daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old July 28th, 2007, 02:37 PM   #2041
CarlosBlueDragon
CarlosRedDragon
 
CarlosBlueDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/HK
Posts: 1,848
Likes (Received): 678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimaera View Post
Thanks for your support, but it will be hard for us to compete against Spain, England...

I might have explained this before, but what the h*ll.

The Belgian Euro 2000 Tournament Manager, Alain Courtois, is a fierce supporter of a joint Belgian/Dutch World Cup bid for 2018. He now has the support of the Dutch national team manager Marco Van Basten and Dutch prime minister Balkenende. A World Cup 2018 Office recently opened in Antwerp, a Belgian city very popular among Dutch shoppers and tourists. Unfortunately, Blatter doesn't want another joint bid after Japan and South Korea, although you can't compare that to the situation of Belgium and The Netherlands.

There is still a very long way to go:

We need 8 to 10 stadiums. 2 with a 60,000+ capacity.
Feyenoord Rotterdam will build a new Kuip (75.000)
Ajax might expand their Arena to 60,000
Anderlecht (Brussels) wants to move to a new 50,000-60,000 seater by 2013
Bruges has plans for a new stadium with 40,000 seats by 2011
Standard (Liège) will build a new stadium (40,000) by 2012
The city of Antwerp is brainstorming about a common stadium for both arch rivals Antwerp FC and Germinal Beerschot (an idea that goes back more than 15 years already)
And finally, some Dutch clubs like Groningen and Twente also have plans for major expansions.

The most concrete plans for a stadium suited to host a World Cup are to be found in Bruges:


Oh....Thanks..!! but if i want 70,000 - 80,000 in Belgium?? have new update??
CarlosBlueDragon no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 28th, 2007, 03:40 PM   #2042
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Not sure if I've mentioned this before - and I can't be bothered to read back through all the posts - but why isn't the Sunderland Stadium of Light amongst the English stadiums? 48200 seats.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 03:42 PM   #2043
Chimaera
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bruges
Posts: 2,707
Likes (Received): 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosBlueDragon View Post
Oh....Thanks..!! but if i want 70,000 - 80,000 in Belgium?? have new update??
Without a World Cup, no single club in Belgium would even consider a 60,000-seater. One of the reasons Anderlecht want a 50,000 to 60,000 seater, and not just a 40,000 seater, is because they want to be able to host a CL final and/or WC (semi) final. Bruges and Liège want 40,000 because their attendances are growing, because they want more VIP facilities, because of difficulties with transportation and expansion at their current stadiums, and not the least, because in 2012 they will not be able to meet up to the new UEFA standards.

Up to the 1980's capacities of Belgian stadiums were a lot higher (before safety regulations, conversion to seats, stadium works...):
Bosuil Stadium in Antwerp: 60,000-70,000 seats
Emilé Versé/Constant Van Den Stock Stadium Anderlecht/Brussels: approx. 40,000
Olympiastadion Bruges: approx. 30,000
Sclessin/Maurice Dufrasne Stadium (Liège): approx. 40,000
Koning Boudewijn/Roi Baudouin Stadium, national stadium (formerly Heizel/Heysel): approx. 70,000
Stade des Trois Tilleuls (RC Brussels): 40,000-50,000
Stade Joseph Marien (Union St-Gilloise, Brussels): 40,000
Stade Rocourt (FC Liège): 40,000
...

Current:
National Stadium: 50,000
Bruges, Liège: 29,000-30,000
Charleroi: 25,000 (30,000 during Euro 2000)
Anderlecht: 28,000
Genk: 25,000

