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 9th, 2010, 09:24 PM   #6381
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7064

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrevaricationComplex View Post
1) England beats you there
2) England beats you there
3) nice use of the ol'e bait and switch there. construction index is a poor second if the stadia are already there/and or need minor improvements.
4) England beats you there
5) refer to point 3

in any case its academic really, i dont think England will get as many votes as the benelux ones. and any support for the obviously inferiour spanish one will translate into votes for anything other than England. England has too many enemies, Jack Warner etc
1) Russians cities are more bigger than English. All England outside the London is big province land.
2) Almost all Russian cities are located in Europe. How you can beat us? I think, if matches of one WC will played in European and Asian parts, that it's more interesting situation.
3) The new stadiums will look more better than old. And reconstruction of old stadiums always will cost more than building at empty spaces.

So, you can just repeat "England beats you there", like it was in 2007 But finally we beat you.
AlekseyVT no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 9th, 2010, 09:36 PM   #6382
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7064

Biggest English cities:
1) London - 7.6 mln. people
2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people

Biggest Russian cities:
1) Moscow - 10.56 mln. people
2) St.-Peterburg - 4.6 mln. people
4) Yekaterinburg - 1.37 mln. people
6) Kazan - 1.14 mln. people
13) Volgograd - 0.98 mln. people
40) Kaliningrad - 0.42 mln. people.
AlekseyVT no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 09:42 PM   #6383
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7064

In addition, all candidate cities in Russia (like Moscow, St.-Peterburg, Kazan) are totally different, while British cities outside London are known to the Europeans and made in the same style. There will be nothing to open for himself something new in England.
AlekseyVT no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 09:56 PM   #6384
Yuri S Andrade
Registered User
 
Yuri S Andrade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: São Paulo
Posts: 15,250
Likes (Received): 19087

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlekseyVT View Post
Biggest English cities:
1) London - 7.6 mln. people
2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people

Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.
Yuri S Andrade no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 10:10 PM   #6385
Sochi NEW Dubai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 234
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade View Post
Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.
Moscow metropolitan area
moscow federal city 10 millions+moscow region moscow 6 millions
=more 16 millions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
Sochi NEW Dubai no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 10:12 PM   #6386
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade View Post
Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.
the importance is really about how well the city can absorb perhaps 20,000-40,000 fans from overseas, as well has having the logistics to get them there.

As seems to be a worry with Ukraine's preparations for Euro 2012, hotels and transport links seem to be rather inadequate.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #6387
Yuri S Andrade
Registered User
 
Yuri S Andrade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: São Paulo
Posts: 15,250
Likes (Received): 19087


Thus we must regard the metropolitan population and not only the core city population. And in terms of logistics, I believe England is far of Russia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sochi NEW Dubai View Post
Moscow metropolitan area
moscow federal city 10 millions+moscow region moscow 6 millions
=more 16 millions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
In that case, we must compare it with Greater London+South East England+East of England:

Components - Pop Census 2001 - Area (km²/sq mi)
London -- 7,322,400 -- 1,707 / 659
South East England -- 8,000,550 -- 19,096 / 7,373
East of England -- 5,388,140 -- 19,120 / 7,382
Total -- 20,711,090 -- 39,923 / 15,414

And like I said before, I don't think this is important. I only brought this because one colleague posted a table with the cities population and not the metropolitan area.
Yuri S Andrade no está en línea  
Old July 9th, 2010, 10:51 PM   #6388
coth
pride leader
 
coth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow
Posts: 21,632
Likes (Received): 6819

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade View Post
Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.
agglomerations
http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html

metro areas
http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=...a&va=&srt=pnan

and please don't start it over again.
__________________
coth no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 12:17 AM   #6389
Yuri S Andrade
Registered User
 
Yuri S Andrade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: São Paulo
Posts: 15,250
Likes (Received): 19087


I think you didn't understand the discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlekseyVT View Post
Biggest English cities:
1) London - 7.6 mln. people
2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade View Post
Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.
Nobody is discussing "aglomeration vs. metropolitan area", but "city proper vs. metropolitan/aglomeration". I just questioned the collegue statement about the English cities populations. On this context, doesn't make sense talk about cities in terms of official boundaries. My point is: Manchester is actually a 2.5 million people metropolis and not a 0.4 million mid-size city.

