It’s Friday so once again here”s our roundup of some of the articles that caught our attention this week.

This Week in Greater Auckland

City Centre Growth outpaces NZ

The council highlighted how despite all the claims of the city centre being “dead”, it’s actually still growing fast.

For the second year in a row, Auckland’s high-achieving city centre has outpaced New Zealand in both GDP and employment growth.

GDP in the city centre grew by 9.2 per cent in the year to March 2023, reaching $30.4 billion, according to the latest Auckland City Centre Overview by Infometrics. That growth rate was well ahead of New Zealand as a whole, which increased by 2.8 per cent in the same period.

Read more here: Infometrics Regional Economic Profile.

Employment in Auckland’s city centre was up 7.3 per cent in the year to March 2023 compared with the equivalent increase for New Zealand of 2.5 per cent. Auckland’s city centre remains the largest employment centre in New Zealand, with an average of 157,500 jobs in the year to March 2023 being the highest on record – many in professional and financial service industries that support the region and the rest of New Zealand.

“These are very positive signs,” says Auckland Council Chief Economist Gary Blick.

“The city centre is the primary commercial centre of the New Zealand economy, so it’s good news for the whole country that growth in this highly productive location has been bouncing back after the challenges of the pandemic and its after-effects,” he says.

Stadiums are back

While we’re in the city centre, there’s been a bunch of articles this week about one of the short-listed stadium proposals after details and artist impressions were released.

Plans for a “ground-breaking” new stadium in downtown Auckland have been unveiled, with the consortium behind it hoping it will transform the CBD’s eastern precinct.

The Te Tōangaroa bid proposes a new 15ha urban neighbourhood at Quay Park, bordered by Spark Arena and Quay St, on Ngāti Whātua land, in the old Auckland Railways yard.

The central focus of the development is a 50,000 seat stadium with a unique design that invokes Auckland’s isthmus and cultural heritage. It has been designed with an “accordion” style retractable roof that means that it could host anything from rugby games to concerts.

Te Tōangaroa is framed as being unlike other stadiums, with the stands looking out to Waitematā Harbour and framing Rangitoto Island.


The plans for the precinct include up to four hotels – one of which would be All Blacks themed and integrated into the stadium – along with several bars, restaurants, and retail outlets. Commercial office space and potential for about 2000 residential apartments were also included in the proposal.

This proposal is one of four short-listed by a council working group, down from an original eight proposals. The Herald reports that all four gave 75-minute presentations in December and the shortlist are

  • Eden Park 2.0. This option sees a redevelopment of the historic venue, pushing the capacity to 60,000. There are plans for a retractable roof, a new north stand, upgrades to two other grandstands and a pedestrian accessway crossing Sandringham Rd.
  • Waterfront Arena Aotearoa. This proposal, first mooted by the Waterfront Consortium in 2018, is centred on a 50,000-seat facility at Bledisloe Wharf, which can be increased to 70,000, and has become known as the “sunken stadium”.
  • The Tank Farm. Based at Wynyard Point, this is the newest proposal, believed to be based on a 50,000-60,000 capacity, transforming the former industrial wasteland into a downtown arena.
  • Quay Park. This bid, which first surfaced in 2021, is a 50,000-capacity stadium that can be scaled down to 20,000 for smaller events, the first artists designs of this proposal were revealed by the Herald last week. The stadium is envisioned to be part of a new sports and entertainment precinct at the eastern end of the waterfront, in the vicinity of Spark Arena.

A lot of focus has of course been on the pretty images but at this stage, any stadium proposal seems wishful thinking, especially if we can’t even fund basic transport infrastructure.

People want Rapid Transit to the Northwest

One of the few projects we do agree with the government on as being a priority is rapid transit to the Northwest and Waka Kotahi have released the results of consultation on it that they undertook last year. They say they had nearly 4,000 responses to that consultation.

“A strong majority of 93% of people who provided feedback to NZTA last year expressed their support for rapid transit along SH16, demonstrating a clear desire among Aucklanders for fast and reliable public transport connections in the northwest,” says Regional Manager System Design, Randhir Karma.

“Rapid transit has become increasingly popular following the opening of the Northern Busway in 2008, with passenger growth that now exceeds that of both the rail network and the rest of the bus network. NZTA is currently investigating rapid transit options along the corridor for what would be a transformational project for the northwest and Auckland.”

