Cases for and against Brisbane stadium plans for 2032 Olympic Games

It’s been labelled an Olympic bungle of gold medal proportions – but what are the cases for and against each stadium proposal? HOW YOU VOTED

It’s been labelled an Olympic bungle of gold medal proportions.

Brisbane’s Games stadium saga has drawn the ire of officials, readers and Olympians as debate continues over what the 2032 showpiece should look like.

Swimmer Cate Campbell in March weighed in over the toing and froing regarding the best location for the Olympic stadium.

By July the conversation had moved on to the size.

It was revealed the viability of the Olympic and Paralympic Games was under threat from the Premier’s controversial plan for the smallest main stadium in more than 100 years.

Brisbane 2032 president Andrew Liveris for the first time disclosed Steven Miles’ proposed 40,000-seat no-frills Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre stadium would leave a hole in his $1.29bn ticket revenue target.

It came as a high-ranking bureaucrat conceded the state government does not yet know how much the plan will cost, beyond a $1.6bn estimate from an independent venue review.

A concept for the QSAC Olympic stadium option from architects Populous.

The admission was just one day after a state parliamentary estimates committee was told the original $1bn price tag quoted to demolish and rebuild the Gabba was also flimsy.

Previously, debate centred around which stadium proposal was the best.

Rebuilding the Gabba was an early suggestion, one that had since had several reincarnations.

Plans to construct a new stadium at Victoria Park also won some fans, while the potential to redevelop QSAC was been met with both positive and negative reviews.

In August there was a $6bn proposal at Northshore put forward to solve the 2032 Games planning debacle – and it wouldn’t cost taxpayers an extra cent.

So what is the best bet? Or should, as some have suggested, the Games just be cancelled completely?

Readers have repeatedly voted overwhelmingly for Victoria Park to get the nod, with more than 70 per cent of about 25,000 selecting that as the preferred option.

See the case for and against each stadium below and join the conversation >>>

BEST SITE FOR MAIN OLYMPICS STADIUM?

REBUILT GABBA

The case for

There is existing infrastructure which would not require a new stadium, plus it is already world-renowned and has suitable public transport.

Upgrading the Gabba would also be ideal to host more cricket and AFL at the venue before being used for the 2032 Olympic Games.

State Development Director-General Mike Kaiser in August 2023 acknowledged the $2.7bn Gabba redevelopment had divided the community but stressed “the value for money outcome is a tear down and rebuild.”

Graham Quirk’s 60-day Olympic Games’ venue review found the venue is a good viewing experience.

The case against

The cost of $2.7bn – and whether it could end up even higher – remains a sticking point, with Olympic powerbroker John Coates previously declaring the project is damaging the Games brand and “just doesn’t stack up”.

Mr Coates called for the rebuild to be axed in favour of an opening and closing ceremony at Suncorp Stadium and the athletics at the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre (formerly QEII Stadium) on the city’s southside.

Mr Coates said he held concerns about using the Gabba for athletics due to the requirement for a warm-up track nearby. The location also means it there are expansion limitations.

The proposal to use Raymond Park also drew strong community opposition which, combined with the plan to demolish East Brisbane State School for the Gabba rebuild, diminished support.

Graham Quirk’s review also found it had access issues, while major sports would be displaced during its rebuild.

VICTORIA PARK

The case for

There is the view that Victoria Park could be transformed into a world-class sporting, events and knowledge precinct for a similar price as the current plan to demolish and rebuild the Gabba and build Brisbane Arena over the Roma Street railway.

Under plans it would be connected above the Inner City Bypass to create a massive 90ha sporting and events venue precinct with a 70,000-seat stadium and Brisbane indoor arena.

In March Peter Edwards, the founder of architect firm Archipelago, said the $500m per year expenditure on the Olympic infrastructure was “not that much” compared to the state’s $87bn annual budget – including $15bn in coal royalties alone.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has also said he would back building a brand-new stadium at the council-owned Victoria Park – as long as the stadium footprint was kept to a minimum, there was no net loss of parkland, and the stadium delivered a cheaper option than knocking down and rebuilding the Gabba.

