Victoria Park precinct plan to be presented to Olympic venue review
With 95 days left of the independent 100-day Olympic venue review, a new discussion paper on a Victoria Park sports precinct is about to land in their inbox.
Concept render of the proposed Brisbane 2032 Olympic stadium at Victoria Park.Credit: Archipelago
Proponents of a new sporting hub at Victoria Park have prepared a discussion paper for the new 100-day Olympic venue review, in the hope of getting the controversial proposal off the ground.
The Graham Quirk-led review recommended Victoria Park for a new stadium in March, but that was quickly shut down by the then-Labor government.
The proposal was met with support from business and sporting leaders, and condemnation from local residents’ groups and political figures of all stripes.
So far, the most advanced publicised plan for Victoria Park has been a multi-venue precinct conceptualised by Brisbane architectural firm Archipelago.
The proposed Victoria Park stadium precinct, as proposed by Archipelago.Credit: Archipelago
While Quirk recommended the stadium be situated at the north-west corner of the park, where the existing car park and golf clubhouse sit, Archipelago opted for a stadium closer to Gregory Terrace.
Archipelago’s “Brisbane Bold” vision was costed by multinational engineering firm Arcadis, which also managed costs for Solideo, the delivery authority for Paris 2024.
Arcadis Brisbane Games and legacy lead Paul Allan said the strategic case for the stadium, supplied to this masthead, would be submitted to the Crisafulli government’s newly constituted panel to consider during its 100-day venue review.
“We wanted to create something that could feed into the review, that could also be a public document that puts some reasons as to why it should be Vic Park,” he said.
“... It’s not a business case, but our own high-level strategic assessment that it can be done, it can [be] implemented in time, it can be commercialised.
“It seems to be ticking the boxes and, these days, where else can you look? I’m not sure what other options there are.”
The other options that have been canvassed are a return to the Gabba, QSAC, Hamilton and the original Games proposal of Albion.
Allan said site constraints meant the Gabba could not be built big enough for Brisbane’s future needs and, of the remaining sites, Victoria Park had the most potential for public transport links.
“Transport’s the biggest part and this site has transport in spades,” he said.
“You’ve got the fastest, best rail network we’ll have seen with Cross River Rail opening and Brisbane Metro on the other side.
“That people movement is key and this as this is as good an option as it’s going to get.”
The discussion paper goes into more detail about how people would move in and out of Victoria Park.
“One of the big mobility challenges associated with major stadiums is that the majority of patrons want to exit the venue and head home or to their next destination, at the same time,” the Victoria Park: Creating a lasting legacy for Brisbane discussion paper found.
“In order to avoid congestion and delay exiting the stadium precinct, it is desirable for patrons to want to head in a range of directions.
“The Victoria Park concept addresses this requirement with Brisbane Metro stops to the west and north, Exhibition Station to the north-east, Roma Street Station to the south and the CBD to the south-east, all within 20 minutes walking distance (assuming upgraded and clearly signed active transport connections are developed).”
Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner released a draft master plan for Victoria Park in 2020, to convert the 50-hectare golf course into a public park and, together, all levels of government have committed $120 million to the project.
In its review submission, Arcadis argued a stadium would complement the park, rather than diminish the green space.
Victoria Park golf course in 2020.Credit: Matt Dennien
“Commercial and physical activation has key non-financial benefits, including that of increased safety for park users and the surrounding community,” Arcadis says.
“Considerable focus has been placed on the safety concerns of large urban parks, the primary mitigation factor for which is the consistent and constant activation of the space.
“The creation of an activated sports and entertainment precinct provides this activation to naturally create movement that encourages greater use of Victoria Park.”
Then-premier Steven Miles dismissed Quirk’s Victoria Park finding within hours of its release, saying he “did not expect to get a recommendation that was nearly a billion dollars more” than the planned $2.7 billion Gabba rebuild.
Quirk estimated the cost of a stadium at Victoria Park to be $3.4 billion. Arcadis has estimated the cost of a stadium, a new arena, a permanent aquatic centre and a deck over the Inner City Bypass to be a combined $6 billion.
That would take up most of the $7.1 billion funding envelope agreed to by the state and federal governments, and was more than Arcadis’s estimate when it first assessed the Archipelago proposal several years ago.
“Things have changed a little bit upwards – obviously not downwards, which is never going to happen in the world,” he said.
But Allan said that was no reason not to be bold.
“We’ve got to stop looking at costs and think about value creation,” he said.
Another plus for the Archipelago vision, Allan said, was the inclusion of a permanent aquatic centre.
The Centenary Pool complex on the edge of Victoria Park would be incorporated into a new 15,000-seat aquatic centre (6000 seats post-Games).Credit: Tammy Law
“If you don’t build a pool, Swimming Australia says ‘where’s our legacy pool?’,” he said.
“It’s our number one national sport, that we win the most medals in, and yet we will not have a pool left after the Games.
“... I really see why Swimming Australia is getting quite active on the idea of a legacy pool, where I think Queensland would have been the seventh-best country in the world, if it was a country, on swimming medals alone at the [Paris] Olympics.”
By building the main stadium, the arena and a new aquatic centre, Allan said the project would be more likely to attract private investment, without the need to offer up more parkland to developers.
“The scale of the opportunity means you can really commercialise if you can put multiple arenas together,” he said.
The precinct would be activated on more days a year, Allan said, which meant commercial usage could be split between the venues.
Whatever the result of the review, Allan said it was shame Brisbane did not take full advantage of its 11-year lead time to the 2032 Games. A little less than eight years remain until the Olympic cauldron is lit, wherever that may be.
“I’m amazed we’re still having this conversation, amazed we have to keep going to these reviews. I get it, the independence and wanting to assess all options, but geez hopefully this is the last one,” Allan said.
“If this isn’t, then we don’t want to be Melbourne 2.0 and have to hand back the Games.”