It seems every few years the “Auckland needs a city centre stadium” debate rears it’s head again. Most recently this was a few weeks ago after it was revealed the Mayor had pre-feasibility report commissioned by PWC who had identified six potential locations. The locations and most of the report are still confidential and despite the report costing $1 million, has apparently not even come up with an answer as to where it should be.

Since details of the report emerged, it’s been in the news a number times but most relevant to this post was this article in the Herald suggesting three of the possible locations.

Railway land alongside the Spark Arena is believed to be the frontrunner for a National Stadium in central Auckland, but Victoria Park and Wynyard Quarter are also understood to be in the mix.

The location of six possible sites for a central city stadium costing $1.1 billion to $1.5b have been redacted from pre-feasibility report by PwC for reasons of commercial sensitivity.

However, the Herald understands that the railway land, which Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has previously expressed a preference for, best meets the requirements for sufficient development and operating space for a stadium.

The railway land, owned by local iwi Ngati Whatua, is on a tight footprint, but is ideally located close to the city’s main rail, bus and ferry services, the motorway network, and bars and restaurants.

Other sites put forward by PwC are thought to be Victoria Park and Wynyard Quarter on the waterfront. Retaining Eden Park could be on the list of six sites and the other two sites remain under wraps.

The Victoria Park option sounds like the kind of deliberately outlandish thing that gets put in a report to make up the numbers and make the other suggestions look better. Quay Park is touted as the preferred option but it has it’s challenges too, such as it’s a tight sight, over the top of the railway land and would be more than double the current 18m height limit. Nick has written about such an option before.

Now I want to make it clear that I don’t think a new stadium is a priority for Auckland. We’ve got a lot more important things, that we need to be spending ratepayer and taxpayer money on. And even if we did have the money for one, stadiums are not necessarily good use of valuable inner city space. Except for the couple of times a year when there are major events on, they tend to be large, lifeless places.

But the discussions got me thinking, is there somewhere else, close to the city but probably not on the list that could fit a stadium. Somewhere with just as good, if not better transport links that Quay Park. Somewhere close to amenities like bars for pre/post event festivities. Somewhere that doesn’t put a huge structure on or next to our prime waterfront land, likely resulting in lengthy and acrimonious legal battles. Finally, if we’re going to spend the kind of money suggested, could we use it to address other issues we have too.

The Proposal

I think there could be such a place, right above the scar that is the Central Motorway Junction. These images were put together for me by Nick.

Given the stadium would be over spaghetti junction, perhaps it could be called the Spaghetti Bowl

The CMJ at this point is about 200m wide and 300m long, easily enough to fit a modern stadium. It’s also a space that is unlikely to be used for anything else. There are a lot of other benefits too.


With Auckland’s current plans, the site would be one of the most accessible in all of Auckland. Just over the motorway would be the Karangahape Rd station entrance at Mercury Lane. That would give access to all of the existing rail network. The planned light rail line on the Isthmus and to the Airport, as well as the one to the Northwest, would also pass right by or even under the stadium. We believe that in the next decade, those lines will be extended to the North Shore so the site would have close access to all rapid transit lines passing through the city. It would also be only a short walk to Symonds St or to Gt North Rd for buses to other parts of the Isthmus.

Plazas surrounding the stadium would allow both sides of the motorway to be reconnected. The Newton Rd side in particular would present a much nicer face for pedestrians than the current exposed and unfriendly bridge. It would also have great access to the NW Cycleway and potentially directly Te Ara I Whiti (Lightpath) too.

There’s even a lot of parking nearby with thousands of spaces within a 10-15 minute walk.


A Quay Park stadium is touted as being close to waterfront bars and restaurants. This location is obviously extremely close to Karangahape Rd but it is also only a short walk to the bars and restaurants of Ponsonby too. Even the centre of town is only 1.5km away (about the same as the Quay Park option would be from there).


