A stadium decision! (27 November)

**dawnrazor** · 27th November 2006, 17:45

The crazy thing about all this is that there is a ready made site in the heart of Auckland just crying out for a huge stadium - a show piece location, there is some stuff there at the moment, but that could be moved I'm sure.

Behold STADIUM ONE TREE HILL !

**dawnrazor** · 27th November 2006, 17:47

seriously though I reckon house prices around Eden Park just nosed dived, if anyone is looking for a bargin

**Whynot** · 27th November 2006, 17:49

Originally Posted by dawnrazor

seriously though I reckon house prices around Eden Park just nosed dived, if anyone is looking for a bargin

yea, theres nothing like living next to a construction zone for 5 years to make you want to move out .......

**Hitcher** · 27th November 2006, 18:50

Originally Posted by Fish

There'll be a few hundred million dollars saved over the waterfront option.

It's interesting that the Gummint (as represented by Hon Trevor Mallard) now appears to be quibbling over a $150 million contribution for the Eden Park upgrade, when they appeared to be more than happy to spend $800 million on the waterfront. Fascinating.

And disappointing that yet again Aucklanders appear to be unable to agree on anything that improves their lot.

**Indiana_Jones** · 27th November 2006, 19:05

Regardless where you put the stadium, there is gonna be traffic problems, granted, heavier in some places over others.

They just wouldn't be able to finish a water front stadium in time.

Poor Col's X-mas Bonus lol.........shit I work for the same company!

-Indy

**Colapop** · 27th November 2006, 19:53

I still get it, bub.

The plain truth is that it would have cost closer to 1 & 1/2 billion and it still would not have been built on time. They would have to import labour to have the manpower to get it built. It would have cost the Labour government, governance for the next 2 terms at least.

It was gratifying to see Duckman eat his words.

**Skyryder** · 27th November 2006, 21:29

Auckland lost a great chance, and why, because some bozo's on the ARC can not see past their own small world. New Zealand had a chance to build a true National Stadium. Gone forever. Good one ARC. Now the Edan Park crowd want public money to go into that and for what. A series of rugby matches that will last only a few weeks. How backward looking is that??

Skyryder

**Indiana_Jones** · 28th November 2006, 07:10

I think we should still make a national stadium, but plan it, get decent designs, etc.

Just running into it like a horny virgin isn't gonna help and we'll all get covered in cum.

-Indy

**MisterD** · 28th November 2006, 07:26

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Auckland lost a great chance, and why, because some bozo's on the ARC can not see past their own small world.

On the contrary, the ARC seemed to be the only set of people using their brains. There were unknowns up the wazoo on the waterfront option and they quite sensibly made a decision to go with what we could actually finish in time.

**Skyryder** · 28th November 2006, 08:58

Originally Posted by MisterD

On the contrary, the ARC seemed to be the only set of people using their brains. There were unknowns up the wazoo on the waterfront option and they quite sensibly made a decision to go with what we could actually finish in time.

I watched the Stadium debate the other night on One. The theme that came across from the ARC and Auckland Port People was that this stadium would interfere with port developoment. Now not living in Auckland I'm unaware of all the local, local of the port. But when it comes to Big buisness development money problems seem to dissapear and solutions can be found. This was nothing but a deliberate act of the ARC and cronies thumbing their nose up at Labour and Mallard. I suspect that opponents of the Waterfront were in much the same mood. We had a chance to build something realy spectacular but short sightedness coupled with poitical bigotry won the day.

Skyryder

**terbang** · 28th November 2006, 09:05

Originally Posted by BuFfY

They didn't actually think about the rest of the country, just Auckland. And just because Albany is in North Harbour (not Auckland) they wont build it there and they have hardly talked about it.

Over the bridge or over the bombays just doesn't seem to exist..!

**MisterD** · 28th November 2006, 09:34

Originally Posted by Skyryder

The theme that came across from the ARC and Auckland Port People was that this stadium would interfere with port developoment.

Well it is the gateway for the majority of NZ trade, so this needs to be considered.

Originally Posted by Skyryder

This was nothing but a deliberate act of the ARC and cronies thumbing their nose up at Labour and Mallard.

The whole "debate" was a deliberate act by Labout and Mallard to foist something on Auckland with no consultation whatsoever. I'm glad someone had the balls to tell them to get stuffed - are you listening Old Mother Hubbard?

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I suspect that opponents of the Waterfront were in much the same mood. We had a chance to build something realy spectacular but short sightedness coupled with poitical bigotry won the day.

If only spectacular was on the menu, rather than a half-baked copy of a German stadium that looks like a bedpan. Something needs to be done on the waterfront, no question, but what was on offer was not that something.

Spend a couple of hundred million tops to tart up Eden Park with particular emphasis on the train links in and out....that's done and we can get on with talking about what we do with the harbour front

**Hitcher** · 28th November 2006, 10:33

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

I think we should still make a national stadium, but plan it, get decent designs, etc.

Just running into it like a horny virgin isn't gonna help and we'll all get covered in cum.

Good lord. Next you'll be suggesting that if Aucklanders all learned to pull together they could have a white Christmas...