News Gabba Upgrade & Olympics News

[Kernel Kurtz]

Again, sorry if off topic a bit here guys. Sanchez365 & dlanod are you both across the cost blowouts in the tunnel project & metro rail projects? I'm not, other than basic stories I read. The below was from the guardian a few months back.

Victorians could be forgiven for missing the news late last week that the North East Link had blown out by $10bn.

After all, Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel, first expected to cost $500m, then revised to $5.5bn, is now $10.2bn and counting, while the city’s Metro Tunnel has blown out by at least $1.36bn.

The total cost of the Suburban Rail Loop, meanwhile, is anyone’s guess.

For me, the cost blowouts are the most infuriating thing. I'm a small business owner. If I quote a job & get it wrong, I suck it up & honour the quote. I remember Southern Cross Station was a never ending blowout too.

How do they get it so wrong? It infuriates me there is no consequences for the public sector's incompetence.

It was the construction of the Good Will Bridge.
Remember all the hoo ha about the massive blowout at the time.
I had a customer come into my worshop and he worked for a Gold Coast based Engineering company that tendered for that project.
This conversation is about at the least 10 years ago , but these would be close to the figures.

The company he worked for put in a tender that was somewhat $7 million more than the company that was awarded the construction .
The company that won, John Holland Group which is a subsiduary company to a Chinese communications company.
I just had a look at who was the construction company just now.

Now from memory I thought his tender was around 16 million, the winner was under 10 million.
It blew out at around 100%, this is what happens all the time, nothing new and it is still happening.
His company was closer to the final cost. How does this happen.
Is it any wonder the Council has little money for maintenance .
When you have a dig at all the current blowouts , it stands to reason why both governments are hesitant to build a new stadium right now.

 

[drapes11]

It was the construction of the Good Will Bridge.
Remember all the hoo ha about the massive blowout at the time.
I had a customer come into my worshop and he worked for a Gold Coast based Engineering company that tendered for that project.
This conversation is about at the least 10 years ago , but these would be close to the figures.

The company he worked for put in a tender that was somewhat $7 million more than the company that was awarded the construction .
The company that won, John Holland Group which is a subsiduary company to a Chinese communications company.
I just had a look at who was the construction company just now.

Now from memory I thought his tender was around 16 million, the winner was under 10 million.
It blew out at around 100%, this is what happens all the time, nothing new and it is still happening.
His company was closer to the final cost. How does this happen.
Is it any wonder the Council has little money for maintenance .
When you have a dig at all the current blowouts , it stands to reason why both governments are hesitant to build a new stadium right now.

This is a consequence of getting what you pay for, it may be cheap but at the expense of quality and time. I work in an industry where past performance is one of the main evaluation criteria in tender evaluations where price is a consideration but whether you can deliver on your commitment is more important. It is time govt’s start looking at over all value add and past performance instead of the lowest price in evaluating tenders. It does make you wonder how much of an impact unions are having in these decisions around construction contracts though, particularly with Miles in the box seat.

 

[Section 5]

It was the construction of the Good Will Bridge.
Remember all the hoo ha about the massive blowout at the time.
I had a customer come into my worshop and he worked for a Gold Coast based Engineering company that tendered for that project.
This conversation is about at the least 10 years ago , but these would be close to the figures.

The company he worked for put in a tender that was somewhat $7 million more than the company that was awarded the construction .
The company that won, John Holland Group which is a subsiduary company to a Chinese communications company.
I just had a look at who was the construction company just now.

Now from memory I thought his tender was around 16 million, the winner was under 10 million.
It blew out at around 100%, this is what happens all the time, nothing new and it is still happening.
His company was closer to the final cost. How does this happen.
Is it any wonder the Council has little money for maintenance .
When you have a dig at all the current blowouts , it stands to reason why both governments are hesitant to build a new stadium right now.

I agree to a point.
But back to my old chestnut why an Entertainment Center which will be subject to cost blow outs just like a stadium.

I don't expect anything logical from politicians as both political parties are gun shy over spending going on their media statements.
However, both parties will spend the full $7 billion anyhow. They already have going by the figures.
Nothing from the $7 billion will go towards cost of living/housing etc etc.

