Macquarie Point stadium's tight squeeze for government, fans and finances laid bare by Planning Commission

You've just watched the Tasmania Devils enjoy a spirited win over, let's say, Carlton.

The crowd at Macquarie Point in Hobart is rocking, the team song blares over the speaker a few times, and everyone starts to file out.

Then comes a wall of people in every direction.

Huge crowds could be funnelled over narrow crossings on the Hobart waterfront after events at the Macquarie Point stadium. (Supplied: Macquarie Point Development Corporation)

Some try to use a new footbridge over to Collins Street, but find themselves in a slow-moving mass that increasingly builds up and comes to a crawl.

Crowds pack themselves alongside busy Davey Street, all attempting to head towards the CBD, while others reach a bottleneck at Franklin Wharf.

The Planning Commission panel says pedestrians will encounter significant pinch points at each of these locations. (Supplied: Tasmanian Planning Commission)

And about 6,000 head to nearby bus stops, including at a new bus plaza, where the wait is estimated to be more than an hour in a narrowly built environment that could exacerbate the wind and chill.

That's assuming that the extra 80 buses required are actually provided. The bus trip isn't the end of the line either, with many expected to collect their cars at a thus-far undisclosed park-and-ride.

It's not unusual for crowds to mass after events, but modern urban planning generally tries to avoid this by giving a range of options in multiple directions.

The Planning Commission panel was critical of the locations of the Goods Shed and practice cricket wickets, arguing they will cause pedestrian flow issues. (Supplied: Macquarie Point Development Corporation)

Macquarie Point offers a different challenge altogether: a block of land that can only just squeeze in a football stadium between a working port, a highway, a steep knoll and a heritage streetscape.

It's one of the many pictures painted in a draft report by a Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) panel in its assessment of the Macquarie Point stadium.

This draft report outlines the problems the commission sees with the stadium, ahead of more feedback and refinement and a final report and recommendation in September.

It will then be over to state parliament to vote on whether to approve the project before construction can begin.

Here are the problems ahead, as the TPC sees them:

The problems — at a glance

The cost: The government says the stadium will cost $775 million, but the TPC panel — on the same metric — estimates it will be $861m.

This then rises to $992 million once a below ground car park is included, along with various other non-budgeted elements, and increases again to almost $1.2 billion with footbridge, public transport infrastructure and sewer realignment.

Poll reveals support levels for proposed Hobart stadium across Tasmania Photo shows Concept art showing interior of sports stadium with cricket match underway. If it wasn't already official, it is now: The proposed Hobart stadium is massively on the nose among many Tasmanians.

The cost-benefit ratio: The government estimates that the stadium will generate 69 cents for every dollar spent, but the TPC panel brought this down to 53 cents, because the government has excluded costs not associated with the stadium.

The TPC panel says this figure will cause "a reduction in Tasmania's economic welfare from implementing the project".

Credit rating: The TPC panel estimates that an additional $1.86 billion will be added to the state's debt over 10 years of the stadium's operation.

It says this may trigger a credit downgrade, thereby affecting the cost of all other state debt.

Independent review finds new Hobart stadium costs to 'exceed $1 billion' Photo shows A concept image of the proposed Hobart stadium at Macquarie Poi nt. A leading independent economist tasked with reviewing Tasmania's proposal to build an AFL stadium on Hobart's waterfront finds the project is "already displaying the hallmarks of mismanagement" and is likely to exceed $1 billion.

Tourism benefits: The government estimates interstate attendees would amount to 25 per cent of the crowd for AFL matches, and 20 per cent for full stadium and arena concerts, but the TPC panel has revised these down to 15 per cent and 2.5 to 5 per cent respectively.

The government also estimates that spending by tourists adds 34 cents in the dollar for spending, but the TPC has revised this down as well — to 20 cents.

A visualisation of an AFL match at Macquarie Point. The Planning Commission says interstate attendance estimates could be inflated. (Supplied: MPDC)

Local planning scheme: The TPC panel says the stadium contradicts key strategic principles in the planning scheme for Sullivans Cove and central Hobart, and is "disproportionate" to Hobart's small scale.

Its bulk is "incompatible" with Hobart's built form, and the stadium's sheer scale exacerbates negative aspects of its form.

The landscape: The TPC panel considers that the stadium "does not respect the natural layered landform of Hobart", including how it sits in relation to Kunanyi/Mt Wellington and the River Derwent. It is considered contrary to Hobart's visual values and natural topography.

It would be dominant in distant and close views, competing with the topography of Queens Domain.

The proposed stadium, as it might be seen from the opposite side of the Derwent. (Supplied: MPDC)

The neighbourhood: The panel's draft report argues materials and finishes of the stadium do not reflect the surrounding buildings, as few of them are clad.

The stadium backs onto Evans Street, which in turn backs onto a heritage row of buildings. (Supplied: MPDC)

Goods Shed: The relocation of the Goods Shed to an area on the north part of the site is described as "a poor design outcome", with the shed only accessible during events.

