My vote is for Chicago's Soldier Field. What where they thinking renovating it? Also, what is with the bizarre design, they could have done a more normal design at least!

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/illinois/chicago_soldier.jpg

Look at the diagonals everywhere!

RFK stadium in Washington D.C.

@maxpowers

oh my god. this is really ugly. were the architects drunken or something like that?

The stadium itself seems to be quite new. was it build continuously oder every ten years one of the stands. i can't believe how an architect can do somthing like that.

I can't see what's wrong with that stadium

well, I really like it! :)

Soldier Field looks pretty cool. My vote goes to the late, not so great, Vet in Philly.

The ugliest stadium I have ever seen was War Memorial Stadium in Greensboro. This thing was probably a gem back when it was built, but now it's just ugly!

http://www.news-record.com/sports/images/batsstadium3.jpg

The stadium was originally built as a horseshoe for football, but then converted for minor league baseball. The Greensboro Bats made home to the stadium for many years, but will be moving into a brand new downtown ballpark next year. This facility is still used by North Carolina A&T, Greensboro College and many high schools.

http://www.news-record.com/sports/images/batsstadium1.jpg

The ugliest arena I've ever seen was the Spectrum in Philly!

Well this get my vote for the ugliest stand if you can call it that.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/preston23.jpg

http://www.groundhopping.de/prestng4.jpg

The pavilion stand at Preston's Deepdale.

^I think that's the winner so far :D But then I think it's easier for small stadiums to look ugly

Interesting sig btw

I dont mind Soldier field...the Metrodome in Minnesota is pretty damn ugly, at least for baseball.

http://www.ballparkdigest.com/images/metrodome_5.JPG

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/images/metrodome_3.JPG

The fact that Soldier Field is nominated shows the difference between American and European tastes. Soldier Field isn't ugly. Its just about as modern and innovative as you'll find in the world.

From a technical design vpoint of view, The seating bowl is the best ever blend of the NFL's insane amount of luxury suites, luxury boxes and normal stands in that it allows the average fan to have a much closer than usual view of the game. It also puts a huge number of normal fans on one side leaving the 300-400 luxury suites with a much better view than half of them usually get. Its kind of similar to Atlanta's Phillips Arena in this way. Not conventional, and considered ugly by American standards.

Outside, the blend of old and new is what I think is considered ugly by many. The old Soldier Field was a beautiful example of older architecture. But that's been blended with something ultra-modern. It creates that 'UFO landing in Soldier Field effect'. Had either theme been used alone it would be considered great by the American Public. But as is, just from reaction on this board, Europeans would love the design.

Comparison of two renovations finished the same year.
Design aesthetic Americans like: Lambeau Field

http://www.ryanphotography.com/aerial/lamb759.jpg
http://www.ryanphotography.com/aerial/lamb755.jpg


Design Americans don't like: Soldier Field
http://www.bearshistory.com/images/sf7034.jpg
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/sold801.jpg
http://www.lptrixie.com/images/pictures/092903-8.jpg
http://www.kennyconstruction.com/images/SoldierFieldDone.jpg

I think the bowl shape is something that people are starting to back away from these days. I mean sure it may not be as profitable, but its more asthetically pleasing, not to mention in Hienz Field's case, it kills even the best of field goal kickers. (river creates a crossbreeze, handy no?)

For those who think Soldier Field is ugly, check out this one.
The FC Antwerp stadium is the ugliest I've ever been into, for each side of
the stands look totally different en run down, each competing for the
title 'ugliest stand world wide'.

side 1
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0301.JPG

side 2
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0302.JPG

side 3
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0303.JPG

side 4
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0304.JPG

the last one is actually a new side, this is what it used to look like. This side
had closed off sections due to danger of collapse, which didn't stop them from
using it at the time.

http://www.ultras.at/bilder/stuff/specials/rafc3.jpg

It's ugly, but the strange thing is we like it like that...
Can be noisy!

rantanamo, I'm European and I don't like Soldier Field! For me it is not the mix of the old and new, that could have looked great, its just the asymmetricity of the seating areas, and how they've have all these slanting lines all over the place! (under the boxes)

If the design was more symmetrical i think it would have looked good!

Los Pajaritos Stadium, soria:

http://www.stadiumguide.com/pajaritos1.jpg

the one above wins it for me, I actually thing there is nothing wrong wih Soldier Field

What a great thread.

Here is my choice.The ANZ stadium,Brisbane Australia.The city has some great venunes like the newly renovated Lang Park and the Gabba.But this stinking stadium is the worst in Australia.Built for the commonwealth games in 1982,it was put together in about 10mins using a lego kit


http://www.jimboombaturf.com.au/legend/legend_img01.jpg

Bosie State's Bronco Stadium. It's ugly but I can't stop staring at it.
http://www.broncosports.com/photos/full_stadium.jpg
http://www.broncosports.com/photos/orangeout_web.jpg

soldier field looks good to me, Candlestick stadium in california (not sure about location) is ugly in my opinion. I dont like how tribunes were built. there is no order

I have always liked the blue field. It just looks strange and i've had people try to change the tint on the tv when they were on.

Los Pajaritos Stadium, soria:

http://www.stadiumguide.com/pajaritos1.jpg
Wow, that pretty much takes the cake for me:)

Stadio Mario Rigamonti in Brescia....

Blue is cool
looks very odd with one end just open !

For those who think Soldier Field is ugly, check out this one.
The FC Antwerp stadium is the ugliest I've ever been into, for each side of
the stands look totally different en run down, each competing for the
title 'ugliest stand world wide'.

side 1
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0301.JPG

side 2
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0302.JPG

side 3
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0303.JPG

side 4
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0304.JPG

the last one is actually a new side, this is what it used to look like. This side
had closed off sections due to danger of collapse, which didn't stop them from
using it at the time.

http://www.ultras.at/bilder/stuff/specials/rafc3.jpg

How strange this may sound nowadays, this stadium was once one of the biggest and most luxurious soccer stadiums in Europe. In its impressive history it has hosted a lot of important international matches.

here is a link to the official club site with some other pictures if you scroll down (check out number 3 and 4)
http://www.rafc.be/stadionhist.html

It might also be interesting to know that they planned to replace this stadium in 1996 by a very modern venue with a capacity of about 25.000.
As you know the European Cup in 2000 was held in The Netherlands and Flanders and this new stadium had to be one of the venues for this championship. The demolition of the two stands behind the goals took place in 1997 but due to financial reasons the whole project was cancelled :bash:
Now we had a stadium with only two stands instead of four. Nowadays these two gaps are filled with two new (but ugly) stands.

here is a link with some other pictures (beneath there are some pictures of how the new venue had to look like)http://members.tripod.com/antwerpI/eurost.html

Well i personally think Soldiers Field looks awesome! :)

Me to.

I vote soldiers field for being the ugliest stadium .....yuck!!

This is real ugly stadiums:

Moldavia:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Moldawien/chisinau/158_DYNAMO_CHISINAU_MOLDAWIEN.jpg

Georgia:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Georgien/Merani91-Tbilisi/merani91tbilisi_geo-socc_01.jpg

Albania(disgusting):

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Albanien/selman_stermasi/129_STADION_SELMA_STERMANSI.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Albanien/selman_stermasi/128_STADION_SELMA_STERMANSI_TIR.jpg

:badnews:

I wouldn;t even class some of the above as stadiums.

I wouldn;t even class some of the above as stadiums.
but how Newcastle hits in UEFA Cup on some team from Albania, this will have to play on something like this.

@maxpowers

oh my god. this is really ugly. were the architects drunken or something like that?

The stadium itself seems to be quite new. was it build continuously oder every ten years one of the stands. i can't believe how an architect can do somthing like that.

Those pictures suck. See the stadium at night durning a game from the outside, or from the lake. Beautiful. You guys are morons if you think that is the uglies stadium in the world. There are tons worse. The multipurpose stadiums built in the 70s, montreal's baseball field.

Soldier Field has a great aesthetic - there is nothing wrong with the diagonals and not all stadia have to be symmetrical to look good - the UFO landing sentiments expressed are great IMO. To me Lambeau Field still looks old and boring as far as designs go and I would rather Soldier Field anyday.

the cookie cutter stadiums, no originality at all

(the Vet, Fulton County, Busch Stadium, Three Rivers, other one....)

Texas Stadium - Irving Texas. :wtf: were the designers thinking? That stadium doesnt know what it wants to be A dome? A retractable roof? Every time I look at that building, I think that either someone was too cheap or ran out of money.

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/texas104.jpg

Estadio Municipal, Aveiro, Portugal

Just because no one has done something before does not make it original! It just means they all thought it was a crap idea in the first place. Looks like it's been made out of Lego, and the interior is as bad as the outside suggests. Admittedly although the stadium may be of reasonable quality, this monstrosity deserves a place in my 3 just for the colour scheme, which you can't help thinking has been done to disguise an otherwise mediocre building (why else would they do it?). Some may say that its colourful and jolly but it not, its just tasteless, gaudy, kitsch, and garish and looks like it should be a giant creche. Yes its the Estadio Municipal.

http://www.stadiumguide.com/aveironew4.jpg

Twickenham, London, UK

From one extreme to another, we have a prime example of how bad concrete can look, and lets face it there isn't much more to this stadium than conecrete. Its big (more opportunity to use more concrete) I'll give you that, but surely they noticed how ugly this thing was, and it was refurbished fairly recently. Did I miss something, is this part of some retro 60s Eastern bloc chic movement? Or perhaps there was plans they ordered a glittering modern clad exterior that would cover the concrete, but it was lost in the post? Did i mention that concrete was used liberally in its construction? its Twickenham.

http://www.stockphotography.co.uk/Upload/Stock/Previews/9578.jpg

Glanford Park, S****horpe, UK

A newish stadium built c. 1988 epitomises everything that can be bad about sports grounds. Its been built out of town, destroying the atmosphere in any match build up and meaning you can only get there by car. The surrounding area is made up of DIY warehouses and the like. The ground is pitifully small and is all seater ensuring no atmosphere within the ground. The design is bereft of any distinguishing features and quality. It looks cheap, dated and boring and can bost none of the character of older grounds competing clubs. With no redeeming features this is the worst ground in the world, I give you the biscuit tin that is Glanford Park.

http://www.benzo.org.uk/imagez/glanfordpk.jpg

[QUOTE=Jan]For those who think Soldier Field is ugly, check out this one.
The FC Antwerp stadium is the ugliest I've ever been into, for each side of
the stands look totally different en run down, each competing for the
title 'ugliest stand world wide'.

side 1
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0301.JPG

what the hell is going on there, riot?

Aviero stadium is beutiful but just too many colors.

what the hell is going on there, riot?

No, hell itself!!!

