Plagiarised pavlova

I have no idea how... (but I certainly know why) NZ won the bid to host the Rugby league in 2010 + something. No idea how, because the rugby commision still has no idea on how to raise the money necessary to build the stadiums, and they want to surprise us with extra taxes!

How can they bid to host the games (and win), when they had no development plans for the stadiums... it is until now that they realise they have to upgrade and build new stadiums, and they still have absolutely no idea how, which, how much $$$, and IF they are going to be there on time. And you thought that mexicans are disorganised!

There are several proposals for Auckland and that's the only thing we hear or see on the news lately... not only on sports news, no no, on every news!!! Anyway, some of the "last minute" plans are just awful! Not only they are plain ... they are Horrible! Stadiums are always masive, because of the nature of their use... but we know that form doesn't follow function, you can have a stadium that is nice and doesn't look like a rugby fan looked at an empty toilet paper roll and made that a stadium (I am talking about the horrible westpack trust stadium in Wellington by Warren and Mahoney).

One of the plans looks like an enormous donut... or pavlova. And it is a photocopy of the Alianz-Arena in Germany. It seems that the idea comes from the same group of architects, but I am not sure. If that were the case: Beeeeep! Wrong! Because they shouldn't sell a similar project to another client... even if it is because there is not enough time to make a new project. it would be like presenting a previously graded school paper (womework) to another teacher, just because you don't have the time to write something new... and the teacher buys it!

If... if this comes from another team of architects... well, then it is plagiarism my sirs. No need to say more about the ethical implications of that. And besides, it is horrible! it looks like a giant donut or pavlova! (Video here: wmv) (via)

In terms of composition... It should be just the oposite: because it is a giant structure, masive and generally round... the right way to go is to de-materialise the shape. There are beautiful examples of that, like the "Stade de France"... but of course a rugby fan (as some polititians too) would choose a giant pavlova... so, let's build a giant can of beer shaped hotel near the stadium!

There's also the issue that architecture cannot or should not be "transported" elsewhere. The Alianz Arena looks nice, because it is set on an open space, plenty of geen surroundings, so the white donut becomes a nice highlight. If you just copy/paste and put that in the midle of Auckland, it will be something out of context. Any architectural project has a unique setting, you cannot just move buildings arround the world... unless the project was intended to be mobile architecture. I don't think that the architects of the Alianz Arena were thinking about a franchise of Dunkin Donut's stadiums arround the world.

Last but not least... IF the money for the National Stadium is going to come out of our pockets as taxpayers... then maybe we should be entitled to shares on the profits of that stadium. Taxes are usually to pay for public services... not for financing a business. Who is going to cash all the revenue from tickets, rent, etc? Are they going to give it back to the tax payers who are going to pay for the building? Like Sandra said: in this case the matter should be going to a public referendum about the prefered venues and projects, and IF the people actually agree on paying extra taxes for that stadium.

ciao