The rapid transit investigations follow Auckland Transport’s recent launch of a Western Express (WX1) service, which uses new and extended bus shoulder lanes along SH16 and stopping at interim stations at Westgate and the motorway interchanges at Lincoln Road and Te Atatū.

“While the new WX1 service is an improvement, it also reinforces the need for faster and more reliable rapid transit on a dedicated corridor along SH16,” Mr Karma says.

NZTA plans to engage with communities in the coming months to update people on their investigations into a rapid transit solution for the growing northwest.

Interestingly, over 2.3k people answered how they would access the station with 38% picking active modes and 27% picking public transport.

Wellington’s Bizarre Housing Panel Outcomes

The hearings panel reviewing Wellington’s district plan changes to enable more housing have come back recommending much less intensification than the council had planned for. Their decision already seeing strong criticism and some of the details behind their decision are just absurd.

Panel chairperson Trevor Robinson was questioned by deputy mayor Laurie Foon about the conclusions on walking distance – where the panel found that evidence showing people in certain suburbs like Newtown walked to work did not suggest they also walked home from work.

Because of this, the panel reduced the size of the walkable catchments where six-storey buildings would be allowed.

“There was an evidential hole basically, we had census evidence of how people went to work … So how people get home was a question on which we had no meaningful evidence,” Robinson said.

“Just a follow up to that,” replied pro-housing councillor Rebecca Matthews. “Does the panel not consider that if people walked to work, that led to a logical explanation of the ways that they got home, either walking or public transport?”

No, answered Robinson. Central Wellington was like an amphitheatre, where people walking to work generally went downhill from a suburb like Kelburn or Northland. “We didn’t think we could make the assumption, given the topography, that people would walk back up hill.”

What, people’s cars self-drove to the office so they could drive home again? Do they buy a new car every day?

Stu Donovan has also written a great piece for The Spinoff about them ignoring the evidence on the impact of upzoning.

These views are – to put it politely – wildly out of step with the economic evidence. To understand why, we only need to look at Auckland, where the Unitary Plan enabled widespread upzoning from circa 2013 onwards.

The number of building consents issued per 1,000 people annually fell after downzoning in 2005 and remained low until the Auckland Unitary Plan began to be adopted from 2013 onwards – after which consents surged to all-time highs.

In the eight years since Auckland upzoned, 112,000 new consents – one for every five existing homes – have been issued. Around 90% of these consents turn into new houses, so it’s fair to say housing supply in Auckland is booming.


Submissions from several people and groups, like Generation Zero, pointed to the Auckland experience as evidence of the benefits of upzoning, but the panel was not convinced, writing that the submitters “provided no details or analysis that might have demonstrated either that there was a causal relationship between these changes or that the same result would likely follow in Wellington.”

The most serious problem here is that the panel was directed to detailed economic evidence that analysed the effects of upzoning in Auckland. This evidence found that upzoning had increased supply and reduced prices in Auckland, and that the same could be expected to occur in Wellington.

The panel is meant to be full of planning experts. That’s why they’re appointed to the role. Yet, they seemed unfamiliar with evidence on the AUP, which is surprising because the AUP is probably the biggest thing to happen to planning in New Zealand in recent decades. I’m very serious when I say that Auckland is home to the most rigorously studied upzoning the world has ever seen, and it’s right in the panel’s backyard.

As far as I can find there exists no counter-evidence to the submitters’ claims. There are zero published economic studies (at least that I have found) that concluded upzoning has no causal effects on housing supply in Auckland. In fact, the best evidence the panel can muster is a submission that references a blog post.

Indeed, most of the panel’s positions and recommendations relied heavily on evidence submitted by Dr Tim Helm, who acted as an expert witness for the Newtown Residents Association. In his evidence, Dr Helm cited a blog post that he had co-authored (“published”), which critiqued one of the three studies on Auckland’s upzoning that we discussed above. To start, I’d suggest that a blog post is a fairly weak piece of evidence to rely too heavily on. Even more problematic, however, is Dr Helm’s failure to mention that the criticisms in his blog post and testimony have, themselves, been strongly critiqued – and in my view, comprehensively debunked – in a blog post written by another economist. I suggest the failure to provide a balanced view of this evidence raises serious questions about Dr Helm’s conduct as an expert witness and, by extension, the panel’s reliance on his testimony to inform its own positions.

Incredible to see people (and other economists) having to refute economists who dont believe in, checks notes, supply and demand.

