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 May 24th, 2010, 07:44 AM   #6121
ExSydney
Melbourne-Sydneysider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 370
Likes (Received): 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
What impresses FIFA is the money. They could care less about the rest of it. China is a moneymaker. They are going to bid
They were going to bid for 2018 and they were going to bid for 2022 and now they are going to bid for 2026!

Hey...well the whole of the AFC may not even bother bidding until China decides to actually put in an official bid.
ExSydney no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 24th, 2010, 07:51 AM   #6122
ExSydney
Melbourne-Sydneysider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 370
Likes (Received): 78

The reduction in Maracana's capacity had nothing to do with the 190m sight guideline.
I believed the reduction was due to the reconstruction of the lower tier.I find it hard to believe that you are telling me that there will be 10,000 vacant seats(with unobstructed views) at the back of the Maracana stands that will not be used because of a FIFA guidline to stadia design?
I find this hard to believe and I cannot remember any WC or event where this has occured.

As for the roof...Since when did FIFA decide that all WC venues must provide 100% roof cover?
ExSydney no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 08:28 AM   #6123
motion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,002
Likes (Received): 123

shutup. Australia is the sporting capital of the universe any sport would be so lucky for australia to show interest in it.
motion no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 09:30 AM   #6124
Solopop
Solopop
 
Solopop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 99

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSydney View Post
As for the Final,its common knowledge that if Australia wins 2018/2022,the the Final will be played at the 88,000 seat Sydney Olympic stadium.
That's not what Frank Lowy's been saying.
Solopop no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 11:31 AM   #6125
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSydney View Post
The reduction in Maracana's capacity had nothing to do with the 190m sight guideline.
I believed the reduction was due to the reconstruction of the lower tier.I find it hard to believe that you are telling me that there will be 10,000 vacant seats(with unobstructed views) at the back of the Maracana stands that will not be used because of a FIFA guidline to stadia design?
I find this hard to believe and I cannot remember any WC or event where this has occured.

As for the roof...Since when did FIFA decide that all WC venues must provide 100% roof cover?
The capacity is changed for many reason but mainly due to

1. Safety
2. Accommodation of the media on the upper tier
3. Refurbishment of the interior spaces of the venue which may impact capacity


FIFA only requires that the upper areas of the grand stand are covered for the media/journalists sitting there.

e.g. see Peter Mokaba/Royal Bafokeng.

In order of importance.

1. Safety/Security e.g. residential venues are not a favourite, including the structural integrity etc
2. Interior spaces e.g. where will the FIFA mascot room be etc. are the players areas large enough, good circulation inside the stadium?
3. Outside areas e.g. hospitality,sponsors, parking
4. Cover: a roof over the western tribune

Features like capacity over the 45,000 mark only matter when hosting QF, SF or F.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 11:37 AM   #6126
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
Well, and what's the point of being modern if the stands are a kilometer away from the pitch and the stadium has no roof? FIFA doesn't care about looks and modernity. Morumbi is probably getting our opening game even though it's our ugliest stadium in the bid. My experience with our WC preparations show that, in order of importance to FIFA:
1 - Visibility
2 - Security (esp. evacuation)
3 - Comfort (e.g. roof)
4 - Outside space (esp. for opening and final venues)
5 - Looks/modernity, etc.

And, because of that:

A - MCG is not going to hold 100,000 expectators. All the seats that exceed the pitch-distance guidelines (90m distance to the center of the pitch and 190m to the farthest corner) will not be utilized - Maracanã will lose more than 10,000 seats due to this guideline, and, considering the pitch looks much farther in MCG, I think it will lose much more. I think Wembley and the Olympic Stadium in London would lose some seats too.


B - Maracanã will have to eliminate all the parts at which a superior tier covers an inferior one, reconstructing the lower tier with the same inclination as the upper one. Morumbi even had to get rid of their intermediate tier in order to obey to this guideline, and I think it's pretty much the only solution to the MCG.

I'm not bullying Australia or anything, it's just that this is the bid at which I'm focused now. I mean, don't even get me started on the English stadiums and they fact that are located in the middle of the city with virtual no breathing space.

It's just that you guys that are out of the hosting process have no idea of how picky FIFA can be and how there is no such thing as compromise in their book. The first thing after a country is elected hosts is to sign an agreement at which the host countries agree to follow all the FIFA guidelines - and FIFA makes sure to use every possible type of pressure in order to make it happen.

