Brisbane 2032 Venues/Stadiums Thread

[venuedesignlover]

Can a private developer fund a demolition and reconstruction of the Gabba? Oh right, there’s no massive real estate deal for a riverside luxury development in it for them.

[Rob2012]

4 hours ago, yoshi said:

I wouldn't say I'm a Brisbane booster as such

That absolutely wasn't aimed at you, it was pre-empting replies that might be coming.

[Victorian]

Welcome to the world of Olympic stadia proposals for Brisbane 2032!

 

 

Victoria Park 'Sunshine Stadium' Version 1 (August 2016)

Victoria Park Version 2 (August 2018)

Gabba (April 2021)

Victoria Park Version 3 (March 2024)

Breakfast Creek Stadium (April 2024

Northshore Olympic Stadium (August 2024)

[Victorian]

A note about legacy from someone who is involved in Athletics but also heavily follows Cricket and Football/AFL.

I know the IOC want to avoid 'white elephant' stadiums however any new 'circular' stadium is almost a given to be a success in Australia in drawing a full calendar of events due to our sporting seasons calendar. Even Suncorp Stadium wouldn't host events all year like the Gabba currently does. For those playing along at home, the AFL season runs from March - September which guarantees matches every second week for the stadium then over the summer between Men's and Women's Internationals as well as Big Bash and other cricket matches, the stadium would then also hold quite a few fixtures over the summer along with any other marquee events such as concerts that the stadium may get. Athletics Australia and John Coates are in favour of the QSAC option because there is a legacy for Athletics however Athletics has benefited from the Games in both Melbourne and Sydney with Athletics facilities for the sport with the warm up tracks remaining and being used for years to come. Athletics is a niche sports and you wouldn't get more than 6-7k attending a marquee international athletics meet. Like the old Olympic Park and SOPAC, these facilities were from warm up tracks. Wherever the new grand stadium would be, the warm up track can remain after the Games with a little pavilion built that would then enable it to be Queensland's premier athletics facility for years to come. QSAC is currently home to the QIS however that could be incorporated into the precinct of this new stadium where if there are other sports venues such as sports courts, aquatic centre etc, it would then allow more sports to benefit from a state of the art facility. QSAC also holds state AQ and LAQ events however they would benefit from a more smaller stadium that would create a better atmosphere. 

So for me, I would think the legacy benefits would be:

New Stadium :

During Games - Athletics, Ceremonies

After Games - AFL/Cricket/Concerts (replaces the Gabba)

Warm Up Track :

During Games - Athletics Warm Up Track

After Games - Home to Athletics Queensland with a pavilion and small grandstand built 

[AustralianFan]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

A note about legacy from someone who is involved in Athletics but also heavily follows Cricket and Football/AFL.

I know the IOC want to avoid 'white elephant' stadiums however any new 'circular' stadium is almost a given to be a success in Australia in drawing a full calendar of events due to our sporting seasons calendar. Even Suncorp Stadium wouldn't host events all year like the Gabba currently does. For those playing along at home, the AFL season runs from March - September which guarantees matches every second week for the stadium then over the summer between Men's and Women's Internationals as well as Big Bash and other cricket matches, the stadium would then also hold quite a few fixtures over the summer along with any other marquee events such as concerts that the stadium may get. Athletics Australia and John Coates are in favour of the QSAC option because there is a legacy for Athletics however Athletics has benefited from the Games in both Melbourne and Sydney with Athletics facilities for the sport with the warm up tracks remaining and being used for years to come. Athletics is a niche sports and you wouldn't get more than 6-7k attending a marquee international athletics meet. Like the old Olympic Park and SOPAC, these facilities were from warm up tracks. Wherever the new grand stadium would be, the warm up track can remain after the Games with a little pavilion built that would then enable it to be Queensland's premier athletics facility for years to come. QSAC is currently home to the QIS however that could be incorporated into the precinct of this new stadium where if there are other sports venues such as sports courts, aquatic centre etc, it would then allow more sports to benefit from a state of the art facility. QSAC also holds state AQ and LAQ events however they would benefit from a more smaller stadium that would create a better atmosphere. 

