http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/936_1_1000%20Foster%20Wembley%201.jpg


http://media.ticmate.com/resources/ticmate_live/upload/Wembley_Arena_Overwiev.jpg


http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Images/TheFA/Website/Pillars/TheFA/Wembley/Wembley_aerial.ashx/Wembley_aerial.jpg?bc=Black&as=1&db=web&thn=0


http://www.deviantart.com/download/159156772/wembley_stadium_london_by_nightline-d2mra5g.jpg


http://blog.robinsonsequestrian.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/New-Wembley-Nov-06.JPG




if you want to see more stadia pictures , Please visit below URL.


http://cafe.daum.net/stade/Wembley1 (http://cafe.daum.net/stade/5Ay7/786)

http://cafe.daum.net/stade/Wembley2 (http://cafe.daum.net/stade/5Ay7/263)



http://www.vectorlogo.org/logo/gif/w/38110__wembley_stadium.gif

In your opinion. For the FA and the hundreds of thousands of lower league fans
throughout the country it is.

Play-off finals should be either 2-legged, with the second leg home advantage to the team that finished 3rd, or a one-off final at the 3rd placed team's ground. They should also be weighted throughout, it's a complete nonsense that they're not.

Why should the season be extended by yet another game? And why should clubs miss out on the windfall of a game at Wembley? There is no ground in the Football League let alone the Conference that could generate the income that a play-off final at Wembley can. Neither is there a ground that allows a great day out to so many supporters as Wembley does.

If you wan to weight, whatever you mean by that, you can leave play-offs altogether. The whole point of play-offs is to provide even the 5th, 6th or 7th best team at the end of the league season a genuine chance of promotion.

I Don't like having the semi-finals played at wembley. But seeing your team win the FA Trophy at wembley stadium in the 120minute of extra time will be in my mind till the day I die.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

I Don't like having the semi-finals played at wembley. But seeing your team win the FA Trophy at wembley stadium in the 120minute of extra time will be in my mind till the day I die.

Were the semi-finals of the FA Trophy played at Wembley?

Why should the season be extended by yet another game?

It wouldn't be another game because that is not how I would do it. I would have 3rd place side playing the winners of 4th vs. X, where X is the winner winner of 5th against 6th. If you limit it to single-legged playoffs you could reduce the number of games overall. I'd probably go with a single-leg final at 3rd place's ground.


And why should clubs miss out on the windfall of a game at Wembley?

Give the clubs the choice of advantage or windfall (which isn't even that much I'd say) and most would choose the former.

And Bigbossman is right, Wembley was a 'magical' place because it was barely used for 65 years or so. That magic was a factor (admittedly one of many) in the FA Cup's reputation in the eye's of many.

There is no ground in the Football League let alone the Conference that could generate the income that a play-off final at Wembley can. Neither is there a ground that allows a great day out to so many supporters as Wembley does.

The 'great day out' isn't the main point - the main issue is to offer an advantage to finishing higher, both as a reward and as an incentive during the season. Why shouldn't a side finishing 3rd have more chance? They've done better over the season.

If you wan to weight, whatever you mean by that, you can leave play-offs altogether. The whole point of play-offs is to provide even the 5th, 6th or 7th best team at the end of the league season a genuine chance of promotion.

You're talking rubbish. How would weighting it change that? It offers the same chance but tries to give advantage to the higher placed side. The playoffs primarily are about generating more interest in a 24-team league. Weighting keeps that but acknowledges that there should be some reward for finishing higher and to give incentive to do so. How hard is that to understand? Why should the 6th placed team have as much chance as the 3rd placed one? That's absurd.

It wouldn't be another game because that is not how I would do it. I would have 3rd place side playing the winners of 4th vs. X, where X is the winner winner of 5th against 6th. If you limit it to single-legged playoffs you could reduce the number of games overall. I'd probably go with a single-leg final at 3rd place's ground.
The advantage of playing the play-off final at home would be diminished by the two weeks without competitive football.

Give the clubs the choice of advantage or windfall (which isn't even that much I'd say) and most would choose the former.
The income of playing at Wembley is more significant than the advantage of playing at home.

The 'great day out' isn't the main point - the main issue is to offer an advantage to finishing higher, both as a reward and as an incentive during the season. Why shouldn't a side finishing 3rd have more chance? They've done better over the season.
The first placed team did better than the second placed and yet both achieve automatic promotion. Neither is there a differentiation between the teams that finishes just outside the play-off places and the ones that escaped relegation narrowly.
There are four different level of success to achieve in a division of the Football League as well as the Football Conference, automatic promotion, play-offs, no-mans land, relegation. That should be enough to play for. There is certainly no needs to complicate things further.

You're talking rubbish. How would weighting it change that? It offers the same chance but tries to give advantage to the higher placed side. The playoffs primarily are about generating more interest in a 24-team league. Weighting keeps that but acknowledges that there should be some reward for finishing higher and to give incentive to do so. How hard is that to understand? Why should the 6th placed team have as much chance as the 3rd placed one? That's absurd.
Absurd is only your obsession of differentiation.

Were the semi-finals of the FA Trophy played at Wembley?

No. The Semi-finals were two leg games played at both teams grounds.
Darlington played gateshead which is 50 miles up the road and if both teams had to travel down to london for the semi's and the final it would of cost alot of money.

On the contrary. These other events ruin the specialness of the stadium in my eyes much more than play-off finals could ever do.

Don't see how so. The specialness is about football games and seeing your football team play there not actually going to the venue.

It's the national football stadium after all. The home of the FA. It should stage the biggest matches of the football calender and not the 'Race of Champions' and other crap.

Yes and playoff finals are not the biggest matches in the football calendar. They are overblown and overhyped but they are small fry in the grand scheme of things.

The advantage of playing the play-off final at home would be diminished by the two weeks without competitive football.

2 weeks? You could get it done in a week. But then I would be in favour of something different to Kerouac which involves 3 of the 4 teams play at least 2 games.

The income of playing at Wembley is more significant than the advantage of playing at home.

Iirc the clubs only get 50% of the wembley ticket revenue. That doesn't include deductions. The other 50% goes to the footbal league.

And even then it's laughable to say the income would be more significant when playing it at home would increase the chances of promotion and earning more money.

The first placed team did better than the second placed and yet both achieve automatic promotion. Neither is there a differentiation between the teams that finishes just outside the play-off places and the ones that escaped relegation narrowly.

Big difference the second place team can't stop the first place team being promoted. They achieve the same result. Same with the teams who finish in between the playoffs and relegation. The teams actually in the playoff positions are moved onto a second stage where they are fighting for ONE place in the higher division. It's amazing how you can't see this.

There are four different level of success to achieve in a division of the Football League as well as the Football Conference, automatic promotion, play-offs, no-mans land, relegation. That should be enough to play for. There is certainly no needs to complicate things further.

That's what they said about the playoffs originally. That's what they said about expanding from 2 automatic places to 3. That's what they said about Europe. There have always been people of your ilk, but luckily for those innovations the progressives won out.

Absurd is only your obsession of differentiation.

Is this sentence supposed to make sense?

The fact that you can't understand this shows you are quite clearly absurd.

The advantage of playing the play-off final at home would be diminished by the two weeks without competitive football.

It would be 3 games played over 3 rounds. It wouldn't require 2 weeks.

Even then a 2 week break is hardly going to produce rustiness, especially at the end of the season and in divisions where squads are smaller. In 09/10 there was a 2 week gap between the end of the PL and the CL final. That is likely to happen again, whilst the Spanish and Italian leagues finish a week in between. Would you say that PL clubs are at a disadvantage having an extra week's rest?

There is a bigger picture as well. Now that the CL has decided to take over the weekend after the FA Cup Final, the Playoffs no longer have the Bank Holiday weekend free to themselves. They've lost out in media coverage to the CL since that move, that's clear, especially last season. Moving it to midweek may help and if you do so it's better to not have the game at Wembley from supporter's perspective. Tbh this needs to go with a broader shaking up of the calender and possibly giving each of the 4 divisions a final day to themselves to boost exposure.


The income of playing at Wembley is more significant than the advantage of playing at home.


No it isn't, at best many clubs' wembley allocation (if filled) would be 15k more than their home and outside of the Championship the majority of clubs don't even fill their allocation, a number of playoff final's have under total attendances under 60k. Most would only be offering an extra 7-10k tickets compared to hosting the match, the average ticket price would have to be approaching £100 to even just hit a 7-figure sum. Add splitting with the FL and FA and deductions and it's hardly a windfall at all. More income is likely generated by television distribution, prize money and indirectly (e.g. spin-offs).

Increasing promotion chances to earn vastly more is more attractive than a 6-figure sum.

The first placed team did better than the second placed and yet both achieve automatic promotion. Neither is there a differentiation between the teams that finishes just outside the play-off places and the ones that escaped relegation narrowly.

The 'differentiation' is the league position; there is nothing more to play for so logically nothing further to change. For those in the playoffs there is - chasing one more promotion spot. That's the difference.

There are four different level of success to achieve in a division of the Football League as well as the Football Conference, automatic promotion, play-offs, no-mans land, relegation. That should be enough to play for. There is certainly no needs to complicate things further.

It's not complicated, there are many more sport competitions which are vastly more complex, even within football. It's 3 (or 4 under BBM idea if i remember) games ffs.

You can never have too many matches that mean something, it boosts the league overall.

Absurd is only your obsession of differentiation.

Yeah because sports like both codes of rugby haven't done it or indeed football itself.... You do realise that the playoffs already have a form of weighting given 3rd plays 6th with the former benefiting from having the second leg at home, justified as giving the 3rd place side more chance. There have been proposals to re-format the playoffs as well. All I am suggestion is extending this logic further to other more incentive and advantage than currently exists because imo it's unfair.

No it isn't, at best many clubs' wembley allocation (if filled) would be 15k more than their home and outside of the Championship the majority of clubs don't even fill their allocation, a number of playoff final's have under total attendances under 60k. Most would only be offering an extra 7-10k tickets compared to hosting the match, the average ticket price would have to be approaching £100 to even just hit a 7-figure sum. Add splitting with the FL and FA and deductions and it's hardly a windfall at all. More income is likely generated by television distribution, prize money and indirectly (e.g. spin-offs).

Tbh I have no idea why the clubs get any of the revenue from the playoffs.

it would be nice if they improved the surrounding area around the ground.Its a place completely bereft of good places to eat,drink etc..its a pretty awful visitor experience.Get your head out of your arse Brent Council.

it would be nice if they improved the surrounding area around the ground.Its a place completely bereft of good places to eat,drink etc..its a pretty awful visitor experience.Get your head out of your arse Brent Council.

There are plans, they've just been delayed by the recession.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=975450&highlight=wembley

:ohno:

it would be nice if they improved the surrounding area around the ground.Its a place completely bereft of good places to eat,drink etc..its a pretty awful visitor experience.Get your head out of your arse Brent Council.

Haha, Brent are one of London's do-nothing councils!

So far the only new developments to have been completed are the blocks of flats. Some of the plans have been scaled down as well, especially since the Casino concept ended.

Tbh, I'm not sure they should have rebuilt it in Wembley, even though I grew up about 15mins walk from the stadium. From purely a fan's perspective it's not a good location.

^^ there is that mcdonald's near the stadium I guess.... could do with more than that though haha

Also the green man pub which you have to walk about 10 minutes and up a big hill.

my advice to anybody going to Wembley is to go to somewhere like Pinner first.Its 10 mins away on the Met Line,is a lovely olde world village with nice High st and a few decent boozers,thus saving having to endure the Wembley area before KO

Please which is the line to use when you start from jubilee line & canary wharf?

i have my tickets for a wembley tour on december :)

Just stay on the jubilee line all the way to Wembley Park, it's around 16/17 stops, so about 35mins. No need to change so you can read a book/newspaper or something for half-an-hour.

^^ Depends on what time he's going. Canary wharf station is a joke during rush hour (both ways).

Just stay on the jubilee line all the way to Wembley Park, it's around 16/17 stops, so about 35mins. No need to change so you can read a book/newspaper or something for half-an-hour.


great thanx :)

My visit will be at 16 pm then it's not the rush.