Mr Edwards noted the Victoria Park site was within a 20-minute walk of three railway stations – including Exhibition on the $6.3bn Cross River Rail.

The case against

Many have expressed their concern over the use as public parklands, plus the exact costs have been tipped to grow from the proposed $3.4bn.

Deputy Premier Cameron Dick has already slammed Victoria Park as a “vanity project”.

While Federal LNP MP for Fairfax Ted O’Brien – a former member of the 2032 Organising Committee for the Olympic Games – said the state government’s decision to “entirely own” infrastructure delivery at the expense of an independent authority “has proven to be a disaster”.

Graham Quirk’s review found the build may also have ripple cost impacts on the rail network and public transport.

There are also concerns about build time, “leaving little room for unanticipated delays”.

NORTHSHORE

The case for

The bold plans for a mega precinct with a stunning 60,000-seat waterfront stadium wouldn’t

cost taxpayers an extra cent.

A group of globally renowned architects – including the firm behind some of the best stadiums in the world such as Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium and the Dallas Cowboys Stadium – put forward the plan to transform Brisbane’s Northshore into a one-stop Olympic precinct.

The proposed Northshore stadium would be the centrepiece of the precinct, which would include a hotel overlooking the venue, a 2500-apartment athletes’ village, pedestrian walkways along the river, an aquatic and wavepool centre as well as a retail and restaurant hub.

Dubbed the Brisbane Design Alliance, the team of world-class architecture, engineering and planning experts from Buchan, HKS, NRA Collaborative, Aurecon and Nikken Sekkei believes the project could be funded privately – similar to Perth’s Optus Stadium, which HKS designed.

The case against

Minister Di Farmer quickly shot down the concept, saying the government wanted to own its Olympic stadium and had already issued tenders for QSAC upgrades and the Hamilton athletes village.

“We are already investing heavily in the Northshore area, we’ve already got dwellings there, we have already put out a proposal and tender for the athletes village,” she said.

“The government is always interested in private investment … but I think that the die has been set.

“We want to move forward.”

Ms Farmer said the government had already steered toward its own investment in Northshore after promising to build 3000 social and affordable homes.

QSAC

The case for

It was revealed Premier Steven Miles decided to ignore an independent Olympics review and push ahead with spending $1.6bn to upgrade the Queensland Sport and Athletic Centre because Games powerbroker John Coates suggested it.

Mr Coates argued the upgrade to Nathan’s QSAC for Olympic track and field events could be completed for as little as $500m to $600m – with IOC experts made available to travel to Australia to assess required work.

Instead, he put forward a proposal use Nathan’s QSAC for athletics, with the grandstands demolished and a permanent replacement built on the western side.

Former Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk held a review into the Games. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

The case against

The Olympic athletics stadium would be the smallest since the Amsterdam Games held 104 years earlier and give residents “little opportunity” to see finals events in 2032.

QSAC pales in comparison to the most recent venue – Tokyo’s 68,000-seat Japan National Stadium – which was rebuilt for the 2021 Games’ ceremonies and athletics but sat largely empty due to the Covid pandemic.

An independent 60-day infrastructure review also warned against spending $1.6bn to upgrade QSAC due to “limited legacy opportunities” it would provide for the city – and found it would not offer value to taxpayers.

“At $1.6 billion to upgrade the old stands, plus the other $1 billion needed to keep the Gabba going beyond 2032, the QSAC option isn’t exactly cheap,” Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said.

He also noted issues with getting people to and from QSAC, saying mass transport to the stadium was “notoriously bad”.

In March State Development Minister Grace Grace admitted the government had not yet factored in the cost of mass public transport upgrades in its budget.

By July there were fresh fears for the plan and whether it would leave a hole in the $1.29bn ticket revenue target.

Originally published as Cases for and against Brisbane stadium plans for 2032 Olympic Games