Such a stadium wouldn’t be without it’s challenges though. Some of these include:

  • The biggest of these would obviously be building over the motorway. The whole structure would obviously need to be on piles and that wouldn’t be cheap, but then any building on the reclaimed land of the waterfront is going to need some hefty piling work anyway. And while there are plenty of lanes to take into account, there are at least a lot of gaps between the various connections in which to put those piles. It’s worth noting that many places have built over the top of roads, either capping them for parks or even just for buildings, like in New York with the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
  • Covering the motorway for that distance may require ventilation and/or fire systems which would add to the operational costs for the motorway network.
  • A stadium here is also only about 1.5km from Eden Park raising the question of just how needed a new one is.
  • The area on all sides of the motorway are starting to change fast and will only continue to do so once the City Rail Link has been completed. That could increase the chances of conflict and opposition from those living in the area.

As I said, I don’t at all think this is a priority but if we’re talking about potential locations, why not chuck this one on the list.

Bonus image, this version is by our friend Cornelius.

Share this


  1. My question is, and probably will never be addressed by any council report, but how much development could you get out of Eden Park and Kingsland for $1.5bn? A stadium roof and its own LRT spur? Moving the train station slightly West and a concourse directly to the ground? Eden Park might be a dog in some ways, but that’s because we keep cheaping out on the ground itself. Take the same transformational approach as you would to a new stadium and you might be surprised what you can achieve.

      1. These same constraints would apply to any down town stadium.
        Imagine the outrage from the Judges Bay / Parnell residents association, not to mention those in davenport.

        Eden park is just fine, you just need to tell the NIMBY’s to take a hike and move if they don’t like living near a stadium.

    1. Eden Park is a residential area. No matter how much you spend on it, the RMA conditions on it will remain – limit of 20 events a year.

      1. It it has never been contemplated as a closed-in stadium. I’d imagine that $1.5b buys a lot of soundproofing, which should be an option on the table. And sorry, but Eden Park has been there longer than most residents. This is going to end up being an issue wherever you build the stadium as we try to find more land for housing.

        1. Agreed with the sediment on Eden Park being there first, unfortunately by our laws, RMA, that doesn’t matter and therefore restricts the operation of Eden Park. They fought hard to extend this to 20 events as part of their upgrade agreement for the RWC11.

          Building the stadium in the CBD actually negates this as its in the central business district and therefore has different noise rules as a result. Stupid that this would need to be the solution, but under the current rules this is the situation.

          I would like to see someone pass a bylaw that allows Eden Park to operate at full capacity due to the fact it has been our major stadium before residence moved in, however no one seems to be willing to go down this track, presumably as it would create a precedence and a lot of backlash from the residence themselves.

        2. $1.5 b can buy a lot of houses even now.
          Offer to buy out dissenters and change the rules.
          Re-sell / redevelop to recover costs.

          Reconfigure Eden Park to a football-only stadium and cricket can move to Mt Roskill War Memorial Park to share a pitch with AFL like it does in Australia.

          One million dollars, please.

  2. My preferred site is the city depot site. Not sure if big enough but close to convention centre and Victoria Park

    1. City works depot is a very tight site but with a few more buildings at the west end you could fit something like Suncorp stadium in Brisbane. The question for that site is whether it’s the best use, surely you’d do better with more shops, offices, apartments etc in that location.

  3. Why not just cover over the motorway here anyway? The cost of building a cover strong enough for low rise buildings would surely be a lot less than the value of the real estate, not to mention the huge gains from re-connecting the city.

  4. My preferred stadium site is over the old central railway station adjacent to Spark arena and perhaps including the facade of the old railway station (now the anything but grand “Grand Central Apartments”) as part of the entrance. You could redevelop the strand station as both a event only station and the terminus for all long distance inter-city services.

    1. That is the “Quay Park” site favoured by the Mayor and referred to in the article here. In my conception, the railway stations would be underneath the stadium.

    2. I like the idea of using the old railway as the entrance building, or a separate smaller arena or function space. But a stadium would be way bigger than the old station, it would need to take up all of the quay park site including right back to the shops with the KFC along Quay St.

