• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Milli said:

As much as I love these races, as a taxpayer and voter I wouldn't want billionaires to be subsidized for their fun and glory. Governments at national and local level should provide the infrastructure if it is reasonable in the long term. But they should also demand a minimum cost-covering rent from the teams or the cup organisation. 

I have a similar, albeit slightly different view.

From my perspective, the teams are paying some form of "notional rent" by virtue of the stimulus to the economy that is being provided and therefore yes, build the bases and do charge them some rent (say $2 Million for the 18 months or so that they are there).

As for spending on any other infrastructure to support this, then no. My issue is that whilst this DOES stimulate the economy, the additional funds tend to wind up in the pockets of a small number of people, meaning that aside from a kick arse event to attend the rate /tax payers don't get a lot back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogwatch said:

Given that the fallback option is Italy, I wonder if there is a suitable defined venue there that has bases or space and permissions for bases to be built. Or is that simply a cheerful assumption? On the whole the kinds of cities where $Bs might like to hang out don't have large areas of derelict or undeveloped waterfront land.

Given the financial funk that Italy finds itself currently in, that assumption might not hold true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ It's not that bad ... Now, once again I do not advocate an Italian venue, but if it did come to that, there would be several feasible locations requiring little if any prep work: mainly cities in the South, with largish underused harbors and adequate wind. Someone might measure Molo Sabaudo in Cagliari and see what the area is, I'm positive Trapani (AC32 Act etc.) has even more. This assumes no venue money would have to be disbursed, not like that Rome-Fiumicino hoax cooked up by OR as a bargaining chip with the SF BOS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another thing why I'm not at all thrilled about the Halsey option:

01.jpg

As a spectator you basically have no vision of the bases.

All the public gets to see is the backs of bases & narrow view across from Te Whero, maybe limited views from end of Hobson or between S1 & S2 but a pretty good chance of barriers/other obstruction.

To watch/support boats leaving dock you'd have to go out to Princes' or Queens' wharf.

 

Compare with HHW

05.jpg

All the bases have good public viewing angles from Te Whero/North Wharf except S4 & maybe S8.

 

Edit: also in terms of price Halsey extension needs to be a solid fill wharf to be a breakwater, the HHW smaller Halsey extension & Wynyard work can be piled (presumably cheaper?) since it doesn't need to breakwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the Halsey option deal breaker would seem to be: if a decision has to be taken very shortly, how could it be selected when there are just four teams confirmed/likely? If no other team showed up subsequently, it would be a terrible waste. 

The H-H-W solution, instead, has the advantage of being modular: the bases on W could be optional and built only if needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hoom said:

Yep said that previous page ;)

Oops, beg pardon :)

The six-team H-W layout looks good. As an aside, nobody has critiqued yet the two-boat base area requirement, or if indeed that's warranted other than for ETNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xlot said:

Oops, beg pardon :)

The six-team H-W layout looks good. As an aside, nobody has critiqued yet the two-boat base area requirement, or if indeed that's warranted other than for ETNZ

I think they should just flatten the entire Auckland area to make way for bases :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am still wondering what the basis of any of these 3 para’s is:

Auckland councillors need to decide in 10 days which of five possible cup village options they will build.

The cost is significant, between an estimated $140 million and $190m.

So are the benefits. A study commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment forecasts an economic benefit to the country of $555m - $977m, and that doesn't include building the infrastructure.

http://103.14.3.1/news/on-the-inside/343797/who-will-cheerlead-for-auckland

Is there no basis for any of them posted anywhere? It is all a bit fishy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Am still wondering what the basis of any of these 3 para’s is:

Auckland councillors need to decide in 10 days which of five possible cup village options they will build.

The cost is significant, between an estimated $140 million and $190m.

So are the benefits. A study commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment forecasts an economic benefit to the country of $555m - $977m, and that doesn't include building the infrastructure.

http://103.14.3.1/news/on-the-inside/343797/who-will-cheerlead-for-auckland

Is there no basis for any of them posted anywhere? It is all a bit fishy..