Tackling misinformation at the NZ Herald and beyond

It’s been a testing week at the paper of record for our city, with the Herald printing a correction (but not a retraction) of a headline it ran on Tuesday, as part of a recent series by veteran reporter Bernard Orsman about AT’s efforts to make streets safer for vulnerable road users.

The headline made an outrageously incorrect claim (out by a factor of 1500%) about the cost of safety elements in the Pt Chevalier to Westmere project, currently under way. This kind of reporting is not only irresponsible, you do have to ask is it at some level deliberate.

Kudos to journalist Russell Brown for digging out the actual facts, which it appears had previously been given to the Herald but not published. The crossings are costed at $19k for side street tables and $31k for raised crossings, including one petitioned for by Western Springs College students at a dangerous spot on Meola Road.

Subsequently the online story had a correction appended to it, and a correction also appeared in the print edition on Wednesday, on page 5. Can you spot it?

The horse had already bolted, however, with immediate and predictable effects in the comments on the online story in the Herald and on related social media posts. The story was also reprinted by RNZ. And the Minister of Transport repeated the incorrect information in the House, brandishing what looks to be a photocopy of the Herald article.

Screenshot of a tweet with an image showing Minister Simeon Brown in the House, apparently reading from a printed article. The text of the tweet is: "A rare misstep for Simeon Brown"

Interestingly, the story doesn’t seem to have popped up in the usually lively Letters to the Editor section this week. Does this suggest the Herald realises its reporting overstepped the line?

The economic value of low-traffic neighbourhoods

A six-year longitudinal study of London areas where “healthy streets” schemes were implemented, reveals the economic value of boosting active transport in urban neighbourhoods.

In particular, “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods may have very high value for money (as much as 50:1 to 200:1).” This is due to the long-term health benefits.

Compared to the programme cost of £100 m, the health economic benefits are ten-fold higher, at £1,056 m. Benefits are concentrated within LTN areas where the physical activity benefit reaches £4800 per person over the twenty-year appraisal period, as opposed to an average of £3000 across the wider ‘high-dose’ area.

The installation costs were estimated at around £112 per adult resident for higher-quality LTNs, and £27–35 for low-cost pop-up treatments installed during the pandemic. Health isn’t the only benefit, either:

Other research using secondary data has found positive impacts of LTNs on injuries, crime, car ownership and/or use, without negative impacts on emergency service response times.

What’s the plan, man?

Lastly, a couple of timely reads about where things are (or aren’t) heading in terms of critical transport infrastructure.

Tim Welch, in the Conversation, on the lack of plan for Auckland’s transport woes, now the government has axed the Regional Fuel Tax.

Robert MacLachlan, in the Post, on the fallout of the government’s “war on EVs”:

If, as looks likely, the government is not going to take the lead on reducing transport emissions, where does that leave us? When one steps back, others step forward: cities and councils, individuals, businesses and business groups like Drive Electric, and civic groups such as the Aotearoa Circle, the 1.5 Project, All Aboard Aotearoa, and Rewiring Aotearoa. They may have their work cut out.

Have a great weekend. Feel free to mention anything we’ve missed, in the comments.

Share this


  1. The mfwic family love that JFK speech where he says “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.”
    We debate whether every crazy thing the people of the USA do is one of JFK’s “other things”.
    Certainly Genocide Joe has resorted to ‘and the other thing’ when his brain can’t keep up with his mouth. Gotta love the USA Presidents- each one guaranteed worse then the last.

    1. Are you making a comparison with Auckland there, miffy?

      Over half a century ago, people in the US prioritised going to the Moon, with all the resources and sacrifice that required, instead of resolving the USA’s critical social, planning and wellbeing problems.

      We could do better in Auckland. Given hindsight and all we’ve learnt, and given Auckland’s critical social, planning and wellbeing problems, it’s a puzzle as to why anyone is still thinking about a stadium in the city centre. Are they blind to what’s happening to our people and planet? Are they blind to the opportunities for good that we have?

      1. Just that add at the end with the Wright Bros flyer has JKF (one of their worst ever Presidents) committing his country to spending the wealth of a generation to sending white dudes to the moon to discover dirt, like we have here. The turn the volume down when he gets to ‘do the other things’ part. As speeches go I prefer Whitey on the Moon by Gil Scott-Heron.

    2. Those other things included the Vietnam war that cost approx. 40x more than the Apollo program (and millions of lives).

