The stadium debate: If you don’t build it, what will happen?

Eden Park's capacity would lift to 60,000 under the 2.0 vision. Image / Eden Park Trust

This is a transcript of Simon Wilson’s weekly newsletter Love this City – exploring the ideas and events, the reality and the potential of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. To sign up, click here, select Love this City and save your preferences.

Who wants to build a stadium now?

It’s an often-forgotten fact that anyone can build a stadium. All you need is a lot of money, some land and a resource consent.

Manchester United is doing it with a new £2 billion (NZ$4.5b) stadium right near Old Trafford, which is so old the fans thought it was a forever stadium. Last year Former Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer spent US$2 billion (NZ$3.5b) to build the Intuit Stadium for his LA Clippers basketball team.

Kevin Costner did it in a cornfield.

All of which is to say, Auckland Council’s stadium decision this week probably doesn’t mean anything at all.

The council will “advance” the case for Eden Park to become the city’s (and therefore the country’s) “main stadium”. But it has no money to put into it and doesn’t even own the land. It doesn’t own the land in the rival stadium bid, either.

Neither bid needs the council’s permission. Nor do they need the Government’s permission, especially as senior minister Chris Bishop says it’s most unlikely there will be funding from that source.

Why did the council even bother to back one bid over the other? Some of the councillors could see it was farcical.

“I cannot for the life of me understand what we’re doing here,” said Maurice Williamson (hat tip to him for the info about Ballmer).

Williamson pointed out that whatever the council decided would have “absolutely no effect” on what happens next.

John Watson had a good way of putting it.

“Calling it a ‘decision’ is a stretch,” he said.

“The council is firmly in the seat of a spectator here. We’re up in the stands watching, we’re not down on the field playing the game.”

Despite that, both of them voted to support Eden Park.

The council “decision” came after two years of investigation into the merits of four options for a stadium that were whittled down to two in May last year.

Eden Park was one of those. It wants to undertake a three-stage renewal in which, at stage 3, it would get a roof. The first stage alone has a $110-million price tag.

The other was Te Tōangaroa, a plan to build offices, apartments, hotels and a stadium on the sprawling and underdeveloped Quay Park site near the waterfront, east of the Spark Arena.

It’s a decades-long development proposal and it’s supported by NZ Rugby, but seemed to scare councillors off: they barely talked about it (see below for more on this).

Shane Henderson, who had chaired the working group looking at it all, gamely declared himself “very proud of the process”. He said Eden Park has “shown it will be easier to become viable and that’s the main reason I support it today”.

Shane Henderson, who chaired the council's working group on the stadium proposals. Photo / Michael Craig

That’s a weak reason. Being easier doesn’t make it better, let alone right.

He also said: “A decision today will mean ... Eden Park can go out and tell potential investors they have council support. It’s time to put this debate to bed. This gives certainty to Aucklanders”.

It’s hard to see how any of that is true. Eden Park doesn’t have the only support that matters, from either the council or the Government, because neither is putting in any money.

Although the vote was overwhelming, at 17-2 with one abstention, the stadium debate is far from over.

All around the table, when they called out their votes, councillors went “Can I just wait a bit,” and “Yes, I suppose,” and “Mumble mumble yeah”.

I’ve never seen such a big majority of councillors exhibit such a deep lack of enthusiasm. I half expected a few to crawl under their desks.

Some voted for Eden Park because they want to keep it, pure and simple. But most seemed almost embarrassed at their inability to advance matters. They don’t believe the Government will help and Te Tōangaroa was just too big and scary.

So the status quo remains. But no one wants an undeveloped Eden Park either. As Costner definitely didn’t say, ‘if you don’t build it, what will happen?‘.

Max Hardy, the official who has steered much of this process, didn’t think the council decision was pointless.

“The main stadium is an important asset to the region,” he told the meeting. “The council has a legitimate interest and a leadership role in endorsing what is best for Auckland.”

But then he muttered, “But that can change over time”.

Indeed it can.

Simon Bridges nixes mayoral talk, calls Wayne Brown a “rough diamond”

Will Simon Bridges stand for mayor of Auckland?

