Brisbane's Gabba not to be rebuilt!

[peetoo]

In defence of the Gabba, and I have never been, it probably does need freshening up.

But on tv all the seats look to be great viewing. We bang on about the MCG but if you want to take a family to the footy now, the cheap seats are wayyy further Back than the last row at the Gabba. And while you are up there you can contemplate that for a 40k crowd there are swathes of empty seats down below.

 

[peetoo]

Anyway a 60k stadium for athletics is not reasonable legacy for anywhere. The biggest conundrum over any olympics. It’s only slightly moderated that australia can get that size crowds on going on an oval field. But that is a compromise too.

Have te ceremonies at an existing 60k stadium, and build the athletics one for purpose

 

[kranger]

Victoria Park an Olympic hurdle as Coates, mayors, architect grilled on Games

Australian Olympic supremo John Coates says if Brisbane were to build a new Victoria Park stadium, it should not be considered a Games-related cost.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au

John Coates quote this week from the QLD Olympic/Stadium enquiry.

"You can go ahead and build Victoria Park, if that's what the city needs, and you can afford that, but that's not to be ticked off as an Olympics cost".

 

[peetoo]

Olympic folk struggling to see the carnival is over

 

[The Educator]

Victoria Park an Olympic hurdle as Coates, mayors, architect grilled on Games

Australian Olympic supremo John Coates says if Brisbane were to build a new Victoria Park stadium, it should not be considered a Games-related cost.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au

John Coates quote this week from the QLD Olympic/Stadium enquiry.

"You can go ahead and build Victoria Park, if that's what the city needs, and you can afford that, but that's not to be ticked off as an Olympics cost".

It is so demented and perverse

He is happy to "tick off" on $1.6 million being spent on a temporary stadium with no legacy but not be even party to a stadium the city actually needs

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

It is so demented and perverse

He is happy to "tick off" on $1.6 million being spent on a temporary stadium with no legacy but not be even party to a stadium the city actually needs

Of course. Cause his plan also sees $1b tipped into Suncorp Stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies, which will benefit the NRL instead of our code. He is a RL-supporting Sydneysider after all.

 

[kranger]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...n-premier-s-short-shrift-20240418-p5fku9.html

Victoria Park could save us $1.1b, so it deserves better than premier’s short shrift

A witness called to last week’s Senate inquiry into Olympic Games preparedness may well have blown up the state government’s rationale for its contentious stadium selection for Brisbane 2032.

Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards told the inquiry three Olympic venues – a main stadium of between 60,000 and 80,000 seats, an inner-city arena and a permanent aquatic centre – could be built at Victoria Park for $3.4 billion.

It would result in 60 hectares of green space, Edwards said, which would be an improvement on the site’s 56 hectares of available green space (more on that later).

Having already scrapped plans to rebuild the Gabba, Premier Steven Miles rejected the main recommendation of the Graham Quirk-led venues review. That review, which Miles commissioned, recommended a new stadium be built at Victoria Park.

Edwards told the inquiry the $3.4 billion costing had been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo.

As it happened, I was invited to Arcadis’ Brisbane office to meet with the company’s global cities director John Batten, who was in town on a lightning visit last week.

While there, Arcadis Brisbane chief Paul Allan told me while the report they prepared for Archipelago was confidential, he could confirm Edwards’ $3.4 billion figure stacked up.

So how is this possible? How could Brisbane get three venues for less than the price of two?

Allan said having the venues in the same place created numerous efficiencies.

“Having the venues together is part of it, and obviously you can construct all three concurrently,” he says.

As for the green space, Allan backed up Edwards’ claim that there would be a net increase under the Archipelago proposal.

The reason? Additional green space gained by building over the Inner City Bypass and the rail line at the south-east of the site.

“It’s basically in sections, so you can link Victoria Park with the parkland on the other side where the Centenary Pool sits, and that more than offsets the footprints of the three stadiums,” he says.

