American and most European cities are irrelevant. This should be obvious after I explained why. Their only use of oval configurations are for athletics which rarely fills stadiums. In Australia the by far the biggest drawing sport is Australian football. After that, cricket has historically been the sport that can fill stadiums. This makes Australia very different.The fact that almost every American, European, and even Australian cities, have moved away from major multipurpose stadia is very significant IMO. It shows a pattern of expensive multipurpose stadiums not fitting the needs of cities across the world and having to be replaced.
The Docklands and Optus are both explicitly "multipurpose" stadiums. There is no way a city like Canberra could justify spending hundreds of millions on two separate stadiums. So it is either multi-purpose oval or rectangular.
Yeah because the AFL isn't reliant on taxpayers to fund stadia for them either. . .
Apart from the reality that the AFL is the only sport that has regularly contributed to building stadiums - and all other stadium sports can and do use them - this is irrelevant.
Point is, to cry foul about a stadium not being exactly how you want it when you aren't contributing a cent is ridiculous.
The only way the AFL and cricket would get such an outcome would being making a contribution and / or commitment. If you really think that large numbers of people are going to be up in arms that mainly tax payer funded new stadium is going to be also usable by the oval sports who are the only ones contributing I'd suggest you are the one living in a bubbleI haven't said that the government doesn't have the right to say 'screw you we're building an oval' to the rectangular sports. All I'm saying is don't be surprised if they say screw you back, and that that isn't in anybody in the ACT's interests, not even the AFL's.