Coates is hell bent on having an athletics venue as a legacy but with only 14K seating. How can we appease him on this point.
i am sure they could spend say $300 million on fixing up QSAC and use it as an Olympic training facility for Brisbane Olympics.
No need to upgrade the track as it is up to international standard so great for training.
Make the 2 existing grandstands 14k capacity the same as planned for after the Olympics.
The Eastern grandstand at QSAC needs the most work & improvements on the existing up to standard and used western stand.
That amount could leave some monies left over to increase seating at the warmup oval.

By doing this that leaves $1.3 billion of the $1.6 billion set aside for QSAC available for other Olympic venues.
Build the new 3 pool Olympic swimming venue at Nathan for the Quirk reported costing of $620 million.
Thats a huge swimming legacy that you don't get with an Entertainment Centre.
That leaves $700 million available towards a stadium from that QSAC $1.6 billion money pool.

$700 million plus the $2.5 billion for the Entertainment Centre is $3.2 billion for a stadium precinct.

Now according to the Brisbane Bold guys that's enough for all three. Stadium, Entertainment Centre & Pool
So, you would not double up on the Pool but i would still build the Pool at Nathan (EDIT i mean Chandler). Not enough room at Nathan.
However, if you build the pool as part of Brisbane Bold, that puts $620 million back into the general monies available.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

I agree to a point.
But back to my old chestnut why an Entertainment Center which will be subject to cost blow outs just like a stadium.

I don't expect anything logical from politicians as both political parties are gun shy over spending going on their media statements.
However, both parties will spend the full $7 billion anyhow. They already have going by the figures.
Nothing from the $7 billion will go towards cost of living/housing etc etc.

Coates is hell bent on having an athletics venue as a legacy but with only 14K seating. How can we appease him on this point.
i am sure they could spend say $300 million on fixing up QSAC and use it as an Olympic training facility for Brisbane Olympics.
No need to upgrade the track as it is up to international standard so great for training.
Make the 2 existing grandstands 14k capacity the same as planned for after the Olympics.
The Eastern grandstand at QSAC needs the most work & improvements on the existing up to standard and used western stand.
That amount could leave some monies left over to increase seating at the warmup oval.

By doing this that leaves $1.3 billion of the $1.6 billion set aside for QSAC available for other Olympic venues.
Build the new 3 pool Olympic swimming venue at Nathan for the Quirk reported costing of $620 million.
Thats a huge swimming legacy that you don't get with an Entertainment Centre.
That leaves $700 million available towards a stadium from that QSAC $1.6 billion money pool.

$700 million plus the $2.5 billion for the Entertainment Centre is $3.2 billion for a stadium precinct.

Now according to the Brisbane Bold guys that's enough for all three. Stadium, Entertainment Centre & Pool
So, you would not double up on the Pool but i would still build the Pool at Nathan.
However, if you build the pool as part of Brisbane Bold, that puts $620 million back into the general monies available.

Swimming complex at Nathan makes sense .
To have it remain somewhere rather than a temporary one, considering the money spent anyway. Making it at an athletes venue makes even more sense.
Some great ideas you have there regarding QSAC as well, also not building extra seating only to be removed after the games.
Lots of variations available so lol , surely hope the version of opening and closing ceremomies at Suncorp stadium doesn't get the last nod of approval .

 

[Elixuh]

The national stadium of France is also the largest in the country, with a capacity of 80,698. Originally built for the 1998 World Cup, the stadium also has been a site of men's UEFA Champions League finals, Rugby World Cup games and the World Athletics Championship. Track & field will return to the Stade de France for the Paris Olympics, and the stadium will also host the Closing Ceremony.

View attachment 1963411

Le QSAC

 

[Nunez]

Le QSAC

Le s**t

 

[Dalions]

Le s**t

Le Vommit

 

[briztoon]

Le Vommit

Le Vamet or Le Vomir.

 

[Dalions]

Le Vamet or Le Vomir.

Should have looked it up

 

[Grasshopper17]

Le QSAC

Now then, on this... Surely if we really are going to end up at bloody QSAC, we're gonna have to rebrand Nathan.

