Never built Stadiums

[Darloeye]

Might be why its in the "Never Built Stadiums Thread"

[www.sercan.de]

New Vikings Stadium

Originally Posted by RMB2007

One of the failed proposals:

[RMB2007]

2000 Olympic Stadium (Manchester, England)

Originally Posted by DiscoSteve

I've culled some great Manchester Olympics 2000 Stadium Shots from the Central Office of Information document I linked to above

Site View



Exterior Stadium View



Interior Stadium View

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=2999

[www.sercan.de]

Olympic stadium munih
http://www.gaeuboden.com/Html/FCBaye...rschlaege1.htm

[Aka]

Old Estádio da Luz redevelopment for 2004.




image hosted on flickr














The first project for the new stadium.

[www.sercan.de]

Epic fail by SANAA


Camp Nou Stadium Redevelopment - Competition entry, SANAA

[Lumbergo]

sheet, some of those sight lines under the over hangs look terrible.

[RMB2007]

Some of the failed new Anfield designs:

[Alanzeh]

Well, I'm an Corinthians fan, we have a lot of never built stadiums, aproximately 14 projects

[ttecture]

Originally Posted by RMB2007

Some of the failed new Anfield designs:

No wonder, they are terrible designs!

They are blatant copies of other premier league stadiums. The first is the Emirates in form, with Etihads Tensile roof. And the second proposal is the Emirates with Wembleys arch x2.
A little advice; if your going to plagurise/butcher somebody else's stadiums, make sure its not the teams in your own country/league.

I'm guessing their both by AFL due to internal bannering. Poor Show

[LucianPopa1000]

the anfield version above is very close to an ideal stadium.The tiers are large and steep,with rather small kop end.But even so,its so much better than Emirates or Etihad.The exterior is a lousy copy but the interior is what really matters.

[ttecture]

I agree the bowl is important factor, i don't quite understand how you can fairly judge from the render.

So emirates/etihad/anfield all have 60k bowls.
If Anfield have two steep tiers the guys at the back will be really far away from the pitch compared to stadiums that utilise efficient sightlines and tight tiers.

I like that Anfield would want to hold onto its KOP heritage, but putting seats that high behind the goals just puts more spectators in the worst viewing position. If for example Gerrard is taking a penalty at the other end of the pitch, you will be around 180m away. Follow Etihads example, design a bowl that puts spectators as close as physically possible to the entire pitch. Which is why they have more seats on sides, (also conveniently giving you a better angle of the game)

Emirates alternatively has a double saddle bowl, mainly to accommodate their high number of club seats and boxes. Obviously it puts spectators further away than ManCity but it makes them alot of money, so for the club it balances.

I would take the worst seat in Etihad over the worst in the Anfield Proposal anyday.

[3SPIRES]

The first designs for new anfield were based on Bolton's Reebok Stadium iirc.

[LucianPopa1000]

Originally Posted by ttecture

I agree the bowl is important factor, i don't quite understand how you can fairly judge from the render.

So emirates/etihad/anfield all have 60k bowls.
If Anfield have two steep tiers the guys at the back will be really far away from the pitch compared to stadiums that utilise efficient sightlines and tight tiers.

I like that Anfield would want to hold onto its KOP heritage, but putting seats that high behind the goals just puts more spectators in the worst viewing position. If for example Gerrard is taking a penalty at the other end of the pitch, you will be around 180m away. Follow Etihads example, design a bowl that puts spectators as close as physically possible to the entire pitch. Which is why they have more seats on sides, (also conveniently giving you a better angle of the game)

Emirates alternatively has a double saddle bowl, mainly to accommodate their high number of club seats and boxes. Obviously it puts spectators further away than ManCity but it makes them alot of money, so for the club it balances.

I would take the worst seat in Etihad over the worst in the Anfield Proposal anyday.