    3. I do like this site in theory, however getting rid of the last significant historical sight line (museum) is a bit to far for me. I agree with intensification but I’m firmly opposed to getting rid of this sight line. Especially for a stadium, in saying that, if they can somehow design the stadium under this sight line I think this is the perfect location.

  5. Why do Aucklanders always think that Auckland must mean central Auckland? You have thousands of square kilometres of land further south, and a former second centre called Manukau. Lots of spare land there. Good transport links too, to north and south. Why not focus on Auckland growing to encompass all of the city, instead of cramming everything into your grossly over-crammed central CBD?

    1. It’s because it is central and has the best transport connections meaning the best access to the majority of the cities residents.

      If we want go outside the CBD then why not just redevelop North Harbour Stadium? It’s in no worse location that Manukau and would save the cost of something new.

      1. If this is going to be a “New Zealand” stadium then having it closer to the airport as well as train links would make sense. Then central Manukau is a better option if going outside of the CBD than North Harbour Stadium.

        1. I don’t see why it would be an NZ stadium, but even if it was most visitors would be staying in hotels rather than flying in for an event and going straight back to the airport again. There are far more hotels in the CBD than there are in Manukau.

        2. People don’t go from the airport to the stadium, they go from the airport to a hotel or accomodation, then to the stadium.

          If it’s a regional/national stadium it should be in the centre of auckland precisely becuase its the centre, literally the one place that is closest to everyone overall.

          The argument against having the stadium in Manukau is the same as why you wouldn’t want it in Albany, Westgate or Botany. The edge of the city is literally the place that is farthest from everyone overall.

        3. Is Wembley Stadium in the Centre of London ? No. It’s on the periphery, with good transport connections to the rest of the country. That’s what should happen here.

        4. If you can build Wembeley’s transport connections somewhere else in Auckland then we can consider it there. But right now the only place that has that level of transport capacity and connectivity in the country is central Auckland.

  6. We don’t need a stadium, and we do need this scar to be healed, so now could they put $1m into looking at all the possibilities for fixing the cmj? And it should include some options that don’t involve going ‘above’, but that actually fix the car dominance that the cmj causes throughout the cbd.

  7. Why oh why does a new stadium have to be downtown and central?
    This CBD centric thinking is our major cause of our traffic problems.
    The people of South Auckland supply the majority of players for our rugby and league teams and they have no home stadium. A new covered stadium at Manukau, Manurewa or Papakura would do wonders for Auckland sport and be inclusive of our total population.
    Goff does not need a downtown monument!

    1. Surely we should locate a stadium where the spectators will find it easiest to get to not where the players come from. It’s a hell of a lot easier to move 46 players than it is to move 30,000 fans!

      1. Jezza, if the network can move 30,000 fans into central Auckland, then why cannot it move 30,000 fans south to Manukau?

        1. Certainly they need some sort of impetus to improve PT connecting South Auckland with the rest of Auckland so it doesn’t take, for example, over 2 hours to get to the Polyfest from Pt Chev. The danger would be that in South Auckland, they’d revert to cars being the dominant mode for accessing the stadium, whereas in the cbd they wouldn’t.

        2. It probably could but it wouldn’t be as easy. The majority of fans would have to converge on one line rather than approach the CBD on a range of different lines.

          The real question is why would you? It will make a longer trip for the majority of users. If you want to avoid the CBD then it would make a lot more sense just to redevelop North Harbour Stadium or Mt Smart.

        3. Central Auckland has three motorways, 50,000 carparks, four rail lines, a busway, a ferry network, a couple of main cycleways and and about 15 major bus corridors leading to it. It also has 60,000 people already living in it.

          The transport system to Manukau, or anywhere else for that matter, has a fraction of the capacity as the system leading to the city centre.

        4. That’s also 60,000 people who might oppose the noise caused by the stadium. Put it on the other side – away from people living, but near transport links.

        5. Average Joe, rubbish. Those 60,000 people live in the CBD and chose to live in the CBD. The CBD has noise (including port operations) and people who choose to live where there is noise should expect noise. Anyway, Quay Park is in an area where there are not that many apartments. It is mostly a business park and light industrial area.

