East Stand Development - Questions and Answers
What are the expected timelines for the East Stand project? This is the beginning of a very long road to completion. Today, we have shown the first preliminary plans to the local community, to our stadium partners and to the media. From here on, we can expect to:
|
What effect would there be on available seats at AMI Stadium during the construction period? One of our major discussion points today with the existing suite holders in the No. 1-3 stands was exactly this. The aim is to seat up to 28,000 during the construction period and we are in discussions with the New Zealand Rugby Union and Canterbury Rugby Football Union over the allocation of test matches during the interim two seasons up to 2010. We will continue to talk to suite holders in No. 1- 3 Stands about the options available and this may include relocating to other corporate accommodation around the ground. |
Why do the No 1, 2 and 3 stands need replacing? The No. 1-3 Stands are nearly 50 years old and are at the end of their structural life. They need to be replaced very soon. The Rugby World Cup in 2011 is a catalyst for the city’s premier sporting venue to have better facilities and more seating. Every year we wait means the construction cost goes up by $3 million. It’s getting to the stage where, if we don’t replace them, we won’t be able to use them. |
Why is the capacity being increased? We plan to raise the permanent seating capacity from 36,000 to 41,000 to cater for the city’s continuing growth over the next fifty years. Alongside this is the opportunity to host Rugby World Cup matches in 2011. If we get the unallocated semi-final, we will need to raise the capacity further on a one-off basis. We will also have the opportunity to host Cricket World Cup matches in 2015. We will gain this additional capacity by adding temporary seating and by removing fixed seating in the Tui Stand and in front of the Hadlee Stand. This will create terraces at both ends of the ground. |
What role will AMI Stadium play during the Rugby World Cup 2011? We don’t know this yet. As a minimum, we aim to secure pool games and a quarterfinal. We are discussing match allocation with the NZRU and CRFU with the aim of seeing more than one quarterfinal and the unallocated semi-final played in Christchurch. Our plans have been well received by the NZRU and the RWC Establishment Board. We will be seeking commitment from them regarding the allocation of matches and in particular the unallocated semi-final. |
What will the benefits be to Christchurch after the Rugby World Cup? The long-term benefit will be a new stand that will last for the next fifty years. If we don’t replace these old stands, we won’t be able to use them. We are seizing the opportunity to replace the old stands now, when the Rugby World Cup will help pay for them. Every year there’s a test match, the economic benefit for the city is $8 to $10 million in visitor spending. |
Will all the new seats be covered? Approximately two thirds of the seats in the new stand will be covered. |
How much will the new East Stand development cost and who will pay for it? It is too early to say exactly how much the new development will cost, as the concept plan is very much a working document. Our first estimates are about $60 million, but this could change. This is a more difficult funding proposition than the previous west, Paul Kelly Stand. With that development the embankment was being replaced with a range of seating including corporate areas and the incremental stadium cash flows from the sale of these enabled AMI Stadium to fund the majority of the development with debt. The east side development, despite an increased capacity, is largely replacing seats with seats so our ability to take on and fund more debt is not as significant. However our early financial projections indicate AMI Stadium, with the support of the private sector and stadium partners can fund up to two thirds of the estimated $60 million investment required. How the balance is funded is the subject of ongoing discussions with the Christchurch City Council and others. We also intend to initiate discussions with Central Government. |
Why should the City contribute to another sports venue? It’s an existing venue with a major replacement need that coincides with the opportunity to host matches in the third most watched global sports event. The No. 1-3 Stands are nearly fifty years old and at the end of their structural life. They need to be replaced soon anyway. The Rugby World Cup provides a timely catalyst to do this in the next four years. Economically, it stacks up as a “free kick” for Christchurch – meaning the city will recoup its investment, and more besides, within a year of the redevelopment being completed. The economic benefit an event of this size will bring to Christchurch and Canterbury is at least the $60 million we are planning to invest. These figures are based on last year’s Lions test match supporters’ spending, when research showed, 10,000 Lions supporters spent around $22 million on accommodation, restaurants, taxis, supermarkets, visitor attractions and retail. All that money circulated through the local economy. If we build an East Stand, we are likely to have up to 60,000 supporters visiting Christchurch over a period of four weeks, which means the $60 million spending estimate is very conservative. In addition, there are substantial benefits from the international exposure for the city as the projected cumulative international audience of all the televised matches is 3.4 billion viewers. Last year, it was calculated that the exposure from the Lions Christchurch test television coverage was worth over $500,000 in promoting the city to a much smaller international audience of 900,000. |
What will be done to manage the extra traffic from additional seating? The additional 7000 seating is a welcome opportunity to take a close look at transport and traffic planning in conjunction with this next stage of development. The increased capacity during the Rugby World Cup is also a catalyst to look at traffic planning around the stadium. A comprehensive traffic management plan will be developed which will include the better use of public transport, possibly including rail, as well as increased use of inner city parking buildings, and suburban park and ride shuttle bus services. Part of our plan to encourage increased use of inner city parking and public transport is an informal “Stadium Walk” – a marked, safe walking access route from downtown entertainment areas, because AMI Stadium is only a 15 minute walk from the central city. There will be additional car parks under the proposed new stand, and further car parking around the ground. In particular we will work closely with the local Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board and the Charleston Neighbourhood Association to ensure any concerns are taken into consideration. |
Why are you looking at office space as part of the East Stand? The concept plans are by no means finalised and the office space is just a suggestion at this stage. It is entirely dependant on being commercially viable and self-funding. However the idea is to see how we can bring further life to the area and provide for the efficient use of the Stadium on a day to day basis. Care is being undertaken with regard to stadium design and transport to ensure that office activity would not be to the detriment of residences on Wilson Road. |
Who will be the project’s designers? Athfield Architects Ltd, the same firm responsible for the Paul Kelly Stand design, have drawn up the initial concept plans. The plans are still very much a draft working document and are open for discussion. |
Who will build the stadium? This will be put out for tender in 2008. |
Will "AMI Stadium" still be the name of the venue for the RWC? No. We are required to provide a “clean” stadium without branding or existing naming rights for the Rugby World Cup and our stadium partners (sponsors, signage and suite holders) have supported this in the interests of us hosting RWC 2011. |
Why don’t you put a roof over the entire stadium? There are a number of reasons that make this totally uneconomic. Firstly we are not able to simply build a roof over the existing stands and playing surface. The only way to achieve a fully covered stadium would be to rebuild from the ground up. The capital cost (at a minimum $500 million), along with the write off of the investment already made in enhancing the stadium, clearly makes this a totally uneconomic proposition for our city and stadium partners. In addition to this, there are also practical considerations regarding the maintenance of the playing surface with very high annual costs in turf replacement due to the lack of sunlight exposure. Our development proposal means that Christchurch is well positioned for the opportunity presented by RWC2011 and CWC2015 while also ensuring our stadium is appropriate for the city’s needs in the years ahead. |
Will the city’s infrastructure be able to cope with the impact of RWC visitor volume? The city is planning a review and forecast of the city’s infrastructure to ensure it meets our need and those of the RWC organisers. |