Future Developments of Sydney Stadiums

[RussellEbertHandball]

Does Stadium Australia have to all be completely knocked down? Surely keeping half of it, being less than 20 years old, is good enough to keep and build an identical new other half 25m closer to the existing half so you can have a rectangle stadium. Structurally there would be nothing wrong with the stadium, ie concrete, steel, basic facilities etc.

The real issue with it has been people dont like travelling there and its built in the middle of a big empty space and is soulless. The surrounding suburbs and work places are expanding slowly to meet SOPA's 2030 vision of having a daily population of 50,000 people live, work and attend education institutions inside SOP's boundaries.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They’re levelling both and building brand new stadiums? Wow

Sydney will be hosting 95% of Socceroos games now (rather than 90%)

 

[desie]

Does Stadium Australia have to all be completely knocked down? Surely keeping half of it, being less than 20 years old, is good enough to keep and build an identical new other half 25m closer to the existing half so you can have a rectangle stadium. Structurally there would be nothing wrong with the stadium, ie concrete, steel, basic facilities etc.

The real issue with it has been people dont like travelling there and its built in the middle of a big empty space and is soulless. The surrounding suburbs and work places are expanding slowly to meet SOPA's 2030 vision of having a daily population of 50,000 people live, work and attend education institutions inside SOP's boundaries.

Infrastructure NSW analysis said that just bringing in the lower bowl would have cost $900 million and provided a suboptimal outcome.

The only cost effective solution was to knock it down and build a new one.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Infrastructure NSW analysis said that just bringing in the lower bowl would have cost $900 million and provided a suboptimal outcome.

The only cost effective solution was to knock it down and build a new one.

I get the sub optimal bit but I find it hard to believe half a stadium cost $900m and a full rebuild is only around costs around $1.2b to $1.3b. Sounds like a bit of massaging of costs to favour a full rebuild.

 

[Colonial]

I get the sub optimal bit bit I find it hard to believe half a stadium cost $900m and a full rebuild is only around costs around $1.2b to $1.3b. Sounds like a bit of massaging of costs to favour a full rebuild.

Hell of allot easier to just bulldoze the site and start again than ******* around with a partial build.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hell of allot easier to just bulldoze the site and start again than ******* around with a partial build.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Might be easier but is it cost effective? The construction firms didn't have any problem building half the MCG at a time 13 years apart.

 

[desie]

I get the sub optimal bit but I find it hard to believe half a stadium cost $900m and a full rebuild is only around costs around $1.2b to $1.3b. Sounds like a bit of massaging of costs to favour a full rebuild.

It's to do with the structural engineering challenges which are extensive at both stadiums, full knock down rebuilds were the only decisions that made sense.

INSW are at arms length from government so there's not really any scope for massaging.

 

[RUNVS]

Apparently the SCG might be getting the NRL Grand Final. That makes me feel slightly ill as those NRL players will be running all over the hallowed turf of Buddy Franklin.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Might be easier but is it cost effective? The construction firms didn't have any problem building half the MCG at a time 13 years apart.

it comes down to how easily the original design and construction can be integrated into a new form

apparently anz doesnt do that well without significant costs (pure guess, may be once you start removing sections the structural integrity of the whole collapses - pun intended - so you have to spend a motza reinforcing what you want to save)

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's to do with the structural engineering challenges which are extensive at both stadiums, full knock down rebuilds were the only decisions that made sense.

INSW are at arms length from government so there's not really any scope for massaging.

The SFS needs a complete rebuild partly because of access to the location makes it near impossible to do it successfully stage by stage.

I lived in Concord a 5 minute drive away whilst the stadium at Olympic Park was being built and regularly had a look at the construction. I had a couple of mates who were engineers and worked on different aspects of the stadium. Those 200m arches that are the critical component of both the western and eastern grandstands were the biggest in the world when they were put up. Hard to understand taking them both down is more efficenct than taking one down given the specs I've seen for the remodelled atadium which still has the arches and the retractable roof moves along them.

 

[RUNVS]

Also does anyone know if ANZ or Allianz will have a roof?

 

[desie]

Apparently the SCG might be getting the NRL Grand Final. That makes me feel slightly ill as those NRL players will be running all over the hallowed turf of Buddy Franklin.

In 2020, the year that they're both out of action.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Also does anyone know if ANZ or Allianz will have a roof?

ANZ had a roof in the specs I saw when it was a $750m refit. Hard to believe $1.2bil+ doesn't get you a retractable roof.

 

[RUNVS]

ANZ had a roof in the specs I saw when it was a $750m refit. Hard to believe $1.2bil+ doesn't get you a retractable roof.

The Perth stadium is a similar size capacity wise, was about $1.2 billion and it does not have a roof so there are no guarantees in that area.

How expensive are roofs to the overall construction?

 

[Colonial]

Also does anyone know if ANZ or Allianz will have a roof?

There was talk of a roof for ANZ. But its supposedly to exoensive.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Perth stadium is a similar size capacity wise, was about $1.2 billion and it does not have a roof so there are no guarantees in that area.

How expensive are roofs to the overall construction?

That $1.2 bil includes $300m+ train station and bridge and precinct . Actually I think it is a $1.45b project all up and the stadium is about $900m. A roof costs between $50m to $100m depending on size of moving parts. A rectangle stadium where the fixed roofs cover 100% of the seats the retractable roof has to cover aprox 120m x 80m where as at Docklands where 98% of seats are covered by the fixed roof the retractable roof has to cover approx160m x 140m so the cost would be probably 30% to 50% more.

