How does this advance the centralized Stadium policy that the state government has been pushing? We will still have the same geographical coverage, no roof added to any of them, but be $1.2b out of pocket.
Good question. But having ANZ under its wing, is the first extra. Then having 2 modern facilities recently built and both with transport, one in the city, and one out west (along with ANZ=3) is the next advantage.
So they will have an 80+, a 60+ and a 40ish stadium.
And when you factor in that no other stadia for rectangles will come close to those in the city for a long time thats pretty good if you ask me. Manly intend to get something thats 25ish, and cronulla is capped at 20ish. Wests are meant to be getting a new stadium done by the council or something, but that won't approach 35-40. It could even end up being a part of the centralisation policy thing.
In fact the sydney stadiums group/govt have 3 stadiums in the center line of the city basically. Any other stadium will not stack up to that. So in terms of mass use this is a win for the people. Now, ticket prices. hmmm
Yeah I'm struggling with that idea too.
happens all the time that a stadium becomes 'ancient' after just 20 years. Some age better than others.
Look at the Superdome in the south of america. Awesome, futuristic extravagant stadium built in the 70s. Yes, its still awesome now, i mean just look at its stands. Its a marvel of architecture too. World famous. In 2015 its no where near the bleeding edge.
So there's one clear example of something thats modern but ancient; yet that particular stadium is still useful. SFS, given the wider city's needs, is not useful in the way that the Superdome is useful. Both are still ancient. And in actual fact the Superdome has received 100s millions dollars worth of upgrades.
^Ancient, but super cool still, stadium. Can't stand against modern stadia from other cities in america though - albeit in a country where they continually push the edge of stadia features. In fact, if you look at the stadia trend in the US, and around the world, the space they take up generally is only increasing. They are shoving more crap into them, like an entertainment hub, restaurants and souvenir stores. The facades are more elaborate (though superdome is just brilliant), and things like technology and crazy little things like organic gardens, blah blah.
This is why I said to seanoff earlier, as the trend is to add size and area coverage, you need more materials, and you need more foundations and steel and concrete to hold up the extra size generally, then they want to use more fancy materials.......marble, great timber, they want the finishes to be fantastic.
i made the distinction between something like a cheapy (but useful) stadium like the Gabba, versus something like found over seas, or the MCG versus superdome, or madison square gardens.
The point being, while new SFS will probably be ultra modern, it won't be I'd wager as ridiculous as some of those stadia in america in terms of the trappings. All that stuff in terms of viewing is nonsense.
And then, finally, comes labour. Labour costs in melbourne v brisbane and sydney and houston or new york are way different; or labour on one site versus another is way different. I think sydney will get something awesome and fitting for its money....
and by no means do I think this stadium policy from the nsw govt is a fail. Its a winner.
In fact, those stands are ideal for a sydney stadium to my mind. It doesn't scream rectangle but they were highly functional and efficiently built, though the dome aspects proved expensive. These days they'd want to put all kinds of things in amongst them
