The new proposal for a national stadium on Auckland's waterfront is massively controversial, but the fact that it is clearly a rip-off of the Allianz Arena is only a small controversy [Shame on you Warren & Mahoney]. The engineers for this process have claimed that using an existing stadium design makes their job a whole lot easier.
The fact that the vast majority of the architecture community in Auckland are opposed to the stadium is a small controversy.
The fact that in the latest polls, the vast majority of the Auckland Public are in opposition to the stadium is a small controversy.
The fact that it requires a substantial area of Auckland's major port to be confiscated with no alternative plan of how this will be remedied is a small controversy.
The fact that the proponents describe this stadium as an opportunity to open up access to the harbour, via a massive, closed, primarily empty building, is a disgrace and a mistake.
The fact that the stadium itself is barely described in terms of plans, construction methodology, cost, program is a controversy.
The fact that the cost of the stadium varies from NZD$400 Million to over NZD$1.5 Billion is cause for concern.
Last night Auckland City Council last night gave the greenlight for the stadium - primarily because the government intends to pay for 'most' of it.
That the other contender for the stadium, Eden Park, with over 100 years of sporting history and with substantial plans to extend its facilities, seating to allow for 60,000 seats costing approximately NZD$380 Million was defeated.
The fact that 2 other potential sites, North Harbour Stadium, and Carlaw Park were not even considered.
The fact that precedents for rejuvenating waterfronts such as Bilbao, Rotterdam, London [Millenium Dome anyone?], Melbourne have been ignored - because NZ's principle cultural enterprise is sport.
The fact that the government has imposed a mere 2 weeks for the Auckland Councils to decide on this issue [because in order to meet the deadline for construction - the Rugby World Cup in 2011 - construction needs to start by Christmas], thereby removing the standard governmental, planning and consultation procedures is a f*ckin travesty.
Welcome to Auckland, New Zealand - the capital of the world's newest Banana Republic.
I haven't been arguing this one much, but since its you diabase...
To be honest I find it hard to match the passion that people seem to feel over the issue.
1. I don't care about the voting thing, or self-selecting polls. People don't know what they want until they are shown it. Design by poll is even worse than design by committee.
2. The council stipulated in their choice of a waterfront stadium that it needed to go further east, which was my main concern. It looks mighty crowded in the renderings above, but if it was pushed much further onto bledisloe wharf, it fits much better with the industrial scale of the port (which is what makes the caketin work), and doesn't squash the britomart precinct.
3. Why on earth did we leave this discussion until the last possible moment? Everyone goes on about the waterfront development, but everyone is paralysed for fear of wrecking it, and meanwhile, the port parks imported cars on it. Why hasn't the council run an design competition for ideas for development? Unless people have some ideas put in front of them, they will just default to wanting parks and apartments.
4. linked to this, Carlaw Park could have worked great, but there has been no time to seriously consider it. it has been excluded just to simplify the decision-making process. Which is stupid.
4. My understanding was that the Allianz stadium was mentioned by WAM and then grabbed onto by herald and tvnz photoshoppers because they didn't have anything else to compare it to. I heard a WAM guy saying that he had no idea why everyone presumed they were just going to copy Allianz; and what they've described seems quite different.
5. 60 000 seats is too big for auckland. It needs to be 45 000 plus some temporary seating or something. It'll be empty half the time at 60 000.
6. I love Eden Park. I didn't particularly love the renderings of their scheme.
7. What about governance? Eden Park already has a board who can manage the job. Who's in charge at the Waterfront?
Therefore i am ambivalent. I am hopeful that WAM (why no competition for architects?) can do something great. I am also cynical and predict huge budget blowouts. Potential for stuffing it up: high.
The trouble here is massive and varied. There is basically no good outcome or opportunity in this debate except for raising the awareness of the potential future use of the site.
As David Mitchell says, this is the most important and beautiful site in all of Auckland.
I favour Carlaw Park because I can see the possibility of creating a sporting precinct along Stanley street that includes the tennis Centre, with good road links and the Domain and University adjacent.
