IN HOT WATER
Is Auckland going to keep arguing about stadiums when the even greater need, and the greater value, would be a new museum? One option, now dead in the water, was a Te Papa North on the Viaduct (inset).
Auckland mayor Phil Goff infuriated councillors last year by spending almost a million dollars on a report on stadium options, which has not been made public. If it favours anything, it’s likely to be a new stadium on land near Spark Arena.
Most of that land belongs to Nga¯ ti Wha¯tua. But the iwi’s Ngarimu Blair says they don’t want to invest in a stadium, because stadiums lose money. Even when they’re concert venues, he says.
But Nga¯ti Wha¯tua does want to buy the port land, if it ever becomes available, and Blair says if Eden Park ever goes on the market they’d be interesting in buying that too.
There’s another proposal, by the architectural firm Archimedia, for the redevelopment of port land for mixed use: housing, commercial, beaches, a lagoon and lots of other open public space. That includes a stadium by the Spark Arena.
The most high-profile proposal is for a sunken stadium on the edge of Bledisloe Wharf, jutting into the water where Marsden Wharf is now. Blair, among many others, thinks it would be impossible.
Local entrepreneur Phil O’Reilly, who came up with the idea, says the scoffers aren’t thinking straight.
“We venerate the gods of practicality,” he says, “and we pay far too much attention to their shamans.”
He means that instead of getting excited about a big idea, we give in to small doubts. O’Reilly is dismayed the proposal has been condemned for its supposed engineering impracticality and for ignoring the impact of climate change.
But is it really possible to build a stadium on the sea floor, with the top lip of the seating just a couple of metres above the surface of the sea, and have it withstand storms and tidal drag over decades, not to mention rising sea levels?
O’Reilly’s consortium believes so, but they want “ignition funding” — a few million dollars in the form of a loan — that would investigate the engineering, climate, functionality and urban design issues.
They asked the council and were turned down. Now they’re seeking private backers, here and overseas.
The architect in the group, Richard Goldie of Auckland firm Peddle Thorp, says the required technology is not new. He’s confident they can future proof it for every eventuality.
The most difficult issue, according to O’Reilly and others, is securing the building to the sea floor so it doesn’t float away.
Even if it’s feasible, is it desirable? Eden Park’s future for the next 10 to 15 years is settled, because it has the funding and nothing new can be built in less than that time. But longer term it’s weak.
That’s because, for commercial and other reasons, our premier sports stadium also needs to be a premier venue for other events. Eden Park will never be able to fulfil the potential of a modern multipurpose entertainment and sporting arena, for four key reasons.
● Its business plan should require it to be as busy as possible, but that’s very hard in the suburbs, where busy is disruptive.
● When patrons go to a show or a game it makes for a better night out if they have lots of hospitality and entertainment options nearby.
● The Eden Park land is valuable for other purposes, both economically and socially.
● Eden Park is a cobbled-together answer for a problem that demands a much more imaginative and satisfying solution.
Those four factors combine to suggest a new stadium on the waterfront is a better option. And there a couple of other strong arguments relevant to the sunken stadium idea:
● It would be “free”.
The consortium wants to fund its stadium by selling the Eden Park land and some of the port land. A developer would buy both, develop them under whatever rules the city imposes, and build the stadium too.
In the sense that this would impose no financial burden on ratepayers and taxpayers, it would be “free”. But it’s not really free. We would lose the asset of the port land, which is owned by council. And although the Eden Park land is owned by the trust, not council, it’s answerable to the Government and effectively that means the public would lose control of that land too.
The proposal assumes car imports go elsewhere. If that operation is shifted to Northport, near Whanga¯rei, it will involve infrastructure development costs. That might happen anyway — the first report of the working group looking at upper North Island freight is expected to be out this month.
The sunken stadium proposal means public assets would be privatised to create great new public and private assets. Do we want that? It’s worth the debate.
● It would be amazing. Goldie’s design for the sunken stadium incorporates public walkways to the water all around and glass walls above sea level. Seen from land or sea it would appear to sit, shimmering, on the water, and you’d be able to see through it.
Capacity would be about 50,000, and with screens the central arena could be transformed into a smaller space, as required.
That building would answer the need for a venue for concerts, sport and more, seating 10,000-50,000 for every day and every night it was booked. At least 25 times a year, perhaps double that or more. It would be, by far, the most remarkable thing we’ve built in this country. And one of the most beautiful.
All around the world, cities are turning to architecture to provide magnificent buildings that raise up the aspirations of citizens and act as a beacon for visitors and economic activities. Is Auckland going to join them, or sit it out?
But hang on. If the answer is yes, we do want magnificent architecture on the waterfront,
it doesn’t follow it should be a stadium. It’s culture that brings crowds, far more than sport. Concerts make more money than sports events, and museums get more visitors than anything.
Are we going to keep arguing about stadiums when the even greater need, and the greater value, would be in a new museum?
Auckland doesn’t have a great museum visitor attraction, which is not to detract from the good work and popularity of both the Auckland Museum and Auckland Art Gallery.
But there is nowhere in the city about which you can say, hey if you’re going to Auckland there’s an attraction you really must not miss.
By definition, it will have to be centrally located, astonishing in its conception and design, unique to us as New Zealanders, an educational and entertainment magnet and a storehouse for the wonders of our local cultures, history, achievements, stories and imaginings.
You could meet that definition with a museum of Ma¯ ori and Pasifika in Aotearoa. That’s what Nga¯ti Wha¯tua’s Blair supports.
You could site that on Queen’s Wharf, as a long-standing proposal known as Kiwa suggests.
You could do it with a cultural and technological museum of the people of the sea, Tangata Moana, telling the story of Aotearoa from Kupe to the America’s Cup and beyond. You could site that at Wynyard Point.
