Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
from ozscrapers it's from a pdf report on the arena, and i don't think some of you guys are grasping just what is involved in this arena...
the bits i found most interesting... especially the fact that the bars and bistros can be open throughout the week... (which is something i think is very important in making sure the area is lively away from events and also doesn't become a deserted area, and should also be included in any Perth Stadium development too
BartBart wrote:A link to a pdf is also from the VenuesWest page I linked a few posts back This. I have tried to put the renders from the watoday page I linked a few more posts back next to the relevant area. (pdf is 20mB in size!)
INTERIORS FACT SHEET
Entry Foyer & Concourses
• Windows oriented to capture Perth skyline & to make use of favoured southern orientations
• Projections of the 3D puzzle forms of the facade onto the key feature panelling
Bowl overview
• Breakout Room 5 has slot window view of the event floor for heightened entertainment experience
Breakout 1 - Ground Floor East
• Approx 670sqm in size with a further 500sqm available in the adjacent external terrace area
• A secondary entry via a sound lock provides access from the external terrace, allowing the room to operate independently from the Arena
• This area can seat up to 500 theatre-style
Breakout 2 - Ground Floor West
• Approximately 260sqm with further 175sqm available in adjacent terrace
• Seating for up to 216 theatre-style
Breakout 3 - Level 4
• 11m Bar provides potentially spectacular views towards the city and along Wellington Street, and a skylight provides a dramatic architectural feature
• Access either via the main Eastern stair or via the 4th floor concourse. After-hours access also available
• Seating for up to 310 banquet-style
Breakout 4 - Tavern Bar, Ground Floor South
• Approximately 550sqm with a further 230sqm available on the adjacent terrace to Wellington Street
• Terrace is raised approx 450mm above Wellington Street and accessed from the bar via two sets of glazed 8m long operable walls. After hours access available
• Concession Bar can operate as a cafe for daytime or family events when the Tavern Bar counter area is closed
Breakout 5 - Level 1
• Provides direct visual access to the Arena bowl via a 36m double glazed slot window which incorporates window blinds & heavy curtaining to the full length of the room
• Seating for up to 218 bistro-style
Corporate Suites - Level 2 Platinum and Level 3 Gold
• Arrival via VIP lifts from Ground Floor or Underground Carpark or via secure stairs beginning at Level 1
deejaybee wrote:Attempting to justify a stadium with financial return is stupid.
Dismissing the financial viability of a project as stupid is stupid.
Everyone understands that public goods often don't make financial returns. That's why they're public goods.
Thing is though, when deciding on a project an impotant factor is the financial return. It's quite simple really, you work out the return on a public good project and work out if the cost of the project is worth the good it will achieve.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
deejaybee wrote:Attempting to justify a stadium with financial return is stupid.
Dismissing the financial viability of a project as stupid is stupid.
Everyone understands that public goods often don't make financial returns. That's why they're public goods.
Thing is though, when deciding on a project an impotant factor is the financial return. It's quite simple really, you work out the return on a public good project and work out if the cost of the project is worth the good it will achieve.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
What is the IRR if the government spends the initial $320 million and there is not a $165 million dollar blow out due to the massive stuff ups?
I am severely surprised at how little anger there is about this budget blowout compared to the bloody Mandurah Rail Line that had the whole northern suburbs up in arms for a few years.
Page 27 suggests that construction costs in WA are $750 per squared metre more than NSW. Need to find out the total square metres of this project to see the reduced cost of this venue in that state.
deejaybee wrote:Attempting to justify a stadium with financial return is stupid.
Dismissing the financial viability of a project as stupid is stupid.
Everyone understands that public goods often don't make financial returns. That's why they're public goods.
Thing is though, when deciding on a project an impotant factor is the financial return. It's quite simple really, you work out the return on a public good project and work out if the cost of the project is worth the good it will achieve.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
Chuck the nearly $500 mill in a frickin managed fund and feed out the dividend as a building fund for other venues and you'd get a better return I reckon. But you'd never be able to sell it because people can more clearly see what's going on there.
The other outlook is that the Indoor Stadium is the key plank in the Northbridge redevelopment, that will encourage retail and recreation. That the overall project costs that incorporate sinking the rail line and building on top of that, will be a massive return to the government.
That it enhances the value of the land when it comes time for the State Government to sell off the land. Add with construction cost issues, the underlying need for an entertainment facility. The biggest problem was that the state government dared to build during a skills crisis. Do you stop building public infrastructure if private investment is out of control?
