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 December 24th, 2008, 04:41 PM   #4321
Aka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,382
Likes (Received): 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stifler View Post
Not really. There have been rumours about bidding for ages, but WC1982 was too close to be a real option in the past.
For the 2018? Were there any serious plans of moving forward before Portugal proposed it?
Aka no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old December 24th, 2008, 04:54 PM   #4322
Stifler
That's what she said
 
Stifler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bologna
Posts: 1,792
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aka View Post
For the 2018? Were there any serious plans of moving forward before Portugal proposed it?
Yep, since a couple of years ago, but Federation said no real project would be started until elections (which happened a couple of months ago).
__________________
Stifler no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 04:56 PM   #4323
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Australia has all possibilities to organize World cup. You have several cities with good infrastructure and of course you have to build some new stadiums like everywhere.

Possible venues:

1. CANBERRA: Canberra Stadium - 25.000 (you can easily expend it to 40.000)
2. SYDNEY: ANZ Stadium - 83.500 (almost new)
3. NEWCASTLE: EnergyAustralia Stadium - 26.000 (needs renovation)
4. BRISBANE Suncorp Stadium - 52.500 (it's a new stadium)
5. ADELAIDE: Hindmarsh Stadium 16.500 (needs to be enlarged) or AAMI Stadium - 51.500 (needs renovation)
6. MELBOURNE: Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100.000
7. MELBOURNE: Telstra Dome- 56.300 (almost new)
8. ADELAIDE: Subiaco Oval - 43.000 (needs renovation)

So, you only have to find 2 more places to build new (at least 40.000 seats) stadiums.
So what? We just host matches at every oval we can find.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 05:03 PM   #4324
Aka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,382
Likes (Received): 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
- Should this be considered a true joint bid (like the Belgium/Netherlands one) wherein both national teams are allowed automatic entry? Seems unfair considering Spain doesn't technically need Portugal and the plan sees Portugal offering at best four venues.
Why not? Should Portugal have to qualify for its own tournament? Yeah! Korea and Japan is way more logical! Even Portugal could technically host a World Cup alone, but if those are not the plans why doing it? Adding 10.000 seats to each stadium is not a major problem. But should we do it? No.

Have you noticed that the Spanish stadiums for this World Cup would be the ones that already exist or others that are already being built or were proposed? If Spain was alone they would have to redevelop stadiums that have no plans for that at the moment. That would probably mean some cities wanting to suck money from the Government. Who wants that? Spain doesn't.

I think that's the biggest idea for this bid: to maximize what we (Spain and Portugal) have. And I think that in terms of stadia this bid is the best. Of course there are many other factors, that's why I more than convinced that this World Cup 'is coming home'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
- As mentioned, Spain doesn't NEED Portugal's help, even if the cooperation yields a nice bid. I wonder what Spanish cities would be missing out on the chance to host in lieu of the Portuguese sites. And what Spanish stadiums could be improved/replaced/used if it was only a Spanish bid?
How many Spanish cities are bigger than the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Portugal? And even if we have stadiums outside those two areas: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=2319

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
- What precedent is this setting for future World Cups? More joint bids and fewer overall host nations? This could be a good thing, but it could also mean several quality bids wait longer - Seriously, one of Spain/Portugal, Belgium/Netherlands and England will have to wait a looooong time considering the possible distribution of WC's, especially if Russia opts in in the future.
It depends. How serious is a Russian World Cup bid? What have been their plans? Two (actually one) big stadiums in Moscow? One in Saint Petersburg? What else? Were can you find anything about their bid? Does the Russian Government really deserve it? Yes, I know that in the people's imaginarium a World Cup in Russia would make sense somewhere in the future. But I don't think they're sufficiently serious to deserve it above other bids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
So I'm not against the joint bid and don't think others are upset. We're simply curious as to why Spain agreed to this when they have a perfectly good offering all themselves.
If they're doing it it's because they know it's the best option for the moment. But hey! If the 2018 FIFA World Cup goes to any other country (or countries) in Europe, I guess a Spanish bid for the 2026 World Cup would be solo.
Aka no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 05:04 PM   #4325
Aka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,382
Likes (Received): 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stifler View Post
Yep, since a couple of years ago, but Federation said no real project would be started until elections (which happened a couple of months ago).
Then let's say we gave the push.
Aka no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 05:47 PM   #4326
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Australia has all possibilities to organize World cup. You have several cities with good infrastructure and of course you have to build some new stadiums like everywhere.