It's going to have to become NaThan. As in, pronounced "N'Thaan". Makes it sound so much fancier. A bit like how Target has become Tarzhay

 

[Viceregal]

Now then, on this... Surely if we really are going to end up at bloody QSAC, we're gonna have to rebrand Nathan.

It's going to have to become NaThan. As in, pronounced "N'Thaan". Makes it sound so much fancier. A bit like how Target has become Tarzhay

With a handy double entendre to na'thin (nothing)

 

[Section 5]

The Government want to spend $1.6 billion on QSAC with mostly temporary stands making up the bulk of total seat numbers.

Populous designed the below T 20 stadium in America could they do the same in Australia with the right construction firm.
If we are stuck with QSAC you would only do the old temporary stands at QSAC.
However, thinking "modular" does open up your thought choices in other arears.




Populous designed a 34K modular stadium for New Yorks T20 World Cup.
The start of construction was Jan 2024.
Completion date is early May 2024 with the first T20 match in June 2024.
Yep, just a 5-month construction timeframe. Time lapse video to prove start and progress to end of March.
The stadium will host 8 T20 World Cup matches.
Now the scaffolding looks horrible just like the old ones still standing at QSAC.
But for the Olympics and maybe even this T20 project you could cover that up (outside) for a few $million just for the TV audience look.
The Qld government use Populous all the time, so it is not like they have not heard of them.

From Reuters article below.
While much of the venue, including the pitches, would be taken away once the World Cup was over, the "world class facility" would remain for the local community to use, Tetley said.
With much of the infrastructure rented and not bought, Tetley shot down cost concerns.
"Safe to say that it more than pays for itself, and so it's a viable project for us to be run without it costing ICC anything."

60 days to go: New timelapse video of Nassau County International Cricket Stadium released as T20 World Cup fever grips USA

With less than two months to go for the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2024, the Nassau County International Cricket Stadium is starting to take shape.

www.icc-cricket.com

March Time Lapse of New York's T20 World Cup home | T20 World Cup 2024

www.icc-cricket.com

New York Gears Up For Cricket T20 World Cup Amid Ground’s Construction

New York will host eight T20 World Cup matches in June and its 34,000-seat ground in Manhattan is being built in a three-month timeframe.

www.forbes.com

https://www.reuters.com/sports/cricket/icc-unveils-34000-capacity-modular-stadium-new-york-2024-01-17/

 

[M Malice]

The Government want to spend $1.6 billion on QSAC with mostly temporary stands making up the bulk of total seat numbers.

Populous designed the below T 20 stadium in America could they do the same in Australia with the right construction firm.
If we are stuck with QSAC you would only do the old temporary stands at QSAC.
However, thinking "modular" does open up your thought choices in other arears.



View attachment 1964758
Populous designed a 34K modular stadium for New Yorks T20 World Cup.
The start of construction was Jan 2024.
Completion date is early May 2024 with the first T20 match in June 2024.
Yep, just a 5-month construction timeframe. Time lapse video to prove start and progress to end of March.
The stadium will host 8 T20 World Cup matches.
Now the scaffolding looks horrible just like the old ones still standing at QSAC.
But for the Olympics and maybe even this T20 project you could cover that up (outside) for a few $million just for the TV audience look.
The Qld government use Populous all the time, so it is not like they have not heard of them.

From Reuters article below.
While much of the venue, including the pitches, would be taken away once the World Cup was over, the "world class facility" would remain for the local community to use, Tetley said.
With much of the infrastructure rented and not bought, Tetley shot down cost concerns.
"Safe to say that it more than pays for itself, and so it's a viable project for us to be run without it costing ICC anything."

60 days to go: New timelapse video of Nassau County International Cricket Stadium released as T20 World Cup fever grips USA

With less than two months to go for the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2024, the Nassau County International Cricket Stadium is starting to take shape.

www.icc-cricket.com

March Time Lapse of New York's T20 World Cup home | T20 World Cup 2024

www.icc-cricket.com

New York Gears Up For Cricket T20 World Cup Amid Ground’s Construction

New York will host eight T20 World Cup matches in June and its 34,000-seat ground in Manhattan is being built in a three-month timeframe.

www.forbes.com

https://www.reuters.com/sports/cricket/icc-unveils-34000-capacity-modular-stadium-new-york-2024-01-17/

Looks yuk and an Ikea like kit package stadia for an event of Olympic stature, would definitely be viewed as the bogan backwards Australian Olympics. I don't think any amount of covering up would make it look like a world class Olympic level stadium.

