short sighted

I am a little disappointed in the ARC for dismissing the waterfront stadium as an option. Eden Park is far from the best option as far as I'm concerned, and not worth the $385 million required to get it built. I also don't see a problem in investing a truckload of money the country's largest port - free to the ARC - in making it more space and cost efficient.

I do see a problem in the ARC saying we won't take your money for the Waterfront Stadium, or for investing in the Ports of Auckland, but we sure as hell won't pay for Eden Park either.

the ARC believes that any alternative to the Waterfront Stadium would be a national stadium and should be funded for both capital and operating costs, without reliance on Auckland Regional Council ratepayers.

I agree with the Herald editorial this morning, the 'City council vote should prevail'.

driving with blinkers

In today's Herald, Brian Rudman likens Steve Maharey - and the government - to George W Bush:

Auckland is fast becoming Wellington's Iraq. If we're not stoning Sports Minister Trevor Mallard for his waterfront stadium plan, we're up in arms about Government plans to make us pay tolls to finance highways that the rest of the country gets for free.

Ouch. For one, I'm not not resorting to violence over the waterfront option, and the government isn't yet making anyone pay tolls.

He goes on to claim that:

It's hard, though, to go past the fact that Auckland has long been cheated of its share of transport cash.The proportion has improved in recent years, but in the 2005 financial year, the Auckland region scored only 29 per cent of Land Transport New Zealand funding, although 34 per cent of New Zealanders live in the region.
Why should we have to pay more?

Which isn't really true. Auckland's transport spent was woeful in the 1990's, but so was everyone else's. But we haven't been cheated of dosh from the public kitty. Brian's statistical claims have several problems.

Firstly, Land Transport New Zealand are the people who do the road safety commercials, run our licensing and other peripheral matters. They have nothing to do with road funding.

Secondly, the statistics that Brian is referring to are these ones [PDF], which refer to total road funding, including Transit (the people who build and maintain roads) and Land Transport NZ.

They reveal that:

- Auckland has the highest spend per km of road ($1410 per km, versus 2nd place Wellington at $521 per km)
- Auckland has the 4th highest spend per capita, with the Waikato, Southland and Northland ahead.
- When excluding costs not allocated to any region, Auckland gets 33.6% of the funding versus 32% of population and a contribution of 31.6% to GDP.
- Including costs not allocated to any region(inc. paper pushing in Wellington, TV ads etc), Auckland has a 29% share of transport funding. The 2005 figures indicate that Auckalnd had a $245m spend on highways, and another $941m spend on highways that hadn't been allocated to any region. I suspect that a significant amount of that money went to Auckland and more still into work on SH1 in and out of Auckland.

over shining sea

So, Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson has decided that the waterfront stadium will cost $1.8 billion dollars. He bases his estimate on his dabbling with stadia building in Tauranga, where according do the Stuff

"The only MP to have experience in building a stadium ... (a) >20,000-seater which came in $1 million over budget at a cost of $21 million."

Gee, wish I could do that with my salary. I also seem to remember another National MP having something to do with, oh, this building, which with some squinting and a vivid imagination kinda looks like a stadium.

Using Stadium NZ as a shining example of NZ's clean green image would also be great. Might even get the greens in behind it. In fact, the more I think about it the few million dollars it'd cost to make the stadium carbon/emissions positive is well worth it - so long as it stays as good looking as this.

And RB is right - the couple that moved in next to a container port and now are complaining about their view possibly going. It's a bit rich to claim that 25000 people will have their views of the harbour blocked by the stadium. I'd be surprised if the number is larger than 100.

It's now time for our say, though. You can tell Mike, Dick and Trevor what you think here. I think the waterfront is the best option, and really hoping Auckland does too.

stadium new zealand images

Images from architecture firm Warren and Mahoney for the proposed stadium on the waterfront. I had a bit of trouble downloading images from here, so have posted them for all to drool/lament over.

City View:


Harbour View Day:


Harbour View Night


City Elevation:


Harbour Elevation:


Level 2 View:


Rugby Configuration:


Cricket Configuration:


Concert Configuration:

get it done

The people of Auckland have been given two choices, and only two choices, for the location of the stadium that will host the final of the Rugby World cup. And what do we do?

We complain.

City councillors complain they don't get Carlaw Park as an option, Kerre Woodham complains about it not being sorted earlier, Brian Rudman complains, and complains, and complains.

Can we please start looking at what we actually want, and how it can be done, rather than niggle over the technicalities of it all. If we complain any longer, we'll only have ourselves to blame when it goes belly up.

While I would have supported Carlaw Park, it's not going to fly. My bet is now on the waterfront. It's a far superior option to an Eden Park upgrade, and - as Tim Watkins asserts, it's doable. To all the naysayers, I say this:
- The port will cope without the space AND we have Tauranga to help out as well.
- It'll be 20 years before something interesting is done with the waterfront if this doesn't go ahead.
- So what, it blocks the view to the water. You can't see the water now, we will be able to walk around the stadium to see the water (can't do that now), and it'll block the view of the port as an added bonus.

So, can we have a decision please?

how to vote

A good night for the Democrats. California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first female Speaker of the House, laid down a challenge to the White House - "Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq." - and to Washington D.C in general, promising to clean up the 109th Congress, which Rolling Stone dubbed the worst ever. Video of Pelosi's victory speech is here.

Meanwhile, we don't yet know who the next Senate Pro Tem will be, but current results have the Democrats+Independents in the lead by a small sliver. With Senate seats from Montana and Virginia still 'too close to call', it's hard to say if we'll have a result soon, or we'll be forced to wait through recounts and legal battles. According to Fox News (!!)

There are no automatic recounts in Virginia, but state law allows a candidate who finishes a half-percentage point or less behind to request a recount paid for by state and local governments

and with less than a percentage point in the race, it wouldn't be advisable to hold ones breath. Scoop, however, was much more confident.

On the ticket in some states were referenda to pass laws, including:
- Arizona: YES on English as the official language.
- Colorado: NO on Legalise Marijuana
- Idaho: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Michigan: YES on Restrict Affirmative Action
- Missouri: Yes on Stem Cell Research
- Nevada: NO on Legalise Marijuana
- Ohio: No on Allow Slot Machines
- South Dakota: NO on Ban Abortion
- Arizona: TOO CLOSE TO CALL on Ban on Same Sex Marriage
- Colorado: YES on Ban on Same Sex Marriage
- South Carolina: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- South Dakota: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Tennessee: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Virginia: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Wisconsin: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage

Thankfully the ultra hard-line, dumbass and patronising abortion laws were rejected by the voters, but shame on those states banning Same Sex Marriage. In a lot of ways, America really needs to just grow up.

how not to vote

A few days ago HBO screened a doco in the leadup to today's US midterm elections, covering the controversy surrounding electronic voting machines in the US. Makes me quite glad of our cardboard booths and funky orange markers.

Well worth the watch if you're interested in such things.

on the wharf

Cabinet today deferred making a decision about the location of Auckland's new stadium, but we should have some goodies by Friday including, according to 3 News, designs from the architects Warren and Mahoney. It looks likely it'll be the waterfront option.

3 News has a roundup here.

I'm keen to see the designs - partly because I agree that the design in media circulation looks like a bedpan - partly because I want to see what the architects think the surrounds will look like. I want more to see boldness, creativity, detail and justification for the design. But above all, I want to see options. If this is truly to be a national stadium, the best minds all need to be working to think of concepts for the stadium. Some will be uninspiring, some will be over the top, but there'll be gems to find if we let NZ's architects loose on designing our stadium.

We can but hope...