I can see the use of the stadium site as a landmark building, not unlike Bilbao, to combine the two Auckland Art Gallery buildings into one building. This would then combine with the new closed roof theatre building to create an arts precinct on the waterfront.
I feel that the Allianz arena is a massive precedent with renders by WAM and Weta toning down the similarities. This project obviously would not succeed in time if we didnt have something to copy, although the stadium type is not one with a huge range of possibilities.
I am most disappointed about the lack of consultation with the architecture, planning and urban design communities.
This will be a disaster if it goes ahead. The ARC vote is due before midday.
I'm trying to disagree, but I don't think I can. I'm in favour of ambitious architectural projects in general (I think we are being too conservative with our public architecture in Auckland)
But the more I think about it, the less i think it will work.
Why, oh why did we wait untli the very last minute before even thinking about this? A competition a year ago might have turned up something good.
The reason Mallard is giving is that they didnt realise how expensive it would be to upgrade Eden Park, so why not go the whole hog and spend 2-4 times the amount... There is no other reason except for political grandstanding. This is the oldest trick in the book - limit choices and limit time, and then romanticise and gloss over the faults.
I am looking at Auckland CBD via Google Earth, and my above comments re: the precincts make so much sense...
The money they are spending on this would complete Eden Park, create a waterfront arts/cultural precinct [make it $300Million], and possible create a sporting/leisure precinct along Stanley Street. We would need to procure those buildings along there but they have never been successful anyway.
A genuine national/international compeitition for a waterfront building would be grand.
That's all Carlaw Park still is! Well, that and really great place to sniff glue.
You're completely right about Stanley St.
I think Hubbard is secretly dreaming of the bronze plaque outside the stadium.
Another thing I don't like, which you pointed out:
Everyone complains about the RMA and the Environment Court, but even if they're a bureaucratic mess, at least the intention is worthy. It completely undermines the whole resource-management system if you simply flag it away as soon as you really really want to build something in a hurry.
I'd be keen on all developers/those in charge to have their names on plaques outside every major public building, apartment building etc. Then we know who to blame...
ARC look like they won't support so thats something.
here's hoping Mallard doesn't get feisty and decide to make it happen in spite of the ARC.
The waterfront proposal is just huge! It will be two-thirds the height of the Scene Apartments. (Now there are some buildings that need a Plaque-o-Shame outside.)
It would be nice to have a Plaque'o'Shame outside alot of buildings in Auckland CBD, linked to a website. Vote on buildings. Affect people. Change things.
I didnt realise the stadium would be that huge - I heard 16 storeys, but didnt quite compute that into reality.
treekiller, I don't think Eden Park would be happy about cutting into that part of their business, either. Although it is conveniently close to the container-packing warehouses. Which reminds me I need to empty the effluent tanks on my stock-trailer.
Yeah, and the word imagination has cropped up alot with Mallard, accusing the opposed of having a lack of imagination. Yeah thats real imaginative - plonk a f*cken great stadium on a piece of semi-industrial land.
I am really sick of the lack of sophistication of our general public. Check out this site as an example of one mans vision for the waterfront - the Waka Stadium!. As Gordon Ramsay might say, f*ck me.
the waterfront is no place for a fucking stadium. excuse my english. auckland really needs some councilors with vision. the urban planning is shit. we have one of the most beautiful natural landscapes for a city anywhere in the world and we cant seem to do anything with it!!!! ahh.... maybe thats why i moved to sydney.
Nov 24, 06 3:08 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Auckland Waterfront Stadium - Disgrace
When is an H&deM building, not an H&deM building?
The new proposal for a national stadium on Auckland's waterfront is massively controversial, but the fact that it is clearly a rip-off of the Allianz Arena is only a small controversy [Shame on you Warren & Mahoney]. The engineers for this process have claimed that using an existing stadium design makes their job a whole lot easier.
The fact that the vast majority of the architecture community in Auckland are opposed to the stadium is a small controversy.
The fact that in the latest polls, the vast majority of the Auckland Public are in opposition to the stadium is a small controversy.
The fact that it requires a substantial area of Auckland's major port to be confiscated with no alternative plan of how this will be remedied is a small controversy.
