Dialogue: Region should pull together over stadium

By PHILIP WARREN*

Stadiums. How many can the Auckland region realistically sustain? And at what cost to the ratepayers?

We have the North Harbour Stadium, Western Springs, Eden Park, Carlaw Park.

We have Ericsson Stadium, which offers a multi-purpose complex for rugby league, cricket max, soccer, rugby, athletics and outdoor events, such as the sell-out Big Day Out, Ricky Martin, Michael Jackson, Billy Joel and Elton John, Tina Turner, Pavorotti and Aida.

What we don't have is an indoor stadium which is capable of seating around 15,000 people and which would be suitable for both indoor sports and entertainment events.

Sure, we have theatre complexes and we have small indoor event centres, but nothing that can hold a decent audience or that can be used interchangeably between arts and sports as the market demand shifts.

If you total all of the seats in all the theatres in The Edge complex, for example, you still only have about 8000 seats.

Several years ago, Auckland City proposed a downtown Quay St site as the most appropriate site for such a stadium. The proposed seating capacity was around 12,000 and the estimated cost to the public $70 million. The remaining funding would come mainly from a developer (and I understand that there are three or four interested parties).

At the same time, the Auckland Regional Council proposed creating an indoor-outdoor sport and entertainment complex by building an indoor arena alongside the present stadium on the site of the 12,000-capacity Supertop tent, which has reached its life expectancy. It was (and is) proposed that this arena would have seating for between 12,000 and 14,000 people and would cost around $43 million.

In order that the region reach an unbiased decision, the Hillary Commission was asked to assess the options. It decided, based on a range of criteria but excluding the proposed venues' capacities or costs, that the Quay St site should be the new site. The main reason given for this decision was its accessibility to the proposed new public transport terminal (the one the region still awaits).

Since then, the region has watched with bated breath. But to date, not one sod has been turned. And all the while, Ericsson Stadium has continued to attract significant crowds to its outdoor entertainment events. Recognising the need for access to good public transport, the ARC has also worked with Tranz Rail and Stagecoach to provide regular public transport right to the gates for all major games and events. (On this year's Big Day Out, for example, 8000 people used rail to get to and from Ericsson Stadium.)

And yet, some two or three years on, Auckland City is still debating how much its stadium will cost, who will pay for it, how many it will hold, and if, indeed, it is really the right decision to proceed when so much else is far more essential.

Now, too, Manukau City is proposing yet another stadium complex, at a cost of $37 million for just stage one and part of stage two. It boasts a proposed 15,000 seating capacity in the outdoor venue and 3000 in the indoor arena, with an art gallery and a plaza. An Ernst and Young study shows that this complex is based on unrealistic assumptions, given the present climate and regional competition.

I am strongly against any duplication of facilities. A duplication of resources leads not only to a duplication of ratepayer costs, but also unnecessary competition (leading to reduced earnings) and the risk of regional infighting. We already harbour duplication; we don't wish to add to it.

With the figures being bandied around, perhaps the region as a whole should consider the options available to it, and once and for all, make a final decision on its location and get on with it.

Aside from how many seats the indoor arena will have, consideration will need to be given to how easy it is for all the region's people to get to it, what public transport options are available, how close these options are located to the stadium, what options for parking there are, what infrastructure is already there (water, sewage, stormwater), and what the cost to the region will be - because ultimately, such a stadium will be a regional asset and not just that of one city.

And while the focus of the region and its expenditure is, and should remain on, sorting out its transport solutions, if the cost to the region is relatively insignificant (that is, about $35 a head), should we not use existing sites, with existing support and infrastructure facilities to progress and bring to the region another asset which we can all enjoy?

When the proposal is at minimum cost to the region's ratepayers, I certainly think so.

If we continue to wait around, what will we get? We will continue to miss out on attracting decent entertainment, we may lose sporting and music events to our rivals, and we remain perhaps the only international city in the world that can't claim ownership of a decent indoor stadium. For the most populated, most developed and most internationally competitive region in the country, I think that is rather poor.

Let's sort this out rationally, keep the region moving in all respects, and stop all talk about unnecessary resource duplication and added risk to the ratepayer.

And, let's not forget that after all this talk on a stadium, we will still need a convention centre - and is this perhaps not more suited to a city centre location?

* Philip Warren is chairman of the Auckland Regional Council.