I dont see what the problem people are having with some of the new MLB stadiums. Godforbid baseball teams going back to brick, baseball exclusive stadiums, that fit into urban neighborhoods. As opposed to the horrendous multi-use stadiums, cookie cutters, and hideous non-retractable domes.

Just look at the stadiums built since Camden Yards. AT&T in San Francisco is a gem. Miller Park in Milwaukee is a gem. PNC in Pittsburgh is a gem. Safeco in Seattle is a gem. And so on. You only have a few really shitty stadiums left, such as Tropicana, the Metrodome, McAfee Coliseum, Dolphin Stadium, RFK, and Shea. Most of those are gone anyway in a few years.

No one is going to argue the old cookie cutters were a good idea, but the concern is a lack of individuality in the designs (having virtually all of them designed by the same firm can't help). There is nothing wrong with going retro, but some real change in basic layout would be nice.


Oh and Miller Park is a gem with a perpetually problematic roof.

No one is going to argue the old cookie cutters were a good idea, but the concern is a lack of individuality in the designs (having virtually all of them designed by the same firm can't help). There is nothing wrong with going retro, but some real change in basic layout would be nice.


Oh and Miller Park is a gem with a perpetually problematic roof.

I hear what your saying about individuality. But some retro stadiums are unique on where they are placed. The architecture might not be groundbreaking, but the atmosphere is. I would be enjoying the Pittsburgh skyline, the St.Louis Arch, and the beautiful coastal views in San Fran far more then I would the architecture.

I would not group Pittsburg with any of the other retro parks, as it is fundimentally different. Its got a two teir bowl instead of three, has almost nothing gimmicky in the whole park and the material list is also unique and really blends well with Pittburgh. You can compare that with the near hack job that is Busch Stadium 2 (uninspired corporate focused seating, massive, plain retro brick facade ect. Orienting it towards the arch is something that anyone, much less well trained architects is capable of, good location just less than great design), or the ever gimmicky ballpark at arlington.

It's actually Busch Stadium 3. Also, it's O-R-I-O-L-E-S.

I would not group Pittsburg with any of the other retro parks, as it is fundimentally different. Its got a two teir bowl instead of three, has almost nothing gimmicky in the whole park and the material list is also unique and really blends well with Pittburgh. You can compare that with the near hack job that is Busch Stadium 2 (uninspired corporate focused seating, massive, plain retro brick facade ect. Orienting it towards the arch is something that anyone, much less well trained architects is capable of, good location just less than great design), or the ever gimmicky ballpark at arlington.

PNC gets lumped in with the retros in every stadium classification I have read. And Busch Stadium is not that bad. The brick facade and entrance actually looks pretty cool in my opinion. I actually prefer the old Busch though.

To each his own I guess. How you feeling about that new Twins stadium? Looks pretty good from what I saw in the renderings.

Love it, the bowl itself is a little plain, but the canopy roof and native stone & glass Facade will be fantastic, the old location for the pro shop was better, but I am very excited for it, especially being from Minneapolis.

PNC does get llumped in by everyone, but I still can't put it in with Camden Yards or Busch or Coors ect. And from what I have heard there is pretty widespread sentament that the old Busch was better, and I hope you can agree that they could have done more with the new one.

I love it, it will be my favourite Baseball stadium.

I don't like it too much from this angle though:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/01.jpg

Wow what an awsome proposal!

Love it, the bowl itself is a little plain, but the canopy roof and native stone & glass Facade will be fantastic, the old location for the pro shop was better, but I am very excited for it, especially being from Minneapolis.

PNC does get llumped in by everyone, but I still can't put it in with Camden Yards or Busch or Coors ect. And from what I have heard there is pretty widespread sentament that the old Busch was better, and I hope you can agree that they could have done more with the new one.

Ill be there when interleague play brings the Twins rivals to town. :)

Yeah, the new Busch is a bit plain jane for a franchise like the Cardinals. They could have made it stand out more as baseball stadiums go. They could have done worse though.

What happened to the earlier version I had seen? I'm sorry but I don't like the way this thing looks, especially from the River Side. What are we looking at in those big windows or whatever they are? Such emphasis was placed on building this by the River so people could see it as they drove into the City. With the strange look on the north side of the buildling, it seems like it would have been better to have it hidden further in the middle of downtown. I like the look of the south side of the buildling much better. Anyway - good luck. Maybe it will grow on me.

34 000 seems small for mlb doesnt it, but tampa gets maybe 10 000 a game if that, so i guess it would suite them

Pittsburgh's is around that same capacity. If the team starts selling out every game, it looks like there's room to add some more here and there.

And they averaged well over 10,000 fans at home games last year.

Incredible design. I doubt it stays that way though. They'll probably tweak it to make it into a more conventional stadium.

I hear this stadium will host the first "Pacific Rim" football competition in late February 2008 comprised of two MLS teams LA Galaxy & champions Houston Dynamo, J-League champions Gamba Osaka and an A-League team thats yet to be determined.

How popular is football in Hawaii?

I agree, the earlier design proposals looked better to me too. Those were preliminary and the most recent ones are actually from the firm that is designing the arena. Shows what happens when architects get involved!

There actually have been some other changes too. The concept of including a hotel on the south end of the building has been dropped which is a good thing in my opinion. They also changed the interior layout to make it more multipurpose instead of just a basketball arena. One of the concepts is too be able to install a portable pool so that they can hold the NCAA swimming championships there, interesting concept but it sounds a little strange. It's also going to have the ability to become an ice rink for hockey (proposed AHL franchise) in figure skating.

Of course if the smart thing had been done and it had been located elsewhere we wouldn't have to spend $75 million just to relocate the electrical equipment that was located where the building is being built. Parking is also going to be a problem for sell out events in this location.

the Sprint Centre opened on October 10, 2007.

How many does it seat? It looks pretty cool btw.

Some pictures from Wikipedia:

Inside
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Scenter7.jpg

outside
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Sprintcenter.jpg

^^ so to update a few discussions back there, the arena can hold 18,500 for all events?(according to wikipedia) Also, as far as teams that could play there; the Penguins have an arena deal worked out in Pittsburgh, so they aren't going anywhere. The ownership of the Nashville Predators floated the idea of moving them to KC as well, but has since joined the ownership group with the intention of keeping them in Nashville.
On the NBA side; Seattle, if they move, seems to be destined for OKC, but KC has also been talked about as a new home. Also says that 3 NBA teams (The Clippers and two other unnamed franchises) have expressed interest in moving to KC and using the sprint center. Expansion for either league isnt totally out of the question either.

That new Arena in Tulsa is fucking awesome. I love it.

I'm really impressed by the new Spirit Center as well, though it'd be nice to see a different shade of glass.

That new Arena in Tulsa is fucking awesome. I love it.

I'm really impressed by the new Spirit Center as well, though it'd be nice to see a different shade of glass.

And a team to play in it maybe ;-)

The seats on the bottom left look like shit for hockey.

The seats on the bottom left look like shit for hockey.
For real. What is up with the wack angle at which the seat towards each end face? Is that the cost of making a circular building? The rectangular playing surface gets awkwardly squeezed in like that?

That has to due with sightlines for basketball, othrewise people in those sections aren't angled towards the court at all, but rather strait accross behind the baskets, which is why multipurpose isn't good for basketball. Now here they have hurt the hockey sightlines some and greatly improved the basketball layout, so you can see what they were expecting to get when they designed it.

Yeah I can see why the sacrifice was made. It especially makes sense when you realize there isn't going to be much hockey played here (atleast not at the NHL level). Pittsburgh was the only team that had a chance of moving, and with a great new team and upcoming arena, that notion is completely gone. Nashville? They're not going anywhere according to the city, and if they were, it would be to Hamilton. Finally, hockey may not be as popular in the south, but its still doing well enough that no one is looking to move. Too bad that nice new ice will probably go to waste.

Hamilton will never get an NHL team, the owners of the Leafs and Sabres would not allow it, and have not allowed it for the past 38 years.

Hamilton will never get an NHL team, the owners of the Leafs and Sabres would not allow it, and have not allowed it for the past 38 years.

Its not a case of "The Sabres and Leafs wouldn't allow it." All they are entitled is maybe some compensation. Hamilton was already taking deposits on season tickets expecting the Preds to arrive any day. And the deal only fell through because Nashville raised a stink, not because Toronto and Buffalo didnt allow it.

Really if someone has a team they want to place somewhere, and the league approves, they are going to be placed there... Thats why we have 3 teams in NY and 2 teams in LA.

The Magic unveiled plans for their new arena

Nice but nothing groundbreaking, probably good for 30 years until that "boring old turn of century architecture" has to go. And of course we will need more premium seats to be seen in.

18,500 seats
66 total suites
about 1,500 club seats
bunch club boxes and the like.

http://www.nba.com/magic/oec_splash.html

The exterior is very bland. The interior seems disjointed.

Didn't the Magic build an arena just a decade or so ago? And they weren't in the prior arena that long either. They seem to really go through their arenas.

Its been 18 years, but the Amway arena is a little undersized and only has about 26 skyboxes (basically suites suspended from the roof up over the upper level), which by the to be seen rather than enjoy the game crowd is way to little premium seating

It's not bad, nothing groundbreaking. I like the tower thing on one corner, and the seating looks to be great for basketball which is something that is simply not possible in an arena designed for hockey and basketball. I'm sure the seating won't be great for hockey but that doesn't matter in this arena.

I think the best NBA arena is Conseco Fieldhouse, best hockey is Xcel Energy Center.

The big problem with building this new stadium or renovating i guess is that can't go any lower because as you can see the stadiumis right at sea level so they are going to have to come up with a plan to dig down with out bringin gin water. Beautiful stadium though

The big problem with building this new stadium or renovating i guess is that can't go any lower because as you can see the stadiumis right at sea level so they are going to have to come up with a plan to dig down with out bringin gin water. Beautiful stadium though

Here's the link:

University of Washington unviels expansion/renovation plans (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2003456124_uwfacilities01.html)

Here's the pictures:

http://www.footballstadiumdigest.com/images/husky_stadium_new_2.jpg
http://www.footballstadiumdigest.com/images/husky_stadium_new.jpg

Another collegiate football stadium ditching the track. Although, I like the exterior.

The big problem with building this new stadium or renovating i guess is that can't go any lower because as you can see the stadiumis right at sea level so they are going to have to come up with a plan to dig down with out bringin gin water. Beautiful stadium though

The big problem with building this new stadium or renovating i guess is that can't go any lower because as you can see the stadiumis right at sea level so they are going to have to come up with a plan to dig down with out bringin gin water. Beautiful stadium though

Yes, we get the damn point.

And yes, this looks like quite a beautiful project. Digging the unobstructed view towards the sea.

For some reason this has always been one of my favorite college football stadiums...

Looks great, good to see them ditching the track. Real footballstadiums don't have a track around it, unless there really is a shortage of land to relocated a track-dedicated facility.

ive seen the huskies stadium on games, that is a very nice view, and it is a very beautiful stadium. Thats my 2 cents:) and the expansion looks great

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/CowboysNS-Day.png
Location Arlington, Texas
Broke ground September 20, 2005
Opened Fall 2009 (scheduled)
Owner Jerry Jones
Construction cost $1 billion (estimated)
Architect HKS, Inc.
Tenants Dallas Cowboys (NFL) (2009-)
Big 12 Championship Game(NCAA Football)(2009-2010)
Cotton Bowl (NCAA Football) (2010-)
Super Bowl XLV (NFL) (2011)
Capacity 80,000 - can be expanded to over 100,000 (estimated)

Dallas Cowboys New Stadium is the working title of a new stadium being built in Arlington, Texas for the NFL's Dallas Cowboys. It will replace Texas Stadium, which opened in 1971. It is scheduled to open before the 2009 NFL season and will accommodate 80,000, with the possibility for expansion to 100,000. New Cowboys Stadium was designed by the Dallas-based architectural firm HKS. In addition to the Cowboys, it is possible the new stadium will be used by college football teams and other organizations for other sporting and non-sporting events; the AT&T Cotton Bowl will move its annual game to the stadium once it opens.

Originally estimated to cost $650 million, the stadium's current construction cost is in excess of $1 billion, which will make it one of the most expensive sports venues ever built. To aid Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by one-half of a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent. The City of Arlington will provide $325 million in funding, and Jones will cover any cost overruns. Also, the NFL will provide the Cowboys with an additional $150 million, as per their policy for giving teams a certain lump sum of money for stadium finance.

Although the stadium has yet to receive a naming rights sponsor, in reference to Jones, many fans have taken to referring to the project as "Jerry World". There is also a movement by some fans to have the stadium named after longtime Cowboys coach Tom Landry.

A nearly 300-foot (90 m)-tall arch will span the length of the stadium dome, anchored to the ground at each end. The new stadium will also comprise features including a retractable roof, protecting from weather conditions, operable glass doors, allowing each end zone to be opened, and a centre-hung video display board. This system was implemented by mechanization consultants, Uni-Systems. These Kinetic Architecture fundamentals will be employed in order to create a quick conversion of the facility to accommodate a variety of events. When the design was officially unveiled on December 12, it showed that the roof would look exactly the same as Texas Stadium's roof, with its trademark hole. However, it would be covered by the retractable roof panel should there be precipitation or if the heat conditions become unbearable.

A Dallas Cowboys Hall of Fame is planned for the appropriately named Hall of Fame level. The drawings also include a site for a large sculpture northeast of the stadium, close to Randol Mill Road.

