port's recent problems.