“Obviously, the pool isn’t huge. The arena isn’t huge, either. The stadium is the biggest one, but that [ICB and rail covering] more than offsets the size.”

 

[peetoo]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...n-premier-s-short-shrift-20240418-p5fku9.html

Victoria Park could save us $1.1b, so it deserves better than premier’s short shrift

A witness called to last week’s Senate inquiry into Olympic Games preparedness may well have blown up the state government’s rationale for its contentious stadium selection for Brisbane 2032.

Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards told the inquiry three Olympic venues – a main stadium of between 60,000 and 80,000 seats, an inner-city arena and a permanent aquatic centre – could be built at Victoria Park for $3.4 billion.

It would result in 60 hectares of green space, Edwards said, which would be an improvement on the site’s 56 hectares of available green space (more on that later).

Having already scrapped plans to rebuild the Gabba, Premier Steven Miles rejected the main recommendation of the Graham Quirk-led venues review. That review, which Miles commissioned, recommended a new stadium be built at Victoria Park.

Edwards told the inquiry the $3.4 billion costing had been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo.

As it happened, I was invited to Arcadis’ Brisbane office to meet with the company’s global cities director John Batten, who was in town on a lightning visit last week.

While there, Arcadis Brisbane chief Paul Allan told me while the report they prepared for Archipelago was confidential, he could confirm Edwards’ $3.4 billion figure stacked up.

So how is this possible? How could Brisbane get three venues for less than the price of two?

Allan said having the venues in the same place created numerous efficiencies.

“Having the venues together is part of it, and obviously you can construct all three concurrently,” he says.

As for the green space, Allan backed up Edwards’ claim that there would be a net increase under the Archipelago proposal.

The reason? Additional green space gained by building over the Inner City Bypass and the rail line at the south-east of the site.

“It’s basically in sections, so you can link Victoria Park with the parkland on the other side where the Centenary Pool sits, and that more than offsets the footprints of the three stadiums,” he says.

“Obviously, the pool isn’t huge. The arena isn’t huge, either. The stadium is the biggest one, but that [ICB and rail covering] more than offsets the size.”

Build over a train line? Let’s get one in Melbourne. Very cheap apparently LOL

 

[weewilly]

It is so demented and perverse

He is happy to "tick off" on $1.6 million being spent on a temporary stadium with no legacy but not be even party to a stadium the city actually needs

Coates has always been selfish nasty piece of work full of his own BS and is now way past his used by date and his opinion should carry no weight at all and don't forget he was a high ranking Olympic official when all the bribery was going on.

 

[weewilly]

Premier Miles will be gone at the election later in the year as the Liberals will win easily so what ever he says ATM amounts to nothing!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Coates has always been selfish nasty piece of work full of his own BS and is now way past his used by date and his opinion should carry no weight at all and don't forget he was a high ranking Olympic official when all the bribery was going on.

With all due respect, the dodgiest bribery stuff happened under Juan Antonio Samaranch's Presidency which was between 1980 and 2001 and it was up to Jacques Rogge to start cleaning it up. Coates was made an IOC member in 2001 because of the glowing success of Sydney after the toilet games that was Atlanta.

Yes Coates is a prick, selfish, arrogant and is very politically driven, but there is no way Brisbane gets its "winter" Olympics in 2032 without him being a senior IOC member.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...n-premier-s-short-shrift-20240418-p5fku9.html

Victoria Park could save us $1.1b, so it deserves better than premier’s short shrift

A witness called to last week’s Senate inquiry into Olympic Games preparedness may well have blown up the state government’s rationale for its contentious stadium selection for Brisbane 2032.

Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards told the inquiry three Olympic venues – a main stadium of between 60,000 and 80,000 seats, an inner-city arena and a permanent aquatic centre – could be built at Victoria Park for $3.4 billion.