Also could you put substantial roofing over that? Wouldn't want any significant rain or there to be hot patch of weather while the Olympics was on.

Good chance the standard of Corporate/VIP facilities would not be the best either.
_____________________________________

Oh, I would of course be for it if it meant the solving of all our housing, health and education issues because of the money diverted from the Olympic spend.

 

[Section 5]

Looks yuk and an Ikea like kit package stadia for an event of Olympic stature, would definitely be viewed as the bogan backwards Australian Olympics. I don't think any amount of covering up would make it look like a world class Olympic level stadium.

Also could you put substantial roofing over that? Wouldn't want any significant rain or there to be hot patch of weather while the Olympics was on.

Good chance the standard of Corporate/VIP facilities would not be the best either.
_____________________________________

Oh, I would of course be for it if it meant the solving of all our housing, health and education issues because of the money diverted from the Olympic spend.

The Qld Government and the IOC are not interested in how classy it looks.
Just that the track is world class, and it holds 40k.
To be fair the TV audience will mostly only see the athletes, the track and the crowd.

I doubt the Qld. Government will be placing a roof over the QSAC temporary seating arears.
The old will be pulled down and a new temporary lot of stands will be erected.
Until we see a validation report that is my guess.

Any corporate modular sections will have inside cover but not necessarily outside cover as seen in one of the New York images.
The 2 existing stands with cover will be fixed up to standard. They probably hold the 14k seating legacy part of the project.
A new athletics track will have to be laid.

I just don't see how they can justify $1.6 billion when clearly an alternative can be done.
But i don't understand the recent politicians thinking on just about everything on the Brisbane Olympics.
If you can do QSAC for half that amount, that is $800 million they can put into The Gabba renovations.
Maybe these are the sort of things Crisafulli can uncover in his 100-day review.
I doubt Labour will be spending any more money of other people's thoughts on the Brisbane Olympics.

Some images of the proposed corporate/VIP/media sections of the modular stands in New York.



Images below are what the corporate/vip/media rooms should look like when completed.
All modular and will be dismantled after the T20 cricket World Cup is finished.

 

[M Malice]

Thanks for all your great info in this thread Section 5 , it's appreciated.

I just can't get past the fact that the Gabba is nearing the end of it's life and the Government are not going to take advantage of the Olympic situation to get a world class oval Stadium for AFL, concerts, Cricket etc post the Olympics for the ensuing 40-50 years ... a clear legacy initiative, the spin off re hospitality/accommodation/tourism around the Stadium alone would be of enormous economic benefit.

Zero vision and as has been said before kicking the Gabba problem can down the road for future Governments to handle.

 

[Section 5]

Thanks for all your great info in this thread Section 5 , it's appreciated.

I just can't get past the fact that the Gabba is nearing the end of it's life and the Government are not going to take advantage of the Olympic situation to get a world class oval Stadium for AFL, concerts, Cricket etc post the Olympics for the ensuing 40-50 years ... a clear legacy initiative, the spin off re hospitality/accommodation/tourism around the Stadium alone would be of enormous economic benefit.

Zero vision and as has been said before kicking the Gabba problem can down the road for future Governments to handle.

Yes, crazy stuff considering how they can get everything spending the same $7 billion they are going to spend anyhow.
The LNP are just as bad.
Nothing out of the $7 billion is earmarked for anything else except the Olympic spend.
So, nothing extra from this money pool for cost of living/housing etc etc.

 

[pattymalone00]

Steven miles is gonna be giving money to Suncorp to make sure it’s safe from Lizards now lolhttps://x.com/aflcentral2/status/1781623037848379718?s=46

 

[BRAB]

Capacity of the Gabba should be plenty for our games moving forward if our home form continues.