So for me, I would think the legacy benefits would be:

New Stadium :

During Games - Athletics, Ceremonies

After Games - AFL/Cricket/Concerts (replaces the Gabba)

Warm Up Track :

During Games - Athletics Warm Up Track

After Games - Home to Athletics Queensland with a pavilion and small grandstand built 

 There is a Queensland State Election in October and should there be a change of government, as is likely, there is a building expectation that the 100-day review promised by the LNP Opposition Leader Crisafulli will deliver a brand new stadium.

I wouldn’t be so sure.  Crisafulli has explicity stated himself, “No New Stadiums”.

But,…. we can live in hope for a new AFL/Cricket legacy stadium from which the Olympics Track and Field will benefit.

In the meantime, with all this focus on the Stadium or Track and Field Venue, the reality is that other 2032 Venues are on track and progressing nicely for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[FYI]

Yeah, go with this one: 

 

This one looks like the aliens 👽 have just landed! 

[Sir Rols]

13 hours ago, Rob2012 said:

Someone who isn't a hopeless Brisbane-booster telling me I'm being too cynical would be welcome. I'd be more than happy to be persuaded.

Far from it. It’s an absolute duty to be sceptical when a property developer promises the world in exchange for signing over some waterfront real estate and building a major transit line to it.

[Sir Rols]

My questions:

Why is the notoriously anti-Labor and pro business Courier Mail pushing this so strongly and glowingly?

Who are the names behind it? And which parties do they donate to?

What is the land used for now? What’s it zoned for? What’s the current  future plans?

Who will own the stadium? Will it be leased to the AFL and ACB? Will it later be offered as shared ownership with the Goverment and AFL/ACB?

Is the offer off the table if the village isn’t part of it (because let’s face it, this is all about getting their hands on some prime waterside apartment complexes to sell after the games)?

[venuedesignlover]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Is the offer off the table if the village isn’t part of it (because let’s face it, this is all about getting their hands on some prime waterside apartment complexes to sell after the games)?

Can a private developer fund a demolition and reconstruction of the Gabba? Oh right, there’s no massive real estate deal for a riverside luxury development in it for them.

[Olympics2028]

 

[FYI]

"Bris-bain" 

The 2032 Games would be "on the verge of being moved" over JC's dead body first!  So that guy needs to stop thinking that. But then towards the very end, he says that they probably are going to host it "because they're pretty far along in the planning process". lol

One of the few sensible things he says is that hosting the Olympics takes a lot of infrastructure that smaller cities just don't really have. He also says how Brisbane was the "only bidder", which is why they got the Games, but we all here know the real story behind that. But if the guy can't even pronounce Brisbane how the Aussie's say it, then how can he be taken seriously anyway. Maybe a certain Brizzie booster needs to set him straight. lol

 

[AustralianFan]

9 hours ago, Olympics2028 said:

 

This guy has drunk too much coffee.

[Brekkie Boy]

Certainly makes things a bit more interesting but don't believe for a penny it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent.

[AustralianFan]

The Brisbane Stadium Issue

So the following editorial from Brisbane’s Courier Mail media outlet includes some pertinent quotes from David Crisafulli, the likely incoming Premier of Queensland after the 27 October State Election:

**************************************

“Time we let the actual experts decide on Brisbane Games venues”

Credit:  Courier Mail

“David Crisafulli is right in pointing out what should be obvious: that we cannot expect our politicians to be experts on sporting venues – and so the decisions on where and how to build appropriate infrastructure to support Queensland’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032 should actually be left to people who know what they are talking about.”

“This is the heart of the problem, and why two premiers have now been burdened with unpopular choices for the athletics stadium for the Games – in both instances they themselves just dreamt them up.”

“Former premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s dream of rebuilding the Gabba was cooked up so last-minute that when she announced it in 2021 with former prime minister Scott Morrison, not even he had been told about it previously.”

“The $1bn price tag attached to the plan by Ms Palaszczuk was also just made up, it has since been revealed. The real cost was likely to be more like $3bn, subsequent assessments revealed – and it had not even been considered what cricket and the AFL would do during the years the Gabba was being demolished and rebuilt. No surprise, then, the Gabba plan lost community support.”