Excavation work at the stadium site began in May 2006 near Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Until it opens, the Cowboys will continue to play in Texas Stadium.

This stadium will host Super Bowl XLV in 2011, beating out bids from the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona and Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Timeline

1994: Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says he wants to expand the 65,000-seat Texas Stadium by up to 40,000 seats, add retractable roof panels and install a climate-control system to make the stadium a year-round venue for sporting events, including the Super Bowl, concerts, and conventions.

1997 - 2000: The Cowboys hold preliminary talks with Arlington officials about building a stadium there. The team also publicly discusses a $260 million plan to upgrade Texas Stadium. In 2000, the Cowboys compile a list of potential stadium sites, which include Grapevine, Coppell and Arlington. The team continues negotiating with Irving to renovate Texas Stadium.

2001: Jones says Arlington is a leading contender for a $500 million stadium. The primary site being considered is the 2,000-acre (8 km²) Lakes of Arlington tract on Farm Road 157. Other cities in the running include Grapevine and Grand Prairie. In October, Jones discusses the new stadium with the mayors of Arlington, Irving, Grapevine, and Dallas.

2003: The Cowboys ask the Irving City Council to extend their lease at Texas Stadium, which expires at the end of the 2008 season, on a year-to-year basis. They narrow their search to sites in Las Colinas and Dallas, and state legislators file bills that would allow Dallas County to increase its hotel-occupancy and car-rental taxes to pay for a new stadium.

2004: In April, the Cowboys announce plans to build a $650 million stadium at Fair Park in Dallas. The deal requires $425 million in public financing from a 3 percent hotel-occupancy tax and a 6 percent car-rental tax. The deal falls apart in June when Dallas County commissioners say they cannot justify asking voters to approve the team's request for $425 million in public funding. In July, the Cowboys and Arlington announce they are negotiating to locate the stadium near Rangers Ballpark in Arlington (then Ameriquest Field). In August, the City Council agrees unanimously to put before voters a tax increase that would fund the city's $325 million portion of the project. Voters approve the tax increase on November 2.

2005: Arlington and the Cowboys choose the site south of Randol Mill Road and east of Collins Street for the new stadium. The city begins notifying residents and property owners of its plans to acquire their property. The Cowboys hire the HKS architectural firm to design the stadium. Early blueprints show 414 luxury suites and a two-panel retractable roof. The city completes its sale of $297.9 million in bonds to pay for its portion of the construction. Demolition of houses begins November 1.

2006:

Jan - The Cowboys hire Oklahoma-based Manhattan Construction as the general contractor for the stadium and the city completes its land purchases, although it still faces a number of lawsuits over land acquisition. Also in January, Tarrant County work crews begin demolition of more than 150 Arlington residences and small business structures to make room for the stadium.

Mar - Alliance announced between Manahattan Construction and two minority-owned general contractors -- Rayco Construction of Grand Prairie and 3i Construction of Dallas -- to manage the stadium's construction.

Apr - Excavation begins by Mario Sinacola and Sons Excavating. By August, they had moved over 1.4 million cubic yards of earth, shaping a 13 acre to 14 acre stadium bowl an average of 54 feet (16 m) deep.

Aug - Two construction cranes are raised on the site.

Oct - The grass amphitheater on Randol Mill Road is leveled to make way for the extension of Baird Farm Road.

Dec - The stadium's structure begins to go up. Also on December 12, the Cowboys and Jerry Jones unveil in-depth plans and designs of the stadium to the public.

2007:

Jan - A construction worker is injured in a 20-foot (6 m) fall.[10]

Feb - Masonry work begins.

Mar - Heldenfels Enterprises awarded the contract to manufacture and erect the pre-cast/pre-stressed concrete structural components and placement of them begins in April.[11]

Jun - Work on the retractable roof, designed by Uni-Systems, starts.

Jul - Exterior facade and enclosure work will begin.

Oct - First steel arch is completed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/CowboysStadium_12252007.jpg/800px-CowboysStadium_12252007.jpg
Stadium construction as of December 2007

2008: Work on the parking lots will begin in March. The steel roof will be in place and completed by June. Installation of the scoreboard and sound system will begin in September. Later in the year, the seats will be installed and landscaping will begin.

2009: The artificial-turf field will be brought into the stadium. The stadium is scheduled to be completed in August, and the Cowboys will play their first home game there in September.

2010: On January 1, the AT&T Cotton Bowl will be played at the new stadium, as was announced on February 27, 2007.

2011: On February 6, Super Bowl XLV will be played at the new stadium, as was announced on May 22, 2007

Official Site:
http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/images/ballpark/citifield/img_citifield2_252x197.jpg
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/images/ballpark/citifield/img_citifield_view_hp_252x197.jpg
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/images/ballpark/citifield/img_citifield1_252x197.jpg
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/images/ballpark/citifield/img_citifield_jrrotunda_252x197.jpg

On November 13, 2006, Citigroup - the leading global financial services company operating in more than 100 countries - and the New York Mets announced an exclusive 20-year, multifaceted strategic
View from the Northeast marketing and business partnership that includes the naming rights for Citi Field, the new world-class home of the Mets, scheduled to open by Opening Day 2009.

Citi Field will feature unprecedented sightlines, amenities, and comfort for Mets fans, sports fans and visitors to the New York metropolitan area. The open-air ballpark connects the Mets' National League heritage to the future and to the City through a number of unique design elements. Citi Field will feature natural grass and capacity for approximately 45,000 fans. A contoured seating configuration will bring spectators closer to the field on all levels to provide optimal sightlines for a more intimate and entertaining experience throughout the park.

> AMENITIES/FAN ENHANCEMENTS
View from Home Plate• Citi Field's baseball-specific design produces superior sightlines for the game throughout the venue. There is a more intimate atmosphere with seating angled toward the infield and set down closer to the field. Forty-two percent of the ballpark's seats will be located in the Concourse (or lowest) seating level.

• The ballpark will feature some of the widest unobstructed concourses in new sports facilities. Concession stands and restrooms will be located within the facility's exterior walls leaving the circulation areas with uninterrupted views of the field.

• Wider seats provide enhanced comfort throughout the venue while more space between the rows allows for improved legroom.

• The Concourse level features 360-degree, walk-around circulation around the ballpark with expansive field views and ample standing room. The Promenade level features a split-deck design providing uninterrupted views into the ballpark from the circulation and concession areas.

• Fans throughout the ballpark will have access to multiple sit-down, climate-controlled restaurants, bars, clubs, and lounges, a majority of which will provide field views, and a wide range of menu choices.

• Numerous permanent attractions built into the master plan add to Citi Field's family-friendly environment, including: an expanded Fan Fest family entertainment area within the ballpark on the Concourse level, an enhanced outfield Picnic Area adjacent to the batter's eye, multiple party deck areas, and an interactive Mets museum with club memorabilia and Hall of Fame displays.

> ARCHITECTURAL HIGHLIGHTS
Citi Field• Inspired by tradition, Citi Field will be clad in brick, limestone, granite and cast stone, with the brick closely resembling the masonry used at Ebbets Field, both in color and texture. Exposed steel will be painted dark blue and the seats will be dark green.

• A structural steel "bridge" motif throughout Citi Field reinforces the Mets' connection to New York's five boroughs while also symbolically linking the team's storied tradition to its future. Design elements call for exposed trusses, light towers, scoreboard structure, and a roof canopy that recall the ballparks of yesteryear.

• This landmark partnership will accelerate Citi's and the Mets' current significant commitments to the community with new resources to develop and launch outreach platforms and programs in and beyond New York City, involving both the Citigroup Foundation and the New York Mets Foundation.

Jackie Robinson RotundaAs the first step in this effort, the Mets and Citi will commission a statue and name the entry rotunda of Citi Field - inspired by the classic design of Ebbets Field - to honor Jackie Robinson, the legendary pioneer and great American who broke baseball's color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. The partnership will include a significant commitment to recognize and perpetuate, in and around the rotunda and the community, Robinson's legacy and the "nine values" he embodied as articulated by his daughter and Foundation Vice Chair, Sharon Robinson: courage, integrity, determination, persistence, citizenship, justice, commitment, teamwork, and excellence.

In addition, Citi and the Mets through a pledge to the Jackie Robinson Foundation will help create the Jackie Robinson Foundation Museum and Education Center in lower Manhattan. As much as a tribute to Jackie Robinson, the Museum and Education Center will educate children about Jackie Robinson's pioneering spirit and leading role in social change. This partnership will support new programs for the Jackie Robinson Foundation, including leadership development and scholarships for students who exemplify Jackie's humanitarian ideals.

> SETTING HIGHLIGHTS
• A landscaped plaza around the ballpark will welcome fans, improve access and egress, and create space for pre- and post-game activities, vendors, and other amenities.

Various areas of Citi Field will reinforce the setting of the venue and the Mets connection to the City of New York and baseball history, including: the Ebbets Club behind the plate, Coogan's Landing beyond the leftfield fence, the "East Side" stands in rightfield, and "The Orchard" picnic area in centerfield.

> ON THE DIAMOND
Field Orientation: The four-acre natural turf field will expand from home in a northeasterly direction with the leftfield line stretching northward, and the rightfield line extending eastward.

Right Field Porch: In rightfield there will be a singular deck that will be situated to extend into and over fair territory by eight feet.

Pitcher Friendly: Distinctive asymmetrical outfield walls, along with generous dimensions (LF - 335'; LC - 379'; CF - 408'; RC - 383'; RF - 330') make for a traditional pitcher's park.

> DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Sterling Equities, the Mets ownership group, has expertise and experience in the development and management of premium New York City properties, as well as new minor league ballparks in Coney Island and Port St. Lucie, Fla. The Citi Field project is developed by Queens Ballpark Company, L.L.C. and has been designed by the internationally renowned architects of HOK Sport. HOK Sport has designed and renovated 13 of the 30 major league ballparks in use today and seven of the last eight to open in Major League Baseball. Hunt-Bovis, a joint venture of Hunt Construction Group and Bovis Lend Lease, will provide construction management.

New tax revenues, new jobs, and over $1 billion in new investment, all at no additional cost to taxpayers.
The Rays’ new waterfront ballpark and the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site will continue St. Petersburg’s remarkable renaissance. Together, these projects will bring a dynamic mix of amenities downtown and create inviting new places within this lively, cosmopolitan community. Representing over $1 billion in private investment, these projects will not only activate the downtown core throughout the year, but bring new retailers, housing and open space to the area and serve as examples of superior architecture, urban design and sustainable development. They will contribute significantly to the area's culture and skyline.

http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/Image/N12_Plan_TEXT200dpi.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Rays-ballpark-concept.jpg

It looks like small dimensions for the field. I wonder if it would be possible to hit it ACROSS the waterway onto a boat or that dock like landmass

Already a thread about this stadium.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=331487

Again there is already a thread about this stadium. I suggest you take a look around before starting duplicate threads.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=316181

No, that is for a different stadium. The stadium in the link you posted is for the Texas State University Longhorns football team. This is for the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL stadium. There is a big difference.

It will be like AT&T park in San Fransisco where you can hit into the water. Nobody will be able to hit more than 5oo ft in a home run derby and the dock is probably further than that. I don't know if there is enough room for the boats to sit there like n San Fransisco, now the Rays only need a big name hitter who will hit it there consistently. But they are becoming a better team for a change.

stop making new threads
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=411641

No, that is for a different stadium. The stadium in the link you posted is for the Texas State University Longhorns football team. This is for the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL stadium. There is a big difference.

And there is already a thread for that stadium, it's even on the first page...
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=411641

No, that is for a different stadium. The stadium in the link you posted is for the Texas State University Longhorns football team. This is for the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL stadium. There is a big difference.

The Texas State University Longhorns?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

For a decade, the Marlins have attempted to get a new ballpark. On January 22, 2008, that could become a reality. The Marlins wanted to build a half billion dollar retractable roof stadium. It would seat about 34,000 fans and it would be a way for them to bring in more revenue so they could field a more competitive team every year instead of their infamous fire sales.

Nice to see an American stadium that isn't surrounded by 4,000,000 square miles of carpark and highway.

Has it been approved?

Very nice design, I love the roof and the location.
Do you have more renders?

I may have posted the wrong link but at least I take alook around before spamming the forum with useless threads.

Grab a glove and get in the game!

Your a newbie so I won't be to much of an asshole.

http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_4.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark1b.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark2.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark3.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark4.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark5.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_BallPark6.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_2nd%20Ave.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_from%20Bay.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_from%20North.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_HP%20Plaza.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_Pioneer%20Park.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_Site%20Plan.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_Ballpark_Upper%20Deck.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/57_CGI%20Ballpark%20Shot%20_%20low-Sml.jpg
Other Development (Part of Overall Project)
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_05.png
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest1.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest2.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest3.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest4.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest5.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest6.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest7.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DowntownWest8.jpg
http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/image/58_DTW_2nd%20Ave.jpg

can a mod just merge this thread? thanx.

I don't usually like baseball stadiums, this one looks pretty funky though.

So what happens to the old joint? It doesn't seem long ago they built it.

The old stadium, Tropicana Field (the Trop) was the last stadium built before the modern era of retro stadiums like Camden Yards and Busch Stadium. The team would sell the land to be developed and with that money, pay what they owe for building the first park. Then, they would put $150 million of $450 million.

The new stadium would have a retractable roof sail that would be able to protect fans and players from the elements, but still maintain the outdoor feeling. It would also make it possible for the hitters to hit into the Bay.

