March 31, 2025 • 18 mins
The so-called ‘stadium wars’ in Auckland have been raging quietly behind the scenes for several years now.
But last week, the battle popped up in public once again, with Auckland Council voting to throw its support behind a plan to upgrade Eden Park, over the proposed new stadium on the city’s waterfront.
Eden Park may have won on the day, but questions remain over how the upgrades will be funded, while the Government still needs to weigh in on which project to support.
NZ Herald sports writer Michael Burgess has been following these discussions for over a decade, and joins us today on The Front Page to dig into what this latest vote means in the long-term.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Dan Goodwin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Gilda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The so
called stadium wars in Auckland have been raging quietly.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Behind the scenes for several years now.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
But last week the battle popped up in the public
once again, with Auckland Council voting to throw at support
behind a plan to upgrade Eden Park over the proposed
new stadium on the city's waterfront. Eden Park may have
won on the day, but questions remain over how the
upgrades will be funded, while the government still needs to
(00:46):
weigh in on which project to support ends at. Herald
sports writer Michael Burgess has been following these discussions for
over a decade and joins us today on the Front
Page to dig into what this latest.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Vote means in the long term.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
So, Michael, what did Auckland Council vote on last week
with regards to the stadiums.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Well, they were sort of a sort of a halfway
house really. They decided to partly endorse Eden Park's proposal,
So it's not the full endorsement. They're not saying hey,
you can go ahead and do everything you want. They're
saying that, look, we think you might be the best option,
and we're going to endorse heart one, but there's no
(01:29):
money for it. So it's a bit like, you know,
you're having this great plan to turn your villa into
all these apartments and the developer saying, look, we'll let
you do the garage. That's sort of about it at
the moment. So it was a funny, really funny situation, Chelsea,
because it feels like they still haven't completely made their
(01:49):
mind up. But I guess you can interpret it in
the first instance as a slight vote of confidence in
eden Park's proposal, but it's still contingent on so many things,
especially the fact that there's no money for it, so
they still need money from somewhere, and of course now
they're talking about money from the.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Government, right, So they vote really doesn't do much beyond
I guess signaling to the government which one they should back.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Yeah, I mean, that's right. And the thing is the
government's also tried to stay out of this as well.
The government has sort of said, well, wait a minute,
this is an Auckland thing, this is a council thing.
We may get involved with some legislation with some fast
tracking we might help in the future, but Auckland, this
is really this is your baby. So that's what is
(02:34):
kind of confusing about all this. It feels to me
like Auckland Council are still not completely sure. You know,
they're not completely sure about Eden Park if it is
actually completely viable. They're not sure about Key Park. So
I do wonder if it might have been smarter to say, hey,
we still need a bit more time. But I also
understand that people are perhaps tired of hearing that the
(02:56):
council needs more time and the council wanted to be
seed to be making a definitive decision.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Are we not actually selling ourselves short by not asking,
not taking the time to allow a business case to
be looked at by both parties as leaders.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
When it's taken approach based on evidence, based on rational planning,
it should actually be kind of as boring as we
can make it out to be, rather than fiery speeches
about this and that.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
In my view, in some ways, I'm wondering, what is
that decision today and what outcome does it achieve.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I certainly cannot, for the life of me, understand what
it is we're doing here.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Nothing is absolutely deadly dead as a result of this.
But I think that we're injecting a bit of oxygen
into one of them.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
This is kind of like the firmer.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Of a couple of evils, and I'm quite comfortable with it.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
So neither plan is necessarily alive or dead. So that's
a bit of an odd vote, don't you.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
Think it is a bit odd?
Speaker 3 (04:09):
I think Wayne Brown summed it up when he said that,
you know, we've injected a bit of oxygen into Eden Park.
So he's saying that, you know, we're keeping them alive
and they're a good chance. But it's not the end
of the road for Key Park. The interesting thing was
the council and their report came in and said, look,
we like a lot of things that Key Park could
(04:29):
do in terms of the regeneration of the downtown, the
economic benefits. We think it's technically feasible, it's environmentally feasible.