 

[Iron Turtle]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...n-premier-s-short-shrift-20240418-p5fku9.html

Victoria Park could save us $1.1b, so it deserves better than premier’s short shrift
By Cameron Atfield
April 24, 2024 — 1.00am



A witness called to last week’s Senate inquiry into Olympic Games preparedness may well have blown up the state government’s rationale for its contentious stadium selection for Brisbane 2032.

Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards told the inquiry three Olympic venues – a main stadium of between 60,000 and 80,000 seats, an inner-city arena and a permanent aquatic centre – could be built at Victoria Park for $3.4 billion.

From top, Archipelago’s proposed Olympic stadium, new indoor aquatic centre (adjacent to the existing outdoor Centenary Pool) and new arena at Victoria Park. Previous renders included an athletes’ village.
From top, Archipelago’s proposed Olympic stadium, new indoor aquatic centre (adjacent to the existing outdoor Centenary Pool) and new arena at Victoria Park. Previous renders included an athletes’ village.CREDIT:ARCHIPELAGO

It would result in 60 hectares of green space, Edwards said, which would be an improvement on the site’s 56 hectares of available green space (more on that later).

Having already scrapped plans to rebuild the Gabba, Premier Steven Miles rejected the main recommendation of the Graham Quirk-led venues review. That review, which Miles commissioned, recommended a new stadium be built at Victoria Park.

Rejecting Victoria Park on cost grounds, Miles instead chose to pursue a temporary Olympic stadium at the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre, which would revert to a 14,000-seat community venue after the Games.

As it stands, the cost of building the Brisbane Arena at Roma Street ($2.5 billion) and getting QSAC Olympic-ready ($1.6 billion) is about $4.1 billion.

Add about $400 million for transport links to QSAC and it becomes a total bill of $4.5 billion – about $1.1 billion more expensive than the purported cost of Archipelago’s Victoria Park option.

And it doesn’t even deliver Brisbane a new indoor pool.

Edwards told the inquiry the $3.4 billion costing had been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo.

As it happened, I was invited to Arcadis’ Brisbane office to meet with the company’s global cities director John Batten, who was in town on a lightning visit last week.

While there, Arcadis Brisbane chief Paul Allan told me while the report they prepared for Archipelago was confidential, he could confirm Edwards’ $3.4 billion figure stacked up.

So how is this possible? How could Brisbane get three venues for less than the price of two?

Allan said having the venues in the same place created numerous efficiencies.

“Having the venues together is part of it, and obviously you can construct all three concurrently,” he says.

As for the green space, Allan backed up Edwards’ claim that there would be a net increase under the Archipelago proposal.

The reason? Additional green space gained by building over the Inner City Bypass and the rail line at the south-east of the site.

“It’s basically in sections, so you can link Victoria Park with the parkland on the other side where the Centenary Pool sits, and that more than offsets the footprints of the three stadiums,” he says.

“Obviously, the pool isn’t huge. The arena isn’t huge, either. The stadium is the biggest one, but that [ICB and rail covering] more than offsets the size.”

An added bonus of that was it would better link Victoria Park to the city. As it stands, the rail lines and the ICB are pretty major obstacles for pedestrian access to the site.

“I think [Victoria Park] is only 1½ half kilometres from the city,” Allan says.

“It’s pretty close, but no one uses it because it’s not that reachable.”

It’s not just pedestrian access from the CBD that works in the plan’s favour – with Cross River Rail and the Brisbane Metro, Victoria Park is about to become a lot more accessible by public transport, something QSAC is sadly lacking.

As Allan says: “It’s way more expensive to build transport than it is to build stadiums.”

So is Victoria Park the best option for Brisbane? That’s for people far more qualified than a mere journalist to answer.

All the cost estimates and planning so far have been, by Allan’s admission, pretty high-level. More forensic analysis would be required before any decisions could be made.

But it is clear Victoria Park is an option that demands proper investigation and not be dismissed out of hand, as it has been by both Miles and Opposition Leader David Crisafulli.

Queensland taxpayers deserve to know whether they could save $1.1 billion by pursuing an Olympic plan that would actually leave a lasting legacy for Brisbane. After all, other worthy sports infrastructure projects could benefit from those savings.

