by Professor Alan Patching
After 100 hours of research and discussions with industry experts, I’ve concluded what the 100-day review into Brisbane Olympic infrastructure is likely to recommend.
The experts’ report (and they are unquestionably among the best in their fields) will attract the customary community debate and criticism.
That’s a good thing – but the armchair experts should have submitted their opinions when given the opportunity. We cannot afford to delay progress towards the Games any longer.
The panel’s terms of reference were succinct but potentially difficult to fully achieve, having to balance long-term benefits against budget limitations.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when government representatives presumably met with the panel to discuss the earlier draft report!
So what is the experts’ report likely to say?
They surely would have begun with the fact Brisbane is soon to have one of the world’s best inner city transport systems, with the Cross River Rail and new or upgraded stations at Woolloongabba, Roma Street and Exhibition.
That would have been central to the panel’s major venue location recommendations, simply because the necessary transport integration will largely already be in place.
That’s gold for any Olympics city, and why would we wait until the Games to chase gold?
The panel is likely to have concluded:
- The Gabba is not a realistic stadium for the Games or beyond, and it would cost a bomb to make it viable.
- Part of the cost would be compensation for loss of revenue to cricket and AFL – putting substantial pressure on an already limited budget.
- Brisbane needs a stadium to hold 60-65,000 people to service AFL, cricket and major concerts well beyond the Games as the population of Southeast Queensland doubles. The former Labor government’s plan to upgrade QSAC at Nathan, with a 40-50,000 capacity, is insufficient for a memorable Games.
- The Gabba site is too small to achieve 60,000 seats, and the panel will reject the risk of constructing it in one of the busiest traffic areas in the city.
- An 80,000 capacity or larger stadium is NOT warranted for Brisbane. The additional seats above 60-65,000 are the most expensive to build, and they sell for the cheapest prices.
- The connectivity between the city centre and Woolloongabba, Roma Street and Exhibition stations, and the quality of those new stations, present compelling opportunities.
- The refurbished stadium at Nathan (proposed by former premier Steven Miles) was never a serious option. It ticks none of the transport integration boxes and wastes cash on a second-rate venue.
- The new Kangaroo Point Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists really needs to have a Games-related function.
- Swimming is the standout sport of an Australian Olympics, with the potential to attract massive crowds. That makes a temporary pool within Suncorp Stadium a real option – especially considering Queensland boasts some of the world’s top sports venue architects who would ensure it did not come across as a slapdash solution.
- On the other hand, the Paris Games set a new benchmark with a roofed pool venue that transformed the swimming into an experience akin to a rock concert, complete with giant video displays and music. We can’t afford to go backwards from that, making an arena-based pool experience a likely consideration.
- Venue decisions should be largely based around integration with Brisbane’s new and world-class metro and heavy rail system.
- The main stadium should be in Victoria Park, and the Gabba probably maintained but demolished after AFL and cricket move to the new venue. Part of the Gabba site can be utilised as green space to compensate for the new venue at Victoria Park.
- Consider relocating the athletes’ village, currently planned for Hamilton and intended to be converted into low-cost housing after the Games, to a location with access to major transport corridors – a huge benefit to the long-term residents.
- The best location for a new arena will be near the Gabba.
- The arena should be strongly considered for swimming events, although it is acknowledged that appealing alternatives exist, and the arena can be used for multiple other purposes.
The above is likely to lead to the following recommendations:
Now to the elephant in the room – the cost.
The new Optus Stadium in Perth was delivered under a modern design, build and facilities management arrangement.
The panel will undoubtedly recommend at least investigating various forms of public-private partnerships for the delivery of the main Olympic stadium.
Queensland is currently committed to paying about $3.6 billion of the $7.1 billion cost of Games infrastructure. Let’s presume that’s already in budgets and funded.
But what if to deliver the best possible venues outcome for both the Games and the future of Brisbane cost $5 billion, not $3.6 billion - an additional and unfunded $1.4bn.
Spread over five years, that would cost $280 million per year – a tad over 0.3 percent of the annual state budget. I imagine the panel would have considered such a possibility.
Of course, given we found out in 2021 we were getting the Games, it would have made sense to address broader transport connectivity in SEQ, such as faster rail between Brisbane and the Gold and Sunshine coasts.
I suspect that train has left the station, both time and budget-wise, at least in terms of having these completed by the Games.
However, I have complete confidence if we listen to the experts on the Games infrastructure panel, and act on their recommendations, we can still put on a world-class event that Queensland and Australia can be proud of.
- Dr Alan Patching was the owners’ Project Director for the design and construction of the Sydney Olympic Stadium and for the redevelopment of Suncorp Stadium. He is a Professor of Construction Management at Bond University.