Current average attendance:
Bruges: 25,000
Anderlecht: 24,600
Genk: 22,200
Standard de Liège: 22,800
The other clubs are way behind (Charleroi is fifth with 11,400). But if you consider the circumstances - population, size and urbanization of the country; size and population of the cities were the majority of the first division teams play; stadium infrastructure, not one single 4 or 5 star stadium - the attendances are more than decent.
__________________
My websites:
Belstadions Belgian stadiums and arenas
Arch4MC Sketchup designs
Chimaera no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 05:16 PM   #2044
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Not sure if I've mentioned this before - and I can't be bothered to read back through all the posts - but why isn't the Sunderland Stadium of Light amongst the English stadiums? 48200 seats.
Is this question to do with it not being on the first page of this thread? If so, I believe it was on the first page, but has recently got moved off because Everton's new larger ground replaced it.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 07:05 PM   #2045
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Is this question to do with it not being on the first page of this thread? If so, I believe it was on the first page, but has recently got moved off because Everton's new larger ground replaced it.
I'd guess the Stadium of Light would be more likely to be used given the rules on 1 stadiums in one city rule and the relative lack of stadiums in the north east.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 07:43 PM   #2046
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
I'd guess the Stadium of Light would be more likely to be used given the rules on 1 stadiums in one city rule and the relative lack of stadiums in the north east.
I don't think the North East has a relative lack of stadiums. Newcastle's St James Park 52,387 rising to 60,000. Sunderland's Stadium of Light 49,000 could be expanded to 64,000, and finally Middlesbrough Riverside Stadium, 35,100 and could be expanded to 40,000+.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 07:51 PM   #2047
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
I don't think the North East has a relative lack of stadiums. Newcastle's St James Park 52,387 rising to 60,000. Sunderland's Stadium of Light 49,000 could be expanded to 64,000, and finally Middlesbrough Riverside Stadium, 35,100 and could be expanded to 40,000+.
I'v never heard anything about the Riverside being expanded and if it was I'm not sure Boro would need 45,000 which leaves two stadiums in the north east.

In the north west by comparason you have Old Trafford, New Anfield and the possiblility of new/redevolped stadiums in Leeds and Sheffield.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 09:34 PM   #2048
Scarecrow
Fugly
 
Scarecrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Litherland (Honest)
Posts: 10,467
Likes (Received): 2055

According to certain Redshite, Kirkby isn't liverpool, so Everton and the Redshite could have their grounds included. The New Everton ground has the possibility of filling the corners to 60,000+, but could feasably be expanded to 100,000+ due to lack of surroundings.

Sunderland is a tip BTW. (That's meant for a certain Mackem mate of mine.)
__________________
EAST LANCS? NO, THANKS! FAR TOO MANY MANCS.
Scarecrow no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 09:59 PM   #2049
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

In the north west by comparason you have Old Trafford, New Anfield and the possiblility of new/redevolped stadiums in Leeds and Sheffield.

Since when has Yorkshire been in the North-West?
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 10:31 PM   #2050
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy View Post
In the north west by comparason you have Old Trafford, New Anfield and the possiblility of new/redevolped stadiums in Leeds and Sheffield.

Since when has Yorkshire been in the North-West?
If not technically in the north west their certainly close enough to Manchester/Liverpool to make a 5th stadium from that area less likely than a 2nd in the north east if you ask me. I'm not saying the Everton stadium definately wouldnt be used but its hard to see it being used ahead of the SOL.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #2051
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

Well I think population comes into it as well, for a small region of less than 3 million having three stadia which are all over 35,000 is impressive. I would hope that all our large cities should host one game. Certainly Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, which are all in the top 10 or even 8 in size.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 10:39 PM   #2052
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
I don't think the North East has a relative lack of stadiums. Newcastle's St James Park 52,387 rising to 60,000. Sunderland's Stadium of Light 49,000 could be expanded to 64,000, and finally Middlesbrough Riverside Stadium, 35,100 and could be expanded to 40,000+.
I can't see the Stadium of Light or the Riverside Stadium being used unless there are serious budget problems with the English bid. Sunderland and Middlesborough just don't have enough tourist facilities and are not really cities that the FA would want to show off to the rest of the world... Smaller cities like Plymouth, Portsmouth, Bristol etc have lots of history and character to them that would go hand in hand with new stadia.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old July 28th, 2007, 11:06 PM   #2053
JOVIMECA
Registered User
 
JOVIMECA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Puebla, Mexico
Posts: 739
Likes (Received): 5

this is an amazing thread!

JOVIMECA no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 01:09 AM   #2054
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
I'v never heard anything about the Riverside being expanded and if it was I'm not sure Boro would need 45,000 which leaves two stadiums in the north east.

