Gruen Report says Mac Point 2.0 should be considered and deliver ‘competitive tension’

As debate reignites over the Macquarie Point stadium, the author of a report says the alternative Mac Point 2.0 should be looked at. Read why.

Mac Point 2.0 Stadium aerial view. Picture: Solutions Won

The alternative stadium Mac Point 2.0 stadium should be considered “if it can be delivered for the payment claimed”, the Gruen report says.

Dr Gruen told the Mercury: “It makes sense to consider everything and then to choose the best option.”

Stadia Precinct Consortium Dean Coleman remains adamant the government should consider Mac Point 2.0 because it is about “fiscal responsibility”.

Dr Gruen said for some reason the government had ruled out any alternative because it was not in the agreement with the AFL.

Mac Point 2.0 stakeholder relations Paul Lennon and managing director of Stadia Precinct Consortia Dean Coleman at Macquarie Point. Picture: Chris Kidd

“Like everything else, it should be considered on its merits, not on form,” he said.

“For some reason, at some fairly early stage, when people said, ‘what about Mac 2, the government said, ‘oh, well, it’s not in the agreement’.

“As if the AFL would care whether the stadium was where it’s planned at the moment, or 50 metres to the east, that’s ridiculous.”

In his report, Dr Gruen said he was not “in any position to either endorse or criticise the (2.0) development”.

“However if it can be delivered for the payment claimed, with adequate assurances that the project will be delivered at an acceptable environmental cost, it should be considered,” he wrote.

“Moreover if it were actively considered this would bring a certain competitive tension on other proposals for the stadium.

“People might ask, if Mac Point 2.0 generates synergies between a hotel and the stadium, how could the existing plans do the same?

“If they can deliver facilities of a certain specification for a given cost, why can’t others?”

$2.3 billion precinct-scale urban renewal project, including roofed AFL stadium, for Hobart. Managing Director of Stadia Precinct Consortia Dean Coleman. Picture: Chris Kidd

Dr Gruen said because Mac 2.0 involved land reclamation, and displaced “less prime waterfront land” it would leave more land open for other kinds of development planned before the government decided to have the stadium there.

He also said it was “much more acceptable to the RSL because it interferes far less with the Cenotaph’s historic sightlines”.

“Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal, it is hard to see why the AFL should be concerned with the difference between Mac Point 1.0 and 2.0.”

Mr Coleman said he just wanted to provide a “viable alternative” that met the government and AFL requirements for a 23,000 seat stadium at Macquarie Point.