Amidst the redevelopment of the Gabba for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Brisbane’s RNA Showgrounds is poised to become a key player in the city’s sporting landscape.
The state government has unveiled a plan that includes the construction of a practical 20,000-seat stadium, revealing an investment of nearly $50 million from the government towards the estimated $150 million construction cost.
Under the government’s plan, the Brisbane City Council, RNA, and relevant sporting bodies are expected to also help fund the remaining costs of the upgraded RNA stadium.
However a spokesperson for Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said it was the state’s decision to tear down the Gabba stadium and therefore the state should find the Lions a temporary home during construction.
This half-baked announcement by the State is precisely why we need an independent infrastructure authority making decisions about the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
I’m pleased the State has finally recognised that Brisbane teams should keep playing in Brisbane while the Gabba is redeveloped.
However Lions and Heat fans will rightly be angry the State’s failure to make a proper funding commitment to this temporary stadium risks leaving their teams without a home
Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner Spokesperson
The dilemma of where the Brisbane Lions, last year’s AFL grand finalists, would play during the Gabba’s reconstruction has been a topic of ongoing discussion however a final decision on this matter could be months away.
Sport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe shed light on the state’s commitment to invest up to $45.7 million in creating a permanent seating bowl beneath a temporary grandstand at Machinery Hill. This initiative is part of a more extensive $137 million main arena upgrade, aimed at facilitating major sporting events and establishing a “lasting community legacy.”
Upgrading the RNA main arena is viewed as a practical solution to the challenge of providing suitable venues for cricket and AFL during the Gabba redevelopment. Hinchliffe emphasised its cost-effectiveness, particularly in light of economic pressures faced by many families.
Stirling Hinchliffe
The government’s plan comes with a condition – the venue must revert to 12,000 seats in “legacy mode” post the 2032 Games. This condition aims to prevent events from being diverted from the newly revamped Gabba, which is undergoing a substantial $2.7 billion redevelopment.
The government has reportedly only informed other organising bodies and the council last Thursday with council surprised an additional $100 million would need to be sourced outside the state government.
Hinchliffe stating that work on the RNA main arena would need to commence next year to be ready for the 2025-26 cricket season and the 2026 commencement of the Gabba redevelopment.
Various proposals for alternative venues for AFL and cricket matches during the Gabba’s multi-year redevelopment have been considered, including the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre in Nathan, Metricon Stadium on the Gold Coast, and the Lions’ training ground at Springfield.
Advocating for the RNA’s redevelopment, Adrian Schrinner asserted that upgrading the historic arena earlier makes sense, ensuring that significant economic benefits from hosting major AFL and cricket games aren’t lost during the Gabba’s reconstruction, however expressed that the state government should fund the project as its outside council jurisdiction.
The State Government’s stipulation regarding the legacy capacity of the Main Arena I feel is both anti competitive and potentially damaging to the RNA and their ability to host events at the Main Arena, including during Ekka, going forward.
According to the Brisbane Showgrounds website, the current capacity of the Main Arena grandstands is 15000 PAX – a reduction to 12,000 PAX is a rather significant one, which I have no doubt will be felt during events like Ekka Nights, music festivals, etc. And all to prevent a privately-owned and operated venue from competing against a Government-owned one, that really doesn’t sit well with me.
What I don’t understand is how after the 2032 Olympics the 20k seat upgraded and outdoor RNA would be ‘competing’ for events with the newly rebuilt Gabba that will have a much higher capacity? Surely they will both fill the different needs of our city!
Waste of money and an absolute joke. Boot this useless Government out.
The main problem here is that Gregory Terrace is constantly closed for events held at RNA. This used to be twice a year, EKKA and Caravan show. Now it is closed very regularly for a weekend up to 5 days for a one day event. It’s then closed down for a week for events like the camping show. This significantly impacts local business.
Council should build a new road underneath and a flyover across Gregory terrace, as they did in Nundah
No new or upgraded football stadium in Brisbane.
All the regional stadiums being upgraded to hold football preliminaries will be reconfigured for Rugby League as soon as the they are no longer needed for the Olympics.
Yet again football will have to beg to be allowed to play on these upgraded stadiums. Rugby League , not a Olympic sport, comes out a winner without having to put in effort.
It is absolutely shameful that , at least, Perry Park was not looked at for redevelopment as a small football only stadium. Purely as a acknowledgment of the growth of football in Qld.
Right now Rugby League , AFL and cricket pull the strings controlling sporting infrastructure development in Qld.
