Sydney Olympic Stadium to be demolished and rebuilt

[Kwality]

Because it's a crap stadium.
Should of been a rectangle from the get go.

Interesting concept for track & field, run a 10,O00 km on a rectangular track ...

 

[hitthepost]

Interesting concept for track & field, run a 10,O00 km on a rectangular track ...

I think it should have been built for the olympics with the plan to convert it to a permenant rectangular stadium after, instead of a long thin oval with the ability to be rectangle-ish.

 

[Colonial]

Interesting concept for track & field, run a 10,O00 km on a rectangular track ...

You can't say that wouldn't of made things even more interesting.

 

[hitthepost]

You can't say that wouldn't of made things even more interesting.

And ten thousand kms is a long way regardless of the shape of the track!

 

[Kwality]

I think it should have been built for the olympics with the plan to convert it to a permenant rectangular stadium after, instead of a long thin oval with the ability to be rectangle-ish.

Yep, it was a poor attempt at humour, Kwality humour, sorry ..

 

[Colonial]

The idea is basically to turn it into an 80k Suncorp so it can be the home to rectangle sports.

The slant is way to shallow and the distances speak for themselves.

Ovals have the SCG and Giants Stadium here. So we are set.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think it should have been built for the olympics with the plan to convert it to a permenant rectangular stadium after, instead of a long thin oval with the ability to be rectangle-ish.

They spent $670m to build it for the Olympics and another $80m at the end of 2001 to reconfigure it. Given the private owners lost about $400m in capital by 2006 when ANZ infrastructure funds paid $10m for the stadium management rights - it was a BOOT and transferred back to the NSW government in 2031 for their $155m contribution back in the late 1990's- and ANZ converted the $150m loan sitting I'm the stadium's books to equity, - who was going to spend $500m to reconfigure it to a rectangle in 2001 or 2002??

Every city that builds a large Olympic oval stadium and will then mainly be used for rectangle sports, faces this dilemma.

Atlanta in 1996 got away with it because it would be used for baseball afterwards so only about 20% of the stands had to be knocked down and rebuilt. Plus having 81 baseball games guaranteed each year before play offs, concerts and other events, made it financially viable to spend that money.

If Brisbane and SE Qld win the 2032 or 2036 Olympic hosting rights, they will face the same issue as Sydney have.

 

[hitthepost]

They spent $670m to build it for the Olympics and another $80m at the end of 2001 to reconfigure it. Given the private owners lost about $400m in capital by 2006 when ANZ infrastructure funds paid $10m for the stadium management rights - it was a BOOT and transferred back to the NSW government in 2031 for their $155m contribution back in the late 1990's- and ANZ converted the $150m loan sitting I'm the stadium's books to equity, - who was going to spend $500m to reconfigure it to a rectangle in 2001 or 2002??

Every city that builds a large Olympic oval stadium and will then mainly be used for rectangle sports, faces this dilemma.

Atlanta in 1996 got away with it because it would be used for baseball afterwards so only about 20% of the stands had to be knocked down and rebuilt. Plus having 81 baseball games guaranteed each year before play offs, concerts and other events, made it financially viable to spend that money.

If Brisbane and SE Qld win the 2032 or 2036 Olympic hosting rights, they will face the same issue as Sydney have.

Surely there are things that can be done from the get-go in the initial design and construction that would mean it's ready to be converted to rectangular?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Surely there are things that can be done from the get-go in the initial design and construction that would mean it's ready to be converted to rectangular?

How do you move a stand that holds 40,000 people, 30m closer to the middle of the ground. That's basically what has to happen at ANZ. There is a 180m steel arch for each of the eastern and western stands that anchors both stands.

 

[hitthepost]

How do you move a stand that holds 40,000 people, 30m closer to the middle of the ground. That's basically what has to happen at ANZ. There is a 180m steel arch for each of the eastern and western stands that anchors both stands.

