Q.3.2, Should Auckland Council develop a multi-use approach to indoor sports facilities?

The question

Auckland faces an acute and worsening shortage of indoor court space. The current deficit is estimated at 73 full-time equivalent (FTE) courts, projected to rise to 117 by 2038 as population growth and urban intensification continue. The question is not whether to build more indoor capacity, that is unavoidable, but whether to build single-sport venues or flexible, multi-use facilities that adapt across codes.

This dispatch sets out why the multi-use model is the only defensible answer, what it requires in design and governance, and what the Long-term Plan must commit to.

The deficit is real and structural

A 73-court deficit is not a marginal gap. It means scheduled training and competition are rationed, that junior and female participation in particular are squeezed into the least desirable time slots, and that the city is leaving participation and its associated social returns (see Q.3.1) on the table. Left unaddressed, the deficit compounds: every year of delay adds population without adding supply.

The drivers are familiar, population growth, intensification reducing the availability of outdoor flat space, and the shift in demand toward indoor codes (basketball, netball, futsal, badminton, volleyball, and emerging activities such as pickleball). None of these drivers are going to reverse.

Why single-sport venues fail the test

A single-sport indoor venue is the apparently simple answer that fails on three counts:

• Capital efficiency. A purpose-built venue serves one code and one user group. The capital cost is borne for a narrow benefit. When demand shifts, and it does, as participation trends move between codes, the asset cannot adapt and risks early obsolescence.
• Operating economics. Whole-of-life costs are typically 5-10 times the capital outlay once maintenance, energy, staffing, and renewals are included. A single-sport venue has a narrow revenue base (one code's hires, programmes, and memberships) and is therefore more exposed to operating shortfall.
• Equity of access. A venue built for one code privileges that code's participants and excludes others. In a city with 200-plus ethnic communities and rapidly diversifying participation, that is the wrong design.

The multi-use model

Multi-use adaptable facilities are strongly endorsed by Sport New Zealand, Recreation Aotearoa, and Aktive as the preferred model for Auckland. The model rests on a few design principles:

• Adaptable layouts with adjustable lighting, switchable court markings, and modular walls or curtains that allow quick reconfiguration between codes and between training, competition, and casual play.
• Stacked and shared scheduling so that a single footprint serves basketball in the evening, school physical education during the day, community programmes on weekends, and casual hire in the gaps.
• Revenue diversification through court hires, programmes, and memberships. Multi-use facilities can typically cover 73-75 per cent of operating costs from subsidies and income streams, a far stronger position than single-sport venues, and crucial given rising construction costs and an estimated $290 million funding gap across known projects.

Optimise before you build

The first move is not to build new. It is to optimise the existing stock. School gyms, community halls, and under-utilised council facilities represent latent capacity that better scheduling, modest upgrade investment, and shared governance could unlock. Auckland Council and the Ministry of Education should treat the school gym estate as a shared community asset before committing to new standalone builds.

This is not a substitute for new capacity, the deficit is too large to close through optimisation alone, but it is the cheaper, faster first tranche, and it tests the governance and scheduling arrangements that new multi-use facilities will need.

The funding gap and how to close it

The estimated $290 million gap across known indoor facility projects cannot be closed by local board discretionary budgets or gaming trusts alone. It requires:

• Dedicated regional facilities funding within the LTP capital programme, treating indoor court capacity as essential regional infrastructure rather than a local board residual.
• Central government co-funding for facilities that sit on national sporting pathways, particularly basketball and netball where participation growth is strongest.
• Public-private and club equity contributions where beneficiary groups can be identified and can reasonably contribute.
• Phased delivery that prioritises optimisation and modular expansion over trophy builds.

What the 2027-2037 LTP must commit to

1. Adopt multi-use as the default design standard for all new and renewed indoor sports facilities funded through the LTP, with adaptable layouts, switchable markings, and modular configuration.
2. Fund the indoor court deficit as a regional priority within the capital programme, with a published delivery pipeline and cost ranges, not as a local board discretionary item.
3. Require an optimisation-first test before any new standalone build, demonstrating that existing school and community capacity has been scheduled, upgraded, and shared to its limit.
4. Pursue central government co-funding for pathway facilities, with a clear ask tied to national participation outcomes.
5. Publish court-utilisation and participation measures so the public can see whether the deficit is actually closing.

The bottom line

The multi-use model is not a compromise. It is the only model that delivers the capacity Auckland needs at a cost the city can sustain, across the codes its communities actually play. The Long-term Plan should adopt it as the default and fund the deficit accordingly.

Contribute evidence or a structured response to this question through the Questions hub. See how the process works.