@bigbossman->last time i experienced what is a true "rush hour" at canary wharf. then i know

Hum... looking at the map you have to switch from jubilee to metropolitan line no?

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4338/stationm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/528/stationm.jpg/)

^^ Depends on what time he's going. Canary wharf station is a joke during rush hour (both ways).

I'd hope someone doing a stadium tour would avoid weekday rush hour!

Hum... looking at the map you have to switch from jubilee to metropolitan line no?

No, it serves both stations hence the double blob.

You can get off at Finchley Road and catch the Met to potentially save around 5 mins (it sort of acts as an express train between Baker street and Wembley Park), but really I wouldn't bother unless you're in a hurry and the Met train is arriving at the same/is at the platform when you get to Finchley Road. If you get the train at at CW around 1510 it shouldn't be too busy, you might start picking up people from Bond Street. Some of the Jubilee trains terminate at Willesden Green and West Hampstead, so make sure it's going to Stanmore or terminating at Wembley Park.

The tour website recommends to be 30 minutes there before the debut of visiting

then i think we 'll left docklands around 14:30 . :)

Thanks for info

Please which is the line to use when you start from jubilee line & canary wharf?

i have my tickets for a wembley tour on december :)

I would advise you not to waste your money and cancel your trip to Wembley stadium - only worth going if your team are playing there, otherwise its a boring and outdated looking venue (although its scale might impress you).

The area around the stadium is also abysmal as well as the so called regeneration plans for the surrounding area.

I would advise you not to waste your money and cancel your trip to Wembley stadium - only worth going if your team are playing there, otherwise its a boring and outdated looking venue (although its scale might impress you).

The area around the stadium is also abysmal as well as the so called regeneration plans for the surrounding area.

Yet it still manages to attract major events from around the world which other venues would give their right arm to be able to host.

^^
That's because of its very large capacity, favourable location and good transport links.

You would have to be sad or a bit of an anorak to come from afar just to see a dull and corporate looking stadium such as Wembley.

???

oxo-> are you sure? A lot of person would love visit this place no?

I would advise you not to waste your money and cancel your trip to Wembley stadium - only worth going if your team are playing there, otherwise its a boring and outdated looking venue (although its scale might impress you).

The area around the stadium is also abysmal as well as the so called regeneration plans for the surrounding area.

i did the tour and thought it was great. wembley isnt the best area but if you're going to see the stadium i hardly see that mattering. also i dont know how you can say its outdated looking? the place is still spick and span. the only thing i will say about wembley is it is very "corporate" looking. doesn't seem to be much soul to the place no matter how hard they try.

i did the tour and thought it was great. wembley isnt the best area but if you're going to see the stadium i hardly see that mattering. also i dont know how you can say its outdated looking? the place is still spick and span. the only thing i will say about wembley is it is very "corporate" looking. doesn't seem to be much soul to the place no matter how hard they try.

Exactly. Very much a corporatist looking place. It has a 1980's feel with its architecture and doesn't say "England" (could be any stadium in the world if you ignored the massive billboards on its exterior showing England players).
It is a typical McStadium.

I take it you did the tour having come from London or somehere reasonably close to London.
I assume Axelferis is coming all the way from Lille to do the Wembley stadium tour, and if this really is the case, must be quite sad or one hell of an anorak to be doing that.

???

oxo-> are you sure? A lot of person would love visit this place no?

If they're team is winning or has won at Wembley, then yes, they tend to love the place.

^^
That's because of its very large capacity, favourable location and good transport links.
.

Well you've already contradicted yourself. First you diss the location and now it's a favourable location. I think Wembley's record speaks for itself.

You would have to be sad or a bit of an anorak to come from afar just to see a dull and corporate looking stadium such as Wembley.

It's a bit arrogant for you to call someone sad or a bit of an anorak purely because they don't share your opinion. That is just your opinion, doesn't make it fact. You might like something which someone else hates but they have no right to call you sad for liking it as that is your personal choice.

Exactly. Very much a corporatist looking place. It has a 1980's feel with its architecture and doesn't say "England" (could be any stadium in the world if you ignored the massive billboards on its exterior showing England players).
It is a typical McStadium.

I take it you did the tour having come from London or somehere reasonably close to London.
I assume Axelferis is coming all the way from Lille to do the Wembley stadium tour, and if this really is the case, must be quite sad or one hell of an anorak to be doing that.

To call someone in an architecture forum an anorak for doing a stadium tour suggests to me you're in the wrong forum.

To call someone in an architecture forum an anorak for doing a stadium tour suggests to me you're in the wrong forum.

Excuse me but would you travel all the way from London (where I presume you live) just for a stadium tour of, for example, the Berlin Olympic stadium with no commercial/business interests in mind?
You would have to be an incurable anorak if you were going there only for that sole purpose of walking round the stadium.
There's a difference between enthusiasm and fanaticism.

Well you've already contradicted yourself. First you diss the location and now it's a favourable location. I think Wembley's record speaks for itself.

Yes, the location (as in geographic position) is good in terms of logistics but the place itself (as in built evironment) is a dump.

Record speaks for itself? That is not attributable to the cheap corporatist look of Wembley stadium.
There will always be an insatiable demand for seats in a stadium (regardless of architectural merit) built in a city the size of London and representing a nation of over 60 million people.

Excuse me but would you travel all the way from London (where I presume you live) just for a stadium tour of, for example, the Berlin Olympic stadium with no commercial/business interests in mind?
You would have to be an incurable anorak if you were going there only for that sole purpose of walking round the stadium.
There's a difference between enthusiasm and fanaticism.

I personally wouldn't travel all the way from London to Berlin just for a stadium tour but if I did I wouldn't expect people like you to judge me for it. You can say the tour isn't worth it if you think that's the case. But what purpose does labelling someone "quite sad or one hell of an anorak" have? What has actually upset you about what Axel is doing for you to throw terms like that around?

You can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned. You're one of those sad people who thinks unless people have the same interests as you they're an anorak, and the more people like you there are in the world, the less knowledge we gain, and the more boring the world is.

After Oxo's bizarre belief that the Olympic site in Stratford should only be used for sport and the likes of ITV perhaps moving there should be blocked - not to mention that Eton business - it's impossible to take anything they say seriously.

I personally wouldn't travel all the way from London to Berlin just for a stadium tour but if I did I wouldn't expect people like you to judge me for it. You can say the tour isn't worth it if you think that's the case. But what purpose does labelling someone "quite sad or one hell of an anorak" have? What has actually upset you about what Axel is doing for you to throw terms like that around?

You can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned. You're one of those sad people who thinks unless people have the same interests as you they're an anorak, and the more people like you there are in the world, the less knowledge we gain, and the more boring the world is.

Its OK for you to call Flashman an irritating twat some months ago but not for me to suggest Axel must be an anorak. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy - ever thought of joining a political party?

After Oxo's bizarre belief that the Olympic site in Stratford should only be used for sport and the likes of ITV perhaps moving there should be blocked - not to mention that Eton business - it's impossible to take anything they say seriously.

Yes, really bizarre that the Olympic park should be entirely devoted to sport – that would be just as bizarre as a science park being entirely devoted to technology and science-oriented companies.

Yes, I also agree that the toffs of Eton should be made even more privilged than they already are – bollocks to equal opportunities.

Seriously. at least we can be agreed that Wembley stadium is a cheap corporate looking venue with no soul or little architectural merit.


.

Wembley may not be the most architecturally impressive building around but in terms of stadium engineering, it is certainly up there with the best. It is the largest stadium in the world in terms of its footprint as well having the highest capacity where every seat is covered. The arch is large enough to fit a eurostar train inside and so tall that the london eye could roll underneath it.

For someone with more of a scientific and engineering mindset instead of only being interested in pretty little things then it is a very interesting place.

For one reason and another I have been lucky enough to have been to the new Wembley around 20 times now, and every single time I have looked forward to it because it is such an impressive place and has so many interesting features.

The place has been filled with exibits and items and I always notice something new each time. On my last visit I noticed that in the reception they had the Olympic Cauldron from 1948 positioned at one end, so I took a few minutes to look at the pictures of it being lit and read the articles that accompanied them. The whole stadium is filled with features like this; a stadium and a museum rolled in to one. Some people may find that boring but I love it and in particular the thought and attention to detail that has clearly gone into each item.

From going to dozens of stadiums in the UK and Europe, the quality of finish at Wembley is by far the best and clearly by the price tag, no expense has been spared. Maybe it's just me, but I'm still bemused by having to take half a dozen esculators just to reach the top tier of a stadium.

Anyway, you may have worked out that I quite like the place. Cheers.

Yes, really bizarre that the Olympic park should be entirely devoted to sport – that would be just as bizarre as a science park being entirely devoted to technology and science-oriented companies.

Didn't know it was called a sports' park. I thought it was named an Olympic park after the fact it will originally be built to host 2 weeks of Olympic Games...

Anyway the plan from the very beginning was based on multi-functionality, plus the need to recoup costs. Potentially turning away the UK's second largest commercial broadcaster from taking over the, er, broadcasting centre is dumb.


Yes, I also agree that the toffs of Eton should be made even more privilged than they already are – bollocks to equal opportunities.


You know perfectly well what I mean in this respect.

Seriously. at least we can be agreed that Wembley stadium is a cheap corporate looking venue with no soul or little architectural merit.


It's corporate looking but not cheap looking. Cheap is the likes of St. Mary's and the Riverside.

Wembley may not be the most architecturally impressive building around but in terms of stadium engineering, it is certainly up there with the best. It is the largest stadium in the world in terms of its footprint as well having the highest capacity where every seat is covered. The arch is large enough to fit a eurostar train inside and so tall that the london eye could roll underneath it.

For someone with more of a scientific and engineering mindset instead of only being interested in pretty little things then it is a very interesting place.

For one reason and another I have been lucky enough to have been to the new Wembley around 20 times now, and every single time I have looked forward to it because it is such an impressive place and has so many interesting features.

The place has been filled with exibits and items and I always notice something new each time. On my last visit I noticed that in the reception they had the Olympic Cauldron from 1948 positioned at one end, so I took a few minutes to look at the pictures of it being lit and read the articles that accompanied them. The whole stadium is filled with features like this; a stadium and a museum rolled in to one. Some people may find that boring but I love it and in particular the thought and attention to detail that has clearly gone into each item.

From going to dozens of stadiums in the UK and Europe, the quality of finish at Wembley is by far the best and clearly by the price tag, no expense has been spared. Maybe it's just me, but I'm still bemused by having to take half a dozen esculators just to reach the top tier of a stadium.

Anyway, you may have worked out that I quite like the place. Cheers.

There is no doubt that Wembley can be very much appreciated from an engineering perspective or in terms of its sheer scale and I share your enthusiasm for it in this way.

However, in other areas it is seriously lacking.
Wembley desperately needs a wrap to decorporatize its look with a new exciting exterior that could visually portray England or Englishness in some subtle way - this would give the stadium more of an identity.

A new and more imaginative regeneration plan for the surrounding area would also be warmly welcome because presently the area around it lets the stadium down quite badly.

Like this for example....

http://www.costar.co.uk/Global/15/Wembley%20Regeneration%20area.png

it's not because you add office towers that this stadium will be better :|

A stadium is good without that. And wembley is fantastic from what i see for the moment before visiting at the end of month :cheers:

There is no doubt that Wembley can be very much appreciated from an engineering perspective or in terms of its sheer scale and I share your enthusiasm for it in this way.

However, in other areas it is seriously lacking.
Wembley desperately needs a wrap to decorporatize its look with a new exciting exterior that could visually portray England or Englishness in some subtle way - this would give the stadium more of an identity.

A new and more imaginative regeneration plan for the surrounding area would also be warmly welcome because presently the area around it lets the stadium down quite badly.

but wasnt that the plan? The architect himself said it was an understated design so that during match days the facade could come alive in the teams colours. I dont think that architecture is at fault here.

it's not because you add office towers that this stadium will be better :|

A stadium is good without that. And wembley is fantastic from what i see for the moment before visiting at the end of month :cheers:

Well I'm glad you have that view but I used to live in London and I have visited many times, it doesn't disguise the fact that the area would appreciate regeneration. Wembley Stadium is superb, the station is superb but there is so much potential around the site, which is currently under used. A proper development is needed, especially given the rumours that Wembley can be expanded to 100,000.