Possible venues:

1. CANBERRA: Canberra Stadium - 25.000 (you can easily expend it to 40.000)
2. SYDNEY: ANZ Stadium - 83.500 (almost new)
3. NEWCASTLE: EnergyAustralia Stadium - 26.000 (needs renovation)
4. BRISBANE Suncorp Stadium - 52.500 (it's a new stadium)
5. ADELAIDE: Hindmarsh Stadium 16.500 (needs to be enlarged) or AAMI Stadium - 51.500 (needs renovation)
6. MELBOURNE: Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100.000
7. MELBOURNE: Telstra Dome- 56.300 (almost new)
8. ADELAIDE: Subiaco Oval - 43.000 (needs renovation)

So, you only have to find 2 more places to build new (at least 40.000 seats) stadiums.
If Australia wants to stand any chance of hosting the World Cup it requires at least 8 rectangular stadia. I spot already three ovals on this list.
And remember that the time zone is already a huge obstacle for an Australian bid. Oz can't afford any more shortcomings.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 05:58 PM   #4327
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Seems Spain/Portugal is official
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 07:14 PM   #4328
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Yeah I read in today's paper that it was now official. If Spain was going to do it alone which stadiums and cities do people think they would use. And what stadiums and cities would be used in a joint bid. It would like to hear your views.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 07:31 PM   #4329
pedro_sousa
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisbon (Portugal)
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

In Portugal no one has confirmed yet.
pedro_sousa no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 09:00 PM   #4330
SpicyMcHaggis
Registered User
 
SpicyMcHaggis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,953
Likes (Received): 1789

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Seems Spain/Portugal is official
And its one hell of a bid. Portugal did awesome job in 2004 and their stadiums are perfect. They will be my favorites to win it
SpicyMcHaggis no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 09:42 PM   #4331
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5597

Quote:
Originally Posted by EPA001 View Post


And that is against FIFA regulations which state that in a WC-bid only 1 city can have two stadiums. So another stadium is necessary to complete your list Sercan for the possible Spain-Portugal bid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyBlue View Post
I'm sure that if you ask FIFA nicely they may concede on two stadiums in two cities...
For that the FIFA regulations and statutes need to be changed on a special FIFA general congress where they can make these decisions. These decisions require a two-third majority since this rule is part of the FIFA statutes. So it is nit a matter of asking politely. And if it means a competitor can bid or not, be sure that some countries are bound to vote against the request.
__________________
.
"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that Gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature" - Carl Sagan
EPA001 no está en línea  
Old December 24th, 2008, 10:05 PM   #4332
Kriativus
Registered User
 
Kriativus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,022
Likes (Received): 538

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruin787 View Post
for the 1994 World Cup, the US used 9 host cities. if we bid again for 2018, i think you can guarantee these 6 stadiums would be included based on their location and proximity to large US metro areas...

Rose Bowl – Pasadena, CA (Los Angeles metro) - site of the 1994 World Cup Final
capacity = 91,100+



FedEx Field – Landover, MD (Washington DC metro)
capacity = 91,000



Gillette Stadium – Foxboro, MA (Boston metro)
capacity = 68,000



Solider Field – Chicago, IL
capacity = 67,000



Lincoln Financial Field – Philadelphia, PA
capacity = 68,500



New Meadowlands Stadium – East Rutherford, NJ (New York metro) - due to open in 2009
capacity = 80,000 (est.)



as for the remaining 3 sites, there really are DOZENS of possibilities. i have some ideas if anyone cares to discuss
Jesus, all ugly stadiums. All big and all mediocre.