“Not enough money, not enough power!” he said exuberantly at a business lunch on Wednesday. The former Leader of the Opposition, now chief executive of the Auckland Business Chamber, later repeated it. He was definitely not going to stand.

It was the launch of the Herald‘s Project Auckland, our big annual review of economic progress in the city.

Bridges also volunteered the view that the incumbent mayor, Wayne Brown, had been “pretty effective”, especially as “the system is entirely broken”. It wasn’t entirely clear what he meant by that.

“But,” he added, “my sense is Wayne is not getting the regularised meetings with the prime minister that he thinks he should”.

Happy days, but do they happen often enough? Photo / Sylvie Whinray

Bridges said the PM “doesn’t need to meet regularly with the mayor of Te Kuiti, say, but he does need to do that with the mayor of Auckland”.

Brown has expressed this frustration himself. He also told me recently Auckland is so important to the country, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon should give himself the job of Minister for Auckland.

The minister who does have that job, Simeon Brown, was at the lunch and announced a new hospital for the far south of the city, in the fast-growing Drury area.

It wasn’t entirely new: the same hospital was announced under Labour in 2018. But it was never built.

The minister said the new hospital would be included in the National Infrastructure Plan, to be announced within weeks. Planning, site selection, a business case and funding will all be needed after that, but the minister told me it will be built sometime in the 2030s.

Bridges also said a big announcement was coming. He talked up the need for innovative technology to drive growth and said there would soon be news about a “multibillion-dollar company”, known for its innovative tech, wanting to set up shop here.

Mayor Brown wasn’t at the launch lunch. It was the third time in recent weeks he’s missed a significant political/business event.

He declined an invitation to hear Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop speak on the future of the city at a Committee for Auckland event last month. And he wasn’t even invited to the Government’s Investment Summit. Internationally, the local mayor usually opens events like that. Was it because of that lack of easy rapport with Luxon?

“He’s a rough diamond,” Bridges said on Wednesday. “What can I say.”

The curse of Kevin Costner

The rough diamond alluded to Kevin Costner in the stadium debate this week when he said, “This is a hopelessly optimistic sector. Everybody believes if you build it, they will come”.

We like to think Costner was right in Field of Dreams because his message is so life affirming. But Mayor Brown wasn’t having it. He suggested that for a better – that is, more money-making – approach, we should learn from SailGP.

“SailGP built their stands for less people than they thought they’d get,” he said, “so they could gouge the sh*t out of people wanting to get in there”.

Spectators close to the action during SailGP in Auckland this year. Photo / Felix Diemer/SailGP

The politer way to put it is that, from an event manager’s point of view, a full house with high ticket prices is better than a big half-empty arena.

As we know from, ahem, Eden Park.

There are strong views everywhere about where and what kind of new stadium we need, or whether we need one at all.

“If we had a dollar for every opinion we’ve received over the years,” council official Max Hardy said, “we might be able to afford it ourselves”.

Councillor Chris Darby touched on this when he said something that should have resonated with councillors, but didn’t.

“We’re making a decision on something we know is very important to Aucklanders. Without knowing what they think. It’s a complete miss.”

There’s no plan to ask us what we want. But there is an election on its way, this October.

Hot topic: The new harbour crossing

Minister for Transport, Housing, Resource Management Reform, Infrastructure and Building Big Things Chris Bishop was at the Project Auckland launch and popped up again this week at a couple of conferences.

One of his hot topics is the new harbour crossing he announced earlier in the month.

“There’s a barge in the harbour doing geotech work as we speak,” he says whenever he can.

He used to say it was “the first time” this had been done, but on Thursday afternoon at the Debt Capital Markets conference, that had become “first time in 20 years”.

A delegate asked him, has Mayor Brown’s proposal for a bridge from Meola Reef in Westmere to Kauri Point near Birkenhead been discarded?

Bishop picked his way through his answer.

“It hasn’t been [pause]. ‘Discarded’ is a strong word. He’s got [pause] typically iconoclastic Browny views.”

He deflected onto geotech and finance studies, then added, “Wayne’s got [pause] interesting views. Discard is probably too strong. But it’s not top of the agenda right now”.