Don't lose any sleep over it all, Stinger. I'm sure someone, somewhere is looking at the numbers. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jaysper said:

I think they should just flatten the entire Auckland area to make way for bases :)

Wellington will shake and slide into the tide of its own accord at some point - no human assistance required...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expressed before leaving Auckland that I thought the AC should have been built into the Viaduct"s development 

Huge Bays for team bases could have been built into whatever structures were desired

The space inside could have been filled in a modular manor so as to be restored when Like Now its needed

So what about incorporating that idea into the next go around of building over the AC Village 

This Not suggesting tgey do thay to hold the AC, rather they require an AC complient Village with Base Space for at least 10 teams

It would be an attraction for the area forever even IF heaven forbid the AC didnt return

It would be an Extra insperation to Winb it back, should it ever leave again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When browsing Google maps I spotted a rather affronting logo still there after being painted on the roof of what was a certain team's compound.

Someone really should get up there over such an ugly ugly thing.

5a0f5920604d9_ScreenShot2017-11-18at10_45_45AM.png.dd4b79598de2f243eba1418f552d3950.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

I expressed before leaving Auckland that I thought the AC should have been built into the Viaduct"s development 

Huge Bays for team bases could have been built into whatever structures were desired

The space inside could have been filled in a modular manor so as to be restored when Like Now its needed

So what about incorporating that idea into the next go around of building over the AC Village 

This Not suggesting tgey do thay to hold the AC, rather they require an AC complient Village with Base Space for at least 10 teams

It would be an attraction for the area forever even IF heaven forbid the AC didnt return

It would be an Extra insperation to Winb it back, should it ever leave again

for once woody I agree with you, adaptability to other events ie Volvo etc could well make it a winner... unless another hotair motormouth fuckwit from wellington wants to plonk a rugby stadium down there somewhere................again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the dispersed central Halsey/Hobson/Wynyard concept; shows flexible planning, very scalable, good viewing and access as mentioned, a boon to the viaduct hospitality biz..

only problem for me is no legacy development, the entire viaduct show came about as a result of AC and I don't hear that being mentioned in any debates; the investment in smart tourist friendly infrastructure pays off in this country with tourism set to increase almost 5% a year.

I guess we're stuck with the cloud for a while longer with shed 10 being increasingly utilized by cruise ships.

anyway good to have a winner on the books without too much waffling around i guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, barfy said:

only problem for me is no legacy development, the entire viaduct show came about as a result of AC and I don't hear that being mentioned in any debates; the investment in smart tourist friendly infrastructure pays off in this country with tourism set to increase almost 5% a year.

I hope too that they go the extra mile and do the big Halsey Wharf construction, although were I the AC King it would be a touch even grander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barfy said:

I really like the dispersed central Halsey/Hobson/Wynyard concept; shows flexible planning, very scalable, good viewing and access as mentioned, a boon to the viaduct hospitality biz..

only problem for me is no legacy development, the entire viaduct show came about as a result of AC and I don't hear that being mentioned in any debates; the investment in smart tourist friendly infrastructure pays off in this country with tourism set to increase almost 5% a year.

I guess we're stuck with the cloud for a while longer with shed 10 being increasingly utilized by cruise ships.

anyway good to have a winner on the books without too much waffling around i guess.

I booked me trip to Auckland in 2000 in support of DC campaigning  for a club where I was a member

Well the lights were out @ S&S befbefore I got there

So I supported all me friends I met in 1995

That club that was a Chalanger w DC Leading the Fight .... has No Fucking mention of that anywhere to be found

I flew the Klubs Burgee along w TNZ out on the water during the Cup and I still have it to this day

The Fucking Klub made a more middle eastern burgUlgy and I refuse to recognise it.

People get incharge of Shit by forcing their way to acheive a means to promote THEIR Agenda and history is colattorial damage

As went the Viaduct I guess :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nutta said:

Wellington will shake and slide into the tide of its own accord at some point - no human assistance required...

LOL! Almost managed that last year Nutta. 

Can't believe how many buildings were fucked by that quake cos it sure as shit didn't seem that bad from inside my 80 year old bungalow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's Cup - Is Auckland set to repeat past Cup venue errors?

Richard Gladwell

The 19th century line “two men looked out from prison bars, one saw the mud, the other saw stars” seems to characterise the current debate over America's Cup base options for Auckland.