At least one other similar proposal is also in development.
Leases held by the occupants on Wynyard Point will expire in the 2020s. Auckland’s existing longterm plans show apartment buildings and parkland on the site, but no large public building.
The immediate goal for anyone wanting to promote a major public building for the site is to get preparatory funding included in Auckland Council’s 10-year budget. The next iteration of that budget will be drafted and debated next year.
In fact, that has to be the goal for the sunken stadium people too, and anyone else who wants to see a big new cultural and/or sporting complex on the waterfront.
Meanwhile, Te Papa lurks in the wings. Opening a branch of the national museum and art gallery in Auckland is not a new idea. In 2011, a working party of senior museum people and others, chaired by Hamish Keith, reported on the feasibility of the idea to the Auckland Waterfront Authority (now council’s “placemaking” agency Panuku).
They envisaged Te Papa North being sited on Wynyard Point and some wonderfully striking concept images were developed.
More recently the proposal has migrated to Manukau and the care of a different council outfit; the tourism, events and economic development agency Ateed.
It received an unexpected boost from the Kaikoura earthquake, which unsettled Wellington in more ways than the physical. That quake revealed just how vulnerable the capital is to a seismic disaster and, as a result, many government institutions are considering their resilience. Te Papa is one of them.
The museum has a strategic desire to store parts of its collections away from the capital, which dovetails with a desire at local and central government levels to strengthen the institutional heft of South Auckland.
Te Papa Manukau would be a “transformative project”, says Ateed chief executive Nick Hill. “You have to think of it as far more than storage.”
A site in Manukau called Haymans Park is favoured, where a new building would become a permanent home for parts of the national collections, a site for temporary exhibitions and a beacon for education. Hill says it would help grow the creative industries, tourism and retail. There’s some pretty obvious educational value too.
A reference group is guiding the proposal, chaired by Te Papa chief executive Geraint Martin and including local and central government agencies.
Nothing will happen without Government investment, which right now is zero. But a proposal has gone to Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance and Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage.
Will there be something in the Budget? Robertson declined to comment, but that’s the hope.
Now what? Some people say we should leave well alone, that the status quo is fine. That isn’t true. It’s nearly all broken.
Because of restrictions on concerts, covered in part one of this series, Eden Park can’t make the most of itself so the city will continue to miss out on major events.
The Eden Park Trust Board says the restrictions have kept away the likes of Phil Collins, Eminem, Monster Trucks and the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. Something for almost everyone, you might think.
It would cost hundreds of millions to turn Eden Park into a really good venue with a roof.
The changing rooms at Mt Smart, home of the Warriors, flood when it rains. There are no decent facilities for performers and nor, really, are there any for the public. It’s in a barren part of town and that’s not going to change. And it will cost tens
of millions to keep it going.
The Warriors have secured a lease on Mt Smart until 2028, but if they’re serious about becoming the best team in the NRL they will need a decent stadium to call home. For now, that has to be Eden Park.
As for the entertainers who have played Mt Smart in recent years, you think Bruce Springsteen, Adele, or Ed Sheeran were great? They would have been way beyond that at Eden Park, and so would the whole experience of getting there, being there and getting away.
At Western Springs, the speedway track is not fit for purpose. There isn’t a single reason why the council should be required to fix that, when alternatives beckon, and when the cost of doing so, just to maintain an out-of-date status quo, also runs into the tens of millions.
Speedway could anchor a new purpose-built facility at Colin Dale Park near the airport, or adapt to life at Waikaraka Park in Onehunga.
As for Auckland Cricket, it’s not widely understood but they are not a beneficial trustee of the place. Provincial and test cricket could be played in a beautiful new venue, like
Hagley Park in Christchurch and the redeveloped pitches in Dunedin, Nelson, New Plymouth, Napier and Hamilton.
Think about that list: Auckland doesn’t have a cricket venue to match what’s been built in half the provincial cities of New Zealand. Because Auckland Cricket, which would be one of its principal beneficiaries, isn’t interested. Even though Western Springs could be better than all of them.
Alongside all this, Auckland, best city in the Pacific — well, don’t we think we should be? — doesn’t have any kind of major institutional cultural presence at its heart. Nothing that engages us, and the world, in the quest to discover what being a great Pacific city means. The heart of the city is the waterfront on the Waitemata¯ .
So. There are conflicting proposals for cultural centres and the sports codes are in dispute over what should happen at Eden Park, Mt Smart and Western Springs. Can they be massaged into one plan?
How about, over the next 10 years, we do these five things:
1. Boost Eden Park for all it’s worth Change its permitted activity status to bring in concerts, night-time cricket, league and everything else that would work there.
2. Do the prep for a new stadium
Because Eden Park can’t last forever, and nor should it. Focus on a location near the city’s public transport superhub, at the centre of its nightlife and where it will look most wonderful. Where’s that? It’s the waterfront.
3. Set up a working group!
A new group, established as a partnership between iwi, the rest of the city and Government, to consult and do the preparatory work for a great cultural institution on the waterfront.
4. Support Te Papa North
Get that centre established in Manukau and co-ordinate planning with the new group so they complement each other.
5. Move speedway and cricket All of this just leaves the consequential issues of what to do about speedway, and provincial and test cricket. How about we give them good alternatives, paid for within reason, and wish them on their way. For the good of the city, don’t let them sabotage everything else.
How will we pay for it all? Or to put that another way, how much should the private sector be involved and on what terms? We can argue about that as we go.
It’s election year for the mayor and council. We’ve heard from John Tamihere — who’s next?
● Part one of this two-part series appeared in the Weekend Herald yesterday. Read it at nzherald.co.nz