      1. And paid for in part by a generation of inflation to reduce the real value of the debt and dumping the world’s monetary system so the rest of the world could pay as well.

  2. So, the Low Traffic Neighbourhood research shows Auckland Council’s way forward, given the current government is not focused on the city’s wellbeing.

    Previous research into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods shows they improve every social and transport indicator you care to name – and significantly so, in most cases. That the economic benefits are so high and they are so cheap means they are an ideal solution for Auckland Council right now. We can do this:

    “The installation costs were estimated at around £112 per adult resident for higher-quality LTNs, and £27–35 for low-cost pop-up treatments installed during the pandemic.”

    Compare that with today’s Supporting Growth email. They’re working on Drury to Bombay motorway widening now. Deficient thinking. Deficient ethics.

    1. My street would be ideal for a LTN as it’s one of many residential streets connecting two arterials. How can we make this happen?

      1. We need a campaign to bring this to the Council’s attention as the best way forward. People willing to work on that while fleshing out their own local LTN should get together… I will look into whether All Aboard can coordinate that.

      2. Best way to do it is get together with the others on your street. Then when ‘community members’ object, you can point out they don’t live on the street and just want to rat run through it.

        People naturally want their own street nicer (as safer, makes their properties nicer and worth more), but don’t want it on others as they don’t want to be inconvenienced by someone else’s life being made better.

        If you break it down to your street, then even cost arguments get thrown aside ‘we’re paying either way, just we get the benefits rather than this other street’.

        1. Yes, great place to start, but there needs to be Council support for it to happen too, so there needs to be a wider campaign.

  3. Not sure how many people picked up on Wayne Brown’s sly dig when talking to Kathryn Ryan on RNZ,calling RONS,”Roads of National Party Significance “.
    Nick Smith,former National MP,now Mayor of Nelson,seems to be relishing his new role ,Nelson is adding cycle lanes ,has adopted electric buses ,all seemingly without to much fuss,strong leadership,perhaps. The bus service seemingly has a problem,overcrowding, smaller buses were specced,due to maneuverability, having to add overflow busses at peak. Wonder if Simeon will hold up that newspaper article in parliament?

    1. Brown ain’t saying anything new when he says RONS are “Roads of National Party Significance “. Just ‘cos its new to him doesn’t make it new (or news) to the rest of us.

      If I’m not mistaken, that very term was used ’round these parts quite openly – back when the concept was first announced by then Minster of Transport [and soon to be minister of (fixing) everything], Joyce, some 12 or so years ago.

      Geez, Wayne [Brown], its nice to see you’re getting with the program [and in the loop] – finally.

      Sadly many of the other “well – we told you so” moments that have come to pass from posts in this blog over those years have clearly been overlooked by Brown while he focuses on road cones and now, commuter rail issues. Important as they are – they are surface symptoms of the deeper seated problems.

      We’ve been collectively saying here for a decade or more that AT is totally broken. And needs a complete clear out top to bottom. Basically since Rodney Hyde set up Auckland Super City, then hamstrung it by making AT a CCO, yet ensured it remained totally beholden to the Government of the day via the MoT. Nothing has changed since that time to ensure Aucklands transport issues get dealt with efficiently or effectively.

      Brown does have a point about that – when he laments Auckland doesn’t have any control in its transport future.

      But thats not new, and so is not something that should have surprised him. The way it appears to have done.

      As I said above he needs to stop treating every issue that because its something new to him, its also new to us as well. We aren’t surprised by these things. We’ve been putting up with them (and AT, and Central Government intransigence) for too long now.

      But we are surprised by his belief in how he thinks he, alone, has all the answers.

      1. I’m 100% fine with him claiming it as his idea/breakthrough if it manages to convince Aucklanders when us urbanists have failed to get a breakthrough. I’ve found the best way to get someone in power to truly back your idea is to make them believe they came up with it. You have to put your ego to the side though and focus on outcomes.

  4. On Orsman – lying by omission is still lying, particularly when you chose to not omit things that make something look totally different. Orsman is a liar, and a propagandist.

    1. It’s a deep and persistent problem. The Herald could at least stop calling him a reporter, and call him a commentator. In reality he’s a campaigner. He doesn’t report, nor do balanced investigation. He cloaks commentary in the guise of reporting. NZME provides him with this opportunity knowing full well how he is misinforming debate.