Well, the £3.8bn Wembley City regeneration scheme surrounding the stadium is certainly a massive development. Hopefully by 2013 the leisure and retail area adjacent to the stadium will be completed. :cheers:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/781/5821706260643a9071e6b.jpg

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2689/5821142031317357cda5b.jpg

Maybe Quintain Estates will also get round to replacing that hideous ramp with those steps that were planned:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/485/w03olympicstepse01maste.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2941/656wembleyplanningviews.jpg

The future:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5175/wemb1.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6119/wembleycitynorthwestl20.jpg

its really amazing!! whats the 80,000 under construction olympic stadium for?? london is so great to have the two of the largest stadium..

Wembley may not be the most architecturally impressive building around but in terms of stadium engineering, it is certainly up there with the best. It is the largest stadium in the world in terms of its footprint as well having the highest capacity where every seat is covered. The arch is large enough to fit a eurostar train inside and so tall that the london eye could roll underneath it.

For someone with more of a scientific and engineering mindset instead of only being interested in pretty little things then it is a very interesting place.

For fans going to games there, the engineering aspect isn't really the key thing.

For fans going to the stadium down Wembley Way, is the stadium as evocative as the old Wembley? Sadly, even with the arch, the answer is no. Once you get past the arch, the outside of the stadium doesn't look like a stadium. It looks like a large conference centre.

Once inside the concourse areas are better than at English league grounds, but that really says more about English league grounds than about Wembley. The kind of finish you get at German grounds, for example, is typically much higher than in the UK.

Inside the stadium, the scale of the place it breathtaking, and is certainly impressive. Unfortunately that also adds to probably the stadium's greatest failing, in that it isn't a great place to watch football. It feels like everything was designed with the corporate middle tier in mind. I've been in that middle tier, and it was brilliant. For most though, sat in a far too shallow lower tier, or a far too high and distant upper tier, it's not good.

The accoustics are also somehow pretty poor. Despite assurances that experts were brought in to make sure it would be like the old Wembley, it isn't. It has that same "inside a tupperware box" quality to the sound which has helped make domed stadiums unpopular, and just isn't that loud at all.



The place has been filled with exibits and items and I always notice something new each time. On my last visit I noticed that in the reception they had the Olympic Cauldron from 1948 positioned at one end, so I took a few minutes to look at the pictures of it being lit and read the articles that accompanied them. The whole stadium is filled with features like this; a stadium and a museum rolled in to one. Some people may find that boring but I love it and in particular the thought and attention to detail that has clearly gone into each item.


Can anyone go into reception on a match day and see those exhibits?




its really amazing!! whats the 80,000 under construction olympic stadium for?? ..

Wembley has no running track.

I've sat on all 3 tiers and the views were always great. The concourse is much better then at any other major stadiums I've been to. It's so spacious. The toilets aren't too shabby either. The only issue I have is the price of the food.

Well, the £3.8bn Wembley City regeneration scheme surrounding the stadium is certainly a massive development. Hopefully by 2013 the leisure and retail area adjacent to the stadium will be completed. :cheers:

It will be years before the area looks anything like that. My parents' use to get fancy notices through the door showing how Wembley would look by 2012 - this was around 2003, and all they've built so far are a few blocks of flats. Adjacent to the Arena is a large empty plot - the previous building was demolished before the stadium opened in 2006 and last time I looked it was still empty with hoardings. Hardly anything at all has been done and most of the site still features buildings which need clearing before new builds can start. It will be 6 years that Wembley would have been open when the FA Cup Final comes round, 7 years on when it was meant to be open and by now far more was meant to have been done. I don't think you can blame the recession given this all started years before that hit and some of the developments (like housing) have held up in London.

This probably shouldn't be surprising: the developer is the same company dealing with Greenwich Peninsula and look at how long it's taken just to throw up a few buildings even though the infrastructure has been in place for over a decade.

^^ Hence the reason why it's been said many times that the Greenwich Peninsula redevelopment will take around 20 years. As for Wembley City, well, the Brent Civic Centre is now under construction next to the arena. :) Oh, the hotel and student accommodation building are also under construction (see webcam link).

Webcam:

http://webcam1.wembley.co.uk/view/index.shtml

Brent Civic Centre:

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4374/42726552.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/42726552.jpg/)

Planned designer outlet:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/440/64061470.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/64061470.jpg/)

http://www.london-designer-outlet.com/

Is Wembley Stadium the largest stadium so far??its totally amazing..such a big crowd!

Is Wembley Stadium the largest stadium so far??its totally amazing..such a big crowd!

It's the biggest stadium in England. Not in Europe though.

in europe it is the best one!

in europe it is the best one!

i think the olympic stadium in berlin, alianz arena and i'd even now say the olympic stadium in kiev could run it close though.

mmm yes but when you come to football atmosphere and facilities, Wembley is above.

UEFA recognized that last spring. You have all you need there

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/5766/capturevte.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/capturevte.jpg/)

mmm yes but when you come to football atmosphere and facilities, Wembley is above.

Who told you that crap? If it was, would it be subject to nationwide criticism in England? It's not only the fans now, but even media (like "The Times") claiming there is hardly any atmosphere in this stadium, in part because of the huge business tier dividing regular fans...

Who told you that crap? If it was, would it be subject to nationwide criticism in England? It's not only the fans now, but even media (like "The Times") claiming there is hardly any atmosphere in this stadium, in part because of the huge business tier dividing regular fans...

Depends what you class as atmosphere. I could be 'caught in the atmosphere' at Wembley, because of the amount of people and the beauty/history of the stadium, while others would say atmosphere is based by the noise generated.

Depends what you class as atmosphere. I could be 'caught in the atmosphere' at Wembley, because of the amount of people and the beauty/history of the stadium, while others would say atmosphere is based by the noise generated.
I still think that the phrase 'football atmosphere' refers to the atmosphere generated by fans in the stadium, not by the stadium itself. I haven't been to even one ground that would have an atmosphere when empty...

Who told you that crap? If it was, would it be subject to nationwide criticism in England? It's not only the fans now, but even media (like "The Times") claiming there is hardly any atmosphere in this stadium, in part because of the huge business tier dividing regular fans...

others examples of national stadium which atmosphere is superior to what wembley is able to produce?

others examples of national stadium which atmosphere is superior to what wembley is able to produce?
To the extent I know (haven't been to both, but know the opinions of Englishmen who were) - Slaski in Chorzow for sure. And yes, I mean the old, delapidated stadium that is being revamped now. By all means the Gelora Bung Karno in Indonesia as well and probably some 20 more...

others examples of national stadium which atmosphere is superior to what wembley is able to produce?

MgTgX6Pn96w

I've been to the new Wembley quite a few times since it opened (a few times for Spurs cup matches and friendlies, a few times for England matches) and it's definitely poor in terms of "football atmosphere". It's really hard to get any proper chanting going, the noise seems to escape, it just seems a bit soulless and detached.

I'm sure it's an impressive piece of work from an architecture and engineering standpoint, and the facilities and comfort levels are very good, but it doesn't make for an exciting or atmospheric place to experience a match. IMHO :)

you know man it's because your little white hart lane is smaller than wembley it is easier to have the feeling wembley is 'cold' or soulless :|


Also because your national team produces such boring games since years that disables a great atmosphere...


A great stadium deserves great teams

^^:ohno:


Troll alert!

you know man it's because your little white hart lane is smaller than wembley it is easier to have the feeling wembley is 'cold' or soulless :|


Also because your national team produces such boring games since years that disables a great atmosphere...


A great stadium deserves great teams
I don't think it's simply a matter of size. I've been to some very large stadiums that have a good atmosphere during the match and a great "feel" to them even when empty, and equally I've been to some small stadiums that feel as sterile and cold to me as the new Wembley does.

I went to a Milan vs Sampdoria match a while ago at the San Siro, sat up in the cheap 15 Euro seats at the top of the stadium, but I felt more of a "part of the match" than I have done at new Wembley, where even when I've sat in the lower tier near the pitch I've felt detached from the action somehow. It's hard to explain but that's the best way I can think of putting it.

Maybe it's because the new Wembley is just that, new, and needs more time to soak up the history of matches played there. Having said all that I'm sure huge numbers of people will visit it and be blown away by the stadium, it just doesn't quite do it for me though.

^^:ohno:


Troll alert!

would you want to mean that england matches in wembley are as exciting as the times where Shearer,Gascoigne,Ince,Owen,Beckham used to play there???

You know nothing concerning football i guess

E4V7bOiR_5Q

Stop to use the term of troll everytime :ohno:

you know man it's because your little white hart lane is smaller than wembley it is easier to have the feeling wembley is 'cold' or soulless :|


Also because your national team produces such boring games since years that disables a great atmosphere...


A great stadium deserves great teams
Loads of club games have been played at Wembley - cup finals, play-off finals etc, so it's not just about England games.

@axelferis - u are a troll. u just turned a decent discussion into a personal attack. you're a muppet.

i'd also like to suggest soccer city as having a better atmosphere. i remember the itv team before the opening game of the world cup saying that the stadium was literally shaking before kick off. i agree hubemx though... the azteca is amazing!

the truth of the matter is that the majority of english fans have lost their passion for the national team and choose club football over the english team which obviously means that the tribalism that used to be ingrained in england supporters has slightly dissipated. saying that even games like the fa cup final seem to suffer at the hands of the new wembley. the stadium just fails to capture any sort of atmosphere. i have been to the stadium myself and noted that it seemed very "corporate" and other than a few token gestures here and there, didn't seem to represent england's football heritage or the fact that the stadium was there to mainly represent football. size has nothing to do with atmosphere as there are many 55 000+ stadiums that have rocking atmosphere's on match days.

@axelferis - u are a troll. u just turned a decent discussion into a personal attack. you're a muppet.



How dare you make such statement? :nuts:


I'm here to discuss and you personnaly attack me :mad:

Plz guys.

How dare you make such statement? :nuts:


I'm here to discuss and you personnaly attack me :mad:

listen man. i dont have a track record of entering threads and leaving an apocalypse in my wake. anyways.. onward and upwards with the discussion.

I've been to the new Wembley quite a few times since it opened (a few times for Spurs cup matches and friendlies, a few times for England matches) and it's definitely poor in terms of "football atmosphere". It's really hard to get any proper chanting going, the noise seems to escape, it just seems a bit soulless and detached.

I'm sure it's an impressive piece of work from an architecture and engineering standpoint, and the facilities and comfort levels are very good, but it doesn't make for an exciting or atmospheric place to experience a match. IMHO :)

if the space cant generate a warm atmosphere, that could be considered and engineering fault, in a sense that the engineers werent able to overcome such issues in the design


anyhow, it looks lovely, but yes, its a cold space
is this by any chance "fixable"?

Cold?

The last champions league final wasn't cold at all :ohno:

It depends of the quality of football played there!

The actual players( Fa cup) or national team are very bad!

Remember 1996 Paul gascoigne was another story

g0NT6aUwN8c

Great stadiums requires great players!

The legend of wimbledon in tennis is made by great games.

When you watched boring things like City vs Stoke last spring don't be surprised of the mediocrity of atmosphere

Cold?
The last champions league final wasn't cold at all :ohno:
It depends of the quality of football played there!
Great stadiums requires great players!

That's BS. If good atmosphere comes only with great football than how come the best atmosphere gets created in countires where football stands at a shitty level? I would say the likes of Indonesia or Poland (not now as many fans boycott the national team) can hardly be compared to England, even when England plays poor ball. Yet the supporters can do much more noise than the English do these days.

This is a complex issue and trying to explain it by England lacking Gascoigne is just idiotic. There were huge changes in the matchgoing community (games being expensive = less youngsters, more seniors and upper class families, etc.) and fan behaviour (very strict legislation in Britain = less spontanous and vigorous behaviour) and commercialisation (attempts to make football games like regular 'events' instead of real football = people consume the event instead of helping to create it) and other stuff that has only gotten worse when the FA imagined Wembley as a corporate-targeted venue.

if the space cant generate a warm atmosphere, that could be considered and engineering fault, in a sense that the engineers werent able to overcome such issues in the design
I think that in this case it wasn't up to the engineers to mess things up. It was the business plan and the whole idea behind the venue. If you focus only on corporate activities and don't give a sh.t about regular fans and the noise they can make, than you get exactly this - nice corporate facilities and sh.t of an atmosphere...

