The Baird government’s recent stadium strategy gives “big event sport” priority over suburban stadiums with nothing for places like Brookvale Oval, Shark Park, Campbelltown Stadium, Kogarah Oval, Leichhardt Oval, Penrith Stadium or Sydney Showground Stadium.
Instead the money was concentrated towards funding a Melbourne-style model where AFL clubs had to abandon their traditional suburban homes to share the MCG and Docklands. But how far could the money go if it was spent on boutique stadiums?
To give you an idea, a proposal for a new 15,000-seat stadium in Tauranga New Zealand, a city about the size of Darwin, has an estimated cost of $25 million.
So you could build 64 new boutique stadiums for the cost of the NSW stadium strategy budget of $1.6 billion.
That’s enough for ten in each of the five major cities plus 14 more in regional centres so you could add Wollongong, Canberra, Hobart, Launceston, Gold Coast, Geelong, Sunshine Coast, Townsville, Cairns, Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury-Wodonga and Darwin.
Of course the NSW government won’t fund all that, but would the Federal Government be willing to shell out? Well that’s the 64 stadium question I guess. In fact if you divide $1.6 billion by Australia’s near future population of 25 million people then it actually works out to $64 per person. So it really is the $64 dollar question.
Or if you spread it out over the forward estimates for the next ten years its $6.40 per year.
Given the importance of sport to Australian culture, maybe the federal government should have its own national stadiums strategy. It would also be good as part of this to develop an open source modular boutique stadium design to keep costs low.
You don’t need an exotic design that looks like the Guggenheim for Bonnyrigg White Eagles. The basic structural design could use the same building system but cosmetic differences could be made to make them look more individual on a case by case basis. It would also be good if these new stadiums were built with safe standing areas.
But the biggest problem with stadiums is the difficulty in reaching them and the lack of parking. A common answer people give is to have rail connections close to stadiums, but surface trains can’t go everywhere and subways are very expensive, at up to $600 million a kilometre, or about the cost of Lang Park.
The upper end cost of a bus on the other hand is around $1million so 600 buses with 50 seats would carry 30,000 people. At the lower end a 35-seat solar powered bus designed by Kiira Motors Corporation in Uganda would only cost US$58,000 if put into production. But whatever design you choose it’s probably cheaper than rail and if it’s part of a Bus Rapid Transit network where you pay before you get on at a platform at each stop it’s as quick to get on and off as a train.
Another advantage of buses is that they can also be put on different routes when not taking people to and from stadiums, unlike rail which is fixed. Since traffic congestion costs the economy around $20 billion a year, it might be a good way to help relieve some of that.
Noise might be issue but if they’re solar powered or use the Wrightspeed Powertrain it shouldn’t be a problem. If they could be built in Australia by Australian workers using Australian steel then that would tick all the right boxes for an election campaign.
Maybe the federal government will pay in full, or maybe local councils will find the money themselves, or maybe it’ll be all levels of government with a bit of private money as well, who knows? But with all of these boutique stadiums popping up maybe the FFA will start to review its positions on things like fan ownership and supporter’s trusts, safe standing areas and adding new divisions.
Martyn50
Guest
$75,000. Not getting much for that. Tea, coffee and a few biscuits at deal negotiations may be
Glen
Guest
QSAC and Ballymore are also wasted in Brisbane. I know QSAC is used for community events but still... Transport is the big issue. We had a habit in the past of building boutique stadiums in poor locations. Look at the NRL, it would make so much sense for teams to be slightly relocated to natural CBD locations and rail hubs just a stone throw away. That would have made boutique stadiums more sustainable. Sharks to Sutherland Dragons to Hurstville (pre merger of course) Bulldogs to Bankstown Sea-Eagles to Chatswood Instead, their stadiums have organically grown in places less than ideal.
Glen
Guest
Concord is a funny one. On some aspects, Concord is in a great location. If Parramatta Rd can be freed up by the new Expressway and they make better use of the bus interchange and Burwood rail station, Concord's location is pretty good. Better than Leichhardt anyway and similar capacity.