  5. ngl, that stadium concept looks awesome. If it can be built with limited public funds, and eden park can be converted into housing then that is a big win.

    1. Why should public funds go toward a stadium? We already have multiple. Sporting codes always like a new big glossy stadium for themselves, but expect ratepayers to pick up the tab. They’re never profitable, and in terms of social good, much better to fix what we’ve already got and spend the hundreds of millions saved on other priorities.

      1. While I lean towards doing up Eden Park and fixing the consenting issues once and for all, I’d caution against the argument that things should stack up on their own without any ratepayer involvement.

        The Aotea/Civic precinct, for instance, will never return anything close to a decent return on what the land under it is worth, and I suspect the same goes for libraries, theatre groups etc. It’s a recipe for a terribly boring city and sporting pursuits have a valid place in our cultural fabric. When they bowl the Colosseum then I’ll revisit my argument.

        The only thing I like about this is that you have to imagine the development potential of the Railway Station precinct is pretty limited given the leasehold nature of the land, and it’s going to get harder and harder for anyone operating there to generate commercial returns on the site as it is – so maybe this is a discussion worth having to some extent – but I also suspect that the residents of Sandringham would probably not be partial to the alternatives uses for Eden Park which would almost certainly have to be pretty high-density to make it worth doing in the first place, otherwise the value of the land becomes nil.

        1. The resource consents for EP are the single biggest issue, because as much as people like to whinge about rugby needing to “pay for it if they want it”, that sport will be a minor player. Nightime events like concerts are going to be where the real bucks are. The CEO of Eden Park didn’t miss the opportunity today to point out that they could not have held a Taylor Swift tour because they have already used 5 of their 6 concerts this year. The trend now is for artists to play mulitple nights in the same venue. And they can take place on any night of the week, whereas rugby and other sports with broadcasting rights are largely limited to the Fri-Sun window. The crowds will be bigger than practically any rugby game outside of an ABs test.

          If they can’t/won’t be changed, then it would be bordering on criminal to keep pouring money into EP knowing the council is holding one hand behind its back.

          On a related matter, its Auckland working in silos again. Auckland cricket (with NZC support) is moving to Colin Maiden Park and making that the region’s test match venue. If EP does not get the nod for redevelopment and one of the others does, its days are numbered. They would be better off downsizing EP to a boutique test venue and developing/selling some of the surplus land for housing.

        2. “If they can’t/won’t be changed, then it would be bordering on criminal to keep pouring money into EP knowing the council is holding one hand behind its back.”

          It almost seems like that’s the actual problem. The use of established facilities causing headaches with residents is a problem all over the world; the time has come for a legislative fix. If that isn’t on the cards then a new venue seems to be our only option.

          The real missed test opportunity in Auckland will always for my mind be Glover Park. Such a shame we haven’t connected the Eastern Suburbs for that to be a viable option. It would have surely been one of the most beautiful grounds in the world.

    2. The land is not public. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa own Te Tōangaroa, formerly Quay Park. I’m sure they’d be open to negotiations around leasing the land at substantial cost.
      There are no public funds available for developing another stadium in Auckland. The existing stadiums (Eden Park, Mt Smart, North Harbour and Western Springs) have excess capacity and do not cover costs, hence the suggestion by the Mayor that North Harbour stadium should be downsized.
      Third parties might finance a stadium but event tickets might not be affordable.
      I don’t see this going anywhere, and its a distraction from more important things.
      I don’t see anything happening

      1. Ngati Whatua have signed up with Precinct Properties to make this (and more immediately) other parts of their land parcel work.
        Ngati Whatua will be taking a long view of this and including housing and commercial builds, and Precinct have proven themselves with Commercial Bay and other developments.
        I guess if they’re getting hoteliers to help fund the stadium it it could be more likely than the other versions of stadia we’ve seen previously.

    3. Those vague renders are too ambitious and it is unclear whether we could build anything remotely resembling them.

      Eden Park breathes life in the Kingsland and Morningside entertainment areas and I worry that the (NIMBY driven) desire to move it will threaten that vitality.

      Why not redevelop the area marked for this new stadium with new housing?

  6. I’m not convinced the stadium idea will go anywhere and I expect it to join the lengthening list of ideas that never got off the ground.

    However, if it does actually happen then I think the building consents should mandate railway platforms on the adjacent line that can be opened for stadium events.

