Wynne Gray: Dunedin's stadium a lesson in foresight

The All Blacks training at the Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin yesterday. Photo / Getty Images

It is sickening to look at the new Dunedin sports stadium.

Say what? Yeah, stomach-churning to think what might have been in Auckland had the authorities been brave enough to think of the future rather than dwell on the past.

For about $200 million the southern city, which many in the north poke fun at for their caution and myopia, has embraced a stadium to cope with conditions and the changing needs of events and spectators.

This is a multi-purpose arena with a roof, one capable of dealing with rock concerts and rugby games, soccer matches and brass band competitions.

Meanwhile Eden Park has had its upgrade for about $300 million, tarted itself up largely for the Rugby World Cup and remains an unwieldy stadium in the wrong part of the city.

For much more money than Dunedin threw at its new arena, the upgraded Eden Park does not serve rugby, cricket or the public with enough distinction.

But Dunedin has done the business. They have the best stadium in the land, better than the Cake Tin which was a great advance but had the folly to believe it could also accommodate cricket and AFL.

Viewing in Wellington is compromised because of the extended arena.

As Canterbury emerges from the devastating effects of twin earthquakes and ongoing tremors, they should look at the new Dunedin Stadium as their next sporting model.

There's a rumour AMI Stadium in Christchurch will have to be torn down. If that is so and the insurance cover is generous, the city's sporting fathers should duplicate Dunedin.

They have enough cricket grounds throughout the city to deal with that sport, they should build a medium-size multi-purpose stadium within easy reach of the city.

Christchurch's ill-fortune must produce some future stadium foresight unlike Auckland's messy answer where opening the ground for some games must be more expensive than the revenue gained.

Building bigger is not the answer because television has cut into sporting audiences. Coverage on Sky is so good and so comprehensive that spectators are reluctant to watch many games live.

If people on an average income have shelled out about $100 a month to watch sport on television in the comfort of their own lounges, they will be reluctant to take the family for a similar amount to one game.

At home you can move away from dud matches, watch back-to-back games or go out for dinner and still record and watch them later.

Auckland have a habit of mocking those from the deep south, suggesting all sorts of dastardly family lineages, but the canny Caledonians have shown themselves to be well ahead of the city-slickers when it comes to sporting vision.