If Brazil is going through all this stadium remodelling when it was pretty much the only option FIFA had, imagine what will happen to the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 Word Cups, which will be picked among a dozen of contenders.
A - Not necessarily, and not usually the main reason. Very few seats at Wembley are outside the guideline and are likely to be sold anyway given the huge demand. There are more vital reasons for seats being lost e

B - Not sure what this means.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 01:11 PM   #6127
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

In some ways I would like to see more Belgium/Netherlands or Iberian type bids. Either that or FIFA should be more realistic in regards to their demands from bidding nations.
Realistically,the way the World Cup is evolving I see more arguments for regionalised World Cups rather than limiting hosting to single nations only. The only real obstacle I see is the issue of automatic qualification for host nations.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 01:50 PM   #6128
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
Originally Posted by motion View Post
shutup. Australia is the sporting capital of the universe any sport would be so lucky for australia to show interest in it.
I don't know about the Universe but at least this side of the Milkyway

Quote:
I'm not bullying Australia or anything
Don't worry man, we know. Many of us are aware of FIFA's control once things have been signed. We're mainly interested in how things (mostly venues) play out if Australia wins the bid.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 03:28 PM   #6129
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
The reduction in Maracana's capacity had nothing to do with the 190m sight guideline.
I believed the reduction was due to the reconstruction of the lower tier.I find it hard to believe that you are telling me that there will be 10,000 vacant seats(with unobstructed views) at the back of the Maracana stands that will not be used because of a FIFA guidline to stadia design?
I find this hard to believe and I cannot remember any WC or event where this has occured.

As for the roof...Since when did FIFA decide that all WC venues must provide 100% roof cover?
Quote:
A - Not necessarily, and not usually the main reason. Very few seats at Wembley are outside the guideline and are likely to be sold anyway given the huge demand. There are more vital reasons for seats being lost
Yes, it's true. I can't find any article in English exposing the situation but Maracanã will lose a lot of seats because they are beyond the pitch-distance threshold defined in FIFA's guidelines. That has nothing to do with the other seats it will lose due to the reconstruction of the lower tier. Such seats will be removed during the WC and in their places there will be food stands and sponsors' stands. A total of 12700 places will be lost and Maracanã's total capacity will be reduced to less than 70.000. Here's the link to pic that shows which areas within Maracanã will not hold spectators:http://www.lancenet.com.br/infografi...s-nao-veem.jpg

So there's no reason why the same thing wouldn't happen in Wembley, and, specially, in the MCG.

Quote:
B - Not sure what this means.
No seats in the lower tier located under the upper tier, and same inclination of the tiers. Look at the new Maracanã project:


Now look at the lower tiers of MCG:



Take notice of the difference of inclination of the upper tier and the lower one.

Last edited by Chimbanha; May 24th, 2010 at 04:00 PM.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 03:46 PM   #6130
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
Now look at the inferior tiers of MCG
They aren't inferior. The MCG has far steeper seating than the Maracana. The top teirs have a 33 degree incline.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 03:59 PM   #6131
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walbanger View Post
They aren't inferior. The MCG has far steeper seating than the Maracana. The top teirs have a 33 degree incline.
Sorry, I didn't mean "inferior tier", I meant "lower tier". Corrected
And I'm not questioning the upper tier, but the lower one looks almost horizontal. Like the Morumbi lower tier, that will be covered by the middle tier in order to abide to the FIFA guidelines.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 04:23 PM   #6132
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
Yes, it's true. I can't find any article in English exposing the situation but Maracanã will lose a lot of seats because they are beyond the pitch-distance threshold defined in FIFA's guidelines. That has nothing to do with the other seats it will lose due to the reconstruction of the lower tier. Such seats will be removed during the WC and in their places there will be food stands and sponsors' stands. A total of 12700 places will be lost and Maracanã's total capacity will be reduced to less than 70.000. Here's the link to pic that shows which areas within Maracanã will not hold spectators:http://www.lancenet.com.br/infografi...s-nao-veem.jpg

So there's no reason why the same thing wouldn't happen in Wembley, and, specially, in the MCG.



No seats in the lower tier located under the upper tier, and same inclination of the tiers. Look at the new Maracanã project:


Now look at the lower tiers of MCG:



Take notice of the difference of inclination of the upper tier and the lower one.
Wembley is a modern stadium designed with enough concessions for double the capacity.

If Maracana is losing seats on the lower tier then it simply to provide enough concessions at the concourse level for the given capacity.

Its not simply a case of a a tier hovering above a lower tier implying the seats below need to be removed.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 04:28 PM   #6133
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
Sorry, I didn't mean "inferior tier", I meant "lower tier". Corrected
And I'm not questioning the upper tier, but the lower one looks almost horizontal. Like the Morumbi lower tier, that will be covered by the middle tier in order to abide to the FIFA guidelines.
Ah, I see. Yeah the MCG ground tier is pretty shallow at 12 degrees, no love from me either. Well if Australia wins and the FFA and Federal Government sign on the dotted line, I'm very interested to see what venue alterations FIFA demands, there will no doubt be some and the Feds will have to cough up. I know as much as my State Government in Western Australia is holding back on the idea that the Federal Government will have to contribute more for the Perth Stadium.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #6134
AILD
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 506
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filipe710 View Post
If you go that way in kind of Football Portugal as a natilnal don't have big achievements (only 2º place in Euro 04 and 3rd and 4th Place in WC 1966 and 2006). But in Beach Soccer we are one of the top 3 nationals. In football teams we are 4 times CL winners (2 time FC Porto and 2 time SL Benfica that lost more finals). In Futsal SL Benfica is the current Uefa Futsal Cup Winner and we are the vice-champions of Europe in Nationals. If I join more the results of Spain who you think would win by that way?
Look attentievly. I answered on someone's stupidity that Russia was "footballing wilderness" earlier in football.
AILD no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 06:33 PM   #6135
AILD
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 506
Likes (Received): 30