[QUOTE=Jan]For those who think Soldier Field is ugly, check out this one.
The FC Antwerp stadium is the ugliest I've ever been into, for each side of
the stands look totally different en run down, each competing for the
title 'ugliest stand world wide'.

side 1
http://people.freenet.de/groundhopping/rafcaag0301.JPG

what the hell is going on there, riot?

lol, north americans really dont know nothing about how to support their team. Thats why they need cheerleaders... :)

Brasil has ton of ugly stadiums. Basically because they are either:
1-old
2-from small teams, that sometimes play for 2nd or 3rd division of state championships, and are not even in the national championship.

what the hell is going on there, riot?

I think the players came up at this picture or there was scored a goal.

Soldier Field is beautiful. Candlestick Park is pretty bad.

Soldier field is OK except for the fact that the first rows are too far away from the field. The Boise State stadium is even much worse. That seems to be a problem with the newer NFL football stadiums. Is there some kind of conspiracy to keep the fans away from the action?

This one reveals such an enourmous bad taste! What da f.... is that neo neo classic thing!????ulgly so ulgly and ugly! americans aren`t quite much good in stadium design!

http://www.bearshistory.com/images/sf7034.jpg

[QUOTE=Jan]For those who think Soldier Field is ugly, check out this one.
The FC Antwerp stadium is the ugliest I've ever been into, for each side of
the stands look totally different en run down, each competing for the
title 'ugliest stand world wide'.


I have to agree with you. That Stadium is UGLY!!! :bash:

Wow that´s a really awesome exterior. I mean it!

Vast&Goed stadion (RBC Roosendaal) is pretty ugly (though not the ugliest in the world offcourse)

http://www.rbcroosendaal.nl/Pics/CS_15.jpg

http://www.rbcroosendaal.nl/Pics/CS_16.jpg

http://www.rbcroosendaal.nl/Pics/CS_17.jpg

This one reveals such an enourmous bad taste! What da f.... is that neo neo classic thing!????ulgly so ulgly and ugly! americans aren`t quite much good in stadium design!

http://www.bearshistory.com/images/sf7034.jpg

Wow...thats really ignorant...considering I don't know of another stadium in America that looks like...or anything close to looking like...Soldier Field.

Oh came on! what is that entrance with an imitation of an ancient greek temple?? And behind that the building looks like a boat something like a transatlantic! Taste opinions always diverge!:)

its actually a old building that was recently renovated, hence the wierd clash of old and new.


Before
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/gf_curtis/04-16.jpg

After
http://www.bearshistory.com/images/sf7034.jpg

oh i thought it was built recently,but anyway it`s a really weard conection and means a foult of respect to a probable historic monument!

Anfield

I love the way Soldier field looks. Symmetry and elegance are great, but sometimes it's nice to throw in something odd and unusual. It was origainall built in the early twenties (i think...well before 1930 at least) as a track-and-field stadium in honor of the soldiers of World War I. it gradually became out of use until the chicago bears moved in. It was renovated in the early 1970's. it gradually got worse by the time it got to the ninties. The bears were threatening to move into the suburbs if the stadium didn't get renovated. so it was renovated. sure they could have designed it classically but i personally think that the mayor had other ideas of trying to reinvent chicago's reputation.... starting with soldier field..and currently millenium park....both have a mix of an old design mix with a new one

How about this:
http://www.geosystems.pl/gallery/potencjal/waw_stad_iko%20copy.jpg
:crazy2:

I think Soldier Field is the prettiest NFL Stadium in the US. Lambeau Field is really nice too, in its own class, but Soldier Field is really gorgeous.

As for the Boise State stadium, omg, blue turf, thats just horrid!

That Chicago stadium looks as though a Cruise liner has pulled in to town. :)

soldier field is prob the best ive ever seen, nothing like it anywhere else.
amazing.
on the whole I dont think stadium are meant to be pretty, more functional, anything else is a bonus.
size is the most important factor to me.

What about the semi-stadium of the Seville's Real Betis?
http://estaticos.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/especiales/2002/08/liga/primera/equipos/betis/imagenes/ruizdelopera.jpg

the new soldier field is a very avante garde design, hence many stodgy types think it is ugly. It is definitely the coolest looking stadium in the NFL and one of the best in the world.

I do not mind Soldier Field...it's different but it is very comfortable and carries a lot of good features. It looks great from the typical angles someone would see it from.

My major complaint is it is too big for my club :) But we're addressing that.

Soliders field is amazing as is Ralph Wilson Stadium and the Seahawks stadium. The worst is Sun Devil Stadium and Candlestick park. I also dislike all Domes.

Santiago Bernabeu looked pretty ugly to me. same for Twickenham. that is from the outside. but I doubt fans give a fuck about the outside, they pay to see what's inside. FC Antwerp's look crap, especially for a team in Belgium's second largest city :no:

1-THE KINGDOME :puke:

http://ourworld.cs.com/Jackc7799/kdome1.jpg

2-THE ASTRODOME

http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion/archives/images/astrodome.jpg

3-TEXAS STADIUM

http://www.thebeerguys.com/Kahuna/TEXAS_STADIUM.JPG

AAMI Stadium, Adelaide Australia.

I can't believe anyone has said Soldier Field in Chicago. In my oppinion, it's one of the best stadiums re-builts ever performed. Keeping the history of the old place, while building a super modern, very attractive stadium.

I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.

Anyway, it's not THE ugliest, but I certainly think it's up there amongst bigger stadiums:

St. James' Park, Newcastle, England - worse mismatch of stands, structures and styles I've yet to see:
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_james_park/160.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_james_park/250.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_james_park/390.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/st_james_park/330.jpg

That or the Råsunda Stadium (http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/index.php?template=stadionlisten&stadion=R%E5sundastadion&foto_ordner=Schweden/rasundastadion&id=1463) near Stockholm, Sweden. Same criterias as above.

Santiago Bernabeu looked pretty ugly to me.

The reason why they aren't really able to do anything about the Bernabeu outside, is because it's been in the same place since it was build in 1947, and is right smack bang up against streets on pretty much all sides. That's the same reason why, when they wanted to expand and modernise, they had to go up (which explain the ridiculous steepness of the stands).

Here's how it will look when they finish the new retracteble roof - I think it's awesome, lots of a character, looks and a truly massive stadium (although those arches could be stolen from the new Wembley design ;):
http://www.lamela.com/DEPOT/fotos/0356_-_tpr_-_18%20Idea%20para%20cubricion%20estadio.jpg

I'm not sure I'd really include older football grounds with small mismatched stands, theres been no real overall plan in place for most of them and they often have alot of character IMHO.

St. James does look pretty mistmatched right now but if they ever complex the extension it will look pretty great if you ask me(from the inside anyway).

That picture of the Bernabeu was a publicity stunt to win a presidential election. I cannot believe that roof is structurally possible and in Madrid it is hardly necessary.

I'm not sure I'd really include older football grounds with small mismatched stands, theres been no real overall plan in place for most of them and they often have alot of character IMHO.

St. James does look pretty mistmatched right now but if they ever complex the extension it will look pretty great if you ask me(from the inside anyway).
The reason part of St James' is built up and part isn't is because right behind the undeveloped part are rows of protected terraced housing. They can't knock them down.

I think White Hart Lane (Tottenham's crap hole of a ground) is the ugliest.

I like Soldier Field. Looks awesome and I like the Greek imitation.

That picture of the Bernabeu was a publicity stunt to win a presidential election. I cannot believe that roof is structurally possible and in Madrid it is hardly necessary.

Last I heard, the retractable proposal had been chosen over this (http://www.soccermania.dk/spa-realmadrid/bernabeu.jpg), with a simultanious redevelopment of the "main" stand, in an attemprt to boast a Spanish bid as hosts.

The reason part of St James' is built up and part isn't is because right behind the undeveloped part are rows of protected terraced housing. They can't knock them down.


But they can extend behind the other goal. And do something to the stand infront of those terraces to bring the ground together.

I think it'll look great once finished.

Last I heard, the retractable proposal had been chosen over this (http://www.soccermania.dk/spa-realmadrid/bernabeu.jpg), with a simultanious redevelopment of the "main" stand, in an attemprt to boast a Spanish bid as hosts.


No no no. The redevelopment of the main stand was chosen over that curved main stand.

The retractable roof proposal has nothing nothing to do with it. (They went for the cheaper main stand redevelopment)

No no no. The redevelopment to the main stand was chosen over that curved main stand.

The retractable roof proposal has nothing nothing to do with it. (They went for the cheaper main stand redevelopment)

So, they will leave the main stand roofless, or what?

Have you got any link about this?

Hmmn. Everything with running tracks...

So, they will leave the main stand roofless, or what?

Have you got any link about this?


The main stand has already been roofed over.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/madrid/madrid_santiago_bernabeu1.jpg

http://www.interunion.ru/spain/SB2.jpg



The other option that was rejected:

http://www.real-page.de/neubernabeu.jpg

pity.

I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.

We've explained this over and over. Many Americans take offense to these repeated comments because they imply that we are either stupid or don't have the money. There are factors that determine this. And even if some don't there are plenty of retractable roofed stadiums (more in the U.S. nation than European continent) and more domed stadiums here as well.

-Culture
Americans by nature love the outdoors and like to be in the elements whether they be cold, snow, rainetc. Especially football(American) fans. Watch Green Bay, Cleveland or New England play during big snow storms. The stands are full and if you ask the fans, that's how they like it. If you ask Minnesota fans, they want to be outdoors too. in Spain seems to have the same feeling as you don't see roofs all over the place there which may also point to something else. There are exceptions though, which point to something else as well.

-Weather
Our weather is more extreme than Europe's for the most part. In the midwest and southeastern U.S. It simply rains harder and there more outright storms with Tornadoes, lightning, thunder and flooding. A roof for the most part will do nothing for this type of weather unless you are going to enclose the place. We already knew this in 1971 from Texas Stadium(which was oringinally planned to be retractable). Also, when its cold, its cold. What the heck is a roof cover going to do when it 20 degrees F? You're either indoors or out. Then you have the swaths of places that have incredibly beautiful weather in the fall during football season. Lots of sunshine, very blue sky, crisp air. Why would you cover up from this? Especially in a place like Miami or Tampa, Florida? Interestingly enough, the U.S. city with the most European like weather is Seattle, and guess what, they have a retractable roof baseball stadium and a European style roof on their football stadium. Makes sense. Compare that too Green Bay, Wisconsin or Boston, Mass. Among the coldest cities in the NFL. You're gonna get snow and cold or good sunshine late in the season. A roof will help you how in this situation? Contrast with Houston, Texas where it rains hard or is sunshiny. They have a retractable roof. Sunshine on the good days. Closed if it rains hard. A roof like those in Europe will do nothing in a Texas thunderstorm but create a place for downbursts to collect and swirl hard rain to every reach of the stadium. Again, we learned this in 1971 from Texas Stadium.

-Type of sport
Then there's the type of sport. Football was explained. Now to baseball. Baseball doesn't play in the rain so it doesnt It makes sense to only cover the fans. Therefore, some places like Houston or Seattle have retractable roofs, some places play in domes(yuck, yuck, yuck) and most are just open air to enjoy the beautiful spring, summer and fall weather in the U.S. It simply wouldn't make sense to have an audience 'awning'

But they can extend behind the other goal. And do something to the stand infront of those terraces to bring the ground together.