      1. If its Quay Park you’d have to think itsa certainty for a new station at the Strand.

        Direct access on the east and West lines, short walk from the Waitemata stop on the Onehunga, Southern and any cross town line. Regional rail too. and good bus access for Tamaki, Inner Link, NX, WX. Ferry’s across the road…

  7. Another big week, politics, infrastructure projects & transport issues. Yikes!

    Firstly like to mention the Quay Park stadium and the flaws with the idea. Beautiful design, but not placed in a good area. It’s a terrible idea to be placing a stadium at Quay Park because of convenience, rail standings at Quay Park, Auckland Strand station and taking away opportunity to build more rail infrastructure in and around Quay Park.

    If Quay Park stadium was built, it be inconvenient for commuters travelling via rail cause of the long walk to the nearest entrance to Britomart station and not good for people who have mobility issues. Spark Arena is 10-15 mins walk from Britomart Station, if a Stadium was placed at Quay Park, it be at least 15-20 mins walk from Britomart Station, since you pass Spark Arena, in-which isn’t ideal for commuters or people who have mobility issues wanting to attend events.

    Auckland Strand Station would be gone, cause of the stadium. Services like the Te Huia & Northern Explorer can’t go into Britomart cause their diesel fumes, where would Te Huia & Northern Explorer end up? Britomart got rid of the ventilation fans years ago to blow out the diesel fumes.

    Quay Park Stadium would prevent opportunity to expand the Heavy Rail network at a time where we need more Heavy Rail services around Auckland. It prevents the expansion of the Eastern Approach Tunnel into Britomart four or more future lines into Britomart. Also prevents expansion of more lines into Britomart and more platforms.

    The rail standings at Quay Park would be gone for Auckland One Rail to facilitate their rail stock. Meaning nowhere else to place standings in central part of the CBD. There’s a reason why there’s a rail standings placed at Quay Park, in-case of example ‘Southern Line’ needing to terminate at Otahuhu instead of Papakura, like today, you wouldn’t be able to ride the train and have to use bus every time their rail works or fixes. Also there’s early morning services from Britomart for those needing to get to airport or other places in Auckland, if the rail standings gone would result in early morning out of Britomart to rescheduled later in morning, not ideal for some folks.
    It would make more sense to do Eden Park 2.0 and demolishing North Harbour Stadium to make-way for 30,000 seated stadium located at Waterfront opposite Britomart Station since it be more financially feasible to operate and host more events than North Harbour Stadium. Aucklands needs two stadiums located in Central Auckland, one small scale sized stadium (Waterfront stadium/30,000 seated) and one big sized stadium (Eden Park/70,000). Auckland a new 30,000 seated stadium right at the Waterfront, for Football (soccer) future A-League team, some Rugby League (Auckland Warriors), Rugby Union(All Blacks lower tier matches) and Eden Park but expand north, east and west stands, with capacity 70,000 seats, hosting rugby (Auckland Rugby Union/Blues Rugby/All Blacks matches), Cricket(Auckland Cricket/Blackcaps, concerts, national teams in Football(Soccer) and Rugby League.

    Secondly, like to mention that we really do need the ‘East-West Link’ here in Auckland and the mayor should agree with Transport Minster! It makes total sense from political point of view. It would make a ring fence to easily identify Central Auckland and not only that, opportunity to push out rebellious socialist individualists which are cause crimes out of central Auckland area by bringing up house prices and rent prices, since they think their above law and are entitled. Not only socialist individualists, far-left socialist act in a communes to gain power. They like to protect their own, they like to connect with their own ethic community and test people to see what they value. Refuse to learn or inherit the ‘kiwi way’ instead engage & entitled manner. Would also be the start of pushing out certain people out of Northern parts of Manukau too!

    1. The proposal for Quay Park stadium includes providing for improved rail lines, a replacement strand station and an improved stabling yard.

      Not sure how you think demolishing Albany stadium would pay for a waterfront stadium. Demolishing it would cost money, not make it. Only if you could sell the land would it create any revenue, but Albany is full of undeveloped landholdings after decades so I’m not sure who would buy it.

  8. Weird how I can agree lots with half your post re rail then get to the other bit.

    For both the new stadiums and new motorway, show me the money. Like, if it’s ratepayer/taxpayer, there are significantly better things to spend it on. If it’s private, how is it going to stack up financially/why would it be different from the other financial issues? Stadium revenue/tolls won’t cover the costs of the projects.