“Enter current Premier Steven Miles and his ambition to blow at least $1.6bn converting the old QEII Stadium at Nathan from its existing – but dated – 48,000-seat capacity to a 14,000-seat venue as a “legacy” for athletics in Queensland.”
 

“That idea came after he decided to just ignore the recommendations of a review led by former Brisbane lord mayor Graham Quirk that he had commissioned. That review rejected the Nathan option, and instead proposed the government use the $3bn it had earmarked for the Gabba to build a new stadium on a greenfield site at the inner-city Victoria Park – an easier option than the Gabba, and one that would deliver economic benefits into the future that far surpassed anything that an upgraded venue at the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre at Nathan could ever hope to deliver.“

“Concept Victoria Park Olympic Stadium by Archipelago. Photo: Supplied”

“But Premier Miles was having none of it. He was mindful that he was in an election year, smack-bang in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis – making a $3bn spend on a new stadium a tough sell politically.”

“And so with two weeks still to run on his independent review that he had promised to listen to, he instead decided to forge ahead with the Nathan option. It was an idea proposed by the Australian who orchestrated Brisbane’s successful bid for the Games, the International Olympics Committee vice-president John Coates.”

“Mr Coates thought it was the best chance to win back community support for the Games, because it would be cheaper. The opening and closing ceremonies, he said, could be held at Suncorp Stadium.”

“But Premier Miles and Mr Coates have misread the room. An online survey of couriermail.com.au and news.com.au readers that asked “what option should Queensland choose for the stadium?” has now received over 26,000 votes. The $1.6bn Nathan proposal has won just 12 per cent of them, behind 16 per cent for the $2.7bn rebuild of the Gabba – and 72 per cent for the $3.4bn Victoria Park option.”

“And so yep, spending $3.4bn on a stadium is actually six times more popular than spending half that at Nathan, which, as the home of the Queensland Academy of Sport, already features an international-standard athletics training and competition facility.”

“But what would our readers know? Their opinion sure matters politically, but like the politicians, they are not experts in this space.”
“And so back to Mr Crisafulli, who as Opposition Leader could be our new premier on October 27.“

“He said this yesterday: “I would be no better than Steven Miles if I said to you this is the option and it’s the only option. It has to be driven by all levels of government and the best and brightest minds – if you don’t, you end up with a captain’s pick from a premier who chooses QSAC and he is the only person who thinks that is the right option.”
 

“I’m going to do things vastly differently. I’m talking about exactly the model NSW did in 1995 when they set up an independent infrastructure co-ordination authority. We have time. I want Queenslanders to know there has been 1000 wasted days of time, but within 100 days we will get the show back on the road.”
 

“They’ve plucked QSAC out of the air. I’m talking about all levels of government – the best and the brightest, not a political pressure valve (like the Quirk review was).”

“Sydney was awarded the Games in 1993 – seven years out – and in 1995, five years out, they established what I’m talking about (an expert infrastructure group).”
“After 1000 days of chaos and crisis I’m asking for 100 days to sort out this mess.

“Make no mistake, we will have world class venues. In contrast, the government has said it’s QSAC or bust. Not many Queenslanders agree with that. I’m asking for 100 days to sort out the mess.’’

“It is certainly not our job to do Mr Crisafulli’s PR. And we stand ready to hold him to account when that is required, as we have in the past.”

“But in terms of a response to how to navigate this vexed issue, it would be hard to find better. After Paris, Queenslanders have realised we are on track to being embarrassed on the global stage. It is time for a more mature and considered approach.“

[yoshi]

Interesting read - I wonder if Paris might've accidentally saved Brisbane here. The 40k lump of scaffolding in the cemetery was a pretty embarrassing idea anyway, but put alongside Paris & LA would've looked downright shameful - & that makes it sound like what they saw in Paris has focused the minds of Brisbane's people if not yet the politicians there & in Lausanne. I think (going on that) the people realise that although it's a much bigger cost upfront, a 70k brand new stadium like the Victoria Park group proposed is gonna be serving Queensland pretty much every week for a century. That's legacy. QSAC doesn't solve the "we need a circular stadium" problem & a new Gabba doesn't solve the capacity & transport problem. Plus I assume they could actually demolish the Gabba & build housing on it to help with some of the bill...