I think it'll look great once finished.

Indeed and a three sided main stand looks far more balanced if you ask me. If we bid for another world cup I'd guess that might provide enough leverage to get around any planning problems with the other side stand aswell.

The reason why they aren't really able to do anything about the Bernabeu outside, is because it's been in the same place since it was build in 1947, and is right smack bang up against streets on pretty much all sides. That's the same reason why, when they wanted to expand and modernise, they had to go up (which explain the ridiculous steepness of the stands).

Here's how it will look when they finish the new retracteble roof - I think it's awesome, lots of a character, looks and a truly massive stadium (although those arches could be stolen from the new Wembley design ;):
http://www.lamela.com/DEPOT/fotos/0356_-_tpr_-_18%20Idea%20para%20cubricion%20estadio.jpg

nah the archs were stolen from athens for shore, which is ok, because its a good looking stadium IMO.

Indeed and a three sided main stand looks far more balanced if you ask me. If we bid for another world cup I'd guess that might provide enough leverage to get around any planning problems with the other side stand aswell.


Hope we get the World Cup in future. Reckon we'd put on a great show.

As for St James', I was thinking on the lines of the San Siro, like Newastle it has a side that can;t be extended. However the smaller stand infront of the old Hippodrome, still has a huge roof above it, that makes the whole stadium feel complete even though it's not. NU could continue the roof over the small main(?) stand, but also have a smaller one like the one above the smaller stand in the San Siro, this would give the standium good balance but at the same time cover the fans in that stand from the elements.

Any idea to how tall those huge stands are at St James'. 50m surely?

Hope we get the World Cup in future. Reckon we'd put on a great show.

As for St James', I was thinking on the lines of the San Siro, like Newastle it has a side that can;t be extended. However the smaller stand infront of the old Hippodrome, still has a huge roof above it, that makes the whole stadium feel complete even though it's not. NU could continue the roof over the small main(?) stand, but also have a smaller one like the one above the smaller stand in the San Siro, this would give the standium good balance but at the same time cover the fans in that stand from the elements.

Any idea to how tall those huge stands are at St James'. 50m surely?

They could of I spose do the same as I sujested for Old Trafford in that othet thread and have a wall of directors boxes behind the other side stand. Wouldnt add much to the capacity(I have my doubts Newcastle could fill 70,000+ often anyway) but I'd guess it would bring in alot of money if theres the demand for them.

nah the archs were stolen from athens for shore, which is ok, because its a good looking stadium IMO.

So any stadium which now has arches stole them from Athens? Maybe they use them because it's the most sensible thing to do?

I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.

We've explained this over and over. Many Americans take offense to these repeated comments because they imply that we are either stupid or don't have the money. There are factors that determine this. And even if some don't there are plenty of retractable roofed stadiums (more in the U.S. nation than European continent) and more domed stadiums here as well.

-Culture
Americans by nature love the outdoors and like to be in the elements whether they be cold, snow, rainetc. Especially football(American) fans. Watch Green Bay, Cleveland or New England play during big snow storms. The stands are full and if you ask the fans, that's how they like it. If you ask Minnesota fans, they want to be outdoors too. in Spain seems to have the same feeling as you don't see roofs all over the place there which may also point to something else. There are exceptions though, which point to something else as well.

-Weather
Our weather is more extreme than Europe's for the most part. In the midwest and southeastern U.S. It simply rains harder and there more outright storms with Tornadoes, lightning, thunder and flooding. A roof for the most part will do nothing for this type of weather unless you are going to enclose the place. We already knew this in 1971 from Texas Stadium(which was oringinally planned to be retractable). Also, when its cold, its cold. What the heck is a roof cover going to do when it 20 degrees F? You're either indoors or out. Then you have the swaths of places that have incredibly beautiful weather in the fall during football season. Lots of sunshine, very blue sky, crisp air. Why would you cover up from this? Especially in a place like Miami or Tampa, Florida? Interestingly enough, the U.S. city with the most European like weather is Seattle, and guess what, they have a retractable roof baseball stadium and a European style roof on their football stadium. Makes sense. Compare that too Green Bay, Wisconsin or Boston, Mass. Among the coldest cities in the NFL. You're gonna get snow and cold or good sunshine late in the season. A roof will help you how in this situation? Contrast with Houston, Texas where it rains hard or is sunshiny. They have a retractable roof. Sunshine on the good days. Closed if it rains hard. A roof like those in Europe will do nothing in a Texas thunderstorm but create a place for downbursts to collect and swirl hard rain to every reach of the stadium. Again, we learned this in 1971 from Texas Stadium.

-Type of sport
Then there's the type of sport. Football was explained. Now to baseball. Baseball doesn't play in the rain so it doesnt It makes sense to only cover the fans. Therefore, some places like Houston or Seattle have retractable roofs, some places play in domes(yuck, yuck, yuck) and most are just open air to enjoy the beautiful spring, summer and fall weather in the U.S. It simply wouldn't make sense to have an audience 'awning'

that's a great explanation, and true. though there have been times that I really wished I had a roof over my head...

as for soldier field, I think its great! just cause something was built in a fake greek style doesn't make it sacred. they did a great job mixing the old and new. certainly a lot better than if they had just abandoned soldier field to rot.

I can never tell if my favorite stadium is ugly or beautiful.

the stands have been built piecemeal since the 1900's, so are mostly just ugly steel pylons...
http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lwaldorp/VS/Football__+_People/18.jpg


then
http://www.happyvalleyonline.com/images/vpic/vpic9.jpg

now
http://www.tailgatershandbook.com/images/psu1a.jpg

but there's something so beautiful in having 110,000 other fans cheering your team on...
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/k/ske119/_private/stadium.jpg

The northern half of the MCG was the worst stadium ever until it was demolished to make way for the new stand which will make it the best stadium ever :-)

http://www.battersea.net/images/australia/MCG.jpg

I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.

We've explained this over and over. Many Americans take offense to these repeated comments because they imply that we are either stupid or don't have the money. There are factors that determine this. And even if some don't there are plenty of retractable roofed stadiums (more in the U.S. nation than European continent) and more domed stadiums here as well.

-Culture
Americans by nature love the outdoors and like to be in the elements whether they be cold, snow, rainetc. Especially football(American) fans. Watch Green Bay, Cleveland or New England play during big snow storms. The stands are full and if you ask the fans, that's how they like it. If you ask Minnesota fans, they want to be outdoors too. in Spain seems to have the same feeling as you don't see roofs all over the place there which may also point to something else. There are exceptions though, which point to something else as well.

-Weather
Our weather is more extreme than Europe's for the most part. In the midwest and southeastern U.S. It simply rains harder and there more outright storms with Tornadoes, lightning, thunder and flooding. A roof for the most part will do nothing for this type of weather unless you are going to enclose the place. We already knew this in 1971 from Texas Stadium(which was oringinally planned to be retractable). Also, when its cold, its cold. What the heck is a roof cover going to do when it 20 degrees F? You're either indoors or out. Then you have the swaths of places that have incredibly beautiful weather in the fall during football season. Lots of sunshine, very blue sky, crisp air. Why would you cover up from this? Especially in a place like Miami or Tampa, Florida? Interestingly enough, the U.S. city with the most European like weather is Seattle, and guess what, they have a retractable roof baseball stadium and a European style roof on their football stadium. Makes sense. Compare that too Green Bay, Wisconsin or Boston, Mass. Among the coldest cities in the NFL. You're gonna get snow and cold or good sunshine late in the season. A roof will help you how in this situation? Contrast with Houston, Texas where it rains hard or is sunshiny. They have a retractable roof. Sunshine on the good days. Closed if it rains hard. A roof like those in Europe will do nothing in a Texas thunderstorm but create a place for downbursts to collect and swirl hard rain to every reach of the stadium. Again, we learned this in 1971 from Texas Stadium.

-Type of sport
Then there's the type of sport. Football was explained. Now to baseball. Baseball doesn't play in the rain so it doesnt It makes sense to only cover the fans. Therefore, some places like Houston or Seattle have retractable roofs, some places play in domes(yuck, yuck, yuck) and most are just open air to enjoy the beautiful spring, summer and fall weather in the U.S. It simply wouldn't make sense to have an audience 'awning'

I'm of course not implying that American's are either stupid (in general) or lack money (by God, in your franhice sports industry, money is the least concern), but I do wonder though (it was also part of a friendly joke). You speak about the weather yourself, in Chicago, Wisconsin, New York and New England for instance, rain is no stranger, and it's gets quite cold, as you also mention. Why not protect at least the fans against the elements (if not the cold, at least the downpoor)? (You might say the fans prefer to be open to the element, but I doubt it, it might benefit their team if theyø're used to it, but I think most people would like to be covered under a blizzard) Chicago (to take an example) is called "the windy city", it gets windy enough when sitting at the upper tier of Copenhagen's fully covered and enclosed stadium of Parken, I can only imagine how it must be sitting at the top tier at Soldier Field, on a windy day ;)

I agree, a roof might, or cetainly ruin the lines of Soldier Field, but a retractable roof could easily be incorporated into a solid mass of cement that is Giant Stadium, without ruining the look, it would probably improve it.

Domes suck yes, but I'd personally, given the climathe in the northern US, build more stadiums with retractable roofs.

The difference is probably the mentality, as you also insinuate.

I'm of course not implying that American's are either stupid (in general) or lack money (by God, in your franhice sports industry, money is the least concern), but I do wonder though (it was also part of a friendly joke). You speak about the weather yourself, in Chicago, Wisconsin, New York and New England for instance, rain is no stranger, and it's gets quite cold, as you also mention. Why not protect at least the fans against the elements (if not the cold, at least the downpoor)? (You might say the fans prefer to be open to the element, but I doubt it, it might benefit their team if theyø're used to it, but I think most people would like to be covered under a blizzard) Chicago (to take an example) is called "the windy city", it gets windy enough when sitting at the upper tier of Copenhagen's fully covered and enclosed stadium of Parken, I can only imagine how it must be sitting at the top tier at Soldier Field, on a windy day ;)

I agree, a roof might, or cetainly ruin the lines of Soldier Field, but a retractable roof could easily be incorporated into a solid mass of cement that is Giant Stadium, without ruining the look, it would probably improve it.

Domes suck yes, but I'd personally, given the climathe in the northern US, build more stadiums with retractable roofs.

The difference is probably the mentality, as you also insinuate.


Mentality: Here's an exercise for you. Go to this site: http://bears.hosttown.com/index.php?showforum=2

Suggest to them to put a roof over Soldier Field to protect fans from the elements. Better yet, visit a Green Bay or New England fan forum and ask the same. Good luck.

