KEY POINTS:
Should anyone really wonder if there was ever any doubt in the minds of the city fathers about the placement of a waterfront stadium. I see it as a well-calculated, high-income spinner. Just imagine the revenue, not only from the costly seats, but from the many cars that have to be parked: 60,000 seats, nearly 30,000 cars at $8 a pop. A minimum income of $240,000 per game played. How clever!
- Frederick Warner, Pukekohe.
Finally a facility to rival Wellington's Cake Tin. Auckland will have the "Bouncy Castle". A brilliant stadium concept for all the family to enjoy. And it can even change colour just in case the game is a bit boring. I hope we don't have to take our shoes off.
- Scott Blanks, Mt Eden.
It is about time Auckland, its citizens and in fact all New Zealanders stood up and took notice of the "steamrolling" that is very apparent in the decision-making process with regards to the proposed waterfront stadium. Has anyone really thought about who this stadium will really benefit? Has someone in our present topsy-turvy ARC done the numbers on where their income presently comes from - it certainly won't come from a stadium that will not be utilised year-round - let alone thought about the traffic problems that are only just at a delicate stage of being dealt with.
- Robert J.Hawkins, Forrest Hill.
This giant rubber-tyre-like structure will dominate the harbour's edge, separate Aucklanders from their wonderful waterfront and block sea views from downtown. What else could we have for the $600 million-plus price tag? A smarter option would be an upgraded Ericsson Stadium costing half that figure. And the $300 million left over could be put to good use on transport serving the stadium and the city's visitors. Transit NZ's planned second Manukau Bridge could take the reopened Onehunga rail line across the harbour and on to Mangere airport. Add in modern railway stations and fast new trains and we really would look 21st century to the rugby visitors.
- Phil Chase, Mount Albert.
As an engineering student it alarms me that Auckland's future is being decided by architects, planners and the Government who want recognition without best considering the needs of Auckland and common sense. It defies logic to take away a large area of an international port to place a stadium that would be used only on selected days. A downtown stadium would place too great a stress on a weak public transport system and an area already difficult to access by large groups of people at once. The stadium would be an eyesore rather than an icon. The logical solution would be to complete North Harbour Stadium and save it from the current state it is in. Rivalry between Auckland City and North Harbour should be forgotten for a successful World Cup. Transport links are already in place, resource consent would not be an issue and cost can be minimised.
- Ian Milne, Onehunga.
Why not spend the absolute minimum required to dolly-up Eden Park for the World Cup - a lick of paint, a few temporary stands, cram in the promised 60,000 ... (who's really going to count?). A good time will be had by all - we might even win. Just imagine how good we'll all feel the morning after - a bit of a hangover maybe, but all totally relieved we hadn't spent that $320 million or $700 million or whatever it might have cost.
- Frank Grgec, Mt Eden.
The dreadful Bledisloe Wharf Bedpan would be an expensive eye-sore for Auckland. It is far worse than the Toaster building near Sydney's Opera House. The design for the stadium at Manukau Harbour is a much better option. It is close to the airport and good roads/transport facilities. Will Helen Clark ride roughshod over the residents of Auckland and land us with a ghastly mistake and ruin our beautiful waterfront for ever?
- Marianne Stevens, Takapuna.
Now the Government has bypassed Auckland's chronic inability to make a decision about anything and sited the World Cup stadium by the water, let's get on with getting it right. We certainly do not want either a cake tin or a squashed aluminium bedpan. There is no reason why the stadium structure could not be airy and light and a visual asset to the waterfront. It will be none of those things if the decision is left to Wellington bureaucrats. Make Auckland's Urban Design Panel the client and give a bunch of architects with proven track records - not too many of those to choose from - a month to come up with a visionary concept and get on with it. And give some individual with vision the job of getting it right. Vest the new stadium in a reformed Eden Park Trust and turn the existing assets into cash for the new venue. What is too hard about that?
- Hamish Keith, Freemans Bay.