It would result in 60 hectares of green space, Edwards said, which would be an improvement on the site’s 56 hectares of available green space (more on that later).

Having already scrapped plans to rebuild the Gabba, Premier Steven Miles rejected the main recommendation of the Graham Quirk-led venues review. That review, which Miles commissioned, recommended a new stadium be built at Victoria Park.

Edwards told the inquiry the $3.4 billion costing had been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo.

As it happened, I was invited to Arcadis’ Brisbane office to meet with the company’s global cities director John Batten, who was in town on a lightning visit last week.

While there, Arcadis Brisbane chief Paul Allan told me while the report they prepared for Archipelago was confidential, he could confirm Edwards’ $3.4 billion figure stacked up.

So how is this possible? How could Brisbane get three venues for less than the price of two?

Allan said having the venues in the same place created numerous efficiencies.

“Having the venues together is part of it, and obviously you can construct all three concurrently,” he says.

As for the green space, Allan backed up Edwards’ claim that there would be a net increase under the Archipelago proposal.

The reason? Additional green space gained by building over the Inner City Bypass and the rail line at the south-east of the site.

“It’s basically in sections, so you can link Victoria Park with the parkland on the other side where the Centenary Pool sits, and that more than offsets the footprints of the three stadiums,” he says.

“Obviously, the pool isn’t huge. The arena isn’t huge, either. The stadium is the biggest one, but that [ICB and rail covering] more than offsets the size.”

This is starting to make sense of the construction costs.

I haven't been able to get my head around the blow out in construction costs to have a new 60k to 80k stadium built on a green field site to cost $3.4bil, over 3 times what it cost to build Perth Stadium's 60k seater and yes the Perth Stadium figure is using 2015-17 $$$ and costs.

As I posted at #110 in this thread, the actual cost of building Perth Stadium wasn't the $1.6bil often quoted in the media.

It was a public private partnership, the stadium/construction entity would finance the upfront capital cost with the government making capital payments, about 60% before completion, and about 40%, after the stadium was finished, but over several years, and the total figure included 25 years maintenance expenses paid to the stadium/construction entity and the train and transport infrastructure, the bridge and other infrastructure costs. The 2015 budget was;

Capital Costs...... $894.5m
Operating costs... $317.9m
Transport + other $358.6m

The final cost reported in the 2018 WA government's - Special Inquiry into Government Programs and Projects

Capital Costs...... $955.4m
Operating costs... $317.9m
Transport + other $418.2m
Total.................$1,691.5m

So $955mil for 60,000 seats = approx $16,000 per seat for costs between 2015-17.

So $30,000 a seat seems more realistic than $50,000 a seat 12 years later. I am assuming construction would start in 2027 and be finished around 2030, giving 2 years to test the stadium as opposed to 18 months Stadium Australia was completed before the Sydney Olympics.

So these costings of $3.4bil by Archipelago are for
a) a 60k-80k stadium
b) a 17,000 indoor arena instead of the Roma Street proposal and
c) a new aquatic centre to replace the Chandler Aquatic Centre upgrade which in the Olympic Bid book said would have 4,300 spectators, which is a long way from the 17,000 in Sydney, of which 12,000 were temporary seats. Tokyo did the same sort of thing, a 15,000 capacity during the games, but 5,000 permanent capacity.

If this is accurate, as the story says - " they have been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo," then you can see a newly elected government in October, doing a 100 day review once it gets into power, going for this sport of proposal.

 

[Walshawk]

Not sure why they are shooting for 60k - 80k? 50k is enough and would reduce costs significantly.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not sure why they are shooting for 60k - 80k? 50k is enough and would reduce costs significantly.

A new stadium should last 50+ years.

Brisbane's population is expected to be 4.2m in 2050 so its capacity will be used.

80k might mean Brisbane regularly hosts an NRL GF.

 

[Walshawk]

A new stadium should last 50+ years.

Brisbane's population is expected to be 4.2m in 2050 so its capacity will be used.

