FF:NZ What do Star Wars fans think?

Personally I think thr waterfront would add another little something to Auckland.

Not everyone liked the idea of a sky tower, yet now it's completely accepted and adds a touch of style to the skyline. The city already looks great front the sea and will look even better with the removal of the oil and petrol silo's from the waterfront, but I also think the addition of a flash new stadium would be great!

Eden Park always has and always will have major traffic and residence issues with matches.
History, been and gone, time for a new era I think and Eden Park wont end up like Carlor (spelling?) so nothing will be lost, but a lot gained by a new waterfront construction.

My 2cents, what about you jokers?

 

It's always about Auckland . By the way there is the more to New Zealand than Auckland. I say go for Christchurch.

 

Waterfront stadium - at least it would get used again at capacity after the World Cup is over, and would be better than Mt Smart (and Western Springs) as a stadium for those handful of 'classic' acts who could still get 45,000+ fans to buy tickets.

 

I'm all for upgrading Eden park. If it goes New Zealand cricket loses a test match venue in Auckland which would be ahuge disaster for the country.

There is no way that the waterfront stadium will get built fro anything less than a billion dollars, not a chance in hell

 

Is there a reason tests couldn't be played at a waterfront stadium?

 

I would go for the waterfront, and I want to shoot every last one of the mofos who are going on about how it will cause to much noise for people in apartments in the cbd, why move into the cbd if you dont like noise?

 

They couldn't be played at a waterfront stadim because of the size they are going to make it.

Test cricket needs a larger field than tha of one-dayers. Hence tests aren't played at the caketin

 

I thought tests weren't played at the Caketin because the basin is still a park. Eden park is tiny - only slightly larger than a rugby field, and they play tests there just fine.

I would imagine a waterfront stadium field would be at least as big as Eden Parks. Do you have a quote or link saying that tests can't be played at the waterfront?

 

Eden Park's cricket ground is crap, it's not even a proper oval, it's squashed in at the sides. At least when you look at the fancy Australian statiums they're of a uniform shape, something that could be achieved with a new statium.

When you go for a new car, you'd rather spend an extra $3000 and buy something new and better than just pimping out your peice of junk you've driven around for the last 4 years and has dings in the side from supermarket shopping carkparks. etc

Stuff upgrading and spending a waste of money, pay a bit more and get something stunning. And with the proposed carbon friendly systems (no A/C, self sustaining power for the statium etc) it is a step in the right direction into the future. We just need to convince them to make a whole system of lasers to create gigantic cheerleaders wearing almost nothing at all. Imagine the laser show from all around the roof edge creating gorgeous ladies for our entertainment. [face_drool]

 

I can't find a link, but have read an article. It was on the news also.


There will be no test match cricket venue in Auckland if the waterfront stadium goes ahead, due to its size.

 

I saw that in the paper today about Waterfront being too small - though the answer was that there are alternate venues such as Western Springs where tests would be played in Auckland.

 

or Eden Park?

 

Nah, if the Waterfront goes ahead, Eden Park will probably get demolished.

 

I don't really care 'cause I basically hate sport. But I think the waterfront will be a better option for Auckland as a city, because it'll have a revitalising effect on the CBD and will hopefully bring more big events (like gigs and other outdoor things) into the CBD.

 

Yep, a waterfront with the feel and general attraction of Sydney or even Wellington would be lovely for Auckland.

 

any sort of public space has got to be better than container ports. The Auckland waterfront has been so ridiculously underutalised for so long ... would be great to get something going on down there, and there'd definately be a flow-off effect in the rest of the lower CBD, surely.

 

Personally I am just pissed off that the government is gonna pay for it.

The caketin here in Welly is still being paid for by ratepayers at over $300 each a year. This is from the same government that supposedly cannot affford tax cuts, hasn't got money for improving the health system and cannot find less than $1 billion for Transmission Gully, you know important things. Yet miraculously can pay for something that Aucklanders should be paying for.

Then making it all seem fine by calling it Stadium NZ or whatever when over half the country will never even use it.

 

well, Aucklanders could make a similar case for Te Papa. Auckland generates the most revenue per head of population, and yet we're paying for a National Museum for a city less than half the size of Auckland, and the Auckland Museum upgrades are being paid for by Aucklanders. Basically, it's swings and roundabouts.

 

Fair enough, but I don't quite think they are the same sort of thing museums vs stadiums

Yeah, a tricky one indeed. Just think Mallard is going about it the wrong way

 

Trevor Mallard (see also: David Benson-Pope, Michael Cullen) seem to think that talking to adult NZers like they are school children is the way to earn our approval. I'm a Labour supporter, but there are some smug, pompous ***** in that party who, for socialists, are extremely out of touch with middle New Zealand.

 

the stadium will be just another thing everyone else in the country can blame on aucklanders like taxing everyone's petrol for our motorway upgrades

By the look of the polls though, I don't think it will go ahead...

 

since when do politicians worry about polls other than in an election year?

 

Touché

 

The NZ Herald is doing a major beat up on the Waterfront stadium. Group-think mentality is pretty much causing the 'polls' to skew towards Eden Park. But real polls sample random people - this sort of thing we're seeing in the herald asks people to contact them with their opinion/sign a petition, so you only get those who care enough to TXT or whatever.

The great silent majority is probably fairly happy for a waterfront stadium, they just can't be assed voicing it to some stupid newspaper.

 

that's so true JP - what interests me is _why_ the Herald is so uptight about it. It's noty like there were opinion polls when, for example, te Govt. removed access to the Privy Council and set up a supreme court, which is a much more fundamental democratic issue than, say, where a sports stadium is. I wonder if the Herald's parent company has shares in those waterfront apartment blocks or something ... very very odd.