If the costs stack up, and there would indeed be no net loss of green space, then Victoria Park is an absolute no-brainer.

 

[Dalions]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...n-premier-s-short-shrift-20240418-p5fku9.html

Victoria Park could save us $1.1b, so it deserves better than premier’s short shrift
By Cameron Atfield
April 24, 2024 — 1.00am



A witness called to last week’s Senate inquiry into Olympic Games preparedness may well have blown up the state government’s rationale for its contentious stadium selection for Brisbane 2032.

Archipelago founding director Peter Edwards told the inquiry three Olympic venues – a main stadium of between 60,000 and 80,000 seats, an inner-city arena and a permanent aquatic centre – could be built at Victoria Park for $3.4 billion.

From top, Archipelago’s proposed Olympic stadium, new indoor aquatic centre (adjacent to the existing outdoor Centenary Pool) and new arena at Victoria Park. Previous renders included an athletes’ village.
From top, Archipelago’s proposed Olympic stadium, new indoor aquatic centre (adjacent to the existing outdoor Centenary Pool) and new arena at Victoria Park. Previous renders included an athletes’ village.CREDIT:ARCHIPELAGO

It would result in 60 hectares of green space, Edwards said, which would be an improvement on the site’s 56 hectares of available green space (more on that later).

Having already scrapped plans to rebuild the Gabba, Premier Steven Miles rejected the main recommendation of the Graham Quirk-led venues review. That review, which Miles commissioned, recommended a new stadium be built at Victoria Park.

Rejecting Victoria Park on cost grounds, Miles instead chose to pursue a temporary Olympic stadium at the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre, which would revert to a 14,000-seat community venue after the Games.

As it stands, the cost of building the Brisbane Arena at Roma Street ($2.5 billion) and getting QSAC Olympic-ready ($1.6 billion) is about $4.1 billion.

Add about $400 million for transport links to QSAC and it becomes a total bill of $4.5 billion – about $1.1 billion more expensive than the purported cost of Archipelago’s Victoria Park option.

And it doesn’t even deliver Brisbane a new indoor pool.

Edwards told the inquiry the $3.4 billion costing had been verified by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which has been tasked with managing the costs for this year’s Paris Olympics delivery authority, Solideo.

As it happened, I was invited to Arcadis’ Brisbane office to meet with the company’s global cities director John Batten, who was in town on a lightning visit last week.

While there, Arcadis Brisbane chief Paul Allan told me while the report they prepared for Archipelago was confidential, he could confirm Edwards’ $3.4 billion figure stacked up.

So how is this possible? How could Brisbane get three venues for less than the price of two?

Allan said having the venues in the same place created numerous efficiencies.

“Having the venues together is part of it, and obviously you can construct all three concurrently,” he says.

As for the green space, Allan backed up Edwards’ claim that there would be a net increase under the Archipelago proposal.

The reason? Additional green space gained by building over the Inner City Bypass and the rail line at the south-east of the site.

“It’s basically in sections, so you can link Victoria Park with the parkland on the other side where the Centenary Pool sits, and that more than offsets the footprints of the three stadiums,” he says.

“Obviously, the pool isn’t huge. The arena isn’t huge, either. The stadium is the biggest one, but that [ICB and rail covering] more than offsets the size.”

An added bonus of that was it would better link Victoria Park to the city. As it stands, the rail lines and the ICB are pretty major obstacles for pedestrian access to the site.

“I think [Victoria Park] is only 1½ half kilometres from the city,” Allan says.

“It’s pretty close, but no one uses it because it’s not that reachable.”

It’s not just pedestrian access from the CBD that works in the plan’s favour – with Cross River Rail and the Brisbane Metro, Victoria Park is about to become a lot more accessible by public transport, something QSAC is sadly lacking.

As Allan says: “It’s way more expensive to build transport than it is to build stadiums.”

So is Victoria Park the best option for Brisbane? That’s for people far more qualified than a mere journalist to answer.

All the cost estimates and planning so far have been, by Allan’s admission, pretty high-level. More forensic analysis would be required before any decisions could be made.

