Positive air as roadshow calls
Otago Daily Times Online, 6 Nov 2008
There was a positive tone at last night’s Otago Stadium Roadshow in Alexandra.
…Interest in the stadium in Dunedin was strong enough to draw more than 30 people to the meeting.
Russell Ibbotson asked why the stadium’s multi-use potential, which is featured in the roadshow, had not been publicised to the wider public.
Stadium commercial manager Guy Hedderlink [sic] said he was not supposed to spend the advertising budget in this way.
Jack Davis, of Cromwell, asked about the stadium’s acoustics and if they would shut out the noise of rain and wind.
Mr Hedderlink [sic] said that if it rained, the crowd would hear it just on the roof.
An acoustics expert said the acoustics were good and a public address system would work well in the stadium.
Rob Roy, of Alexandra, wanted to know about the roofing material to be used and if it had been used anywhere else in the world.
He was given a list of other users.
Mr Ibbotson asked if the project managers were confident the project could be delivered within the agreed financial parameters and Mr Hedderlink [sic] said he had absolute confidence, as the price of commodities had come down.
The roofing materials already had a fixed price and that was under budget and steel prices had also come down dramatically.
A single contractor would be used, so the risk would be with the contractor, he said.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
CST representatives told the 22 residents present at last nights meeting in Roxburgh that “the stadium would have spin-off benefits to small Otago towns such as Roxburgh,boosting the entire region’s economy”
Yeah right.
I like the fairy tale about Goldilocks and the three bears better.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Carol, do you know if anyone keeping a running count of the number of attendees at each of the roadshow meetings?
In the interest of accountability, does anyone outside the CST know the outcome for each of these ?
I’d be interested in finding out the financial outcome (i.e., benefit divided by the costs) .
Just wondering how many stadium seats were snapped up by the 30+ people at the Alex meeting and to the 20+ at the Roxburgh gathering? Or should I already know that this is commercially sensitive information?
November 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I was thinking that was Carol when I read that in todays ODT that the stadium will have good finchal spin off for towns likes Roxbourgh and Alexandra yeah right and what a load of rubbish.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
There were about 50 people at the Oamaru meeting,including school boys.About 35 in Wanaka I think.
But don’t forget Yankiwi that many of those people would be against the stadium.Several anti stadium people spoke at the Oamaru meeting.So really the numbers don’t mean a thing.
The CST are going to have to start looking elsewhere,like in their own pockets.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
That is great to hear that there anti stadium people in town’s like Oamaru etc.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
In today’s Otago Daily Times front page article (14/11/08) “University project revealed” it’s very pleasing to read that Prof. Skegg was quoted as saying “If the stadium did not go ahead, the university would still want to build on the land at Awatea St.” This was always going to happen, and it’s immaterial whether there will be a stadium there or not. The stadium is not essential to Dunedin’s wellbeing or its survival, however, the extra space earmarked for the stadium, may well be useful for further university expansion in the future. Indeed, on p. 4 of the O.D.T. relating to the speakers at the plan change hearings, John Brimble, Sport Otago, was quoted as saying “a short-course training pool was one example” of a facility that could be built there – well, by all means build it, but it surely doesn’t require a stadium to house it!
November 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I also thought that was very pleaseing as well to see in todays ODT that universerty will build there that’s if the stadium dose not go ahead.Which would be great.One point which caught my eye in the article on Page 4 Ryan Ward of the Polytech students assocation the stadium would cause behavioual problems in the student area like the undie 500 also a Otago rugby loss to Canterbury occure at the same time.Yes the stadium is not essential for Dunedin well being and survial.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hang on STOP THE BUS!!!
The ‘official’ (if there is such a thing from the autonomous collective known as the StS) is that there is no university involvement in the stadium. It was presented time and time again by the StS as another smoke screen to getting this development done.
Of course others knew that this was the case and todays news just confirms that.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ryan Ward’s comments were misinformed, ill advised and quite frankly very stupid. Currently there is a stadium and there are rugby matches, students and drinking. Placing a new stadium within the vicinity of the University would not ’cause’ poor student behaviour.
There is not a cause and effect correlation that can be drawn between these two variables, or at the very least one that is over and above what we have, which is students, rugby and beer.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Re. Paul’s “Hang on STOP THE BUS!!!”