But they just don't. The council has doubts if Key
Park can deliver. In other words, can they raise all
the money they say they're going to raise from the precinct.
Can they raise all the money from their apartments the
(04:51):
hotels to pay for the Steatum. That's the main council doubt,
and that's fair enough. But the thing that's confusing is
they haven't had the same microscope on eden Park in
terms of where's eden Park's money coming from. Because the
whole point of this process Chelsea back in September twenty
twenty three when it started. I mean, this goes back
to twenty twelve, but we won't go into that. Back
(05:13):
in September twenty twenty three, the council's whole point of
this was that the stadiums had to come up with
proposals that didn't need public money, neither government nor council,
ratepayers nor taxpayers. And Eden Park still hasn't passed that bar.
You know, they still need this one hundred and ten
million for the first phase of their proposal and who
(05:34):
knows how many more hundreds of millions for the other
phases because they haven't proven that there's any private investment.
So that's where when you talk about doubt over both,
I think that's where the doubt, the major doubts still
lose over eden Park.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
So if we had to declare a winner here, I
guess it'd have to be Eden Park, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
What exactly are they proposing?
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Well, so, yeah, they've stepped back.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Their initial Eden Park two point zero was a big
bells and whistles new roof, new stands. They scaled that
back a bit over more than a year ago to
call it at Epark two point one, which reduced the
cost a little bit and was a bit more about
upgrades rather than new stands. What they're doing now, which
is quite smart in a way, is they're trying to
(06:16):
make it more palatable. So they're saying, hey, we're going
to do this in three stages. The first stage is
a little upgrade of the North stand which brings fans
closer for rugby matches but also allows them to have
an oval for cricket matches. And then they've got two
more phases, which they're being a bit not completely clear
about the costs. They're still talking about a roof, which
they're saying will cost around three hundred million or that.
(06:38):
Most people have doubts about that figure because a roof
over Eden Park with its four existing grand stands is
a major project, so let's see where that cost goes.
But I think their strategy is really let's get Phase
one done, approved and funded, and then by that stage
it's pretty hard to go back, isn't it. You know,
(06:58):
once you've started on this student, it's hard to go
back and say, now, actually we do want to pursue
another option on the water frontal downtown. So it's quite
a clever strategy for Meadom Park. Whether it's the best
strategy for Auckland as a whole, that's probably a bigger question.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
With improvements to the East and West stands and a
new pedestrian butch bringing traveling fans right to our doorstep,
a new north stand transforms the park into the ultimate
theater and a retractable roof.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
She turns that theater into.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
A fortress, a fortress with the ingrandest of entries for
the grandest of occasions, and the flexibility to host every event.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
It kind of feels like Eden Park has just got
their Pinterest board open to the public, because we all
go shopping on Pinterest, don't we for ideas for our
houses when we don't have any money?
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Is that kind of the thing here?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
They're like, look, this is all what what we want
to do, but actually we don't have the money for it.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
But here's what we want to do. Let's get excited
about it anyway.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Yeah, that's a good point. They're sort of trying to
get the public excited. And you know, as always with
the stadium things, Chelsea, the plans and the pictures look great,
but I think you know, as a rate payer, as
a taxpayer, all of us, we've all poured tens of
millions as rate payers and hundreds of millions as taxpayers
(08:26):
into Eden Park, and that's where you would start to question,
why why is everyone still pouring money into it and
park when it's a private stadium owned by a private trust,
with no money that comes back to the council or
to any of us. So that's sort of the overriding question,
and that's why the council insisted that no public money
(08:48):
should or very little public money should go into any
of these proposals, because there's a view that, hey, the
city doesn't have any money at the moment and that's
not likely to change in the future. But yeah, Eden
Park is certainly trying to drum up interest, support and excitement.