How quick were the state pollies to jump on the women’s World Cup when they saw how big the crowds were. Their staff were sent scurrying down to Rebel to buy Matilda’s scarfs for the media events.
It’s time for the Qld football community to fund its own home of football in Brisbane. I reckon there would private financial backers who would come on board to create a stand alone modern football stadium in Brisbane. Most importantly they should keep the all levels of government out of it except for the normal development approvals that would be required.
In other words be completely financially independent of government in developing a new stadium.
I can’t see any other way for football to be taken seriously in this state.
If this upgrade must happen why is it not being built on top of the current Gabba station being built now rather than popping resi towers on it.
This way we have two stadia side by side for the games.
And we don’t relocate a school or knock down a heritage listed police building.
After the games knock down the current stadium and kept some oval for the community and school and build the resi further fro the noisy freeway.
There is then no need to further disrupt Main Street to build a pedestrian link between the current station and current stadium.
The school can grow as demand grows and these families don’t need to travel daily by car to a remote dire. And the remote school site is not needed to be built in flood plains.
The new stadium can be raised up over a pedestrian shaded concourse with shops and eateries and the stadium. Presence could even cantilever towards the freeway so it is provided a visual and iconic presence from the freeway.
And no building a temporary RNA facility causing more disruption and expense.
All the saved cash then goes to housing.
Let’s think wider.
I argued the same point back when the Gabba redevelopment was being announced: keep the East-Brisbane school, build a new stadium right over the (underground) Gabba train station and then demolish the existing stadium to make way for a park (school oval) and highrises.
I’m a bit worried about this proposed stadium. On the plus side, a new train station directly adjacent is good for access. On the minus side, all the issues in the comments above. Including noise issues for the adjacent highrise tenants.
Alan Border field is going to be kept as part of the new Breakfast Creek Sport Precinct:
https://brisbanedevelopment.com/new-breakfast-creek-sports-precinct-proposed-for-brisbane-2032-olympics/
Why not upgrade that instead? Bonus points: it’s got it’s own heritage listed stadiums, so you’re not starting from scratch.
Bonus points, Cricket Australia (who own the field) might be less reluctant to foot the bill, especially if they can charge AFL and the BLions usage fees.
I can’t see the same rules (reduce capacity of stadium afterwards to avoid competition) applied to Alan Border field, since it’s (a) one of the stadiums that the Ekka is ‘competing’ and (b) the WBBL appears to be expanding in popularity. A good argument for upgrading.
discharging 50,000 people that close to the station would be a disaster. You need the length of the walk from the station accross the road & into stadium to spread out the crowd.
Well that’s a valid point, but only if you assume peak crowds, and they all decide to take the train home. I’d counter-argue that the proximity to the city allows for other options (walk/ bus/ uber/ taxi) to alleviate congestion.
The public transport option for Alan Border field however is something to consider; but I’d expect planning is at least in preliminary development.
You don’t just announce a Breakfast Creek sporting precinct without including public transport options, even if it doesn’t include a new train station. Busses from the city works for the Gabba in it’s current state; so I’d expect at the very least there’s plans for a bus hub in the works that would service Alan Border field.
All in all, an announcement that is increasingly disappointing. We can only hope there’s some kind of behind-the-scenes plans in action that makes the RNA stadium more appealing. Perhaps Cricket Australia will sell their land to the government (as part of the Brekky Creek Sporting Precinct redevelopment) in exchange for a permanent move to the RNA stadium? With an option to keep the 20k capacity stadiums if crowd numbers justify it….
That’s the only scenario I can see that makes the current debacle acceptable to public opinion.
Let us presume that the Gabba redevelopment goes ahead, the Brisbane lions and Heat could very easily play their homes games at Carrara — not an unreasonable alternative considering infrastructure is available and there will be contributing side effects to the SE Queensland economy, particularly for the GC.
The proposal sounds like ‘speculative investment’, meaning there is no business case study. Temporal infrastructure is risky business and will only work if there is an event, or series of events, that pay off within a suitable timeframe while creating surplus.
My main of criticism for this is that the proposal contradicts the Olympic Games new criteria i.e. public infrastructural spending is limited and the applicant must prove that the legacy outweighs any public debt incurred. Does this do that when what they’re proposing is temporal infrastructure? Doesn’t seem like it?
Commendations to the Lord Mayor. The state government should know better than to propose something without consulting its key stakeholders. Bad table manners… No soup for you!