Weather: And BTW, you can't be covered from a blizzard. Not the kind that happen in Chicago, Boston or Green Bay where you are getting feet of snow in gail force winds at times. Otherwise it is usually sunny and just cold as heck, which is 90% of the time. So you build a roof that can't protect the fans from the extreme weather and that blocks out the sunshine the other 90% of the time? And yes, rain is a stranger during football season to most of the nation. The US gets a lot of its rainfall in the spring.

Fun:
How could you deny fans? This stuff is culture, tradition and homefield advantage to many of these cities.

http://www.swibby.com/images/patssnow.jpg
http://www.patriotworld.com/Images3/SnowPic.jpg
http://www.bishopjeff.com/images/Bull%20pen/pats_snow.jpg
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/image/2001/122301/2fans1223.jpg

Millenium Stadium in London :lol:

^When I was trying to rank my favorite stadiums, I was looking at pics of Millennium. Its great inside for 3/4 of the stands. That one side is hideous though. Then the outside is :vomit:. What were they thinking for such a top notch venue? Its almost overdone on the outside and underdone on the inside. It doesn't flow as a design. At least Soldier keeps with its unusual theme and blendings throughout. For a large super modern venue, you may have found us a winner.

Millenium Stadium in London :lol:

Maybe i missed a joke or something, but u mean the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales right?!

This stadium right?
http://www.roomcheck.co.uk/sw/img/eapic.jpg

http://www.stadiumguide.com/millenium1.jpg

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/cardiff/images/millennium_stadium1.jpg

Is this the stand u mean?
https://www.fireworkemporium.co.uk/gallery/20030825133524.jpg

Yup that's the stand. I know they were going for something different, which I usually like. Just not in that case. Something odd about the way it looks next to the other stands. Doesn't flow or something. Can't put a finger on it.

Its caused by their next door neighbours not selling up so they had to change the design to shorten the stand - out of necessity not whim. I am sure Eddyk knows the full story :)

I'm glad we don't have this kind of behaviour in Europe (except for some parts of Germany).
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/image/2001/122301/2fans1223.jpg

Well I never expected the Millennium Stadium to appear in this thread.

And to call the outside overdone :bash:

And no they wasnt doing an america and going for something stupid

http://www.skylinepictures.com/Philadelphia_Lincoln_Financial_Stadium_ph55_large.jpg

There is a proper reason the stand is like that.

Whether there's a purpose or not is irrelevant. I PERSONALLY don't like it and the outside is ugly and overdone. I do like the venue though. Don't know why you throw the Linc up there. I don't like its design either(not because of the stands design, but because of the modern + brick design that doesn't compute), but I do respect it as a great venue as I do Millennium. Is that ok, with you guys?

As for your fans not behaving that way, what difference do the specifics make? Everyone has crazy fans that have their own out of sorts behavior.

Millenium Stadium in this thread!? Ridiculous! This stadium is among the Top 15 in Europe, if not Top 10. The design isn't overdone but great! Hearing an American talking about overdone stadium designs is somehow...strange. Look at the commerce temples in the US! That's overdone! Some people really have a strange taste. But...ok.

That's an ugly stadium!

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/130.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/100.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/120.jpg

Ugly inside and outside :puke:

Sorry, its an ugly stadium No one said it wasn't a great stadium. Some don't like the exterior of Allianz. Does that make it a bad stadium? No. Why do you guys make this about US vs Europe? I'm just talking about that one stadium. To me personally, if you think that stadium looks good then you have strange taste. My opinion.

and yes, Giants Stadium is vomit to me outside. I've always like the bowl inside though its a little vanilla and I hate the G-men.

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/giants101.jpg
http://www.lacancha.com/images/STADZOF9.jpg

I wonder what the new stadium will be like.

That's an ugly stadium!

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/130.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/100.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/usa/giants_stadium/120.jpg

Ugly inside and outside :puke:
I've seen uglier stadiums than that! :bash:

I've seen uglier stadiums than that! :bash:

So what!? :wtf:

I hate it when people throw around the 'my opinion' card.

Saying people who like the Millennium stadium in Cardiff have strange taste...come on.


I think you have a very strange taste in stadiums if you dont like it...just my opinion.

Sorry, its an ugly stadium No one said it wasn't a great stadium. Some don't like the exterior of Allianz. Does that make it a bad stadium? No. Why do you guys make this about US vs Europe? I'm just talking about that one stadium. To me personally, if you think that stadium looks good then you have strange taste. My opinion.

and yes, Giants Stadium is vomit to me outside. I've always like the bowl inside though its a little vanilla and I hate the G-men.

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/giants101.jpg
http://www.lacancha.com/images/STADZOF9.jpg

I wonder what the new stadium will be like.

I don't make this Europe vs. USA. Why should I?? I was particulary refering to you saying the stadium was overdone. That's why I was posting the pics showing an ugly and overdone stadium imo.

The only one who's always making this a Europe vs. USA thing is you rantanamo. It's just a fact, however, that there's obviously a different taste in Europe an the US when it comes to stadiums. And imo the stadiums in the US are very often commerce temples. I don't say that's wrong or bad. I just think it's "OVERDONE".

The only one who's always making this a Europe vs. USA thing is you rantanamo. It's just a fact, however, that there's obviously a different taste in Europe an the US when it comes to stadiums. And imo the stadiums in the US are very often commerce temples. I don't say that's wrong or bad. I just think it's "OVERDONE".

Ummm, no I'm not. I just said I didn't like one stadium's exterior and you guys jump all over me. You said:

hearing an American talking about overdone stadium designs is somehow...strange. Look at the commerce temples in the US! That's overdone! Some people really have a strange taste. But...ok.

not me. I only made reference to that particular stadium. I didn't complain when American stadiums were brought up did I? I backed up your statement that Giants Stadium is ugly. I agreed with EddyK that The Linc is ugly.

I don't make this Europe vs. USA. Why should I?? I was particulary refering to you saying the stadium was overdone. That's why I was posting the pics showing an ugly and overdone stadium imo.

I wasn't making that USA vs Europe either. I agreed with you that Giants Stadium is ugly. Then I stated that I like the interior. Where did I mention the USA?

Why hasn't anybody said the cookie cutter stadiums in the US?

Bosie State's Bronco Stadium. It's ugly but I can't stop staring at it.
http://www.broncosports.com/photos/full_stadium.jpg
http://www.broncosports.com/photos/orangeout_web.jpg

Are you kidding me? The BSU Bronc's have one of the coolest stadiums in college football

Hate to dis my own school's stadium, but DKR is very ugly. Just so irregular do to expansions in different decades. Hopefully the next upgrades are soon as to keep some uniformity.

I'm glad we don't have this kind of behaviour in Europe (except for some parts of Germany).
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/image/2001/122301/2fans1223.jpg


you people lack the passion i guess...

and protect ourselves from the elements?!? haha, it we wanted to protect ourselves, maybe we should've just stayed in the house, then :tongue3:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Hornet/Twick.jpg
Twickenham in London has a just about the ugliest exterior I've ever seen

you people lack the passion i guess...

and protect ourselves from the elements?!? haha, it we wanted to protect ourselves, maybe we should've just stayed in the house, then :tongue3:

European sport(/football) fans lack passion, compared to their American counterparts? Riiiiiiiiight.

Twickenham is bad from the outside but the ugliest stadium in London is Selhurst Park.

I’m looking for examples where a club and/or the investors of a new stadium, has experienced decreasing revenues and seen lower attendance figures, as a result of a move to a newly built stadium that:

A) turned out have too high a crowd capacity for its hosted club/its main tenant (causing poorer atmosphere and in the long run possibly even lower crowd figures as a result of that)

AND / OR

B) had a design or location that was so ill-planned that it actually contributed to decreasing attendance figures and/or fewer events and games being hosted at the venue. I’m thinking here mainly of the following two aspects: 1) its stands were too flat and “open” so that they affected the atmosphere in a bad way, and 2) its location was totally “offside” with poor public transport etc.

Juventus’ move to Stadio delle Alpi could be such an example, and if anyone would like to develop this Juventus/Stadio delle Alpi case, please don’t hesitate.

Anyway, any example(s) of clubs/stadiums fitting into the description above, would be most interesting to hear about.

D'Oh!

From about the 3rd line, I was thinking "Delle Alpi", then you went and cited it as an example! There's loads of theories about this from the supposed antipathy of fans who loved the Communale and hate the running track to the notion that Juve are not now a Turin team in the way that Torino are and are more a team for out-of-towners (as is regularly levelled at Man United) or they somehow represent Italy in general (I guess like the Irish see Celtic). I've heard and read lots of thoughts (usually on these pages) but I can't fully explain it either.

I suppose the San Paolo in Naples may be a more easily explained case. Extended for Italia '90 at a time when Napoli had Maradona and lots of success. Since then, as the team had declined, this huge stadium is regularly used when virtually empty. Not sure if this represents A), B1), B2) or more than one of the above.

I'm not sure that since 1990 anywhere has been built that badly or serviced that poorly with infrastructure because the planning stipulations have got tighter, especially here in the UK, so the B) part of your question is not easily answered.

You could argue that the Montral Olympic stadium falls into category A) but it's a bit tenuous as you were really talking about football teams and moves from one stadium to another.

Or on a technicality, maybe Queen's Park at Hampden? Aside from the obvious point that it also houses the Scotland national team, it's technically accurate to include it but it's not what you're looking for, really.

The closest example I can think of is currently the Riverside Stadium in Middlesbrough. Slightly larger than Ayresome Park was in its last years and always empty seats in the house (even last Saturday at home to Man United). I'm not sure if actual attendances have dropped since it before opened in 1996 though. The other factor is that extra capacity isn't the sole reason for a move to a new ground. Sometimes, the lure of better facilities and the dangers of ageing structures play just as much a part.

Darlington average about 1 fan in a 27,000 seater stadium I think

Darlington is the only possible case in England for a new stadium move that's gone wrong. The Riverside is nothing like a failure, it's the complete opposite. Boro's attendances are still significantly above what they were in the final years at Ayresome Park. Income at the Riverside would be about three times more than what they were getting at the old ground, if not more. Most importantly though the new ground cost just £16 million. It was a complete no-brainer moving there.

Darlington is the only possible case in England for a new stadium move that's gone wrong. The Riverside is nothing like a failure, it's the complete opposite. Boro's attendances are still significantly above what they were in the final years at Ayresome Park. Income at the Riverside would be about three times more than what they were getting at the old ground, if not more. Most importantly though the new ground cost just £16 million. It was a complete no-brainer moving there.

Sunderland?

Jade stadium:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/christchurch_jade1.jpg

Love the siganture!

Sunderland?

They're in the middle of a very bad spell the last three/four season, which is why attendence have dropped. But there's no reason why they wouldn't bounce back...for the time being.

Hmm...difficult to say at the moment. Maybe the new ground at Düsseldorf would qualify in terms of A) because that club's playing in the German fourth division. I could also say the rebuilt ground for Boavista because that club hasn't had much support historically. Braga I won't say yet since Sporting's competitive at the moment but should they slip down again then the crowds might start staying away.

