0
Exclusive: Joe Spagnolo
March 10, 2007 02:00pm
PERTH's proposed new outdoor stadium could end up being a 70,000-seat venue with a $700 million-plus price tag after a re-think on the size of the venue.
Taskforce head John Langoulant has revealed the group was re-thinking the idea of a 60,000-seat venue, admitting it could be too small for the future needs of the sports-mad state.
He also revealed the $600 million price tag that's been bandied around for the project could swell beyond $700 million.
With West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers membership alone ballooning beyond 90,000 between them, there are now concerns that a 60,000-seat venue would be too small.
But Mr Langoulant scoffed at suggestions by Burswood that the Burswood Peninsula was the only site capable of accommodating a larger stadium, saying a rebuilt Subiaco Oval, Kitchener Park in Subiaco and land near the old East Perth power station were also suitable sites for a 70,000-plus stadium.
"We are having another look at the 60,000 figure to make sure it's the right size,'' he said.
"There has been commentary made about ensuring that what we build will meet future demands and we just want to make sure we get it right.
"But it's our view it should not go beyond 70,000.
"Every time you decide to increase the size (of the stadium) you add to the cost _ about an extra $10,000 a seat.''
Burswood says any new stadium needs to be relevant for future generations and is claiming the Burswood Peninsula is the only location that can accommodate a venue larger than 60,000 seats.
"The fear is that, as a state, we are contemplating long-term infrastructure that the Government has said may not be built for 10 years, and will need to be relevant for generations to come,'' Burswood spokeswoman Sonia Mackay-Coghill said.
"There is a very real possibility that WA may outgrow a 60,000 seat stadium during that time.
"To not plan for this when there is clearly opportunity to do so, is a missed opportunity.
"Not one of the other sites being considered can accommodate a larger stadium.''
But the Burswood proposal has its critics.
Nearby residents have formed an action group to lobby against the peninsula proposal, claiming there are environmental and public issues with the site.
"I don't want drunken hooligans wandering around our streets late at night, traffic jams every weekend and the noise of 60,000 sports fans echoing through my windows at night,'' said Jackie Oldfield, head of the action group.
Mr Langoulant claimed that out of all sites being considered, the peninsula had the worst traffic access issues.
And he raised further concerns about the extra costs involved with building a stadium on reclaimed swamp land.
Burswood claims it would cost no more than $20 million to build piled foundations for a stadium, an expense off-set by the fact that the government owns the land and would not have to buy back properties.