KEY POINTS:
Rivals state their cases for Eden Park and Bledisloe Wharf.
GREG MCKEOWN, Heart of the City
What option do you support for a Rugby World Cup stadium?
The purpose-built complete national stadium on Bledisloe.
Why do you think your option is the right one?
A stadium at Bledisloe will be more comfortable for more people for more types of events for more days of the year. It puts a bookend at the industrial end on ports land, saving the prime waterfront spaces in the centre of Quay St for public places in the future. It is the best location when it comes to transport (motorways, trains, ferries, and buses), hotels, restaurants and pre- and post-event entertainment.
What are the long-term benefits for Auckland and New Zealand?
It's not just about rugby and its not just about 2011. We have to think more broadly and longer term. We're going to host the World Cup and showcase New Zealand really well with the Bledisloe option. The waterfront will be a much better place for people to be than Sandringham. And the investment here would be a great catalyst for upgrading Quay street and other key areas of the waterfront.
Can your option be built in time for 2011?
Rumours have been spread that only Eden Park can be built in time. That's just not true. Bledisloe is arguably more consentable, more buildable and more fundable. Construction will be able to proceed for more hours of the day on the industrial port land than in residential Mt Eden.
What are the risks faced by going with the other option?
Eden Park has huge consenting issues with regard to height and effects. A smaller range of uses - think rugby park, rather than entertainment facility - will provide lower returns making Eden Park less sustainable economically. Who will pay for losses after 2011?
Has the Government left the stadium issue too late?
The Government has been very wise to commission a proper study of all the options. No, they are not too late at all. We have five years to build a new national stadium.
How do you address issues associated with the height and other impacts of such structures in an urban environment?
We've seen the Eden Park proposal and at 44m the vast stand proposed is not appropriate for residential Mt Eden. Good design can help address many impacts, and we believe that a well-designed stadium approximately 35m high can be built on the industrial port land. The design should be judged when professionally produced plans are released, not before.
What is the cost and how would it be funded?
Didn't they do well for the Westpac Stadium in Wellington - $130 million for 35,000 seats. Making an allowance for increases in construction costs, you could double the per seat cost and still end up with a figure of around $500 million for Bledisloe. Its a better quality spend that $320 million, or $400 million as we are now hearing, for Eden Park. The Bledisloe proposition will be more attractive to Government, and also to commercial sponsors. Naming rights for a new stadium will be worth much more than Eden Park. The probability is that with a better business proposition than Eden Park, the Bledisloe stadium is likely to cost Auckland ratepayers less than Eden Park.
JOHN ALEXANDER,Eden Park Trust Board CEO
What option do you support for a Rugby World Cup stadium?
Redeveloping Eden Park is not only the best option, it is the only feasible option.
Why do you think your option is the right one?
Eden Park will provide New Zealand with the legacy of an historic, multi-functional and world-class stadium at reasonable cost and we can get it done on time. Resource consents for the first stage of the redevelopment are already in place. Submissions are heavily in favour; 314 in favour and 177 opposed. Our design is well-advanced and we're ready to go.
While we are confident that Eden Park will meet the IRBs requirements and provide a fantastic legacy for the community and the country, there are severe doubts over the feasibility and wisdom of a waterfront option. Locating a large scale sports stadium in prime waterfront space poses major urban design issues, has not been fully debated by the community and represents a significant opportunity cost to Auckland and New Zealand. We also don't believe it can be finished in time for RWC.
What are the long-term benefits for Auckland and New Zealand?
Eden Park will be the most intimate rugby viewing stadium in Australia and fully ICC compliant for international cricket one dayers and tests. The redevelopment includes significantly improved transport options with an emphasis on catalysing public transport patronage, more green and community space, a Monday-Friday Park n Ride facility and an expanded convention centre.
Eden Park's economic impact report shows that, irrespective of where the stadium is located, Eden Park or the waterfront, the economic benefits of RWC 2011 (estimated to be an additional $240 million GDP in the Auckland economy), remains the same. Similarly, the legacy or ongoing benefits of the Eden Park are estimated at $50 million per annum and the report shows that these are highly unlikely to be higher under a waterfront scenario.
Can your option be built in time for 2011?
Yes, it can be finished by the end of 2010 to allow a bedding-in period before hosting the Cup, as requested by the IRB. Eden Park's programme has been reviewed and endorsed by two of New Zealand's leading construction companies.
What are the risks faced by going with the other option?
The waterfront offers no certainty of being ready in time for RWC 2011. It presents significant feasibility issues including transportation and access, consenting and sustainability. Putting a large scale sports stadium in prime waterfront space poses major urban design issues and has not been debated by the community. Our consultants put the total waterfront costs at more than double that for Eden Park, and exact costs for the waterfront can only be developed once preliminary design work is completed. It has the appearance of an open chequebook.
Has the Government left the stadium issue too late?
Its down to the wire. Had Eden Park been able to stick to its original timetable, demolition of the Panasonic Stand (for which funding and consents are already in place) would have begun by now. That's how tight things are. But compare that to the waterfront where they haven't even decided precisely which bit of waterfront this stadium will be located. It's a fantasy. We only have 187 weeks to go and the clock is ticking.
How do you address issues associated with the height and other impacts of such structures in an urban environment?
Eden Park challenged their architectural team to minimise the impact of the stadium on the environment and the local community. The techniques include the use of a semi-transparent surface material to diffuse the mass of the building, landscaping and setting the stadium back from neighbouring residential properties. Since lodging its resource consent application, Eden Park has also succeeded in reducing the height of the South and East stands by two metres, significantly reducing shading. Redevelopment plans now also include the removal of the four light towers currently above the ASB and South Stands. In future, lighting will be incorporated within the height of the overall roofs. This will significantly improve the visual impact of the stadium and negate any light spill.
What is the cost and how would it be funded?
The cost to redevelop Eden Park is $320 million - less than half the cost of a waterfront option. This figure has been confirmed by three quantity surveyors and includes scope for further cost reduction.