Other grounds that might qualify:

Estadi Olimpic Montjui (Espanyol)
Estadio Algarve
Stadio Marc Antonio Bentegodi (Hellas and Chievo Verona)
Zentralstadion (Leipzig)
Estadio Dr. Magalhães Pessoa (Uniao Leiria)
Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja (Sevilha)
Estadio de Gran Canaria (UD Las Palmas)
Ewood Park

Jade stadium:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/christchurch_jade1.jpg

Hey, leave Jade alone legless one! Once the new stand is built Christchurch will have a fine stadium.

how is this any better?
http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/74/acbd9372ad7913a3a4f8cf00a21cbea5.jpg

Frankly, I can't think of one stadium in the United States that does not fill up for at least one event each year. College or professional.

I am willing to admit some losing teams don't fill their stadium for every game, but when a large winning team with a regional or national following is booked, their stadiums will fill up with these winning teams fans.

Why will Jade Stadium be better? More seats and more fans generate more revenue for both businesses and government. When 60,000 fans spend up to $100 per game, the economy is stirred into action. Tickets, parking fees, beer and food sold by vendors, increase ridership of transit, fans spilling into restaurants and clubs, and for out of towners increase hotel business. Spending usually results in increase tax revenue which can be used to pay off new stadiums. Its a ground swell of economic activity.

60,000 times $100 is $6 million. The government gets something like 30 percent of big business income, if not more. Therefore, the government has the potential of receiving $2 million per game. For a $400 million stadium, 200 games pays off the stadium. On the other hand some economists proclaim for every dollar spend for construction, this dollar turns into $7 of economic activity. $400 million turns into $2.8 billion in economic activity. If the government takes 15 percent of this, the government gets its investment back at the start. No need to wait for 200 sold out games. Economics 101.....

As I have noted before, the only negative is the initial capital expense of building new stadiums and stands. But a city, region, or nation in every case sees a positive result in tax revenues in the long run that easily pays off the stadium. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO WRITE THIS!

how is this any better?
http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/74/acbd9372ad7913a3a4f8cf00a21cbea5.jpg

You need to give us more of a clue. What is it you don't like about the redeveloped Jade, and can you say what kind of stadium design would be better suited?

Also remember that small square carbuncle attached to the DB stand will be a temporary addition for the 2011 Rugby WC only.

Rugby Park, home of Kilmarnock FC has been extensively redeveloped in the last decade and has an all seated capacity of 18,000. kilmarnock average 10,000 if they are lucky so at most home games one of the two huge double tier stands behind the goals lies mostly empty. Completely crap for the atmosphere.

One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a cock-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.

They're in the middle of a very bad spell the last three/four season, which is why attendence have dropped. But there's no reason why they wouldn't bounce back...for the time being.

Hmm...difficult to say at the moment. Maybe the new ground at Düsseldorf would qualify in terms of A) because that club's playing in the German fourth division. I could also say the rebuilt ground for Boavista because that club hasn't had much support historically. Braga I won't say yet since Sporting's competitive at the moment but should they slip down again then the crowds might start staying away.

Other grounds that might qualify:

Estadi Olimpic Montjui (Espanyol)
Estadio Algarve
Stadio Marc Antonio Bentegodi (Hellas and Chievo Verona)
Zentralstadion (Leipzig)
Estadio Dr. Magalhães Pessoa (Uniao Leiria)
Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja (Sevilha)
Estadio de Gran Canaria (UD Las Palmas)
Ewood Park

Great examples, these.
Would you say the poor attendance figures in any of these cases has anything to do with the design of the respective ground, and if so - what is wrong with the design?

Darlington is the only possible case in England for a new stadium move that's gone wrong. The Riverside is nothing like a failure, it's the complete opposite. Boro's attendances are still significantly above what they were in the final years at Ayresome Park. Income at the Riverside would be about three times more than what they were getting at the old ground, if not more. Most importantly though the new ground cost just £16 million. It was a complete no-brainer moving there.

What about Darlington, why is it not working there?

D'Oh!

From about the 3rd line, I was thinking "Delle Alpi", then you went and cited it as an example! There's loads of theories about this from the supposed antipathy of fans who loved the Communale and hate the running track to the notion that Juve are not now a Turin team in the way that Torino are and are more a team for out-of-towners (as is regularly levelled at Man United) or they somehow represent Italy in general (I guess like the Irish see Celtic). I've heard and read lots of thoughts (usually on these pages) but I can't fully explain it either.

I suppose the San Paolo in Naples may be a more easily explained case. Extended for Italia '90 at a time when Napoli had Maradona and lots of success. Since then, as the team had declined, this huge stadium is regularly used when virtually empty. Not sure if this represents A), B1), B2) or more than one of the above.

I'm not sure that since 1990 anywhere has been built that badly or serviced that poorly with infrastructure because the planning stipulations have got tighter, especially here in the UK, so the B) part of your question is not easily answered.

You could argue that the Montral Olympic stadium falls into category A) but it's a bit tenuous as you were really talking about football teams and moves from one stadium to another.

Or on a technicality, maybe Queen's Park at Hampden? Aside from the obvious point that it also houses the Scotland national team, it's technically accurate to include it but it's not what you're looking for, really.

The closest example I can think of is currently the Riverside Stadium in Middlesbrough. Slightly larger than Ayresome Park was in its last years and always empty seats in the house (even last Saturday at home to Man United). I'm not sure if actual attendances have dropped since it before opened in 1996 though. The other factor is that extra capacity isn't the sole reason for a move to a new ground. Sometimes, the lure of better facilities and the dangers of ageing structures play just as much a part.

Maybe my post was a little bit unclear... Please don't limit yourself to football grounds - please tell me more as to why you come to think of the Montreal Olympic Stadium.

^^
Most of those stadiums are simply to big for the teams that play there. La Cartuja is hardly used since both Real Betis and Sevilla FC refused to leave their homegrounds and the chances of Sevilla ever hosting the Olympics are slim to none.

<------ points to my Location.
25k stadium ... 5k crowds & even if we could pull in 25k every home game the council has imposed a maximum capacity limit of 8k because of inadequate traffic provisions ... CRAZY!

Have to agree Darlington fc in UK is the classic example although I do not have access to their books so maybe they are not running a loss. Certainly the stadium is bigger than the club at the moment but look at Wigan Athletic.
MK Dons are currently doing the same thing.
Nothing is impossible with the right type of investor/chairman!!!

If there was an advice table for clubs on how big a new stadium to have in uk this would be the common sense advice table-
If you get to the
Premiership min 25000 max-anything!
championship min 15000 max 35000
league 1 min 8000 max 20000
league 2 min 8000 max 15000

I don't think anyone would build a pro level stadium less than 8000 seats it wouldn't be worth building. Also their are regulations regarding min/max which are probably different to the common sense table.

If there was an advice table for clubs on how big a new stadium to have in uk this would be the common sense advice table-
If you get to the
Premiership min 25000 max-anything!
championship min 15000 max 35000
league 1 min 8000 max 20000
league 2 min 8000 max 15000

The first bit makes sense but the rest of it is completely impractical. Putting maximum capacities would disqualify two clubs in the Championship already!

You need to give us more of a clue. What is it you don't like about the redeveloped Jade, and can you say what kind of stadium design would be better suited?

Also remember that small square carbuncle attached to the DB stand will be a temporary addition for the 2011 Rugby WC only.

look at it, its shit
a stadium design which would be better would be a stadium with management who would think long term and build an enclosed stadium which could have been
done by instead of the beautiful tui stand, the lower bowl could have been continued around

A lot of people look at Ameriquest Field in Arlington, Texas as a disaster of sorts. The park is a beautiful example of how nice brick and limestone can look with great metal work. A very urban square park that would fit on a block in any city. Problem is, its out in the suburbs. Many think its too far west in DFW and that gives it low attendance in the summer. Many think if it was in either Dallas or Ft Worth it would have far greater walk-up attendance during the summer. When the stadium opened, the Texas Ranger were a good, playoff contending squad and this was one of the better attended venues. The money paid for it was made back pretty quickly in 6 or 7 years. Since, attendance continues to drop. So what are the problems:

- Location. Arlington, Texas sits directly between Dallas and Fort Worth. Problem is, there are a lot more people living east and far north of the stadium. Arlington also has no public transit, so one must drive to this park, creating a ton of parking need, and making adjacent development difficult, though it apparently is about to happen.

- Design. Baseball parks are about the quirkiest sporting venues out there. Comparable to a racing circuit in how they have their own quirks. Ameriquest has a large office building behind the centerfield wall with a large plaza in front. Office space there is expensive as it opens up into the park. One can work and enjoy the game. Its actually quite beautiful if you ask me. The problem is, during the summer, in North Texas, the wind blows SE to NW most of the time. This is usually the only defense for the Rangers who normally have bad pitching staffs. No help from the wind blowing in, usually means home run fest for both teams. With the Rangers pitching, they usually give up more. Everyone knows this, and there was lots of media speculation about tearing the building down. The owner says no way jose.

The other design flaw is the lack of a roof. The other teams in similarly hot places are Arizona and Houston. Both have retractable roofs. A summer in 100+ temperatures and high humidity all summer takes a serious toll on players. Its hard to convince top notch pitcher to come to Arlington and burn up in the sun like that.

The stadium reflects the Franchise. Nice looking from the outside, but truly lots of problems that will keep them from being great.

http://www.strob.net/ImagesMTup/sat/stade.jpg

look at it, its shit
a stadium design which would be better would be a stadium with management who would think long term and build an enclosed stadium which could have been
done by instead of the beautiful tui stand, the lower bowl could have been continued around

So you are more of a fan of "bowl' stadiums. Fair enough, although I think 'shit' is wrong.

Personally I think four seperate stands is better. My reasoning being you get better atmosphere at a ground with seperate stands. With a bowl you end up being further from the pitch in the 4 corners. Jade has character AND room to redevelop in the future if required, something the 'cake tin' in Wellington would find expensive and hard to do (hence why very little work is being done for the 2011 WC).

I think a stadium should have a sense of intimidating opposing teams who play at your ground. Jades huge North stand replicated on the South side gives a feeling of being big and imposing. Something a 40,000 bowl never does.

torino-stadio del alpi i think its called.

Great examples, these.
Would you say the poor attendance figures in any of these cases has anything to do with the design of the respective ground, and if so - what is wrong with the design?

The Algarve is a better than decent ground. In fact, a lot of people like the way it looks. Problem is the local clubs play in the Divisao da Honra and historically have not drawn well. Basically, it's the Selecçao when they want to go to the beach before a match. ;)

Similar problem with Zentralstadion: nice ground, crap clubs.

However, a more classic example would be Las Palmas. They went from a proper football ground (even if they said it was crumbling) to a multipurpose stadium (read: stadium with a track). Similar thing happened with Espanyol. I'm not sure with Mallorca but I think they went from one multipurpose stadium to a newer one.

