under the mountain, over the water

It's game on - so to speak - in the race to decide where to play the final match of the 2011 Rugby World Cup. In the pursuit of a single game of rugby - albeit a very important game - the government charmed the pants off the IRB, promising to rebuild Eden Park to bring it up to scratch for the final. Out of the woodwork though, new proposals for stadia have springed up, variously hailing their location as superior to leafy Mt Eden.

Left now in the hands of whatever politician wants to pay for it, the cards are on the table. But with no formal public consultation process on what we think it the best option for the stadium, no place to vent our praise or frustration at whats on offer, who knows what we'll end up with. Maybe the majority of Aucklanders want a mutli-billion dollar stadium floating off the shores of Remuera, and are prepared to pay for it, but nobody would know because they haven't properly asked anyone.

For now, you'll have to do with my efforts to bring together the various options.

Eden Park Upgrade

Envisioned for the current site of Eden Park is a $320 million upgrade of the park, including new stands to take a total of 60,000 people, 38000 of whom can enjoy their favourite sport undercover. The plan will enhance the facility for patrons and neighbours alike - with areas for people to stuff around before and after the game, linking the park with Kingsland railway station before and after the game. Plus the new stands will do a better job of containing light and noise spill (if only they could keep the helicopter quiet as it circles the park). Not to mention a pretty entrance from Sandringham Road









Cost: $320 million
Pros: Cheap(!), does the job, improves existing site, railway station adjacent.
Cons: Not 'visionary', very little parking, poor motorway access, seats not very close to stadium, no roof, limited amount of fixtures per year, suburban area.
Pictures: Eden Park Website.

Bledisloe Wharf / Tank Farm
No pretty designs yet, but the stadium by the water idea has captivated the government as worth of consideration. Potentially the crowning jewel on Auckland's waterfront, the design will be a very hot issue, lest it turn out to look like Wellington's Cake Tin. Sydney hit a winner with their Opera House, so there is no reason for us not to be able to do it. So long as it's not designed by committee. Te Papa was panned as a monstrosity when it opened, but today looking at it (and surrounds), it really is a striking building that seems to feel at home in Wellington.

Either site potentially will provide a bookend to a rejuvenated waterfront area, placing much needed fireworks up the ARC and City Council to get on and turn the area into a place of civic pride. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Being a greenfields development, the stadium can also be whatever we want it to be. We can forget dithering around with boring design constrained by existing facilities and build a stadium with all the bells and whistles that a millionaire city deserves.

Cost: Hopefully less than $1billion.
Pros: Exciting opportunity to do something bloody fantastic for the City, away from suburbia, it can have a roof, host wider variety of events more frequently, close to Brittomart.
Cons: $$$$, getting it done in time.


Carlaw Park
City Councillor Richard Simpson recently corresponded with RB around using the dilapidated Carlaw Park, at the city edge of the Domain, for the stadium. His surprisingly passionate PowerPoint, outlines his vision for the park.

This is my favourite for the stadium, practically being a greenfields site, having the best potential for public transport and greater use as a multi site venue.

As Cr. Simpson points out, if it's covered the Carlaw Park option can serve as a wet weather alternative for activities in the Domain.

I'd go further and insist that if we were to build a stadium here, it'd have to be covered - partly because if we don't cover the next stadium we build, Auckland will never have a covered stadium of it's size, partly because it rains all the time here and partly because Parnell residents are close by, and having this as a concert venue would rock.

And carparks... lots of lovely carparks to use when vising the Domain, Parnell and the University. Carlaw park has this over most of the other locations around - it and it's facilities will be used 7 days a week by Aucklanders of all persuasions. Eden Park wont.




Cost: ???, possibly up to $1b
Pros: Great use of crappy area, close to SH16 and railway network, close to CBD
Cons: $$$$, getting it done in time.

Images: Cr. Richard Simpson & wises (via Public Address)

Stadium Over Water
This has to be the most visionary of proposals yet. It has style, it has viable public transport options, it has longevity, and it has oodles of space. The elegant design of the stadium really is something we can admire, and can admire in 50 or 100 years. Even if this isn't the site, the architects who came up with the plan must be the architects to design the new stadium.

Peter Bossley and Bary Copeland - the pair behind the plan - are touting their proposal as a National Stadium, and setting their sights high to match.

If I didn't have a fondness for Central Auckland, this would definitely be my favourite.












