LONDON - Emirates Stadium (60,362)

[tv123]

Vuvuzelas not welcome at Emirates Stadium!

Further to their hugely debated involvement at this summer's World Cup Finals in South Africa, Arsenal Football Club has decided to forbid the use of vuvuzelas within Emirates Stadium with immediate effect.

This decision has been taken to ensure the enjoyment and safety of supporters on Matchdays, which is of paramount importance to the Club.

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...s-not-welcome-

[KingmanIII]

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by gavstar00

More Good News - the return of the mighty North Bank!

Arsenal Football Club is delighted to announce that the stands at Emirates Stadium are to be re-named for the start of the new Premier League season.

I'm for it but... a) Why did they have to wait so long and b) 'twould be more effective had the stands featured more independent character.

Emirates is a great structure and not nearly as soulless as some make it to be, but such superficial dressing up can be easily taken over the top.

Alas, it's the club and its fans as a whole that's more important. Up the Gunners!

[gavstar00]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

I'm for it but... a) Why did they have to wait so long and b) 'twould be more effective had the stands featured more independent character.

Emirates is a great structure and not nearly as soulless as some make it to be, but such superficial dressing up can be easily taken over the top.

Alas, it's the club and its fans as a whole that's more important. Up the Gunners!

a) they had to wait so long because in recent years the club has become almost completely detached in my opinion from the real fans. In so many ways they've gone about whoring out the history of the club to turn a quick buck (the new crest, the jersies that take advantage of some random point in our history to exploit, that horrendous monstrousity of blocks with peoples names on it outside the Armoury, the fact that the stadium was essentially a shell with no real character until maybe two seasons ago...etc). I think they've finally copped on the the very essenence of the club means that you need to have that nod back to the hisory and what they've finally gone about doing is excellent in my opinion - particularly fond of the Spirit of Highbury wall and the Clock now going above that end!

b) definitely agree about the independant stands, that was one of the most charming things about Highbury as well as the intimacy in terms of how close you were to the pitch.

In some areas of the ground, there is a distinct lack of atmosphere. Club level for example is a total sham - you'll usually see empty seats five minutes after kick off, either side of half time and before full time which when I was up there was to do with the customers (I refuse to call them fans) ducking in early to take advantage of free beer that was one offer - not sure if this is still the case though. High up the top of the top tiers suffers from a lack of atmosphere too, i'm convinced it's to do with the way the roof cuts off your line of sight of the stands on the other side.

In saying the, if you're lucky enough to get tickets on the North Bank lower (God it feels brilliant to be able to say that again!) it's an absolute blast. The front five or six rows rarely sit and the banter is great (if a little blue at times but thats half the fun!) and the stewards are quite easy going around that area.

It'll never be Highbury but its certainly feeling more and more like home now. Now all we need to do is add a trophy to the place!

[GunnerJacket]

gavstar,

As I understand it the club had to remake the badge because they could not claim full legal copyright protections for the previous one. Frankly I don't get that and the change has ever disappointed me. I sent a looong letter denouncing the cartoonish crest we now see adorning the kits. I realize the absence of finer detailing makes it easier to reproduce on hats and such but it does turn its back on the clubs proud history. What better organization to use olde style lettering and classic English heraldry than one of England's oldest and proudest football clubs?!!!

And while I have some laments about the Grove as well I think it's often given a bad rap simply because it is different from Highbury (which in turn is a testament to how nice Highbury truly was). What the lower tier lacks in proximity to the pitch at least provides the closest fans with full views at each corner, and ensures the capacity doesn't take a huge hit for UEFA/FIFA events. I understand the roof line issue as well but that makes for a wonderful pitch, helps the air flow throughout the stands and makes for a wonderfully bright and light (weight) feeling deeper within stadium. So the form is fine I just wish they could've raised the roof a little higher. Atmosphere can be improved through the acts of fans, as well, and I think winning a trophy or two will help resolve that.

Either way it's home, and a damn nice one at that.

[PrevaricationComplex]

it's often given a bad rap simply because it is different from Highbury...

a) The people who say that are right.
b) Its not just a relative statement. In absolute terms aswell, this place along with COMS (which could be excused given its unique circumstances) represents a low ebb in English football post Taylor report. If this is in any way a standard bearer of things to come then English football will be irreparably damaged. And it'll probably cement in the minds of desingers and chairmen alike the false choice between a dull lifeless bowl or the old existing [mostly]crap. i bet in the future the words modern english stadium would be inseparable to and mean only this type of bowl. and theres no reason why it should be that 'stadium - terrace + seats = shallow raked cavernous bowl + prawn sandwich tier'.

and as for the badge, copyright issues aside theres no excuse for new crest to be like that monstrosity. just no excuse. the old badge couldve been updated and copyrighted without turning into an nfl logo. i dont know which is worse our badge getting rid of the quays or this thing.

having said all this, arsenal are a very well run club with a man who seems to have managed the transition into modern football well, by at least identifying some of the principles that make a football club a football club instead of just a bussiness. terrible stadium though.