^^ true
all the "classy" ppl are going, they have have the £
the real supporters are left behind

sad

As a football ground it is a disaster. As a corporate multi-purpose arena, it is a a success.

I've been to the old Wembley and the new one, for football,the new one is horrible, it's like a theme park experience from the rip off food to the ever repeated digital announcements, they'll soon have guys telling you when to clap and cheer, sign of the times I suppose, Englands football soul has been sucked right out, are you even allowed to stand and sing anymore? It is a dismal, grey, concrete structure with nothing to interest your eyes whether inside it or outside it.

The old Wembley? I'll remember my day out there for the rest of my life. :)

The best stadium in England :bow:

It's not to do with the engineering or the football - it's to do with the fans. England's home support is an odd creature; it's not a "normal" football crowd even if the team is one of the best supported in International football. I've been to several England matches at Wembley - never an intense competitive international though to be fair - and each and every time the small away support on the other side of the stadium has been loud and colourful no matter how well their team is playing. The Ghana friendly a year or so ago proved this to me, the visit of Montenegro did as well (a game I was at). And Stoke fans in the FA Cup also. Away fans manage to make a noise in this stadium.

I like this stadium very much. It is the best.

Finally i 've visited it !

My conclusion is: we have there the best stadium in the world!

It's truly fantastic! Very good and astonishing.

Someone criticized here the surroundings developements but let me disagree.

The surroundings are very good & interesting with the arena and new buildings.

The tube station leads you directly through the avenue to the stadium.

My main critic concernsthe urban area between the centre of london and wembley. In this section the tube is aerial and you can see perhaps the ugliest urban area of London :puke:

Lots of old red bricks houses with graffitis :mad: geez!!! i didn't believed my eyes.

And some guys here dare to criticize St denis stade de france surroundings :lol:

The museum is great!!
But to conclude Wembley stadium is the BEST! I love it! :cheers:

How can you truely judge when you haven´t seen a game in it?

don't make the confusion :no:

A stadium could be perceived in two ways:

-architectural design
-ambiance during the match.

I 'm not obliged to attend a match to visit the stadium,museum, walk through the concourses, seat in royal box and see the wonderful arch!

Do you distinguish that? ;)

My main critic concernsthe urban area between the centre of london and wembley. In this section the tube is aerial and you can see perhaps the ugliest urban area of London :puke:

Lots of old red bricks houses with graffitis :mad: geez!!! i didn't believed my eyes.


Can't say I disagree with that. The area isn't great looking.

well you can't really say its the best if you haven't even been to the olympic stadium in berlin, cowboys stadium in dallas or soccer city in joburg. its all subjective at the end of the day.

before visiting it for real i was considering it as the best with all the pics and tv showing its qualities. Now after having verified myself i don't see the other you mentionned could change my opinion.

What berlin, jo burg have better than Wembley?

what does wembley have thats better than soccer city of the olympic stadium? see where im going with this?

I'll stick with my original opinion, as a football ground, it's a disaster and as stadium it is drab and dreary.

My theory in the Wembley wildy differing opinions is that those that have visited for a football matches and have a positive opinion are either England supporters, daft enough to get caught up in the coporate led jingoism and digital "clappy" music. Or, fans out for a cup final or play off final, the latter would be giddy with excitement and enjoy the day out even if the game was played at Barnet FC.

Those with a negative experience (like myself) may have gone as a neutral, just to see a game and were not emotionally involved, I'd time to walk around and look around and it is blah!

Mind you, different people have different experiences. I saw a play-off final at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, for example, and thought the place was a dingy pit with dreadful views.

Most seem to love the place though.

As critical as I am of the new Wembley, I'd choose it over Cardiff any day. I think it gets more criticism than it probably deserves because people's expectations were so high.

don't make the confusion :no:

A stadium could be perceived in two ways:

-architectural design
-ambiance during the match.

I 'm not obliged to attend a match to visit the stadium,museum, walk through the concourses, seat in royal box and see the wonderful arch!

Do you distinguish that? ;)

A stadium is built for people to attend it during games. Yes, you may visit it while empty. But no, by no means it can be considered the best in the world if it doesn't serve its primary purpose the right way. And that is hosting games and other major events.

As critical as I am of the new Wembley, I'd choose it over Cardiff any day. I think it gets more criticism than it probably deserves because people's expectations were so high.
I remember perfectly how the investor themselves helped the expectations get higher and higher with their smooth talk of by far the best, legendary, iconic, etc.
Can you really blame the people for expecting a lot?

Wembley is iconic!

The feeling when viewing it for first time for real is truly sensational!!

I don't see a stadium in Europe that can be compared to it with such modern aspect and the size of the stadium.

Allianz is very ineteresting because it is modern & original too.

I think wembley & allianz are the bests in Europe :)

As critical as I am of the new Wembley, I'd choose it over Cardiff any day. I think it gets more criticism than it probably deserves because people's expectations were so high.

Possibly, I was tremendously disappointed and suppose I was looking forward to some "Wow's"!

Wembley is iconic!

Specifically, why is it iconic?


The feeling when viewing it for first time for real is truly sensational!!


Not for me, just like when I visited the Nou Camp, I walked, looking at Wembley, inside and out and thought, "Is that it"? I've been to the Mestalla, De Kuip and the Bernebau and thought "Wow!

Can't say I disagree with that. The area isn't great looking.

He's not talking about the local area though, i assume by 'aerial' he means elevated, which together with 'red brick houses' means the bit of the Met line between Finchley road and Willesden Green, also known as Kilburn. It's mostly 4 story Victorian terraces, it's hardly the worst part of the city, far better than the council blocks you see on the Westway coming into central London or the blocks ringing Paris to the North.

Specifically, why is it iconic?

The Arch makes it so special. it acts like a signal on the city



I've been to the Mestalla, De Kuip and thought "Wow!

:lol: how can you say that!? Those stadiums looks like crap compared to wembley :lol:

The Arch makes it so special. it acts like a signal on the city

:lol: how can you say that!? Those stadiums looks like crap compared to wembley :lol:

Yes, because in the world by Axel there are crappy buildings (all aged 10+), iconic buildings (that are the -est in any aspect) and the Lille arena which is beyond what others will ever reach. Have you even been to any of these stadiums listed above to compare?

Most of the world realize Wembley has the 'iconic roof' and probably most are asking why the hell did they need to put the arch so high? It barely corresponds with anything. It's huge and that's that. What I would have expected of Texas, but not exactly London.

Mestalla is breathtaking, De Kuip is amazing architecturally (crap of an atmosphere, at least at my game). Wembley is huge. Surely may give a great impression from the inside as the seating bowl is immense, but is that all of what we should want from Wembley, the biggest temple of football ever? I would surely not agree... The old one was far from today's standards, but it became a legend partly thanks to overcrowding and not necesserily following safety regulations for decades.

The Arch makes it so special. it acts like a signal on the city

You are making this up as you go along. Specifically, why is the arch "special"? What does it "signal" to the City? What are you on about? :lol:


:lol: how can you say that!? Those stadiums looks like crap compared to wembley :lol:

Well, for me it's not 100% about aesthetics............even if it was, Wembley would come way down my list of stadiums, I don't see that it has anything of architectural merit, it's a big, drab, concrete bowl IMO.........like the Nou Camp.

You are just make yourself stupid if you say anything wrong about wembley. Simply the best stadium in the world. Just face it.

Some pics i shot:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6641941165_832b277485_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641941165/)
Wembley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641941165/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6641753805_41be6feb3e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641753805/)
Wembley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641753805/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6641752629_71432c29c7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641752629/)
Wembley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641752629/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6641751423_5dc9fcdcf3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641751423/)
Wembley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6641751423/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

i will post inside pics later :)

You are just make yourself stupid if you say anything wrong about wembley. Simply the best stadium in the world. Just face it.

I've faced it and sat in it for 2 hours at a time, I don't agree, what was your experience on your visit?
.

what does wembley have thats better than soccer city of the olympic stadium? see where im going with this?
Apart from being the home of the game, being sung about in dozens of songs, holding numerous cup and play-off finals each season, being home of the best supported side in international football it is indeed not better than any other ordinary bowl of concrete.

some others

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/126/img9921j.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/207/img9921j.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5300/img9860v.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/img9860v.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3756/img9907y.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/img9907y.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/5176/img9905q.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/807/img9905q.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/4020/img9912m.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/img9912m.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/610/img9903p.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/img9903p.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1285/img9902h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/img9902h.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8338/img9861k.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/img9861k.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2737/img9862d.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/img9862d.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3363/img9871g.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/img9871g.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2650/img9881q.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/img9881q.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/277/img9877p.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/214/img9877p.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5736/img9876r.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/img9876r.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2585/img9875o.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/img9875o.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

I've been to the new Wembley quite a few times since it opened (a few times for Spurs cup matches and friendlies, a few times for England matches) and it's definitely poor in terms of "football atmosphere". It's really hard to get any proper chanting going, the noise seems to escape, it just seems a bit soulless and detached.

I'm sure it's an impressive piece of work from an architecture and engineering standpoint, and the facilities and comfort levels are very good, but it doesn't make for an exciting or atmospheric place to experience a match. IMHO :)

Than it's not a good piece of work of architecture... The atmosphere, that's what you go to the stadium for... cuz u could be watching the match at home in a better seat, witha better view and free beer...

You can't fool me, most of those interior pics are of Heathrow.........

Apart from being the home of the game, being sung about in dozens of songs, holding numerous cup and play-off finals each season, being home of the best supported side in international football it is indeed not better than any other ordinary bowl of concrete.

oh, im sorry. i thought england was the home of football, not specifically wembley? soccer city and the olympic stadium in berlin also host numerous cup finals and play-off finals each season on top of having both hosted world cup finals in the last 6 years. they both also have a lot more character and, in my opinion, architectural merit than the new wembley. take the arch away from wembley and it wouldn't be anything.

@ Axel: Very nice pics (Thanks :cheers:).. but too bad that you saw it at night (with a "minimal" lightening)... and empty...

thanks parc but from night it is awesome you know.
Next time i try to get a ticket for a game.

I want to visit emirates too.

Great pictures Axel, glad you enjoyed your trip

The concourses around the stadium: Wembley > Millennium Stadium, Everything else: Millennium Stadium > Wembley.

I've been to both for games and thats my opinion!

Ive never been in Wembley but i have to admit that it looks very good.
It's a beautiful stadium and for 90.000 stadium it looks very close.
Compare it to american football stadiums, Camp Nou, San Siro or Soccer City Stadium where the distance is bigger.

I think new stadiums needs time to make history. I mean if people entry AZteka Stadium in MExico, Maracana in Brasil or Bernabeu in Spain,Berlin Olympiastadion you have this WOW-effect, because you know, hey this stadium is living history, here played some famous player, worldcup final, moments of history and etc.

And Wembley needs time for it and probably a worldcup final.

but in the end the supporters make the atmosphere. Of course the atmosphere is different in these big stadiums and not so intense but here the supporters have to put their best.
Look at the Napoli-supporters. They make so much noise in a big, open 60.000 seater with big runningg track. They are miles away but they can create a atmosphere like hell.


CL-final 2011 had a great atmosphere although Barcelona and United supporters are one of the most lousy of all big clubs of cl-competition.

Imagine a final Napoli vs Borussia Dortmund!!! After a final nobody ever would blame the stadium for poor atmosphere

It's a beautiful stadium and for 90.000 stadium it looks very close.
Compare it to american football stadiums, Camp Nou, San Siro or Soccer City Stadium where the distance is bigger.