Putting seats that high?its not higher than man utd stretford end ,and easily smaller than bernabeu or san siro in height(this due to the fact that is a single tier).Anfield,new or old will always have a large kop end,they dont care about simmetry.IM pretty sure LFC will try to have as many seats on the sides as possible(except their beloved kop),the away end will proly be 1/2 or 1/3 of the kops size.Being as close as possible while in the upper tiers isnt the most ideal either,the fans at the bernabeu dont like it up there because they have a birds eye view and players seem even smaller.
The ideal stadium design is something like Dortmund,huge steep tiers,large kop end ,all very close to the pitch and under a sloping rood.The above design resembles quite alot with dortmund.Its even better in the roof department.
Steep upper tiers dont take you that much farter from the game,the difference is minimal.If the stadium would have some overhanging teh problem wouldnt exista at all.Trust me Wembleys upper tier is miles from the pitch compared to this anfield.Same goes for san siro or ataturk in istanbul.Not even mentioning anz stadium,that baby has 100 rows or more(including overhanged rows).
This anfield design is more than decent,except the exterior.

[ttecture]

Originally Posted by LucianPopa1000

Putting seats that high?its not higher than man utd stretford end ,and easily smaller than bernabeu or san siro in height(this due to the fact that is a single tier).Anfield,new or old will always have a large kop end,they dont care about simmetry.IM pretty sure LFC will try to have as many seats on the sides as possible(except their beloved kop),the away end will proly be 1/2 or 1/3 of the kops size.Being as close as possible while in the upper tiers isnt the most ideal either,the fans at the bernabeu dont like it up there because they have a birds eye view and players seem even smaller.
The ideal stadium design is something like Dortmund,huge steep tiers,large kop end ,all very close to the pitch and under a sloping rood.The above design resembles quite alot with dortmund.Its even better in the roof department.
Steep upper tiers dont take you that much farter from the game,the difference is minimal.If the stadium would have some overhanging teh problem wouldnt exista at all.Trust me Wembleys upper tier is miles from the pitch compared to this anfield.Same goes for san siro or ataturk in istanbul.Not even mentioning anz stadium,that baby has 100 rows or more(including overhanged rows).
This anfield design is more than decent,except the exterior.

I'm just saying like for like. Obviously Oldtrafford/Bernabeu/SanSiro all have 20k+ extra seats. I meant comparatively to same size stadiums. Also steep stands dont always equate to fantastic c-values.

I still disagree with your view of a perfect stadium. Step one of any stadium text book (including fifa) states that the optimal distance from pitch centre point is 90m. So draw a cirlce from the centre point 90m radius. Your priority should be to fill that circle.

http://www.secopa.ba.gov.br/sites/de...ngl%C3%AAs.pdf (check page 36)

That is what ManCity did, meaning everybody in the entire stadium is as close as possible. They are 60k, so any 60k stadium that instead opts for rectilinear bowls/double saddle bowl are not getting their spectators as close. Simple

Obviously we have different tastes, i prefer intimacy to the play, you prefer the huge stands for atmosphere.

[LucianPopa1000]

Originally Posted by ttecture

I'm just saying like for like. Obviously Oldtrafford/Bernabeu/SanSiro all have 20k+ extra seats. I meant comparatively to same size stadiums. Also steep stands dont always equate to fantastic c-values.

I still disagree with your view of a perfect stadium. Step one of any stadium text book (including fifa) states that the optimal distance from pitch centre point is 90m. So draw a cirlce from the centre point 90m radius. Your priority should be to fill that circle.

http://www.secopa.ba.gov.br/sites/de...ngl%C3%AAs.pdf (check page 36)

That is what ManCity did, meaning everybody in the entire stadium is as close as possible. They are 60k, so any 60k stadium that instead opts for rectilinear bowls/double saddle bowl are not getting their spectators as close. Simple

Obviously we have different tastes, i prefer intimacy to the play, you prefer the huge stands for atmosphere.

That optimal distance is far too small.I mean considering the recommended length of a pitch is 105 m and min distance between 1st tow and goal line is 7.5m,7.5m+ 52.5m(half pitch)=60m,u only have 30m left,thats barely enough space for 40 tight rows.Ridiculous.Big stadiums will have quite a few spectators far and in the gods,there is no way around it.IMO its more important to have the stands close ,with large steep)ish) tiers than follow UEFA-FIFAs rules.Wembley has the last spectator on the sides at 120m from center point(actually bigger because of the height),and everyone says its the best or one of the best stadiums in the world.Im pretty sure LFC fans would prefer a rectangular boxy stadium to a oval(ish)like Emirates.
We are not gonna build all new stadiums oval.it would be boring as hell
All would look like Raymon James in NFL.
U can have intimacy and huge stands (dormund and bernabeu are both fairly close).
Modern big stadiums will,unfortunately for some,have the upper tiers far and high from the pitch/turf.The larger legroom,the luxury suites,club levels all push the upper tiers farther and higher than ever.Get used to it.
I still think is a good design of Anfield,better than the one from HOK i think

[Leedsrule]

Originally Posted by ttecture

That is what ManCity did, meaning everybody in the entire stadium is as close as possible. They are 60k, so any 60k stadium that instead opts for rectilinear bowls/double saddle bowl are not getting their spectators as close. Simple

Obviously we have different tastes, i prefer intimacy to the play, you prefer the huge stands for atmosphere.

