Auckland's waterfront stadium: A field of dreams or pool of tears?

Friday, 26 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.

Auckland residents are divided over a proposed waterfront stadium. Will it be a pool of tears or field of dreams? Hear from a developer and an engineering expert on whether the stadium is doable or desirable.

OPINION: First, a clarification. I am an engineer who loves construction. I like big stuff. Loads of steel. Tonnes of concrete. It's what I like to see. It's what I am. Sad, I know.

When I get asked about the new 'crater' stadium proposal for Auckland's waterfront I am professionally torn. It's Groundhog Day. Again.

Every few years another proposal to replace Eden Park appears and the same questions are asked. Do I want to see landmark construction in Auckland? Absolutely. Is it technically possible? No question. The Romans built as efficient stadia as our modern examples. They designed concrete that hardened underwater. They used coffer dams. The fact that they never combined these technologies is a historical coincidence.

Of course we can technically do it. Do we have the skills in New Zealand? Of course we do – or we buy them in. Easy.

**READ MORE:

The Auckland Waterfront Consortium's proposal is for a 50,000-seat stadium built alongside a redeveloped Bledisloe Wharf.

* Judge the Auckland waterfront stadium on its desirability

* Replacing port with stadium defies reality

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

* Plans for $1.8 billion Auckland waterfront stadium unveiled

* Underwater white elephant? Doubts over Auckland stadium**

But these are not key questions. Should we do it? That's the question. In all honesty, I do not know.

I would love to see such a dramatic engineering statement come to fruition. But how deep are our pockets and how great are our needs?

There are arguments on both sides. We consider locations. We consider pros and cons. We consider costs. We consider environment. We draw battle lines for debate. Nay-sayers and yea-sayers. Nimbys and sports fanatics. Aucklanders and 'the rest of New Zealand'. Name-calling ensues.

If I am asked about the risks – which I always am – the litany is huge. Irrespective of well-known technologies, oceanic building is hard, even close to shore. Major excavations. Working at depth (and height). Geology. Materials. Market conditions. King tides. Tsunami. Earthquake. On and on.

Comparison structures cited built in, on, or under, the ocean fall into two categories: wealthy states, or organisations, seeking to demonstrate that wealth. Are we an oil state like Adu Dhabi or a casino operator with vast holdings (Marina Bay Sands)? No. Also, consider if such vanity projects publicise actual construction or maintenance costs.

Professionally, I have to state potential consequences of such huge projects, irrespective of the 'naysayer' label. Proponents use 'optimism bias'. Different rugby codes and cricket will be users. So will stadium bands. Build it and they will come.

Proponents sketch over potential liabilities if the project goes ahead. Previous Groundhog Days (2016 vintage) cited 30,000-40,000 seat venue as 'only' $600m on dry land. Now we increase size, cost, and put it in the harbour. But no worries – someone else pays.

These are classic tactics. Proponents overstate benefits of large scale projects and minimise difficulty, complexity and risk.

The objective is to get a public commitment. Sydney Opera House, amongst others, was built this way – but we forget the conflict it caused.

Due diligence is needed. I recommend some key questions: What financial guarantees insulate the public purse when the cost blows out? What contingent developments – and control – do we have over the Eden Park/waterfront planned redevelopments? What are the annual maintenance costs? What additional works (roads etc) around the waterfront are needed, and are included or excluded from the agreement? What is the total development value of the public assets we are swapping for this stadium? I could go on.

The issue is, ultimately, that we need to enter this undertaking with our eyes wide open. This 'asset' could become a liability very quickly. Auckland's field of dreams could become a bitter pool of tears from which we get drink deeply.

In truth, I would like to see it built. But I have no wish to say 'I told you so' when unknown unknowns take their toll on schedule and budget.

Professor John Tookey is the deputy head of the School of Engineering, Computer & Mathematical Science at Auckland University of Technology.