    2. If you are going to spend millions on a stadium, you need to put it where you maximise the number of events. In the CBD is the place where it will be used the most, 100% because of location.

      You are in the centre of our transport network, meaning you closer to the maximum amount of people.

      You are closer to city entertainment which means you maximise the amount of $$ events bring in, if you are far from town, people tend to go home after events, being in the city people are more likely to venture to town spending even more money for the cities economy.

        1. Nope. That is how a stadium makes money. You want it to have crowds like Eden Park for most of the year, build it in a residential area or out in the middle of the bush.

      1. I really don’t understand why people keep on going on about it being close to pubs and such for people to spend money in afterwards. Of all the rugby games I have been to around the country I have never once ever gone out and spent more money after the game.

    3. I’m from south auckland. I actually live about 5 mins drive from the centre of manukau city centre. However, I would much rather a stadium in the CBD as all the rail lines go there and there are far more restaurants and bars along the waterfront (a short hop away to britomart or aotea stations) or at Parnell. Better options for pre or post-match feed/drinks.

  8. What a load of Rubbish .This council is looking like it is getting rid of some of the icons which are history to both the city and country .Eden park has been on the world class list for as long as it has been there .Western springs another site which has a standing knowen around the world. What the gell are they thinking .here we are about to have a fuel tax because the city needs money and here they are soending it on things like this .A council hell bent on distruction of its core values.

    1. Although I agree with Eden Park being the best economical option, as long as we are able to change the law, removing any restrictions on the number of events they are able to hold.

      If this doesn’t happen it will never be a profitable operation in this location.

      CBD I believe will have the greater benefits to costs and in my opinion would turn a profit after a while, purely from the fact it would be able to, and be attractive enough to host more events. Unless Eden park gets go-ahead to remove the 20night event per year limit.

    2. Since when has Eden Park been world class? It’s a dump which has a cheap and nasty makeover in 2011 when it really should have been knocked over. Auckland can and should do better.

  9. Matt L, why does the network map you put up with this article not include south of Ellerslie?
    A slip up or does the south not figure in your thinking

    1. Because the point of the map is to show the lines that converge at the location. Adding more geographical scope doesn’t provide more information. We already know where those lines go to.

    1. 🙂 I believe doctors can do quite a lot to remove scars these days and allow a healthier skin to develop.

  10. The reality is that the stadium will happen and it will be in the central city and most likely Quay street as proposed by Mayor Goff. The stadium will have a lot of matches per year (Auckland Rugby, Blues, Warriors, Soccer, All Blacks) as well as a few concerts per year plus other events. If you look at stadiums around the world then there is potential to include hotels and malls as well as bars and restaurants to make the place lively all the time. However, considering what is happening at the old railway land now almost anything would be an improvement. I do like capping the motorway whether it is with a stadium or something else.

    1. I’d based on Auckland’s history the reality is the stadium wont happen and we will be debating an upgrade to Eden Park for RWC 2035.

      1. Seconded. It’s a fun thought exercise but will be a perennial what-if like second harbour crossings, second airport and anything that costs billions when you’ve already got one.

      2. I suspect we’ll be trying to figure out how to penny-pinch our way out of building a decent stadium at Eden Park again and being distracted about how spending five or six times more on a new stadium somehow and inexplicably results in a flasher facility.

    1. It’s the one that happens after the pre-pre-feasibility report confirms it is worth going ahead with a pre-feasibility report.

      1. Right. Each report costs $1mil and when you get it you don’t read it, you have your staff tell you what is in it so you can deny receiving it for a year. When people find out you have it you then claim the right to restrict Councillors access to it. I hadn’t realised until now that Goff is an arsehole.

        1. Apparently plenty of landowners in the report who requested large parts redacted out of commercial sensitivities.

          Having said that though, I didn’t think councillors (elected representatives) were the same as ordinary members of the public when it came to LGOIMAs..

          Ordinary members of the public, fine.