It would be "isolated", and the narrowness of the space north of the shed would have negative implications for pedestrian movement. The nearby practice cricket wicket would be a similar barrier for pedestrians.

Cenotaph: The TPC panel describes the stadium as "highly intrusive and physically dominating" against the Cenotaph, and says it would diminish its prominence, and affect how the space is experienced.

The proposed Macquarie Point stadium, and proposed tree planting, as may be seen from the Hobart Cenotaph. (Supplied: MPDC)

Commonwealth funds: The government has been able to access $240 million in Commonwealth funding for the Macquarie Point precinct, but it's unclear how this will be spent on promised housing at Regatta Point. It's also unclear if all of the funds are going into the stadium, which is only one part of the precinct.

The housing at Regatta Point has also been criticised by the TPC panel as a mismatch for the location due to the "isolated" nature of it and the ongoing activities at the nearby Port of Hobart.

Pedestrian access: The TPC panel says the area has limited existing options for the efficient dispersal of pedestrian traffic, and that various pinch points will develop.

This could create safety issues if an emergency evacuation is required.

Bus access: The government has a target of 24.5 per cent of people using buses to reach the stadium, but the TPC panel says there are insufficient bus stops to handle it. Those catching the buses could expect to wait more than an hour after the match.

There would need to be 80 more buses in the fleet as well, along with substantial additional funding and long-term operating contracts — for a service that has recently been significantly cut back due to problems with recruiting enough drivers.

Metro has significantly scaled back its services in recent years after suffering service and reliability problems, but is touted as a stadium traffic solution. (ABC News: Maren Preuss)

Traffic congestion: No agreement has been entered into yet with the Department of State Growth on how event traffic will be managed.

The TPC panel says that even with significant traffic management — including police, Tasman Bridge alterations and traffic light signal changes — congestion "could not be managed".

Other transport: To reach an "optimum" level of transport, the government is continuing to rely heavily on "external, unfunded and uncommitted conceptual public services", according to the TPC panel.

Among these could be the use of the northern suburbs rail corridor for rapid bus transit. An expanded ferry network is also not seen as a viable option to move significant crowds of people to and from the stadium.

The eventual development of an unused rail corridor from central Hobart to the northern suburbs is being relied on as a transport solution for the stadium. (ABC News: Luke Bowden)

Who is on the Planning Commission panel? Gary Prattley, who has experience in planning and urban and regional development across New Zealand and Australia, including senior positions in planning in Tasmania in the 1980s and 1990s.

who has experience in planning and urban and regional development across New Zealand and Australia, including senior positions in planning in Tasmania in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul Turner SC, a former assistant solicitor-general in Tasmania, and a litigation lawyer since 1981.

a former assistant solicitor-general in Tasmania, and a litigation lawyer since 1981. Lynn Mason AM, a former Local Government Association of Tasmania president with more than 30 years' experience in local government.

a former Local Government Association of Tasmania president with more than 30 years' experience in local government. Shelley Penn AM , an architect, urbanist and non-executive director with more than 35 years' experience in architecture and strategic advisory roles.

, an architect, urbanist and non-executive director with more than 35 years' experience in architecture and strategic advisory roles. Martin Wallace, a former secretary of the Tasmanian Treasury and Finance Department with experience in public finance and economic analysis.

Is it too late to turn back for the government?

The draft report only includes the problems that need to be addressed — not the aspects that the panel might agree with.

And the government still has time to attempt to solve these issues, with more chances for feedback, a potential public hearing, and then a final report on September 17.

That report will have recommendations — and then the politics come in.

The way that some Legislative Council members vote when the proposal goes before parliament later this year could be critical to whether the stadium goes ahead. (ABC News: Kate Nickels)

Labor changed its position towards supporting the stadium after last year's state election, but has continued to argue that it's up to the government to get it done for the sake of the Tasmanian AFL team.

Labor sport and events spokesperson Luke Edmunds foreshadowed the party's line of attack.

"The Devils are firing on all cylinders — except for anything that involves Jeremy Rockliff," he said straight after the draft report was released.

What's wrong with Bellerive Oval for AFL matches? Photo shows Ariel views of two stadiums side by side. Bellerive Oval has hosted AFL games for years, so why does Hobart need a multi-million dollar stadium for its newly-minted footy team?

Regardless of how critical the TPC panel will be, the parliament still has the final say on the stadium.

If Labor supports it, the government only needs to convince one or two upper house independents.

But without Labor's support, the stadium will be doomed.

Government minister Eric Abetz — who has carriage of the stadium — said it was full steam ahead.

"We have been clear, that if we are to meet the existing time frames set out in the agreement, we cannot afford any delays," he said.

A parliamentary vote is expected soon after the final TPC report, as delays will add to the construction cost.

Click here to read article