No, there is not going to be a new Wrigley Field built, but it is being renovated. First, the outfield bleachers were rebuilt. Next, the field was replaced. Now, they will build box seats on the third base side. More work will probably be done, but Wrigley faces the same challenge as Fenway Park did during it's renovations, how do you improve it while keeping its history?

It is very petty to argue over the use of a word in another country. People in the UK call a trunk a boot and people in america call a boot a trunk. Who cares. Neither is right or wrong. Live and let live.

Moving on, here are some pictures of The University of OKlahoma's stadium after their last renovation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/OMSFront.jpg/350px-OMSFront.jpg

http://www.flintco.com/images/image_large_ou_gaylord.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/74/185302431_595b5ff82c.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/soonrfish/aerial.jpg

The capacity has been expanded to around 82,000. It is located in a town of only 102,000 people.

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/football/nfl/10/08/risers/p1_loadholt.jpg

As far as the size of players in american football. Just for a reference. This guy is 6 feet 7 inches tall and weighs in at 350 pounds. He doesn't even look that much bigger than the other guys on the field. I don't know about anybody else but that guy is a lot bigger than me.

Yeah Linemen, (especially offensive linemen) a big. I played O-line in high school and am about 6'4" (192cm) and 275 pounds (125 Kg). I am smaller than just about every offensive lineman in the NFL and a good portion of D-1 college linesmen. Although keep in mind some Aussie rules players get up in the 300 lb range (137 kg), David Dixon who played Guard for the Minnesota Vikings spent the early part of his pro career playing Australian rules and with the Vikings he was 6'7" 376 lbs (though probably somewhat lighter when he was playing Australian rules)

Wow this thread was buried deep in the stadium section.

Regarding those linemen, I'm about 6'8" 230 pounds. I'd be intimidated if they came charging at me on the field but that guy seems to be wearing knee-braces, so I wonder how long his frame will be able to afford his mass and the hits he has to endure.

Before:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/Stadium_1024x768.jpg

Currently/after:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/TexPete/dkr1.jpg

That expansion of Bryant Denny looks pretty nice, is it u/c yet? If so, do you have any pictures of it?

Too bad they didn't extend it all the way to the existing stadium
http://www.rolltide.com/images/20397.jpg
On this render you can see a little bit of the right side of the existing part, it would only be a little bit more ;) Also, what will happen to the scoreboard? I can see two new videoscreens, but I can't see a new scoreboard.

The entrance will look real grande as well, this already sweet stadium is getting even nicer.

Some more Bryant-Denny Stadium photos. Rumors are that there will be another expansion to fill in the open endzone with a duplicate of the latest expansion raising the capacity from 92,138 to just over 101,000.

BTW, it does not extend to connect to the old sideline upperdecks because one of the upper levels was 6 feet lower than the one across the field, so they had to leave the gaps (if you look really closely above the video board on the right, you can see this difference). Also, the video boards can all also function as digital scoreboards.

http://crimsontider.com/images/stadium1.jpg
http://crimsontider.com/images/stadium3.jpghttp://www.rolltide.com/fls/8000/files/facilities/bryantdenny/bryantdenny2006.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/timNem_2006/Bryant-Denny_NightAerial-UH06-2copy.gif

amazing. still can't get over the fact that these stadiums are for amateur sports!!

But can they play hockey there? i think not!

it is in Tampa Bay

any comments?

As a Longhorn I am truly jealous of Bryant-Denny. Yes, I think our stadium will look great even when this phase alone is finished, but that place looks great.

I think the most important part of a stadium renovation is paying attention to detail. If you lose sight of the smaller things [i.e. ornate decoration on the sides of seat rows, the way the brickwork is patterned on the facade, etc.] then the end result will end up looking like a photoshopped copy of the original.

A lot can be done that people won't notice or care about if you keep whats most memorable intact. Lambeau Field is a good example. The exterior was forgettable but the seating bowl was special. They did a great job of keeping that intact and in doing so kept the atmosphere as close to the original as possible.

:hug:

I remember part of the Wrigley renovations called for a retail building / parking garage across the street [pictured below] is this still in the works?

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

Im not trying to start arguements here...

But most of these stadiums, while being extremly impressive when you see them full of people, are extremly ugly.. and look like if your not in the front few rows your view would be shithouse.

(Excluding a couple such as Reliant Stadium, Seahawks stadium, and Memorial Stadium)


The 'Pro' league stadiums are better are they not?
I know this is a thread for outdoor stadiums, but can anyone post the Pro ones?

The pro ones are in there, and for American football, the higher up you are, the better the view is, there you can see the plays develop.

This thing is a beauty! Such a unique retractible canopy design. Tropicana Field is awful... Then again I dislike all domed stadiums. They feel like I am watching a game in a dimly lit cave or my windowless basement. Since it can rain a lot in Florida this is a great design that gets people outdoors.

:hug:

The pro ones from the original post

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=100572

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/NewYorkGiants/aerial.jpg

http://www.razfoto.com/images/546.jpg

http://www.collectorsseries.com/images/24.jpg

http://www.skypic.com/sports/12-5759.jpg

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/CarolinaPanthers/aerial.jpg

http://www.edlippjr.com/pictures/albums/31-40/39_helicopter_ride/41_browns_stadium.jpg

http://www.lesitedeschampions.ca/stade_jaguars_ext.jpg

http://images.usatoday.com/travel/_photos/2003/09/05-qualcomm-inside.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/27592129.jpg

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/02/reliant/img/stadiumfr2.jpg

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/BaltimoreRavens/aerial.jpg

http://www.markelliottmusic.com/Stadium%20Air.jpg

http://www.collectorsseries.com/images/gillette.jpg

The pro ones are in there, and for American football, the higher up you are, the better the view is, there you can see the plays develop.

Here's something to help back this up. I took these at different games at Bryant-Denny Stadium (cell-phone camera, so pardon the quality). Also, some more inside the stadium views.
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v121/63/110/1011120421/n1011120421_30067760_2951.jpg
At the bottom of the seating bowl, you can't see the far side of the action very well.
http://photos-421.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v156/63/110/1011120421/n1011120421_30073949_7433.jpg
Now, from the upper deck on the same side of the field, you can see everything pretty well.
http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v148/63/110/1011120421/n1011120421_30072666_9556.jpghttp://photos-421.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v140/63/110/1011120421/n1011120421_30070697_5623.jpg
Lower level from a different side on the left picture about 20th row, and again, you can hardly see very well past about the other 25 yard-line (far quarter of the field). It is significantly better from higher up in the right picture from about the 55th row.
In other words, lower seats aren't necessarily the best.
http://photos-421.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v128/63/110/1011120421/n1011120421_30070698_1601.jpg
Here's just another outside picture of the stadium.

Haha, I was so used to the strong euro input to this thread that when I saw the "st petersburgh" bit, i at first thought to myself "when did russia get a baseball team?"

Stadiums for the NFL are pretty impressive. Starting in 2008, there wont be a single stadium in the league with a capacity under 60,000 (Lucas Oil stadium in Indy will hold 63,000, and opens in 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Stadiums), and every team averages at least 90% attendance for all home games (okay, 2 are at 88%, but close enough: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?sort=home_perc&year=2007).

You joined just few days ago and you already started to create numerous duplicate threads, linkings to another forums and posts without sense. This is the right way to get banned, but if you want to be a regular user here, first look, search, think, then start a thread and post. Look -> Search -> Think -> Post/ Start Thread. Not in the opposite direction. Thanks.

stop making new threads. ban this guy

stop making new threads. ban this guy

sorry, I am new, don't get mad at me

I am not sure, the cubs still have these pictures on their website. Fenway Park is my favorite example of modernizing a historical building instead of what the Yankees are doing.

Wrigley Field is awesome and I hope they will, like you said, combine the tradition of the old with the comfort and practicalities - without making compromises, that is - of the new.

Yea, they really have to be careful when doing this because the stadium means so much to so many.

Pretty nice. It's better than what they have now.

they had the concrete problem a few years ago, to keep the stadium, they need to change it a bit.

Depends on who the new owner is...

Got cleared last night.

http://www.charlottecentercity.org/files/Documents/stadium_rendering_lg.jpg

Supposed to seat ~10,000.

Design will probably change (love how the backdrop looks nothing like Charlotte), aiming for an April 2009 opening. But it won't make that date as there's a guy who keeps suing the city because he wants a bigger one for an MLB team he wants to buy. Nothing is stopping him from buying a factory, razing it, and building his own stadium.

Having lived in Charlotte my entire life I can say with confidence we can't support an MLB team. We barely sell out NFL game and they're en vogue, even people who don't understand football go (which makes for a crappy atmosphere in the lower bowl). On the weekends people from the Triad and Upstate South Carolina may make the trip, but on a Tuesday against the Rays? You're looking at 2000 fans. Ask the Bobcats.

I marked out the site on wikimapia http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=35.228586&lon=-80.848462&z=17&l=0&m=h&v=2

Nice, the old one was an eyesore.

Of the True open air stadiums, I have to go with Kyle Field in College Station for Texas A&M (you just feel the traditions rolling off that place)

Pro Football
Arrow Head Stadium, and Texas Stadium are the 2 best NFL stadiums if your looking at history and nostalgia. Texas Stadium is a horrible place to watch a game in August and September (SO HOT, no air flow!) But you go there and its as much a part of the Cowboy Legend as the team itself. I like Arrow head because it gets so loud and hes nothing but great seats.

So is Reliant in Houston considered an open air if it has a retractable roof?

I'm actually hoping they redevelop that into a stadium for football and soccer since York County is getting bigger and only has District 3 Stadium for that at the moment.

Also Winthrop is talking about football and that would add to the load on D3 Stadium, a second one would be great for the county.

Edit: For this who haven't seen the stadium this one will be replacing this is it http://www.geocities.com/paulsminorleagueparks/Fort_Mill.htm, It's located in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

WOOT 49th in the nation highfive!

Kansas City got it right in the early 70's when everyone else got it wrong, Kauffman Stadium and Arrowhead stadium are both still excellent, and will continue to be for a long time.

Kansas City got it right in the early 70's when everyone else got it wrong, Kauffman Stadium and Arrowhead stadium are both still excellent, and will continue to be for a long time.

As long as they dont try to put a roof over Arrow Head

Sam Zell, the new Tribune owner is actively searching for naming rights for Wrigley Field!

Sam Zell, the new Tribune owner is actively searching for naming rights for Wrigley Field!

Is he looking to sale the Park name or the whole thing. Like could it be Wrigley Field at...Trump Park?

I dont like this. Keep it the way it is, no name change,

Isn't the name "Wrigley Field" sponsored by that gum company?

Isn't the name "Wrigley Field" sponsored by that gum company?

No, the Wrigley family (who owns the gum company) owned it till about 1982 and then sold it to the Tribune company so the Wrigley's and the Cubs now don't have any direct affiliations other then the heritage of the stadium name.

Here is a more accurate story of what is going on...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080120cubs,1,7560466.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

.................Naming rights
As the Cubs contemplate selling naming rights to Wrigley, one fan complained about annual ballpark alterations and said he didn't like the idea of going to "Pepto-Bismol Park." McGuire elicited laughs by responding, "I do think there's a natural tie between Pepto-Bismol and the Cubs franchise."

Turning serious, McGuire said management "feels a certain amount of angst as we talk about every change and how to do it the right way."

Kenney said he spent his childhood at Fenway Park and pointed to all the changes in that ballpark that led to new revenue streams and helped Boston win the World Series titles in 2004 and '07.

"We're not going to ruin Wrigley Field in any way," Kenny said. But he said modern baseball economics demand new ways of thinking.

"Our priorities will never be lost," he said. "We understand the importance of Wrigley Field, but we also owe something to our fans … and we've got a 100-year due bill."

It seems the Cubs are trying to push the BS argument that its all in order to help the team compete with the big boy and win a champisionship (yea right of course that is why they want to do it:ohno:). But its still early in the game and I think that Zell and the Tribune are more throwing the idea out there to see the reaction but I hope it doesn't get a lot further then that.

Actually, Sam Zell wants to sell the stadium first to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, so that they can raise the mone to renovate the Wrigley so that it can stand for what the Tribune said, "The forseeable future." I'm not a huge fan of Zell or the tribune, but he's going to sell the stadium first before he sells the team in order to insure that 1. Wrigley won't be knocked down 2. that the team will be essentially forced to continue playing at Wrigley. The bottom line is that Zell wants things to stay the way they are, which will also make hopefully not as likely that the name will be changed from Wrigley. The ISFA helped with the soldier field renovation (which I hate) and the comiskey renovation (which is nice). A public fund could be developed by the ISFA in order to raise money for a renovation and to hopefully keep the Wrigley name. Zell is a whitesox investor, and I'm glad he's not a cynical bastard trying to destroy this city's most cherished sporting venue. Soldier Field could've been dealt wit much better by not placing a bizarre space ship within the beautiful classical skin, and by not reducing the number of seats by 20,000 and driving up ticket and concession prices. Apparently, authorities realize that the cubs fans will not tolerate anything other than a renovation that maintains the stadium's historical value. BTW: there are articles online that go into further detail.

^^ True but I don't think Zell really gives a darn about having the ISFA have it in order to keep the Cubs there and renovate as much as using that as a pretext to sell the Cubs to the state and the idea to the general public for complicated tax reasons which would allow him to sell it for mroe then if he did if he sold it to the new owner. The chances that a new owner would want to spur Wrigley or least the location of Wrigley and the city for suberbs is far fetched I would think.


