After all the talk, the ideas, the locations and the seven studies, who knew the most expensive thing about a new stadium in Canberra would be ... not building it.
ACT Sport Minister Yvette Berry has revealed for the first time the cost of the government's stadium procrastination - $2.55 billion. Yes, you read that right. Sitting on their hands for 15 years has cost $2.55 billion.
The ACT government's figures claim the cost of a Civic stadium has jumped from $350 million in 2011 to $582 million in 2021 to now $2.9 billion three years later.
Berry said the $2.9 billion figure includes the cost of moving roads, which were not added in the earlier predictions, as well as adding a 30 per cent contingency worth $457 million.
The cheapest option, Berry said, was refurbishing the existing stadium at a cost of $1.194 billion and the next best was the current preferred option - a new $1.869 billion stadium in Bruce. Those options include some intersection work, but no associated transport infrastructure costs (dare I say light rail to Belconnen?).
They're impossibly large amounts of money to stomach, even for the most staunch new-stadium supporters. Harder to swallow when you consider this: had the government pulled the trigger on the most expensive option of a 2009 masterplan, it would have got two stadiums at Bruce for a cost of $350 million.
Talk about procrastinator's regret.
Yes, it is true the government may not have had access to funds back then. And they couldn't have predicted Mr Fluffy, light rail, COVID-19 or a hospital take over. But even back in 2009 they knew Canberra Stadium would need significant investment to upgrade it, or it would need to be demolished.
So here we are 15 years later contemplating a $1.869 billion option as the government's preferred project - a $1.5 billion jump on the 2009 expectations.
The new estimates raised eyebrows across the capital on Tuesday. It seems the low-end and high-end costs of stadium bricks and mortar hasn't really changed (between $303 million and $511 million at Bruce, and $364 million and $557 million in Civic, dependent on bells and whistles).
But the costs rise astronomically, according to the report by WT Partnerships, when you add in moving roads, storm water, utilities and allowing for contingencies. Building a stadium alone appears to be a reasonable cost, but quoting the total at $1.869 billion at Bruce and $2.9 billion at Civic puts a Canberra stadium in the realms of the most expensive sporting venues in the world.
That's possibly the hardest part to understand in this latest stadium twist. Sure, construction costs have gone up, but have they increased enough to make the cost of a 30,000 stadium in Canberra more expensive than any other venue in the country?
The government will argue this is a comprehensive report. That by adding in all the associated costs there can be no surprises when costs soar past the $582 million estimate from the government's own study three years ago.
If you were inclined to cut the government some slack, you'd accept the revised figures as an appropriate adjustment to set clear expectations ahead of the election this year. Everyone accepts construction costs have increased.
It should also be pointed out Chief Minister Andrew Barr has been the stadium's biggest supporter - investigating several ideas, designs, options and locations. While some twists along the way have been confusing, no one can argue he hasn't pursued it.
But if you were being cynical - and after 15 years of waiting many in the sporting industry certainly lean this way - you'd view this latest development as a political attempt to pour cold water on the stadium idea.
What isn't immediately clear is whether this new data is the new way of measuring stadium costs, or how it's always been done. Because while moving Parkes Way would cost $250 million (according to the report), that still leaves $2.65 billion for the rest.
Is it right to lump all of those costs into one? Does the North Canberra Hospital have a 30 per cent contingency and hundreds of millions in escalation costs (the increase in materials, labour etc) as part of the $1 billion build?
It was only earlier this week Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith said she could not reveal the full costs of the hospital build because of a commercial process.
"We're not going to put a specific dollar figure on it, because part of the response to the request for tender is to give us an estimate of what can be delivered at different price points," Stephen-Smith said.
Can we expect costs to rise for other planned projects - the theatre, convention centre or Civic pavilion? What's the best way to convey the costs of those to the public - warts and all and the specific building costs?
Barr said last year: "We are not going down the folly of a billion-dollar plus stadium. We will not be spending that sort of money on a football stadium, I can make that clear."
That was obviously before he received this report, but do the new figures affect his expectations or planning given even the cheapest option exceeds the $1 billion mark.
In fairness to the government, it hasn't used these figures to point to a reason not to build a stadium. They've simply laid all cards on the table, which begs the question: if we can say how much all stadium costs will be, why can't we reveal the light rail estimations?
The government has constantly swatted away questions about the costs of light rail to Woden, claiming it would impact the procurement process, and rejected the Canberra Liberals' $3 billion estimation. Why so protective of the light rail numbers, but liberal with a $2.9 billion stadium figure?
Yes, the light rail is at a more advanced stage (and the same can be said for the hospital and theatre) and the government is going to market to find a partner, but if the public deserves to know the cost a stadium, and the impact on taxpayers, shouldn't they also be privy to the light rail price tag?
The government is yet to publish the findings of a study from last year, which examined 11 possible stadium locations at the AIS, Bruce and Civic. Since then the government has settled on a 25 hectare plot of land at Bruce as the preferred destination.
Most have accepted the Civic dream is over, despite the government's own site analysis in 2021 revealing the Civic pool site was a viable option (even if it was more difficult than the other options). A $2.9 billion guestimation surely kills it off for good.
But the Bruce believers got a rude shock of their own. At some point between Barr announcing in February Bruce as the preferred location for a 30,000-seat, $500m venue, the cost jumped to $1.869 billion (for the high-end option). That's $1.3 billion in six months.
HOW DOES THAT COMPARE?
The Canberra Raiders have invited ACT government officials to join them on their trip to Las Vegas for the NRL season-opener next year, where they will play inside a state of the art $2.8 billion stadium.
That venue has a capacity of 65,000, is considered a world-leading venue and has a full-sized field that can roll in and out of the fully-enclosed stadium. The ACT's estimates say a 25,000-seat venue in Civic would cost $2.9 billion, which includes the cost of shifting Parkes Way.
Australia's newest rectangular stadium at Moore Park in Sydney cost $828 million to demolish the old Sydney Football Stadium and build a new 45,000. The same option at the existing Canberra Stadium site, the government says, would cost $1.194 billion.
The 60,000 capacity Perth stadium cost $1.6 billion when it was completed in 2018 and is the most expensive stadium in Australia.
There's no doubt stadiums are big-money drains on government budgets if they choose to foot the bill rather than seeking private investment.
But Parramatta ($300 million, 30,000 seats) and Townsville ($293 million, 25,000 seats) were opened in 2019 and 2020 respectively, highlighting the cost of the ACT government doing nothing. Even adjusting for inflation, those venues- regarded as the two closest designs to what would work in Canberra - would now cost $350 million and $339 million respectively.
In New Zealand, a new $625 million, 30,000 seat stadium is being built in Christchurch. Would a Canberra option really cost double that?
The 70,000 capacity stadium in Los Angeles - which will be used for the Olympics in 2028 - cost a staggering $8.1 billion while Wembley in London cost $2.21 billion in 2007.
SPORTING REACTION
There was a collective eye roll from Canberra sporting administrators and fans when Berry's answers to a Legislative Assembly question on notice became public.
For years they've watched other projects skip ahead in the priority queue (despite Barr declaring "to limp on at Canberra Stadium is just not realistic" in 2017), there is widespread belief the field of dreams is just that - a dream.
The Brumbies have pitched a $50 million Viking Park upgrade to Barr, Senator David Pocock and federal Labor member David Smith as an smaller 10,000 seat option at Wanniassa.
The Raiders, who had more than 17,000 fans at their last home game last weekend, have backed Barr's Bruce vision but privately fear it may never get built.
The question now seems to be: will the cost of delays outweigh the cost of doing nothing.
