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.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old August 12th, 2010, 02:20 AM   #561
Thermo
Registered User
 
Thermo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 4,741
Likes (Received): 4154

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
it is the worst bid i have ever seen

Stadiums are just awful amazing!!

I prefer england bid it's more serious! Benelux has to work better. Good for a euro championship not for a world cup
The new stadiums of Antwerp, Brugge, Brussels and Ličge haven't been presented yet. The pictures you see are not the definitive designs.
Thermo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old August 12th, 2010, 08:02 PM   #562
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

at this moment i still say it's the worst

no original design, even France, Turkey bid for euro 2016 are far better!

This bid is just a shame for european infrastructures in general and the image it gives to the world. Have you seen Brazil 2014?

Benelux should retire this candidature

England bid is more serious i think. But it's just my personal view.
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old August 12th, 2010, 11:58 PM   #563
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Axel, would you mind offering some specific qualifications for how you reached that opinion? I'd hate to think a large part of it stems from the overall low average of capacity compared to other bids, because at least that reflects expansions in line with the true use of the venue (and not some artificially inflated capacity as projected for venues in the English and Russian bids).

I agree that as of today it lacks the over-the-top venues to compete with the likes of Wembley or Soccer City, but we do have yet to see final considerations of a new De Kuip to consider, as well. But I think it deserves more credit than you're alluding. For instance, the Bernabau and Camp Nou, the marquis venue for the Iberian bid, are hardly architectural marvels. Great footballing venues but as an overall stadium they're both very staid. And if part of what makes the Bernabau so attractive is the organic feel from the expansions, should we not give the same credit to the proposals for Phillips Stadion and Abe Lenstra?

I do feel the remodeling of the athletics venue in Rotterdam is a waste of time and will be dropped from the bid, even if it does have a large capacity. Better a 40k true soccer stadium than a 60k venue with a track, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm curious as to the reasoning because in my mind it's a very practical and clean bid, and would still be far more attractive than Italia '90 and doesn't include some of the lame duck venues we've seen in South Africa and Korea/Japan.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old August 13th, 2010, 12:21 AM   #564
Thermo
Registered User
 
Thermo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 4,741
Likes (Received): 4154

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
at this moment i still say it's the worst

no original design, even France, Turkey bid for euro 2016 are far better!

This bid is just a shame for european infrastructures in general and the image it gives to the world. Have you seen Brazil 2014?

Benelux should retire this candidature

England bid is more serious i think. But it's just my personal view.
Can you READ?

The designs of the new stadiums are not yet known.
Thermo no está en línea  
Old August 15th, 2010, 01:17 AM   #565
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Axel, would you mind offering some specific qualifications for how you reached that opinion? I'd hate to think a large part of it stems from the overall low average of capacity compared to other bids, because at least that reflects expansions in line with the true use of the venue (and not some artificially inflated capacity as projected for venues in the English and Russian bids).

I agree that as of today it lacks the over-the-top venues to compete with the likes of Wembley or Soccer City, but we do have yet to see final considerations of a new De Kuip to consider, as well. But I think it deserves more credit than you're alluding. For instance, the Bernabau and Camp Nou, the marquis venue for the Iberian bid, are hardly architectural marvels. Great footballing venues but as an overall stadium they're both very staid. And if part of what makes the Bernabau so attractive is the organic feel from the expansions, should we not give the same credit to the proposals for Phillips Stadion and Abe Lenstra?

I do feel the remodeling of the athletics venue in Rotterdam is a waste of time and will be dropped from the bid, even if it does have a large capacity. Better a 40k true soccer stadium than a 60k venue with a track, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm curious as to the reasoning because in my mind it's a very practical and clean bid, and would still be far more attractive than Italia '90 and doesn't include some of the lame duck venues we've seen in South Africa and Korea/Japan.
Ok some projects are good but the general feeling is a very very limited inspiration for what is the BEST competition of the world aka FIFA WORLD CUP!

I don't understand why they bid if they are not able to reach SA 2010, GERmany 2006 or JApan Korea 2002!