The fact that the proponents describe this stadium as an opportunity to open up access to the harbour, via a massive, closed, primarily empty building, is a disgrace and a mistake.
The fact that the stadium itself is barely described in terms of plans, construction methodology, cost, program is a controversy.
The fact that the cost of the stadium varies from NZD$400 Million to over NZD$1.5 Billion is cause for concern.
Last night Auckland City Council last night gave the greenlight for the stadium - primarily because the government intends to pay for 'most' of it.
That the other contender for the stadium, Eden Park, with over 100 years of sporting history and with substantial plans to extend its facilities, seating to allow for 60,000 seats costing approximately NZD$380 Million was defeated.
The fact that 2 other potential sites, North Harbour Stadium, and Carlaw Park were not even considered.
The fact that precedents for rejuvenating waterfronts such as Bilbao, Rotterdam, London [Millenium Dome anyone?], Melbourne have been ignored - because NZ's principle cultural enterprise is sport.
The fact that the government has imposed a mere 2 weeks for the Auckland Councils to decide on this issue [because in order to meet the deadline for construction - the Rugby World Cup in 2011 - construction needs to start by Christmas], thereby removing the standard governmental, planning and consultation procedures is a f*ckin travesty.
Welcome to Auckland, New Zealand - the capital of the world's newest Banana Republic.
Architects "Design" Statement
more...
NZ Herald Feature
(Caution: Disordered Thoughts)
I haven't been arguing this one much, but since its you diabase...
To be honest I find it hard to match the passion that people seem to feel over the issue.
1. I don't care about the voting thing, or self-selecting polls. People don't know what they want until they are shown it. Design by poll is even worse than design by committee.
2. The council stipulated in their choice of a waterfront stadium that it needed to go further east, which was my main concern. It looks mighty crowded in the renderings above, but if it was pushed much further onto bledisloe wharf, it fits much better with the industrial scale of the port (which is what makes the caketin work), and doesn't squash the britomart precinct.
3. Why on earth did we leave this discussion until the last possible moment? Everyone goes on about the waterfront development, but everyone is paralysed for fear of wrecking it, and meanwhile, the port parks imported cars on it. Why hasn't the council run an design competition for ideas for development? Unless people have some ideas put in front of them, they will just default to wanting parks and apartments.
4. linked to this, Carlaw Park could have worked great, but there has been no time to seriously consider it. it has been excluded just to simplify the decision-making process. Which is stupid.
4. My understanding was that the Allianz stadium was mentioned by WAM and then grabbed onto by herald and tvnz photoshoppers because they didn't have anything else to compare it to. I heard a WAM guy saying that he had no idea why everyone presumed they were just going to copy Allianz; and what they've described seems quite different.
5. 60 000 seats is too big for auckland. It needs to be 45 000 plus some temporary seating or something. It'll be empty half the time at 60 000.
6. I love Eden Park. I didn't particularly love the renderings of their scheme.
7. What about governance? Eden Park already has a board who can manage the job. Who's in charge at the Waterfront?
Therefore i am ambivalent. I am hopeful that WAM (why no competition for architects?) can do something great. I am also cynical and predict huge budget blowouts. Potential for stuffing it up: high.
agfa8x, I was waiting for you mate. Thanks.
The trouble here is massive and varied. There is basically no good outcome or opportunity in this debate except for raising the awareness of the potential future use of the site.
As David Mitchell says, this is the most important and beautiful site in all of Auckland.
I favour Carlaw Park because I can see the possibility of creating a sporting precinct along Stanley street that includes the tennis Centre, with good road links and the Domain and University adjacent.
I can see the use of the stadium site as a landmark building, not unlike Bilbao, to combine the two Auckland Art Gallery buildings into one building. This would then combine with the new closed roof theatre building to create an arts precinct on the waterfront.
I feel that the Allianz arena is a massive precedent with renders by WAM and Weta toning down the similarities. This project obviously would not succeed in time if we didnt have something to copy, although the stadium type is not one with a huge range of possibilities.
I am most disappointed about the lack of consultation with the architecture, planning and urban design communities.