Edited August 19 by yoshi

[Safrican2]

That’s actually a pretty decent write-up from the Courier Mail, which let’s face it isn’t always known for its shall we say insightful journalism.

What I find so baffling is that of all cities, Aussie ones actually have a use for oval stadia. Brisbane in particular needs a new stadium. But as has been said the reality of on the ground politics makes spending the money right now harder.

I can’t say I’m particularly enthusiastic about the thought of a Brisbane Games - I mean Tokyo, Paris, LA and then Brisbane just sounds a bit meh. However I do think it provides 2 opportunities if done right.

One it can introduce Brisbane and SE Qld to a global audience ala Barcelona 92. But for this to work Brisbane actually has to be on the forefoot - be bold, be brave, be unashamedly Brisbane. You are not Paris, you are Brissie, set your narrative and tell your story.

Second it’s an opportunity to show that smaller cities can host the Olympics - think the Budapests, Copenhagens etc of this world. I wonder if this wasn’t one of the goals of the IOC in picking Brisbane.

I still hope they can pull all of this together and really do something special and unique instead of some cut price budget ‘managerial’ Olympics, which I think will do a lot of damage to brand Brisbane, Qld and the Olympics.

 

[sebastien1214]

The IOC absolutely does not want games that are super expensive because they think that the soaring bill for organizing the Games is harming their reputation. It's half a mistake. Because the most expensive Games are in reality those of dictatorships (Sochi 2014, Beijing 2008 in their time...), and the criticism that was made was not so much the amount spent, but the fact that it was money spent for the prestige of the dictator. If this same amount were spent in democracies, it would be less controversial. (well internationally; in the host country there would be criticism of "I don't want to see my taxes explode", criticism unthinkable in a dictatorship). For the reputation of the Games, it is better for Brisbane to drop 15 billion euros to have very good Games, than 5 billion for the Lidl Games. And few people internationally will criticize this 15 billion if the end result is great. While 5 billion for meh games is already more debatable. But the Australian taxpayer may not agree with me...

[Sir Rols]

25 minutes ago, Safrican2 said:

I still hope they can pull all of this together and really do something special and unique instead of some cut price budget ‘managerial’ Olympics, which I think will do a lot of damage to brand Brisbane, Qld and the Olympics.

 

11 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

The IOC absolutely does not want games that are super expensive because they think that the soaring bill for organizing the Games is harming their reputation. It's half a mistake. Because the most expensive Games are in reality those of dictatorships (Sochi 2014, Beijing 2008 in their time...), and the criticism that was made was not so much the amount spent, but the fact that it was money spent for the prestige of the dictator. If this same amount were spent in democracies, it would be less controversial. (well internationally; in the host country there would be criticism of "I don't want to see my taxes explode", criticism unthinkable in a dictatorship). For the reputation of the Games, it is better for Brisbane to drop 15 billion euros to have very good Games, than 5 billion for the Lidl Games. And few people internationally will criticize this 15 billion if the end result is great. While 5 billion for meh games is already more debatable. But the Australian taxpayer may not agree with me...

Absolutely I agree that an obsessive focus on just staging the cheapest possible games can be as damaging as overly expensive white elephant games. What should be, and what the “New Norm” initially set out for, is to tailor the games to what’s best for the city, and if building and developing new facilities works for the city, it should be encouraged. And Brisbane is such a perfect example - it needs a new large oval stadium, and ignoring that in favour of just using the cheapest possible facility they have existing for a one-off event would definitely leave it with a negative Olympic legacy from the games.

[FYI]

Quote

Second it’s an opportunity to show that smaller cities can host the Olympics - think the Budapests, Copenhagens etc of this world.

This point is always exaggerated & why the "choice" of Brisbane doesn't automatically translate that it "can" somehow be a 'template' for smaller cities to use going forward. 

For starters, Brisbane resides in a country with almost three-times the population of Hungary & over four-times the size of Denmark (as per your examples), where there's more taxpayers to more easily help flip the bill. Also, in a country like the U.S. where the Federal gov't does *not* give any money (other than for security) for the Olympics, you're never going to see a smaller city here like Brisbane ever be given any moola from the central gov't for all the extra infrastructure that would be needed in a U.S. smaller city, like Pittsburgh, Charlotte or Kansas City, etc. 

