KOLKATA - Yuva Bharati Krirangan (120,000)

[ashindia]

Small Renovation done for Argentina vs Venezuela match

Pictures and Details :-
http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/13...ium-all-set-to

[adeaide]

image hosted on flickr

[Jim856796]

The stadium is located in a planned city named Bidhannagar, which is popularly called Salt Lake City (not to be confused with the United States city of the same name).

[MrChavcore]

Originally Posted by Jim856796

That cannot and will not happen in our lifetimes. Even if it is not used for cricket, we are not losing another perfectly good stadium to decay or demolition. Dom't make any suggestions like that again. This stadium cannot die.

or what you're going to form a picket line across the internet and refuse people entry to this site? why is every thread you start some over aggressive tirade about what YOU want?

[Jim856796]

Sir, the dispute is over. Please do not make it worse, especially by angering other users.

[Lumbergo]

the only person getting angry is you, jim.

[Taller, Better]

I don't want to close this thread, but will do so if the sniping and fighting does not stop. Please start afresh, and this time respect one another's opinions without getting personal about it. Thanks.

[Linguine]

beautiful site for this gigantic stadium...

[gavstar00]

Originally Posted by Linguine

beautiful site for this gigantic stadium...

Agreed, the setting is fantastic and offers a huge amount of potential for further development. As had been discussed long ago, if India were ever looking to create some form of Sports Hub, it certainly provides the space and setting to do so. My only criticism is the current state of the stadium.

Massive? Yes, but it's also relatively delapidated at this point and in desperate need of a make-over. The most cost effective way of doing so I would've thought is to (Jim, ear muffs!) tear it down and start over again.

Then again is there any real need for it? Maybe someone in the know can correct me, and if i'm wrong please do so, but India already has a large athletics stadium in Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in Delhi that can cover interantional athletic events and as Cricket is the most popular sport in India, this is also well serviced by Eden Gardens in Kolkata. So I guess the question would be is there any liklihood of any redevelopment of the stadium? Would the soccer teams who play there need it upgraded? Could they even afford to do it?

[trmather]

I suppose as long as no-one complains then the powers that be have no need to spend money on the stadium.

Do they have it if it was actually needed though? I'd imagine it'd take a fair whack to upgrade it fully to FIFA standards.

[debayanlahiri]

The stadium is getting a fresh coat of paint (sky blue and white - the new theme colour of the city of joy)..

The new Sports Minister has also raised the rent from Rs.2,000 to Rs.50,000; which amount would be utilized for the development of the stadium..

[www.sercan.de]

any information about the capacity?
when will it be an all-seater?

[Huskies]

Yeah agree, i find it somewhat ridiculous that this stadium is allowed to sit at second largest in the world with a capacity of 120 000 people when it is beyond obvious that it cannot take even close to that many seated people. Even if they sometimes do squeeze that many people in, in some ways making "legit" to say that is the capacity, it is still very misleading in terms of comparing to other stadiums.

In May days case, we have found the stadium to physically be very huge, and in theory capable of maybe holding 150 000 and at least without a doubt holding 120 000+ (with pictures proving there are plastic seats with generous spacing in the entire stadium)

This stadium however is not even CLOSE to mayday in physical size, and gets its 120 000 "capacity" only from poor safety standards and people standing/ squeezing a lot on concrete steps. I would even go as far and say that this stadium is smaller than Bukit Jalil.

If you tear out all the seats in emirates stadium, put some fences up and then let 100 000 people squeeze in the way they seem fit (by standing, sitting almost on top of each other or whatever) does that make it the largest stadium in england because it now has a higher "capacity" than wembley?

Not in my opinion. The second place rank/ 120 000 cap on this stadium should be followed by a whole bunch asterix * IMO.

[michał_]

Originally Posted by Huskies

Yeah agree, i find it somewhat ridiculous that this stadium is allowed to sit at second largest in the world with a capacity of 120 000 people when it is beyond obvious that it cannot take even close to that many seated people.

So what?! If it takes that many standing people, it's still bigger than stadia with seats only. Providing seating or standing is a choice and maybe we should actually focus on number of people rather than seats...

Originally Posted by Huskies

Even if they sometimes do squeeze that many people in, in some ways making "legit" to say that is the capacity, it is still very misleading in terms of comparing to other stadiums.

No, it is not. Trying to build any perfect comparison is impossible and that's that. Even more - why would anyone need to do so?! There's terracing, there are bleachers (are we to disqualify all American largest venues for not having individual seats?), there are thousands of seat designs that may influence capacities (not even starting with categories for corporate clients, skyboxes, blah, blah), there are international regulations, national or local ones that also influence the numbers. There won't ever be a solid base to compare these stadiums and trying to dismiss this ground's size is funny. If they let this many people inside, and all indications say they actually do, then this is this stadium's capacity.

Originally Posted by Huskies

In May days case, we have found the stadium to physically be very huge, and in theory capable of maybe holding 150 000 and at least without a doubt holding 120 000+ (with pictures proving there are plastic seats with generous spacing in the entire stadium)
This stadium however is not even CLOSE to mayday in physical size, and gets its 120 000 "capacity" only from poor safety standards and people standing/ squeezing a lot on concrete steps. I would even go as far and say that this stadium is smaller than Bukit Jalil.