As you say. The other big advantage Reading Park, of course,
is they're already there. You know, it's a stadium that's there,
(09:10):
it's a safe bet. It's got the history, it's got
all the wonderful memories of all the sports events and
entertainment that's been on that ground over the years, and
that of course is a key thing in their favor.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So currently you get rugby, cricket, football and occasionally league
at Eden Park. Would any other sports be able to
go there under this proposal, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Not really no, I think they're the core ones that wouldn't.
There's no proposal, for example, to build an athletics track
or something which you know could bring in some other options.
I think the fact they're still trying to keep cricket
is interesting because that does bring pros and cons. It
certainly isn't great for the rugby and the codes that
need a rectangular field, which is what a lot of
(09:52):
sports people are sort of interested in. I think the
other question around this, though, Chelsea, is the fact that
the major teams in all Cland don't play at Eden Park,
and they don't particularly want to play at Eden Park.
I know the Warriors for a fact, they're not interested
in playing at eden Park. They've been word by eden
Park for years, but they don't want to leave Mount Smart.
They've said they won't leave Mount Smart unless there is
(10:14):
a downtown option. That's what they said years ago. Hawk
and the FC, the new football team that everyone's talking
about and they're going so well, they weren't interested in
eden Park. They opted for Mount Smart. They felt eden
Park was too big for them, and even the Blues
who have been there a long time. The last negotiations
with eden Park went on for quite some time before
they agreed to a two year deal. Wasn't like hey,
like I said, for ten years? So that to me
(10:36):
is another question. If you've got these sporting codes that
feel that eden Park doesn't particularly suit them, then how
viable is eden Park as a main stadium for sport?
Speaker 1 (10:47):
And what about concerts?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
I mean, would Taylor Swift to be able to bring
her next tour to eden Park if this proposal is
done by the time the next Era's tour comes around.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Yeah, that's the other big question, isn't it, Because that's
obviously me. Park has pivoted towards concerts. They've been very successful,
They've hosted a lot of concerts and of course they've
got the resource consent now to do a lot more
than in the past. The Taylor Swift film is an
interesting one. I know Nick Sorton have brought that up
quite a bit during her tour to Australia and said, hey, look,
she could have been here. The experts I've talked to
(11:19):
said there was no chance of her coming here because
this wasn't really on her schedule and she already couldn't
fit in more concerts in Australia. So could we host
more concerts because of this proposal, I don't think so.
It's not particularly at the moment going to increase the
capacity or the attraction of Eden Park to potential touring acts.
(11:40):
The other tricky thing with eden Park I think is
that the new christ Jutch Stadium will also change the
equation a bit because the fact that's new, it's quite
a bit easier to stage concerts there. In terms of
the setting up, Eden Park is not a particularly easy
place to set up. They can't work overnight because of
the residents. It takes quite a few days to pack
(12:02):
in and pack out, and they've got to put the
stage on the field on the grass, which which is
also another tricky scenario without going to too many details.
Whereas for example, Melt Smart they've got the big slab
of concrete at one end that the stage goes on,
so they don't need to protect the grass.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
It's a lot less work.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So Eden Park has stage concerts and they will continue
to and it'll be an attraction. But it's also not
completely straightforward. And to answer your first question at the moment,
I don't think it is. This new proposal will open
the door for a million more concerts.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
So the loser here sounds like Tetuanga or the brand
new Auckland Waterfront Stadium water the backers they're proposing.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
And why did it lose out on the day?
Speaker 5 (12:56):
Good question.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Yeah, I mean that's right, it's not I don't I
think it's the end of the road for them.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
You know, they're still alive.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
It could still happen, but this is definitely a setback,
a pretty major setback.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
They were, of course proposing.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
This massive precinct in the I think it's about fifteen
hectacres from memory in the vicinity of Spark Arena on
this old brownfield land madely. They talked about two or
three thousand apartments. They talked about commercial buildings, three or
four hotels, including an all black hotel, and a new stadium.