England actively using press in war against Russia's bid. They didn't stop even after Triesman's absurd.

http://www.sport-express.ru/newspaper/2010-05-24/2_3/

FIFA should be harder against creation of bad atmosphere around someone's bid in mass media without proofs. Just using same old propaganda instruments.
AILD no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 07:27 PM   #6136
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Wembley is a modern stadium designed with enough concessions for double the capacity.

If Maracana is losing seats on the lower tier then it simply to provide enough concessions at the concourse level for the given capacity.

Its not simply a case of a a tier hovering above a lower tier implying the seats below need to be removed.
No, when the tier hovers above a lower tier the seats aren't just removed - the lower tier needs to be totally reconstructed in a way that such carachteristic is got rid of. Of course it's not just the fact that one tiers hovers over another, it's also that usually the lower tier also has less steep inclination. That's why 4 of our stadiums (Maracanã, Mineirão, Morumbi and Castelão) are going to rebuild the lower tiers. Morumbi and Maracanã will lose a tier that way, becoming two-tiered and single-tiered stadiums, respectively.

The seats shall be removed when, in the upper tier, there are seats with a longer distance to the pitch than the maximum estipulated by FIFA (90m and 190m). In these cases there is the placement of food and comercial stands.

It's been some weeks that I'm trying to obtain the information about the inclination of Soccer City's lower tier, that doesn't seem steep enough to me. Does anyone know if there are places in the upper tier that exceed FIFA's distance requirements? I mean, there should be, you can't just put 95000 people in such a small space.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 07:40 PM   #6137
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
It's been some weeks that I'm trying to obtain the information about the inclination of Soccer City's lower tier, that doesn't seem steep enough to me.
Just go to the stadium sections thread or the Soccer City thread and find the section, I know it's on here somewhere. Then grab a protractor to find the angles. It isn't the steepest stadium but it will do fine.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 08:21 PM   #6138
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,769
Likes (Received): 10322

Quote:
Originally Posted by AILD View Post
England actively using press in war against Russia's bid. They didn't stop even after Triesman's absurd.

http://www.sport-express.ru/newspaper/2010-05-24/2_3/

FIFA should be harder against creation of bad atmosphere around someone's bid in mass media without proofs. Just using same old propaganda instruments.
I can't read Russian, but that hardly matters to be honest.

I can only assume things work very differently in Russia, but in England the government and the world cup bid have little juristiction over what the press writes. They aren't "actively using the press" in anything; nor do they have the power to. The press chooses to write what it writes; it's not being used as a "propaganda instrument" from the outside.

What are FIFA supposed to do? Punish England 2018 because a taboid's written a bad story about Russia's bid? Is that what you're proposing?

And, incidently, the Treisman story proves my point completely. It's done untold damage to England's bid over the last two weeks. If the bid was capable of using the press as a propaganda tool in the way your post implies, that story would never have been published.

Last edited by RobH; May 24th, 2010 at 09:07 PM.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old May 24th, 2010, 08:45 PM   #6139
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
No, when the tier hovers above a lower tier the seats aren't just removed - the lower tier needs to be totally reconstructed in a way that such carachteristic is got rid of. Of course it's not just the fact that one tiers hovers over another, it's also that usually the lower tier also has less steep inclination. That's why 4 of our stadiums (Maracanã, Mineirão, Morumbi and Castelão) are going to rebuild the lower tiers. Morumbi and Maracanã will lose a tier that way, becoming two-tiered and single-tiered stadiums, respectively.

The seats shall be removed when, in the upper tier, there are seats with a longer distance to the pitch than the maximum estipulated by FIFA (90m and 190m). In these cases there is the placement of food and comercial stands.

It's been some weeks that I'm trying to obtain the information about the inclination of Soccer City's lower tier, that doesn't seem steep enough to me. Does anyone know if there are places in the upper tier that exceed FIFA's distance requirements? I mean, there should be, you can't just put 95000 people in such a small space.
There are world cup venues with part of a higher tier partially overlapping the lower tier e..g Cape Town.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old May 24th, 2010, 08:58 PM   #6140
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
There are world cup venues with part of a higher tier partially overlapping the lower tier e..g Cape Town.
Like I said, it's not the only factor. When the overlapped stands are steep enough there is no problem, like in our Arena da Baixada. Green Point Stadium's stands are also very steep, and it's not like the shadow of the upper tier will single-handedly affect the visibility conditions. If Soccer City's lower tier got overlapped, however, it would probably get its visibility affected, because it's not steep enough.
Chimbanha 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