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Is-Auckland-set-to-repeat-past-Cup-venue-errors/158861?source=m.facebook

Large_HalseyConstruct10751.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council agency keel-hauled and questioned over America's Cup options

SIMON MAUDE

The five options put forward for an America's Cup base in Auckland present nothing more than a "Sophie's choice", a lobby group says.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/98891076/council-agency-keelhauled-and-questioned-over-americas-cup-options

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goff gears up for America's Cup base negotiations

Cup defenders may face uphill battle to get Halsey Wharf option across line.

Auckland's mayor is gearing up for what could be an intense meeting with Team New Zealand about which part of the city's waterfront should be used as a base for the America's Cup.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11945443

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11945470

The commodore of the Challenger of Record yacht club for the next America's Cup had his doubts the Cup would be sailed in Italy if Auckland failed to provide adequate facilities.

"I am sure that possibility exists - but really only if there is a national disaster like an earthquake, tornado or hurricane," said Agostino Randazzo, interviewed in Sicily last month at the picturesque Circolo della vela Sicilia yacht club near Palermo, the club behind Italy's Luna Rossa as challenger of record.

But, as Thursday's Auckland Council vote nears, the "disaster" could be if the vote goes against Emirates Team New Zealand's preferred option of the $190 million Halsey Wharf extension.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

He omited one word.

"I am sure that possibility exists - but really only if there is a national disaster like a political earthquake, tornado or hurricane," said Agostino Randazzo,

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Tend to agree with this civic-minded argument. Tindall?

But sources close to Team NZ say: "The Halsey extension is the legacy option. The dispersed options would be there for the Cup and would then disappear. Halsey Wharf would be there for visitors, for super yachts, for triathlon events and all sorts of water-based events. It wouldn't be - and shouldn't be - given over to apartments and the like."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11945470

The commodore of the Challenger of Record yacht club for the next America's Cup had his doubts the Cup would be sailed in Italy if Auckland failed to provide adequate facilities.

"I am sure that possibility exists - but really only if there is a national disaster like an earthquake, tornado or hurricane," said Agostino Randazzo, interviewed in Sicily last month at the picturesque Circolo della vela Sicilia yacht club near Palermo, the club behind Italy's Luna Rossa as challenger of record.

But, as Thursday's Auckland Council vote nears, the "disaster" could be if the vote goes against Emirates Team New Zealand's preferred option of the $190 million Halsey Wharf extension.

 

There a building ground swell of opinion amongst discion makers that ETNZ had better significantly lower their expectations or go and try their luck in Italy.

Going to be a interesting week in Auckland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

There a building ground swell of opinion amongst discion makers that ETNZ had better significantly lower their expectations or go and try their luck in Italy.

Going to be a interesting week in Auckland.

One of the many complicated unknowns comes from the notion that Auckland is being told to decide its option choice next week - well before the Govt considers it early next year. If both parties are supposed to foot the bill and carry the political baggage then it seems like a much tighter coordination would be better since even Auckland and Govt could disagree options come the New Year, let alone ETNZ.. Or PRADA..

I keep wondering where these options, cost estimates and Economic Impact numbers were conjured up at - and why they seem to be hidden from the public. If the arguments are solid then shouldn’t transparency be a big help too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Council agency keel-hauled and questioned over America's Cup options

SIMON MAUDE

The five options put forward for an America's Cup base in Auckland present nothing more than a "Sophie's choice", a lobby group says.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/98891076/council-agency-keelhauled-and-questioned-over-americas-cup-options

 

I can't remember hearing any plan for relocation of the cars on Cap'n Cook?

My opinion is that the event would be better hosted near the amenities of the Viaduct, rather than have a huge flow of traffic in front of the ferry building and britomart, already chocker with commuters. But nice to get the cars gone from the core waterfront which already suffers too many vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Priscilla said:

There a building ground swell of opinion amongst discion makers that ETNZ had better significantly lower their expectations or go and try their luck in Italy.

Going to be a interesting week in Auckland.

If the council and central Government let that happen, the next rounds of elections will be a bloodbath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Auckland must think big with America's Cup hosting option

From there, it’s a reasonable point. Since it appears to be ETNZ-interested boosters conjuring up all the numbers, maybe they can revisit themselves and conjure up a new construction price for the Halsey option?