I guess their issues have been twofold. Number one is
(13:31):
convincing Council they can raise the money. They're saying they've
got a lot of private investment, and certainly the documents
that were presented the Council have shown they've got a
lot of prime investment coming in from overseas. Because people
think this precinct could make money. Stadiums don't make money.
The precincts do, and that's the whole point of it.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Council.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Theoy aren't completely convinced, as we were talking about earlier.
They think that Key Park is being a bit optimistic
in terms of how much money that can make from,
for example, apartments, which would then pay for the stadium.
The second point is there are some complexities with the
Key Part plan because the stadium will have to be
built in an area where there's an existing rollery line.
(14:09):
It is tricky with what they have to do given
the roway liners there, and the stadium has to go
beside it and in parts has to go on top
of it.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
Not easy.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
The backers say that's not insurmountable and that has been
done in other stadiums around the world, so they're quite
relaxed about it. But obviously councils saw that as another obstacle.
But I guess to go back to what we talked
about at the start. The confusing thing about this is
that key part did take a lot of other boxes.
Council omitted that, and it also an option that would
(14:39):
regenerate downtown and also bring in massive economic benefits. So
it's kind of surprising to see that council has seemingly
turned their back on that when the other option doesn't
have the money behind it either.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
It would have.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Maybe been pragmatic to say, look, let's give them both
six more months to prove their business case. But it
and turn out that way.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Big deck Bill who came over here and has got
the football franchise, he is saying he wants to build
like a twenty thousand seat waterfront stadium and maybe around
the Tank Army area.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Yeah, the Tank Farmers.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Is that where the council just vetos Russell Kurtz building
a temporary stand.
Speaker 8 (15:23):
Yes, yeah, because the soil had a petrol of it.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
I could just see. This is so classic New Zealand.
Speaker 8 (15:30):
Someone's coming from outside New Zealand with a bunch of
money and an idea to make our country better.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Oh, hang on, hang on, hang on here, and we
can't do.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
That sporting loyalties assigned.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Michael, do you have a preference of which one you'd
like to see build?
Speaker 5 (15:44):
Well, that's a good question.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
I mean, I think for me, it's not actually about
the stadium, you know, it's about what is best for
the city, and it's about what unlocking the potential of
the city without going into too many cliches, and I
think about.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
What the city might need in fifty year, year or
one hundred years.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I know as Kiwi's Chelsea were not very good at
doing that. The Australians are much better at thinking long term,
as you see.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
With their planning.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
But I just my big thing is what could unlock
the potential of the city, And it seems to me
it's pretty obvious that downtown, the city center is slowly dying.
You know, it's really hard to get people in there,
really hard to drag people into Queen Street, onto the waterfront.
It's not a place that seems to attract people to go.
(16:28):
Businesses are struggling. So I guess the appeal of Key
Park for me was that it's a vehicle. Having that
precint in the stadium there drags people into the city.
You imagine having an all Blacks game, they're having a
concert downtown, Having a big Warriors game on a Sunday
afternoon suddenly got thousands of people in the city spending
their money. They're going to all the bars after the concert,
after the game, and that's something that could actually change
(16:51):
the face of Auckland. So that was what excited me
about Key parkile was possible. Whereas Eden Park, we've seen
that it's got limitations for the sporting codes, it's got
limitations in terms of where it is, and it's certainly
got limitations in terms of the facts that it hasn't
been able to pay for itself. So if you put
those two things beside each other, then you know, it
(17:12):
seems pretty compelling to me that Key Park would have
been quite an exciting option for Auckland as a city
in terms of providing an economic boost for a long,
long term.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, it sounds like the conversation certainly isn't over and
it's not dead in the water yet.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Hey no, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
I don't think the conversation is definitely over, and I
think there's still be a few more twists and turns.
As I said, Charles, have been covering this stadium debate
since twenty twelve, and sometimes I think that actually nothing
has really changed because we're still asking the same questions
that we were back in twenty twelve. I think the
great thing about this process that it has put the
(17:53):
microscope on what we want, what's possible. It's put the
microscope on Eden Park, the microscope on the other proposals, which.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Has actually been a good thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
So there has been some positive stuff to come out
of this proposal, and I think the next step, as
you say, will be fascinating in terms of, hey, what
is the next chapter, what.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Are we going to do?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot enz. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Seals. Dan Goodwin is the sound engineer.