Remind me now, are we talking about PHYSICAL SIZE or CAPACITY? If one has to be in accordance with the other, then I'm sure you will never agree that Metlife Stadium, which is a lot bigger than Giants Stadium, has actually smaller capacity...

Originally Posted by Huskies

If you tear out all the seats in emirates stadium, put some fences up and then let 100 000 people squeeze in the way they seem fit (by standing, sitting almost on top of each other or whatever) does that make it the largest stadium in england because it now has a higher "capacity" than wembley?

If this would happen, yes, it would be the largest in Britain (providing they wouldn't do the same with Wembley). Terracing is a perfectly legitimate way to cater for viewers, not everyone has to like, care to or afford sitting. Not everyone has to like standing as well, but I guarantee there are thousands (probably in tens of thousands) of Gunners fans who would sign any petition leading to standing room being reintroduced for them, if there was any real chance for it.

[www.sercan.de]

image hosted on flickr

যুবভারতী ক্রীড়াঙ্গন, Yuva Bharati Krirangan (Salt Lake Stadium) von anindya55~trying to catch up with everyone auf Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Salt_Lake_Stadium_-_Yuva_Bharati_Krirangan_,_Kolkata_-_Calcutta von kakshah auf Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Salt Lake Stadium von A y A n auf Flickr


image hosted on flickr

magnífico estadio von Sourodeep auf Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Not Nou Camp-It's Yuvabharati Krirangan (Salt Lake Stadium , Kolkata) von Debadri auf Flickr

[Huskies]

Originally Posted by michał_

So what?! If it takes that many standing people, it's still bigger than stadia with seats only. Providing seating or standing is a choice and maybe we should actually focus on number of people rather than seats...


No, it is not. Trying to build any perfect comparison is impossible and that's that. Even more - why would anyone need to do so?! There's terracing, there are bleachers (are we to disqualify all American largest venues for not having individual seats?), there are thousands of seat designs that may influence capacities (not even starting with categories for corporate clients, skyboxes, blah, blah), there are international regulations, national or local ones that also influence the numbers. There won't ever be a solid base to compare these stadiums and trying to dismiss this ground's size is funny. If they let this many people inside, and all indications say they actually do, then this is this stadium's capacity.


Remind me now, are we talking about PHYSICAL SIZE or CAPACITY? If one has to be in accordance with the other, then I'm sure you will never agree that Metlife Stadium, which is a lot bigger than Giants Stadium, has actually smaller capacity...


If this would happen, yes, it would be the largest in Britain (providing they wouldn't do the same with Wembley). Terracing is a perfectly legitimate way to cater for viewers, not everyone has to like, care to or afford sitting. Not everyone has to like standing as well, but I guarantee there are thousands (probably in tens of thousands) of Gunners fans who would sign any petition leading to standing room being reintroduced for them, if there was any real chance for it.

All your points are valid, but i still think physical size is significant when comparing stadiums. Although capacity is the best way to rank, it should still be SEATING capacity (Meaning the german bundesliga stadiums should be listed with their all seater capacity imo).

Mayday Stadium has the highest capacity, but mayday is actually HUUUUUUGE and has seats, making it ... "earn" it's capacity/ reputation as big in a way. Same goes for Big college stadiums, sure they don't have plastic seats, but the space given to each ticketholder is as big or even bigger than many seats. And they are just MASSIVE stadiums.

to people that lack the knowledge of you and the other members of this board in the many ways capacities can vary, they assume a 120 000 cap stadium is HUGE and way bigger than a 85 000 venue, not the same size but more primitive.

Kind of the same way I think it is misleading to call a 80 meter tall building with a 420 meter antenna on the roof a "500 meter tower"

I think the most fair comparison is if the same seat size and distance is put into the bowl of every stadium (leg room is hard to do anything with..) which stadium then has the highest capacity? It would be strictly which stadium was BIGGER, and not about tall ornaments, big pressboxes, STANDINGROOM or other misleading things. Mayday would still be no 1, but this stadium would not even make the top 15.

Again, all your points are true, and in terms of the amount of people allowed in it has a capacity of 120 000 people. I think the emirates example is the most obvious one that we won't agree on. If you change the rules further and rip out all the seats in emirates, decide that only 10 year old kids can enter and have no demands on evacuation at all, thus making it possible to cram in 200 000 people in the stadium and doing so on a regular basis, Wembley is a bigger stadium than Emirates.

[NavyBlue]

Originally Posted by www.sercan.de

image hosted on flickr

Love the grass on the outside of the running track... don't think I've ever seen that.

As for the fully-seated argument... looks like 70-80k to the naked eye

[SoroushPersepolisi]

the stadium is very interesting, it doesnt look like a 120000 capacity ground
compare to lets say azadi stadium , azadi looks fairly colossal in some angles compared to this
nice stadium though

[gincan]

I think this stadium would hold between 50 and 60.000 if converted to an all seater, maybe 70.000 if they used the smallest possible seats. Compare it to say Murumbi in Sao Paulo, it had a 130.000 capacity when all standing and now it has a capacity of 67.000 when all seater.