And no, I didn't "start" anything here. It was Aleksey the one posting cities population.

Don't be mad. I don't care about this 2018/2022 World Cup choice process. England, Russia, Belgium/Netherlands, USA, whatever. I'm against 2014 here in Brazil. For the other years, that's not my business.

Last edited by Yuri S Andrade; July 10th, 2010 at 12:22 AM.
Yuri S Andrade no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 01:28 AM   #6390
Qatar Son 333
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doha (Qatar)
Posts: 8,001
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Japan 2022 Bid Universal Fan Fest

Japan has pledged that if it is granted the rights to host the 2022 World Cup games, it will develop technology enabling it to provide a live international telecast of the event in 3D, which would allow 400 stadiums in 208 countries to provide 360 million people with real-time 3D coverage of the games projected on giant screens, captured in 360 degrees by 200 HD cameras. Furthermore, Japan will broadcast the games in holographic format if the technology to do so is available by that time. Beyond allowing the world's spectators to view the games on flat screens projecting 3D imaging, holographic projection would project the games onto stadium fields, creating a greater illusion of actually being in the presence of the players. Microphones embedded below the playing surface would record all sounds, such as ball kicks, in order to add to the sense of realism.

Sources: Wikipedia, Popular Science & Japan Times.


Although Japan's chances of getting 2022 are slim, I really wish this could actually be done.
Qatar Son 333 no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 01:46 AM   #6391
dars-dm
Cotton
 
dars-dm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moscow
Posts: 7,172
Likes (Received): 16859

I think Russia needs this championship more than England, and the main reason is that there's always no problem for England to qualify and it'll play in WC 2018 wherever it is, and Russia may not only lose the bid, but also lose the qualification to it to another Slov(ak, en)ia (Russia failed in 2006 when Slovakia became 2nd in group).
__________________
Code:
Как только проедят напечатанные амерами баблосы, нефтя будет падвацать, хас папиисяд, а толяр - пасто диривянных. И ражко сразу развалиццо. Патаму шо она сичаз разваливаиццо, хотя нефтя ещё не падвацать
dars-dm no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 04:54 AM   #6392
antriksh_sfo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,098
Likes (Received): 2

The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.
antriksh_sfo no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 06:29 AM   #6393
Solopop
Solopop
 
Solopop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 99

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrevaricationComplex View Post
I give up. Maybe its my fault for making the absurdity of the fake article too subtle, instead of claiming nash almost single handedly organised the bid, and that the prime minister was there, i shouldve included magic carpets and russian conspiracy theories involving Mi5 assasinating their journos.

I was messing with you. I knew it was a joke. *shifty*
Solopop no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 06:35 AM   #6394
Melb_aviator
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,207
Likes (Received): 432

Quote:
Originally Posted by antriksh_sfo View Post
The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.
England does have a good bid, but I think that Russia are favourites.

The fact is though that 2018 WILL go to Europe. That is being made very clear by FIFA to all bids, including Japan and Australia who pulled out of the running for that year due to recommendations made by that organisation.

The national teams performance is only 1 part of the chain. It may be seen as a way of putting England back on its feet in regards to its player development.

Taking for granted that 2018 will be in Europe is not unexpected, as in all reality the US is not doing itself many favours by staying in the race for 2018.
Melb_aviator no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 12:35 PM   #6395
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by antriksh_sfo View Post
The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.
A straw man argument if ever there was one.

What complacency? The England 2018 bid team know perfectly well that the competition is fierce and that any of the four European bids could prevail. They aren't in the slightest bit complacent.

Seems to me that this "complacency" you speak of is just a figment of your overactive imagination. Or perhaps you merely wish to believe that the England 2018 team are complacent because such an outcome would confirm your prejudices about English people?
JimB no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 12:55 PM   #6396
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sochi NEW Dubai View Post
Russia 2018 clearly
1) big cities
2) quite in the European area with the exception of Ekaterimburg that is to 40 km of europe
3) big construction index (Moscow city, Yekaterinburg city, volgograd city, Olympiad in Sochi, Okhta center in St.petersburg, universiade of Kazán...)
4) Good airports and communications
5) new stadiums
I am convinced undoubtedly by much more Russia than England
Who gives a damn about the size of the cities? Certainly not FIFA. Or perhaps you hadn't noticed that one of this year's World Cup cities, Polokwane, is little more than a small town?

