We strenuously oppose a multipurpose stadium on Macquarie Point. It would ruin a waterfront precinct that is the oldest in Australia and is integral to the history and heritage of Tasmania.

Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) and Cox Architects/Cumulus (2024), propose to shoehorn an enormous structure into a constrained site that abuts critical roads and is too close to places and buildings of deep cultural significance.

The scale of this proposal is entirely inappropriate for Hobart. The proposed 54-metre-high roof would make it one of the tallest stadiums in Australia, second only to Sydney Olympic Stadium Australia (58 metres). The Great Southern/Shane Warne Stand at the MCG is 45 metres (John Holland, 2025), while Marvel Stadium (Docklands) and Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) are 38 metres (Austadiums.com). The Allianz Stadium in Moore Park in Sydney, is 50 metres (Cox Architects, 2025).

In Hobart, the only buildings above 40 metres (10 storeys) are confined to the CBD north of Macquarie Street. The proposed stadium would be 40 metres taller than the historic Henry Jones IXL Buildings. It would be much taller than the Marine Board Building (39 metres) and the Hotel Grand Chancellor (42 metres), which are already discordant on the waterfront. The stadium would be higher than the heritage Gasworks Stack (38 metres), the Hydro-Electric Building (46 metres) and the Hobart Cenotaph (45 metres).

The Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997–2023 recognises the human scale of the precinct, its walkability and the quality of its spaces and buildings. The cove is an amphitheatre that retains the form of its pre-colonial origins, along with colonial heritage.

Accordingly, the scheme limits the height of developments on the Macquarie Point site to 15 metres, and yet Cox/Cumulus has designed a stadium where the doors alone would be 17.8 metres high (2024, pp. 11–12).

We have read MPDC’s commissioned Visual Impact Assessment (SLR Consulting 2024), which confirms the stadium would produce significant change, but attempts to claim the building would be ‘iconic’ and contribute to the ‘character and identity of Hobart’ (p. 61).

The proposed stadium is not in the class of the Sydney Opera House. Visible from every elevated site in Hobart, Kunanyi/Mount Wellington, and the eastern shore, it would rise from the docks, like a blister.

The stadium would have deleterious effects on surrounding heritage, as MPDC’s commissioned Cultural Impact Statement shows (Purcell/GJM 2024). The Cenotaph, the first war memorial built by a state government in Australia, currently has panoramic sightlines to Sullivans Cove, Salamanca, Battery Point, Timtumili Minanya/Derwent River, overlooking the docks from which the Anzacs left. The stadium would block these views and isolate the Cenotaph. The Royal Engineer’s Building, a cherished 1840s landmark, would be dwarfed by the structure.

The proposed stadium has a monumental material effect on built heritage. The iconic Henry Jones IXL warehouses would be dominated. The Red Shed lost. The Hobart Railway Goods Shed, a rare artefact of Tasmanian railways, would be removed from its context and fabricated anew. We caution that such replication is not conservation.

The site is on Muwinina Country but it seems there are no plans to assess the extent of Aboriginal occupation on the site, through archaeological investigation, or to properly engage with Palawa/Pakana people to assess cultural heritage elements. As the Tasmanian Government states it wishes to turn the sod on this project by Christmas 2025, it seems likely the contribution of Aboriginal knowledge to this project will be limited. At the moment, it seems to be confined to design input from two artists (MPDC & Cox/Cumulus, 2024, p. 16).

We are also deeply concerned about the heritage impacts of road changes, noise, and excess lighting, during construction and beyond. We note with grave concern that exceeding current height limits on the waterfront for this structure may make it easier for developers of high-rise buildings to overcome council restrictions.

Advocates for the stadium argue it would boost visitation, but this proposal comes at the expense of a key driver of tourism – heritage. Built heritage is important to Tasmanians, a major drawcard for hundreds of thousands of visitors, and is ‘widely recognised as an integral part of the Tasmanian brand’ (Tasmanian Parliament, Built Heritage Tourism Report, 2016, p. 11).

MONA, Salamanca Market and Kunanyi/Mt Wellington are in the top four sites for visitors (Tasmanian Parliament, p. 13). The proposed stadium would intrude on views from Salamanca, Kunanyi/Mt Wellington and the MONA ferries, and affect surrounding residents, hotels and short-stay accommodation.

We share the passion for the Tasmanian Devils AFL team and support their inception wholeheartedly – one of the authors of this submission is a member – but the team does not need this stadium to thrive, and its effects on Hobart are not worth the cost.

In 2021, UNESCO removed the Liverpool-Maritime Mercantile City from its World Heritage List because the city allowed the insertion of high-rise developments and a football stadium for Everton FC to alter the city’s skyline and overpower historic buildings.

We believe it is unfair for the AFL to insist on a new roofed stadium as a condition of hosting a team. Bellerive’s Ninja Stadium and Launceston’s York Park offer equivalent ground sizes and each hold more than 17,000 – just 6,000 fewer than the proposed stadium (Austadiums, 2025). They are part of the sporting history of Tasmania and the legacy of Tasmanian football that goes back to 1879. Using these grounds also disperses the benefits of having a team across a wider area of the state.

The waterfront of Hobart is a gem, not just for Tasmania but for the world. The proposed stadium is not worth sacrificing the history, heritage, amenity and low-rise liveability of Hobart.

We believe the Tasmanian Government and the AFL can and must do better. This does not mean mitigations or modifications. We do not think a stadium should ever be built on this site.

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

New initiatives on the way include:

  • a weekly podcast covering current affairs
  • a revamped website
  • a monthly cartoon competition
  • a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
  • a weekly roundup of key stories