This will be a disaster if it goes ahead. The ARC vote is due before midday.
I'm trying to disagree, but I don't think I can. I'm in favour of ambitious architectural projects in general (I think we are being too conservative with our public architecture in Auckland)
But the more I think about it, the less i think it will work.
Why, oh why did we wait untli the very last minute before even thinking about this? A competition a year ago might have turned up something good.
The reason Mallard is giving is that they didnt realise how expensive it would be to upgrade Eden Park, so why not go the whole hog and spend 2-4 times the amount... There is no other reason except for political grandstanding. This is the oldest trick in the book - limit choices and limit time, and then romanticise and gloss over the faults.
I am looking at Auckland CBD via Google Earth, and my above comments re: the precincts make so much sense...
The money they are spending on this would complete Eden Park, create a waterfront arts/cultural precinct [make it $300Million], and possible create a sporting/leisure precinct along Stanley Street. We would need to procure those buildings along there but they have never been successful anyway.
A genuine national/international compeitition for a waterfront building would be grand.
I remember going to Auckland Uni in the mid 1990's and using Carlaw Park ground as a f*cken carpark! Jesus.
That's all Carlaw Park still is! Well, that and really great place to sniff glue.
You're completely right about Stanley St.
I think Hubbard is secretly dreaming of the bronze plaque outside the stadium.
Another thing I don't like, which you pointed out:
Everyone complains about the RMA and the Environment Court, but even if they're a bureaucratic mess, at least the intention is worthy. It completely undermines the whole resource-management system if you simply flag it away as soon as you really really want to build something in a hurry.
I'd be keen on all developers/those in charge to have their names on plaques outside every major public building, apartment building etc. Then we know who to blame...
ARC look like they won't support so thats something.
here's hoping Mallard doesn't get feisty and decide to make it happen in spite of the ARC.
The waterfront proposal is just huge! It will be two-thirds the height of the Scene Apartments. (Now there are some buildings that need a Plaque-o-Shame outside.)
It would be nice to have a Plaque'o'Shame outside alot of buildings in Auckland CBD, linked to a website. Vote on buildings. Affect people. Change things.
I didnt realise the stadium would be that huge - I heard 16 storeys, but didnt quite compute that into reality.
what about using the stadium as a sheep exporting holding pen? then it could be full most of the time (maybe should be bigger then)...
Oh, I would be careful with that proposal....might be an attractive tourist venue for retired priest who don't play with boys anymore.
The ARC have unanimously supported a motion denying support to the waterfront stadium. Thankyou.
And Treekiller, we already have a local holding pen - its called Australia.
treekiller, I don't think Eden Park would be happy about cutting into that part of their business, either. Although it is conveniently close to the container-packing warehouses. Which reminds me I need to empty the effluent tanks on my stock-trailer.
db, it sounds like the only reasonable decision they could have made.
still, the two most annoying things to me are people waving polls, and people who bandy about the term 'vision' when they actually mean inflexibility.
Yeah, and the word imagination has cropped up alot with Mallard, accusing the opposed of having a lack of imagination. Yeah thats real imaginative - plonk a f*cken great stadium on a piece of semi-industrial land.
I am really sick of the lack of sophistication of our general public. Check out this site as an example of one mans vision for the waterfront - the Waka Stadium!. As Gordon Ramsay might say, f*ck me.
The waka stadium totally cracked me up.
What cracked me up even more was seeing Mark Sainsbury seriously interviewing the guy on that bastion of journalistic integrity and insight, Close Up.
Oh, good grief, he's come up with a revised version. He'd being doing quite well in Design 1.
Oh, I wish I'd seen that. But then again, I remember seeing some truly dire public proposals for the WTC memorial...
Man I'm frustrated about this. I gotta go and get some lunch and chill out. I'm here by myself so theres no one to rave to.
yeah, I'm not getting much work done.
the waterfront is no place for a fucking stadium. excuse my english. auckland really needs some councilors with vision. the urban planning is shit. we have one of the most beautiful natural landscapes for a city anywhere in the world and we cant seem to do anything with it!!!! ahh.... maybe thats why i moved to sydney.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.