Bridge or tunnel is the key question, Bishop told the Property Council summit earlier the same day. Either way, it’s likely to be near the existing bridge. And it will “almost certainly” be tolled, as the original bridge was from 1959 until 1984.

“Political consensus will be necessary,” he said. An announcement about what and where will be made in mid-2026 and “we’ll be talking with Labour”.

In my view, bridge or tunnel is only one of the key questions.

The harbour crossing is a big chance for all political parties to prove they can work together when necessary for the common good. It’ll be the biggest project in the country’s history and it won’t happen unless they can agree.

The proof of that may well come with decisions about what the new crossing and a reconfigured old bridge will carry.

Will private vehicles, freight, rapid transit (light rail or buses), cycling and walking all be in the mix. Will both sides of the political divide find a consensus, or will one just bully or walk out on the other?

Hang on, why not Te Tōangaroa?

The way to make a privately funded stadium work is for a consortium to acquire some land and put up high-yield buildings – office blocks, apartments and the like – and then use some of the income from that to fund the stadium. They add to that income stream later with tickets sales, naming rights and other commercial ventures.

The team behind the sunken stadium, rejected by council last year, wanted to do this by being given the Eden Park land to develop as housing. Te Tōangaroa wants to do it by creating a vast intensely developed precinct with a stadium at its heart.

The council knows all this. Given the current unviability of Eden Park, you might think they would have left the door open to the possibility.

Image of the proposed new precinct at Quay Park, with Te Tōangaroa Stadium featured in the middle.

But Councillor Henderson, chair of the working group that managed the application process, said, “We’re being clear. We support this option [Eden Park] and we will not be supporting a different option”.

Why shut the door so explicitly in their face, or in anyone’s face?

Actually, it’s not even that. With no skin in the game, the council has no authority to say there will never be a different option.

If Te Tōangaroa can make its proposal work financially, or if a new consortium buys a plot of land in a good place, gets onside with key sports bodies and works out how to finance the deal, Henderson will be eating his words.

This points to some serious shortcomings in the council’s process.

“The key finding of council’s review of the feasibility studies,” said the officials in their report, “is that neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding”.

But Te Tōangaroa didn’t ask for public funding.

Elsewhere in the report the officials acknowledged that.

“They note that they do not require any funding or resource from council,” they wrote. And: “This option is the only one that could provide a main stadium that does not propose requirement of public funds”.

What the consortium did ask for was more time to put together its privately funded proposal.

“They noted, however, that in the coming 12 months they intend to progress their land acquisition strategy and continue negotiations, so that they would be able to provide more certainty and confidence in their proposal at that point.”

And: “There [sic] main request is for council to avoid making funding decisions that would impact the commercial viability for their proposal within the next 12 months while they work to provide greater certainty.”

That may mean they are in discussions, or soon to be, with Ngāti Whātua, which owns most of the land they want to build on.

The iwi’s Ngarimu Blair has told me previously they were not involved in originating the proposal, but they are prepared to look at a deal once the money is in place. Blair was in the council room throughout the meeting, but said nothing.

On the face of it, this is astonishing. The council hasn’t exactly made a funding decision, but the decision it has made will definitely “impact the commercial viability” of Te Tōangaroa.

“Te Tōangaroa could have significant public benefits if delivered without public funding,” says the report. All that housing, all the entertainments, a much-needed revitalisation of a run-down part of town, and all of it right by a major transport hub.

But the report also sets out extensive concerns from KiwiRail, the NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, Port of Auckland, the council’s “placemaking” agency Eke Panuku and Auckland Transport.

Chris Darby, alone among the councillors, wasn’t having it.

“Te Tōangaroa is a precinct plan, and it’s a city-building plan,” he said.

“It’s not a stadium plan, it’s a 100-year project. It’s a big idea and that challenges us.”

But he was offside with too many of his colleagues when he compared that with Eden Park.

“My personal view is that Eden Park does not face the future, it reflects the past. Its use-by date is absolutely up.”

In his view, Eden Park would find itself some money, somehow, and they would “pretty it up, then we’ll be back in another 10-15 years, wanting the same again. It’s the city old boys, it’s what they do.”

Still, he was keen on Eden Park chief executive Nick Sautner, although in a way Sautner might not love.