smell the fear
Guest
typo.i meant 75 mil, the author has no idea what a stadium costs
peeeko
Guest
he has a point, they are not going to build that stadium as much as i would like it
j binnie
Guest
Dinoweb Thanks for the correction,yes in recent times 2013, Roar did attract 23,000 to a game versus Sydney FC but I think you got the general tend of my message ,23,000 is a long way short of Suncorp's 52,000 capacity, and I think that one game in the last 7 or 8 years could be said to be "unusual". The Strikers making a contribution to the overall "earning capacity" of a revamped Perry Park would probably be "small bickies" compared with what a successful Roar could contribute but again any income is better than none and the Strikers don't in any way contribute to Suncorp at present so their small contribution would still be of some help in a year long balance sheet. Whether they would "cash in" on the summer crowds attracted to HAL games remains to be seen but it would certainly offer the Strikers the opportunity to attract some "neutral" football fans along to some of their games in winter. Cheers jb
dinoweb
Roar Guru
"As Roar have only ever drawn more than 20,000 to Grand Finals". Not entirely true JB. Roar have 9 20k+ regular season attendances, including 2 x 32k fixtures, though most of those were in the first three years, and the last was about 22k in late 2013. Personally, I think 25k for Perry Park would be a good number. Gives potential for regular season games, or at least a great venue for semi-finals or exhibition games to help recoup costs. As for the Strikers using it, I don't see how they would significantly add to the annual turnover as a joint tenant. Not suggesting they shouldn't play there, just don't see them making a significant contribution to financial viability.
70s Mo
Guest
Central Coast, Newcastle. WSW, Melbourne City, Adelaide and Perth are already playing in boutique stadiums - and teams like MV and SFC should not be playing in boutique stadiums
Sydneysider
Guest
You could lease out the training facilities (if they use a synthetic surface) to other junior football clubs. J Binnie, that's what I alluding to when I talked about all the suburban NRL grounds in Sydney. It would need a City Group type organisation that could transform these venues into training facilities for sporting clubs who play on rectangular fields. Hence why I get frustrated with Sydney FC and their lack of a training base. The Wanderers are building one at Blacktown.
clipper
Guest
Pretty good post, Dean, sums up the reality of the situation.
SVB
Guest
Unbelievable that it hasn't even been attempted to turn that into a football stadium of some sort. You could build a stadium similar to what the Central Coast Mariners play out of reasonably cheaply and accommodate 15-17k people. Any bigger games can be moved to Suncorp.
j binnie
Guest
The cheapest "boutique stadium" in the country could be converted into a money making venture very easily. Perry Park in Brisbane was built as the "home of Brisbane football " 50 years ago and has lain mostly undeveloped ever since as a football ground.Today it stands opposite a rail station only 2 stops from the city centre and it could easily be converted into a 15-20000 stadium for the land is already under the control of a government body and has been partly leased to both the YMCA and Brisbane Strikers thus already returning some earnings. From a construction point of view the stadium could be developed reasonably cheaply as the foundations for a grandstand over the standing clubhouse are already in place and there is plenty of space on the other side of the ground to take in another grandstand. With this work done the ground could easily accomodate Strikers ,who play in winter and Roar who play in the summer ,thus getting year long usage for games. There is also enough space to have a training area behind the "new" grandstand if the development took place so year long tenancy earnings would be attained from 2 sources.All it takes is some money,some nous,and some initiative on the part of the government body that controls the site. As Roar have only ever drawn more than 20,000 to Grand Finals the 20,000 capacity would be more than adequate for both teams Cheers jb.
AR
Guest
The Ugandan reference was a doozy!
CG2430
Guest
New York City (sister clubs to Manchester City and Melbourn City) play in part-owner the New York Yankees' Yankee Stadium, yes, but many MLS stadiums are 'soccer-specific' these days (apparently gridiron is played on smaller fields than football is, hence the term).
CG2430
Guest
Not to mention land costs in the event that it's a brand new stadium - though I think the OP is proposing mostly rebuilds of existing stadia.
SVB
Guest
Yep, pretty much all the smaller grounds we have to use in Sydney. Concord is one also which could be upgraded if it is needed. Although it is in a bad location. I always thought that Edensor Park (Sydney United) and Marconi Stadium were nice little grounds in terms of football specific stadiums in Sydney. Edensor Park still looks ok and has a synthetic pitch now. Marconi is very run down though, and on one side of the stadium the stands have been totally removed due to safety concerns. I remember back in the day it used to have one of the best surfaces in the country to play on.
BigAl
Guest
Talk about fantasy financials, not even a mention of maintenance costs - but the reference to Ugandan solar powered buses more than made up for that!
marcel
Guest
Nick...whilst your costings and transport strategies are all " way off piste"... I do think the idea of multiple smaller venues is a winner from a sporting perspective....Not sure how the investment folks like it though..they seem to view high occupancy single assets as the best ROI. Homebush needs to be fixed ..and the plans as seen to date are great. As far as upgrading SFS ..would rather see the money spent on an additional 25k ground in the city...
Stevo
Roar Rookie
It reportedly cost $15M to construct Melb City's new facilities at La Trobe Uni and a couple of nice pitches. So $25M with seating is dirt cheap. Unless you meant $75M?
Ian
Guest
$75,000............hahahahaha