They key advantages, according to the pair are:

- The site over water is a “blank canvas.” ... does not have to be purchased, existing facilities demolished, or the impact considered on surrounding buildings;

- It is close to a major transport corridor, with easy access to rail, motorways and Auckland International Airport;

- It is close to one of the fastest growing regions in Auckland: Counties and Manakau

- The close proximity to major transport connections and the relative lack of site restrictions will assist with the intended completion of the purpose-designed world class stadium in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011.

They also put their case forward in the Herald, outlting the practical features of the stadium, as well as the asthtetic

Sunlight reflecting off the sea would animate the sloping sides of the bowl, making it an object of great beauty and lightness. Artificial lighting would make it a dramatic object appearing to float over the water.

Cost: ???
Pros: Visionary, close to SH1 and railway network, potential to grow despt onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">ressed area, leaves waterfront free for other things
Cons: $$$$, away from city, tsunami prone.
Images: Bossley Copeland Architects (via Scoop)

North Harbour Stadium
Mostly called for by reistdents north of the bridge, no serious proposal has been put forward so far. Some reports however, mark this as very cheap.

Cost: $200-250m.
Pros: Lots of space for development, less residents, motorway adjacent.
Cons: Too far from Manakau city, no rail access, traffic nightmarish already, plans to expand commerical and residential development in area, sports teams with North Harbour as home ground tend to loose a lot.

Mt Smart
Again, has no serious push behind it. Shares most of the cons of Mt Eden and North Harbour, without taking too many of the pros. Current stadium is mega ugly, so could do with a facelift though

Avondale Racetrack
Ditto, plus they have those horrible spiders.

Victoria Park
Or, we could sober up and not.

As we wait for the Government to make up it's mind, we'll just have to twiddle our thumbs and hope they come up with something good.

trade aid

In response to my post on global white band day, iiq responded that people can,

Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices.

Agreed.

The distinction between free trade and fair trade is important when considering third world countries. People trade and nations trade - rather, all people and all nations trade in different ways and at differing levels of status. Googling Fair Trade will get heaps of info on the minutiae I'm sure - but IMHO, China's the problem.

The astonishingly low prices that an item can be made for in China is just nuts (take the NZ price, divide it by 8 and that's the cost in US dollars to get it made, packaged AND to a port of your choice in China). Global trade has to be about open access (USA and EU not doing very well) and reasonable prices paid for goods. The price of Chinese goods is, simply, too low. The single biggest action any government can take to make fair trade happen is for China to float the Yuan.

I suspect that, unfortunately, would cause a global financial crisis. I don't know the answer to that whopping problem.

The depressing reality is that global poverty isn't going to end in my lifetime. Prove me wrong and I'll be happy - but I'm not wrong on this one.

NGO's like Oxfam, and campaigns like Make Poverty History will make a difference - but only to some, and only slowly. It doesn't mean that individual actions should be ignored as irrelevant. It's up to consumers to make change happen slowly with their wallets. It's hard to make those choices - in fact it's a bitch (Foodtown Mt Eden, in particular, should be able to keep Scarborough Fair coffee in stock more often).

white bands

Tomorrow is global white band day, the big push so to speak for the Make Poverty History Campaign. Idiot/Savant provides a to the point summary of how NZ is doing here - and it's not good news.

I'm not sure where you can get a white band offline, but if you're keen on getting one delivered to you after Tuesday, look here. Otherwise, anything white is a sign of solidarity. Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.

aect

Handing my cheque to the teller last weekend made me reflect on the good things about living in central Auckland. In particular,

• There are banks that open on Sundays
• Once a year, the people who run the company that takes my money year round gives some of it back.

And the teller got to add to her growing pile my cheque from the Auckland Energy Consumer's Trust. Well, I'm sure she wasn't that thrilled - it was a big pile, and apparently was even larger the previous weekend. I hope she got one too, and didn't get it stolen.

Also, it's another good reason not to live on the Shore - you don't get a cheque on the Shore. Add that to the list... the roads are laid out in an incredibly stupid way... nobody can drive properly (about as bad as Ponsonby Road drivers) .... peak traffic in Albany South...

I quite like the AECT/Vector model. It's public ownership of a key asset without the political landmines that SOEs can bring, combined with a corporate model that is that maximises the return and value of assets to the owners. This year the trustees of the AECT are up for election.

Matt McCarten writing in the HoS, gives his personal precis of the three candidate blocks. It's unsurprising that he favours the left candidates over the current right wing bloc who sold a quarter of the company. McCarten notes the hypocrisy of those candidates who promised to keep the company in the Trust's hands, before doing the opposite. He predicts that

if the right-wing politicians grab control in this election, it won't be long before Vector assets of nearly $6 billion go on the international auction block. Of course, the corporation that buys Vector then ups the price to a captive customer base to pay off the loan raised to buy it. The new foreign owner makes a bomb, the foreign bank makes a bomb, and the local people pay the bill.

I don't think the decision to sell a quarter of the company was necessarily incorrect - at least from a corporate point of view. Vector is the best placed power company in the country, having the best market helps with that, but also having as your only shareholder a Trust - asking only for a consistent level of profit - has enabled Vector to leverage its revenue to grow. But to grow past a certain point needs money - and the AECT isn't in a position to demand cash from it's beneficiaries. The float helped Vector expand, and that move paid off. The fact that the dividend was significantly larger than what it had been in previous years is testament to that.

However, I don't think more should be sold off. Having more than a quarter of your shares floating in the market is a risk from governance point of view. In fact, I think it folly for the dividend to be so large. The AECT not only has a responsibility to deliver short term dividends to its beneficiaries, but a long term obligation to retain the company in public ownership and grow its profitability over time. Part of that money could have been used to reinvest in the company, in exchange for more shares, or to buy back some of the shares in the market to increase its asset base.

McCarten's article is a must read for everyone in who is eligible to vote for the trustee election - even if you are on the right of the spectrum. I don't think we're going to see another article that summarises what's at stake. Most importantly, everyone who can vote should. You can't whinge if you didn't.

dear bomb

I think DPF summed it up best with

This is not a good thing at all. This is very bad, and there will be consequences down the road.

North Korea today issued the a statement claiming that they had

successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9, 2006

adding that the test

will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it

I'm not holding my breath.

The msm are variously reporting that the test took place at either the Yongbyon nuclear facility, located 100km north of Pyongyang, or at Hwadaeri (CNN citing Hwaderi, a place that doesn't exist) near Kilju City, while seismic data indiicated the only activity of it's type today located here.

I'd like to say that I hope this is just North Korea puffing itself up with lies, but - like others - I'm scared of not only the crazy North Korean leadership, but of how their neighbours and the world reacts. We haven't had any problems out of India and Pakistan yet, granted, but I'm not as confident with Kim Jong IL behind the wheel.

Big discussion over at Kiwiblog - Matthew Webster has a good summary of the problems with both military and economic solutions, concluding that

I think its pretty close to an intractable problem, internationally speaking, and it maybe that this problem is only "solved" (in as much as is possible here) by the reactions of countries who feel their security is threatened.

shiny & new

So I've spent a very long time updating the design of the blog rather than any real work or useful posts - mostly because of the change to blogger in beta - which was worth it, but if you want to do anything remotely interesting with your blog, set aside the weekend.

(n.b. the change is really done in two stages, one to shift everything over, the second to update the template. It's the template change that can take a while if you like a custom template)

Also put some shiny new pictures from around Auckland to liven things up a bit in the header. Ooooh...

And to give credit where it's due (esp if you're after the funky drop down label box), here is the copyright & credit notice from the HEAD section of the blog template.

---
urbancast.blogspot.com (c) 2006

Images & text (c) 2006

Template based on Minima by Douglas Bowman (www.stopdesign.com) 26 Feb 04, updated by Blogger team and modified by urbancast with (hacked) labels hack from hackosphere.blogspot.com
---

wage inflation

After calling for employers to exercise moderation in giving wage and salary increases, the Reserve Bank's wage bill has grown by 18% in the last year. The Herald points out that the rise

takes into account a rise in staff numbers to 223 full-time equivalents from 218 in 2004/5, it still represents a 15.4 per cent average rise in remuneration per employee to $96,860 from $83,944.

Which, compared to the NZ Income Survey is well above the 4% pay rise given to the average worker this year. In real terms, the average wage is only just keeping in line with inflation, the CPI for the year to June 06 was 4%.

That the RBNZ isn't keeping inflating between 1-3% - missing it's targets - clearly doesn't have any relation to how the reward their staff. It demonstrates that workers at the top end of the wage spectrum are treated spectacularly differently from those at the bottom. As the RBNZ forks out 15% extra for their staff without blinking, those wanting just over half that are punished for daring to suggest it.

Interesting to note also, from the Income Survey that while females still lag behind their men on average incomes ($473 for women vs $754 for men av p/w), they are closing the gap faster than they have for many years (up 7.1% for women vs 2.1% for men). Let's hope it's even closer next year.