But it is clear Victoria Park is an option that demands proper investigation and not be dismissed out of hand, as it has been by both Miles and Opposition Leader David Crisafulli.

Queensland taxpayers deserve to know whether they could save $1.1 billion by pursuing an Olympic plan that would actually leave a lasting legacy for Brisbane. After all, other worthy sports infrastructure projects could benefit from those savings.

If the costs stack up, and there would indeed be no net loss of green space, then Victoria Park is an absolute no-brainer.

One thing that the article doesn’t suggest is the added cost of work to both Suncorp and the Gabba of atleast $1b to be added to the qsac proposal.
Making it more like $5.5b as opposed to his proposal of $3.4b for Victoria Park.

There would be added cost to both proposals though like the Brisbane arena being converted back to an arena after the Games and the Parkland and walkways for the VIC Park proposal most likely.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I worry that Brisbane Bold is doing more harm than good with their cost projections, which seem very optimistic. The public have endured so many budget blowouts on projects that I would imagine they're a bit skeptical of cost estimates, particularly ones prepared by the advocates for an ambitious proposal. The swimming stadium isn't necessary (can go to Nathan or Chandler) and the arena isn't really needed for the games. The proposal should be just the main stadium to be more credible.

On a side note, everyone that doesn't want QSAC ought to go to the comments section of articles like this, and explain why VP or the Gabba is a better idea for Brisbane. Every comment helps in convincing people and winning the war of public opinion, which will eventually matter to politicians seeking re-election.

 

[Nunez]

I worry that Brisbane Bold is doing more harm than good with their cost projections, which seem very optimistic. The public have endured so many budget blowouts on projects that I would imagine they're a bit skeptical of cost estimates, particularly ones prepared by the advocates for an ambitious proposal. The swimming stadium isn't necessary (can go to Nathan or Chandler) and the arena isn't really needed for the games. The proposal should be just the main stadium to be more credible.

On a side note, everyone that doesn't want QSAC ought to go to the comments section of articles like this, and explain why VP or the Gabba is a better idea for Brisbane. Every comment helps in convincing people and winning the war of public opinion, which will eventually matter to politicians seeking re-election.

It's worth noting that there has been a cost projection followed a review of their cost projection. Infrastructure Australia (bipartisan) will also review the full proposal and costings if this is any chance of going ahead. We will have a very clear picture of what it'll look like if things do progress - even in theory.

That's not to say the public will be privy to findings - just ask Miles and his Olympic budget that has purposely ignored data they have been provided such as true Gabba costs.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

We Can Do Better: Rating Proposed Olympic Sites & Why Northshore is the Winner

For the same price of $3.1 billion, we can do much much better. Northshore would kill two birds with one stone by providing rail to an area that desperately needs it.

brisbanedevelopment.com

This site reckons the stadium should be in Hamilton and then become our home stadium after the games. What are people's thoughts on us moving to Hamilton? Is it close enough to the city?

 

[Gadzorks]

We Can Do Better: Rating Proposed Olympic Sites & Why Northshore is the Winner

For the same price of $3.1 billion, we can do much much better. Northshore would kill two birds with one stone by providing rail to an area that desperately needs it.

brisbanedevelopment.com

This site reckons the stadium should be in Hamilton and then become our home stadium after the games. What are people's thoughts on us moving to Hamilton? Is it close enough to the city?

No.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

We Can Do Better: Rating Proposed Olympic Sites & Why Northshore is the Winner

For the same price of $3.1 billion, we can do much much better. Northshore would kill two birds with one stone by providing rail to an area that desperately needs it.

brisbanedevelopment.com

This site reckons the stadium should be in Hamilton and then become our home stadium after the games. What are people's thoughts on us moving to Hamilton? Is it close enough to the city?

That article spruiks a number of sites, seemingly with the purpose of highlighting how ridiculous the QSAC option is. There's also an option there for the Mayne railyards which I hadn't seen before. The ratings are pretty subjective and doesn't seem to take into account the distance from the CBD. That said, the London Olympic Stadium was a fair distance out of the city (although their public transport system is better than ours).