- note Paul - the O.D.T. article on the front page today (14/11/08) uses the words “adjoining the proposed Otago Stadium”" when referring to the University’s planned $50 million development, and refers to the University’s own 13,400sq. m. building, built on it’s own $5.6 million piece of land, sharing a wall with the stadium. This has always been the case, but sadly, this has been mis-presented by the CST to the public - with many people (still) believing, wrongly, that the University is contributing millions to the stadium itself, which it is not.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Even more interesting than the University front page story is that next to it describing the collapse of St Kilda Finance. Will Mr John Farry use the (ratepayer funded) $1.38M profit he made on Awatea St property sales to help pay out those losing money, or has he already hidden it safely away?
November 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Interesting to read supportive comments for the University buildings at Awatea St given that SH88 would still need realignment for those buildings to proceed. Indeed the University is a main driver for the realignment of the highway rather than the stadium per se as it w0uld enable a largely pedestrianised tertiary precinct …
November 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I hope the DCC havn’t invested some of the ratepayers money in St Kilda Finance
November 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
John,
if the money that he made on the sale of the land was St Kilda finance money, then yes it will go to paying out those who will loose out. If on the other hand that money was private investment money, then no, there is no moral or legal requirement for him to put that money into St Kilda finance coffers.
Jan re my comments. Adjoining actually in this case means part of the over all construction. Plans are there for everyone to see, and there is clearly a blank building adjoining the stadium in the model of the construction.
I don’t know which information you have been reading, but I never for one minute, right from the very start assumed that the uni was going to be a major contributor of millions of dollars to the stadium, that was never misrepresented to the public, and I saw the same information that the rest of the public saw. It was the StS and stadium critics that assumed that and ran with it, along with all of the other misrepresentations, like non multi-use blah blah.
Just like claims by those opposing the stadium that it will be a relative ghost town in that area when there aren’t major sporting events on. With 200 staff, student health, Unipol, child care and students, it also said in the paper today that there will be nearly half a million people using that area annually, that’s the sort of ghost town I want to be part of.
“largely pedestrianised tertiary precinct” now what an inspired thought. The last thing a student area needs is a major road with freight and other transport competing for the space.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
There are two explanations as to why St Kilda Finance collapsed.
One is because of the global financial crisis and the other is Karma.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
*An unpalatable but unsurprising response from John Farry re purchase of Awatea St land on p7 D scene.
*It’s becoming clear that the University is climbing on the backs of the ratepayers over the whole stadium area. That’s sound business sense on the part of a relatively wealthy University that can afford to pay for the changes itself - and can only take so many students per year anyway. Meanwhile we, the ratepayers, feel betrayed by a council that isn’t looking after our interests.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I don’t get D scene anymore Elizabeth.
Can you put the page on here please?
I’d love to read John Farry’s response
November 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
The administrator has removed comments from this post because they are unsuitable for publication.
If you are posting comments please make arguments for or against the stadium.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Victor,
please be consistent with the sword. How could Carol’s comments be anything but offensive to those that may have lost money as a result of the insolvency, and how is it for or against the stadium.
All I ask is for consistency, or it’s seen as anything less than democratic.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
He (John Farry) described the huge profit made on the Awatea Street property sale as no more than ‘a piss in a bucket’ in his life.
Oafishly arrogant in a context of people struggling to pay their bills.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“Carol // Nov 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm
There are two explanations as to why St Kilda Finance collapsed. One is because of the global financial crisis and the other is Karma”
I would assume that is
“Oafishly arrogant in a context of people struggling to pay their bills”
So hard to be consistent isn’t it.
or on the other hand, there is an element of arrogance and pride in that sort of business person, and it is easy to be flippant in the face of real emotion.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hi, I’ve temporarily turned off the comments on the entire site as some people seem unable to restrain themselves from using abusive terms or personal attacks which is not what the comments are for.
Paul - not sure what your point is. I’m only removing posts that I find offensive or personal in nature with no intention of gagging genuine debate. I’ve only returned to doing this website administration in the last week and if there are comments that people find offensive they should let me know, regardless of whom the author is.