    1. And there may be space in the budget to improve walking and cycling access nearby, which it desperately needs.

    2. I think this could be a solution. Create a full on sports complex with a major rectangular stadium, a cricket oval, a swimming complex like Millennium, and maybe a velodrome. Have a main pedestrian street through the entire complex with retail and hospo along with offices on top (ideal for sports administrators?) then just develop a spur and terminus from the Onehunga line for game days.

      1. Waikaraka Park for motorsport. Western Springs for test cricket. Mt Smart for all oval ball, and North Harbour for round ball. Although I would prefer Victoria Park for test cricket.

        1. +1 With travel plans for each that don’t involve cars wrecking each location.

        2. Mt Smart is in the middle of nowhere; if we’re going to criticise Eden Park for not being near the nightlife then I don’t see why Penrose should get off scot-free.

          The real aim of this is getting the awful blue-collar speedway out of Grey Lynn, let’s be honest about this.

        3. Waikaraka Park is not suitable or even certified for Speedway, that issue has now been solved, Speedway is moving to a brand new facility in Colin Dale Park by the Airport.

    3. Only downside is distance from CBD, will be slightly less attractive for events, and wont get the benefit of retaining more people in the city spending more money, compared to CBD stadium.

      Other than that the reduced costs compared to those lossed benefits might still make it the better option.

  11. Why don’t we instead put it in Hobson Bay instead of the Eastern Motorway.
    Or [even cheaper/better] just fill in Orakei Basin completely [piping the watercourses that empty into it out to Hobson Bay first] and put it there.

    Be a logical place , after all we need to put all the spoil from digging the tunnels for the CRL somewhere.
    And this is very handy to the CRL portals, just down the rail line from Britomart. So easy to rail the spoil “down the hill” from Mt Eden portal area to Orakei.

    Plenty of space for a whole plethora of rail platforms near Orakei boardwalk too, so trains from north south east and west can all converge and park up there ready to drop off or pick up stadium users.

    And you could have a lovely walking trail from the CBD out to Orakei basin along Tamaki Drive and across Hobson Bay. Be absolutely magic on a good day.

    Whats not to argue about. No one will mind putting it there. Surely 🙂

    It is a totally human made lagoon after all, not like it was really a totally natural “basin” ala Panmure is.

    So we’d be just logically completing what we started in the late 1920s – and in time for the centenary of that original earthworks too.

    A true Auckland monument to behold and celebrate our dominion over nature for another 100 years.
    [at least until sea level rise reclaims it anyway].

    1. If we Orakei Bain now with the material from the CRL.
      Pond the runoff before it enters the pipes to irrigate paddy fields, Then when we come to build the stadium it could be called, the “Rice Bowl”

  12. Interesting suggestion. I don’t mind this option (certainly better than Eden Park), but the Quay Park option is still my favoured proposal. The 18m height limit can be changed. I just think Quay Park has an unprecedented advantage of having all the modes of transport either running underneath (rail lines with 2 potential stations – southern line and eastern line stations; ferried; motorway and buses). The idea to get into town is either to catch a quick rail trip to britomart or Aotea. Parnell is nearby though.

    1. If there is one place we should absolutely not change a height limit it’s next to the water that we’re trying to free up so more people can enjoy it.

  13. For gosh sakes just build the stadium right in the CBD about 100 metres up off the ground using four of the highest commercial buildings as it’s support pillars.

    Totally realistic………

  14. A stadium doesn’t need to be to be a lifeless place if designed appropriately Office space could be incorporated and leased, the function rooms could be hired out and like the new Perth stadium the restaurants on site are open to dine at outside of events. The grounds surrounding have been developed into parkland where the public can recreate.

    They also built a 6 platform for train station and express bus drop off area, with only limited parking available.

