The government is intent on pushing the Maze project ahead. We’re told there’s no plan B.
This is an issue that cannot be got wrong. Let’s examine the key questions. Is the location right? Are the finances right? Are the aims and intentions right?
Launching the Maze blueprint, David Hanson argued that the Maze site could see security installations turned into “symbols” of renewal and growth.
This is very similar to what Tony Blair said during a visit to Belfast four years ago.
Announcing plans to hand over installations to the public in 2002, the Prime Minister said there was a “great symbolic importance” in handing over assets from the “bad old days”.
Symbolism is a driving principle behind the Maze. But symbolism is not a decisive argument for committing hundreds of millions of pounds from the public purse to a landmark development.
Labour did that once before – and the result was the Millennium Dome.
And what of the H-Block hospital building that forms part of the package – now dubbed the ‘Conflict Transformation Centre’?
David Hanson says that preserving what many view as a shrine to republican terrorists will promote “learning… internationally about our experience here of the move from conflict into peace”.
And DUP MLA Edwin Poots has said that the centre highlights the “deficiencies in terrorism and send(s) out a clear message that people should move away from terrorism and conflict”.
Anyone who saw republicans gathering at the site last month would not have seen ‘deficiencies in terrorism’ exposed, they will have seen the activities of terrorists venerated.
Politics and symbolism are at the heart of government decision-making. It certainly isn’t based on financial considerations. How could it be? We still haven’t seen a business plan.
Big-ticket, multi-sport venues look good on paper. More so when the big idea is to design and deliver it for an Olympics or World Cup.
But the journey to delivery crosses white elephant territory. The experience of Japan and Italy post-World Cup, and Sydney and Athens post-Olympics, shows this.
The question of how a national stadium secures revenue streams after the Games needs to be satisfactorily resolved.
But no one has explained how a site at the Maze will consistently fill 42,000 seats year-on-year after the Olympics. Yet £7.4 million of public money will now go towards an appraisal of the project.
Overall, the estimated cost of the Maze project has risen from £85 million to £400 million. How many more increases are on the horizon? Are we not in danger of bequeathing a flash-in-the-pan money pit to taxpayers of the future?
Location is vitally important.
Architect Rod Sheard, who worked with Sir Norman Foster on the Wembley Stadium, said recently that one of the big changes in city planning is the importance of locating sports stadia in city centres.
NITB chief executive Alan Clarke said that “infrastructure in central Belfast is capable of supporting the likely footfall of a new stadium and will therefore realise the project’s full economic and tourism potential”.
The Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce said that “international experience” has shown that stadia work best when they are served by the necessary social and physical infrastructure.
When considered in those terms, the Maze is not Northern Ireland’s top location. How on earth can there be no alternative site for the national stadium?
Recently one acre of land in Coleraine topped £1.5 million at auction. There are 360 acres of land lying vacant at the Maze site. How on earth can there be no alternative plan for the Maze?
In 2002, the Prime Minister said installations were being “handed over to the Northern Ireland Executive” – or in other words, the people of Northern Ireland. In practice, the Whitehall wing of the Labour Government has handed these installations over to the NIO wing of the Labour Government.
Direct Rulers have driven this forward – the people of Northern Ireland have not. And when bad politics overrules sound economics, the taxpayer pays the price.