That's why i said it's a shame for europe! I haven't seet yet what spain exactly want to do but for england with Wembley , we know that the level is high!

Then Benelux please retire this bid!

God Bless South africa or japan 2002 to have proposed a HIGH quality level of infrastructures.
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old August 17th, 2010, 12:21 AM   #566
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965


For most projects there are no designs made. Up to 5 will be completly new. All the others stadiums except for 1 will be expanded. In capacity we are not going to exceggerate. We are not going to build white elephants to get our WC football, or is that the only solution in your opinion to get a WC football in Holland and Belgium?

Most likely only 1 will have an athletic track (another one with an athletic track will be in reserve), that is less than 1998, 2002, 2006 or 2010. This give a better football atmosphere.

In stadium infrastructure England and the Iberian bid have far more to offer now than Holland and Belgium combined. Do we compare the bids, it is still a difference, however less than the case now. The cities in Holland and Belgium are connected well to each other, and will be connected better in the future. Not only by roads and trains, but also with dedicated bike lanes. The average distances between the stadiums and the cities are very low, which will be very interesting for the fans (who are all getting a free bike) that are following their teams.

Is the WC football nowadays only for big nations? Or is it only possible for smaller nations to get the WC by building white elephants?
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old August 17th, 2010, 02:53 AM   #567
_X_
Registered User
 
_X_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Geelong,Australia
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuppeltje View Post

For most projects there are no designs made. Up to 5 will be completly new. All the others stadiums except for 1 will be expanded. In capacity we are not going to exceggerate. We are not going to build white elephants to get our WC football, or is that the only solution in your opinion to get a WC football in Holland and Belgium?

Most likely only 1 will have an athletic track (another one with an athletic track will be in reserve), that is less than 1998, 2002, 2006 or 2010. This give a better football atmosphere.

In stadium infrastructure England and the Iberian bid have far more to offer now than Holland and Belgium combined. Do we compare the bids, it is still a difference, however less than the case now. The cities in Holland and Belgium are connected well to each other, and will be connected better in the future. Not only by roads and trains, but also with dedicated bike lanes. The average distances between the stadiums and the cities are very low, which will be very interesting for the fans (who are all getting a free bike) that are following their teams.

Is the WC football nowadays only for big nations? Or is it only possible for smaller nations to get the WC by building white elephants?
Some very good points you make.Australia is also running a bid that is based on financial responsibility.We do of course have the money to build magnificent futuristic structures.

This mentality may explain our extremely good economic position-which hardly anyone else can boast
_X_ no está en línea  
Old August 18th, 2010, 08:27 PM   #568
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuppeltje View Post

Is the WC football nowadays only for big nations? Or is it only possible for smaller nations to get the WC by building white elephants?

If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??

It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!

If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old August 19th, 2010, 07:19 PM   #569
Thermo
Registered User
 
Thermo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 4,741
Likes (Received): 4154

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??

It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!

If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?
How old are you if I may ask?
Thermo no está en línea  
Old August 20th, 2010, 12:58 AM   #570
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5597

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?
All stadiums will meet the requirements the FIFA demands. With the new stadium in Rotterdam having at least 85.000 seats (a FIFA requirement which also for example Bernabeu or (at present) even Old trafford can not meet, it will be a fantastic stadium for sure. The rumors have it that the stadium will have between 87.500 - 95.000 seats if the WC is awarded to The Netherlands and Belgium. Only camp Nou will for sure be bigger in europe, and maybe New wembley, but all other stadiums will come up short in comparison.

Also the new stadium in Brussels, Belgium will have at least 65.000 seats as will the Amsterdam ArenA have after its expansion. The 2nd stadium in South-Africa had 69.000 seats, so that is hardly a big difference.

And all the other stadiums will have the minimum requirement of 45.000 seats. Compared to SA or Germany overall the capacities are pretty much comparable. So I do not see what you are havings problems with.

