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