Waterfront stadium may cost $1 billion

Eden Park is still favoured to host the 20011 Rugy World Cup final and could look like this if costs scupper the waterfront option.

A waterfront stadium to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup final could balloon to a mind-boggling cost of $1 billion, meaning Eden Park is still favourite - and could soon win Government funding of up to $100 million.

Those close to the Government move to look into a $350 million, 60,000-seat stadium on Auckland's waterfront are saying the Government is discovering the Bledisloe Wharf site evaluation will show the waterfront option is too expensive and impractical.

The sources say the review is being undertaken before any approach is made to Cabinet for funds for Eden Park, thought to be up to $100m. However, Sports Minister Trevor Mallard wanted to make sure he had an objective, non-Eden Park assessment of all other options.

There are now strong suggestions the Government accepts the need for further central funding - they have so far allocated only $20 million to Eden Park's upgrade - but would be unwilling to move without independent confirmation that Eden Park was the best solution.

This even though Eden Park's consultants include those who have built Sydney's Olympic Stadium and upgraded Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, Twickenham and the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

The sources say investigations into the waterfront have also made it clear there is so much preparatory work to do on pilings and foundations to allow the building of such a large structure that costs would blow out enormously past the mysterious $350m price tag which has appeared alongside the Government's waterfront option.

However, while Eden Park is still the most likely solution, the review has been useful to the Government for other reasons.

Some sources say a secondary objective was a power play directed at the Auckland Regional Council and the push by Auckland's senior mayors for a "Greater Auckland" city. In behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, the Government suggested the council might gift the land for the Bledisloe option to it.

While the controversial plan to restructure Auckland into three enlarged cities under a "super-council" was abandoned on Friday, the ARC was the major stumbling block before Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey did a U-turn based on opposition from within his city.

The Government interest in the port site for a stadium is being interpreted by many as designed to "get the ARC to come to the party in support of the infrastructure needed" regarding Eden Park and in other moves in a more amalgamated Auckland.

Even after the dropping of the "Greater Auckland" concept for now, the mayors are still agreed on a need to strengthen regional governance before next year's local body elections.

The waterfront stadium allowed the Government to signal that it is prepared to bypass the ARC; to show it can force the ARC down a certain path if it so chooses; or even disband it.

It is the political equivalent of the old Julius Caesar trick with the troublesome Senate of ancient Rome. When a Caesar initiative was baulked, he would sometimes draw up an infantry legion outside the Senate to underline his power.

Sources close to the move believe the waterfront review will likely spark behind-the-scenes negotiations designed to smooth the way for revised regional governance.

There is another political consideration. Prime Minister Helen Clark lives about three decent Dan Carter punts away from the rugby ground and some local opposition to the upgrade has been stiff - as have Auckland ratepayer views on the likely effect on rates. On both scores, the PM will be able to show all other avenues have been exhausted before Eden Park's upgrade proceeds.

Those plans include the "greening" of Eden Park with plazas and a much more "park-like" environment - maybe eventually administered within the new local governance initiative for Auckland. The Government may also see that initiative and specific projects such as Eden Park as a key plank in Auckland with an election two years away.

Some of those excited about a new waterfront stadium have pointed to the possible repealing of the Trust Board legislation to allow a sale of Eden Park, a large and potentially valuable site, with the proceeds to defray the costs of a waterfront stadium.

However, that does not take into account existing debt and demolition and construction costs to develop the Eden Park site. Those costs make any development of the park less feasible - and some say Eden Park would not clear as much profit as thought, meaning there would be less cash to tip into the funding of a "greenfields" stadium elsewhere.