IMO at Camp Nou ad San Siro the stands are close to the pitch.

oh, im sorry. i thought england was the home of football, not specifically wembley? soccer city and the olympic stadium in berlin also host numerous cup finals and play-off finals each season on top of having both hosted world cup finals in the last 6 years. they both also have a lot more character and, in my opinion, architectural merit than the new wembley. take the arch away from wembley and it wouldn't be anything.
These numerous cup finals are exactly one in case of Berlin. And the World Cup finals were one-offs for both, Berlin and Soccer City. With next to no chance of a repeat.
Wembley on the other hand not only hosted a World Cup final already, it might even see another World Cup final in the future. Furthermore is Wembley a regular venue for European Cup finals. Berlin hasn't seen that sort of games and the chance that it ever will is rather slim.

By the way, what exactly are the architectural merits of Soccer City other than being just a large and unimaginative bowl of concrete?

These numerous cup finals are exactly one in case of Berlin. And the World Cup finals were one-offs for both, Berlin and Soccer City. With next to no chance of a repeat.
Wembley on the other hand not only hosted a World Cup final already, it might even see another World Cup final in the future. Furthermore is Wembley a regular venue for European Cup finals. Berlin hasn't seen that sort of games and the chance that it ever will is rather slim.

By the way, what exactly are the architectural merits of Soccer City other than being just a large and unimaginative bowl of concrete?

Berlin also had the olympics in 36, world athletics in 2009 when Usain Bolt run worldrecord in 100m and 200m, worldcup final in 2006 with legendary Zidane-headbutt, pope in 2011 and comedian-show with biggest attendance for a comedian event ever (76.000) And some other events i dont remember right now.

New Wembley is a complete new-build stadium so in my opinion it has nothing to do with wembley of 66.

I like the New Wembley but soccer city is in my opinion more impressive. Especially from exterior but also interior. Only sad it stands in South africa and never will host a cl-final or euro-final. But African cup:banana:

a last one:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6655942589_6bbe1412a7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6655942589/)
Wembley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6655942589/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

Berlin also had the olympics in 36, world athletics in 2009 when Usain Bolt run worldrecord in 100m and 200m, worldcup final in 2006 with legendary Zidane-headbutt, pope in 2011 and comedian-show with biggest attendance for a comedian event ever (76.000) And some other events i dont remember right now.

New Wembley is a complete new-build stadium so in my opinion it has nothing to do with wembley of 66.

I like the New Wembley but soccer city is in my opinion more impressive. Especially from exterior but also interior. Only sad it stands in South africa and never will host a cl-final or euro-final. But African cup:banana:

you pretty much replied for me.

It's like Wembley is sacrosant to some, criticising or rather, not believing the hype, is not allowed! You can't sprinkle some old Wembley stardust on this new structure, of course it's a good stadium, of course it's big but it's IMO it's still drab, a corporate fudged multi purpose stadium, not a "wow" stadium and never will be.

I agree with Robbery4774, Soccer City is "special", it is stunning, beautiful and visually interesting, I don't think the new Wembley is any of those things, come on!

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/people3/feb2011/5/2/wembley-992786022.jpg

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2010/8/5/soccer-city-pic-getty-798875112.jpg

Furthermore is Wembley a regular venue for European Cup finals. Berlin hasn't seen that sort of games and the chance that it ever will is rather slim.



The next CL Final in Germany after 2012 will be in Berlin, or do you think the Munich CL Final will be the last one in Germany?

some of this is ridiculous. Sorry, but Wembley is fantastic. Is it utilitarian rather than elegant? Yes. But so are many others that have things like retractable roofs and have to be jacks of all trades. Its certainly in the 95th percentile of stadiums and probably higher.

some of this is ridiculous. Sorry, but Wembley is fantastic. Is it utilitarian rather than elegant? Yes. But so are many others that have things like retractable roofs and have to be jacks of all trades. Its certainly in the 95th percentile of stadiums and probably higher.
The main problem seems to be that people who actually have to visit the ground for their clubs' clashes wouldn't necessarily agree with you... When critisim comes from rather respected media and not that much 'against modern football' crowds, it should ring a bell, I think. Of course a lot can be changed in matters of matchday experience without doing anything with the stadium as a structure, but the way it's been run is also a huge part of the venue's identity. And that is what I think is the worst feature of the new Wembley...

new stadiums of any kind rarely fit the old idea of what makes a great atmosphere or ground because new stadiums are built with different revenue streams in mind. Not to mention new laws such as fire codes, lighting requirements, seat width minimums and disability requirements. Its nothing unique to soccer. American sports have gone through this for decades. What we often forget as humans is that the grass is pretty much always greener in the past while it is often hard to call a new home as cozy as one we've lived in for 30 years. That doesn't mean the new house isn't cozy or just as good. Its different. I often ask people with regards to Cowboys Stadium. Should they have built it smaller, ignored laws and safety and ignored revenue so it could feel as nice as your local 30,000 seat stadium?

So michal, can you list me a better stadium than wembley?

The main problem seems to be that people who actually have to visit the ground for their clubs' clashes wouldn't necessarily agree with you... When critisim comes from rather respected media and not that much 'against modern football' crowds, it should ring a bell, I think. Of course a lot can be changed in matters of matchday experience without doing anything with the stadium as a structure, but the way it's been run is also a huge part of the venue's identity. And that is what I think is the worst feature of the new Wembley...

Personally almost all of the criticism I'v heard has come from those with a clear bias agenst it, either foreign fans looking to promote there own stadiums or Scots and Man Utd/Liverpool fans who resent(perhaps with good reason) the London centric view that it represents.

Personally my expereince of it was exellent, went to see Bristol Rovers in a playoff final a couple of seasons ago and the view even from the top tier was good and the access was by far the best I'v expereinced at any large stadium. The steepness and lowness of the roof give in an intimacy I did not expect from such a large staduim aswell.

As far as looks go its obviously not one of the best in the world(nothing beats the San Siro wins for looks and ultra hi capacity in a football stadium for me) but the arch does provide it with character aswell as making it into much more of a landmark than the old Wembley which I always thought looked like prison block from the outside with cheap concrete towers.

new stadiums of any kind rarely fit the old idea of what makes a great atmosphere or ground because new stadiums are built with different revenue streams in mind. Not to mention new laws such as fire codes, lighting requirements, seat width minimums and disability requirements. Its nothing unique to soccer. American sports have gone through this for decades. What we often forget as humans is that the grass is pretty much always greener in the past while it is often hard to call a new home as cozy as one we've lived in for 30 years. That doesn't mean the new house isn't cozy or just as good. Its different. I often ask people with regards to Cowboys Stadium. Should they have built it smaller, ignored laws and safety and ignored revenue so it could feel as nice as your local 30,000 seat stadium?
What you mentioned here are two things. On one hand you agree that new laws (but you name the wrong ones, it's not the ones regarding fire/lighting, it's the ones regulating spectator behaviour) change the experience and on the other you insist it's more of a sentiment than reasonable thinking. I disagree with the latter - my matchday experience here in Poland has decreased significantly over just a few years so I have no right to doubt that people in England may be experiencing the same, but for a longer time and on a larger scale. Wembley is just one of these cases that may have been a cumulation. Anyhow, I don't think we can just disregard the negativity shown by many people towards it as unreasonable and emotional.

So michal, can you list me a better stadium than wembley?
Sure, dozens. But there's no point, because we all have different tastes and expectations from a football ground. It's not about which stadium is the best in the world because we could argue about that for 50 years and draw no conclusions. It's about flaws of Wembley which are quite obvious to some and persistantly ignored by others (not that the first ones have to be right - again, it's all subjective judgment).

As far as looks go its obviously not one of the best in the world(nothing beats the San Siro wins for looks and ultra hi capacity in a football stadium for me) but the arch does provide it with character aswell as making it into much more of a landmark than the old Wembley which I always thought looked like prison block from the outside with cheap concrete towers.
Those cheap concrete towers were however no cheaper then the current facades, not mentioning the historical value which this stadium will not reach by the previous Wemblley's age...

My personal list of the best football stadiums in the world.
Worst big stadiums in Europe:
1. Athen Olympic stadium (Berlin and Kiew show how to make a great athletic stadium with a close atmosphere)
2. Atatürk Olympic stadium
3. Rom Olympic Stadium
4. Camp Nou (just big and Barca playinig in it makes it so famous)
5. Croke Park

Best big stadiums in the world:
1. Soccer City Johannesburg
http://www.mtnfootball.com/content/soccer_city_full-580.jpg
2. Santiago Bernabeu Madrid
http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Santiago-Bernabeu-Stadium.jpg
3. Wembley London
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01015/wembley_arch_1015820i.jpg
4. Mexico Estadio Azteca
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CVq9W-UfF1U/TWDxifDGccI/AAAAAAAAACc/Ai_Km_0D_DE/s1600/estadio_azteca.jpg
5.Peking Bird's nest/ Milan San Siro
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/long10000/long100000902/long10000090200561/4395335-peking-olympiastadion-bird-39-s-nest-internen.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8CQvmzvRdDE/TS3c6pkCnGI/AAAAAAAAABE/TLaYMdIKwC4/s1600/San-Siro-Stadium-001.jpg

watching those pics:

1.Wembley is by far the best :okay:

soccer city 'roof doesn't even cover 100% of spectators :ohno:

How can it pretend to be the best?

watching those pics:

1.Wembley is by far the best :okay:

soccer city 'roof doesn't even cover 100% of spectators :ohno:

How can it pretend to be the best?

why does it need to cover all the spectators? its in the highveld. it barely ever rains except for the odd thunder shower in the summer.

ans snow? It never snows?

A great stadium needs a great roof!

I distinguish the category of stadiums which shelter very well spectators and the rest.

ans snow? It never snows?

A great stadium needs a great roof!

I distinguish the category of stadiums which shelter very well spectators and the rest.

snow in johannesburg? where do u think soccer city is? colarado? there's absolutely no point having a roof that covers all spectators if there is no necessity for one. i can understand an argument for a stadium like the metlife stadium in new york that has no roof and is completely open to the elements but there is no need for a roof over soccer city at all. cape town stadium's roof covers all the seats because cape town experiences a lot of winter rain. it makes sense for CTS to have a roof whereas with soccer city it doesn't.

snow in johannesburg? where do u think soccer city is? colarado? there's absolutely no point having a roof that covers all spectators if there is no necessity for one. i can understand an argument for a stadium like the metlife stadium in new york that has no roof and is completely open to the elements but there is no need for a roof over soccer city at all. cape town stadium's roof covers all the seats because cape town experiences a lot of winter rain. it makes sense for CTS to have a roof whereas with soccer city it doesn't.

Agree with you this is Johannesburg. The roof looks great and don't need to cover all seats. This is not England or germany where it rains the 1/3 of year :nuts::nuts:

i agrre metlife stadium in New york is disapointing when you jnow how winter are there :mad:

I don't know why american pay so much for stadiums without roofs! I don't understand this country sometimes?!

1.2 billion dollars for metlife is a total joke

i agrre metlife stadium in New york is disapointing when you jnow how winter are there :mad:

I don't know why american pay so much for stadiums without roofs! I don't understand this country sometimes?!

1.2 billion dollars for metlife is a total joke

i finally agree with u on one thing. metlife is a complete let down.

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/people3/feb2011/5/2/wembley-992786022.jpg

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2010/8/5/soccer-city-pic-getty-798875112.jpg

obviously they look so much different :nuts: what are people blabbing on about? That somehow some random orange stickers and a more bulbous profile is going suddenly make for a great atmosphere?!

It is solely down to the people inside. Being susceptible to hype and a desire to be disappointed are going to be more tangible aspects of perceptions of 'atmosphere' than subtle differences in off-the-shelf stadium components.

i agrre metlife stadium in New york is disapointing when you jnow how winter are there :mad:

I don't know why american pay so much for stadiums without roofs! I don't understand this country sometimes?!

1.2 billion dollars for metlife is a total joke

An american explained me that the cost for the area in New Jersey are so expensive also paying the workers. But i don't believe that workers in england or germany get less than in the states. And well most american stadiums look average for the cost.

Ok well where is the big difference between Metlife stadium and Giant???
For me personally i guess you see much better in Giants stadium upper stand than in Metlife stadium upper stand.