Now with Ewood Park, I read that there are sections that are older and that people don't like being in them. But don't Blackburn struggle to draw historically? It seems like crowds are often 10,000 less than capacity.

Now that I think about it, the Luziniki in Moscow would also qualify. Spartak have not drawn well in that place. It's multipurpose, so that may be a factor. There are plans to build a smaller ground, so I read.

^^

Real Mallorca went from this:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/balearic_islands/palma_de_mallorca_sitjar.jpg

to this:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/balearic_islands/palma_de_mallorca_son_moix1.jpg


Pretty similar to Las Palmas who went from this:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/canary_islands/las_palmas_insular2.jpg

to this:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/canary_islands/las_palmas_canaria1.jpg

Another of Italy 90 pointless investments is San Nicola Stadium in Bari, even though esthetically is a nice looking stadium it is actually very sterile when taking in a game. Like Delle Alpi it is not very functional as a football pitch. - Pointless athletic track (think it was used for Mediterranean Games) – facilities are lacking in every sense and last but not least absolute lack of fans (the only decent crowds are when other teams use it as a neutral site.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/puglia/bari_san_nicola1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/puglia/bari_san_nicola2.jpg
This is actually how it looks and feels during games there.

So you are more of a fan of "bowl' stadiums. Fair enough, although I think 'shit' is wrong.

Personally I think four seperate stands is better. My reasoning being you get better atmosphere at a ground with seperate stands. With a bowl you end up being further from the pitch in the 4 corners. Jade has character AND room to redevelop in the future if required, something the 'cake tin' in Wellington would find expensive and hard to do (hence why very little work is being done for the 2011 WC).

I think a stadium should have a sense of intimidating opposing teams who play at your ground. Jades huge North stand replicated on the South side gives a feeling of being big and imposing. Something a 40,000 bowl never does.

not so much a bowl, more like 1 tier all the way around and the 2nd and 3rd tier at the sides, similar to telstra stadium, paramatta stadium and Estadio do Dragao in Portugal. Also the light towers should go, and make the top tier of west stand a bit wider, allowing a bigger roof, and place lights along the roof, as has been done in grounds all around the world (because light towers are ugly, and distribute light poorly, if tyou notice at twickenham, aussie and teslstra staidum e.t.c. there arn't the shadows created like at anywhere with 4 light towers, if you can understand what i am saying)
as for atmosphere i have no idea how you could possibly nelieve that huge ugly gaps improve it.
Jade has no character, and the main reason the cake tin can't have any redevelopment is because the platform it was built on can't take any more weight(foolishly enough) and it would be cheaper to start from scratch than make it take more weight and then redevelop the ground.

http://www.strob.net/ImagesMTup/sat/stade.jpg


It is only used a few times a year for football. But they usually have a huge crowd when it is used.

I was going to show the Skydome/Rogers centre as it rarely sells out for sporting events.

Most stadiums have "gone wrong" as you would say over in NZ. Eden Park is a shocker as well.

Most stadiums have "gone wrong" as you would say over in NZ. Eden Park is a shocker as well.

so very very true

Another of Italy 90 pointless investments is San Nicola Stadium in Bari, even though esthetically is a nice looking stadium it is actually very sterile when taking in a game. Like Delle Alpi it is not very functional as a football pitch. - Pointless athletic track (think it was used for Mediterranean Games) – facilities are lacking in every sense and last but not least absolute lack of fans (the only decent crowds are when other teams use it as a neutral site.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/puglia/bari_san_nicola1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/puglia/bari_san_nicola2.jpg
This is actually how it looks and feels during games there.

As a football fan, when I go to a match, I go to the match and not to enjoy the facilities. Modern stadiums that are built nowadays are more like malls - offering plenty of facilities where one can spend one's money, and, by the way, watch some football. Now, this is not what football is about. A football ground needs a club shop, some refreshment stores and that's all.

Rugby Park, home of Kilmarnock FC has been extensively redeveloped in the last decade and has an all seated capacity of 18,000. kilmarnock average 10,000 if they are lucky so at most home games one of the two huge double tier stands behind the goals lies mostly empty. Completely crap for the atmosphere.

One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a cock-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.

Errr, there were 64000 people at the Scotland Australia game

Zaro, when I go to football matches, I also go to watch the match, not for the facilities and so on, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a decent view of the action, no matter where you are sat in the stadium. Stadia with athletics tracks, if you ended up directly behind the goal, can actually cause the far goal to be 200 metres away. That's not enjoyment of the game if you ask me!

One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a cock-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.

Are you on drugs? There are 5 or 6 internationals played in that stadium each year, depending on how many home 6N games Scotland have. 2 - 3 of which have any importance at all, the other 3 being friendlies. If you look, the 6N games this year against Ireland and Wales are SOLD OUT already. A friendly against Australia got a crowd of about 65,000 in the end, and the only games with disappointing crowds were against Romania and Pacific Islands, both minnows of world rugby that simply don't have the power to attact large crowds - The Pacific Islands, for example, was the only game not to sell out at Lansdowne Road for about 10 years, even though it was the last ever international game to be played at Lansdowne Road.

The only thing I can possibly think is that you're talking about average attendances at Murrayfield over the course of a year, including Edinburgh Rugby games. But let's not get into support for Scotland's regional club rugby teams.

The biggest cock up I can possibly think of is the proposed stadium at the Maze in Northern Ireland. It's basically a composite of every single stadium fuck up in the thread so far - capacity far to large, in the middle of nowhere, enormous pitch size that leaves fans for 2 out of the 3 sports to be played there a horrendous distance from the pitch, poor transport links, lack of local support etc.

http://www.strob.net/ImagesMTup/sat/stade.jpg

Chocho you just pcitured the biggest stadium disaster of alll time and it will never be surpassed LOL. It is so bad the province cant give it the city of montreal . The city doesnt want the 30 million dolar a year maintenance budget. LOL
unless they cant have it from the 19 cent a pack cigarette tax the province had to collect for the last 30 years to pay of the olympics.

Good one CHOCHO Good one.

No possiblity of a tennant and the stadium drove the expos to washington DC.

jim jones

It is only used a few times a year for football. But they usually have a huge crowd when it is used.

I was going to show the Skydome/Rogers centre as it rarely sells out for sporting events.

This year the big owe. One football game adn 32,000 fans for 50,000 plus seats
The argos are doing better in the skydome on a realistic basis. 10 games at over 25,000 trumps 32,000 for a once off. The montreal autoshow will not occupy the building because of the roof colasping and the ice that damaged the new cars.
They should blow the damm thing up or tear it down. It cost 30 million a year to maintian and has no possible tennant willing to risk the liabliity.

jim jones

This year the big owe. One football game adn 32,000 fans for 50,000 plus seats
The argos are doing better in the skydome on a realistic basis. 10 games at over 25,000 trumps 32,000 for a once off. The montreal autoshow will not occupy the building because of the roof colasping and the ice that damaged the new cars.
They should blow the damm thing up or tear it down. It cost 30 million a year to maintian and has no possible tennant willing to risk the liabliity.

jim jones

Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol:

Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.

Zaro, when I go to football matches, I also go to watch the match, not for the facilities and so on, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a decent view of the action, no matter where you are sat in the stadium. Stadia with athletics tracks, if you ended up directly behind the goal, can actually cause the far goal to be 200 metres away. That's not enjoyment of the game if you ask me!

We're sharing the same view on this point. I also prefer football-only grounds and no tracks. My point was about those large 'football' malls that begin to emerge, which target consumers and not football fans.

Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol:

Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.

It is all screwed up really unfortuately the talk is NfL for toronto but two thing prevent that . One the NFL wants a team in the LA/orange couty area first and
B. The NFL would demand a new stadium in toronto. Sports leagues down south are about to close the door on the sharing of stadium for good with the oakland A's going to a new park in fremont CA. the oakland raider and oakland As were the last outdoor sport franchises in the united states to share the same stadium.

Toronto under those conditions I beleive dont have a chance. Think is calvin you really have to wonder where did everyone go in regard to the cfl????
Sask and alberta seem to be the only place that fill stadia for the game.
I personally think cable tv and multiple feeds of NFL have really killed the CFL.
and then you have us college football on saturdays.

I think the skydome is not great but nowheres near as bad as the big owe.
The CFL really left in the late 1980's and returned to the city at the end of the 90's in molson stadium with better attendance.

I remember great Grey cup parties in halifax in the 1980s and we were under no allusions we would have team even with an ownership group exploring it .

The ass has really fallen out of the Cfl here and it is a sad passing of canadiana. the superbowl parties in sportbars here have taken the place of the grey cup parties.
When people have options they op for what is considered to be the best. not my opinion of either league just the way I see it.
jim jones

Sunderland?

Original constuction of 42000 seats for just £16 million was a no brainer - plus it's actually closer to the city centre than the old ground was. For first three seasons it averaged over 40000 in attendances, then they added another tier to the North Stand which moved the capacity up to just under 49000. THIS may have been over ambitious.

The current board are suggesting that they will extend the West and South stands as well if things continue to improve over the next few years - taking capacity to 64k. Having lived in the town up until the end of 1999, and experienced attendances varying from just under 10k (one cold night against Plymouth) in the late 80s, to just over 42k (the day we thumped Chelsea) in late 1999, I'm not sure exactly what the crowd potential in Sunderland is!

Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol:

Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.

on a seroius note calvin what would be the result if halifax got a team when ottawa has gone out of business a couple of times , interested parties walk away from taking over and toronto is only doing 25 to 30 thousand a game.

I think you would have good attendance barely breaking even in halifax but that would only last about 5 years . You have to have a winning club also. The mossehead are having a downturn for MQJHL and used to have 9000 now it is around 6500. I frankly dont see the money or the interest here two keep two sports franchises that the seasons overlap.

Quebec city would be the best option they have PEPS stadium at 18,000 and can expand. The Premier is also eyes logically developing a witner olympic bid over a long period of time. The first thing would be a opening closing stadium that could be used for a quebec city CFL franchise. You have a tennant and one of your more expensive items covered with no big spec changes over a decade or two. The interest is in football in that area as laval has sold out crowds for many of their games. A rivalry in the province of quebec would beneift both montreal and quebec city.

Just my view from here

jim jones

old trafford

any stadium built within housing estates or alongside railway lines/rivers

old trafford

I second that

I second that

Third!

any stadium built within housing estates or alongside railway lines/rivers

and so I second this one too (you can third it)

Third!

I'm detecting an argument based on aesthetic reasoning here - or maybe it's just old fashioned obtuseness.

Anyway, read the opening post, guys. As I recall, the thread concerns stadia where eventual demand has not met anticipated levels and the capacity and/or spec built in has resulted in a 'white elephant'. This is why Montreal's Olympic Stadium has appeared a lot.

Say what you like about the aesthetic at OT (but please, say it somewhere else), but it can hardly be accused of being over-ambitious in its capacity. In four separate capacity increases from 43,000 to 76,000 over the last 14 years, it has maintained an occupancy rate of over 99% week in, week out.