And the small area where the WC will be held allows many fans to easily visit multiple games and will make sure, i.c.m. with the dense population in the Netherlands and Belgium that the WC atmosphere will be felt everywhere. Combines with many green initiatives this can be the greenest WC ever, not unimportant in these days. All in all this bid is a very good one, but maybe not the best (England?). But there is no reason at all to so easily disqualify this bid. It is also a lot better then what France had to offer in 1998, and also that was a fine WC tournament.
__________________
.
"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 August 20th, 2010, 04:35 PM   #571
HasseVonHammarby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 48
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??

It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!

If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?
The worst venues in modern times was in France in 1998, but it was still a good World Cup
HasseVonHammarby no está en línea  
Old August 26th, 2010, 06:03 AM   #572
pathfinder_2010
Registered User
 
pathfinder_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Houston,Texas
Posts: 669
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
A world cup win will give it a boost, but how big a boost is questionable. Italy won the World Cup months before UEFA decided to overlook them in favour of Ukraine/Poland for Euro 2012. A team's success on the pitch may not have quite the impact some would hope.
I think Italy needs a tournament badly and a tournament to rejuvenate their country and its economy.. when was the last time they hosted one ? their stadiums are depleted. Only Juventus new stadium is the latest stadium developmental project I have heard of recently. San Siro is still the same old one.
pathfinder_2010 no está en línea  
Old August 27th, 2010, 05:44 PM   #573
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,207
Likes (Received): 503

Quote:
Originally Posted by pathfinder_2010 View Post
I think Italy needs a tournament badly and a tournament to rejuvenate their country and its economy.. when was the last time they hosted one ? their stadiums are depleted. Only Juventus new stadium is the latest stadium developmental project I have heard of recently. San Siro is still the same old one.
Last WC was 1990 for Italy.
New stadiums are by far not always better stadiums, though it wouldnīt be bad in Italy to have some remake. I live in Spain, not Spanish, but here you have a lot of old stadiums which I would never traid against the far mayority of new stadiums, which just but all lake originality.
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2010, 02:20 PM   #574
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermo View Post
How old are you if I may ask?
don't be arrognat and offended! it's a debat if tou are not ok it's not my fault
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2010, 09:07 PM   #575
maartenpieter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Amersfoort
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

I think that the Holland and Belgium have the best chance.

England: Tried to bribe some FIFA-members.
Russia: Long distances.
USA: They had the World Championships already in 1994, bad atmosphere.
Spain/Portugal: Bad state finances, hot, the FIFA declared that they don't want a double candidature if one of those countries could do it by itself.

The only problem in the HollandBelgiumBid is the dissension in Belgium between Flanders and Wallonia.
maartenpieter no está en línea  
Old August 28th, 2010, 09:20 PM   #576
maartenpieter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Amersfoort
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

Their stadiums:

Netherlands:
Rotterdam (new Feyenoord stadium) 80000-85000, finished 2017
Rotterdam (Feijenoord stadium) 52000
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Arena) expansed to 65000, probably to 70-80000
Amsterdam (Olympic Stadium) expansed to 40000-60000
Eindhoven (Philips Stadium) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 44000
Enschede (Grolsch Veste) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 45000
Heerenveen (Abe Lenstra Stadium) expansed to 45000

Belgium:
Brussel (Brussels Stadium) 60000-80000, finished 2016
Antwerpen (Port of Antwerp Stadium) expansed to 40000-45000, finished 2014
Brugge (Chartreusestadion) 40000, finished 2018
Gent (Arteveldestadion) expansed to 40000, finished 2012
Genk (Crystal Arena) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 40000
Charleroi (Stade du Pays de Charleroi) 40000-45000, finished 2016
Luik (Stade Maurice Dufrasne) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 40000-45000
maartenpieter no está en línea  
Old August 30th, 2010, 11:53 PM   #577
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5597

I am not sure where you are getting your data from, but most of the data is incorrect. I am not totally up to date with the stadiums and their planned expansions in Belgium, so I will refrain from commenting those. But I do know about the proposed Dutch stadiums for a possible WC in 2018 or 2022.

Now I do think we have put up a pretty good bid, which strongest point is very short distances between the cities and the stadiums, and many real football fans interested in visiting the WC matches are living closeby in the UK, Germany, France, Poland and the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Italy and Portugal are also not too far away. And the stadiums are all very new and will be more or less as good as anyone else has to offer. And finally the infrastructure (roads, railways (incl. high speed rail) and airports) are all up to world class standards.

But to get back to your list:

Netherlands:

Quote:
Rotterdam (New Feyenoord stadium) 80000-85000, finished 2017
. Here the minimum capacity has to be 85.000, which is a clear FIFA requirement. Current figures (in the rumor section since nothing is confirmed yet) range from 87.500 - 95.000 if the WC indeed comes to Belgium and The Netherlands. If the WC does not come to Belgium and The Netherlands (for which the chances are < 50% imho), the new Feyenoord stadium will most probably be limited to 75.000 seats.

Quote:
Rotterdam (current Feyenoord stadium) 52000.
At present the stadium has 51.117 seats out of which a maximum 47.000 may be sold. For the FIFA WC new seats will be required, bringing the nominal capacity equal to the real number of seats. This capacity will therefore be 47.000 seats.

Quote:
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Arena) expansed to 65000, probably to 70-80000.
The Amsterdam ArenA will see an expansion to 65.000 seats. That will most likely also happen in a couple of years if the WC would not come to Belgium and The Negherlands. A further expansion is not realistic at the moment, and would only be done if Amsterdam would stage the final of the WC. In the Bidbook Rotterdam is mentioned as the only candidate for the WC Final. Beside that Ajax and the Amsterdam ArenA both have publicly stated that an 85.000 capacity is not what they are striving for at the moment or in the future.

Quote:
Amsterdam (Olympic Stadium) expansed to 40000-60000.
This is a possibility, where the 44.000 seat variant (also a FIFA requirement) is much more likely (and uglier ) then the 60.000 seats variant.

Quote:
Eindhoven (Philips Stadium) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 44.000.
See here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1170703. These plans look very good imho and could maybe become reality without the WC. The stadium will then have 44.000-45.000 seats. But for now there is no money to finance the expansion, so it will not be done previously as you have stated. Unless something dramatic changes in the finances there.

Quote:
Enschede (Grolsch Veste) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 45.000
. In Enschede they for sure will expand the Grolsch Veste to 32.000 seats (up from 24.500 now). The works will start in 2011. The last, and most expensive expansion (the one long and extra tall stand) is far from certain. Only the WC would give 100% assurance that also that stand will be build. See here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=817

Quote:
Heerenveen (Abe Lenstra Stadium) expansed to 45000
That sounds about right although 44.000 might be the capacity. And the all stadiums are going to be expanded instead of being expansed.
__________________
.
"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

Last edited by EPA001; August 31st, 2010 at 08:50 PM. Reason: typo
EPA001 no está en línea  
Old August 31st, 2010, 01:24 AM   #578
AILD
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 506
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by maartenpieter View Post
England: Tried to bribe some FIFA-members.
Russia: Long distances.
USA: They had the World Championships already in 1994, bad atmosphere.
Spain/Portugal: Bad state finances, hot, the FIFA declared that they don't want a double candidature if one of those countries could do it by itself.
Not truth . Typical mistake for those who even can't look at the map.
AILD no está en línea  
Old August 31st, 2010, 03:11 PM   #579
FlyingDutchman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 272

Quote:
Originally Posted by AILD View Post
Not truth . Typical mistake for those who even can't look at the map.
It is true if you compare the Russian bid to the Benelux bid
FlyingDutchman no está en línea  
Old September 1st, 2010, 06:10 PM   #580
witn88
Registered User
 
witn88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 189
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by maartenpieter View Post
I think that the Holland and Belgium have the best chance.

England: Tried to bribe some FIFA-members.
Russia: Long distances.
USA: They had the World Championships already in 1994, bad atmosphere.
Spain/Portugal: Bad state finances, hot, the FIFA declared that they don't want a double candidature if one of those countries could do it by itself.

The only problem in the HollandBelgiumBid is the dissension in Belgium between Flanders and Wallonia.
All the governments support the bid, so what's the problem?
__________________
Al het stadionnieuws: http://www.belstadions.net
witn88 no está en línea  


Closed Thread

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 07:14 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