 

[RUNVS]

That $1.2 bil includes $300m+ train station and bridge and precinct . Actually I think it is a $1.45b project all up and the stadium is about $900m. A roof costs between $50m to $100m depending on size of moving parts. A rectangle stadium where the fixed roofs cover 100% of the seats the retractable roof has to cover aprox 120m x 80m where as at Docklands where 98% of seats are covered by the fixed roof the retractable roof has to cover approx160m x 140m so the cost would be probably 30% to 50% more.

Also I think how much the demolition of ANZ will cost will be relevant to the overall cost as well. In saying that though the Perth stadium needed to have the ground prepared before a large stadium could be built on it so that probably was not cheap either. The ANZ Stadium ground won't need that.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Also I think how much the demolition of ANZ will cost will be relevant to the overall cost as well. In saying that though the Perth stadium needed to have the ground prepared before a large stadium could be built on it so that probably was not cheap either. The ANZ Stadium ground won't need that.

You are looking at at least $40m demolition costs to knock down a 50,000 seat stadium based on US experience and allowing for a 75 cent exchange rate.

 

[RUNVS]

You are looking at at least $40m demolition costs to knock down a 50,000 seat stadium based on US experience and allowing for a 75 cent exchange rate.

So

ANZ - Demolition - $60 million
Allianz - Demolition - $40 million

Parramatta Stadium - $300 million

So that is $400 million of the 2.3 Billion, meaning there is 1.9 billion for the construction of the 2 stadiums.

Should be more than enough.

 

[Roogal]

I don't really understand why they need to have the Sydney Football Stadium at all? If they get the design of the new stadium at Homebush right then surely they don't need a 45,000 capacity rectangular facility sitting right next door to anaother 45,000 capacity facility (in the SCG) which has a small oval anyway.

Does Sydney really need a 45,000 capacity Rugby/Soccer facility or would a re-built Homebush suffice? After all, how many H&A rugby and soccer games in Sydney draw crowds of 45,000, and if they want to play before a smaller crowd in the Eastern Suburbs, why can't those rare Sydney games that draw 30,000(+) be hosted at the SCG?

It all sounds like people (namely the FFA, NRL and the ARU) are pork-barrelling to me and the NSW Government have bought it. But it will be the NSW tax-payers who will be asking the vital question of why a 17 year old stadium which cost almost $700 million in 1998 to build and a further $100 million to reconfigure in 2002 (after the Olympics) is now obsolete? I imagine that there will be a lot of tax payers in NSW who will be mad as cut snakes at a government who can find $2.3 billion to rebuild two stadiums while the average Sydney motorist is paying an average of $8 per day on road tolls to use two-lane wide, privately built tolled motorways.

 

[Colonial]

and if they want to play before a smaller crowd in the Eastern Suburbs, why can't those rare Sydney games that draw 30,000(+) be hosted at the SCG?

And this one sentence shows why you dont understand sporting facilities.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Roogal]

And this one sentence shows why you dont understand sporting facilities.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Well they certainly play soccer and Rugby Union games at Etihad Stadium so I don't see your point!

 

[Colonial]

Well they certainly play soccer and Rugby Union games at Etihad Stadium so I don't see your point!

I gathered considering your associating the SCG as a place to play both rugbys and football.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Roogal]

I gathered considering your associating the SCG as a place to play both rugbys and football.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I can't see why more use cannot be made of the rebuilt Homebush Stadium for the bigger games and the new Parramatta Stadium (which will seat about 30,000). The Homebush Stadium is already massively underused, particularly since the AFL abandoned it. By comparison Etihad Stadium is currently used three to four times over a normal long weekend throughout winter while the Homebush Stadium has been used as little as one game per weekend. To rebuild SFS and Homebush means that you will just have two shiney new stadiums and the biggest one will still be massively underused.

So I am asking why a city who's primary football code competition which draws average home crowds of well under 20,000 needs two huge capacity (75,000 and 45,000) rugby capable grounds. Particularly when many of the NRL clubs already have competition-active home grounds. I would have thought that the SCG, the redeveloped Parramatta Stadium, and a re-built Homebush would have sufficed. Rather than spending upwards of $400 million rebuilding the SFS, I imagine that, that money may have been perhaps better appreciated by many of the existing NRL teams to rebuild ageing facilities at their home grounds.

But anyway, my points are moot as the decision to build has been made and it will be the tax-payers of NSW who will now foot the bill and only a few who will benefit.

Good luck.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I can't see why more use cannot be made of the rebuilt Homebush Stadium for the bigger games and the new Parramatta Stadium (which will seat about 30,000). The Homebush Stadium is already massively underused, particularly since the AFL abandoned it. By comparison Etihad Stadium is currently used three to four times over a normal long weekend throughout winter while the Homebush Stadium has been used as little as one game per weekend. To rebuild SFS and Homebush means that you will just have two shiney new stadiums and the biggest one will still be massively underused.

So I am asking why a city who's primary football code competition which draws average home crowds of well under 20,000 needs two huge capacity (75,000 and 45,000) rugby capable grounds. Particularly when many of the NRL clubs already have competition-active home grounds. I would have thought that the SCG, the redeveloped Parramatta Stadium, and a re-built Homebush would have sufficed. Rather than spending upwards of $400 million rebuilding the SFS, I imagine that, that money may have been perhaps better appreciated by many of the existing NRL teams to rebuild ageing facilities at their home grounds.

But anyway, my points are moot as the decision to build has been made and it will be the tax-payers of NSW who will now foot the bill and only a few who will benefit.

Good luck.

How often has etihad hosted four games in a single round?