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio
(18:38):
or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines.
Gilda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The so
called stadium wars in Auckland have been raging quietly.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Behind the scenes for several years now.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
But last week the battle popped up in the public
once again, with Auckland Council voting to throw at support
behind a plan to upgrade Eden Park over the proposed
new stadium on the city's waterfront. Eden Park may have
won on the day, but questions remain over how the
upgrades will be funded, while the government still needs to
(00:46):
weigh in on which project to support ends at. Herald
sports writer Michael Burgess has been following these discussions for
over a decade and joins us today on the Front
Page to dig into what this latest.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Vote means in the long term.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
So, Michael, what did Auckland Council vote on last week
with regards to the stadiums.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Well, they were sort of a sort of a halfway
house really. They decided to partly endorse Eden Park's proposal,
So it's not the full endorsement. They're not saying hey,
you can go ahead and do everything you want. They're
saying that, look, we think you might be the best option,
and we're going to endorse heart one, but there's no
(01:29):
money for it. So it's a bit like, you know,
you're having this great plan to turn your villa into
all these apartments and the developer saying, look, we'll let
you do the garage. That's sort of about it at
the moment. So it was a funny, really funny situation, Chelsea,
because it feels like they still haven't completely made their
(01:49):
mind up. But I guess you can interpret it in
the first instance as a slight vote of confidence in
eden Park's proposal, but it's still contingent on so many things,
especially the fact that there's no money for it, so
they still need money from somewhere, and of course now
they're talking about money from the.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Government, right, So they vote really doesn't do much beyond
I guess signaling to the government which one they should back.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Yeah, I mean, that's right. And the thing is the
government's also tried to stay out of this as well.
The government has sort of said, well, wait a minute,
this is an Auckland thing, this is a council thing.
We may get involved with some legislation with some fast
tracking we might help in the future, but Auckland, this
is really this is your baby. So that's what is
(02:34):
kind of confusing about all this. It feels to me
like Auckland Council are still not completely sure. You know,
they're not completely sure about Eden Park if it is
actually completely viable. They're not sure about Key Park. So
I do wonder if it might have been smarter to say, hey,
we still need a bit more time. But I also
understand that people are perhaps tired of hearing that the
(02:56):
council needs more time and the council wanted to be
seed to be making a definitive decision.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Are we not actually selling ourselves short by not asking,
not taking the time to allow a business case to
be looked at by both parties as leaders.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
When it's taken approach based on evidence, based on rational planning,
it should actually be kind of as boring as we
can make it out to be, rather than fiery speeches
about this and that.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
In my view, in some ways, I'm wondering, what is
that decision today and what outcome does it achieve.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I certainly cannot, for the life of me, understand what
it is we're doing here.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Nothing is absolutely deadly dead as a result of this.
But I think that we're injecting a bit of oxygen
into one of them.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
This is kind of like the firmer.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Of a couple of evils, and I'm quite comfortable with it.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
So neither plan is necessarily alive or dead. So that's
a bit of an odd vote, don't you.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
Think it is a bit odd?
Speaker 3 (04:09):
I think Wayne Brown summed it up when he said that,
you know, we've injected a bit of oxygen into Eden Park.
So he's saying that, you know, we're keeping them alive
and they're a good chance. But it's not the end
of the road for Key Park. The interesting thing was
the council and their report came in and said, look,
we like a lot of things that Key Park could
(04:29):
do in terms of the regeneration of the downtown, the
economic benefits. We think it's technically feasible, it's environmentally feasible.
But they just don't. The council has doubts if Key
Park can deliver. In other words, can they raise all
the money they say they're going to raise from the precinct.