I haven't done the maths for this, but I'll just assure you that you can add up the number of empty seats (for United games) over a whole season at OT and that won't be as many as the number of empty seats in one week at Darlington.

It's hardly a sign of a stadium being over-specified is it?

montreal olympic stadium

before the Expos where sold, there was like 3000 attendance in a 65000 capacity.

But the stadium was build for the olympics, not really for the baseball.

Also it had really huge financial and structural (roof and concrete) problems. a real money pit.

As a football fan, when I go to a match, I go to the match and not to enjoy the facilities. Modern stadiums that are built nowadays are more like malls - offering plenty of facilities where one can spend one's money, and, by the way, watch some football. Now, this is not what football is about. A football ground needs a club shop, some refreshment stores and that's all.

In facilities I talking about bathrooms and the like not malls. In addition just read what I wrote.

Just thought of another one to add to this list... Back in 00/01, Oxford Utd tossed a load of money down the drain by building a new 12.5k all-seater stadium whilst they already had The Manor Ground.

Whilst it's true that the Manor was in pretty poor shape, it was still capable of hosting lower league football, and one would have hoped that promotion to a level which required improved facilities would have left the club needing more than 12.5k seats!

Oxford haven't been above the bottom division of the league since moving into their new home, and were in fact relegated from the league last year. Even now, 'flying' in 2nd place in the '5th' division of English football they are less than half filling the new ground.

That said, I understand they have conference facilities at the new place - maybe that makes a big difference to their finances... Anyone know?

Original constuction of 42000 seats for just £16 million was a no brainer - plus it's actually closer to the city centre than the old ground was. For first three seasons it averaged over 40000 in attendances, then they added another tier to the North Stand which moved the capacity up to just under 49000. THIS may have been over ambitious.

The current board are suggesting that they will extend the West and South stands as well if things continue to improve over the next few years - taking capacity to 64k. Having lived in the town up until the end of 1999, and experienced attendances varying from just under 10k (one cold night against Plymouth) in the late 80s, to just over 42k (the day we thumped Chelsea) in late 1999, I'm not sure exactly what the crowd potential in Sunderland is!

I'v always had the impression that the NE teams in general had alot of room for expansion due to the relative lack of clubs in the top 2 divisions in the area. If Sunderland were to become a top 6 prem team I could see them drawing 50k+ on average and filling 64,000 verus the big four/Newcastle.

Aint nothing wrong with old trafford besides the quads & maybe leg room

I'v always had the impression that the NE teams in general had alot of room for expansion due to the relative lack of clubs in the top 2 divisions in the area. If Sunderland were to become a top 6 prem team I could see them drawing 50k+ on average and filling 64,000 verus the big four/Newcastle.

I have a mate who's a Sunderland fan, so I've been to both Roker Park and the SoL. Sunderland fans are a passionate bunch all right and as you say, the lack of other teams in the area and the well-developed Georgie/Mackem rivalry creates a strong following.

I always had the impression that they're very price conscious. We're not talking about a very affluent part of the world here. This may be construed as just fan fickleness but I think it's more pragmatic than that. I'd heard that the SoL was designed with the potential to rise to 64k and I do believe they'd fill it regularly if the team was successful enough - and if the prices are right.

Since they moved, they've had a team that has flattered to deceive, failing to sustain what little success it has had and the pricing climate of football in general has become less favourable, even though the area has not grown economically during this time.

That to me is why Sunderland are not filling their ground. They think of themsleves as a 'sleeping giant' and maybe that's a bit optimisitic but I don't think they deserve the plight they currently have.

I have a mate who's a Sunderland fan, so I've been to both Roker Park and the SoL. Sunderland fans are a passionate bunch all right and as you say, the lack of other teams in the area and the well-developed Georgie/Mackem rivalry creates a strong following.

I always had the impression that they're very price conscious. We're not talking about a very affluent part of the world here. This may be construed as just fan fickleness but I think it's more pragmatic than that. I'd heard that the SoL was designed with the potential to rise to 64k and I do believe they'd fill it regularly if the team was successful enough - and if the prices are right.

Since they moved, they've had a team that has flattered to deceive, failing to sustain what little success it has had and the pricing climate of football in general has become less favourable, even though the area has not grown economically during this time.

That to me is why Sunderland are not filling their ground. They think of themsleves as a 'sleeping giant' and maybe that's a bit optimisitic but I don't think they deserve the plight they currently have.

Sunderland are not filling our ground because we're playing in the Championship rather than the Premiersip, we haven't won a major trophy in 34 years, haven't finished higher than 7th in the top league since before WWII, and have 'enjoyed' relegation on an almost sickening frequency during my lifetime.

Give us the smallest success - dominating the Championship then finishing in the top half of the Prem for example - and we immediately find the missing supporters to fill the seats.

The prices at Sunderland are quite reasonable when compared to other clubs in England, however the deal at Sunderland is that even when we were getting 45k+ crowds we were giving 1000's of tickets to local children's/youth groups in order to foster support amongst the youth of the area (get 'em young).

Like any other club (except possibly Man City), relegation resulted in all the part timers and band wagon jumpers deserting the club. The same would happen if Newcastle or Boro went down, crowds would drop by 30-40% overnight.

Atatürk Olympiat Stadı: 80,597 -> for only few matches (a 2nd league club plays there since this season...)

and
Izmir Atatürk: 58,008-> Although Izmir has 3 "big" clubs (many fans), nowadays nobody wants to play in the big stadium
(on 16 May 1981 there was a 2nd league match between Goztepe and Karisyaka. It was the last week of the season and Karsiyaka was 1st. and Goztepe 2nd in the league table. 45.000 people were expected to attend the match but on the day of the match the Izmir Atatütk Stadium was filled with 80.000 people. This is still a World Record for a 2nd league match.)

Here are my favourites:

Cadbury Athletic
http://www.pyramidpassion.co.uk/assets/images/Cadbury_1.jpg

Forest FC
Sussex County League, Division Three
http://www.nomad-online.co.uk/Directory/Forest/Forest-cover.jpg

Little Common FC
Sussex County League, Division Three
http://www.nomad-online.co.uk/Directory/Little%20Common/Little%20Common%20images/images/Little%20Common%2001_jpg.jpg

The third one is the 'funniest' lol. I wonder what the admission price would be?

Don't knock it Gherkin, I estimate when packed to capacity that stand could hold 50-60 fans!

Surely a possible WC venue?

lol

http://www.trogir-online.com/de/photo/air/trogir3.jpg

http://www.indalmazia.com/imm_damla/amici/trogir/citta%20trogir.jpg


http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4071/sinttulo0ud.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Eduardo_Jose_Farah_A.jpg+

cool thread

That city by the sea is beautiful Trogir in Croatia and I had the plesure of witnessing a match from the tower on the left.

lol

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4071/sinttulo0ud.jpg



This has gotta be a photoshop job.

Absolutely crazy though. I just can't figure out this picture.

Here are my favourites:

Forest FC
Sussex County League, Division Three
http://www.nomad-online.co.uk/assets/images/Forest_stand.jpg


This is UEFA 5* quality :cheers:

Mo, if you read this thread, you got any Pic's of O.D Stadium? Sundowns ex home ground near Pretoria. I cant find any pics of it on the net, that grand stand is just wierd & funky.

This has gotta be a photoshop job.

Absolutely crazy though. I just can't figure out this picture.


no
it isn't D:
http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~tiga/baseball/stadium/osaka.htm

no
it isn't D:
http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~tiga/baseball/stadium/osaka.htm

Please, someone explain this to me. I really don't get it.

http://www.ajaxshowtime.com/images/fotos/0506/spartajax/14.jpg

'Het Kasteel'
Home of the eredivisie club Sparta Rotterdam. I think its hidious, but it has something though...

Here's a pretty hilarious one.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/anfield_road.jpg

Here's a pretty hilarious one.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/anfield_road.jpg

am telling yer :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This has gotta be a photoshop job.

Absolutely crazy though. I just can't figure out this picture.
Very crazy, yet it appears it did exist at one point. I believe this is the remnants of it on Google Earth:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g231/mrfusion1/OBP.jpg

:hug:

Kramyra Stadion, Norway
~10.000
http://www.henningn.dk/fotoalbum/Norge-03/slides/norge077b.jpg

http://www.henningn.dk/images/norge079.jpg

That is truely amazing. Do you have any more pictures?

i have only a pic in my stadionwelt magazine
taken from the wood above :D

-sorry, double post-

lol



http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4071/sinttulo0ud.jpg



What's this? I can't visualise. Can someone explain what's going on here? :nuts:

braga,portugal also have funny stadion,do someone have a picture of it:)

braga,portugal also have funny stadion,do someone have a picture of it:)

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/architecture/stadium_design/pictures/braga_municipal/braga_municipal1.jpg

It's Braga's Stadium funny?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Estadio_Braga.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/5/52/Estadio_braga.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/262434749_d9860e3567.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/377800952_62495c31c0.jpg?v=0

i think braga is nice, its unique, i will never forget when greece played there in euro 04 but i dont think its the same in the portuguese league i cant see it being full game in and game out

It's Braga's Stadium funny?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Estadio_Braga.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/5/52/Estadio_braga.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/262434749_d9860e3567.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/377800952_62495c31c0.jpg?v=0

It might not be funny but it's truly awful.

You certainly need to be a concrete fetishist to appreciate it.

I was wondering if Wigan's old Springfield Park could be a contender and after googling for a few pictures, I came across this. I think you'll find the headline particularly adds to the comedy value:

http://www.chilvers1.demon.co.uk/images/sprin1960.jpg

In Spain we could tell that the moving from Sarrià (44k) to Monjuit (55k) of RCD Espanyol made them losing attendance and pressure in the field (I don´t like stadiums with athletism tracks)

And in failed stadiums the Cartuja Stadium in Sevilla (60k) was buit for hipothetical olympic games in Sevilla, and now none of the 2 big teams in Sevilla uses it.

Aint nothing wrong with old trafford besides the quads & maybe leg room

the quads have ruined it....

how they did'nt think to make the gradiants of the 2nd tier east & west stands the same as the 2nd tier of the north stand is beyond me..but to try and marry them up is just as bad a decision,they should have carried the gradiant of the north stand around the corners..

^^Yes I know, it is a structrural nightmare to marry the two, hence I said, there stadium on the whole is good, but those 2 quads just went & F'd things up.

I'm going to be accused of bias here but I've sat all over OT and never had a problem with legroom and I'd say I'm around 6'0", a regular height.

Again, don't take this the wrong way but by far the worst legroom problems I ever had in a stadium was in the seated Kop at Anfield. What was I (a United fan) doing in the enemy's inner sanctum? I was there for Italy v Russia during Euro '96. I was really looking forward to the duel between Kanchelskis and Maldini but spent most of the game shifting in my seat, trying to stretch my legs in various different directions.