As I said, design it differently from the get-go, so that it COULD happen, or didn't need to.
I'm not a constructuin expert at all but if they had been intending on building the stadium to be a rectangle after the olympics instead of a multi-shape, things could have been put in place to make it happen.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

As I said, design it differently from the get-go, so that it COULD happen, or didn't need to.
I'm not a constructuin expert at all but if they had been intending on building the stadium to be a rectangle after the olympics instead of a multi-shape, things could have been put in place to make it happen.

What you are missing is who pays. You are a sports fan who reckons it should happen. But it's marginal gain vs marginal cost. If it was your $300m would you invest in it?

 

[hitthepost]

What you are missing is who pays. You are a sports fan who reckons it should happen. But it's marginal gain vs marginal cost. If it was your $300m would you invest in it?

What you're missing is I'm saying it should have been different in the first place.

Who paid for the original design of the stadium? Back in the 1990s. It's too late now but the legacy plan for the stadium should have been a stadium for rugby and soccer and bugger cricket and footy. It may have cost more to build or for the reconfiguration in 2001 but it may have saved all this cost now.

 

[Colonial]

What you are missing is who pays. You are a sports fan who reckons it should happen. But it's marginal gain vs marginal cost. If it was your $300m would you invest in it?

When compared to the over all budget of the state. It's not that much considering.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What you're missing is I'm saying it should have been different in the first place.

Who paid for the original design of the stadium? Back in the 1990s. It's too late now but the legacy plan for the stadium should have been a stadium for rugby and soccer and bugger cricket and footy. It may have cost more to build or for the reconfiguration in 2001 but it may have saved all this cost now.

You are hoping. You don't reckon they thought about it back in 1996 and 1997 when they were designing it? If it was as simple as you suggest they would have done it. They had Atlanta as an example.

 

[hitthepost]

You are hoping. You don't reckon they thought about it back in 1996 and 1997 when they were designing it? If it was as simple as you suggest they would have done it. They had Atlanta as an example.

No I don't because they were keen to build a stadium that was able to host AFL and cricket as well, and that versatility post-Games may have been a selling-point to fund the thing.
I think if they wanted a rectangle only back in the 90s even then experts in design would have been able to do it. It may have been a totally different stadium to what we had in 2000. Who knows. But it's not impossible - it just wasn't what was wanted.

 

[Rob]

It's not the shape of the ground that is the reason crowds don't go there. Otherwise all the other rectangular grounds would have drawn big crowds - they don't.

The reason why crowds are s**t is because it's in Sydney.

 

[Colonial]

It's not the shape of the ground that is the reason crowds don't go there. Otherwise all the other rectangular grounds would have drawn big crowds - they don't.

The reason why crowds are **** is because it's in Sydney.

That's not the point.

The major events do always draw sold out crowds.

It's about improving the experience.

 

[Rob]

That's not the point.

The major events do always draw sold out crowds.

It's about improving the experience.

So you marginally "improve the experience" so you can put on less events?

And I say marginal because for the bulk of events you're talking about moving people literally a couple of metres closer. It's not like the front row of seats is 40 metres from the pitch.

 

[dlanod]

So you marginally "improve the experience" so you can put on less events?

And I say marginal because for the bulk of events you're talking about moving people literally a couple of metres closer. It's not like the front row of seats is 40 metres from the pitch.

Less events? When AFL was there (3 games), cricket wasn't. When cricket was played there (five games I think), AFL wasn't. It probably topped out at less than half a dozen events per year.

It's not the front row of seats that's crap. It's the other 75%.

 

[Rob]

Less events? When AFL was there (3 games), cricket wasn't. When cricket was played there (five games I think), AFL wasn't. It probably topped out at less than half a dozen events per year.

It's still less events.

It's not the front row of seats that's crap. It's the other 75%.

The other 75% don't get filled for most events. Most events there get 15,000 or less, so it's not going to have much impact.

 

[dlanod]

The other 75% don't get filled for most events. Most events there get 15,000 or less, so it's not going to have much impact.