I hope what you want is not something like Comisky which I think even with the improvements is one of the worst new generation stadiums to come along in baseball. I have been saying for a while that I am ready for a partial demolition of the park (the grandstands) and while leaving the outfield completely alone. Make it look very similar to the PNC grandstands which are low and not dominated by skyboxes. The outside I am not sure what I would want done but I would want to keep the marquee and would want to stay away from brick which almost every retro ballpark has utilized. I would still want them to keep the name though and not sell it out.

I don't often agree with Jay Marriotti and think of him as a bit of a tool but his suggestions in the paper today are pretty much what I have been thinking of for a few years now (every since reports of pieces crumbling).

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mariotti/752197,mariotti012208.article
Zell is starting to scare me
Trib owner's talk of unloading Wrigley to state and profiting off naming rights show that he just doesn't get the allure of the Cubs.............

Here is some photos of the grandstand at PNC park which I would most like the Cubs to emulate if they went for drastic renovations though I suggest they leave the outfied alone...

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Baseballe%20Parks/PNCPark-1469834853_468c423afd.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Baseballe%20Parks/PNCPark-1250111832_47dcdb6837.jpg

Do NOT want....

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Baseballe%20Parks/jacobsfield626443194_1498f20a10.jpg

they already fixed the outfield ones, I don't think they will go for anything too radical because the Bears did that to Soldier Field and Illinois took the stadium's landmark status away

For those of you who follow college basketball, Indiana University just released a virtual tour of its new basketball development facility. To see it go to www.iuhoosiers.com and click play on the right where it says "hoosier highlights" They basically show you half of the building the other side of the building is identical and is for the women's basketball team.

What do you guys think. I think it looks fantastic and will serve the mens and women's basletball teams well.

If it helps them lose more games, I'm all for it! ;)




(Looks nice, though.)

If it helps them lose more games, I'm all for it! ;)




(Looks nice, though.)

HMM. Illinois? Purdue? Kentucky? What's your poison?

I'm just razzing! :)

Georgia Tech (obviously) and ACC, myself. But I was raised on Syracuse and my cousin (Evansville) and uncle (Miami, Ohio) helped forge a loathing of Bobby Knight. I also didn't appreciate the demeanor of IU's long-time soccer coach, but both characters knew how to win.

Indianas Coach Calvin Sampson is a cheap shot. Be careful;, when he leave Indian, you might find out he broke the recruiting rules like he did in Oklahoma, loosing you scholarships and him getting paid more and not penalized at Kentucky.

I'm just razzing! :)

Georgia Tech (obviously) and ACC, myself. But I was raised on Syracuse and my cousin (Evansville) and uncle (Miami, Ohio) helped forge a loathing of Bobby Knight. I also didn't appreciate the demeanor of IU's long-time soccer coach, but both characters knew how to win.

You had a problem with Yeagley? I've never heard a bad word about the man, although that's probably because he is considered god by the fans for creating one of the best soccer program in the country. It's hard to believe we have never gone more than 3 years without making it to the college cup (final four). Who would have ever though a small town in Indiana could put a college soccer team on the field that could beat a Mexican national team.

I cant find the video. :bash:

Yeah, I can't find the video on the site. Is there a direct link that you can post. I would love to see the new place.

sorry, they moved it.
go to http://iuhoosiers.cstv.com/ than click on all access in the top right and than go to mens basketball and than features. It will make you register for a free password, but it is quick and painless.

sorry, they moved it.
go to http://iuhoosiers.cstv.com/ than click on all access in the top right and than go to mens basketball and than features. It will make you register for a free password, but it is quick and painless.


Thanks! Looked pretty good. Maybe not like Florida's new facility, but the money they have is on a different level.

Thanks! Looked pretty good. Maybe not like Florida's new facility, but the money they have is on a different level.

Really, I think it's a lot nicer than Florida's. Here is a link to Florida http://www.gatorzone.com/facilities/?venue=oconn&sport=baskm&page=practice
I think Florida's is maybe nicer looking on the outside, but that's because IU's is built to match the indoor track and Assembly Hall. The one at IU will also cost more than Florida's. What do you guys think, Which one looks nicer?

http://all-access.cstv.com/cstv/player/player.html?code=ind&sport=genrel&category=Features%20&%20Interviews%20(MediaType)&media=30501

You will have to create a free username and password to view the virtual tour.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh292/jkramb/08.jpg
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh292/jkramb/cc-north-endzone-facility.gif

No doubt in my mind. Text taken from the arena website...

"It's impossible to describe the $104+ million Ralph Engelstad Arena in just a few words, but it is described by many as the "finest facility of its kind in the world." The 400,000 square foot arena is nothing but first class. All concourse floors are granite, each seat is constructed of leather and cherry wood, and there are 48 full luxury suites, two mini suites, and two enormous club rooms featuring the longest freestanding bars in the state. The training facility features a 10,000 sq. ft. weight room and underwater treadmill, fourteen locker rooms, the extra Olympic Sheet of Ice, and with the addition of the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center for the basketball and volleyball programs, what you have is more than a world-class facility; you have the Ralph Engelstad Arena.

The biggest attraction though, and the reason the arena was built, is Fighting Sioux Hockey. In its inaugural season (2001-02) in the new Ralph Engelstad Arena, Fighting Sioux Hockey attendance erupted into an all time high. All of the games in this 11,640 capacity hockey arena sold out in just 43 minutes after single game tickets went on sale for the inaugural season.

Since opening its doors on October 5, 2001, the Ralph Engelstad Arena has played host too many big attractions, such as Tim McGraw, Kenny Chesney, Stars on Ice, Dennis Miller, the Minnesota Wild, Toby Keith, Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick and many other entertainers and professional sport teams.
From December 25, 2004 – January 4, 2005, Ralph Engelstad Arena played host to the 2005 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship. This tournament featured the best under-20 hockey players from around the world and put Grand Forks and Ralph Engelstad Arena at center stage in the hockey world for two weeks. It was the biggest event that this region had ever seen.

Ralph Engelstad Arena played host to the NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey West Regional Championship March 24-25, 2006 where the Fighting Sioux defeated Holy Cross to advance to the NCAA Frozen Four.

The 2008 Men’s World Curling Championship will be held at Ralph Engelstad Arena in April 2008. The Championship will feature 12 teams representing 12 countries competing for the Men's World Curling Title."

Interior photo tour...
http://www.pbase.com/mmingo/grandforks_jan2007

Review from "The Ultimate Sports Roadtrip"
http://www.thesportsroadtrip.com/ralphengelstadarena.html

http://flightops.aero.und.edu/images/rea1024.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/Old_Goalie/TheRalph.jpg

So, where is this arena located? And who are the Fighting Sioux? Is it only used for icehockey on a regular basis, or also other sports?

The exterior looks quite boring to be honest, there were some interior pics in the opening post, but apperantly they were deleted...

So, where is this arena located? And who are the Fighting Sioux? Is it only used for icehockey on a regular basis, or also other sports?

The exterior looks quite boring to be honest, there were some interior pics in the opening post, but apperantly they were deleted...

Only some of the pics worked, read the post again and go to the link for interior pics.

It's a college hockey team, the description in the post also shows what else it's used for, if you had bothered to read it.

You should tell us where it is somewhere in the text, though, rather than make us search around for it.

Its rediculously fancy, too bad it was funded by a probable Nazi on the condition that the school change its name back to the fighting Sioux against the Tribe's will.

So, where is this arena located? And who are the Fighting Sioux? Is it only used for icehockey on a regular basis, or also other sports?

The exterior looks quite boring to be honest, there were some interior pics in the opening post, but apperantly they were deleted...

Grand Forks is in North Dakota. The University of North Dakota plays there.

What a great school logo! What an amazing arena. I love it. I'm incredibly jealous we don't have anything like that where I live. Beautiful.

Ralph Engelstad Arena Quick Facts

Hockey seating capacity: 11,640
Basketball seating capacity: 12,119
Concert seating: 13,154
Luxury Suites: 50 (48 full, 2 mini)
Club Seats: 264
2,200 Logos
300 Television Sets
4,000 tons of Steel
3.2 Miles of Brass Accents on the floor
1.1 Million Bricks
$110+ Million Dollar Facility with the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center

Noted Native American artist Bennet Brien of Belcourt, N.D., is the designer of the Fighting Sioux symbol. Mr. Brien’s artwork is vastly displayed but his most notable work can be seen in the main lobby of the Federal Office Building, on the University of North Dakota campus, and the lawn of the State Capitol in Bismarck. Brien, who holds a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of North Dakota, describes the symbolism of the UND athletic mark as follows:



The feathers symbolize the outstanding rewards that students, faculty, staff, and alumni will achieve for academic, athletic and lifelong excellence.
The determined look in the eyes symbolizes fortitude and never giving up and the focus necessary for sustained academic, athletic and lifelong achievement.
The paint on the cheekbone symbolizes that life can be a battle and we have daily struggles.
The color green symbolizes the development of young people and their growth at the University of North Dakota.
The color yellow symbolizes the sun which provides humanity, light and warmth in order in order that life can continue.
The color red symbolizes the lifeblood that has been poured out to make our state and people great.

http://k43.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72705932.VLmoGIbC.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72708979.wVpkX7HC.jpg

http://k53.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72709354.sS30h2c2.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72706705.dGov18WG.jpg

http://k41.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72706396.UAbNONMq.jpg

http://k41.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72710956.f92rDVU9.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72704227.4z3O4dX6.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/g6/02/589102/2/72705233.TXhHBAj6.jpg

Its rediculously fancy, too bad it was funded by a probable Nazi on the condition that the school change its name back to the fighting Sioux against the Tribe's will.

He wasn't a Nazi, and he didn't make the school change it's logo back, he said he did not want the school to change the logo. But we are not discussing your political ignorance here, we are discussing an amazing arena.

He wasn't a Nazi, and he didn't make the school change it's logo back, he said he did not want the school to change the logo. But we are not discussing your political ignorance here, we are discussing an amazing arena.

I worded that first statement poorly, He did not want the name to change from the Fighting Sioux, I had stated change back, as opposed to changed in the first place, my bad. And it certainly looks like a great arena, which I have unfortunately been unable to make it to.

However my understanding of the situation was that (and this is according to both an Architecture professor and an Ethnic Studies professor as well as reading) that the donation that led to the construction of the arena stipulated that the team name remain the fighting Sioux, something that ALL of the tribes opposed.

He also had a ton of Nazi Paraphenalia including a painting of himeself in a Nazi uniform, signed on the back "to Adolph from Ralphie", now I don't know what it takes for you to call someone a Nazi, sympathiser, wanna be Brownshirt ect, but that does it for me. He was quite the philanthropist too. But thats part of who he was which is really too bad, and you can call me ignorant or anything else you want, but this is still true. And I think the sketchy origins are somewhat relevant.

I do not see how being a philanthropist can be "bad" and I also don't see how collecting WWII memorabilia and throwing joke parties makes someone a Nazi, I mean, how many potheads light up a 4:20? Does that make them all Nazis? I didn't think so, so will you drop the BS?

How exactly is this the greatest small arena?

Only some of the pics worked, read the post again and go to the link for interior pics.

It's a college hockey team, the description in the post also shows what else it's used for, if you had bothered to read it.

Dude, I did bother to read your post, but how am I supposed to know that Grand Forks is in North Dakota, or that the Sioux are a college hockey team.
And I asked whether it's used for other sports on a regular basis, not the one-off events that are mentioned in your post.
I'm sure it's a great arena, but it's not to my taste. To me, it looks like it was designed in the 1970s, with all the brickwork, dark brown wood etc. And I don't get the added value having seats constructed of leather and cherry wood in an arena really.

Dude, I did bother to read your post, but how am I supposed to know that Grand Forks is in North Dakota, or that the Sioux are a college hockey team.
And I asked whether it's used for other sports on a regular basis, not the one-off events that are mentioned in your post.
I'm sure it's a great arena, but it's not to my taste. To me, it looks like it was designed in the 1970s, with all the brickwork, dark brown wood etc. And I don't get the added value having seats constructed of leather and cherry wood in an arena really.

That's interesting. The very things that you don't like about the arena, I love. I think the design and decor reflect the mid-West, cowboyish, frontierism that the area still possesses. I also appreciate the attention to detail the arena has: brasswork, the leather chairs, logos everywhere.

What the arena does, imo, is establishes a first-class hockey program at a small school that has to compete for skilled players in a very limited resource-pool. Think about it. This school has to complete with all the major schools like Michigan, etc., PLUS the minor hockey leagues constantly drafting talent out of high school.

That's interesting. The very things that you don't like about the arena, I love. I think the design and decor reflect the mid-West, cowboyish, frontierism that the area still possesses. I also appreciate the attention to detail the arena has: brasswork, the leather chairs, logos everywhere.

What the arena does, imo, is establishes a first-class hockey program at a small school that has to compete for skilled players in a very limited resource-pool. Think about it. This school has to complete with all the major schools like Michigan, etc., PLUS the minor hockey leagues constantly drafting talent out of high school.

Good point. I guess it's my personal preference that i prefer contemporary design over the 'cowboyish' style.

As far as competing for skilled ice hockey players - I have to admit I'm not into college sports or icehockey at all. And being from Europe, I don't exactly know how the hockey leagues and player transfers work, but I get your point.

I do not see how being a philanthropist can be "bad" and I also don't see how collecting WWII memorabilia and throwing joke parties makes someone a Nazi, I mean, how many potheads light up a 4:20? Does that make them all Nazis? I didn't think so, so will you drop the BS?

I did not intend to say the philanthropy was bad, I was trying to point out that was GOOD the NAZI stuff was bad. Anyway if you take the Nazi stuff as a joke thats fine, I dont' think it was a joke, but that was in the last post (really who celebrates Hitler's birthday every year as a joke) I made my point, I'm done. cool arena, maybe a little over the top but whatever.

How exactly is this the greatest small arena?

It's my opinion, don't like it? post the one you think is the greatest arena.

interior is nice, exterior is realy ugly

The exterior is a little gimmicky, but fitting for the area, red brick , with some detailed concrete trim and cornice work is very typical in the US and seems to be the thing in the midwest where design tends to be a little more conservative, even by American standards.
It seems that European thought on design is really grounded in Modernism, and detailing like this is seen as excess with no reason, or worse covering up a poor design (which is not necessarily the case), whereas here it is more often seen by people as a sign of attention to detail and craftsmanship (which used to be, but now is certainly not always the case).

as far as a minor league type arena the inside is very very very nice... i remeber when the world jr.s were there.. im not a big hockey fan but i remeber the guys on TV saying it was by far the nicest arean they have ever seen for a jr. comp. evren compared to pro arena it was top notch.. cuz i guess unlik most arenas built in the states.. this was built for hockey and hockey only as the main tenant.. most areans are built for multi-use ..basketball or hockey in mind ..but not as the focal point

the outside is kind of crappy but i guess they had ot make it like that to belnd in with its surroundings nicely... north dakota? isnt exactly a urban mecca.. most building that are new in tehre downtown probley have the same type of brick "new-old" look and feel .. basicley making a new building look old with the brick and all that stuff

The city of Omaha announced plans today to build a 24,000 seat stadium in downtown Omaha. The stadium will be home to the NCAA Men's College World Series (played at Omaha's Rosenblatt Stadium since 1950) and the Omaha Royals (AAA Pacific Coast League). Creighton University (Missouri Valley Conference) will also play some home games there. The park will be located in what is currently Parking Lots C and E of the Qwest Center Omaha and will be located near the new developing North Downtown entertainment district and the historic Old Market.

Amenities include:

360 degree open concourses
14,000 reserved seats
5,292 general admission seating (outfield)
4,708 box seats
28 luxury skyboxes
a fan festivity area

The total cost will be $138.9 million. It will be paid for using $60 million in public funding (an increase in hotel and rental car tax), $38 million tied into stadium revenues, and $43 million in private contributions (naming rights, etc.)

Renderings:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4361/rendering6ll8.jpg

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1280/rendering5vs8.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9127/rendering1hc0.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7025/rendering4xm5.jpg

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4416/rendering3jc3.jpg

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2971/rendering2wj1.jpg

It's a shame that Rosenblatt will be no more, but this looks great.

Yeah I have to say that this place looks great. Lets see what happens.

I love the new stadium. Rosenblatt was really starting to look worn down.

Rosenblatt has too much history to be replaced. Besides, it is Texas' north home.

Rosenblatt has too much history to be replaced. Besides, it is Texas' north home.

I agree, Rosenblatt has a great history, but after studying their options for the last 6 months, the stadium oversight committee discovered that a total renovation of Rosenblatt would cost the taxpayers the same amount of money as it would to build a new stadium. So it came down to what option will best meet the needs of the NCAA and allow us to gain the longest contract extension with the NCAA (Renovated blatt would have gotten us 10 vs 25-30 at a new stadiuim). It will be sad to see it go, but I bet by 2012 everyone will be saying Rosenblatt who?

It's about time we proposed a 20,000-seat stadium for a proper replacement of Rosenblatt Stadium as the host of the College World Series. They were considering a new baseball stadium that had a capacity of less than 10,000 seats which can be expanded to about 25,000 for the college world series. I didn't like that plan because the stadium's expansion for the CWS would be a frequent waste of money.

Wouldn't surprise me if, if their attendance stays low, the Royals decide to play a few games here every year.

Wow, good job Omaha. I've noticed Omaha is kinda in a boom right now. That's great to hear.

Nice stadium, 24000 is a lot for a AAA team though, be prepared to see lots of green seats during games. But IIRC, Rosenblatt was pretty big too right? So why bother with a new one? With the history of Rosenblatt and all.

Nice stadium, 24000 is a lot for a AAA team though, be prepared to see lots of green seats during games. But IIRC, Rosenblatt was pretty big too right? So why bother with a new one? With the history of Rosenblatt and all.

Rosenblatt seats about 1,000 less than the new stadium. The reasons for building a new park were less about being bigger and more about amenities that are impossible to have at Rosenblatt. There was a huge demand for suites, which would be difficult to build at Rosenblatt, open concources, which are impossible to add to Rosenblatt, and the desire for a better location (Rosenblatt is in a residential neighborhood in South Omaha). Also, there are a lot of structural problems with Rosenblatt that would be difficult to address. Although the place will look empty for Royals games, their attendence should increase thanks to the new stadium effect and the better location.

A little update for everyone, this is pretty close to a done deal. The city is currently negotiating with MECA (the entity that runs the Qwest Center and Civic Auditorium) to run the stadium, and will soon be sitting down with the Royals and Creighton to work out leases. They have already gotten tenative NCAA approval and will negotiate contract extensions for the CWS (no less than 20 years) in late April. The city council does have to pass the hotel and rental car tax, but that will not be a problem.

Should be open for the 2011 CWS. :banana:

It's a great design, but I hate seeing these good old stadiums torn down.

On a side note, Omaha's soccer stadium (Morrison Stadium) is among the nation's best. Omaha really is collecting some great sports venues.

It's a great design, but I hate seeing these good old stadiums torn down.

On a side note, Omaha's soccer stadium (Morrison Stadium) is among the nation's best. Omaha really is collecting some great sports venues.

Morrison Stadium is the best. I, a non soccer fan, have gone to several games just because it is a wonderful facility with beautiful views of downtown. And of course the fact that Creighton is becoming one of the premier college soccer programs in the nation.

Here are some photos:
http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics9/400/BC/BCVKESABBBKGPSW.20070817212258.jpg
http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics21/400/KE/KECNUNYAQSAIXLY.20070817212528.jpg
http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics28/400/LE/LEHRBWATGNIJBNN.20070817212535.jpg
http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics14/400/AX/AXKGIEWBJYOMAZF.20070817212545.JPG
http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics3/400/OI/OICEIBLSNHVOEYK.20070817213236.jpg

Rosenblatt seats about 1,000 less than the new stadium. The reasons for building a new park were less about being bigger and more about amenities that are impossible to have at Rosenblatt. There was a huge demand for suites, which would be difficult to build at Rosenblatt, open concources, which are impossible to add to Rosenblatt, and the desire for a better location (Rosenblatt is in a residential neighborhood in South Omaha). Also, there are a lot of structural problems with Rosenblatt that would be difficult to address. Although the place will look empty for Royals games, their attendence should increase thanks to the new stadium effect and the better location.

A little update for everyone, this is pretty close to a done deal. The city is currently negotiating with MECA (the entity that runs the Qwest Center and Civic Auditorium) to run the stadium, and will soon be sitting down with the Royals and Creighton to work out leases. They have already gotten tenative NCAA approval and will negotiate contract extensions for the CWS (no less than 20 years) in late April. The city council does have to pass the hotel and rental car tax, but that will not be a problem.

Should be open for the 2011 CWS. :banana:


Good explination, thanks. Here in Buffalo when the neew stadium was built attendance more than quadrupled, to about 16,000 per game (20,000 capacity when opened). It stayed that way for 6 or 7 years and gradually petered out to about 8 or 9,000 per game now. Still well above the AAA average though. I expect the same would happen in Omaha, you guys support your team pretty well.

http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics14/400/AX/AXKGIEWBJYOMAZF.20070817212545.JPG

That is a nice looking little stadium, who plays there?

http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics14/400/AX/AXKGIEWBJYOMAZF.20070817212545.JPG

That is a nice looking little stadium, who plays there?
It is Creighton University's stadium. Both the Men's and Women's teams play there. I believe Creighton is in the Top 10 attendance wise currently in both men's and women's soccer. It opened 5 years ago but the stadium wasn't finished until 4. They actually played there for 1 season while the place was being finished.

In regards to the Royals. They have been trying to get a smaller 10,000 seat stadium built downtown for about 6 years now. When they first brought up the idea, they were pretty much laughed at and told the city wouldn't fund it. So they tried to get money from the state through some entertainment redevelopment tax break and got shot down 3 years in a row. Then last May the city and NCAA announced they wanted to move downtown. The initial plan was to make the stadium with 10,000 seats and expandable seating but the NCAA said no way. So it will be interesting to see how their attendance does.

As many of you would know, Philadelphia was just awarded an expansion MLS team, bringing the total to 16 teams.

One big reason they won over other cities is because of this beauty of a stadium they have planned.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/late1/chesterstadium01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/late1/chesterstadium02.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/late1/chesterstadiummap.jpg

At first glance it looks bigger than 18.5k.

Nice looking stadium!

Very good :cheers:

When i say no matter the capacity or budget !! Just design is important!!

I see an American style brick exterior topped by a European style roof, Bit the roof is supported by open pillars letting in the breeze in summer. Two levels on one side and one on the other three, just like many of the new MLS stadiums, but that roof is just wonderful. looks great to me.

Quite progressive for a MLS stadium, well done! How far is it from the city centre?

Wow, this one is sweet! I've seen that roof line somewhere!?

Yup, Le Havre (France) project has the same kind roofline!

This project has a wonderful location, what's the cap? looks like 23000? Who designed it?

Just went on the MLS website and counted 14 active franchises, hngcm you say that Philly will be the 16th, so who's 15th?

Seattle Washington, Reported a month or two ago

I'm not an MLS basher, but this just looks like the usual MLS stadium with a fancy roof. Also, where's all the parking?

And really...Chester? Not sure that's quite the soccer crowd right there.

looks like a nice location

Nice stadium, dodgy location. It really is quite a distance away from downtown Philly.

But nice stadium none the less. When its finished, it may just become the best stadium in the MLS; even better than the U/C Red Bull Park.

Wow, this one is sweet! I've seen that roof line somewhere!?

Yup, Le Havre (France) project has the same kind roofline!

This project has a wonderful location, what's the cap? looks like 23000? Who designed it?

Just went on the MLS website and counted 14 active franchises, hngcm you say that Philly will be the 16th, so who's 15th?

The cap is 18,500.

Seattle Washington, Reported a month or two ago

You're right, the sounders! It completely slipped my mind!

I hope that Vancouver can finally get its stadium off the ground so I can go back to my USL favorite rivalry!


18,500, it's small but at the same time it's the right size for MLS stadium right now! Well it's still a very good looking stadium anyway!

It's a good size, and considering the demographics for soccer in Philly I would say that Chester is a good fit.

Alright Philly.

You're right, the sounders! It completely slipped my mind!

I hope that Vancouver can finally get its stadium off the ground so I can go back to my USL favorite rivalry!


18,500, it's small but at the same time it's the right size for MLS stadium right now! Well it's still a very good looking stadium anyway!

The Seattle team doesnt have a name yet. But I'd bet good money the fans voted for the Sounders

I like it, nice arena. When will it be finished?

terraces?

I like it, nice arena. When will it be finished?

2010

the capacity is now listed as 20,000

Thanks.

Luv it :]

terraces?

Is that even a question? Why would they ever allow terraces in North America?

Is that even a question? Why would they ever allow terraces in North America?

Houston currently has terraces.

This will do a lot of good to help revitalize Chester, hopefully.

several college basketball arenas have some standing terraces, although thats about it (and apperently Houston), although I don't think there are any laws against them in any state I know of.

Houston currently has terraces.

Isn't that a high school stadium?

Probably the best MLS- dedicated stadiums to be built. DC's upcoming stadium is nice as well.

Isn't that a high school stadium?

College mostly, University of Houston

Probably the best MLS- dedicated stadiums to be built. DC's upcoming stadium is nice as well.

What's the status on Poplar point?

What's the status on Poplar point?

I posed the same question on the DC pages. Here's the responses:

So the development looks awesome, and I'm glad they're still at least talking about a stadium on the site. But I haven't been totally keeping up on the news about the development (being all the way over here in Seattle). So was the original development proposed by the team itself, and this is a proposal from a new developer? Is this a new plan from the DC united? What sort of things is the optionalness of the stadium decided on?


The original development was by MacFarlane who is one of the owners of the soccer team. Fenty reneged and wanted to see more options. The Clark development was chosen and MacFarlane is working with them to integrate a stadium into the Poplar Point development. The "optionalness" has to do with the funding of the stadium. Originally MacFarlane was going to build the stadium with his money but he wanted infrastructure improvements to the area that would come from the city funds. The figure given for infrastructure was too high so that's why Fenty reneged. Now, if they can come to an agreement about the funding, I don't see any reason why this won't go forward. A lot of public funds were used in the construction of the Nationals stadium across the river so that has left a sour taste in many peoples mouths.

But also be aware that there are a lot of people that don't want any public funds going towards the stadium at all. Some of the bonds for the Nats stadium will be raised before a specified time frame that were stipulated for the bonds, I don't know maybe 20 yrs or something. That excess money was to go back to the businesses from which the bonds were being raised. But with this United stadium, Fenty wants to give the excess funds to the Poplar Pt. development. Businesses don't like that so there will be more politics in the process, but in the long run I think it gets approved.

Isn't that a high school stadium?

It's a college football stadium. The stadium used to have bleachers, however they were removed so that the Houston footy supporters could have a nice terrace. Well that, and they were constantly breaking the bleachers....

Saw this on another thread, and I've seen it here and there when discussing US '94 and future hosting possibilities for the USA, but why exactly is/was the Rose Bowl perceived as an unsuitable venue for the final? Considering that its arguably the most famous and historical stadium in a country obsessed with stadiums, set firmly in a cultural and footy hotbed, I question whether the vitriol its simply "world arrogance" that the USA got to finally host the world's biggest event, or if there is a more valid reason.

I've been to the Rose Bowl numerous times. Its gorgeous. Old, but gorgeous. We value classic stadiums here, and I assume that some other countries do as well, particularly in the UK. I suspect when Arsenal moved from Highbury to Emirates, there was grumbling. Should ManU ever bounce from Old Trafford, there would be many decrying the move.

Moreover, the RB was able to hold over 94,000 spectators, which, to my recollection, was second only to Azteca, though i could be remembering incorrectly. There was no other venue that could hold something this valuable, but also in a suitable environment as far as interest in the sport goes (e.g., Michigan Stadium, Neyland Stadium)

Anyway, I enjoy the setting of the RB, though not for the creature comforts as the modern stadiums have. It is a modern day "arena-for-the-ages". I hope it is never destroyed. Besides, you just have to sit in the thing for an hour and a half.

I suspect that much of the disdain comes from the match itself, which was poorly played and the biggest stars that day were very flat, but is NOT a reflection of field conditions, weather, or anything else related to the stadium or city itself. Can anyone enlighten?

The Maracana in Brazil had capacity of almost 200,000 when it opened (and about 100,000 at present) in 1950 for the record.
As far as I can tell the issues most Europeans have with the Rosebowl are three fold: one there is an extreme distaste for bleachers in europe which I cant eplain, two the Rosebowl has a very shallow pitch which is seen as disadvantagous for sightlines and atmosphere, and finally it does not have roof, which most Europeans will consider a must. And I suspect there is a splash of anti-American sentiment.
I wouldn't change much but, I appreciate as American Football holy ground.

However when you compare it to the numerous final match hosts with athletics tracks (Berlin Olympic, Yokohama ect) I think it stacks up pretty well in terms of capacity, sightlines and proximity to the field.

Okay, well lets call the '66 cup the beginning of the modern era, both in world cup football and in stadium construction. This cup was hosted by England and as the obvious choice for the final, we had

WEMBLEY '66:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1966wembleyengland.jpg

which, at the time were the holy grounds for football. It almost gets a free pass on this alone, but opened one year later than the RB and could not withstand irrelevance by the end of the century.

AZTECA '70 & '86:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1970aztecamexico.jpg

which was built in '66, and largely irrelevant by '86. Apart from the bench seating in the upper mezzanine, the grandstands sit far from the pitch. I will fully admit, though, that Mexico has a HUGE and DISTINCT advantage playing in this football palace, as the elevation, dirty air, and volume in the stands makes Azteca one of the most difficult places to play in the world. As a host for a WC final though, i don't see how it outlasts the Rose Bowl outright.

OLYMPIASTADION '74:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1974olmpiastadionmunich.jpg

Are you kidding? A complete mess for hosting football, complete with track and unused space surrounding the pitch up to a good 40 yards. The Rose Bowl destroys this by a mile, almost literally

ESTADIO RIVER PLATE '78:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1978estadioriverplatebeunosaries.jpg

I've seen Argentina play in this stadium before, and although the atmosphere is literally second to none, it could HARDLY be deemed suitable for bull fighting, much less the premier sporting event on the planet. You don't like bench seating? how about concrete blocks? The stadium sways back and forth and feels dangerous. Sheesh. Rose Bowl outlasts this one as well.

BERNEBEU '82:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1982santiagobernabeu.jpg

Another legendary ground made perfectly for viewing football. No complaints, it outclasses the RB in terms of footy watching in every aspect.

STADIOOLYMPICO '90:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1990stadioolympicoroma.jpg

Another afterthought as far as WC final stadiums go. Horrible sightlines, removed from the action, etc. Winner: RB

STADE DE FRANCE '98
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1998stadedefrance.jpg

Again, the distance too great from the endlines and sidelines for intimacy. I guess the roof is what really matters for WC finals, I'm starting to sense.

YOKOHAMA '02
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/2002yokohamajapan.jpg

I feel like I'm just repeating myself here.

BERLIN '06
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/2006olympicstadiamberlin.jpg

The goals are a mile from the touchline. But hey! There's a roof after all!

ROSE BOWL '94
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/amadhatter/Google%20Grounds/World%20Cup%20Venues/1994rosebowlpasadena.jpg

This pic shows american football configuration, but the football pitch is actually much wider and buts up intimately against the grandstands.

Personally, I feel that the RB wins out over all but Spain and England, and was underrated as a finals venue.

40Acres, I have to agree. Apart from the Rose Bowl having no roof and thus no protection for the fans from the elements (hot Californian sun for one), I see the RB as one of the best World Cup Final stadiums there has ever been.

However, in the USA there are plenty of other stadiums which would be more than capable of holding the final. Namely.....

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (92,000)
FedEx Field (91,655)
Beaver Stadium (107,282)
Michigan Stadium (107,501)
Neyland Stadium (104,479)

The list goes on and on from pro football stadiums to college stadiums. The problem seems to stem from quite a few of the larger stadiums not having a roof (Rose Bowl, LA Coliseum, FedEx Field, Giants Stadium etc).

With regards to the roof situation, if they are worried about the heat of the day for spectators and players, play the damn games at night.

Interesting thread. I didn't realise their was such angst against the Rose Bowl being chosen as the w.c final stadium. However why was it chosen as the LA stadium instead of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum? Both are similar IMO. From your photo comparisons I feel that Madrids Bernebeu and Paris's Stade de France can rival how close the spectators are to the pitch. I think your Stade de France photo doesn't do it justice the fans are closer then that, but not as close as the Rose Bowl. Heres another stade de france photo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/CIMG0021.JPG
(Alright behind the goal their not as close as I thought, but their closer then the old wembley, the Stade de France is a great stadium)

Its worth also mentioning that the Rose Bowl is one of only two stadiums to host both a mens and womens world cup final! So it must be considered a good stadium by Fifa. I suppose another question you should ask is, "Where else should the final have been played in the states?" I think the obvious answer would have been New York, however if Washington D.C or Chicago have had larger stadiums at the time maybe they would have been considered. Yes their are larger stadiums than the Rose Bowl in the U.S e.g Beaver Stadium in the State of Pennsylvania & Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But come on these places can't hold a World Cup Final it has to be held in an internationally known city and Los Angeles is that. I feel that it was the correct stadium to be used for the final, the city has the resources and experience to host such an event, and it was the largest stadium used in the tournament. It just had to host the final!

If USA hosts WC again it will be the worst decision by FIFA. It's a shame already that USA hosted WC in 1994. It makes no sense that FIFA gives a right to host WC to a country where most of people don't know even what football is.

^^ I agree completely.

If USA hosts WC again it will be the worst decision by FIFA. It's a shame already that USA hosted WC in 1994. It makes no sense that FIFA gives a right to host WC to a country where most of people don't know even what football is.

I expect America will host it again but I hope not as soon as 2018, I feel thats a little unfair. However your comment about American's not knowing what football is, is a weak argument, they do know what it is 19 million americans play the game. The reason football is not as big in the U.S as the rest of world is due to many factors. 1. Because of British colonialism and its global presence spread this very simple game across the world. 2. When Britain tried to spread it to America, it rejected the game because Americans associated football with old imperialist Europe and didn't want it sport's to be part of culture in the "New World", and so created its own sports Baseball, American Football etc.

He are some facts about the success of the 1994 World Cup. During the 1994 W.C match between Morrocco and Saudi Arabia played in New Jersey's Giants stadium, it drew a crowd of more than 72,000 on a Wednesday afternoon. Its presumptuous to assume that this contest would not have drawn one-fifth of the figure in either Italia 90 or Mexico 86 the two preceding world cup hosts. As in these countries which have core football fans, the fans would have found it beneath their interest to attend a game contested by such mediocre teams. My next point is USA 94 set and still holds the highest average attendance of a fifa World Cup that of 68,991. I could go on and on and on, I shall not as this thread is about stadium architecture not about globalisation of sports, but Carrerra I hope you get my point that americans do know what football is!

Regardless of how many Americans know what football is, now that continental rotation policy in hosting WC is abandoned there will be no more WC in USA as long as football is treated like minor sports there.

In case of 1994 WC it was North America's turn to host the tournament but Mexico had already WC twice and there was no country which could afford WC except USA therefore 1994 WC had to go to USA. But this kind of fluke is not by USA side any more because the rotation system is not in effect from bids for 2018 WC.

As I said 19 million people play football in the states, thats just under a third of the population of Great Britain. Football in the states won't ever become the biggest sport as its other sports are too much part of its culture. However it could one day overtake the NHL to be 4th largest. With regards to it being North America's turn in 1994 you are wrong, if any it was South America's as that continent had not hosted since 1978 with North America previously hosting in 1986. However for the 1994 W.C bids the USA beat Morocco and football mad Brazil for the rights to host. So I don't think that is a "fluke"! America was chosen as it could create a large amount of money from the tournament, and fifa could take its biggest football tournament into a new market. Also the roation policy wasn't used in 1994 as you implied. Finally I feel America will hold the tournament again one day as its the worlds super power and can't be ignored, I doubt it will be 2018 but maybe by 2032.

Fed Ex Field wasn't built at the time of the '94 WC, so FIFA chose RFK stadium as the site. The problem with RFK was 1)extremely outdated without being "a classic" and 2) only 56k could fit inside.

When you consider that the RB could almost double that, it makes sense to have held it there

Places like State College, PA; Ann Arbor, MI; Knoxville, TN; et al don't have the footy cache to have hosted the final. Also, Detroit DID host, which is only a few miles from Ann Arbor.

RFK '94
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/284764.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED73A672E84795D242284831B75F48EF45

Rose Bowl '94
http://www.skypic.com/sports/11-5556.jpg

I think that looks absolutely gorgeous. The massive amount of humanity watching a football match in the RB is amazing.

As a side note, I've yet to hear a compelling argument "why" the US should not hold another WC in the near-to-distant future. The tired line: "they don't care" certainly doesn't hold water, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Also, the immigrant population in the US alone could sell out each stadium two-fold. FIFA sees the money making potential, with ticket sales, merchandising, TV contracts, et al. You think FIFA's primary concern is "the good of the game?" Bwahahaha.

is the rose bowl an all seater, that means proper seats with backs to them not benches? because to hold a world cup event it has to have that.

He are some facts about the success of the 1994 World Cup. During the 1994 W.C match between Morrocco and Saudi Arabia played in New Jersey's Giants stadium, it drew a crowd of more than 72,000 on a Wednesday afternoon. Its presumptuous to assume that this contest would not have drawn one-fifth of the figure in either Italia 90 or Mexico 86 the two preceding world cup hosts. As in these countries which have core football fans, the fans would have found it beneath their interest to attend a game contested by such mediocre teams. My next point is USA 94 set and still holds the highest average attendance of a fifa World Cup that of 68,991. I could go on and on and on, I shall not as this thread is about stadium architecture not about globalisation of sports, but Carrerra I hope you get my point that americans do know what football is!

This is actually a really good point. There's one thing about Americans people should figure out - we love our big events. People may not have much of a desire to watch a Columbus Crew-Kansas City Wizards match on a Wednesday but put a big name on an event and say it's the World championship of something and Americans will flock to it. Look at the Olympics, no one cares about gymnastics, figure skating, track, swimming, etc for four years, then suddenly everyone goes crazy over all these sports for a two week period.

If USA hosts WC again it will be the worst decision by FIFA. It's a shame already that USA hosted WC in 1994. It makes no sense that FIFA gives a right to host WC to a country where most of people don't know even what football is.
Most people? That hardly matters in a nation with so many people. Why do you think '94 had the highest attendance?

Krudmonk, the most likely explanation as to why USA holds the record for highest average attemdance is because it was able to provide enough stadia of relevant quality with high capacities. If you consider that America has a population comparable to Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain combined, then took the largest available stadia in those countries, I'm sure that attendance records would be close to being equalled or bettered. The main reason why USA was able to have such a large average attendance was because the average capacity of the stadia used was so much larger than those in subsequent world cups in France and Germany. If we compare, the average capacity of a stadium used in 1994 was 72,333. Compare that with 45,260 for France and 52,850 for Germany. I don't mean this to take anything away from the 1994 world cup but I'd say it would be a massive disappointment if a country with a population as large as that of the USA and with the stadium infrastructure that the USA has available didn't have the largest average attendance in world cup history, especially given that the average attendance in USA is considerably larger than the average capacity of stadia used in France and Germany. If we took the 10 largest stadia in in the five countries mentioned above and held a world cup in those, I think it would easily improve upon the average attendance in USA.

Off the top of my head, the ten largest available stadia in those five countres:

Spain - Barcelona - Camp Nou - 99,000
England - London - Wembley - 90,000
Italy - Milano - San Siro - 85,000
France - Saint-Denis - Stade de France - 80,000
Spain - Madrid - Bernebeu - 80,000
England - Manchester - Old Trafford - 76,000
Wales - Cardiff - Millennium Stadium - 74,000
Germany - Berlin - Olympic Stadium - 74,000
Italy - Rome - Stadio Olympico - 72,000
Scotland - Edinburgh - Murrayfield - 67,500


Average capacity: 79, 750

Note: I've deliberately excluded either the Delle Alpi or Stadio San Paolo.

In general, I would judge a world cup final stadium by its capacity first and then other criteria that would be considered more as comfort. I'm sure, for example, that the extra 7,000 or so that were able to get tickets for the final because it held in the Berlin Olympic Stadium weren't overly concerned with the athletics track or pillars, simply because it meant that they got tickets. Sightlines, aesthetics and even comfort should really be secondary to the number of people in the stadium, as long as the stadium itself is safe to hold that number of people. With that in mind, the Rose Bowl, while not a stadium to my particular tastes, is the best world cup final venue for a good while.

Krudmonk, the most likely explanation as to why USA holds the record for highest average attemdance is because it was able to provide enough stadia of relevant quality with high capacities. If you consider that America has a population comparable to Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain combined, then took the largest available stadia in those countries, I'm sure that attendance records would be close to being equalled or doubled. The main reason why USA was able to have such a large average attendance was because the average capacity of the stadia used was so much larger than those in subsequent world cups in France and Germany.

Very true regarding your comparison to Germany, France, UK Italy, etc; but that is not the point of the knock vs the US is it?

The point is, in fact, that the US was able to fill up those large stadiums despite the misconception that "Americans don't care about football", which is patently false. It was NOT a comparison to the potential of Europe's or S. America's attendances given similar stadiums.

Ironically, this lends to an even STRONGER case that the US should host more often given its ability to construct large stadiums, ease of entry, inexpensive travel accommodations, and extensive mass transit capabilities. Seriously, for you Europeans, this would be an excellent excuse to use our backyard as your playground with the devaluation of the $ to the Euro. I would jump at that chance in a second. Its hard for us Americans to travel to Western Europe at this point, and my last three vacations were in S. America, E. Europe, and Canada/Mexico

I know that is not the reality, but if the case isn't made for a US WC in the near future, then it just appears as world arrogance against the US hosting its premier sporting event. And yes, I would understand it the hatred and/or jealousy.

Can we try to stay on the topic of the Rose Bowl, and its perceived fallacies, which I am beginning to sense is blind envy?

To answer the question about the all-seater, no the RB is not an all-seater. So, i suppose that exceptions were made for the US -- oh FIFA and that almighty (at the time) dollar.

Face the facts, a World Cup in America will be a success for FIFA in many aspects...of course, if you are not retarded and think logically, you'll realize we deserve it again.
Some of you idiots are really trying to make some pathetic attempt to downplay the 94 World Cup, which set attendance records EVEN THOUGH USA 'doesnt care' about futbol :lol::lol:

If USA hosts WC again it will be the worst decision by FIFA. It's a shame already that USA hosted WC in 1994. It makes no sense that FIFA gives a right to host WC to a country where most of people don't know even what football is.

:nuts: You're a complete idiot!

40 Acres, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to take anything away from the 1994 World Cup - for a single country to be able to provide the necessary stadium and transport infrastructure for average attendances of close to 70,000 is massively impressive and well beyond the grasp of any single European nation and, indeed, probably any joint bid from European nations. Given how regularly European football teams play and the frequent games against relatively low quality of opposition teams, not to mention the sheer volume of teams in many areas, there simply isn't the demand for so many large stadia within one country. The capacity of the USA to provide such impessive transport and stadium infrastructure is, indeed, a strong basis for a future world cup to be held in USA and I, for one, wouldn't oppose it. Football is still about the fans and a place that can get so many fans into games and offer such large ticket availibilty should not be overlooked because of certain perceptions.

That said, I think there are other nations who should be given a chance before USA, given how relatively recently the USA held the championships. Australia and England, for example. To rule out the USA on any other grounds would seem arrogant but offering other nations the chance to host it for the first time, such as Australia, or for the first time in over half a century (England by the time any English bid would be accepted) should be perceived, only, as a more 'equal' distribution of the championships. I'd say USA should be considered a candidate no sooner than 2022.

Can we try to stay on the topic of the Rose Bowl, and its perceived fallacies, which I am beginning to sense is blind envy?

As I said above, I don't like the Rose Bowl as a stadium, however this does not change my opinion that it was one of the best stadia for a world cup final, simply because it gave so many people a chance to see a final they would not have seen had it been held elsewhere. If I recall correctly, the second largest stadium used in 1994 was the Silverdome. Ultimately, I think the Silverdome is a better stadium for soccer than the Rose Bowl in almost every way but I'm sure the extra 10,000 people who got tickets for the Rose Bowl weren't terribly fussed about where they'd get a better view of the game.

I wouldn't put the view of most people down to envy, more a misperception about what makes a suitable world cup final venue. There was similiar, if not greater vitriol aimed towards the Berlin Olympic Stadium in the run into the 2006 world cup because it had an athletics track and the roof was supported by pillars and I'm sure some will have complaints, come 2014, that the Maracana is circular and offers poor sightlines. The opposition is based, I think, on an ideal of what a world cup final stadium should be and I fear that too many people miss out on the most important thing that the world cup final stadium should have - the largest available capacity. Everything else is secondary to capacity and I think too many people miss that. It really is nothing to do with victimisation of America as some seem to have suggested elsewhere.

I had the chance to attend this year's Rose bowl game (American Football). My seats were pretty high up and in the corners but visability was pretty good. I realize that the Rose bowl is not covered but Pasadena's mild climate tends to make that unnecessary. It certainly didn't bother me at the game I attended. More of a problem might be that the venue is pretty old. Seating is on benches. No seat backs. Toilet facilities and refreshments mean going outside the stadium proper which might be a problem for some.

Still there is no reason I can see not to have the WC in California again. I believe we set attendence records for the event. Even though soccer is not the number one sport in America, it still has plenty of fans. We have two professional teams in LA. The hispanic half of the city cares about football a great deat. If you read our Spanish language newspaper La Opinion, you find a great deal of news about football NHL hockey, not so much.

I do think there is some hostility to America as a venue especially from many of the European posters. There is always a double standard in judging our facilities and environment compared to the rest of the world. I remember the criticism of "LA smog" during the 84 Olympics, for instance. The Spaniards were so worried about the smog, that they forced the equestrian events into San Diego county even though the air is just as bad in Barcelona, and much better than the air in Seoul or Beijing.

The WC in LA was a great party. I wish you could have it here again.

The ballpark overcame a HUGE hurdle yesterday, as it reached a compromise with the Metropolitan Entertainment and Convention Authority (MECA), the management group who runs the Qwest Center and the Civic Auditorium.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10298622

Tuesday's announcement was the result of negotiations between the city and MECA over the past week. To reach the deal, the city gave ground on two key issues:

• The city gave up the authority to develop the remaining convention center and arena parking lots without the permission and involvement of MECA.

• MECA gained the right to develop the former Pinnacle plant property at 10th Street and Capitol Avenue. That site would be used temporarily as a parking lot but eventually would be developed into a full-service convention hotel.

What did the city get in return?

"We get lots C and E," Fahey said.

There is still a long way to go. The city still needs to finish negotiations with the Omaha Royals and Creighton University, as well as iron out a contract (20+ year minimum) with the NCAA. City officials will be in Indianapolis on April 21 to give them a "progress report," in which they should respond with a contract of 20 or more years. The contract must then be voted on by the City Council and CWS Inc. If approved (which it should, council vote looks to be 6-1), the council will vote on the taxes, bond issues, and bidding for the stadium.

By the end of the month, we will know for sure if this will become a reality, right now, we are stuck on 99%. :)

One thing I have noticed with the World Cup Final venue. Now it may or may not be a coincidence but.....almost every final has been held in the capital city of the host country. Remember I said almost. Brazil 50, West Germany 74, USA 94 & South Korea/Japan 02 were the exceptions.

On the whole, it is not always the stadium with the largest capacity which hosts the final. If the capital city of the host country has a large enough stadium with a capacity somewhere close to the largest stadium's then more often than not it will host the final.

In the case of those capital cities that haven't hosted their countries World Cup Final, the stadium in use there obviously wasn't anywhere near the capacity that FIFA wanted. Also, the stadium I believe had to be in a city of significant population. Obviously Rio, Munich, Pasadena (Los Angeles) and Yokohama (s/w of Tokyo) fitted the bill nicely.

Brazil 50 - Maracanã, 200,000 (Rio de Janeiro)
Capital, Brasilia. Brasilia's largest stadium in 1950 - Unknown, though doubtful it could hold near 200,000.

West Germany 74 - Munich Olympiastadion, 76,000 (Munich)
Capital, West Berlin. Berlin's largest stadium in 1974 - Berlin Olympiastation, 80,000 (at the time).

USA 94 - Rose Bowl, 95,000 (Pasadena)
Capital, Washington DC. DC's largest stadium in 1994 - RFK Stadium, 56,000

South Korea/Japan - International Stadium, 73,000 (Japan) (Yokohama)
South Korea Capital, Seoul. Seoul's largest stadium in 2002 - Jasmil Olympic Stadium, 70,000 (not used at all during WC)
Japan Capital, Tokyo. Tokyo's largest stadium in 2002 - National Olympic Stadium, 57,500 (not used at all during WC)

The main backgrounds of many American posters in regards to America's hosting WC again are based on the fact that 1994 WC had sawn the highest attendance but they need to know that proceeds from sales of tickets don't account for much in WC. The main parts for successful Worldcup economically come from TV broadcasting rights and commercial sponsors which don't have much to do with expected attendance figures ^^

So Carrerra what are you suggesting here that America can't produce a successful w.c because it can't produce commercial sponsors or TV broadcasting? Of the 15 official fifa W.C sponsors 7 are american companies.

Carrerra your 1st post said that america shouldn't have hosted or host again because they don't know what football is. Then people responded to prove your argument wrong by using the w.c 1994 highest average attendance fact among others. Now if your suggesting that America the biggest capitalist country in the world, with the largest media broadcasters in the world, with the largest economy in the world and the biggest consumers in the world can't put on a World Cup because they can't make money for fifa. The whole reason the 1994 W.C went to america was so they could make shit loads of money for fifa, which they did! Your arguments get weaker and weaker with every post!

1.So Carrerra what are you suggesting here that America can't produce a successful w.c because it can't produce commercial sponsors or TV broadcasting? Of the 15 official fifa W.C sponsors 7 are american companies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-> Any companies in other countries who wish to be global player would take the place of 7 American sponsors if they give up sponsoring for FIFA because the sponsorship will give them enormous global marketing.

2.Carrerra your 1st post said that america shouldn't have hosted or host again because they don't know what football is. Then people responded to prove your argument wrong by using the w.c 1994 highest average attendance fact among others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-> I admit I was wrong at saying it was North America's turn to host the 1994 tournament.

3.Now if your suggesting that America the biggest capitalist country in the world, with the largest media broadcasters in the world, with the largest economy in the world and the biggest consumers in the world can't put on a World Cup because they can't make money for fifa. The whole reason the 1994 W.C went to america was so they could make shit loads of money for fifa, which they did! Your arguments get weaker and weaker with every post!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-> It has nothing to do with football that USA is super power in world economy because it's not a big market in football and there is no sign that USA will be a big market in the future. Football in US will stay as a minor sport forever.

My point is this. If USA hosts WC again, you are not sure that the tournament will be more successful economically than it is hosted by other countries because sales of tickets don't matter much for economically successful Worldcup.

In this situation, it would be reasonable future worldcups go to other countries where football is the most popular sports instead of the country where football is a minor sport and there is no sign of becoming a major sport.

Remember that there are still many countries;

1.who are willing to host WC and can afford it and
2.where football is No.1 sport but
3.who haven't hosted it so far(Turkey, China, Russia, Holland, Middle East side etc) or had hosted so long time ago(England, Spain, Argentina, chile etc)

I think there is no room for USA in bids for Worldcup for this reason at least within 80 years!!!!!!

-> Any companies in other countries who wish to be global player would take the place of 7 American sponsors if they give up sponsoring for FIFA because the sponsorship will give them enormous global marketing.

Yep thats fair enough. But also if it came to America maybe more American companies would want to join up, this view can swing both ways.

-> It has nothing to do with football that USA is super power in world economy because it's not a big market in football and there is no sign that USA will be a big market in the future. Football in US will stay as a minor sport forever.

Yes I know that soccer won't be the biggest sport in America as I said before it has its own sports ingrained into its culture. However it can only grow bigger, and the MLS could one day overtake NHL Hockey! Also womens soccer in the States is the biggest in the world.

My point is this. If USA hosts WC again, you are not sure that the tournament will be more successful economically than it is hosted by other countries because sales of tickets don't matter much for economically successful Worldcup.

In this situation, it would be reasonable future worldcups go to other countries where football is the most popular sports instead of the country where football is a minor sport and there is no sign of becoming a major sport.

I understand your point and see the reason why W.C should go to countries where its popular to fullfill need of its followers. However in these such countries like UK, there is not much more room for growth, as there is so much football in these countries already the market for it is near enough full. So the reasons for taking it to countries like America & Australia etc is because there is room to get more people interested in football, buy its products and generate more wealth for it. Also with America it has the infrastructure in place to host a W.C tomorrow if it wanted, and so wouldn't have to spend millions on building stadiums, roads, hotels etc and thus create more profit.