“Nick does a fantastic job. He’d be a great CEO of Te Tōangaroa.”

One more thing. If all those council and government agencies think Te Tōangaroa is too big to be viable, how did it get on the final shortlist?

How did the other two projects get knocked off? Both were for a stadium in a relatively small precinct, not unlike Eden Park, but on the waterfront.

The rejected "sunken stadium" proposal.

Shouldn’t at least one of them have been measured more closely against the Eden Park bid?

This whole process has not showcased the council at its best.

Bishop goes up and out but will he work with Labour?

Minister Bishop’s big theme is that everything should be easier. He’s trying to speed up law changes to require denser zoning in city fringe suburbs. More building up.

Chris Bishop wants to speed up the building of almost everything. Photo / Mark Mitchell

He’s also speeding up law changes to allow more greenfields growth – new subdivisions creeping into farmland on the edges of the city.

More building out.

“We’re not going to take the golden soils we need in Pukekohe,” he said to the Property Council summit.

But in his view there are many areas classified as elite soils that shouldn’t be. That will change.

And there will be new funding and support for the Community Housing Sector (CHPS), so there’s “a level playing field” between CHPS and Kāinga Ora.

“I call this model competitive neutrality,” he told the debt capital conference. (I’ll be decoding what this means very soon.)

As with the harbour crossing, he says he’s keen on political consensus about residential construction. He talked at length about how his Government is building on the work that Labour’s Phil Twyford did to create a new framework for housing and urban development. It was a rare moment of tribute.

Labour’s housing spokesman Kieran McAnulty was in the audience and I asked him about this spirit of consensus afterwards. He appreciated the comments about Twyford but he said despite the warm fuzzies, Bishop had not given him prior notice of the content of any of the announcements this week, let alone consulted on them.

Bishop himself, meanwhile, was elaborating on a favourite theme: the problem of planning.

“The problem with planning, well, it’s in the name. They plan things, which means they decide what you can and can’t do.

“I’m a libertarian. I want the economics of what’s rational to support growth. Planning has a habit of not doing that.”

Some might argue planning does do that, along with ensuring we get the roads and schools and hospitals we need, as we grow, and that they’re built properly too.

But the truth is, we’ve had a mix of planning and lack of planning in this country, and neither has been good enough at keeping up with demand or producing quality outcomes. The problems perhaps lie deeper.

Trouble with names

The Project Auckland lunch featured some very random misnaming.

Minister Bishop referred to Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson as Deputy Mayor Horton, perhaps thinking of the great Auckland philanthropist, the late Rosie Horton.

Herald journalist Fran O’Sullivan introduced the chief executive of the Business Chamber as Simeon Bridges.

“We’re both terrible good looking young men,” said Simon Bridges.

Fran shot back: “In your case I can’t really tell, because you’re hiding your face behind that beard”.

Bridges has grown a well-groomed but strikingly full beard.

The flogging option

Mayor Brown, who has played rugby at Eden Park in his day, brought a personal perspective to the debate on its future this week.

Referring to the lack of a funding model that didn’t require council or Government input, he said: “The funding model is the number 2 ground.

“If I had my way, they’d sell that tomorrow and there’s your $100 mill ... I’ve had my days playing on number 2, it can be flogged off now.”

For the record, the Eden Park Trust Board has no intention of flogging off the number 2 ground.

Coming soon to Tāmaki Makaurau

Three Forty One - The Climate Musical

Auckland writer, musician and director Steve Worsley (The Way of the Raukura) has dedicated his new show to the memory of the climate and business writer Rod Oram, who died suddenly a year ago. It’s a musical comedy with a punch, about a wedding party that arrives on a Pacific Island rather like Tuvalu, to find things are not as they expected. Eastgate Christian Centre, Pakuranga, March 28-April 5.

ASB Polyfest

“Passion like you’ve never seen, connection like you’ve never seen”, they say, and as the largest Pacific cultural festival in the world, why wouldn’t that be true. My advice: Just go along, pretend you’re a parent or something.

The Auckland Secondary Schools Māori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival: Clover Park, April 2-5.

To sign up to Simon Wilson’s weekly newsletter click here, select Love this City and save your preferences. For a step-by-step guide, click here.