[Mo Rush]

Independent stands are great but cost more. Getting 60,000 as close as possible with good sightlines results in the curvy upper tier. The shallower lower tier just happens tobe a design decision. The low slung roof provides more raincover and keeps more noise inside the bowl.

The Emirates stadium as a world class brand has been a huge success globally.

[PrevaricationComplex]

Independent stands are great but cost more.

huh. thanks, didnt know that.

Getting 60,000 as close as possible with good sightlines results in the curvy upper tier.

ahh, i thought highburys curvy upper tier huged this 180m perimeter http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6...nablage01m.jpg. are you saying emirates perimeter may be smaller and designed specifically around the 60000?

coz thats dumbfounded me, why does green point look more intimate?

in general i like the design principle youve stated, its the right way to go for any new build above 60k if its still cheaper [a lot cheaper mind] to do this than building an ellis park, bernabeu or old trafford-with-modern pitchside space requirements re sponsors needs/fifa regs and so on. its just with arsenal i think it shows a lack of ambition, the design shouldve been flexible enough to be scalable but thats a separate issue to the problem i have with it.

nothing against wavy tiers, this is just a poor example.

this is also a wavy tier

The shallower lower tier just happens tobe a design decision.

THEY SHOULD BE HUNG FOR THIS.

you build a stadium from the inside out. with sightlines as the number 1 priority, architects should not be allowed to express themselves in the way they set a rake. you build the steepest you can get away with in consideration of the other tiers above having to be steeper and local building regs saying how steep you can ultimately go.

The low slung roof provides more raincover and keeps more noise inside the bowl.

all good. if its minimal simplicity is also reflected in the cost than all the better. i have no problem with the aesthetics of the roof or the outside, i think of it as minimalist post modernism. not my cup of esspesso but i have to admit its very tastefull even having accomodated the sponsors name so prominantly. possibly even timeless. but the noise thing, qwest field, galpharm etc, how do they get around that do you know.

The Emirates stadium as a world class brand has been a huge success globally.

great, but would any of this have been hurt by over hanging the tiers, building steeper, starting the first row of seats 1 or 2 metres higher [which can then double as trench] etc. im surprised you like this, every stadium @ 2010 minus rustenburg is miles ahead, miles ahead. saffers are used to alot better imo.

[Mo Rush]

Independent stands do not necessarily cost more, but if you exclude the corners, 60,000 seats increases the height of the venue and means more seats are further away possibly increasing the building envelope.

Its defintely possible to have independent stands.

I'm not suggesting a shallow first tier is a good decision.

On 2010 venues, Emirates is much closer to the pitch than Green Point or most of the venues. Probably on par with Mbombela.

Mbombela could go that steep because its only two tiers. Would be nice if it could go to 60,000 increasing the siez of the second tier...oh wait...thats Allianz!

At the end of the day its about combining the best design/sightlines with the "feel" of a club.



I think Ellis Park is a good example of a balance between good sightlines, intimacy and keeping the "square" feel of the stadium.

[gavstar00]

New Clock-End clock was in position for the Blackpool game

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...clock-pictures

I'll try and get photos to post them but it's great to see the Clock back!

[ImBoredNow]

Hopefully it will bring in some much needed luck for us this season and for seasons to come.

[Mo Rush]

Not with the same manager.

[pawel19-87]

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10833852@N02/4915790106/

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wonker/4915384583/

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by PrevaricationComplex

THEY SHOULD BE HUNG FOR THIS.

you build a stadium from the inside out. with sightlines as the number 1 priority, architects should not be allowed to express themselves in the way they set a rake. you build the steepest you can get away with in consideration of the other tiers above having to be steeper and local building regs saying how steep you can ultimately go.

The problem is the executive tiers, combined with the intention of making the top tiers premium seats. A steeper lower tier means either the top teir is considerably steeper (increasing building costs, and perhaps not even possible with the current dimensions) or moving the top tier seats back (as at Wembley) which results in seats with very poor viewing distances, that would be hard to sell for top prices.

The solution is to shaft those in the "cheap" seats to allow more cash to be made from the rest of the stadium.

The lower tier concourses are also particularly dreadful and cramped, with the designers for some reason deciding to build the walls well within the footprint of the stadium.

It's not all bad though, as if terraces are ever allowed back into English grounds, the emirates will be able to convert more easily than most, being already at a terrace like rake already.

[gavstar00]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

The problem is the executive tiers, combined with the intention of making the top tiers premium seats. A steeper lower tier means either the top teir is considerably steeper (increasing building costs, and perhaps not even possible with the current dimensions) or moving the top tier seats back (as at Wembley) which results in seats with very poor viewing distances, that would be hard to sell for top prices.

The solution is to shaft those in the "cheap" seats to allow more cash to be made from the rest of the stadium.

The lower tier concourses are also particularly dreadful and cramped, with the designers for some reason deciding to build the walls well within the footprint of the stadium.

It's not all bad though, as if terraces are ever allowed back into English grounds, the emirates will be able to convert more easily than most, being already at a terrace like rake already.

Having been behind the goal in the North Bank for the United game last season there's precious few who sit on their seats at that end anyway! The lower concourses aren't actually that cramped but you get the illusion they are because there's no natural light coming in. The upper concourses are actually smaller but because the windows allow the natural light in it gives you the impression that they're quite open and spacious.

[carlspannoosh]

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Em...Club_Level.jpg

[R.K.Teck]

Emirates was a compromise.

Arsenal needed a bigger stadium in the same area as Highbury. The Ashburton Grove site was chosen. There were height restrictions put in place by the Borough Council - this meant that the overall stadium size had to be designed to fit within the height regulations. Therefore a shallow first tier had to be built to 'cram in as many people as possible.'

The second tier - club level - was put in to maximise revenue, if people are willing to splurge large amounts of cash at a fooball match, make sure your stadium takes advantage of this by having an area to seat all these kind of supporters.

The 3 tier is much steeper so that good sightlines are retained, and has open corners to allow air to pass in, so I am told. However is this really neccesary? Old Trafford does not accomadate for this, neither does Stamford Bridge, yet both these grounds have perfectly playable pitches. This leads me to belive that in time, Arsenal will expand the capacity of the Emirates Stadium by filling in the corners of the Arena. Coupled with lowering the playing surface and adding 3 or 4 new front rows, the final capacity could easily exceed 70,000 - a number easily fillable given the prestige of Arsenal Match Tickets!

Would a new roof be needed for such expansion? Well the roof pillars behind the scoreboards would have to be removed to accomadate any new seats, which suggests yes, they will need a new roof. However a cable supported roof could mean the current roof can stay, but be held in place by support towers like those at the COMS, or the ones at Turin's New Juventus Arena.

If England win the Bid for 2018, I have a strong feeling the Emirates will be expanded. Transport problems or other wise. They will find a way!

[gavstar00]

Both United's and Chelsea's pitches are reknowned as being awful due to the fact there's little or no air flow and only a minimum amount of light reaches the pitch. Specifically in relation to Old Trafford's pitch:

http://blogs.unicef.org.uk/socceraid...-children.aspx
The last time it was re-laid was prior to the 2003 Champions League final between Juventus and AC Milan. In the seven years prior to that it was re-laid 11 times, but in 2003 it was dug up, right down to the heating pipes and new sand and turf was put down.

The mobile lighting rigs in use by most clubs nowdays ensure year round growth at pitch level but the air flow is still non-existant. One of the prerequisite's of the moving stadiums was that the new one absolutely had to have a pitch that had the quality of the old one at Highbury and this was specifically outlined to the architects when the stadium was in its early development stage, hence the drops in the corner to allow the air flow through the stadium.

In relation to the lower tier being dropped further, this is not possible. From the outside of the stadium it appears there is more room that you think but the podium level on the outside is right at the height of the rear of the lower tier. Below the site itself I refer to Bigbossman:

[QUOTE]Doing some reseach about the emirates stadium and digging the pitch down, I found some difinitive information about the site constraints

http://www.burohappold.com/BH/NWS_20...esstadium.aspx

Quote:
Site constraints

The Ashburton Grove site presented Buro Happold with a series of significant engineering design
challenges.

Its triangular shape occupies 70,000 m2 of brownfield land which over the years has been used for a
variety of purposes. Most recently it has been home to a number of industrial units including a waste
transfer station.

The new stadium has been positioned as far to the apex of the triangular site as possible so that the
full development potential of land lying to the south can be realised.

The west side of the site is bounded by a Network Rail 6m high brickwork retaining wall, behind which
lies the East Coast main railway line. Lying next to the east side of the site is a railway cutting within
which run four local rail lines.

Approximately 7m beneath the western wall are two London Underground tunnels for the Piccadilly
line. On the eastern site boundary are two further London Underground tunnels serving the Victoria
line at a depth of 8m.

Three Thames Water main sewers run beneath the site. Two of these pass through the site from north
to south, one at a depth of 3m and the other at 8m. The deeper of these forms part of a storm relief
system for the area which discharges into a primary storm relief sewer crossing the site from east
to west at a depth of 17m.

The sub-surface strata generally consists of made-ground overlying alluvial deposits overlying London Clay. The London Clay generally starts at between 3 to 6 metres below ground level ends to a depth of approximately 25m below ground level.

Due to the variety of industrial uses some of the land was contaminated at upper strata level.

Any expansion, and I highly doubt you'll see one anytime soon regardless of World Cup bids etc. would appear to require extending the upper tiers/adding additional tiers and jacking up the roof using the same supports so as to keep the airflow. Someone made a point a while back on here about expanding three sides and leaving one at its current height to allow airflow. The point is anything is doable, its only limited by money

The point about the council is a valid one, hence the current height of the roof but things change and decisions can be overturned

[The Killer]

nice stadium

[ajaaronjoe]

Freezing
image hosted on flickr