Mac Point Stadium Proposal – Image released by Our Place

On 7 July 2024, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) released a series of artist’s impressions of a stadium design under development by its chosen architects. It was described as a “sneak peek” and each of the pretty pictures floated in the ether, with no context to help Tasmanians understand what it might look like in situ on their prized waterfront.

On 12 July 2024, Our Place – Hobart released an architect’s rendering of the stadium concept image, based on the data made publicly available at the time of the release of the pretty pictures.

The architect working with Our Place, Shamus Mulcahy, in stark contrast to the MPDC, provided a detailed methodology to inform Tasmanians about how the rendering was created.

Shamus Mulcahy’s methodology

“We used computer software to create a model the size and shape of the stadium. Inputs for this are based upon the information made publicly available in media reporting and documents released by the MPDC.

Using this information, we produced a very basic computer model of the proposal. We created the timber façade and the roof arrangement from published information.

We then took a standard photograph, in this case, from Victoria Dock near Mures.

Using the computer, we took a screenshot of the computer model of the stadium from the same location (matching the distance and angle) as the standard photograph.

We then used computer software to combine the two images.

Why is it accurate?

The proposed stadium is modelled at 54 metres high at its maximum, 25m high at the lower edge, and it is 232m by 236m. There is limited information available but what is available is very clear and therefore the model is accurate as there is little opportunity for error.

What is the colouring?

We have simply used similar colouring as that of the publicly released images.

Why this image and location?

This is the iconic location that many Tasmanians can identify. In this image the bulk of the stadium is actually somewhat obscured by the buildings in the foreground. Other images where the stadium scale is less obscured such as the Cenotaph or areas of the city further away from Sullivans Cove / the docks illustrate the true mass of the proposed development.”

Since the release of the image by Our Place …

It seems that Tasmania is replete with budding architects eager to provide their own renditions, admittedly many to promote the Liberal Party’s talking points about the Our Place rendition.

Some people are posing questions that are puzzling ordinary Tasmanians who have a right to accurate information about what they might one day wake up to find on their capital city’s waterfront

So, we have put together a list of current FAQs.

Why is the image released by Our Place different to the image provided by the MPDC?

There were many calls on the MPDC, after its 7 July release, to provide Tasmanians with “in context” images that allowed them to see what the stadium would look like from the waterfront and from the Cenotaph. None were forthcoming. Within an hour of the release of our rendering on 12 July, their “waterfront impact image” was released by the MPDC.

We understand that image, in line with the tone of the 7 July release, to be another artist’s impression, another “sneak peek”. Indeed, “indicative”, as was Liminal’s low-lying, water-level-perspective image in response to the first Our Place rendering released last year.

The MPDC has not released any methodology to explain its image.  At Our Place, despite extensive effort, we have failed to identify any sight line that corresponds.

Why does the Our Place image look lower than the one you released last year, given that this one is supposedly higher?

There is an element of optical illusion in all of this. The first Our Place image was for a then-promised 40m high stadium. There is not a lot of detail for the latest MPDC stadium but we do know it is lower at the sides than last year’s model (now 25m) but higher at centre (now 54 m).

Also contributing to the perceived difference between the two Our Place renditions is the fact that the point of maximum height for the latest version is about 80 meters further back from Evans Street.

Some of our budding architects have even attempted overlaying the two Our Place images to evidence some perceived sleight of hand, but fail to take account of the additional allowance in the first Our Place image for a roof structure over and above the claimed 40m height.  We encourage them to refer back to the methodology Mr Mulcahy provided for that image, specifically the section titled “Why we added a steel structure”.