Underwater white elephant? Doubts over Auckland's 'submarine' waterfront stadium

Friday, 19 October 2018

The Auckland Waterfront Consortium has launched an ambitious proposal that would see a 50,000-seat fully enclosed stadium built alongside a redeveloped Bledisloe Wharf.

Ratepayers could ultimately underwrite the costs of Auckland's proposed 'submarine' stadium and people should be aware of the risks, an academic says.

Professor John Tookey, a construction professor and head of AUT's Built Environment department, said despite promises of a free stadium, ratepayers and taxpayers could still end up paying for it.

The engineering behind such a stadium would be 'massively challenging', Tookey said, and could end up pushing the cost of the project much higher than the estimated $1.8bn.

And if costs got too high, developers behind the project could go bust and leave the city with a 'big hole in the ground or hole in the ocean', he said.

An artist's impression of the Bledisloe Wharf stadium.

* Plans for $1.8 billion Auckland waterfront stadium unveiled

* Eden Park: Stadium of the future or housing site?**

On Friday, the Auckland Waterfront consortium announced its proposal for a 50,000-seat stadium sunken into the sea bed.

The project would be funded by the sale of the right to build on waterfront land and redevelop the current Eden Park site in Kingsland, with no taxpayer or ratepayer funds used.

Tookey believed the government or Auckland Council would have to underwrite the project as it would be difficult to find a private firm willing to insure against any cost blow-outs.

Professor John Tookey is an expert on the construction industry at Auckland University of Technology's School of Engineering.

And marine construction was 'extraordinarily expensive and dangerous', Tookey said.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff said the council was not tied to one waterfront stadium proposal and encouraged the public to start debating the issues now, with the aim of having a stadium ready to host a Rugby World Cup 'sometime after 2030'.

The stadium would be built alongside a redeveloped Bledisloe Wharf.

Goff said he would prefer a location closer to Spark Arena but was happy somebody had put a 'serious proposal' on the table.

'I don't know yet whether it's viable financially or as a physical construction but I do like the idea,' he said.

Tookey said the planned stadium would effectively be a 'submarine' - an underwater structure with one way in and out.

He could not think of a stadium constructed in a similar way anywhere in the world.

Every aspect of a stadium's typical structure would have to be upgraded to cope with oceanic conditions, including the steel and concrete used, he said.

'As soon as you start putting stuff underwater, particularly seawater, stuff goes sideways in a rush.'

The project could require the construction of a dam on the sea bed, he said, with machines pumping water out of the area before construction began.

All of this could also quickly cause headaches for everyone involved, he said.

'Is $1.8bn really what it's going to cost? I think they're being a little optimistic, in fact I think they're being a lot optimistic.'

Pressure to make that money back on a housing development to replace Eden Park could also see significant push-back from residents notorious for their resistance to intensification.

'How dense do they want the build-up around Eden Park?'

The area of land freed up by the stadium could fit around 160 houses if they were constructed in a way consistent with the traditional Mt Eden section.

But no firm would be able to make close to $1.8bn profit from the construction of 160 houses, so developers would have to 'multiply up the level of density' in Mt Eden to pay for it Tookey said.

'You've got rid of one very, very large structure and you replace it with a very, very large structure in order to make good on the money you spent on another structure.'

Similar factors would drive the planned waterfront development to accompany the stadium, he said.

While there would be a range of housing on the waterfront, it would have to be a 'high-end' product in order to make money.

And if there was a global financial crisis or a property bust, that could easily throw out any financial calculations, Tookey said.

He also believed the development would not be entirely free to the ratepayer, with substantial maintenance costs for an underwater structure likely to linger on council balance sheets for years.

Tookey likened the proposal to the white elephants of ancient Thailand.

Owning a white elephant gave rulers great prestige but they were very expensive to maintain.

'This has every possibility of being a white elephant,' he said.

Goff said the promise of extensive private funding meant a waterfront stadium could be built sooner than he had hoped.

'I see that the initial assurances are that they won't be asking for ratepayer money at all and I'd welcome that,' Goff said.

'Do I believe that? Well, that's another question.'

The consortium's engineer was not available for interview to respond to issues raised by Tookey until next week.

* Comments are now closed on this article.