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 ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Because it's a crap stadium.
Should of been a rectangle from the get go.
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.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.Interesting concept for track & field, run a 10,O00 km on a rectangular track ...
And ten thousand kms is a long way regardless of the shape of the track!You can't say that wouldn't of made things even more interesting.
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??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.
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?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.
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.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?
As I said, design it differently from the get-go, so that it COULD happen, or didn't need to.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.
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?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're missing is I'm saying it should have been different in the first place.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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
That's not the point.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.
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%.
Have a look at crowds at the old Parramatta stadium versus the new Parramatta stadium.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.
Soon to be a football match and has hosted Super Rugby.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.
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.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.