    1. For motorway its $1.9 Billion for the Taxpayers and yes we can afford it since National has sensibly restructuring it’s budget to make sure not going to be spending on deficit on key transport infrastructure, unlike Labour.

      Eden Park 2.0 70,000 seated likely be redeveloped by PPV or either distributed some money by Tax Payers.

      As for new 30,000 seated Waterfront Stadium would be funded by demolition of North Harbour Stadium. If placed at the Waterfront, would be accessible to all spectators inside and outside since right next to transport hub Britomart and Lower Albert buses. Waterfront stadium doesn’t need to be landmark of Auckland, just needs to be venue for all spectators to be able access inside venue or outside. A Waterfront stadium would make it better than having outside Waterfront since you can make a fan base right outside the Waterfront due to location and land space.

      1. To follow up on Eden Park 2.0, building Eden Park 2.0 would be 40% of the cost of Waterfront or Quay Park starting from scratch.

        1. “To follow up on Eden Park 2.0, building Eden Park 2.0 would be 40% of the cost of Waterfront or Quay Park starting from scratch.”

          It’s actually been estimated at 70%, with a lot of cost in tearing parts down before you build back up.

      2. It’s poor value for huge outlay. There are better uses for that $1.9b if you absolutely have to spend it on transport – such as a proper NW busway.

        1. Wrong actually – If the EastWest link was built, the SouthEastern Highway that passes through Sylvia Park can be converted to a busway and a bus junction at Silvia Park. It be most productive use of spending. Top of it, there already seems to be this new roading corridor being created from Penrose substation to Panmure Basin. it free up traffic and open up corridor for new busway.

        2. @Anon but what’s the time difference between a train from Onehunga, then a bus from Penrose, vs a bus from Onehunga down a new motorway. Then multiply the time savings by the number of people, then multiply by the value of their time. That’s still going to be radically different to the enormous cost of the East-West link (which if anything would increase congestion of the South Eastern Highway).

          Personally, I don’t mind if they build an East-West link, just think there is no way they can call it a good use of taxpayer money. Same with a new stadium, if they built it I wouldn’t mind a stadium, just I don’t think it could be called a good use of taxpayer money, given we’ve already got existing stadiums that do a good enough job and just need maintenance.

      3. “Eden Park 2.0 70,000 seated likely be redeveloped by PPV or either distributed some money by Tax Payers.”

        You can rule out the last part. There will be no local or central govt money to fund anything major. And for it to be PPV/PPP, The EP Trust would have to give up control. Can’t see that happening either.

        Eden Park is essentially a private business asking for public money.

  9. Some peoples comments are way too long. Keep them short folks, now when I see the long ones come into my email lately I hit delete just so you know. It’s one of the guidelines for this blog BTW. Keep it short and to the point surely & have more chance that people will read them.

  10. A brand new stadium makes no sense when we have a perfectly good one that we can simply continue to improve over time.

    What we need is for the local restrictions (and NIMBYs like Helen Clarke) to get out of the way and let it be a success. Limiting music concerts to 5x a year is an absurd restriction.

    Auckland aspires to be a world-class city not a monastic retirement home for regression-loving boomers.

    1. Much of EP needs an upgrade and it needs it within the next 10yrs. The estimates are $850m, at least for the gold plated version . But irrespective of the amount and what you do, I doubt there is a single cent of central or local government money available for anything major, let alone for a private organisation. So really you’ll just get EP in its current form, with some cosmetic changes.

      The new stadiums come with PPP funding. Would Council have to chip in? Yes, but they already do for EP every year and just wrote off a $50m debt for them, so hopefully it would be just like for like.

    2. “Auckland aspires to be a world-class city not a monastic retirement home for regression-loving boomers.”

      Auckland is both a city and a region. It is not sentient so it has no aspirations.
      I suspect you mean the people of Auckland. If so, where is the data on what the people want and how is it that you are the mouthpiece?

      I am a boomer. I apologise.

      I had, however, no part in determining the date of my birth and I have no wish for Auckland to be a monastic retirement home…but that’s just a personal opinion.

      Please don’t characterise people by their appearance or the date of their birth. I try very hard not to judge based on colour, age, gender etc. I do, however, draw the line when it comes to religion….any religion.

  11. If Simeon Brown did indeed make the “$500,000 crossings” assertion in parliament, he’ll almost certainly be forced to make an apology and correction for misleading the house.

Leave a Reply

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