Have a look at crowds at the old Parramatta stadium versus the new Parramatta stadium.

 

[Rob]

Have a look at crowds at the old Parramatta stadium versus the new Parramatta stadium.

Eh? That was rectangular beforehand as well.
Never mind there's still going to be a novelty effect there. What's it hosted, 4 or 5 NRL matches?

 

[Colonial]

Eh? That was rectangular beforehand as well.
Never mind there's still going to be a novelty effect there. What's it hosted, 4 or 5 NRL matches?

Soon to be a football match and has hosted Super Rugby.

If you are going to complain at least know what you are complaining about.

 

[Rob]

Soon to be a football match and has hosted Super Rugby.

If you are going to complain at least know what you are complaining about.

Complain? I'm just questioning how changing a rectangular venue to a vastly superior rectangular venue has any relevance whatsoever to the issue being discussed.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

No I don't because they were keen to build a stadium that was able to host AFL and cricket as well, and that versatility post-Games may have been a selling-point to fund the thing.
I think if they wanted a rectangle only back in the 90s even then experts in design would have been able to do it. It may have been a totally different stadium to what we had in 2000. Who knows. But it's not impossible - it just wasn't what was wanted.

The private float of the stadium was a flop back in 1998 or 1999. Less than 1/3rd of the units to own the stadium, which also included the rights to all the Olympics events there were subscribed for by the public, so yes they looked at multiple uses after the Olympics but nothing was locked in when they designed the stadium with any deals with the AFL and CA. That happened after the Olympics.

Look at the Olympic stadiums between Melbourne and Sydney - ie Rome, Tokyo, Mexico, Munich, Montreal, Moscow, LA, Seoul, Barcelona and Atlanta. All oval stadiums in countries and cities where rectangle sports are the dominate sports. Not one of those stadiums, except for Atlanta, as I described in one of my posts above, went through major renovations, rebuilds etc after the Olympics to accommodate those rectangle sports. It obviously helped that the stadium funding came from NBC and other Olympic sponsors. They basically paid for the conversion and set it up before it was to be built to be converted and leased to the Atlanta Braves owned by Ted Turner and it wasn't a rectangle sport, it needed a bigger field than a rectangle but it didn't need an oval as big as Aussie Rules.

Neither has the stadium in Athens or Beijing. In Rio the Maracana was used for the opening and closing ceremonies and athletics stadium was the home ground for Botafogo in tha Brasilian Serie A comp and capacity was expanded temprarily from 46k to 60k. This was the first time the athletics stadium wasn't the main stadium.

It will happen again in LA in 2028 when the LA Coliseum hosts athletics like 1932 and 1984, but the ceremonies will be at the new Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park which is a rectangle stadium that can host 100k for the Olympics compared to the Coliseum's 80k capacity after the latest changes.

London stadium was designed to be an 80k capacity meccano set and pulled apart to have a capacity of 25k but still maintain an athletics track as the new home of British athletics.

But there was a lot of debate about its post Olympics use and they decided to reduce capacity and have these dodgy movable seats at ground level that sits on the athletics track. West Ham won the right to have it as there home ground starting with the 2016-17 season. They have moved the seats back once to allow the 2017 IAAF World Champions but the track is still there, not grass and some decent repairs had to occur when they moved the seats back before the IAAF World Champs were held.

But the majority of seats, approx 2/3rds of new 60k capacity are still an oval distance from the centre of the pitch. The original stadium cost £486 million and the renovations cost £274 million.

People in those cities have accepted watching rectangle sports in a large oval stadiums. It looks like Sydneysiders haven't and have had a good whinge about it. I think Rob got it right that the crowds are s**t because it's in Sydney.

So for a stadium that the public float flopped, nobody from an economic point of view could justify spending about $300m to reconfigure it using the London Stadium as an example of having to spend approx 50% of the original cost to reconfigure it, for a more permanent rectangle when crowds in Sydney would be marginally better.