So if you place the Indoor Arena construction costs in place with the $500 million development that will dramatically enhance the liveability in Perth. That will attract more skilled workers to Western Australia, the projects value increases. Whether or not it is enough for how much it costs, is up to the individual. But there are many factors to look at before dismissing a public project's worth for the taxpayers. In reality you could claim it was paid for by royalties rather than taxpayer dollars...
deejaybee wrote:Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
Chuck the nearly $500 mill in a frickin managed fund and feed out the dividend as a building fund for other venues and you'd get a better return I reckon. But you'd never be able to sell it because people can more clearly see what's going on there.
Just in case it isn't clear, those return numbers are negative. It's like borrowing $100 at $7 per year then putting that $100 in another bank who promptly takes another $7 a year just for the hell of it.
deejaybee wrote:Attempting to justify a stadium with financial return is stupid.
Dismissing the financial viability of a project as stupid is stupid.
Everyone understands that public goods often don't make financial returns. That's why they're public goods.
Thing is though, when deciding on a project an impotant factor is the financial return. It's quite simple really, you work out the return on a public good project and work out if the cost of the project is worth the good it will achieve.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
Sorry I was referring to financial return being the principal factor in making money, as suggested in a earlier post. For the exact obvious reasons you stated regarding public goods.
Why do people build hostpitals if their not making a significant financial return? To me (as a healthy person) the same argument applies for civic spaces. The funny thing to me is when people are crying out for infrastructure, they complain about how much it costs.
I can understand in extreme cases with public inrastructure such as Victoria's new PT ticketing system where there is a 370%+ cost blowout (and counting) of an already-expensive system. Though to be critical of projects that are needed,
Why does the Victorian Government run the Australian Grand Prix at a loss? Because they believe that the public benefit will eventually outweigh the immediate loss of the race itself (with whatever complimentary good or service that could be logically considered, from the pubs in South Melbourne to the aluminium used to build the grandstands or the rent generated in storing the temporary equipment to higher tourist income, etc).
PS: I only used VIC examples because thats what i'm most familiar with
deejaybee wrote:Attempting to justify a stadium with financial return is stupid.
Dismissing the financial viability of a project as stupid is stupid.
Everyone understands that public goods often don't make financial returns. That's why they're public goods.
Thing is though, when deciding on a project an impotant factor is the financial return. It's quite simple really, you work out the return on a public good project and work out if the cost of the project is worth the good it will achieve.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the useful like of this arena is 30 years. At $5m a year, the IRR of this project is somewhere between -6% and -7%.
If there aren't projects in the state of WA that offer the public (a) greater public goods and (b) a better return I'll eat my hat.
Sorry I was referring to financial return being the principal factor in making money, as suggested in a earlier post. For the exact obvious reasons you stated regarding public goods.
Why do people build hostpitals if their not making a significant financial return? To me (as a healthy person) the same argument applies for civic spaces. The funny thing to me is when people are crying out for infrastructure, they complain about how much it costs.
I can understand in extreme cases with public inrastructure such as Victoria's new PT ticketing system where there is a 370%+ cost blowout (and counting) of an already-expensive system. Though to be critical of projects that are needed,
Why does the Victorian Government run the Australian Grand Prix at a loss? Because they believe that the public benefit will eventually outweigh the immediate loss of the race itself (with whatever complimentary good or service that could be logically considered, from the pubs in South Melbourne to the aluminium used to build the grandstands or the rent generated in storing the temporary equipment to higher tourist income, etc).
PS: I only used VIC examples because thats what i'm most familiar with
This just doesn't compute.
At the most basic level, if one justifies public spending using a CBA that overweights 'social' benefits to account for financial losses, it still doesn't address the fact that money spent uneconomically on social infrastructure impacts your ability to fund other socially beneficial infrastructure! Yes! One overblown money no object stadium means you can't build another stadium. At some point you have to do the dirty and crunch numbers on these projects, because government funds are scarce and a choice has to be made who misses out.
Also, I've said it elsewhere, it's zero sum economics. Any benefit you gain from government spending where the sole purpose is to increase the slice of the pie is directly counteracted by competing states doing the same. Typical example - each state runs ads on how fantastic it is to live in the state. If they all work there's no gain for anyone except literally the public servants paid to commission the ads.
We've put up with government chest beating about their investment expertise for a very long time, and unfortunately people aren't critical of it. I've sat alongside public sector bureaucrats who had the hide to suggest they need a bigger budget so they can get the job done 'right.' For what defintion of right? If it falls apart once a year and needs funding that otherwise would be called a 'bailout' in another sector held to higher standards, then how the hell is it a job done right?