 

The yachties' hopes for a 220m extension to Halsey Wharf to encase all the syndicate bases and have room for some super yachts as well as the necessary administrative hub doesn't actually stretch further into the harbour than the existing structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Some interesting arguments at about 16:00, I forget what the guy’s name is

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018622271

Mike Williams is the first guy - old Labour party President, second guy Matthew Hooton is political pundit - both playing somewhat of a provocateur - I don't think many people equate a new public wharf for the AC with the Ports Of Auckland presence in the Harbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Mike Williams is the first guy - old Labour party President, second guy Matthew Hooton is political pundit - both playing somewhat of a provocateur - I don't think many people equate a new public wharf for the AC with the Ports Of Auckland presence in the Harbour.

No, the difference is that the sailors who complained about POA pushing into the harbour for commercial gain won’t complain about Council doing the same so that they win the right to hold the cup. Auckland NIMBYism at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Mike Williams is the first guy - old Labour party President, second guy Matthew Hooton is political pundit - both playing somewhat of a provocateur - I don't think many people equate a new public wharf for the AC with the Ports Of Auckland presence in the Harbour.

Matthew Hooten has a particular interest in the goings in at PoA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

No, the difference is that the sailors who complained about POA pushing into the harbour for commercial gain won’t complain about Council doing the same so that they win the right to hold the cup. Auckland NIMBYism at its best.

How does the old saying go? "Ask for what you want in order to get what you need"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viaduct Harbour created a hugely successful America's Cup village

When Team New Zealand won the America's Cup in San Diego in 1995, Sir Peter Blake spoke of his dream to turn Auckland's neglected Viaduct Basin into a cup village.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11946001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still all a bit conventional. Needs a bit more 'Chch post-earthquake' thinking.

Does it have to be a permanent wharf or nothing? I mean if it's wanted and the money is available by all means build it. But if that's not gonna happen (or not gonna happen quickly enough), why not get the public out into that (water) space beyond Halsey wharf, using non-permanent structures/floating structures  and keep the bases closer in, using the best of the available spaces already mentioned -  depending on numbers and in order of entry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nav said:

Still all a bit conventional. Needs a bit more 'Chch post-earthquake' thinking.

Does it have to be a permanent wharf or nothing? I mean if it's wanted and the money is available by all means build it. But if that's not gonna happen (or not gonna happen quickly enough), why not get the public out into that (water) space beyond Halsey wharf, using non-permanent structures/floating structures  and keep the bases closer in, using the best of the available spaces already mentioned -  depending on numbers and in order of entry?

Yes the AMEX Yacht Club needs to return with a lift/slip for me YACHT

What did people pay to join that floating Yacht Club's Restaurant/Bar to watch the AC on TV :blink:  ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a super-nice contact at MBIE

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment release of the 36thAmerica’s Cup: High Level Economic Assessment Evaluation 

 

MBIE commissioned Market Economics to evaluate the potential economic impact of an Auckland-based 36thAmerica’s Cup. In summary it estimated the following:

·         From 2018-2021 provides between $0.6 - $1.0 billion in value add to New Zealand’s economy and an employment boost of between 4,700 and 8,300. The range reflects different assumptions around the number of syndicates competing, visiting super yachts, international tourists and the cost of hosting.

·         Impacts positively on sectors like services, manufacturing (mainly around boat building and super yacht refits) and tourism, including food, retailing and accommodation.

·         The cost-benefit analysis for the period of the 36thAmerica’s Cup (excluding any future benefits associated with any new infrastructure, or ongoing benefits to the marine industry) is positive, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8. This cost-benefit ratio is for the economy as a whole; the costs included relate to all parties, including for example the Crown, Auckland Council, syndicates, Emirates Team New Zealand, retailers and tourism providers.

The economic evaluation does not capture any of the broader benefits associated with hosting an event of this scale, including showcasing New Zealand to international audiences (and associated reputation impacts), high performance sport outcomes, and participation and engagement of New Zealanders that may have “feel good” effects (increasing national identity and pride).

The study makes no assumptions around location or whether there are any incursions into the harbour or not. It does not, therefore, take account of any loss of value from reducing the available harbour space. At the time of commissioning, the location was undetermined. 

The study is consistent with Treasury guidelines for studies of this kind. This is one input into the discussions between government, Auckland Council and ETNZ. Any decision needs to stack up for ETNZ, and the New Zealand ratepayers and taxpayers.

 

A full copy of the evaluation is available on MBIE’s website:http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/infrastructure-growth/americas-cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now