Can they raise all the money from their apartments the
(04:51):
hotels to pay for the Steatum. That's the main council doubt,
and that's fair enough. But the thing that's confusing is
they haven't had the same microscope on eden Park in
terms of where's eden Park's money coming from. Because the
whole point of this process Chelsea back in September twenty
twenty three when it started. I mean, this goes back
to twenty twelve, but we won't go into that. Back
(05:13):
in September twenty twenty three, the council's whole point of
this was that the stadiums had to come up with
proposals that didn't need public money, neither government nor council,
ratepayers nor taxpayers. And Eden Park still hasn't passed that bar.
You know, they still need this one hundred and ten
million for the first phase of their proposal and who
(05:34):
knows how many more hundreds of millions for the other
phases because they haven't proven that there's any private investment.
So that's where when you talk about doubt over both,
I think that's where the doubt, the major doubts still
lose over eden Park.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
So if we had to declare a winner here, I
guess it'd have to be Eden Park, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
What exactly are they proposing?
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Well, so, yeah, they've stepped back.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Their initial Eden Park two point zero was a big
bells and whistles new roof, new stands. They scaled that
back a bit over more than a year ago to
call it at Epark two point one, which reduced the
cost a little bit and was a bit more about
upgrades rather than new stands. What they're doing now, which
is quite smart in a way, is they're trying to
(06:16):
make it more palatable. So they're saying, hey, we're going
to do this in three stages. The first stage is
a little upgrade of the North stand which brings fans
closer for rugby matches but also allows them to have
an oval for cricket matches. And then they've got two
more phases, which they're being a bit not completely clear
about the costs. They're still talking about a roof, which
they're saying will cost around three hundred million or that.
(06:38):
Most people have doubts about that figure because a roof
over Eden Park with its four existing grand stands is
a major project, so let's see where that cost goes.
But I think their strategy is really let's get Phase
one done, approved and funded, and then by that stage
it's pretty hard to go back, isn't it. You know,
(06:58):
once you've started on this student, it's hard to go
back and say, now, actually we do want to pursue
another option on the water frontal downtown. So it's quite
a clever strategy for Meadom Park. Whether it's the best
strategy for Auckland as a whole, that's probably a bigger question.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
With improvements to the East and West stands and a
new pedestrian butch bringing traveling fans right to our doorstep,
a new north stand transforms the park into the ultimate
theater and a retractable roof.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
She turns that theater into.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
A fortress, a fortress with the ingrandest of entries for
the grandest of occasions, and the flexibility to host every event.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
It kind of feels like Eden Park has just got
their Pinterest board open to the public, because we all
go shopping on Pinterest, don't we for ideas for our
houses when we don't have any money?
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Is that kind of the thing here?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
They're like, look, this is all what what we want
to do, but actually we don't have the money for it.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
But here's what we want to do. Let's get excited
about it anyway.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Yeah, that's a good point. They're sort of trying to
get the public excited. And you know, as always with
the stadium things, Chelsea, the plans and the pictures look great,
but I think you know, as a rate payer, as
a taxpayer, all of us, we've all poured tens of
millions as rate payers and hundreds of millions as taxpayers
(08:26):
into Eden Park, and that's where you would start to question,
why why is everyone still pouring money into it and
park when it's a private stadium owned by a private trust,
with no money that comes back to the council or
to any of us. So that's sort of the overriding question,
and that's why the council insisted that no public money
(08:48):
should or very little public money should go into any
of these proposals, because there's a view that, hey, the
city doesn't have any money at the moment and that's
not likely to change in the future. But yeah, Eden
Park is certainly trying to drum up interest, support and excitement.
As you say. The other big advantage Reading Park, of course,
is they're already there. You know, it's a stadium that's there,
(09:10):
it's a safe bet. It's got the history, it's got
all the wonderful memories of all the sports events and
entertainment that's been on that ground over the years, and
that of course is a key thing in their favor.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So currently you get rugby, cricket, football and occasionally league
at Eden Park. Would any other sports be able to
go there under this proposal, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Not really no, I think they're the core ones that wouldn't.