    1. The new Perth stadium is a fantastic addition to the waterfront over there on an area which was deadlands for decades (think they were swamps). We have ugly railway lands next to the ugly port of auckland over here. The area is crying out for development. However, I understand that Ngati Whatua were trying to develop that area for commercial purposes but ran into brickwalls. To me, a stadium will totally unlock that dead area of the CBD because it has the potential to have thousands of people flooding into that area most weeks of the year (40+ events) making it come alive. Entertainment precincts can feed off the crowds that the stadium attracts and those precincts can continue bringing people in during the week outside of events.

  15. I know that I will be going against the grain here, but one of the best decisions that was made 10 years or so ago was to retain and redevelop Eden Park. Two of the worst decisions made at the same time was to try and make it multi purpose (rugby and cricket) and to put in all of the limitations on its use.
    Eden Park is not unusual around the world in being in a predominately residential area. Look at Twickenham, Murrayfield, Anfield (Liverpool Football), and many others. As in those other cities the residents bought into the area knowing what was there, so should have less say over its use than they currently do.
    Eden Park has good transport, rail is about 300m away, streets and roads go in all directions without being hemmed in by a harbour etc,.
    The Kingsland, Dominion Road, and surrounding commercial areas are well developed as entertainment precincts on the back of Eden Park, and are continuing to develop.
    Prior to RWC2011 the opportunity should have been made to redevelop Eden Park into a true rectangle football stadium. I know that one of the impediments to this was crickets traditional use and rights to the park, but this should have been managed. And at the same time the zoning should have changed to allow it to be used for sports, concerts, and all of those other things that would have allowed it to earn its keep.
    Rather than making further mistakes on a downtown stadium, or spaghetti bowl, lets fix the mistakes of Eden Park and make it a true National Stadium and enhance its reputation as one of the iconic stadiums of the world.

    1. Cricket should be played at the Auckland Domain with free entry. That way some people would show up.

      1. Cricket takes up a huge area and that’s at a bit of a premium in the summer in central Auckland. You’ll be displacing (ironically enough) quite a few age grade games of cricket with very few other local options. This is what people don’t seem to get about these ‘alternatives’: Someone else is already using it.

    2. Biggest downfall of Eden Park is the number of events restrictions, get rid of these and it is the best option. I dont mind having t20 and one day cricket here though, small down ground boundaries and large cross ground boundaries makes for interesting tactics that you dont get in many other locations.

      Would also be good for concerts if it didn’t have 20 night restriction!!

      1. Agree re restrictions on number of events allowed. Unfortunately that was a condition of the granting of the consents re redevelopment, lights, night events, etc. But time to move on and somehow get those restrictions reviewed and lifted.

    3. Don’t use the Twickenham as an example of how to do things. Takes freaking ages to get out of the place…

      1. Totally agree regards Twickenham. I was using it as an example of being in a residential area. Compared to Eden Park its further away from the rail station, further away from city centre, less pubs and bars in neighbourhood, and plenty more.

        1. Twickenham isn’t anywhere near as residential as Eden Park, it has houses on one side, the other three sides are light industrial, open fields and a sewage treatment plant.

    4. “but one of the best decisions that was made 10 years or so ago was to retain and redevelop Eden Park”

      $250m for just 5,000 extra seats and no ability for any extra events due to the restrictions on account of it being in a residential area. I don’t know what the BCR was, but it can’t have been in the positive.

      It remains one of the worst infrastructure-spending decisions in NZ’s history. And that is saying something.

        1. The will have a well-funded Mt Eden army to battle against. And that might be used as leverage as to why they need to abandon any future spending on EP and build elsewhere.

          I know its not downtown but Mt Smart could be a great, central location with good PT access now and in future.

  16. The irony with this suggestion is that the original draft of the DeLeuw Cather Report had the motorways further out with the major interchange built on Eden Park. The didn’t think the inner option provided high enough speeds on the ramps.

    1. Did they go against that report’s recommendations because what they chose was cheaper, or because they were hell-bent on destruction?

      1. The second I think. The steering group got them to change the report, I think they even made de Leuw come out and have a look around and redo the motorways bits. I am not sure but I think both the National Roads Board wanted a more direct route and Auckland City Council wanted to use the CMJ as a slum clearance exercise.