There's a reason why since the turn of the century, only large to mega-cities have hosted the Summer Olympics, & why Brisbane indeed just seems quite off in that relative recent line-up.

Quote

I wonder if this wasn’t one of the goals of the IOC in picking Brisbane.

It wasn't.

[Safrican2]

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

There's a reason why since the turn of the century, only large to mega-cities have hosted the Summer Olympics, & why Brisbane indeed just seems quite off in that relative recent line-up.

But then why pick Brisbane? I’ve never fully understood why they went with Brisbane. Surely it can’t just be John Coates in Bach’s ear? There had to be some more rationale behind the choice.
I mean imagine for a second the executive board meeting where Brisbane 32 was discussed. Some real justification had to be given. Surely someone said ‘Um this looks like a strange choice’. I struggle to believe that some more thought and consideration didn’t go into this decision. 

[Safrican2]

26 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

And Brisbane is such a perfect example - it needs a new large oval stadium, and ignoring that in favour of just using the cheapest possible facility they have existing for a one-off event would definitely leave it with a negative Olympic legacy from the games.

Exactly that. It feels like such a lost opportunity. I can’t help but feel that the combo of Johan Coates and lets face it mediocre state politicians is leading us down this path.

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Safrican2 said:

But then why pick Brisbane? I’ve never fully understood why they went with Brisbane. Surely it can’t just be John Coates in Bach’s ear? There had to be some more rationale behind the choice.

Of course it was. There was a good GB's article that was done three years ago when the "choice" was made. There's also been plenty of other articles online on the matter. JC had a "score to settle" when Brisbane lost the 1992 bid. JC is also Bach's right-hand man.

In what IOC rationale universe. besides a JC's one, do they choice a smallish city, with limited infrastructure, in a smallish-country (relatively-speaking) that just hosted (again, relatively-speaking) 32-years prior? No way in the world that would've happened in any other context.

[BigVic]

The success of Paris 2024 saved the 2032 Olympics. 

[Sir Rols]

12 minutes ago, FYI said:

This point is always exaggerated & why the "choice" of Brisbane doesn't automatically translate that it "can" somehow be a 'template' for smaller cities to use going forward. 

…

There's a reason why since the turn of the century, only large to mega-cities have hosted the Summer Olympics, & why Brisbane indeed just seems quite off in that relative recent line-up.

We’ll have to agree to vehemently disagree. I love what cities like Paris and London have brought to the games, but I’d hate if they were considered as only something for the elite of world cities. I’d soon tire and lose a lot of interest if they just rotated between London, LA, Paris, Beijing and maybe Tokyo or Melbourne. Just as I’d lose interest if they were permanently staged in Athens or Olympia. I don’t think any city should be “beneath” or “unbefittng” the games. Cities like Atlanta or Brisbane can be great examples and bring their own spin to the games.

 

18 minutes ago, FYI said:

Also, in a country like the U.S. where the Federal gov't does *not* give any money (other than for security) for the Olympics, you're never going to see a smaller city here like Brisbane ever be given any moola from the central gov't for all the extra infrastructure that would be needed in a U.S. smaller city, like Pittsburgh, Charlotte or Kansas City, etc. 

Yet Charlie Battle showed with Atlanta that a grassroots team behind them, it can be done. And for all hat people here don’t rate it among their shiniest Olympics, it wasn’t a failure. 

[FYI]

12 minutes ago, Safrican2 said:

But then why pick Brisbane? I’ve never fully understood why they went with Brisbane. Surely it can’t just be John Coates in Bach’s ear? There had to be some more rationale behind the choice.

 

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

Of course it was. There was a good GB's article that was done three years ago when the "choice" was made. There's also been plenty of other articles online on the matter. JC had a "score to settle" when Brisbane lost the 1992 bid. JC is also Bach's right-hand man.

In what IOC rationale universe. besides a JC's one, do they choice a smallish city, with limited infrastructure, in a smallish-country (relatively-speaking) that just hosted (again, relatively-speaking) 32-years prior? No way in the world that would've happened in any other context.

Here's the article I was mainly talking about (it's a lenghty one to):