Stadium roof looks unlikely

A roof for Westpac stadium has been ruled out following a report:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10640357/Stadium-price-tag-through-the-roof

Can this be posted on the News section?

For that price you could buy a new covered stadium and bulldoze Westpac. Leave cricket at the Basin and make it rectangular.

I don't believe anybody ever actually said this was a genuine idea did they? Can someone tell me who proposed it?

well if "Australian-based architects Populous" had prepared a report with figures in it, I guess someone proposed it.

But was it anyone other than the dompost? Anyone who actually might have a clue?

I would have assumed that if they have provided quotes they would have been inside the stadium to have a look around. If they have just looked at the stadium on TV, rung the Dom Post and said "it would cost between $130 and $220m to put a roof on that bad boy" then it is not really a story. 

Maybe I am just naive.

Or maybe the Dompost dreamed it up, and the Stadium trust poured cold water on it by giving the tech drawings of the stadium and a few grand to a consultant.

John Shewan has made it his hallmark to make the stadium profitable (and is famous for his belief that it should be). He'd see this as a simple economic fantasy, so I can't imagine he'd spend the money to get a proper investigation done.

Or maybe I am just cynical.

Not that I'm saying it IS possible by the way. 

I'm just not sure any of it is really news.

The idea of putting a roof on seems to bubble up from time to time (driven to some degree or another by the Dom Post's desire to create a "story") so I think either the stadium trust, the city council or the regional council (maybe jointly) commissioned this report to make it go away forever.

I was more interested in a couple of the statements made by John Shewan and Fran Wilde at the end of the story.

Shewan: "What you would most likely look to is an indoor concert venue . . . It is clear from the consistency we get at the stadium that these touring concerts want more intimate settings."

"Wilde said Westpac Stadium remained a great venue for big sports fixtures. However, she believed the Basin Reserve should be upgraded to host fixtures that attracted smaller crowds. She agreed that the "next cab off the rank" should be a 10,000-seat, covered indoor concert venue".

The statement that "these touring concerts want more intimate settings" is, of course, one that could also be applied to football and rugby, who are actual customers of the stadium right now as opposed to assumed or predicted customers of a new indoor venue. Of course, John Shewan will say that's the point - we are currently failing to attract these size of concerts, we need to, they will be new business, and they will cover the cost of a new venue. But for me that's putting a lot of faith in a relatively small bunch of promoters to bring you enough regular business to make an indoor concert venue worthwhile. Meanwhile, Wellington Phoenix and Wellington Rugby can guarantee you 20-30 events a year but are unhappy staging many of those in a big, expensive stadium. They will both believe they can increase their average attendances in a boutique stadium even if total capacity is lower. And if Fran Wilde is suggesting upgrading the Basin to "host fixtures that attract smaller crowds" then she is already open to Westpac Stadium's current business being cannilbalised.

Also, a more intimate concert setting can still be achieved in a 10,000 seat outdoor stadium. It's not ideal, but still a major improvement on Westpac Stadium if it's those mid-tier bands/concerts you're trying to attract.

Basically, I don't think they should just be charging down the route of a new indoor concert venue. I'd be really interested to see how the business case for a 10,000 seat indoor stadium stacked up against the business case for a 10-12,000 seat outdoor stadium, especially if that outdoor stadium was cleverly designed to be used for both sport and concerts. In fact, I think the approach should be a single business case for a new venue with indoor or outdoor being two options (and maybe outdoor with retractable roof?). The extent to which either option would cannibalise or complement the existing stadium then just becomes part of a single business case.

Interesting... in today's Dom Post/Stuff there is:

1. a story about low Rugby crowds with a piture of empty seats at the Stadium for Lions games..

2. a really positive sotry about the Nix, sayign the best is yet to come.

3. a story about the Basin being expanded (see http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/64034359/Basin-Reserve-makeover-to-cost-20m)

If the basin is expanded to seat 12,000 (with the capacity able to be expanded to 15,000 with temporary seating) I wonder if this impacts the business case for making the Caketin more rectangluar on a semi permanent basis (ie giving up on cricket there, and trying to get a better atmosphere for rugby, league and football)

GIve up on the Ausy rules?

That is trending downwards.

I was thinking about this the other day, could they not over time reconfigure the stadium to be a rectangular stadium. You could keep the existing circular outside of the stadium but rebuild each side of the pitch closer in parts - the concourse would be bigger and the new structure (almost a stadium within a stadium) you build with a roof in mind. Could make it two tiered and close off the top tier when a sell out is not expected. Could have only 1 tier on the fever end with rail seating so better for standing.

You know it's made of steel and concrete right, not Lego? You can just take a few bits out and replace them with other bits that are a different colour.

Would think that it would be cheaper than knocking it down and starting from scratch, can do it bit by bit so can keep the stadium operational for some for some of the time development work is ongoing.

Kind of like what they did at mount smart? Just build stands in front of the other stands. Would be pretty ugly if not done right.