The fact is that all the English cities involved have the required infrastructure to be able to accomodate the likely number of fans and media. And even if that hadn't been the case, England is so compact that you're never far away from a big city. Take Milton Keynes, for example. Not a big city by any means - but it's only a half hour train journey from central London. In this respect, I dare say that England is far, far better equipped than Russia currently is.

England's airports and communications are at least the equal of Russia's. It's preposterous for you to suggest otherwise. Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world, for crying out loud! And the general transport situation in England is much more sympathetic to fans than it is in Russia, simply because of the compactness of England and the vastness of Russia. That's not Russia's fault, of course. But it's a fact nevertheless. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?

As to stadiums, England has plenty of modern stadiums already - such as Wembley and the Emirates. And there are many proposed new stadiums and redevelopments to come - such as the new Anfield; the new White Hart Lane; the new Olympic stadium; the new Plymouth stadium; the new Bristol stadium; the new Nottingham stadium; a redeveloped and increased capacity Villa Park; a redeveloped and increased capacity Elland Road; a redeveloped and increased capacity Hillsborough. More than likely, there will also be a redeveloped and increased capacity Old Trafford, Eastlands, Stadium of Light and possibly even St James' Park too.

And, on top of it all, none of these stadiums (other than Milton Keynes and Plymouth, possibly - and even those two clubs would get decent crowds if they enjoyed any success) would become white elephants after the World Cup. They would all continue to be used to most of their capacity long after the World Cup has been and gone. The same couldn't be said for Russia, where many clubs in the potential host cities rarely get crowds of more than 10,000.

Unlike you, I'm not going to make any boastful predictions about who will win the bid. Russia may well win. Certainly, it has the advantage of never having hosted the World Cup before. That will count in its favour. And FIFA politics is so convoluted that it would be foolish for anyone to claim that they will win.

But on the basis of the points you make in your post, there is no way that you can sensibly claim that Russia's bid is superior to England's.
JimB no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 01:03 PM   #6397
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
I think point 5 may be England's undoing, or to be precise, that attidute that what we have now is fine and we don't need to rebuild.

A bid proposing a collection of fine new stadiums is going to be looked upon favourably compared to one proposing a lot of older ones.
Another straw man!

What attitude? It's a figment of your imagination.

As I said in my long post above, England 2018 is proposing a major programme of new and redeveloped stadiums.

The fact that England already has a lot of stadiums of the required size and quality won't count against England's bid. It's nonsense to suggest that it would. Otherwise, going by that logic, the World Cup would only ever be hosted by countries with inadequate stadium infrastructure that probably don't even need the stadiums other than for the four weeks of the World Cup.

I don't believe that that is what FIFA is aiming for. Do you?
JimB no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 01:25 PM   #6398
crazyalex
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
Likes (Received): 19

country vs country
This thread need close down
crazyalex no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 04:30 PM   #6399
PrevaricationComplex
Inselaffe
 
PrevaricationComplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lancashire, U.K
Posts: 2,710
Likes (Received): 1629

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sochi NEW Dubai View Post
Russia 2018 clearly
1) big cities
2) quite in the European area with the exception of Ekaterimburg that is to 40 km of europe
3) big construction index (Moscow city, Yekaterinburg city, volgograd city, Olympiad in Sochi, Okhta center in St.petersburg, universiade of Kazán...)
4) Good airports and communications
5) new stadiums
I am convinced undoubtedly by much more Russia than England
for the sake of clarity, im gonna repeat my self...

its all academic anyway.

why is it academic? because its a list of critieria that exists only that poster head! some of them dont even make sense. a russian advantage(i.e relative to England) is supposed to be:

that some of their cities are in europe

good airports (compared to Englands crappy ones)
PrevaricationComplex no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2010, 04:39 PM   #6400
PrevaricationComplex
Inselaffe
 
PrevaricationComplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lancashire, U.K
Posts: 2,710
Likes (Received): 1629

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solopop View Post
I was messing with you. I knew it was a joke. *shifty*
no worries. if anything i owe you an appology. the anonymity of the net is no reason to behave like a facepalming teenager.
PrevaricationComplex 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 02:58 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