There's no proposal, for example, to build an athletics track
or something which you know could bring in some other options.
I think the fact they're still trying to keep cricket
is interesting because that does bring pros and cons. It
certainly isn't great for the rugby and the codes that
need a rectangular field, which is what a lot of
(09:52):
sports people are sort of interested in. I think the
other question around this, though, Chelsea, is the fact that
the major teams in all Cland don't play at Eden Park,
and they don't particularly want to play at Eden Park.
I know the Warriors for a fact, they're not interested
in playing at eden Park. They've been word by eden
Park for years, but they don't want to leave Mount Smart.
They've said they won't leave Mount Smart unless there is
(10:14):
a downtown option. That's what they said years ago. Hawk
and the FC, the new football team that everyone's talking
about and they're going so well, they weren't interested in
eden Park. They opted for Mount Smart. They felt eden
Park was too big for them, and even the Blues
who have been there a long time. The last negotiations
with eden Park went on for quite some time before
they agreed to a two year deal. Wasn't like hey,
like I said, for ten years? So that to me
(10:36):
is another question. If you've got these sporting codes that
feel that eden Park doesn't particularly suit them, then how
viable is eden Park as a main stadium for sport?
Speaker 1 (10:47):
And what about concerts?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
I mean, would Taylor Swift to be able to bring
her next tour to eden Park if this proposal is
done by the time the next Era's tour comes around.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Yeah, that's the other big question, isn't it, Because that's
obviously me. Park has pivoted towards concerts. They've been very successful,
They've hosted a lot of concerts and of course they've
got the resource consent now to do a lot more
than in the past. The Taylor Swift film is an
interesting one. I know Nick Sorton have brought that up
quite a bit during her tour to Australia and said, hey, look,
she could have been here. The experts I've talked to
(11:19):
said there was no chance of her coming here because
this wasn't really on her schedule and she already couldn't
fit in more concerts in Australia. So could we host
more concerts because of this proposal, I don't think so.
It's not particularly at the moment going to increase the
capacity or the attraction of Eden Park to potential touring acts.
(11:40):
The other tricky thing with eden Park I think is
that the new christ Jutch Stadium will also change the
equation a bit because the fact that's new, it's quite
a bit easier to stage concerts there. In terms of
the setting up, Eden Park is not a particularly easy
place to set up. They can't work overnight because of
the residents. It takes quite a few days to pack
(12:02):
in and pack out, and they've got to put the
stage on the field on the grass, which which is
also another tricky scenario without going to too many details.
Whereas for example, Melt Smart they've got the big slab
of concrete at one end that the stage goes on,
so they don't need to protect the grass.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
It's a lot less work.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So Eden Park has stage concerts and they will continue
to and it'll be an attraction. But it's also not
completely straightforward. And to answer your first question at the moment,
I don't think it is. This new proposal will open
the door for a million more concerts.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
So the loser here sounds like Tetuanga or the brand
new Auckland Waterfront Stadium water the backers they're proposing.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
And why did it lose out on the day?
Speaker 5 (12:56):
Good question.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Yeah, I mean that's right, it's not I don't I
think it's the end of the road for them.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
You know, they're still alive.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
It could still happen, but this is definitely a setback,
a pretty major setback.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
They were, of course proposing.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
This massive precinct in the I think it's about fifteen
hectacres from memory in the vicinity of Spark Arena on
this old brownfield land madely. They talked about two or
three thousand apartments. They talked about commercial buildings, three or
four hotels, including an all black hotel, and a new stadium.
I guess their issues have been twofold. Number one is
(13:31):
convincing Council they can raise the money. They're saying they've
got a lot of private investment, and certainly the documents
that were presented the Council have shown they've got a
lot of prime investment coming in from overseas. Because people
think this precinct could make money. Stadiums don't make money.
The precincts do, and that's the whole point of it.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Council.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Theoy aren't completely convinced, as we were talking about earlier.
