Not sailing, but sailing related
Thanks to Peter Jerabek (custodian of BARANNE) for alerting us to this story.
This digitally rendered image shows the stadium looming over the iconic streetscape of Hunter Street, Hobart
Here at SWS we like our football as much as the next person. Despite 28 years without a premiership we remain tragically loyal to the Mighty Blues, as they stumble from season to season. But we also like tying our boat up in Sullivan’s Cove Hobart and soaking in a cityscape soaked in history. Granting the licence for a Tasmanian team but making it conditional on the building of a monstrous stadium, appears like a poisoned chalice. I’ll leave it to this great article from the Tasmanian Times to explain the thinking.
Looking in the same direction in February 2023
NEW STADIUM IMAGE RELEASED AND BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCED
A month-long billboard campaign showing the impact of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium on Hobart’s iconic Sullivans Cove using imagery produced by a leading Hobart architectural firm was today announced by the Our Place group. The image will be displayed on permanent electronic billboards in North Hobart and Glenorchy.
Architect Shamus Mulcahy, former president of the Tasmanian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects, said his firm, Bence Mulcahy, using the dimensions and height that have been made publicly available by the government, computer modelled the exact impact the new stadium will have on Hobart’s iconic Sullivans Cove and created the image.
The digitally rendered image shows the stadium looming over the iconic streetscape of Hunter Street, dwarfing the Henry Jones Art Hotel and celebrated Mac 1 hotel. He said the stadium would look significantly larger if modelled from many other parts of central Hobart.
Tasmania’s pre-eminent architect, Professor Robert Morris-Nunn, who designed both hotels, said, “Hobart’s Sullivans Cove is the epicentre of Hobart’s historic precinct and everything that is designed within it has to follow strict guidelines, especially with regards to building height and overall form. It’s therefore an absolute complete travesty when the massive bulk of the new stadium is able to intrude so grossly into a very sensitive area that everyone else is working hard to respect.”
Mr Mulcahy released a professional opinion (attached) to go with the image. He says that the stadium will “only just fit in the current site with the north end close against the Cenotaph escarpment and the south end right on Evans Street”. He further said that there is no meaningful space left for any of the precinct projects the Tasmanian government has said will be built on the site and the Federal government says it is funding, such as an Indigenous Reconciliation Park.
“The danger in this is that as the project develops compromises becomes more difficult to practically accommodate. In consequence . . . parts of Evans Street, the wharf or Cenotaph hill may need to be taken and subsumed over in order to physically accommodate the stadium.”
Roland Browne said having architects of the standing of Professor Robert Morris-Nunn and Shamus Mulcahy questioning the stadium’s impact on Hobart should ring alarm bells.
“It’s too big for the site and will inevitably degrade the area’s tourist appeal and commercial value of hotels and restaurants in the area while destroying the Hobart we love,” Mr Browne said. “It’s not enough for the government to say this image and these facts are untrue, unless they can prove it—and they can’t.”
Richard Flanagan said that he was deeply shocked when he first saw the image and that Tasmanians could now judge for themselves whether they thought inner city Hobart was the right site for the stadium.
“Jeremy Rockcliff promised the Sydney Opera House but instead he’s going to build the Berlin Wall.”
The image can be viewed online at www.macquariepointvision.net.au
MACQUARIE POINT STADIUM PROPOSAL.
Shamus Mulcahy, Bence Mulcahy
Our methodology-
We used computer software to create a model the size and shape of the stadium. Inputs for this are based upon the information made publicly available in Tasmanian government documents.
A standard photograph was taken from Victoria Dock near Mures. However, the visual impact from many other parts of Hobart will be significantly worse with the stadium more dominant in viewlines.
Using the computer we took a screenshot of the computer model of the stadium from the same location (matching the distance and angle) as the standard photograph.
We then used computer software to combine the two images.
Why it is accurate.-
The proposed stadium is 40 metres high, 240 metres long and 210 metres wide. There is limited information available but what is available is very clear and therefore the model is accurate as there is little opportunity for error.
Why we added a steel structure
A roof is not self-supporting and requires a structure. None of the information available regarding the proposed Hobart stadium dimensions takes into account the additional height and visual bulk that this will add to the building. The government commissioned Aurecon Report made clear that a lighter structure for a fixed roof would be insufficiently strong to hold the weight of the lighting and sound rigs used for the large-scale concerts the government says the stadium will host. For the image we have used professional experience to conservatively approximate a typical structure for a stadium of this size that would support a fixed roof and concert infrastructure.
Colouring
As there is no design yet for the stadium, nor is there any colour specified for the external walls. The render shows the stadium in a neutral concrete colour. The final finish may be a variety of colours and surfaces. The government in its documents uses the Melbourne Marvel (Docklands) Stadium as its key reference. If the final stadium were to resemble Marvel Stadium in its finishes and styling the visual impact on Sullivans Cove would be considerably worse than this render.
Stadium Too Large For Site
The dimensions of the stadium appear to make minimal allowance for seating and public amenities and facilities (food/drink vendors toilets etc.) outside the playing surface. In addition, the government report states no allowance has been made for a concourse in the current dimensions. The report dimensions 240m x 210m only just fit on the current site with the north end close against the cenotaph escarpment and the south end right on Evans Street.
On this basis it is clear that the site is not an appropriate sized location to accommodate a typical and workable stadium and that the current stadium proposal is being compromised and manipulated to fit the site.
The danger in this is that as the project develops and compromises becomes more difficult to practically accommodate, the site may need redefining and parts of Evans Street, the wharf or Cenotaph hill may need to be taken and subsumed over in order to properly accommodate the stadium.
Secondly, the proposed stadium stretches all across the site and therefore divides the site in two parts (east and west) There is little opportunity for movement through and around the site and future opportunities such as transport routes are not feasible. The space on either side of the stadium become disconnected, particularly the east side.
Third, these constraints of site and budget will make it extremely difficult to realise a stadium of the quality and with the amenity that people would expect of a 21st century stadium.
Fourth, there is no meaningful space left for any of the precinct projects the Tasmanian government has said will be built on the site and the Federal government says it is funding, such as an Indigenous Reconciliation Park.