To be fair, man city's ethihad is only 48k. Also, that wasnt purpose built for football. There is only 1 new stadium in england purpose built for football which has much bigger sides than ends, and that's the AMEX.
Where would you say the worst seats are in that proposal? At the back of the upper tier sides? Are you sure thats further away than, say, emirates for example?
Also, at the end of the day, all modern stadiums will have great views from every seat. Id take the worst seat in that proposal ahead of the worst seat at anfield anyday.

[ttecture]

Originally Posted by Leedsrule

To be fair, man city's ethihad is only 48k. Also, that wasnt purpose built for football. There is only 1 new stadium in england purpose built for football which has much bigger sides than ends, and that's the AMEX.
Where would you say the worst seats are in that proposal? At the back of the upper tier sides? Are you sure thats further away than, say, emirates for example?
Also, at the end of the day, all modern stadiums will have great views from every seat. Id take the worst seat in that proposal ahead of the worst seat at anfield anyday.

Apologies, i seem to have derailed the thread. My original comments were aimed more at AFL external designs. The bowl doesn't offend me as much as it may seem.

Worst seats are behind the goals at the top/back. And my point is that if Anfield isn't going to have lots of boxes/club suites then it should be alot closer/better than emirates.


I agree, worst seat in proposed over existing, but that isn't hard, Anfield currently has some absolutely terrible seats.

Originally Posted by LucianPopa1000

That optimal distance is far too small.I mean considering the recommended length of a pitch is 105 m and min distance between 1st tow and goal line is 7.5m,7.5m+ 52.5m(half pitch)=60m,u only have 30m left,thats barely enough space for 40 tight rows.Ridiculous.Big stadiums will have quite a few spectators far and in the gods,there is no way around it.IMO its more important to have the stands close ,with large steep)ish) tiers than follow UEFA-FIFAs rules.Wembley has the last spectator on the sides at 120m from center point(actually bigger because of the height),and everyone says its the best or one of the best stadiums in the world.Im pretty sure LFC fans would prefer a rectangular boxy stadium to a oval(ish)like Emirates.
We are not gonna build all new stadiums oval.it would be boring as hell
All would look like Raymon James in NFL.
U can have intimacy and huge stands (dormund and bernabeu are both fairly close).
Modern big stadiums will,unfortunately for some,have the upper tiers far and high from the pitch/turf.The larger legroom,the luxury suites,club levels all push the upper tiers farther and higher than ever.Get used to it.
I still think is a good design of Anfield,better than the one from HOK i think

The optimal distance isn't up for debate, that is simply the best distance to view the sport from. Its calculated on speed of the game vs size of the ball. Which is why the optimal distance for tennis is much smaller (smaller/faster moving ball).

Naturally if you cant fit your capacity into that circle then you evenly add on rows, keeping the curved bowl offset.

Wembley is the best example of this, it starts with slightly curved lower bowl, low angle, then becomes more circular, orientated at the centrepoint, which is why they get such good views. The upper tier is steep with mosts seats on sidelines. They even replace some of the worst upper tier seats with video boards. 90,000 fantastic seats.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Leedsrule]

Personally I think ends directly behind the goal are much better than the corners even when you are high up, At wembley i'd rather sit above the screens than where that picture was taken from ^.
An I think the emirates is suprisingly intimate considering the pitch to stand distances and VIP tiers. I think it looks smaller than the city of manchester from inside.

[LucianPopa1000]

Camp Nou has more seats,all closer than wembley 90k.Bernabeu is only 5k smaller and is so much closer.Bernabeu last row is where the last row on middle tier at wembley is.IMO wembley is a very good design,only thing i would change is the middle tier .It should overhang 10 rows of the lower,not 5 or 0 like it is .