My assumption:
The owners are smart, NFL games are always sold out, so he dont need to waste his money for a roof, special design or close stadium and can invest in boxes and rentrooms. And make a lot of money with it
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3667973564_dc53329ddd.jpg
http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/new-meadowlands-metlife-stadium.jpg

NFL and MLB stadiums have far more concessions, museums, teams shops, larger suites and more clubs that most of their European counterparts. That's why they are more expensive. I could ask why European stadiums with roofs don't go all the way and either cover the whole roof or why most don't have retractable roofs like most roofed stadiums in the US. I just don't understand Europe. See how silly that sounds.

eh, nevermind

NFL and MLB stadiums have far more concessions, museums, teams shops, larger suites and more clubs that most of their European counterparts. That's why they are more expensive. I could ask why European stadiums with roofs don't go all the way and either cover the whole roof or why most don't have retractable roofs like most roofed stadiums in the US. I just don't understand Europe. See how silly that sounds.

nowhere near as silly as spending $1.5billion on a stadium with no roof in new jersey of all places.

One very large factor is I'd say the shear amount of use soccer stadiums get compaired to US football. "Braving the elements" might be a fun gimmick for many fans if it happens 2-3 times a season but in the UK you'd be talking about getting rained on 20 times a season.

As I said I don't see too many ultra large(70k+) football/rugby/US football specific stadiums that look any better than Wembley with the majority IMHO looking worse. Some large athletics stadiums do but the smaller playing area and corrisponding higher stands of a square pitch likely makes too much diversion from the standard model over expensive.

NFL and MLB stadiums have far more concessions, museums, teams shops, larger suites and more clubs that most of their European counterparts. That's why they are more expensive. I could ask why European stadiums with roofs don't go all the way and either cover the whole roof or why most don't have retractable roofs like most roofed stadiums in the US. I just don't understand Europe. See how silly that sounds.

Could you list the number of roofed US stadiums compared to Europe?

In uSA just 4-5 roofed retractable
In europe all roofed and 7 retractables. And 2 are coming this year(Lille & solna)+1 in two years (st peterburg) then for a total of 9 stadiums entirely retractable.
To summarize:

Retractable roofed->
-10 for Europe
-5 for USA

I think VIP suits & business are better in USA but the overall level of comfort for EVERYBODY is higher in Europe.

^^ Here is the list of stadiums equipped with retractable or fixed roofs (not sure if it is exhaustive):

North America:


Toronto, ON: SkyDome
Vancouver, BC: BC Place (formerly fixed roof, now retractable)
Houston, TX: Reliant Stadium
Houston, TX: Minute Maid Ballpark (baseball)
Dallas, TX: Cowboys Stadium
Phoenix, AZ: UoP Stadium (+ movable pitch)
Phoenix, AZ: Chase Field (baseball)
Indianapolis, IN: Lucas Oil Stadium
Seattle, WA: Safeco Field (baseball)
Milwaukee, WI: Miller Park (baseball)
Miami, FL: New Marlins Ballpark (baseball, u/c)
Los Angeles, CA: Farmers Field (project)
Minneapolis, MN: New Vikings Stadium (project)

+Domed stadiums:

Montréal, PQ: Stade Olympique (formerly retractable, now fixed roof; retractable roof projected (?))
Syracuse, NY: Carrier Dome
Minneapolis, MN: Metrodome
Pontiac, MI: Silverdome (closed)
Detroit, MI: Ford Field
New Orleans, LA: Lousiana Superdome
San Antonio, TX: Alamodome
Houston, TX: Astrodome (closed)
Atlanta, GA: Georgia Dome
St. Louis, MO: Edward Jones Dome
St. Petersburg, FL: Tropicana Field (baseball)




Europe:


Arnhem, Netherlands: Gelredome (+ movable pitch)
Amsterdam, Netherlands: ArenA
Cardiff, Wales: Millennium Stadium
Copenhagen, Denmark: Parken
Gelsenkirchen, Germany: Veltins Arena (+ movable pitch)
Düsseldorf, Germany: Esprit Arena
Frankfurt, Germany: Commerzbank Arena
Bucarest, Romania: Lia Manoliu Arena
Warsaw, Poland: Stadion Narodowy
Stockholm, Sweden: Swedbank Arena (u/c)
Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholmsarenan (u/c)
Lille, France: Grand Stade (+ semi-retractable pitch, u/c)
Paris, France: Arena 92 (project)
Paris, France: New National Rugby Stadium (+ movable pitch, project (?))
Metz, France: Stade St. Symphorien (project (?))
St. Petersburg, Russia: New Zenit Stadium (+ movable pitch, u/c)
Moscow, Russia: New Dynamo Stadium (project)
Istanbul, Turkey: Türk Telekom Arena (retractable roof projected (?))

+ Tennis:

London, England: Centre Court (Tennis)
Halle, Germany: Gerry Weber Stadion (Tennis)
Hamburg, Germany: Rothenbaum Center (Tennis)
Madrid, Spain: Caja Mágica (Tennis)
Paris, Court Central (Tennis, retractable roof projected)
Paris, Court Suzanne Lenglen (Tennis, retractable roof projected (?))

@parcdesprinces-> i was dealing about roofed NFL stadiums not including baseball stadium which have NO configurations to suit soccer matchs!

In the case of a Fifa world cup what Minute maid balpark in Houston has to do with true football?

Then why not to count handball arenas in europe? :?

Could you list the number of roofed US stadiums compared to Europe?

In uSA just 4-5 roofed retractable
In europe all roofed and 7 retractables. And 2 are coming this year(Lille & solna)+1 in two years (st peterburg) then for a total of 9 stadiums entirely retractable.
To summarize:

Retractable roofed->
-10 for Europe
-5 for USA

I think VIP suits & business are better in USA but the overall level of comfort for EVERYBODY is higher in Europe.

There aren't even armrests in most of the European stadiums, and you're talking about comfort?

@parcdesprinces-> i was dealing about roofed NFL stadiums not including baseball stadium which have NO configurations to suit soccer matchs!

In the case of a Fifa world cup what Minute maid balpark in Houston has to do with true football?

Then why not to count handball arenas in europe? :?

Soccer and football matches are played at baseball stadiums all the time. Even Rugby was played at Petco Park in San Diego.

There aren't even armrests in most of the European stadiums, and you're talking about comfort?

Who needs armrests, this is not cinema :ohno::ohno::ohno:

I prefer standing in terraces because the atmosphere is much better. :banana: :banana: :banana:

There aren't even armrests in most of the European stadiums, and you're talking about comfort?
Armrests are good for sofas at home in front of the tv, there's plenty to do with hands during a game ;)

Just messing with you as I don't see what is the point of this comparison. What's good about armrests if they're all wet because of the rain? Studies of human behaviour show that when it's raining or snowing or when it's really cold pewople simply stand up from their seats. Unless they are covered :)

I forgot what thread I was in for a second...

There aren't even armrests in most of the European stadiums, and you're talking about comfort?


:bash::lol:

European football fans do not need armrests:cheers:

http://www.sport1.de/media/_redaktion/sportarten/fussball/dfbpokal1011/olympiastadion-imago-5x4_Diashow.jpg

armrest could be cool in vip section but frankly it's not essential to attend a good spectacle.

I think this is why american society has problems with weight-> consumption everytime :|

Uh oh, we'll be talking about cupholders next.

@parcdesprinces-> i was dealing about roofed NFL stadiums not including baseball stadium which have NO configurations to suit soccer matchs!

In the case of a Fifa world cup what Minute maid balpark in Houston has to do with true football?

Then why not to count handball arenas in europe? :?

http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/12/take-me-out-to-bowlgame.html

You honestly think they couldn't fit a football pitch onto a baseball field? :lol:

Armrests are good for sofas at home in front of the tv, there's plenty to do with hands during a game ;)

Agreed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4W0LSyoT8kU/TFzmYm_SqXI/AAAAAAAADr8/2MK1KCPjcz0/s1600/feyenoord+kid.jpg

:bash::lol:

European football fans do not need armrests:cheers:

http://www.sport1.de/media/_redaktion/sportarten/fussball/dfbpokal1011/olympiastadion-imago-5x4_Diashow.jpg
Neither do American football fans:

http://photos.uc.wisc.edu/photos/9907/original/fball_stadium_fans08_0801.jpg

I think this is why american society has problems with weight-> consumption everytime :|

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wkLxAzcfduk/TMna5VVgjRI/AAAAAAAAACU/RT6qIJY1e-c/s1600/low_blow.jpg

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/12/take-me-out-to-bowlgame.html

:ohno:

with such a distance between pitch & tribunes i call this configuration an insult for soccer lovers.

You cannot be serious !

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3237/jokeg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/jokeg.jpg/)

..............Now where did I leave that can of worms ? Sure it was in another thread.

The trop is a aweful place anyway the rays want out, so soccer fans in the bay area aint going to be crying if they are baseball fans too.

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/12/take-me-out-to-bowlgame.html

:ohno:

with such a distance between pitch & tribunes i call this configuration an insult for soccer lovers.

You cannot be serious !

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3237/jokeg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/jokeg.jpg/)
Hey, I just said that it could be done, not that it would look good...

I think some here have simply missed the rest of the conversation and just jumped on the last thing posted with no context. It was stated that European stadiums are more comfortable and that baseball stadiums with roofs don't count because they don't host soccer, which is ridiculous. It was answered that they actually can and do host soccer from time to time. I answered the comfort accusation with Europeans stadiums not having armrests. Armrests are part of comfort if you're going to talk about comfort.

@parcdesprinces-> i was dealing about roofed NFL stadiums not including baseball stadium which have NO configurations to suit soccer matchs!

No, you wasn't !

Here was your question:

Could you list the number of roofed US stadiums compared to Europe?

That's why I tried to write an exhaustive list for you ! ;) (you're welcome BTW...)


(a list in which I specified when a stadium is a baseball one or not, when it's domed or not, when it's u/c or not, etc. So, can't you read ????)




:ohno:

Guys, please back on topic

:bash::lol:

European football fans do not need armrests:cheers:

http://www.sport1.de/media/_redaktion/sportarten/fussball/dfbpokal1011/olympiastadion-imago-5x4_Diashow.jpg

Most european football fans do not even need seats :banana:

There aren't even armrests in most of the European stadiums, and you're talking about comfort?

Armrests? Are you on a WUM? Supporters should want to sway and surge on a standing terrace when a goal is scored and not want to lift their fat flabby clotted-veined arm off an armrest to eat another handful of popcorn in celebration.

The idea of watching a match with an armrest in a football stadium gives me goosebumps. Which overweight non-sports fan came up with that idea??

:wallbash::weird:


:cheers:

Armrests? Are you on a WUM? Supporters should want to sway and surge on a standing terrace when a goal is scored and not want to lift their fat flabby clotted-veined arm off an armrest to eat another handful of popcorn in celebration.

The idea of watching a match with an armrest in a football stadium gives me goosebumps. Which overweight non-sports fan came up with that idea??

:wallbash::weird:


:cheers:

you're not getting it

this one better than london olympic stadium

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Rams-could-be-violating-lease-moving-games-to-UK.html

This might throw up some promblems bit late since the club tickets for the game are already on sale.

1923

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4518/wembleystadium19230.jpg

1937

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4057/wembleystadium19372.jpg

One of the twin towers under construction:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4779/3313676.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/3313676.jpg/)

a version of my pic already posted in previous pages using the 'tiltshift" effect :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7001/6806695241_e031c91acc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6806695241/)
Wembley tiltshift (http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelferis/6806695241/) par axelferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/axelferis/), sur Flickr

I Liked the old Wembley. I Like the new Wembley, but I hoped the kept the twin towers. The had to integrate them in the plans for the new Wembley

That's a beautiful photo Axel, congrats.

thanks robh ;)

That's a beautiful photo Axel, congrats.

Personally I hate tilt-shift photos with an almost insane passion

why? it is a different way to see an image,a place no?

Personally I hate tilt-shift photos with an almost insane passion

:bash:

:ohno: NO !

The only thing I hate about the tilt-shift len is the price !

Personally I hate tilt-shift photos with an almost insane passion

I have to agree. It doesn't look like axel has taken a picture of Wembley, it looks like he's taken a picture of a small Wembley replica. That's not the photo's fault, it's the fault of the effects he's put on the photo. A picture of wembley doesn't need that many touches to make it a good photo. Maybe a b&w might be nice, but yeah.