It's honestly not a Liverpool-Manchester rivalry thing. The seating rows were just too close together. I find it strange that this urban myth has grown about poor legroom at OT, but not Anfield...

Iam speaking from what I have heard in these forums, I havent been to any of the mentioned stadiums, so you could be correct.

Aint nothing wrong with old trafford besides the quads & maybe leg room

And the sloping roof.

EADGBE, I've had problems with legroom at OT, only in the first tier though, which is to be expected with it being older.

and I fail to see what's wrong with the quads, I mean sure they could've been done to look better, but they're not that bad, whether I'm just a biased United fan or not, they do the job and there is a great view from up there

and similarly, the sloping roof, it matters less now that the quads have been included, as thats really added space and given it a bit more of an airy feeling, and as long as you can see the pitch, then it doesn't matter

I don't think OT is perfect by a long shot. I wish the lines around the quads were seamless and I do think it was down to a 'schoolboy error' in stadium design - but it's not quite the crime against aesthetics that some are painting it as.

Also, much as I appreciate the logic for the sloping roof, I hate that you can only really see the pitch from North T3. I'd much rather see more of the rest of the crowd, like you can from the lower tiers, especially since the quads opened up the second tier.

Tomorrow, I'll be in the South Stand, about 8 rows from the front. I have no problems with the legroom there - and we're talking about the oldest part of the ground. The only part that I haven't sat in for about 10 years is the Stretty T1 (lower) built c.1993 - right behind the left-hand goal on the TV angle. If someone was to say the legroom there is poor, I can't recall otherwise from memory and therefore couldn't argue.

I was in the Emirates in January and I honestly don't remember my seat being particularly more spacious. I think there's a bit of anti-United in some of this and perhaps my own experiences at Anfield support the theory...

I'm going to be accused of bias here but I've sat all over OT and never had a problem with legroom and I'd say I'm around 6'0", a regular height.

Again, don't take this the wrong way but by far the worst legroom problems I ever had in a stadium was in the seated Kop at Anfield. What was I (a United fan) doing in the enemy's inner sanctum? I was there for Italy v Russia during Euro '96. I was really looking forward to the duel between Kanchelskis and Maldini but spent most of the game shifting in my seat, trying to stretch my legs in various different directions.

It's honestly not a Liverpool-Manchester rivalry thing. The seating rows were just too close together. I find it strange that this urban myth has grown about poor legroom at OT, but not Anfield...

Yes I too have been on the kop and spent most of the game shifting painfully from one position to another. Mind you I am 6'3" so have experienced this discomfort elsewhere, although not at a prem ground.
I think the quads at o/t were a bit of a disaster, but in hindsight, once we get used to them, I think we will realise they add some character. At least they break up the generic 'bowl' we see all too often these days.

http://www.strob.net/ImagesMTup/sat/stade.jpg

Two things come to mind when I see Olympic Stadium:

1. Star Track

2. Oddyse

http://www.strob.net/ImagesMTup/sat/stade.jpg

Why is it that the phrase "Danger, Will Robinson" always comes up when I see Montreal's Olympic Stadium?

starship enterprise indeed ;)

I was just about to say in some parts of Anfield the leg room is awful, i was in the Anfield Road end last week and we were right in the corner stuck under the overhanging upper tier it was cramped and really stuffy. But again we could only see the pitch along with the bottom of the other stands and i too would prefer to see as much of the crowd as possible because imo it adds to the atmosphere.Luckily i can arrange for a different more open seat next time but in old trafford i've heard the only place you can see the whole ground is from the pitch!

That's a bit hash. The whole lower tier allows fantastic views of the rest of the ground. I was in the South Stand last night for the Milan game and it was great to be able to see all the fans contributing to the atmosphere.

The higher up you sit, the more I'd agree with the point, though...

Exhibition Stadium looks more like a spaceship from a sci-fi movie rather than a stadium.

People are always saying that when MSG was built, its style was already obselete.

http://www.simonho.org/images/USA/NY_MadisonSquareGarden.jpg

In Paris we have 2 fine examples of stadia gone wrong :

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1526/scharletypl0.jpg

The former 'stade Charléty' (1939-1989) was destroyed and rebuilt in 1994, for a cost of €120M. Since then, the 25,000 seater has never managed to host any big club regularly, and is very unpopular amongst football and rugby teams due to the athletics track surrounding the field (seats are very far from the field) and the strong wind that goes through under the roof. Have played there on a few occasions :
- SF-Paris (France's top rugby team)
- Racing CF (2d division rugby team)
- Paris FC (3rd division football team)
- a Rugby XIII team that doesn't exist anymore
- plus a few athletics meetings (Golden League)
The only team currently hosted being Paris Université Club, a 4th division rugby team... In 2006 the manager gave up and sold it to the City of Paris... Next season it is said to host Paris FC since they will be promoted in 2d division (they currently play in a 2,500 seater).

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3845/rbobincz2.jpg

The 'stade Robert Bobin' in the southern suburb of Evry, a 19,000 seater without any tenant, since local football team has never overcame its amateur status. Hosts a couple of PSG friendly games every season, and a couple of France Under-21 and women's games here and there. Can't remember how muh it costed to the community though...

Comiskey Park for the Chi Sox anyone?

AND PNC Park in Shittsburgh? Sure, it's a nice ballpark just wrong team & city! HaHa

I hear ya on new Comiskey, but the redevelopment is outstanding.

What's wrong with PNC though? Many players call it the best ballpark in the league.

Whoever play in it are his team's rivals. Read the sentence again.

Whoever play in it are his team's rivals. Read the sentence again.

Indianapolis doesn't have an MLB team. Unless it spillover hate toward the Steelers :)

Indi has a AAA team, with a pretty nice ballpark. http://www.minorleagueballparks.com/Victor98.jpg

Wembley! Most overhyped stadium in history. Most fragmented crowd with massive viewing distances, and why put the score boards right in the middle of prime seating space, just where the most vociferous would be hoping to get maximum effect from the roof...... just shows how the architects know nothing about the matchgoing experience, but can operate a sightline modeller based only c-value manipulations. A bigger Millenium stadium would wipe the floor with it IMO.

Wembley! Most overhyped stadium in history. Most fragmented crowd with massive viewing distances, and why put the score boards right in the middle of prime seating space, just where the most vociferous would be hoping to get maximum effect from the roof...... just shows how the architects know nothing about the matchgoing experience, but can operate a sightline modeller based only c-value manipulations. A bigger Millenium stadium would wipe the floor with it IMO.

It should be overhyped. It took 7 years to build, has 90,000 seats and cost $1.5 Billion.

It should be overhyped. It took 7 years to build, has 90,000 seats and cost $1.5 Billion.

I know...... must've been the most expensive welder on earth working on that arch! and wouldn't you think they'd get the pitch right? Another fur coat no knickers job IMO.

I hate stadiums that try to be multi-use but it sucks.. baseball, football, soccer everything at the same place wont work!!

What about this? It's an obsolete stadium in Daegu, South Korea. It was also used as venue for tennis matches during 2003 Summer Universiade held in Daegu.

http://img2.dcinside.com/viewimage.php?id=football_new&no=29bcc427b48677a16fb3dab004c86b6f9a697bf10be2d1d46776470d345178ade9b94829ba90d2731c23b20d589665aa9c8c0817b9b23284ac698c385283df311a996d&f_no=2bbbd620abd828a1

That's pretty clever, you can see lots of matches from one seat and there is a big finals court.

Jarry Park in Montreal...once a baseball stadium it was converted into a multi court tennis center

http://www.digitalballparks.com/National/Jarry_Park_-_Aerial_640T.jpg

http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiumphotos/200306-parramatta_aerial.jpg

this stadium was once used for baseball.

theespecialone, I can't see the image.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/National/Jarry_Park_-_Aerial_640T.jpg
How steep is the biggest temporary stand :nuts:

theespecialone, I can't see the image.

damn the photo's copyrighted

A stadium being built in Indonesia

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/411041813_02e78671d2.jpg

^^ lol:lol:

i guess this is fairly unusual...
university of Richmond Stadium

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/virginia/richmond_university1.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/411041813_02e78671d2.jpg
:rofl:

I'm supprized nobody has posted Headingely's linked stadiums...

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/942-1/headingley-ba33061.jpg

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/928-1/headingleyaerial-ba33083.jpg

I'm supprized nobody has posted Headingely's linked stadiums...

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/942-1/headingley-ba33061.jpg

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/928-1/headingleyaerial-ba33083.jpg

One is football stadium and the other is cricket stadium? So people can be free to go and come from one stadium to the other? :lol: If football and cricket are played at the same time, what about the ticket price?

It's not a football stadium for one! It's a rugby stadium that I believe houses both Rugby Union (Carnegie) and Rugby League (Rhinos). Rugby and Cricket are played at different times of the year, so I can't imagine it clashing at all.

Thanks for your detailed explanations

While perhaps unique in that it is the only place where a cricket oval and a rugby stadium are joined, Headingly is not the only place where two stadia are joined. The Millennium Stadium and the Cardiff Arms Park (formerly, Cardiff Rugby Gound) are also attached:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/948186.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A66EE6639A77234DFCA40A659CEC4C8CB6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cardiff_Arms_Park_and_Millennium_Stadium.jpg

This one always makes me chuckle:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/argentina/rosario_old_boys2.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/argentina/rosario_old_boys1.jpg

2 stadia right next to beach:

At Alexandroupolis

http://www.airphotos.gr/photo1/1986.jpg
Moshos Koupoukis (www.airphotos.gr (http://www.airphotos.gr))

-------------------------------------------------

At Heraklion

http://www.patris.gr/img/images/1158840838.jpg

http://www.stadia.gr/pankritio/pankritio27.jpg

http://www.stadia.gr/pankritio/pankritio29.jpg
www.patris.gr (http://www.patris.gr)
www.stadia.gr (http://www.stadia.gr)

2 tiers :cheers:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2630881784_cc12684eec_b.jpg

Estádio Eduardo José Farah (Prudentão), Presidente Prudente
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Eduardo_Jose_Farah_A.jpg

Old Stanford Stadium

http://www.richp.com/pics/aerial-05-18-02/stanford-stadium-5-18-02.jpg

Bowman Gray Stadium (Football/Auto Racing)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/north_carolina/winston_salem_gray1.jpg

http://www.home.pages.at/nichts/photos/geruest.jpg

http://www.home.pages.at/nichts/photos/Stadion.jpg

http://www.home.pages.at/nichts/photos/tribuene.jpg

Worst. Stand. Ever.

^^ Are you supposed to stand/sit there??

I think this one is pretty strange:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/argentina/la_plata_ciudad1.jpg

^^ Are you supposed to stand/sit there??

I don't think I'd like to do either :ohno:

^^ Are you supposed to stand/sit there??

I think this one is pretty strange:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/argentina/la_plata_ciudad1.jpg

thats awful

^^ What really is shocking is that this was built in 2003 :ohno: