Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[Nuggs Bunny]

I get that, but surely you can make do for at least the next 20 years.

You could build a massive dock on the south side of the oval with bars/restaurants etc, maybe a big car park underneath to help with congestion, and increase traffic via ferries from the city.

The location is achievable, but challenging.

Do all that, and you're looking at way more than $700m

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's worse, Williamstown at least has a railway line to the CBD. More like Point Cook.

The best comparison is old Arctic Park. No train line, no amenities, took an hour to get out of the parking lot and was literally an hour out of the CBD with all of the traffic getting to the ground. The one thing Waverley had over Bellerive though is it did actually have room for people to park.

 

[HBFlanker]

Do all that, and you're looking at way more than $700m

The stadium being proposed at Mac Point will be closer to $1.5 Billion.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

The stadium being proposed at Mac Point will be closer to $1.5 Billion.

Depends if is has a Rectratable roof

 

[HBFlanker]

Depends if is has a Rectratable roof

Which it will.

Just a huge waste of money. For a 23k seat stadium.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The stadium being proposed at Mac Point will be closer to $1.5 Billion.

Source?

 

[parano1a]

The money should be spent on public housing and hospital beds.

If it wasn't spent on a stadium in TAS it would be probably spent on a stadium in NSW instead.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Source?

Almost every budget overruns for major projects. Perth Stadium's budget overran. I don't know if it'll overrun by as much as the poster claims, but I'd be shocked if it actually got done for close to $700m. This also doesn't factor in the public transport line they're proposing to build to get people to the stadium, which will be another $500m. To be fair that public transport line would make logistical sense even without a stadium at Mac Point.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Source?

Almost every budget overruns for major projects. Perth Stadium's budget overran. I don't know if it'll overrun by as much as the poster claims, but I'd be shocked if it actually got done for close to $700m. This also doesn't factor in the public transport line they're proposing to build to get people to the stadium, which will be another $500m. To be fair that public transport line would make logistical sense even without a stadium at Mac Point.

Surely the $715 mlion includes a Rectratable roof otherwise that is an incredibly expensive stadium for just 23,000.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

The stadium being proposed at Mac Point will be closer to $1.5 Billion.

So I take it your a engineer and expert stadium designer ??

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Almost every budget overruns for major projects. Perth Stadium's budget overran. I don't know if it'll overrun by as much as the poster claims, but I'd be shocked if it actually got done for close to $700m. This also doesn't factor in the public transport line they're proposing to build to get people to the stadium, which will be another $500m. To be fair that public transport line would make logistical sense even without a stadium at Mac Point.

Major infrastructure projects yes, major commercial builds not so much as there's less interface with other stakeholders, generally a better understanding of the project area before contract award and the client-contractor arrangement to resolve issues or design changes is typically more flexible in the commercial space. So, it's not really the sort of project you can put down for a huge loss on the basis that all big jobs lose money. The biggest risk is probably if they get there and the ground is complete shit, maybe it's a possibility idk I've never worked in Tassie before but there's also a few other tall buildings with basements in the area.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Major infrastructure projects yes, major commercial builds not so much as there's less interface with other stakeholders, generally a better understanding of the project area before contract award and the client-contractor arrangement to resolve issues or design changes is typically more flexible in the commercial space. So, it's not really the sort of project you can put down for a huge loss on the basis that all big jobs lose money. The biggest risk is probably if they get there and the ground is complete s**t, maybe it's a possibility idk I've never worked in Tassie before but there's also a few other tall buildings with basements in the area.

In theory it's all good. In practice, stadium builds often come in over budget.

Cost of new Sydney stadium revealed

A new Sydney sports stadium hosting its first game tomorrow has been confirmed as costing a total of $874m after coming in at 20 per cent over budget.

indaily.com.au

North Queensland Stadium blow-out to cost taxpayers millions

Townsville’s new stadium is running over budget by tens of millions of dollars.

www.9news.com.au

Optus Stadium almost double the Barnett budget

The new stadium has cost the Government and taxpayers at least $1.8 billion - which is almost double the original budget.

thewest.com.au

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

In theory it's all good. In practice, stadium builds often come in over budget.

Cost of new Sydney stadium revealed

A new Sydney sports stadium hosting its first game tomorrow has been confirmed as costing a total of $874m after coming in at 20 per cent over budget.

indaily.com.au

North Queensland Stadium blow-out to cost taxpayers millions

Townsville’s new stadium is running over budget by tens of millions of dollars.

www.9news.com.au

Optus Stadium almost double the Barnett budget

The new stadium has cost the Government and taxpayers at least $1.8 billion - which is almost double the original budget.

thewest.com.au

So back to the original post, not sure where we're getting a cost increase of double the budget when the highest example you've provided there is Optus stadium costing $955m and being budgeted for $700m. As I said, swings like that are possible for infrastructure jobs, less so for commercial builds.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

So back to the original post, not sure where we're getting a cost increase of double the budget when the highest example you've provided there is Optus stadium costing $955m and being budgeted for $700m. As I said, swings like that are possible for infrastructure jobs, less so for commercial builds.

And as I said, "I don't know if it'll overrun by as much as the poster claims, but I'd be shocked if it actually got done for close to $700m."

 

[sherb]

Hope it falls over. The money should be spent on public housing and hospital beds. Fck the bread and circuses

You can make that argument for any non-essential capital expenditure though.

 

[#23 Hill]

You can make that argument for any non-essential capital expenditure though.

Yes. Essentials should be the government's priority. That said if they taxed the multinationals at a higher rate they could afford both.

 

[Cleric]

I think the way they have planed the stadium is just right. 25-27k capacity will make tickets worth competing for, and having a roof is a must. It's too cold in Winter down there, and when you do have a small capacity stadium you need to fill it every week.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I think the way they have planed the stadium is just right. 25-27k capacity will make tickets worth competing for, and having a roof is a must. It's too cold in Winter down there, and when you do have a small capacity stadium you need to fill it every week.

The stadium will only hold 23,000 and winter is actually relatively mild for a lot of the winter down Hobart and it's rarely overly bad.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Labour leader Rebecca White has this morning confirmed that labour will do everything they can to axe this stadium and she believes a state election at years end is very likely.

 

[Bevoman]

Labour leader Rebecca White has this morning confirmed that labour will do everything they can to axe this stadium and she believes a state election at years end is very likely.

Nothing to do with footy; it is a North verse South issue; where the North part of the Island traditionally do not support money being spent in Hobart.
Tassie people are very parochial. The opposition is just from Launceston, it also includes the North-West; Burnie, Devonport etc.

That is why North play in Hobart; the locals complained about the Hawks having games up north in Lonnie.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Nothing to do with footy; it is a North verse South issue; where the North part of the Island traditionally do not support money being spent in Hobart.
Tassie people are very parochial. The opposition is just from Launceston, it also includes the North-West; Burnie, Devonport etc.

That is why North play in Hobart; the locals complained about the Hawks having games up north in Lonnie.

Yes I know all about the North South divide,I live in Northern Tasmania and they are very parochial up here.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Nothing to do with footy; it is a North verse South issue; where the North part of the Island traditionally do not support money being spent in Hobart.
Tassie people are very parochial. The opposition is just from Launceston, it also includes the North-West; Burnie, Devonport etc.

That is why North play in Hobart; the locals complained about the Hawks having games up north in Lonnie.

Hobart also has a huge amount of Boomers and Greenies who are notoriously anti-development. Funnily enough, the Premier and Deputy who are clearly pro-stadium are from the North West and North of the state, respectfully, while the strongest voices in politics against the stadium are largely from the South, such as White, O’Connor, Wilkie and Reynolds. Playing to their base as they usually do.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Absurd idea to build a brand new stadium in a city of 250k people, when they have a perfectly good stadium across the river.

Just a blatant waste of money. The cost will blow out to well over $1B and that is ludicrous in todays market.

Spend 300 million on Bellerive, Spend the 150 million on Launie and spend 250 million on upgrading a third stadium in Melbourne and we are good to go

Do you really think the government has spent years commissioning business cases and feasibility studies without considering this as an option?

A Blundstone redevelopment was investigated and promptly ruled out as a possibility for a range of reasons: Lack of seating, inability to expand, residential area resulting in noise restrictions for certain events and limits to nighttime events, a lack of corporate facilities, inadequate broadcast facilities, poor road access leading to congestion, a lack of connections to public transport, distance from accommodation and hospitality establishments. Furthermore, the feasibility study determined that having a Tasmanian team based at this venue would hurt the club’s bottom line and jeopardise its financial viability. It was therefore determined that it could only serve as a home ground for a maximum of several seasons before the club shifted to a modern, inner-city location - Mac Point was the highest rating of 5 sites surveyed. The documents containing all of this information can be found online if you bother to look.

Blundstone is not a perfectly good stadium. Anyone who says that it is, is either lying, uninformed, or both.

 

[Gak Attack]

Nothing to do with footy; it is a North verse South issue; where the North part of the Island traditionally do not support money being spent in Hobart.
Tassie people are very parochial. The opposition is just from Launceston, it also includes the North-West; Burnie, Devonport etc.

That is why North play in Hobart; the locals complained about the Hawks having games up north in Lonnie.

Load of rubbish. The South have actually been the most vocal about it or at least a loud minority there.

The two politicians have made the move for purely selfish reasons.

While there is definitely a feeling of what a waste of money in the North and North West the strongest opposition has definitely come from Hobart residents themselves and the two parties that are very south member heavy. In fairness Hobart is also feeling things like the heath and housing crisis more too.

 

[HBFlanker]

Do you really think the government has spent years commissioning business cases and feasibility studies without considering this as an option?

A Blundstone redevelopment was investigated and promptly ruled out as a possibility for a range of reasons: Lack of seating, inability to expand, residential area resulting in noise restrictions for certain events and limits to nighttime events, a lack of corporate facilities, inadequate broadcast facilities, poor road access leading to congestion, a lack of connections to public transport, distance from accommodation and hospitality establishments. Furthermore, the feasibility study determined that having a Tasmanian team based at this venue would hurt the club’s bottom line and jeopardise its financial viability. It was therefore determined that it could only serve as a home ground for a maximum of several seasons before the club shifted to a modern, inner-city location - Mac Point was the highest rating of 5 sites surveyed. The documents containing all of this information can be found online if you bother to look.

Blundstone is not a perfectly good stadium. Anyone who says that it is, is either lying, uninformed, or both.

Fair calls here. If the feasibility study identified issues with the stadium being conducive to a Tasmanian teams viability then thats all that needs to occur.

Clarence city council sitting on an absolute goldmine with Blundstone Arena. The precinct could be sold for commercial/housing in a similar way to Waverley was, once all sport is gone from the venue.