Mayor for Cobham Park
25/02/2009 12:00:00 a.m.
THE Indoor Community Sports Centre should be in Kilbirnie says Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast.
The latest flurry of debate over the best location for an indoor community sports centre is probably confusing many Wellingtonians so I think it’s essential to respond to some of the claims made about the proposed Westpac Stadium concourse option by Ian Maskell (Capital Times, 18 February).
Compared to Cobham Park at Kilbirnie – the Council’s chosen site for the Indoor Community Sports Centre – the Stadium concourse site presents a multitude of challenges and, as a construction project, would be impossible to complete at an affordable price without bringing great disruption to the Stadium and the Waterloo Quay area.
While we have done detailed design work and closely priced the Cobham Park project to $46 million, the concourse proposal is only at concept design stage and by the time it gets to detailed design could easily cost $66 million or more if roading improvements also have to be made.
The prospect of disruption at the Stadium would mean a concourse sports centre would not be completed until 2013 or 2014 – the organisers of the Rugby World Cup in 2011 won’t tolerate fans from around the world having to thread their way through a construction site to get to matches at the Stadium.
Cobham Park is a simple, open “Greenfield” site. Contractors would move in, build the sports centre, and get out without causing much undue disruption to anyone. If we manage to quickly settle the two appeals against the consent granted for the project last month then the Cobham Park centre could be open for sport by the end of 2011. The bill would pretty much be $46 million, as we have predicted.
The concourse, on the other hand, is largely an unknown quantity in terms of cost and construction challenges. Without any detailed design or resource consent, how can anyone claim it can be built for the same price? We definitely aren’t comparing apples with apples.
People would not travel to an indoor sports centre in the same way they travel to events at the Westpac Stadium. User surveys show nine out of 10 people would prefer to drive themselves (or their kids) to play sport at an ICSC. So arguments that it’s important to have it built near the Railway Station and bus interchange to allow for public transport aren’t compelling.
In terms of an ICSC, what the users have told us is that they are likely to turn up at a range of times (depending on timing of matches or practices). They like to get there quickly, do their sports thing, and then get out quickly. They are usually hot and sweaty – and tired after all the exertion – and so would be likely to drive home or be driven home rather than walk for up to 10 minutes to the Lambton bus terminal and then have to wait for a bus.
The Cobham Park site offers more than 300 free carparks for users. The concourse and CentrePort proposals do not offer parking on days when there are rugby matches or other big events at the Stadium. They offer perhaps 250 carparks at the concourse but would come at a cost to users of the centre or result in a reduction in Stadium revenue that the ratepayers or public would have to offset.
According to the proposal backed by Cr Andy Foster and Ian Maskell, the concourse building would be “multi-use”. There are suggestions it could be used for banquets and other commercial events like concerts or trade shows. This would obviously immediately reduce the availability of the venue for its primary use – as a community sports facility.
The Council has revisited our plans for Cobham twice as a result of Cr Andy Foster’s concerns. We have looked closely the concourse proposal backed by him and Ian Maskell and even had an independent peer review of our work to confirm we have chosen the right site.
Given all the factors involved, we do remain convinced that Cobham is the best site for an Indoor Community Sports Centre.
The latest flurry of debate over the best location for an indoor community sports centre is probably confusing many Wellingtonians so I think it’s essential to respond to some of the claims made about the proposed Westpac Stadium concourse option by Ian Maskell (Capital Times, 18 February).
Compared to Cobham Park at Kilbirnie – the Council’s chosen site for the Indoor Community Sports Centre – the Stadium concourse site presents a multitude of challenges and, as a construction project, would be impossible to complete at an affordable price without bringing great disruption to the Stadium and the Waterloo Quay area.
While we have done detailed design work and closely priced the Cobham Park project to $46 million, the concourse proposal is only at concept design stage and by the time it gets to detailed design could easily cost $66 million or more if roading improvements also have to be made.
The prospect of disruption at the Stadium would mean a concourse sports centre would not be completed until 2013 or 2014 – the organisers of the Rugby World Cup in 2011 won’t tolerate fans from around the world having to thread their way through a construction site to get to matches at the Stadium.
Cobham Park is a simple, open “Greenfield” site. Contractors would move in, build the sports centre, and get out without causing much undue disruption to anyone. If we manage to quickly settle the two appeals against the consent granted for the project last month then the Cobham Park centre could be open for sport by the end of 2011. The bill would pretty much be $46 million, as we have predicted.
The concourse, on the other hand, is largely an unknown quantity in terms of cost and construction challenges. Without any detailed design or resource consent, how can anyone claim it can be built for the same price? We definitely aren’t comparing apples with apples.
People would not travel to an indoor sports centre in the same way they travel to events at the Westpac Stadium. User surveys show nine out of 10 people would prefer to drive themselves (or their kids) to play sport at an ICSC. So arguments that it’s important to have it built near the Railway Station and bus interchange to allow for public transport aren’t compelling.
In terms of an ICSC, what the users have told us is that they are likely to turn up at a range of times (depending on timing of matches or practices). They like to get there quickly, do their sports thing, and then get out quickly. They are usually hot and sweaty – and tired after all the exertion – and so would be likely to drive home or be driven home rather than walk for up to 10 minutes to the Lambton bus terminal and then have to wait for a bus.
The Cobham Park site offers more than 300 free carparks for users. The concourse and CentrePort proposals do not offer parking on days when there are rugby matches or other big events at the Stadium. They offer perhaps 250 carparks at the concourse but would come at a cost to users of the centre or result in a reduction in Stadium revenue that the ratepayers or public would have to offset.
According to the proposal backed by Cr Andy Foster and Ian Maskell, the concourse building would be “multi-use”. There are suggestions it could be used for banquets and other commercial events like concerts or trade shows. This would obviously immediately reduce the availability of the venue for its primary use – as a community sports facility.
The Council has revisited our plans for Cobham twice as a result of Cr Andy Foster’s concerns. We have looked closely the concourse proposal backed by him and Ian Maskell and even had an independent peer review of our work to confirm we have chosen the right site.
Given all the factors involved, we do remain convinced that Cobham is the best site for an Indoor Community Sports Centre.