80k might mean Brisbane regularly hosts an NRL GF.

Not in an oval stadium.

Melbourne might get to 8m but it doesn’t mean we should build a 150k stadium.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not in an oval stadium.

Melbourne might get to 8m but it doesn’t mean we should build a 150k stadium.

How many games of footy and cricket, plus other sports and concerts, does the MCG get between 80k -90k and not 100k annually?

Same with an 80k stadium, over a 50 year period in a city that is growing as fast if not faster than any of the metro capitals, you might get 10-15 events each year that has between 60k-70k.

 

[Walshawk]

How many games of footy and cricket, plus other sports and concerts, does the MCG get between 80k -90k and not 100k annually?

Same with an 80k stadium, over a 50 year period in a city that is growing as fast if not faster than any of the metro capitals, you might get 10-15 events each year that has between 60k-70k.

The second and third biggest sports in Brisbane simply are not going to ever get an 80k stadium to use when the main sport only has a 52k stadium.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The second and third biggest sports in Brisbane simply are not going to ever get an 80k stadium to use when the main sport only has a 52k stadium.

80k capacity was the stadium that was proposed for Albion, 3 train stops NE of central station for a couple of years, as late as February/March 2021.

80k is basically the capacity of the State de France and the LA Coliseum for athletics and Hollywood Park/ SoFi Stadium in LA will be used for the ceremonies.

Tokyo National Stadium is a 68k stadium for athletics but when they place movable seats for soccer and rugby on the track its an 80k stadium.

Rio was the first to split the athletics and ceremonies. The Maracana was about 78k and Botafogo's home ground with an athletics track around it had a capacity of 47k which was upgraded to 61k for athletics.

London had an 80k stadium, Beijing had a 90k stadium. Athens was 75k.

In May 2021 the IOC said they would accept downsized facilities and 60k for the main stadium. Then Coates and the Qld government worked on getting the IOC to accept 50k because noway could the Gabba be upgraded to 60k on the land area and constraints the Gabba is built on. And the Cross River Rail project which started in 2020 would have a big train station at Woolloongabba and light rail connects to it.

A 50k stadium for an Olympic city was always bullshit. Coates did what he could to get Oz another games before his time as #2 at the IOC finishes. Covid helped, other cities were gun shy.

The 2032 Olympics should have been awarded in September 2025 like they have given 7 years lead time since Barcelona got the games. But The Paris/LA double awarding in 2017, because both bids were so good, the IOC didn't want to put both bidding teams thru another process, opened up the door for Coates and Brisbane to go early.

Could you imagine Brisbane trying to make a bid now for 2032, even though they would have another 17 months to get it right.

When Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards released his proposal to the Sunday Mail / Courier Mail, just before the Venues Review was released, he said it was for a 70k stadium. Now he talks about a 60k to 80k stadium. I don't know if he is hedging his bets or why the change.

Its a better proposal than the Gabba, Lang Park or the QSAC. If the Queensland government wants to spend the money on an 80k stadium, then that's for them to work out. It's not my taxpayer dollars funding it.

But if you build it at 80k then the owner / venue manger will go and try and find events to fill it up or try and get to 85%-90% capacity.

Take today, ANZAC day, if Australian Rugby Union put on a test between the Wallabies and All Blacks at a 80k Victoria Park stadium, at say 7pm, they would sell it out. 20,000+ Kiwis would fly in, just like they have when a game is at the MCG or Stadium Australia.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

The Gabba is done. Hemmed in on all four sides with very little room to expand. It is though worth a fortune being in the position it is. Surely it ain't rocket surgery to sell it off to offset the cost of a sports precinct at Victoria Park? Build a brand new, state-of-the-art multipurpose 65k stadium, aquatics facility and whatever else is needed that will serve Brisbane for the next 50 - 100 years. Reactivate the branch of rail from Roma Street and have stops at Kelvin Grove Rd, Vic Park, Exhibition and on to Bowen Hills.

Just seems to make both short term and long term sense.

 

[sprucemoooose]

But if you build it at 80k then the owner / venue manger will go and try and find events to fill it up or try and get to 85%-90% capacity.

Or you could build a world class 60k stadium that is easy to fill up and not have to attempt to find these mythical events that will fill the last 20k seats in an 80k stadium a few times a year.

That would line up with global stadium architecture trends in the last 15 years where it's less about putting in as many seats as possible and more about making sure every seat is decent and the in stadium experience is high quality.

 

[peetoo]

Or you could build a world class 60k stadium that is easy to fill up and not have to attempt to find these mythical events that will fill the last 20k seats in an 80k stadium a few times a year.

That would line up with global stadium architecture trends in the last 15 years where it's less about putting in as many seats as possible and more about making sure every seat is decent and the in stadium experience is high quality.

That’s all good but soccer where this is the thinking, kids miss out as it’s a significant financial impost to have season tickets

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The second and third biggest sports in Brisbane simply are not going to ever get an 80k stadium to use when the main sport only has a 52k stadium.

True, but it could get a 55k stadium, that's achievable.

The Gabba is done. Hemmed in on all four sides with very little room to expand. It is though worth a fortune being in the position it is. Surely it ain't rocket surgery to sell it off to offset the cost of a sports precinct at Victoria Park? Build a brand new, state-of-the-art multipurpose 65k stadium, aquatics facility and whatever else is needed that will serve Brisbane for the next 50 - 100 years. Reactivate the branch of rail from Roma Street and have stops at Kelvin Grove Rd, Vic Park, Exhibition and on to Bowen Hills.

Just seems to make both short term and long term sense.

I agree with you on pretty much all points, but there's a reason both major parties have ruled out any new sites and Victoria Park in particular - they're politically unpopular. The public are against high headline figures for stadium construction during a cost of living crisis, and while I think that's incredibly short sighted, it's also understandable. There's been an explosion in the number of homeless people in the last couple of years in Brisbane, and people are quite justifiably asking why we would spend billions on a stadium but not on new housing (and while it's true to say that not spending big on a stadium is not going to lead to that money going into housing, the optics are extremely poor, and the government should have explained to the public that they have the money and political will to do both). Removing public parkland for a stadium is also an awful look politically, no matter how few people are actually using it.

This shows the extreme timidity of both sides of politics in Queensland right now. They're both too afraid to make a good long term decision because they're s**t scared of losing votes. I can sort of understand this from Labor's perspective since they're getting thrashed in opinion polls, but the LNP seem scared for no good reason. I hope they go back on their promise of no new stadium site, but it's a foolish promise to make when it looks like they're going to walk into office at the next election regardless. They're just digging a hole for themselves.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Or you could build a world class 60k stadium that is easy to fill up and not have to attempt to find these mythical events that will fill the last 20k seats in an 80k stadium a few times a year.

That would line up with global stadium architecture trends in the last 15 years where it's less about putting in as many seats as possible and more about making sure every seat is decent and the in stadium experience is high quality.

The push to lower stadium capacity, the bigger isn't better thinking, started with NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue in the early 1990s when he pushed hard for new stadiums and major stadium redevelopments, the NFL setting up a Stadium Fund the teams could draw from, and working with guys like Rick Horrow to convince municipal and state governments to provide significant portions of funding for the benefit of privately owned NFL teams.

He also used the lure of hosting a Super Bowl if the city/state helps to build a new stadium. The one thing the AFL don't like to copy from the NFL model.

So yes, most NFL stadiums are between 65k and 75k with maybe 2 or 3 less than 65k and a couple at 80k. They went for better and more spacious and expensive corporate facilities to help finance new stadiums, more media space as more media became accredited, wider seats as the population got bigger and more space between each row, with the over all aim to improve spectator viewing and gameday experience. The rest of the sporting world then copied the NFL model for stadiums.

