Yeah it probably cost $60 million at the time because it was done that way as it's initial construction?
If so, then it is not a valid comparison. Renovating an existing structure usually winds up being more expensive than a new build due to the modifications and/or demolition work you have to do on existing structures.
Granted it is not as simple as building from scratch and will therefore be more expencive, but considering the current design, the reconfiguration i propose would likely be no more expencive than the current proposal and it wouldnt even require a massive change to the plans.
The roof bares most of its own wieght, so the stands only need to hold themselves up, not the roof aswell. That is what would make building this so cheap.
That is the point i was trying to make with the college stadium; it does not support a roof so they can build really cheaply.
Also you just showed a problem, it is a 30,000 seat stadium. ANZ is not a 30,000 seat stadium. It is an 83,000 seat stadium.
The college stadium example was referring specifically to the North and SOuth ends. The rest of the stadium would stay effectively unchanged, just the north and south ends need be redesigned.
The extra 30,000 or so these grandstands would add is to replace the two ends of the bowl after they are demolished
Consider at the current plan; they want to demolish these north and south ends and replace them with movable stands (like the east and west sides of the lower bowl).
The only change i would like to see in these plans is, instead of movable stands being added after the ends are demolished, permanent ends be built 90m apart (similar to the wings that used to be part of the stadium in 2000, just moved forward).
This means the field would run East to west and all of the other stadium infrustructure (both the upper and lower sections of the East and west stands) would not only still be adequate, but actually have a far better view than they have now.
Additionally, the NSW Government aren't going to make it a permanent recangual stadium despite what we may want. They want their stadiums used by as many organisations as possible as they do not want to have to worry about ongoing maintenance costs for a plethora of stadiums.
This just comes down to lobbying and justification...
In its oval shape, the stadium is only used by AFL 2 or 3 times a year and by cricket a handful more (all of which could be moved to Skoda or the SCG).
Obviously this would lose ANZ Trust money, so you would have to justify it in those terms (gain compared to lose); Souths, Bulldogs, Eels, Tigers and the Dragons could all agree to play X games there and Wanderers games would be moved there.
In monitory terms it would be easy for ANZ to come out ahead if this deal went through.
And dont say teams wont want to move to ANZ. If it meant the opportunity to play in a stadium comparable to this...
... instead of a suburban ground, I'm sure fans would be ok with driving the extra 15 minutes.