They think that Key Park is being a bit optimistic
in terms of how much money that can make from,
for example, apartments, which would then pay for the stadium.
The second point is there are some complexities with the
Key Part plan because the stadium will have to be
built in an area where there's an existing rollery line.
(14:09):
It is tricky with what they have to do given
the roway liners there, and the stadium has to go
beside it and in parts has to go on top
of it.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
Not easy.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
The backers say that's not insurmountable and that has been
done in other stadiums around the world, so they're quite
relaxed about it. But obviously councils saw that as another obstacle.
But I guess to go back to what we talked
about at the start. The confusing thing about this is
that key part did take a lot of other boxes.
Council omitted that, and it also an option that would
(14:39):
regenerate downtown and also bring in massive economic benefits. So
it's kind of surprising to see that council has seemingly
turned their back on that when the other option doesn't
have the money behind it either.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
It would have.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Maybe been pragmatic to say, look, let's give them both
six more months to prove their business case. But it
and turn out that way.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Big deck Bill who came over here and has got
the football franchise, he is saying he wants to build
like a twenty thousand seat waterfront stadium and maybe around
the Tank Army area.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Yeah, the Tank Farmers.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Is that where the council just vetos Russell Kurtz building
a temporary stand.
Speaker 8 (15:23):
Yes, yeah, because the soil had a petrol of it.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
I could just see. This is so classic New Zealand.
Speaker 8 (15:30):
Someone's coming from outside New Zealand with a bunch of
money and an idea to make our country better.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Oh, hang on, hang on, hang on here, and we
can't do.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
That sporting loyalties assigned.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Michael, do you have a preference of which one you'd
like to see build?
Speaker 5 (15:44):
Well, that's a good question.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
I mean, I think for me, it's not actually about
the stadium, you know, it's about what is best for
the city, and it's about what unlocking the potential of
the city without going into too many cliches, and I
think about.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
What the city might need in fifty year, year or
one hundred years.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I know as Kiwi's Chelsea were not very good at
doing that. The Australians are much better at thinking long term,
as you see.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
With their planning.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
But I just my big thing is what could unlock
the potential of the city, And it seems to me
it's pretty obvious that downtown, the city center is slowly dying.
You know, it's really hard to get people in there,
really hard to drag people into Queen Street, onto the waterfront.
It's not a place that seems to attract people to go.
(16:28):
Businesses are struggling. So I guess the appeal of Key
Park for me was that it's a vehicle. Having that
precint in the stadium there drags people into the city.
You imagine having an all Blacks game, they're having a
concert downtown, Having a big Warriors game on a Sunday
afternoon suddenly got thousands of people in the city spending
their money. They're going to all the bars after the concert,
after the game, and that's something that could actually change
(16:51):
the face of Auckland. So that was what excited me
about Key parkile was possible. Whereas Eden Park, we've seen
that it's got limitations for the sporting codes, it's got
limitations in terms of where it is, and it's certainly
got limitations in terms of the facts that it hasn't
been able to pay for itself. So if you put
those two things beside each other, then you know, it
(17:12):
seems pretty compelling to me that Key Park would have
been quite an exciting option for Auckland as a city
in terms of providing an economic boost for a long,
long term.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, it sounds like the conversation certainly isn't over and
it's not dead in the water yet.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Hey no, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
I don't think the conversation is definitely over, and I
think there's still be a few more twists and turns.
As I said, Charles, have been covering this stadium debate
since twenty twelve, and sometimes I think that actually nothing
has really changed because we're still asking the same questions
that we were back in twenty twelve. I think the
great thing about this process that it has put the
(17:53):
microscope on what we want, what's possible. It's put the
microscope on Eden Park, the microscope on the other proposals, which.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Has actually been a good thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
So there has been some positive stuff to come out
of this proposal, and I think the next step, as
you say, will be fascinating in terms of, hey, what
is the next chapter, what.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Are we going to do?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot enz. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Seals. Dan Goodwin is the sound engineer.
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio
(18:38):
or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.