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 November 15th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #2721
ottooo
Kijk omhoog!
 
ottooo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 210
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Hi Joop20, well yes i would have thought that would be their approach, it seems more logical then proposing 2 different organisations. Do you have any links or web addresses that shows the Beneluex 2018 bid, especially the stadiums they propose to use and develope. One of the good things about this bid, if its successful, is it would open up doors for other smaller nations to propose W.C bids in the future. As in recent history the larger economical and populated countries tend to be winning their bids.
I made a Google Map of possible host-cities.

I don't know much about the Belgian host stadiums (red), so I only marked the cities. The Dutch markers (blue) are placed at the (future) sites of the stadium, except Utrecht, which is a guess. It should be near the highway (A2).

I don't believe Kerkrade (Roda JC) will expand the stadium. They're having enough trouble getting a sell-out as it is right now (20.000 and I believe they have an average crowd of 15.000 and rarely sell out).
ottooo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 15th, 2007, 08:46 PM   #2722
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Nice work great to see the two countries joining forces against FIFA and submitting a joint bid. And good news about Spain submitting their bid in 2008 too. The more countries bidding the better!

Edit: I'm well aware that the first page may be out of date with all the stadia proposals, and indeed bids. When more official bids start cropping up I will add the official stadia. The ones I posted to start with just cause controversy!
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old November 15th, 2007, 08:57 PM   #2723
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

I have no problem with the Benelux proposal and if England are not successful, I'd rather the lowlands got it more than any other European bid.

My big concern would be the size of the stadia, with over half of them just at the minimum 40,000 capacity. It will mean the real fans having a much harder chance of attending the games. I know bigger capacities are not possible, but it is still a concern for me.
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old November 15th, 2007, 09:17 PM   #2724
Chimaera
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bruges
Posts: 2,707
Likes (Received): 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
I have no problem with the Benelux proposal and if England are not successful, I'd rather the lowlands got it more than any other European bid.

My big concern would be the size of the stadia, with over half of them just at the minimum 40,000 capacity. It will mean the real fans having a much harder chance of attending the games. I know bigger capacities are not possible, but it is still a concern for me.
If you go back almost 10 years in time, to France 1998, you'll see that most of the stadiums didn't even have 40000 seats. The last years they have been growing in size and number and often were newly built.
__________________
My websites:
Belstadions Belgian stadiums and arenas
Arch4MC Sketchup designs
Chimaera no está en línea  
Old November 15th, 2007, 09:31 PM   #2725
Quintana
Registered Abuser
 
Quintana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 美好的码头
Posts: 4,316
Likes (Received): 1157

The problem is not so much the 40,000 capacity stadiums, the problem is FIFA claiming about one third of the stadium capacity for sponsors and relations. A lot of national federations do exactly the same with their allocated tickets leaving hardly any tickets for the real fans.
Quintana no está en línea  
Old November 15th, 2007, 10:18 PM   #2726
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimaera View Post
If you go back almost 10 years in time, to France 1998, you'll see that most of the stadiums didn't even have 40000 seats. The last years they have been growing in size and number and often were newly built.
You have a valid point, but between France '98 and the 2018 WC there will have been 5 tournaments. I think each WC is getting bigger, and with travel becoming easier, and for the masses, more and more people will want to attend the finals.

Imagine Holland playing Germany, England playing Italy and Brazil playing Argentina all on the same day. Probably one maybe even two of those games will have to be in stadiums that hold just 40,000 people.
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old November 15th, 2007, 11:37 PM   #2727
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

So basically, the Benelux bid would need more new stadiums than an Australian bid?
Wezza no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 02:11 AM   #2728
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

I think the 40,000 requirement should remain and its therefore up to host cities/countries to choose their minimum capacity. South Africa has most of its venues at 45,000 and up and has the highest average capacity per stadium since USA 1994. Personally I believe Germany 2006 should have had larger capacities. Its final venue was around 70,000+. So many european fans could easily access Germany and it needed bigger venues I think.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 04:13 AM   #2729
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,018
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
I think the 40,000 requirement should remain and its therefore up to host cities/countries to choose their minimum capacity. South Africa has most of its venues at 45,000 and up and has the highest average capacity per stadium since USA 1994. Personally I believe Germany 2006 should have had larger capacities. Its final venue was around 70,000+. So many european fans could easily access Germany and it needed bigger venues I think.
Come 2018, England will have:

Wembley - 90,000.
Twickenham - 82,000 or Emirates - 60,000.
St James' Park - 60,000.
Stadium of Light - 46-60,000.
New Anfield - 70,000+
Old Trafford - 76-94,000.
Villa Park - 50,000+ or Birmingham City 55,000.
St Mary's, Southampton or new Portsmouth stadium - 40,000+
Leeds or Sheffield - 50,000+
Nottingham - 40,000+


Other possible stadiums to consider:

New Everton stadium - 50,000+
New West Ham stadium - 55,000+
New / rebuilt Tottenham stadium - 55,000+
New / rebuilt Chelsea stadium - 55,000+
City of Manchester stadium - 48,000

Even with the best will in the world, few bids will be able to match such an array of stadia.
JimB está en línea ahora  
Old November 16th, 2007, 06:31 AM   #2730
Chairman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

IMO there would be greater incentive for FIFA to give it to a country that is yet to build all the stadiums.
Chairman no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 11:27 AM   #2731
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post
IMO there would be greater incentive for FIFA to give it to a country that is yet to build all the stadiums.
why so they could all end up as white elephants and hardly be ever used again to full capacites? wouldn't they rather see them being used before and after regularly for football in the world's most watched leagues? making the tournament much more prestigious.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 01:12 PM   #2732
Dasher39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 163
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
why so they could all end up as white elephants and hardly be ever used again to full capacites? wouldn't they rather see them being used before and after regularly for football in the world's most watched leagues? making the tournament much more prestigious.
Yes but giving to say Australia would help develop and grow the game here. England doesn't need that.

Having said that, I still don't think Australia have any chance at 2018 as much as I would love us to have it. I think we are a more realistic chance of 2022.
Dasher39 no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 02:06 PM   #2733
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2761

I see what you are saying that incentive would be good but then by taking that position you are essentially saying that those that have the best or most developed facilities should be essentially punished for success and development.

Some people think that the events for the OG and WC should be development programs where it could make the most difference even in the case of inferior bids instead of going to the best possible choice to host and display an event. I think there should be a balance of the two but definitely error on the latter side.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 05:19 PM   #2734
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

-i think italy should think long an hard about submitting a bid, the mucked up over euro 2012, but they have got 6 more years for this bid, and i seriously reckon they could make this tournament their euro 96, the point when english football changed forever!!

-but if not spain or england, the bigger stadiums the better,

-and no athletic stadiums should be permitted for bids anymore, all grounds should be football specific!!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old November 16th, 2007, 05:28 PM   #2735
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,018
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-i think italy should think long an hard about submitting a bid, the mucked up over euro 2012, but they have got 6 more years for this bid, and i seriously reckon they could make this tournament their euro 96, the point when english football changed forever!!
Far too soon for Italy to host the World Cup again.

There have only been two World Cups held in Europe since Italy were last hosts - France 98 and Germany 06.

No way will Italy get it again ahead of a number of other European bids.
JimB está en línea ahora  
Old November 16th, 2007, 06:36 PM   #2736
*England*
Who Dares Wins
 
*England*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 329
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
i think italy should think long an hard about submitting a bid
Laugh or Cry comes to mind
*England* no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2007, 03:57 PM   #2737
TC03
Registered User
 
TC03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 2,031
Likes (Received): 102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus View Post
WTF: do we need them Belgians? I don't think so, but it would be better to do a joint bid for the wc football, just because of things like hotel-space and others.
Not necessarily, but for the possible WC-stadiums, the best Belgian stadiums will be better than the worst Dutch ones. Without Belgium, odds for The Netherlands to get the WC would decrease significantly.
TC03 no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2007, 06:05 PM   #2738
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by TC03 View Post
Not necessarily, but for the possible WC-stadiums, the best Belgian stadiums will be better than the worst Dutch ones. Without Belgium, odds for The Netherlands to get the WC would decrease significantly.
Neither country can host it by themselves, they need eachother.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2007, 12:02 AM   #2739
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Exactly. Belgium is the sock for the Netherland's shoe.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2007, 12:43 AM   #2740
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd View Post
Neither country can host it by themselves, they need eachother.
Holland could do it:

Amsterdam 65000
Rotterdam 70000
Eindhoven 50000
Heerenveen 45000
Enschede 43000
Alkmaar 40000
Groningen 40000

Even without the WC, these capacities will probably be reached and filled. Some reconstruction have already started.

We would only need two from the list of:

Rotterdam 50000 (current Feyenoord stadium)
Amsterdam/Almere 80000 (possible olympic stadium for 2028 bid)
Kerkrade (temporary expansion to 40000)
Utrecht
The Hague
Arnhem
Breda

It would be a tight fit, but possible and not (on contrary to what a lot of people seem to think) "unneeded". The first 7 new stadiums/expansions will happen. WC or not.

And do you really think Fifa will ask a country to have at least a couple of other world cup quality stadiums left outside the bid just for the sake of it? If the bid consists of 9 or 10 stadiums with a minimum of 40000 seats (2 of 60000), you can make a valid bid. So Holland could do it.

But we've teamed up with Belgium, and that makes the chances of more stadium choices even bigger. But please, can we stop the arguments "Holland and Belgium don't need all those big stadiums". They are false. We do need them.
mavn 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 02:54 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