I couldn't find any remarkable architecture. Why americans don't give a shit about an original design? Sometimes it´s good to build something besides a toilet bowl.
Kriativus no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 01:09 AM   #4333
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

The US def not short on venues
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 01:35 AM   #4334
PaulFCB
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 262

I hope in case of a US WC that the North-East coast will take the important part of the tournament with at New York.
In 1994 Rose Bowl was the main venue ( coincidently Romania played 3 of its 5 games there Columbia, USA, Argentina and all were wins ) so I think another time over there will make people nostalgic especially because I don't see any improvements to the stadium since then.
And a stadium like Rose Bowl, yeah seems like a commie stadium but with not athletics field, very oval. But Philadelphia stadium looks very ok while Washington and N.Y. reminds me of New Camp.
PaulFCB no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 04:46 AM   #4335
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by krzysiu_ View Post
Australia FTW, England must be kidding with this bid imo..
I honesty think England will win 2018. I'm hoping we (Australia) can nab 2022.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 12:12 PM   #4336
Capital78
Registered User
 
Capital78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Celje, Ljubljana/Slovenia
Posts: 918
Likes (Received): 3

Well, as an European I wish that 2018 is in Europe. The biggest favourite seems to be England. But also Spain or Spain/Portugal has good chances. I think Latinamerican countries will give their votes to Spain or Spain/Portugal. London has Olympic games in 2012 and I doubt England will gain honour to host 2 biggest sport events in period of 6 years.
Capital78 no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 01:07 PM   #4337
Capital78
Registered User
 
Capital78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Celje, Ljubljana/Slovenia
Posts: 918
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
If Australia wants to stand any chance of hosting the World Cup it requires at least 8 rectangular stadia. I spot already three ovals on this list.
And remember that the time zone is already a huge obstacle for an Australian bid. Oz can't afford any more shortcomings.

Time zone shouldn't be a probleme. There are only 3 in Australia. Don't forget the case of USA and even Brazil has 2 time zones. Australia has never been a host of a World cup and whole world knows that Aussies are brilliant organizers.
Capital78 no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2008, 07:51 PM   #4338
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aka View Post
Why not? Should Portugal have to qualify for its own tournament? Yeah! Korea and Japan is way more logical! Even Portugal could technically host a World Cup alone, but if those are not the plans why doing it? Adding 10.000 seats to each stadium is not a major problem. But should we do it? No.
Again, I'm not attacking anyone here. FIFA said the Korea/Japan experience left a bad taste in their mouth and as such joint bids would be more highly scrutinized. As has already been clarified, at least the Belgium and Netherlands bid has the benefit of an established, coordinated governance between the states. Like many I assumed that was the reason FIFA was allowing it as an exception to the joint bid concept. It appears I was wrong, though, and any joint bid is permitted.