Indoor arenas started doing this as well, but going the other way, bumping up from 15k capacity to 20k capacity.

But not everywhere. Do you reckon the MCC will take up your suggestion and knock down the Shane Warne stand and only build a 25,000 seat stand and reduce capacity to 75,000k?

And what is this mythical events stuff?

A Rugby Union Test vs the All Blacks in Oz isn't a mythical event. 3 Test match series haven't happened in Oz for maybe 30 years. So its about hosting one off tests. An 80k Brisbane stadium is more likely to get hosting rights over an 83k Sydney stadium and the MCG, than a 60k stadium or the current 52k stadium.

Big Euro soccer clubs playing in Oz during their off season isn't a mythical event. An 80k Brisbane stadium is more likely to get hosting rights over an 83k Sydney stadium and the MCG, than a 60k stadium or the current 52k stadium.

A State of Origin game in Queensland every year isn't a mythical event. The NRL and QRL would prefer to make more $$$ and play a game at an 80k stadium than a 60k stadium or the current 52k stadium, even though it will be an oval ( like Stadium Oz and MCG) not a rectangle stadium.

Taylor Swift concerts aren't mythical events. Instead of performing 4 concerts at an 83k stadium in Sydney, she might move 1 or 2 of them to an 80k stadium in Brisbane, or just add another 1 or 2 shows in Brisbane to her schedule.

 

[weewilly]

The Gabba is done. Hemmed in on all four sides with very little room to expand. It is though worth a fortune being in the position it is. Surely it ain't rocket surgery to sell it off to offset the cost of a sports precinct at Victoria Park? Build a brand new, state-of-the-art multipurpose 65k stadium, aquatics facility and whatever else is needed that will serve Brisbane for the next 50 - 100 years. Reactivate the branch of rail from Roma Street and have stops at Kelvin Grove Rd, Vic Park, Exhibition and on to Bowen Hills.

Just seems to make both short term and long term sense.

True, but it could get a 55k stadium, that's achievable.


I agree with you on pretty much all points, but there's a reason both major parties have ruled out any new sites and Victoria Park in particular - they're politically unpopular. The public are against high headline figures for stadium construction during a cost of living crisis, and while I think that's incredibly short sighted, it's also understandable. There's been an explosion in the number of homeless people in the last couple of years in Brisbane, and people are quite justifiably asking why we would spend billions on a stadium but not on new housing (and while it's true to say that not spending big on a stadium is not going to lead to that money going into housing, the optics are extremely poor, and the government should have explained to the public that they have the money and political will to do both). Removing public parkland for a stadium is also an awful look politically, no matter how few people are actually using it.

This shows the extreme timidity of both sides of politics in Queensland right now. They're both too afraid to make a good long term decision because they're s**t scared of losing votes. I can sort of understand this from Labor's perspective since they're getting thrashed in opinion polls, but the LNP seem scared for no good reason. I hope they go back on their promise of no new stadium site, but it's a foolish promise to make when it looks like they're going to walk into office at the next election regardless. They're just digging a hole for themselves.

Typical of QLD's history it should with all its natural assets be one one of the powerhouse States but it is not and there are historical political reasons for that which continue to this day!

It is obvious that the the Gabba is past its used by date and in the wrong position and should be knocked down and be replaced by an oval 55 - 60 seater like both Perth and Adelaide have which are both smaller cities than Brisbane already.
But will any QLD govt have the balls to do it and that is the big question?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It is obvious that the the Gabba is past its used by date and in the wrong position and should be knocked down and be replaced by an oval 55 - 60 seater like both Perth and Adelaide have which are both smaller cities than Brisbane already.

To be fair, an oval sport is the biggest code in Perth and Adelaide, but not in Brisbane. So building a shiny new stadium for oval sports is not the vote winner in Brisbane that it is in those cities.