양키놈 주제에 얼어뒤질 놈의 월드컵???????? ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 평생 너거들끼리 미식축구나 하고 살아라 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 그들만의 리그 언제까지 가나 보자 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

In English please.

Don't care about that. It was about wishing peace in Iraq and the world ^^

Off the topic what do you think of America's invading Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction which turned out to be Weapons of Mass Disappear later. Who will punish the misjudgement of USA which caused Mass Destruction of Iraqi people?

That said, I think there are other nations who should be given a chance before USA, given how relatively recently the USA held the championships. .

This is exactly right.

Yet, I can understand why the footballing nations would be alittle ticked off when their main sporting event is being taken across the globe to countries with less passion for the sport; it only happens every 4 years and this is another reason why many countries would be enraged since USA had it recently

Off the topic what do you think of America's invading Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction which turned out to be Weapons of Mass Disappear later. Who will punish the misjudgement of USA which caused Mass Destruction of Iraqi people?

We all do not agree with what our president and administration has done.
my country has fucked up that area, stationed itself around Iran on both sides, and is still in fucking IRaq
man, I hope we can just pull out of that whole area when we get a new prez; let some sort of healing process begin for the seething global population.

anyways, off topic, you shouldnt do that, etc

We all do not agree with what our president and administration has done.
my country has fucked up that area, stationed itself around Iran on both sides, and is still in fucking IRaq
man, I hope we can just pull out of that whole area when we get a new prez; let some sort of healing process begin for the seething global population.

anyways, off topic, you shouldnt do that, etc

I don't want to have further discussions with you Americans about whether USA is the right candidate for World Cup. That's what I meant in that post. Good Bye!

Off the topic what do you think of America's invading Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction which turned out to be Weapons of Mass Disappear later. Who will punish the misjudgement of USA which caused Mass Destruction of Iraqi people?

This is completely off topic and belongs on a different thread. I oppose the war in Iraq.

I think the USA shouldn't host W.C again until at least 2026 or 2030, 2018 is just too soon.

Saw this on another thread, and I've seen it here and there when discussing US '94 and future hosting possibilities for the USA, but why exactly is/was the Rose Bowl perceived as an unsuitable venue for the final? Considering that its arguably the most famous and historical stadium in a country obsessed with stadiums, set firmly in a cultural and footy hotbed, I question whether the vitriol its simply "world arrogance" that the USA got to finally host the world's biggest event, or if there is a more valid reason.?

I actually think 1994 was a very good World Cup. Full stadiums, and some classic games. The only disapointment was the final really. In terms of stadiums, I was watching on TV and not there, so all I cared about was that the stadium enhanced the ambience of the whole occasion.

The stadium used for the final no doubt had a lot going for it,e.g big capacity and fans close to the action but it did lack in certain ways.
Basically, for football, if you have shallow tiers you probably need a roof, so that the noise and atmosphere isnt lost to thin air.Chants can't catch on in a stadium with this design because the noise goes straight out of the stadium.

The World Cup Final 1994 lacked a proper football atmosphere. There was no communication across the tv of any chants, or much in the way of crowd reaction at all.If there is a sudden counter attack the defending team often has little time to think and can be unnerved if the crowd encourages the attacking team to go for the jugular. In a good stadium this type of thing is accentuated and enhances the whole drama of the game.

Having said that, most World Cup Final stadiums have been shit for various reasons and I dont see any reason why USA should be singled out, afterall as mentioned earlier, it was still a very good World Cup .

In response to people saying that the American World Cup attendance was only higher because of the stadium sizes, keep in mind That the U.S. got nearly 3.6 million in attendance (the tournament record) in only 52 games, compared to the 64 in all World Cups since.

I don't want to have further discussions with you Americans about whether USA is the right candidate for World Cup. That's what I meant in that post. Good Bye!

Yeah, because you lost the argument due to ignorance, and had to resort to more ignorance.

Scoots, again, I think that your post is misleading, in that you are playing around with statistics a little too much to suit your own needs; over the course of 52 games, the overall available capacity in USA was about 3,750,000, compared with a total overall available capacity of about 3,400,000 over the 64 games in Germany and 2,900,000 in France over those 64 games. Even though there were fewer games in USA, the number of tickets for sale overall was greater than in the two subsequent tournaments in Europe. I don't buy this attendance argument - given the various ways that I can play around with statistics, I can make a pretty valid argument for whatever I choose to. To be honest, I think the only revealing statistic we really have is percentage of overall capacity that was filled during the tournament; in USA, this was about 95.5%, 96% in France and 98.5% in Germany. I don't think that an overall difference of 3% is enough to draw inference here. In other words, given the massive differences in capacities across hosts and the change in format that we've seen, drawing inference from statistics, especially across the whole history of the world cup, is fairly difficult and it doesn't provide a good argument, or a good proxy for quality of a host nation.

As I said, the fact that the USA is able to provide enough quality stadia with this sort of capacity is hugely impressive and it should make the USA a top competitor for a future world cup bid but I still don't buy into the argument being formed in this thread that the USA did something particularly special to attact so many people through the gates. A world cup in itself will attract those sorts of crowds. The ability to provide stadia of that sort of capacity is massively impressive, the crowds themselves, I'm afraid, aren't.

Krudmonk, the most likely explanation as to why USA holds the record for highest average attemdance is because...
I conceded all of those points already. My argument was that the percentage of people who don't care for football/soccer is largely outweighed by the sheer numbers of people who live here. Thus, proportions are rendered useless because it was successful anyway.

As we know, 2010 will be in Africa, 2014 in Brazil - I'm one of those idiots who can't see beyond Europe for 2018, but 2022... With Europe and South America out, that would leave North/Central America with 'only' Asia and Africa to beat. The only serious competition for the USA in that area is Mexico, and as they've already had the finals twice, and as the US had a greater economy/population in it's favour, and FIFA's continued hope to push the sport in a huge market, I find it hard to imagine anyone getting the vote over the US in 2022 (especially if the Europeans get behind one country for 2018, then 'trade' votes with Jack Warner and Co. for 2022).

So, 2022 - USA. Best venue for the final... By then there could be any number of new venues.

Finally, as I understand it, FIFA regulations only require that the VIP/Media areas be covered, the regular supporters can still be out in the sun/rain.

me and my family attended the 94 world cup, we got tickets for 2 first round games at the rose bowl, first game was colombia vs rumania, then camerun vs sweden attendance above 90,000 in both games, im not sure if it was a complete sell out but in bot games the stadium looked full...

the athmosphere was great, but the sun and heat were horrible, and to get a drink or food was a nightmare,,, still with a +90,000 you will always get a experience of a lifetime.

Still spain, england, italy deserve first to get another world cup.

One thing I have noticed with the World Cup Final venue. Now it may or may not be a coincidence but.....almost every final has been held in the capital city of the host country. Remember I said almost. Brazil 50, West Germany 74, USA 94 & South Korea/Japan 02 were the exceptions.

actually, back in 1950, Rio de Janeiro was still the brazilian capital, since the construction of Brasilia would start just 9 years later.

What is today´s Rio de Janeiro state was a state called Guanabara, with its capital in Niteroi, and Rio de Janeiro city was the Federal District (a separate state)

Basically, for football, if you have shallow tiers you probably need a roof, so that the noise and atmosphere isnt lost to thin air.Chants can't catch on in a stadium with this design because the noise goes straight out of the stadium.



I was at the most recent Rose Bowl game. The chants and the crowd noise were transmitted very well. The stadium was very loud.

actually, I think the Azteca stadium in Mexico is EXCELLENT and much better and cooler than Rosebowl!!

(haha, both are MEXICAN stadiums :), in some sense)

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7786/s13sc.jpg
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2646/s29ak.jpg

If USA hosts WC again it will be the worst decision by FIFA. It's a shame already that USA hosted WC in 1994. It makes no sense that FIFA gives a right to host WC to a country where most of people don't know even what football is.

So I guess the most attended and most profitable FIFA WC ever was a mistake?

Also in term of general fan support, let me just mention that the Los Angeles Galaxy had its home opener today at the Home Depot Center. All 27,000 seats were sold out. Bekham had a goal and an assist BTW. Plenty of support for football in LA.

So I guess the most attended and most profitable FIFA WC ever was a mistake?
Funny how people conveniently forget that FACT.


USA '94 was great and would be even better should they host the tournament again.

Funny how people conveniently forget that FACT.


USA '94 was great and would be even better should they host the tournament again.

The next FIFA WC in the USA would be 5 times bigger than WC '94.

I think the problem with the Rose Bowl is the low gradient of the grandstands, which spoils the atmosphere and the sightness, and makes the closeness to the pitch pretty much futile.
Are there some pics from the stands available?

Here are a couple, for a 90,000 seater it really is fairly close in, just shallow pitch of the bowl makes it feel smaller and more open, its got a very elegant curveture though. I kind of like being able to the trees and hills rise up around the Rose Bowl, really gives it a unique feel in this country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Rose_Bowl%2C_panorama.jpg

http://joss.thescholtens.com/media/The%20Rose%20Bowl/Longhorn%20Band%201.jpg

http://joss.thescholtens.com/media/The%20Rose%20Bowl/Start%20of%20game.jpg

And here is link to the renovation plan, its a pretty big pdf
http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/pdfs/RoseBowlmasterplan.pdf

As we know, 2010 will be in Africa, 2014 in Brazil - I'm one of those idiots who can't see beyond Europe for 2018, but 2022... With Europe and South America out, that would leave North/Central America with 'only' Asia and Africa to beat. The only serious competition for the USA in that area is Mexico, and as they've already had the finals twice, and as the US had a greater economy/population in it's favour, and FIFA's continued hope to push the sport in a huge market, I find it hard to imagine anyone getting the vote over the US in 2022 (especially if the Europeans get behind one country for 2018, then 'trade' votes with Jack Warner and Co. for 2022).

So, 2022 - USA. Best venue for the final... By then there could be any number of new venues.

Finally, as I understand it, FIFA regulations only require that the VIP/Media areas be covered, the regular supporters can still be out in the sun/rain.

I could certainly live with that!

Here are a couple, for a 90,000 seater it really is fairly close in, just shallow pitch of the bowl makes it feel smaller and more open, its got a very elegant curveture though. I kind of like being able to the trees and hills rise up around the Rose Bowl, really gives it a unique feel in this country.


Wow, I thought the sightline was much worse. Not bad at all and a very unique feel indeed.

Whilst on the subject of WC Finals in the USA, I think that a lot of memories of US94 are tainted because the standard of football, in terms of negative tactics, a lack of flair, etc., was pretty uninspiring in the early/mid 90s. Not anything to do with the US itself - many of the 'improvements' to the rules of the game that FIFA have brought in, in terms of changes to off-side, tackles from behind, speeding up the game, etc., are as a result of the way the game was being played in the early 90s.

USA 94 was a great World Cup from an organisational point of view and the Rose Bowl was the logical and deserved host stadium for the final.

Does anyone know why the Rose Bowl was chosen over the Memorial Coliseum which has pretty much the same capacity?

The LA Coliseum was originally designed to host track and field events like the Olympics. It was originally constructed with a huge field and although the field has been lowered and temporary seating added in the more open end its still to very well proportioned for football, some spots have terrible sightlines.

actually, I think the Azteca stadium in Mexico is EXCELLENT and much better and cooler than Rosebowl!!

(haha, both are MEXICAN stadiums :), in some sense)

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7786/s13sc.jpg
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2646/s29ak.jpg

I think so too although the Estadio Azteca can use a big renovation. Football stadiums are known for an almost closed atmosphere. Look at Old Trafford in Manchester, Anfield Road in Liverpool, Estadio Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid, Camp Nou in Barcelona, San Siro in Milano, Allianz Arena in München, Westfalenstadion in Dortmund, De Kuip in Rotterdam, the list is endless.

The Rose Bowl is an open venue, holding an enormous crowd, but lacking a football atmosphere. There are several comparable stadiums to it in the USA. And they do lack the close feeling which especially in Europe is important for compelling football matches. I am not talking about American Football here, I mean football as the rest of the world knows it.

But there are a lot of newer stadiums in the US recently constructed (i.e. Seattle, Denver, Houston, Dallas-Arlington and many more) who have a much better look and feel as a stadium for a possible WC Football in the USA. I am sure that if the USA was to host another WC, it would again be record breaking event. And this time with the use of more stadiums like the Silverdome, or the Superdome, or the Georgia Dome, or the new one in Phoenix, it will be an awsome event. Maybe even more ever better looking and luxurious venues will be available at that time.

BTW, I always felt it to be strange that the Superdome and the Georgia dome were not used in the 1994 WC. But maybe the very conservative FIFA opposed to using to many closed roof stadiums in the WC of 1994.

When the USA will host a WC again I do not know. But I do know they are going to host it again. My bet is for 2022! Still a long time away, I know. But they have my support for it.

With regard to the various new stadia constructions in the last decade - can anyone confirm the size of the playing area in these venues? American Football pitches are narrower than football pitches - I seem to remember that seats were removed from some venues in 94 to allow pitches to be correct width.

With regard to the various new stadia constructions in the last decade - can anyone confirm the size of the playing area in these venues? American Football pitches are narrower than football pitches - I seem to remember that seats were removed from some venues in 94 to allow pitches to be correct width.

http://joss.thescholtens.com/media/The%20Rose%20Bowl/Longhorn%20Band%201.jpg

http://joss.thescholtens.com/media/The%20Rose%20Bowl/Start%20of%20game.jpg


The stadium looks rather small in these pics to be honest.