I have to agree. It doesn't look like axel has taken a picture of Wembley, it looks like he's taken a picture of a small Wembley replica.

I think the miniture effect is kind of the point of tilt shift for most. I think it does it very well, and the first few times I saw a tilt-shift picture I was really quite taken with it.

The first few times though...

After seeing several hundred of the buggers, they really start to grate.


And don't get me started on pics that have been photoshopped so they are mainly B&W apart from one detail that's in colour.

Rev do you or have you worked in a photo shop ?

Rev do you or have you worked in a photo shop ?

Nope. Just seen far too many photos posted to forums using these effects over the past year or so.

It's the overexposure (for want of a better word) of them. I feel the same way if I see James Corden on tv.

Yeah I had left the photo world by the time them lens came out tho. Like some of James Cordens stuff tho. he does have some level of skill in his work its not has if he is a member from Towie or MiC cast tho them I do Hate

Wembley Stadium is probably the most overrated stadium in the world currently

defects:

-retractable roof very low & does not arches upwards like US/Canadian indoor stadiums which gives its very spacious feeling (Cowboy stadium)

-Only 1 & very small LED screen when a stadium this size needs 3-4 massive huge LED screens like US football stadium.

-That arc is a waste of money. Its neither aesthetic nor awe inspiring. money could've been spend on Full HD LED screens.

Not this guy again... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BAN HIM ALREADY!!!

You already closed few awesome threads because of him. PLEASE don't let this happen to this thread as well.

-Only 1 & very small LED screen when a stadium this size needs 3-4 massive huge LED screens like US football stadium.

It has two, and besides, we watch the pitch. The Cowboys stadium screen is a ridiculous piece of overblown technology. I'd hate any stadium in the UK to have anything like it. It represents everything that's wrong with modern sport.

-That arc is a waste of money. Its neither aesthetic nor awe inspiring. money could've been spend on Full HD LED screens.

Erm, it holds the roof up. It's the very thing which made this the biggest stadium in the world with every seat under cover. I've been there a few times and it defeinitely is awe inspiring in person. Coming out of Wembley Park station and seeing it lit up is brilliant.

i agrre metlife stadium in New york is disapointing when you jnow how winter are there :mad:

I don't know why american pay so much for stadiums without roofs! I don't understand this country sometimes?!

1.2 billion dollars for metlife is a total joke

easy kid

MetLife stadium is 10x better than overrated trash called Wembley

Fact 1: 4 huge extra large massive Full HD LED screens. Wembley dont even have 1 massive HD Screen. Most imp for sports fans.

Fact 2: Metlife is much better built. Wembley construction looks thin & tacky

Fact 3: NFL games dont get cancelled because of rain or snow like overblown friendly soccer matches. Rain, Snow, freezing cold, wind are all part & parcel of football games & they decides the outcome as well. we fans love it.

Fact 4: Wembley's roof is so low its literally hitting the head of the top 2 seating rows. It lacks the real proper arch of US/Canadian domes.

The only stadium better than Metlife Stadium is Cowboys stadium in dallas. Wembley should not even compare to these two state-of-the-art arenas.

Please ignore him. We all know what happened to previous threads in which he posted. He's a sad little troll.

You already closed few awesome threads because of him. PLEASE don't let this happen to this thread as well.
Indeed. Great message for trolls this place gives. Troll a thread, get it closed and on with the next one without any problems whatsoever.

Not this guy again... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BAN HIM ALREADY!!!

You already closed few awesome threads because of him. PLEASE don't let this happen to this thread as well.

Agreed. Some of his finer observations:


London has no landmarks (but Shangai does)
Brits are arrogant (New Yorkers are obviously mild mannered)
The London Olympics will be ordinary and thank God Rio will bring them back to their former glory (everything else much better)
London is a single sport city (NYC much better)
The Shard is uninteresting (Freedom Tower much better)


Silly little Indian boy with an agenda and an inferiority complex I think.

We watch the pitch. The Cowboys stadium screen is a ridiculous piece of overblown technology. I'd hate any stadium in the UK to have anything like it. It represents everything that's wrong with modern sport.


kent kid

your sour grapes are speaking. Cowboy stadium is clearly the best arena in the world currently.

Besides both metlife & cowboy stadium are built much better than cheaply constructed Wembley. the pictures also show that.

With super slow mo technology, unlimited camera angles. huge Full HD LED screens of cowboy stadium are appreciated the world over as the fans get the ultimate experience in the nail biting games.

you can talk up you brit stadiums all you want but Wembley is like a 90,000 clustrophobic prison camp compared to extremely spacious Cowboy stadium & metlife stadium.

kent kid

your sour grapes are speaking. Cowboy stadium is clearly the best arena in the world currently.

Besides both metlife & cowboy stadium are built much better than cheaply constructed Wembley. the pictures also show that.

With super slow mo technology, unlimited camera angles. huge Full HD LED screens of cowboy stadium are appreciated the world over as the fans get the ultimate experience in the nail biting games.

you can talk up you brit stadiums all you want but Wembley is like a 90,000 clustrophobic prison camp compared to extremely spacious Cowboy stadium & metlife stadium.

1. Brits don't want big screens. If the NFL does, good for them, but we don't. We build what we want, you build what you want. Difference being little Indian boy, I haven't been in the American Stadium threads starting a dick-size contest; something you've been doing all over SSC. If you think your attitude promotes NYC, you're very much mistaken.

2. Wembley cost a huge amount, and the internal and external finish, as well as the concourses are superb. They may be too corporate looking for many (I'd agree with that criticism to a large extent) but the finishes are not cheap.

3. You last point is HILARIOUS. The biggest criticism I've heard about Wembley is it's too big, too spacious, too cavernous, too much space between fans etc. A clustrophobic prison camp? :lol: There's no way you've been there, or if you have you have zero knowledge of UK sporting culture if you think the stadium is too small!!

You have failed over & over again to deny my FACTS


Agreed. Some of his finer observations:


London has no landmarks (but Shangai does) Fact: ORiental Pearl Tower compared to tacky childish carnival spirited LONDON EYE
Brits are arrogant (New Yorkers are obviously mild mannered)
The London Olympics will be ordinary and thank God Rio will bring them back to their former glory (everything else much better)FACT: Just look at how sydney & athens & particlarly BEijing games prepared & news surrounding it. London's tachy "pseudo eye" olympic touch is testiment to that.
London is a single sport city (NYC much better). Fact: London is soccer soccer & soccer. Even its native invented developed teams sport called cricket is Dying.
The Shard is uninteresting (Freedom Tower much better) FACT: The Shard is uglier than it looks. compare that to San Francisco's Pyramid which looks prettier than it actually is.


Silly little Indian boy with an agenda and an inferiority complex I think. FACT: Brit beggers right now begging India to reconsider Eurofighter typhoon after it lost out to French in competition

silly brit & his colonial mentality. still thinks London is imp city in the world.

silly brit & his colonial mentality. still thinks London is imp city in the world.

That didn't take long did it? Your sole reason for posting on this forum comes to light.

Please ignore him. We all know what happened to previous threads in which he posted. He's a sad little troll.

you are understaind me wrong. I'm not TROLLING at all.

I am just putting wembley in its place. its a decent stadium & definitely not the best in the world like Brits are making it out to be.

I mean compare wembley to Beijing's birds nest & Athens olympic stadium, they inspired "awes" & "oohs"

Cowboy stadium does that too every NFL game.

Wembley does not do that. I'm sorry to say that. It may be the best stadium in London or England but nothing more nothing less.

That didn't take long did it? Your sole reason for posting on this forum comes to light.

kent kid

mine is only a reply after you accused me of being indian filled with inferiority complex

when

your own London olympic stadium is a huge let down after "awe inspiring jaw droping" Beijing's Birds Nest.

I'm just stating the fact.

Not this guy again... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BAN HIM ALREADY!!!

You already closed few awesome threads because of him. PLEASE don't let this happen to this thread as well.

ok. dude. I did not come here to derail this thread.

While I'm still trying to figure out what makes wembley so special, I saw couple of posts degrading Cowboy Stadium, Metlife stadium that have been universally appreciated.

I felt the knee jert reaction to reply & put Wembley in its place by showing its disadvantages which it clearly has. may of them.

well. I will never post again in this thread if this offends some here.

good bye.

You have failed over & over again to deny my FACTS

None of those are even close to being facts, most are simply groundless opinions or plain wrong. I'll let you do some Googling to discover which are which, but I do want to pick up on this particular gem:

FACT: The Shard is uglier than it looks

What does that even mean? :lol:

Cowboys Stadium vs Wembley Stadium is a good talking point. But Metlife Stadium ! thats just a awefull waste of money and talent.

Also Cowboys Stadium is in Fort-Worth not Dallas.

alway moving on....

The NFL London Game Tickets are still unavailable due to the lease agreement at the Edwards Jones Dome.

It may be worth comparing Wembley to the Athens Stadium before they slapped the 2 arched roof on it. I have to say, looking at the Athens stadium I am filled with awe and ooh's! Far better than tacky ol' Wembley

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx217/bigcat1001/Athens_Olympic_Stadium_Jpg.jpg

Its got a running track around it which always sucks from a view point

Also Cowboys Stadium is in Fort-Worth not Dallas.
Actually it is in Arlington, which has almost 400,000 people itself, and is roughly halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth (no hyphen).

for the Olymipc?http://www.collegefun4u.com/track.php?u=4

Actually it is in Arlington, which has almost 400,000 people itself, and is roughly halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth (no hyphen).


Owned ! Yes it is. my bad

Cowboys Stadium vs Wembley Stadium is a good talking point. But Metlife Stadium ! thats just a awefull waste of money and talent.

shows how little you know about stadiums.

Wembley is ordinary stadium. maybe state-of-the-art from European & English standards. Its construction is way too cartoonish & tacky. That arc looks like it will blow away with first gush of wind 30 mph. Its real waste of money for $1.5 Billion. It just doesnt look it cost that much. more like $700 million.

Cowboy Stadium's only comparison is Metlife Stadium. Both build like a truck. huge, solid & built to last a 100 years. no hurricane can move them. Plus, their interior is gorgeous with massive HD screens everywhere & great seating.

Wembley lacks both interior & exterior for $1.5 billion.

a little analogy for you.

Cowboy Stadium = Hummer truck or Mercedez Benz 500
Metlife Stadium = Ford 4x4 truck or BMW 750 series
Wembley stadium = Hyundai sonata.

comparing wembley to cowboy stadium or metlife stadium is insult to both the latters.

well. I will never post again in this thread if this offends some here.

good bye.

Goodbye to you too :wave:

It's the very thing which made this the biggest stadium in the world with every seat under cover.

I think you forgot this stadium:
(Which is the biggest stadium in the world with every seats under cover, even if the 150K number is controversial, I think we all agree to say that it nevertheless has more than 90K)

http://top10hm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Rungrado-May-Day-Stadium.jpg

http://8c.img.v4.skyrock.net/8cd/foot-stadiums/pics/1334790838.jpg


Oh, and there is the Beijing Olympic stadium which AFAIK had 91,000 seats under cover during the games.

shows how little you know about stadiums.

Wembley is ordinary stadium. maybe state-of-the-art from European & English standards.

Silly little Indian boy returns despite his arguments being thouroughly debunked in every thread he has entered.

It's certainly state of the art by world standards, but as I've said before that doesn't mean it has to have ridiculously big screens or roofs too big or any other things you Merkins love in your stadiums. Who cares what a little American Indian thinks who's shown he has zero understanding of either our sporting culture or our nation, isn't willing to learn from those who do, is the cause of a thread being locked in this very section, and has spent the last week going round every thread about the UK saying how much better NYC and the US is? You're a cocky American of the worst kind, I'm sure any visitors to this thread who are also from your nation are embarrassed by your attitude.

I think you forgot this stadium:

Nope, I got my stat slightly wrong is all :lol:

Wembley was the largest football stadium in the world with every seat under cover. I'm not sure if it still is, but it was when it was built, and that's thanks to the completely "pointless" arch.