And again, I'm not discounting Portugal but merely curious as to why Spain feels the need to give them the access when their country could handle a fine bid on their own. That's all I'm saying.
Quote:
Have you noticed that the Spanish stadiums for this World Cup would be the ones that already exist or others that are already being built or were proposed? If Spain was alone they would have to redevelop stadiums that have no plans for that at the moment. That would probably mean some cities wanting to suck money from the Government. Who wants that? Spain doesn't.
So you're saying it's okay for Portugal to have to invest in stadiums but not other parts of Spain? Seriously, like the Olympics this process has become a big ploy to direct funds into stadiums and infrastructure. English bid officials have said they're intending to use this as an opportunity to invest in the sport in a few cities where current venues aren't as nice or as large. That's the same spirit behind most bids, especially Korea/Japan and even Portugal's Euro bid. So while Spain will still recieve plenty of benefits in a joint bid, it stands to reason 3-4 more cities and stadiums would've also received investment had they not acquiesced to a joint bid with Portugal. If they wish to do it, that's fine, but I'm simply asking openly "Why share the wealth with you technically don't need to and in many cases would benefit more by keeping it all for yourself?"
Quote:
I think that's the biggest idea for this bid: to maximize what we (Spain and Portugal) have. And I think that in terms of stadia this bid is the best. Of course there are many other factors, that's why I more than convinced that this World Cup 'is coming home'.
I agree this would be a strong bid, though we've more info about other bids yet to come. Though I'll contest your coming home quip. Nice spirit, but if anything the trophy's home is Brazil (for it's # of wins) or in England (birthplace of the organized game). Still, I wouldn't complain about an Iberian tournament. That might be what it takes for Spain to win the thing!
Quote:
It depends. How serious is a Russian World Cup bid? What have been their plans?
Russia won't bid for this go round. Not seriously, anyway, seeing as the competition has grown geometrically. But as the dates for a return to Europe appear further and further out (due to FIFA requirements between tournaments in the same confederation), Russia will become a more serious contender for events in the 2030's or beyond.
Quote:
If they're doing it it's because they know it's the best option for the moment. But hey! If the 2018 FIFA World Cup goes to any other country (or countries) in Europe, I guess a Spanish bid for the 2026 World Cup would be solo.
If Spain/Portugal do not win one of these bids, they'll need to wait 12 years after that nation hosts, ie: 2030 or beyond.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 12:59 AM   #4339
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Time zone shouldn't be a probleme. There are only 3 in Australia. Don't forget the case of USA and even Brazil has 2 time zones. Australia has never been a host of a World cup and whole world knows that Aussies are brilliant organizers.
It's not the number of time zones but Australia's location on this planet in relation to Europe. Sydney is 9h ahead of Paris which means kick-offs at 0100 and 0500 local time. That would be a night World Cup. Are you aware of that?
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 01:58 AM   #4340
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewM View Post
Melbourne Commonwealth Games? Rugby World Cup 2003? Rugby League World Cup 2008? (OK OK, we'll scratch that one!) FINA Swimming Championships? Formula 1, Rally Australia? Australia has the runs on the board across the country hosting high profile and complex yet well organized international events. Perth definitely has a stadium problem and might very well need extra time to solve that problem though! lol
The issue of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, is pretty much a non-issue. All are major cities, with excellent transport, hopsitality, stadia and histories of hosting major sporting events. The problem is getting the facilities elsewhere up to similar standards - and the fact that beyond Adelaide and Perth, things really drop off in terms of the need for such facilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital78 View Post
Australia has all possibilities to organize World cup. You have several cities with good infrastructure and of course you have to build some new stadiums like everywhere.

Possible venues:

1. CANBERRA: Canberra Stadium - 25.000 (you can easily expend it to 40.000) agreed
2. SYDNEY: ANZ Stadium - 83.500 (almost new) agreed
3. NEWCASTLE: EnergyAustralia Stadium - 26.000 (needs renovation) I know they're planning to expand, personally I think they'd be better off suggesting a new venue
4. BRISBANE Suncorp Stadium - 52.500 (it's a new stadium) agreed
5. ADELAIDE: Hindmarsh Stadium 16.500 (needs to be enlarged) impossible to do, check Google Maps or AAMI Stadium - 51.500 (needs renovation) they're doing a revamp on it, going to look very good - but still going to be an oval
6. MELBOURNE: Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100.000 agreed, even though it's an oval - it's the best oval in the world
7. MELBOURNE: Telstra Dome- 56.300 (almost new) if Melbourne has two stadia, the second will be an expanded 'Bubble Dome', the AFL will need somewhere to play during the World Cup!
8. PERTH (not ADELAIDE): Subiaco Oval - 43.000 (needs renovation) Again, an oval

So, you only have to find 2 more places to build new (at least 40.000 seats) stadiums.
If we're going to host, we need to put together a spectacular bid that shows our commitment to football. That means new football specific (or multi-purpose that can be put into rectangular mode) venues pretty much everywhere except Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
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 09:27 AM.


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