  17. What’s the problem that a new stadium is meant to solve? Sure, it might be nice to have, but we seem to do fine hosting sporting events and concerts with out current crop of stadiums. Eden Park was OK for the RWC, and I understand that Mt Smart is very successful even on a global scale in terms of the number of big name concerts it hosts every year.

    1. Agreed. If there’s $1.5b to throw at a new stadium then we need to examine whether that (or a lesser amount) could be used to resolve the issues with the existing stadium set we have.

  18. Really interesting location.

    I’m just pissed off we waste so much money on secret reports the public isn’t even allowed to look at.
    It’s our darn money, our darn report.

    1. Ever come across this, Ari: “This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.” That’s the research we pay for, too, ‘in partnership with industry’ that we then have to pay to access, if access is allowed at all.

      1. Yes it is just a scam. There should be a law that says any research that isn’t freely available is deemed to not exist. You would see academics scramble to publish where people can read it rather than in journals they consider prestigious.

  19. Certainly ticks lots of boxes having it at this location if we were to build a new one but yeah nah not for a couple of decades I think.

  20. Trans-Manhattan Expressway? In six years living in NYC and working in transport I never heard it called that. In fact, nobody calls it anything. It’s just that shithole approach to the GWB.
    Another NYC example that’s nicer is over the FDR on the Upper E Side.

    1. Nicer because there’s often a view of the water? Huge severance of the waterfront by the road there; you’d hope they’d do something different if they were doing it today.

  21. GUYS PLEASE LOVE YOUR WORK. Also if we cannot build this here lets build a bus depot here. ;-P

  22. truth is I hate Stadiums really, i dont mind some but they seem ugly over prices cold weird places. And really Mount Smart is the place anyway.

    1. You mean, like, ‘Right, you’re not allowed to drive any further north, you need to park here and then walk?’ 🙂

  23. Stadium should be built as a towable floating structure that can be moved from port to port anywhere in NZ. That way the cost can be shared over various cities and the utilisation can be kept high. No limit on the number of events per year, and even out-of-the-way places like Gisborne and Nelson would get a look in!

    In fact you could tow it from place to place while events are actually happening as the ultimate sort of spectator experience. Imagine cruising the length of NZ, watching your favourite tournament as you sail. Could help spice up flagging events like the Sevens.

    1. Fill it with rugby players and rugby fans, tow it off shore and sink it. Tedious problem solved.

  24. The best outcome from a new stadium would be repurposing Eden Park into a high density residential precinct 10 storeys high. It would have a large inner courtyard for events – but don’t worry, they would be limited to only 365/year. Apartment views would facilitate analysis of the chronic underutilisation of wasteful single house zone gardens.

    1. I’m sure the Mt Eden Business Association would consider it to interrupt views to the maunga. From somewhere. Or views back to the village.

        1. Schumacher says small is beautiful; I propose something of modest dimensions that pays homage to home industry. Piccalilli Circus. Would go well with the bread.

  25. A couple of points in favour of sticking with eden park.

    -These sports need to attract families with kids that will be the future players/fans of the games. Id much rather take my kids to wholesome eden park than be walking around the cbd at 9:30 on a friday/ saturday night with kids.
    I dont get the focus on the friday night drinking crowd as being the main supporters of sports teams.

    – transport wont be easy in the cbd .Getting to a cbd stadium on a weekday at 6:30 means travelling through public transport crowds at peak hour or getting through spaghetti junction at 6:30pm mon-fri. Even though there are plenty of transport options in the cbd, those options would be the most congested at the time people are trying to arrive at the stadium

    1. On your first point, I’m not sure where you get the “Friday night drinking crowd” focus from in the first place?

      I know that in Melbourne both the major stadiums are in the centre, they rely on train and tram access almost entirely, and they are well frequented by families and regular folk.

      And maybe you should try going into the city centre on the weekend evenings, it’s a lot more wholesome than you might think and not just hordes of drunkeness. Ok sure if you are around Fort St of the viaduct harbour at 2am you’ll see Auckland’s finest examples of humanity at work, but most of the time along the waterfront, Queen St and around Aotea square it is quite genteel. Sounds like you may not have been there in a while?

      On the second point, the peak hour is exactly why a central stadium makes a lot of sense… because you’ll be taking advantage of peak service levels but travelling against the peak flow. For example between 4pm and 7pm there is a train every ten minutes *into* Britomart on every train line… and they are 90% empty. Similar story on the buses and ferries. It’s the services going out again that a chock full.

      That example is actually an argument against eden park. Evening events at Eden Park coincide with the outbound peak, where stadium crowds are forced onto already full commuter trains heading out west. If the stadium were at Britomart the stadium crowds would be able to use all the near empty trains going the other way.

      As for driving through spaghetti junction I can’t argue with you there, except to point out that you generally exit to the city before entering the junction itself, so again going against the flow is easier.

      But there’s no point in attempting to design a major stadium to be driven to. It might work better in town than in sandringham, but shouldn’t be a goal anyway.

      1. “Friday night drinking crowd” is because ive heard the argument repeated that a cbd stadium is better because its near bars and restaurants.
        That doesnt seem like much of an argument.
        If people want to go out after the game post crl its 2 or 3 train stops away. But families can also enjoy a comfortable atmosphere and encourage kids to come along. In that regard eden park is better .

        “And maybe you should try going into the city centre on the weekend evenings, ….. Sounds like you may not have been there in a while?”

        . It is quite hard to post on this blog sometimes. To answer that i actually do night shifts two weeks a month in the city and regularly see the wildlife while going to get food or going for a walk. Im actually heading to work in about 30 min in the cbd.

        As for your point about outbound trains its pretty similar between the railway site and eden park in terms of trains. They are both central enough.

        People west would take almost empty trains to eden park. But take a train that will fill up from k Rd to aotea and britomart to then get off at the railway site.

        People east or south would take an empty train to the railway site or take a train that would fill up from britomart to aotea to krd and then get off in kingsland.

        It may be one or two more stations but by train its largely the same.

        But by bus or light rail or by car I think eden park has the edge in peak hour. I actually do think eden park is quite well placed for a stadium in terms of it’s proximity to the cbd. Close enough to be convenient but far enough away to not mix stadium traffic/transit with general cbd traffic/transit.
        The problem of course is eden parks neighbours. But that’s where I hope they look into rezoning the neighbourhood or buying nearby properties etc to change the restrictions on eden park

        1. Eden Park is literally the worst place you could possibly put a stadium on the rail network.
          -It is only only one line.
          -It is on the upstream side of the network, meaning that it directly conflicts with regular peak direction travel, rather than benfitting from counterpeak.
          -Kingsland station is the peak load point on the western line. It is literally the most crowded point on the line day to day, let alone trying to add a stadium full of people to it.

          You could not, quite literally, pick a worst spot to have a huge point load of demand. You might have noticed how they have to shut down the entire western line to run a special stadium mitigation network to handle major events.

        2. -It is only only one line.
          I thought you guys supported those light rail lines. One up dominion Rd and one out west somewhere along the north western motorway. Both of which are pretty close to eden park. As close if not closer than say britomart to the railway site.
          So 3 lines really.

          -Kingsland station is the peak load point on the western line. It is literally the most crowded point on the line day to day,

          Wouldn’t the peak load point on the eastern line be just after britomart heading east in the evening peak?

        3. MRB, Britomart? The Quay Park site would have two railway stations directly underneath the stadium. One on the southern line (which would also serve Spark Arena) and the other on the eastern line on the other side of the stadium. You can’t get closer than that.

        4. Yes in that case you get one or two more lines accordingly, both also at about the busiest point conflicting with the regular peak commuter flows.

          But in the same scenario downtown you would have a total of five or six lines, with stadium flows running opposite to peak commuter flows.

          Yes peak load on eastern line is departing britomart in the evening, but not arriving at it.

        5. Not everyone lives out west, for most people they have to fight peak flow, for those living out west, EDEN park is against peak flow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *