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 14th, 2008, 06:34 AM   #3801
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

I think 2026 will go to either China or the USA, whichever doesn't get 2022
hngcm no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 14th, 2008, 06:55 AM   #3802
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
I'm also not suggesting that FIFA should change the rules - merely saying that the best chance Aussie would have would be if the rules were changed...
I agree. Australia already has, or is building the stadiums needed to host the world cup, but Melbourne and Sydney have 3 and 2 respectively, meaning some of the countries best stadiums cannot be used.

Quote:
I simply can't see us getting it any other way - there are too many other countries who can meet the required standards more effectively.
I think we have established that realistically, the 2022 host is either going to be China or Australia, or arguably the USA (Most non American's don't see this happening).
Therefore Australia is not competing with other countries and their facilities, but with China.

Melbourne and Sydney's stadiums which will not be used.

Telstra Dome 53,000.


Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Currently under construction. 33,000 with plans and foundations to upgrade to over 50,000 if Australia get world cup.


and Sydney Football Ground 45,000



These three would be unused during a world cup.

However, thanks to docker, the first page of this thread has a post which shows possible stadiums to be used.

1) MCG Melbourne. 100,000.


2) Telstra stadium Sydney. 83,000.


3) Perth new stadium. 60,000. Building to start in 2009.


4) Sucorp stadium Brisbane. 57,000.


5) Skilled park Gold Coast. 27,000. Easily upgradeable to 40,000 as The regions population increases dramatically (around 500,00 today. Estimated between 706,000 - 833,000, most likely 807,000 by 2022).


6) Adelaide new stadium. 60,000. Serious talks of a new stadium have been going on for a couple of years now. The world cup would surely push the government and other bodies to build the stadium.

7) Energy Australia stadium. Newcastle. 33,000 with current proposed redevelopment. Built with option of increasing capacity to 40,000 for world cup.


8) Bruce Stadium Canberra. Currently 25,000. Would need redevelopment to 40,000. The current ground sells out on occasions, and is too small to be used for big international matches. Having a bigger stadium wold allow Canberra to host international matches of football and two rugby codes after the world cup. With a projected population of just under 400,000 by 2022, a stadium of this size may be viable. Building the stadium with removable seating is another possibility.


9) Perth rectangular stadium, to be used by Perth Glory football club, Western Force Rugby Union club and proposed Perth Rugby League club, as well as hosting those three sports international matches, after the world cup.
Either that or one of the three stadiums from Melbourne or Sydney could be used as the second stadium per city venue.

Australia has the capability of providing the venues needed for a world cup. What you guys think?

Last edited by woozoo; July 14th, 2008 at 12:29 PM.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 06:58 AM   #3803
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
I think we have established that realistically, the 2022 host is either going to be China or Australia, or arguably the USA (Most non American's don't see this happening).
Youre damn right Americans dont see that happening, because the idea has not been established.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 07:57 AM   #3804
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Chinas current stadiums:
Bejing Olympic stadium 91,000:



Guangzhao 81,000 (Damn this looks good):


Shanghai 80,000:


Sheyang 70,000 (This looks impressive too):



Najing 60,000 (theyre all pretty impressive):



Tianjin 60,000:


Wuhan 60,000:


Quindao 60,000:


Chonqing 58,680:




I have shown the most modern venues. None are more than 20 years old. There are about another 5 or 10 stadiums above 40,000 in China which are older so I haven't shown them. As far as I can tell they all have running tracks around them.

China could certainly build several purpose built rectangular stadiums as the country has only several clubs in the national league which regularly have attendances in the tens of thousands.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 08:19 AM   #3805
Kuvvaci
Strange User
 
Kuvvaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 19,708
Likes (Received): 64

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Chinas current stadiums:
Bejing Olympic stadium 91,000:



Guangzhao 81,000 (Damn this looks good):


Shanghai 80,000:


Sheyang 70,000 (This looks impressive too):



Najing 60,000 (theyre all pretty impressive):



Tianjin 60,000:


Wuhan 60,000:


Quindao 60,000:


Chonqing 58,680:




I have shown the most modern venues. None are more than 20 years old. There are about another 5 or 10 stadiums above 40,000 in China which are older so I haven't shown them. As far as I can tell they all have running tracks around them.

China could certainly build several purpose built rectangular stadiums as the country has only several clubs in the national league which regularly have attendances in the tens of thousands.
I think they can use 5 of them because of the athletic tracks. But in 2002, the stadia with tracks were 7.
Kuvvaci no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 08:36 AM   #3806
aussiescraperman
Registered User
 
aussiescraperman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne & Brisbane
Posts: 1,034
Likes (Received): 8

i don't see why the wouldn't change the rule about having 1 stadium per city for Australia's bid....we don't have many cities? all of our 5 major cities would still be represented, so what's all the fuss about?
__________________
i can only imagine
aussiescraperman no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 10:19 AM   #3807
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Who cares about all these beautiful stadia? Brazil and South Africa had rundown stadia, and they got WCs.

The Arab states can probably put up 20 state-of-the-art stadia overnight; that doesn't mean the World Cup is going their way any time soon.

So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22. Only a few of you are so enamored of this idea. But it's all a pipe dream.

Last edited by www.sercan.de; July 14th, 2008 at 01:41 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 12:26 PM   #3808
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22.
Why?
woozoo no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 12:47 PM   #3809
www.sercan.de
Galatasaray SK
 
www.sercan.de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 27,950
Likes (Received): 2717

Stop beeing aggressive and insulting other user


How is the infrastructure in the Chinese stadiums?
although they have very moden and beautiful, its about Football.
They definitely need more football stadiums
__________________
International titles of Galatasaray SK
UEFA Europa League (1): 2000
UEFA Super Cup (1): 2000

ULEB Eurocup (1): 2016

FIBA EuroLeague Women (1): 2014
FIBA EuroCup Women (1): 2009

IWBF Champions Cup (5): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014
IWBF André Vergauwen Cup (1): 2017
IWBF Intercontinental Cup (4): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012

EJU Golden League (1): 2014
www.sercan.de no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 02:54 PM   #3810
theespecialone
Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 309
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Who cares about all these beautiful stadia? Brazil and South Africa had rundown stadia, and they got WCs.

The Arab states can probably put up 20 state-of-the-art stadia overnight; that doesn't mean the World Cup is going their way any time soon.

So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22. Only a few of you are so enamored of this idea. But it's all a pipe dream.

chinia and australia are stronger candidates than the usa.
theespecialone no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 05:34 PM   #3811
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by theespecialone View Post
chinia and australia are stronger candidates than the usa.
no. The only knock against the US is the time between hosting the WC. The US is stronger than China and Australia in every other way. You just dont like the US, as you have made it clear.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 05:44 PM   #3812
Skyline_FFM
Atheism rulez!
 
Skyline_FFM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here in the middle of nowhere
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 109

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuvvaci View Post
not only for this. If FIFA will give the WC to Australia they will want the interest to football in australia must be increase. And for this FIFA wants a nation wide tournement.
I think there are already Water-Closets in Australia,....
__________________
Ziss Iss Mei Sicknetscha
Skyline_FFM no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 06:23 PM   #3813
aaronaugi1
Registered User
 
aaronaugi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,551
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuvvaci View Post
not only for this. If FIFA will give the WC to Australia they will want the interest to football in australia must be increase. And for this FIFA wants a nation wide tournement.
Australia does have a national football league. It has been in motion for 15 years or so now and has recently been reconfigured and has grown largely in the last 2-3years. Average attendance for the league has lifted from around 10,500 to around 15,000 including finals/play-offs with some clubs attracting 25,000+fans per game on average. Thats more than EPL clubs (or former clubs) such as Charlton, Bolton and Middlesborough, more than Italian club Lazio or Bordeaux in France
aaronaugi1 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 08:16 PM   #3814
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronaugi1 View Post
Australia does have a national football league. It has been in motion for 15 years or so now and has recently been reconfigured and has grown largely in the last 2-3years. Average attendance for the league has lifted from around 10,500 to around 15,000 including finals/play-offs with some clubs attracting 25,000+fans per game on average. Thats more than EPL clubs (or former clubs) such as Charlton, Bolton and Middlesborough, more than Italian club Lazio or Bordeaux in France
I'm quite appreciative of how well the A League has progressed recently, but... Change your some to one: The Melbourne Victory have surpassed 26k the past two seasons, but no one else has surpassed 17k for the regular season. (I don't have post-season data at my fingertips.)


I do think it's time FIFA end the stadiums-per city rule, or at least amend it to allow greater flexibility. Otherwise many worthwhile countries would be left out of the process or at least find it all the more difficult. I've no problem with FIFA keeping that measure as a preference and even voting in favor of nations employing that standard, as it's a good way to encourage investment in the game. But for nations like England, Australia, Argentina and others that feature fewer major metro areas but several with worthy facilities, than why arbitrarily force conditions that could yield a weaker event? If Everton and Liverpool both feature new facilities of 55k or greater size, surely the games and the nation would be better using both those stadiums as opposed to mandating a 40k in some other community like Ipswich.* Wouldn't FIFA appreciate this flexibility as it might yield more bids and ultimately increase the field of potential applicants?

*= This selection was completely spontaneous and arbitrary on my part. I've nothing against Ipswich and assume they're perfectly capable of successfully hosting some WC games, and unless hearing otherwise I'll presume the people of Ipswich and the surrounding areas are perfectly lovely citizens.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 10:43 PM   #3815
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Why?
Jeez, do I REALLY have to spell it out?

#1 - China:

- They missed out on the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup. That had to go to the US to save the tournament.

- Their human rights/wrongs record has really made a mess of things for the IOC this year. Do you really think FIFA would want to go thru the trials and tribulations again of 2008 (unless China quickly became less of a paranoid, honestly democratic society?)

- They can barely clean the pollution for one city now (Beijing), what about 8 or 9 other cities when it's their turn?

- Does not have a very healthy soccer culture.

#2 - Australia

As has been noted before, but I guess it has to be SPELLED OUT again.

- SMALL COUNTRY. What good is a 20mil market for FIFA's global partners and sponsors when they have a 500 mil (North America & the Caribbean) market available as an alternative?

- 3rd SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE WC in 4 or 5 rounds? Highly unlikely.

#3 - The USA:

- bigger country;

- better infrastructure

- the US has a proven record or good organization (why else would FIFA have moved Women's 2003 w/ less than a year's notice?); so FIFA will not have to go thru the trials and threats it is now issuing to South Africa in the light of the Port Elizabeth stadium delays...

- if the dollar still weak, therefore a great bargain for Euro fans

- active up-and-coming football culture; in the 13 years since MLS was founded, there are 14, count 'em, franchises now. That's a little more than one a year! What league has developed that fast? The women's football program/culture is the strongest in the world.

- And you do know that organizations like FIFA and the IOC are not above occasionally recognizing past favors done to them or for exceptionally good work performed for their cause?

- still holds the BIGGEST ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF ANY WORLD CUP and that was when it was only a 24-team tournament!! Can you imagine the reception and success for a 32-team tournament??

[Besides, with China and Australia both belonging to the Asian confederation, only 1 -- NOT BOTH -- can hope to host 2026! The other (probably Australia) will have to wait another 24 years for them to host. So, consecutively, DUH!! ]

Therefore, to me, in simple logic, 2022 points to a stronger USA suit than either of those two other countries.

Last edited by rover3; July 15th, 2008 at 01:47 AM. Reason: xx
rover3 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2008, 10:53 PM   #3816
Skyline_FFM
Atheism rulez!
 
Skyline_FFM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here in the middle of nowhere
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 109

And you can already go from any European mid-size airport to a lot of different American cities! And vice-versa!
__________________
Ziss Iss Mei Sicknetscha
Skyline_FFM no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2008, 02:08 AM   #3817
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

I'd like to see China or Australia but 2022's pretty much guaranteed for the USA unless England fail their bid for 2018. We won't now that until 2011 though.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2008, 04:37 AM   #3818
aaronaugi1
Registered User
 
aaronaugi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,551
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
#2 - Australia

As has been noted before, but I guess it has to be SPELLED OUT again.

- SMALL COUNTRY. What good is a 20mil market for FIFA's global partners and sponsors when they have a 500 mil (North America & the Caribbean) market available as an alternative?

- 3rd SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE WC in 4 or 5 rounds? Highly unlikely.
Small country population wise but still the 14th largest economy in the world and considering its low base, huge growth potential in the market.

Also, i though it read that Australia was bidding for 2018 and China was bidding for 2022. My understanding is FIFA is awarding the hosts of 18 and 22 at the same time and a single country can only bid for one. The AFC outlined they didn't want Australia and China going head-to-head and thus Australia was going to bid in 2018 against England and the US, while China would attempt 2022...?
aaronaugi1 no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2008, 06:45 AM   #3819
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

One of the ideas behind the minimum standards for stadiums, and the number of locations for stadiums, is to try and encourage the expansion of the game. If you tell England that they can use 4 stadia in London, 2 each in Manchester and Liverpool, etc., there would be no growth in the country due to the world cup - on the other hand, if you say that the rules stay in place, and there must be a spread of venues around the country, you increase the likelihood of top quality venues being built in the South East/South Coast area, and in the Yorkshire area, due to suitable top class venues not being available (possibly East Anglia as well). This was the case in Germany, is the case in South Africa, and looks set to be the case in Brazil as well.

The construction of major stadiums ensures top class facilities for football in the future. The general guideline about reducing the number of running tracks appears to be based on the idea that if the stadiums are football specific it increases the need for them to be used for major football events.

On similar lines, deep down, I suspect FIFA would still have a major problem with having the World Cup Final played at the Melbourne CRICKET Ground.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2008, 06:46 AM   #3820
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronaugi1 View Post
Small country population wise but still the 14th largest economy in the world and considering its low base, huge growth potential in the market.

Also, i though it read that Australia was bidding for 2018 and China was bidding for 2022. My understanding is FIFA is awarding the hosts of 18 and 22 at the same time and a single country can only bid for one. The AFC outlined they didn't want Australia and China going head-to-head and thus Australia was going to bid in 2018 against England and the US, while China would attempt 2022...?
China and Australia couldn't host 2018 and 2022 as they are in the same footballing federation. If Australia gets 2018, China would have to wait until 2030, and vice versa.
Benjuk 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 10:41 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