Beijing wouldn't count anyway even if my original stat was right, as it wasn't completed when Wembley was first used. Notice I said "made" in my first stat ;)

shows how little you know about stadiums.

Wembley is ordinary stadium. maybe state-of-the-art from European & English standards. Its construction is way too cartoonish & tacky. That arc looks like it will blow away with first gush of wind 30 mph. Its real waste of money for $1.5 Billion. It just doesnt look it cost that much. more like $700 million.

Cowboy Stadium's only comparison is Metlife Stadium. Both build like a truck. huge, solid & built to last a 100 years. no hurricane can move them. Plus, their interior is gorgeous with massive HD screens everywhere & great seating.

.

You have a fetish for HD screens, right? Well in Europe people prefer watching the game. The reasion, why there are so big screens in american football stadiums is, because from the upper stands you are miles away, because they prefer wasting space for boxes and lower stand seats and sell them to the double. Capitalism at its best

I'm not english but i think New Wembley is a great stadium with a very close atmosphere for a 90.000 stadium.

You have a fetish for HD screens, right? Well in Europe people prefer watching the game.

Well, I don't want to spam this Wembley thread, but here is an European stadium equipped with huge HD screens (the largest ones in Europe actually), they have been installed in 2007 mainly because of Rugby, where very big screens are really helpful for the action replays (much more than for replays in football, not to mention that during most of football competitions replays on the stadium screens are not allowed, at least here in France and during most of FIFA & UEFA official matches):

Stade de France ones (HD): 9,8 m x 20 m = 196 m2 (2,110 square feet)
Wembley ones: 8 m x 13 m = 104 m2 (1,119 square feet)

Paris, Stade de France. Largest ones in Europe:

9,8 m x 20 m: 196 m2 (2,110 square feet)

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3988/3328805752fdd1ef7cd4b.jpg

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2258/143320641114bb668f7fo.jpg

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4909/2332012180b4a78750c0o.jpg

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/29/1391605790885ff5109db.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5939/1568468043a2eecb36c3b.jpg

The argument about Wembley being tacky and having a poor finish amazes me. I have been lucky enough to go to Wembley many times. On my first visit I was expecting a lot due to how much the place cost; I wasn't dissapointed. You can see where the money has been spent with the quality of absolutly everything. The handrails, walkways, glass panels, everything is of the highest quality, you can see where the money has been spent.

Exactly. We have people who have been there, and then those who haven't. Can you tell who's who?

not to mention that during most of football competitions replays on the stadium screens are not allowed, at least here in France and during most of FIFA & UEFA official matches):



I correct you screens are allowed during FIFA WC ;)

I watch every WC and screens replays are allowed during matchs because of the friendly public which is better educated that the average fan of traditional european clubs

^^ Yeah I'm perfectly aware of that, since, for example, I attended a game in Germany during the world cup 2006 (the memorable quarter-final France vs Brazil in Frankfurt).

So, that's why I wrote "during most of the [...] FIFA official matches" (most ≠ all ;)) i.e. friendly matches or WC qualification matches for example, which are all under the FIFA jurisdiction too, AFAIK.

I can be wrong, but at every friendly matches I attended, in France or abroad (e.g. the last England-France at Wembley), I don't remember that they broadcasted the replays on the screens in the stadium. (only the suites/boxes/BS screens show the replays)

At Stamford Bridge at least, they show highlights (goals, close shots but not contentious decisions) during Premier League games but not during Champions League matches. It will just depend on FIFA/UEFA/FA rules.

Goal replays are great but screens any bigger than Stade de France (brilliant stadium by the way) would be a distraction. I have a TV at home, thats not what i go to games for.

i think hindustani has a specific boner for the cowboys stadium and metlife. i wouldn't even say they are my 2 personal favourite stadiums in the nfl either. im a much bigger fan of the likes of soldier field and centurylink field that actually have a bit of quirkiness and character considering the fact that they are new builds. i've commented on wembley being too "corporate" as that was my experience when i was there, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that there was clearly a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to the specifications that make it a truly world class arena. the arch alone is an amazing piece of architecture that only the most bias and bitter of people could condemn.

i think hindustani has a specific boner for the cowboys stadium and metlife. i wouldn't even say they are my 2 personal favourite stadiums in the nfl either. im a much bigger fan of the likes of soldier field and centurylink field that actually have a bit of quirkiness and character considering the fact that they are new builds. i've commented on wembley being too "corporate" as that was my experience when i was there, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that there was clearly a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to the specifications that make it a truly world class arena. the arch alone is an amazing piece of architecture that only the most bias and bitter of people could condemn.

Amazing piece of architecture?
Truly horrible - an arch resembling a basket handle that leans over the stadium like a drunk over a bar held up by thread-lines.
The surroundings consist of just one big brutalist concrete jungle - no parks, trees, river, grass, water feature or any sign of nature. Ironically the name of the main metro station there is Wembley Park. :ohno:

Olympic Way (pedestrian thoroughfare from Wembley Park) is the most ugly and brutalist passage that you will find in London and has about as much grace as an elephant doing a somersault.

If only they could start from scratch and do the whole thing again - a stadium resembling a stadium (not a corporate venue or conference centre) with pleasant natural surroundings and much less concrete. Too late now.


.

It was a park when the old stadium was built and has for the ugliest passages in London you must not know London that well !

My personal experience leads me to say that Wembley passage (station->stadium) is wonderful :)

Downing the stairs and looking at the giant arch who is a true marvel was one my best souvenir

The regeneration coming will make it an very excellent place.

The only negative point is to live london centre with tube and pass to aerial section . So ugly houses should be destroyed :down:

But the stadium itself KO the majority of Europe by it's spectacular dimension and commodities.

For example Wembley is above all of majors big stadiums of europe.

The best for me are:

1/Wembley
2/SDF
3/Allianz
4/Berlin

I think the Wembley Arch should be lit up like the Eiffel Tower, all sparkling like on New Years when Wembley hosts the Champions League Final in 2013. :)

The only negative point is to live london centre with tube and pass to aerial section . So ugly houses should be destroyed :down

you will see that everywhere u go in london apart from the usual tourist spots. the grunginess of london is one of its unique charms and you also need to understand that london functioned as one of the main industrial areas in the world for a long time giving it that sort of look.

sorry for you but industrial or not this part of london is the ugliedt i've seen after what we have around Lille.

i personally don't like all those red bricks houses that pollute my vision.

But the ones i saw in london with graffitis could get the award of "ugliest quarter" of Europe :puke:

you will see that everywhere u go in london apart from the usual tourist spots. the grunginess of london is one of its unique charms and you also need to understand that london functioned as one of the main industrial areas in the world for a long time giving it that sort of look.
Saying 'you need to understand' to Axel does not work, sorry. I find London a fantastic place and love exacly what you described as grunginess. But we all have our tastes.

not to mention that during most of football competitions replays on the stadium screens are not allowed


You don't remember the 2006 WC Final?

OgtXrECUprE

Referee Elizondo didn't see Zidane's headbutt against Materazzi.
At 1:33 in the video he got a hint from his linesman, who had seen it on the stadium screens at the replay of the scene.

Why do you assume that ref had seen it on a screen and not with his own eyes?

Changing or making a decision based on video replay isn't allowed. Do you remember last world cup? Roberto Rosetti did a mistake and even tho he had seen it on a screen he couldn't change his decision. It was a big topic back then..

the ref based on what his assistant saw on screens!

It has been established that the main ref hasn't seen at all what happened

The story was in the newspapers next monday, it is proven by witnesses, the linesman could not see the headbutt.

The incident was at 0:15, the call of the linesman was at 1:25, at 1:32 the linesman pointed to the big screen in Olympiastadion. Elizondo went straight to Zidane and sent him off.

Fabio Capello has stepped down as england manager
http://www.thefa.com/

You don't remember the 2006 WC Final?

Haven't you read the full sentence, dear German friend ??? Not to mention the messages I posted later in this thread ????????

Nein, you haven't apparently !! :(:(

Haven't you read the full sentence, dear German friend ??? Not to mention the messages I posted later in this thread ????????

Nein, you haven't apparently !! :(:(

Excusez-moi s'il vous plaît, Monsieur parcdesprinces:madwife:

^^ :angel:

Fabio Capello has stepped down as england manager
http://www.thefa.com/


the best thing for Wembley since it has been renovated ! :cheers:

the best thing for Wembley since it has been renovated ! :cheers:

I don't think so! With another mediocre english coach they will fail to qualify for the wc 2014! (remember 2008 with MC Claren) :lol::lol::lol::lol:

^^ Stuart Pearce is to temporalily take charge for the game against the Netherlands, However it's expected Harry Redknapp will eventually take charge.

To have a foreign coach at that price is useless!

Mc laren was an incompetent but it doesn't justify to overpay foreign coaches like capello,eriksson.


FA is often perceived as loaded by incompetence but this time they make me happy.

I prefer an english one who have at least the national fiber.
Fed up with all the mercenaries that downgrade the prestige of wembley by boring matches

I still do not believe that the capacity is exactly 90,000 seats.

^^ Neither do I !


:colbert:

They should've installed over 90,000 seats in order to compensate for those black tarps they use for segregation, or installed a similar segregation system that Arsenal and Reading use.

They should've installed over 90,000 seats in order to compensate for those black tarps they use for segregation, or installed a similar segregation system that Arsenal and Reading use.

does it really matter? its still the biggest national stadium in europe and one of the biggest in the world.

^^
And the biggest waste of money (apart from employing Capello).

:drool:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/509/thestadiumnightarcashx.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/406/thestadiumnightarcashx.jpg/)

:yes:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3725/thestadiumenglandfansas.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/thestadiumenglandfansas.jpg/)

:cheers2:

where is this lake? :uh:

I want the same for my next time!

^^ Brent Reservoir:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4528/capturehn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/406/capturehn.jpg/)

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8397/10752290.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/10752290.jpg/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9444/13133015.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/13133015.jpg/)

fantastic place to shot! :okay:

thanks! rendez vous is taken!

Amazing piece of architecture?
Truly horrible - an arch resembling a basket handle that leans over the stadium like a drunk over a bar held up by thread-lines.
The surroundings consist of just one big brutalist concrete jungle - no parks, trees, river, grass, water feature or any sign of nature. Ironically the name of the main metro station there is Wembley Park. :ohno:

Olympic Way (pedestrian thoroughfare from Wembley Park) is the most ugly and brutalist passage that you will find in London and has about as much grace as an elephant doing a somersault.

If only they could start from scratch and do the whole thing again - a stadium resembling a stadium (not a corporate venue or conference centre) with pleasant natural surroundings and much less concrete. Too late now.
.

exactly my point. Whats so beautiful about an arch that looks like its made of bamboo sticks connected to a fruit basket. I still cannot get my head around how some forumers here find it beautiful & breathtaking & gorgeous.

nothing fancy about it. I think it looks just plain ugly. money could've been much better spend on building a much better high arching retractible roof that doesn't look like tin shade of many 3rd world country houses.

Last arch that looked very good is the Athens olympic stadium for 2004 olympics.

The beautiful, breathtaking and gorgeous arch. :bow:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7918/wembleystadiumwallpaper.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/wembleystadiumwallpaper.jpg/)

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3207/33561610.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/33561610.jpg/)

From (Mick Baker)rooster on Flickr:

Hilton Hotel

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/551/hiltoni.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/220/hiltoni.jpg/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36593372@N04/6745188905/

Brent Civic Centre

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9895/64671339.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/64671339.jpg/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36593372@N04/6707105983/

at the entrance :)
http://i39.tinypic.com/rs4taa.jpg


Is that an Ikea, or just a warehouse?

del

^^ Indeed ! (Europe strong !! :D:D)

But it can't host 110K+ spectators (standing areas/terraces included) as the Cowboys stadium does.
At least not yet ....

Is that an Ikea, or just a warehouse?

I've been to this stadium (in august 2010) and believe me it looks much, much better in real than on those pics. ;)


PS: Except obviously its poor, very poor location in the middle of nowhere (just like its predecessor). :ohno:

^^

Here we go again - dick measuring, biggest wins.

Its quality that matters more than quantity. Take a look at some of the new stadiums in the Ukraine and Poland for examples of quality.