In the north west by comparason you have Old Trafford, New Anfield and the possiblility of new/redevolped stadiums in Leeds and Sheffield.
Well yeah obviously if you compare it to the North West or London it won't have as many stadiums. However if you compare the North East to the South West of England or East Anglia, then the North East's stadiums are much larger and better quality. Also the Riverside has that dull bowl design and can be easily expanded, but I am not saying they are, i'm just saying it can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin007 View Post
I can't see the Stadium of Light or the Riverside Stadium being used unless there are serious budget problems with the English bid. Sunderland and Middlesborough just don't have enough tourist facilities and are not really cities that the FA would want to show off to the rest of the world... Smaller cities like Plymouth, Portsmouth, Bristol etc have lots of history and character to them that would go hand in hand with new stadia.
I totally agree with you can't see the Riverside being picked. Maybe SOL (although wouldn't be my choice for similar reasons to yours) as its large, but I doubt the government would want to help too many smaller clubs build new and larger stadiums. However I wouldn't call Bristol a small city, in terms of population Bristol's is bigger then Newcastle's and Sunderland's combined.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 04:39 AM   #2055
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

The thing with an English bid is that it's one of the few countries in the world which will have all the required stadia up to FIFA standards in advance of any bid for 2018 - thus needing no FA or Government investment in stadium facilities.

As to Sunderland - I lived there for 29 years, and it IS a tip... But that shouldn't effect a world cup bid. No disrespect intended but there's some pretty hideous cities in every bid. I'm sure our South African friends will be able to point out one or two cities in their bid which are less than spectacular.

Sunderland is only 25 minutes from Newcastle, if Newcastle has the tourism facilities and communications infrastructure, then it would be safe to say that Sunderland does as well... If Everton could claim Kirby to be a separate city, they'd still be using Liverpool's hotels and road/rail links.

End of the day, I've got no problem with one of the best purpose build stadiums in England not being used so long as it's not because the government splurged tax payers money on building a stadium in Bristol or Plymouth!

As for the list on the front page - if you're listing the best stadiums, then the SOL should be there rather than the City of Manchester (North West having 4 to the North East's 1 is just rediculous, 3 to 2 seems more fair).
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 12:26 PM   #2056
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
End of the day, I've got no problem with one of the best purpose build stadiums in England not being used so long as it's not because the government splurged tax payers money on building a stadium in Bristol or Plymouth!
Plymouth isnt impossible I spose considering that there on the up recently and are in need of a new/redevolped stadium.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 01:41 PM   #2057
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

I can't see the Stadium of Light or the Riverside Stadium being used unless there are serious budget problems with the English bid. Sunderland and Middlesborough just don't have enough tourist facilities and are not really cities that the FA would want to show off to the rest of the world... Smaller cities like Plymouth, Portsmouth, Bristol etc have lots of history and character to them that would go hand in hand with new stadia.

I agree with you that Sunderland is hardly the most desirable place to show off, but a 64,000 Stadium (it could be converted, or converted back at next to no cost the way the stadium is designed) would be. I think it is far less of a choice than most people make out. Should England have 12 Stadium and another 4 suitable for hosting, nothing in the rule books or common sense would prevent us for going for 16 instead.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 01:55 PM   #2058
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy View Post
I agree with you that Sunderland is hardly the most desirable place to show off, but a 64,000 Stadium (it could be converted, or converted back at next to no cost the way the stadium is designed) would be. I think it is far less of a choice than most people make out. Should England have 12 Stadium and another 4 suitable for hosting, nothing in the rule books or common sense would prevent us for going for 16 instead.
An english world cup would probabley not be a "tourist event" like euro 2004 anyway, the main source of income would be UK residents buying tickets and maybe staying overnight at a hotel
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 02:03 PM   #2059
Lostboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,028
Likes (Received): 19

Well I imagine a large source of ticket income would come from FIFA Corporate deals etc. However I largely agree, if there is no good reason a stadium cannot be used, it should be. If that means we end up with 16 Stadia not 12, then so be it.
__________________
The Scottish people have a moral duty to vote SNP in May.
Lostboy no está en línea  
Old July 29th, 2007, 02:38 PM   #2060
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy View Post
Well I imagine a large source of ticket income would come from FIFA Corporate deals etc. However I largely agree, if there is no good reason a stadium cannot be used, it should be. If that means we end up with 16 Stadia not 12, then so be it.
I'd guess that the PC way to organise it would be to make sure all the big games(the seeds group games and all knockouts) are in 60,000+ seat stadiums with the lesser group games spread around as widely as possible.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu