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: -
- 0 0%
- 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old July 1st, 2008, 11:29 PM   #201
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

- Considering the time frames and the fact that standing-only sections are not allowed in World Cup stadiums, it stands to reason that no club would make any such changes until after the games. If England misses out on both the '18 and '22 games, then they might pursue standing-only sections right away, otherwise there won't be any such decisions until 2012.

- Further, such sections need not see major renovations. At the least, it's not as if they'd rebuild the terrace itself, but merely install guard rails and, if they don't have them already, folding seats. After all the folks may wish to sit during intermission. The biggest factor is allowing (or better yet encouraging) standing, flag waving, etc, in one end at a density greater than modern luxury seating areas. Otherwise its quite feasible for a club to simply throw up rails and call one section a supporters stand! (All right not that simple, but you get the point!)

- In lieu of the above, it's not as if such sections will be mandated or require government support. Let each club decide and do what they want. Too expensive? Don't do it. Strong demand from supporters? Do it.


Back to England's bid...

I'm surprised the gov't report (thanks for the link, btw) didn't have a more detailed time line for when the England bid would have to complete certain assessments. Specifically, when would they need to decide on host cities and facilities. 2011 will be here sooner than we know it, and at the rate these things happen (I'm looking at you, Liverpool and Pompey!) the organizers will need to know within 18-24 months which stadiums they're best off recommending. Portsmouth or Southampton? Norwich or Ipswich? Hopefully they're identifying their internal criteria for assessment so that the potential candidates can begin their own posturing.

he earlier comment implying the potential for using Wembley, Emirates AND Twickenham is an interesting concept I'd not explored. If allowable that would be ideal, and such a loophole might also permit the likes of Eastlands and the new Everton digs to join the pot. Hmmm.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 1st, 2008, 11:38 PM   #202
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Tied into that I think the bid should be focusing less on average capacity and more on correct capacity for each game. To expect minor group games to sellout 70,000+ like they did in 94 maybe a mistake(unless prices drop) as were dealing with a smaller host population and more matchs much closer together.
I feel safe in saying that any country that qualifies will bring volumes of fans to a WC in England. More importantly, very few matches will feature two smaller nations playing against one another. I think this year's Euros suggested the European countries will certainly fill their allotment and then some. Throw in sell-outs from supporters from Argentina, Brazil, US, Mexico... I think you'll be fine. To say nothing of local interest.

Come to think of it, whats the last World Cup match that didn't sell out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Forget about setting a new attendance record. Leave that to the yanks. They don't understand what football is actually about.
You wound me sir. The masses may still need educating, but there's plenty of us that get it quite well, thank you.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 1st, 2008, 11:52 PM   #203
westisbest
Justice for the 96
 
westisbest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greater Liverpool
Posts: 4,114
Likes (Received): 160

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Is that taking into account that the larger stadiums will host more games? Wembley, Old Trafford and New Anfield would almost certainly have 6 games, possible even seven while smaller stadiums would have only 4/5.

Tied into that I think the bid should be focusing less on average capacity and more on correct capacity for each game. To expect minor group games to sellout 70,000+ like they did in 94 maybe a mistake(unless prices drop) as were dealing with a smaller host population and more matchs much closer together.

Personally I think the German's made a mistake in there even allocation of matchs with teams moving around and every stadium getting 2 seeds in the groups. Yes it was "fair" but it resulted in the capacity often not reflecting the demand for tickets and generally left the event feeling a little souless for me. A better route to take would IMHO to have the seeds play all ther games in big stadiums(that everyone in the country can reach pretty easily) and give the smaller nations a "home" venue where they play 2 out of there 3 matchs. A team like Togo just flitting around really isnt going to draw much interest where as if you say based there training and matchs in Leeds I think you'd see the locals get behind them far more.
I think Anfield at 73,000 would hold a Q/F along with Old Trafford, Wemb and maybe im sure in 10 years there will be another 70,000

Wembley and ? for the S/F as i don't see Old Trafford going upto 80,000. However maybe 78,000 would be enough

and obviously Wembley final

I think England is more than capable of a good World cup bid
__________________
Liverpool FC

18 League Titles
5 European Cups
westisbest no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 01:06 AM   #204
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
You sell out Wembley even if Burkina Faso plays North Korea. You don't have to worry about selling tickets. Capacity will in no way reflect the demand for tickets.
I disagree, those kinds of games would probabley sellout in 40-50K stadiums but if there in 70-100K stadiums I think you'd see supply outstrip demand on a few occasions.

Quote:
Back to the 2006 World Cup. Fixtures have been arranged to allow Germany to play in the three biggest venues only. Brazil had to play in a smaller venue just once. Any more preference for bigger nations (whoever they may be) wouldn't have made sense. The World Cup finals are hosted by the whole nation and not just by two or four cities.

Forget about setting a new attendance record. Leave that to the yanks. They don't understand what football is actually about. It is much more important to make that summer memorable. And public screens all around the country distributes a lot more to the atmosphere than a few more seats in the ground.
Under the German system you had all the seeds games at the big stadiums(Munich, Berlin, Dortmund) taken up by the hosts and the brazilians, that ment that the other seeds actually ended up with fewer tickets than the smaller nations. Why wouldnt giving countries like England and the Neatherlands more tickets have made sense? To me that just seemed like political correctness gone too far.

I agree getting the public involved would be the key to sucess and thats why I'd like to see nations who'd lack much travling support given a home base. If done well that could give those sides some passionate local support they'd otherwise lack.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 01:57 AM   #205
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Forget about setting a new attendance record
I'm not wanting to set a record. I want to see an English World Cup with the most seats possible for spectators. I want. Does anyone seriously think a single ticket wouldn't see for any game in an English world cup? You'll likely have one of the super-heavyweights in every group whose own supporters would show up to watch Nigeria v South Korea.

It's unthinkable that the majority of games wouldn't sell out almost as soon as tickets were available.

I can see OT with an expansion to 83-85K but am far less certain about 96k.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 02:53 AM   #206
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by westisbest View Post
I think Anfield at 73,000 would hold a Q/F along with Old Trafford, Wemb and maybe im sure in 10 years there will be another 70,000
Color me suspicious of Stanley Park/New Anfield reaching 73 in time for the World Cup. While the club could certainly fill the venue, this expansion would assume that a) the government would come up with the resources and manpower to enable the transportation and other improvements necessary for the facility to expand from the permitted 60k, and b) that the currently cash-poor Hicks and Gillette would have the means to fund the exapnsion while still early in the financing of the original construction. I'm not saying it's impossible, but as of today I'd call it improbable for 2018.

I also am unsure where another 70k venue will come from unless Arsenal take the plunge. Newcastle has the support but not the money, unless the govt. spots them the land and improvements for something new. Certainly Birmingham and Villa won't need such a venue, particularly as Villa seem set on renovating Villa Park, no matter how hemmed in it is.

Most likely you're top five venues will cap out as;

Wembley - 90k
Old Trafford - 83k (I'll bite on this one)
St. James - 61k
Emirates - 60k
Stanley Park - 60k

Trick now will be finding more 50k+ venues to bolster the ranks. Villa Park should be one, but hopefully two from the likes of Nottingham, Leeds and Sunderland will fit the bill. If anything that's why the bottom half of the field is, IMO, more critical to the impression of the bid. This is where England and the FA will make-or-break the concept that there's more to English football than London, ManU and Liverpool, and simply tweaking Derby's ground won't do the trick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
I agree getting the public involved would be the key to sucess and thats why I'd like to see nations who'd lack much travling support given a home base. If done well that could give those sides some passionate local support they'd otherwise lack.
Don't they already do that? Last I checked, teams had a set training ground for the group and R16 stages, and were guaranteed 2 games in one stadium.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 05:09 AM   #207
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Most likely you're top five venues will cap out as;

Wembley - 90k
Old Trafford - 83k (I'll bite on this one)
St. James - 61k
Emirates - 60k
Stanley Park - 60k
Broadly agree. But I'm more optimistic about Liverpool.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Trick now will be finding more 50k+ venues to bolster the ranks. Villa Park should be one, but hopefully two from the likes of Nottingham, Leeds and Sunderland will fit the bill. If anything that's why the bottom half of the field is, IMO, more critical to the impression of the bid. This is where England and the FA will make-or-break the concept that there's more to English football than London, ManU and Liverpool, and simply tweaking Derby's ground won't do the trick.
Agreed. The 4 or 5 showcase stadiums are/will be just fine.

The smaller venues are our weakness at the present time.

Villa Park - 52K in a few years, no doubt about it.
Sunderland - Planning permission already for 56k and apparently can go to 64k with ease if they fill 56. Currently a bit debatable.
Nottingham - I don't know how realistic their plans of 50k are.
Leeds - Shouldn't be too much of an ask to add 10,000 seats. Their support is OK in quantity, if not quality.
Sheffield - Iffy.
Derby - Iffy
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 05:15 AM   #208
Comfortably Numb
Goddess of Winter
 
Comfortably Numb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 2,521
Likes (Received): 309

I think that England would be a GREAT choice to host the 2018 World Cup. I don't just say this because I'm slightly biased (being an Englishman myself), but it just makes sense.

I was living in England during Euro '96 and they put on a great show then. That was 12 years ago, when England's stadiums were inferior to the way they are now.

You have so many stadiums to choose from in England and truly, football really does need to come home!

England for WC 2018....you know it's the right choice!
__________________
There is no pain, you are receding
A distant ship smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying


My Panoramio
Comfortably Numb no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 06:01 AM   #209
Mr. Met
Registered User
 
Mr. Met's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 366
Likes (Received): 3

America should win, Rose Bowl Stadium in LA (90,000), the New Meadowlands Stadium in NJ (84,000), New Cowboys Stadium in Arlington (80,000-100,00/don't know if you can play a regulation FIFA match on that field), University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale (63,000-73,000) and many more fields all over the country (Seattle, Miami, Tampa Bay, Foxborough, etc.)
Mr. Met no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 06:15 AM   #210
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efflorescence View Post
Well I stood at the world cup. May not have been allowed to but I could'nt see them telling thousands of us to perch our bums.

Anyway.

It's still time to support the safe seating campaign and regain our atmospheres.
Whether you stood or not doesn't affect the FACT that all of the stadia were all seater. If standing had been formally allowed for WC2006 the attendances would have been much higher as most of the grounds used in the finals had converted their safe standing areas to seating for the duration of the finals.

In essence, I agree that having safe standing back at football would be a good thing, but in reality it makes no difference at all to this thread.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 06:18 AM   #211
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
Broadly agree. But I'm more optimistic about Liverpool.

Agreed. The 4 or 5 showcase stadiums are/will be just fine.

The smaller venues are our weakness at the present time.

Villa Park - 52K in a few years, no doubt about it.
Sunderland - Planning permission already for 56k and apparently can go to 64k with ease if they fill 56. Currently a bit debatable.
Nottingham - I don't know how realistic their plans of 50k are.
Leeds - Shouldn't be too much of an ask to add 10,000 seats. Their support is OK in quantity, if not quality.
Sheffield - Iffy.
Derby - Iffy
re: Sunderland, averaging 44k in a relegation fight - a little bit of success and the attendances could go through the roof (literally).

re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 07:37 AM   #212
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Don't they already do that? Last I checked, teams had a set training ground for the group and R16 stages, and were guaranteed 2 games in one stadium.
Certainly wasnt the case in 2006, I don't believe any stadium was used twice by any group let alone team in the opening stage.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 01:32 PM   #213
ccfc-4-life
Play up Sky Blues
 
ccfc-4-life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 2

Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.

If it is possible then surely wembley could be expanded to 100,000 - 110,000 capacity for the WC finals...?
ccfc-4-life no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 04:24 PM   #214
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.
It is a serious detriment (and a minor crime, IMO) that Bates was rewarded with a return to ownership, but in theory Leeds as a club have paid the price and any loans going forward will at least have more progressive numbers for consideration. Should the club indeed return to the premiership in 3-4 years and show financial prudence along the way, then at the least I expect they'll get support enough for a renovation and minor expansion, especially if the opportunity to host WC games is secured to help offset such costs. I've no love for Mr. Bates, but their support is admirable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
Certainly wasnt the case in 2006, I don't believe any stadium was used twice by any group let alone team in the opening stage.
Checking my notes I found that my model was used in the USA '94, which is probably why it stuck in my mind. Korea/Japan obviously couldn't do that with the vast overabundance of facilities (20! What were FIFA thinking?!!), while at least France and Germany offer more manageable distances between venues.

In that case I'll suggest that the model offered in USA '94 should be the preferred orientation, unless surveys of fans and teams suggest otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.
There may be space between the roof and the top of the tier, but it does not appear as if the structure is capable of such an easy addition. At the least it would impact the airflow provided by the space between the tier and the roof, and would either require a reworking of the roof supports or intermittent sections between secondary columns. Thus, IMO, it's possible but highly unlikely unless they're going for a big addition, which is doubtful given the stadiums current debts.

As for closer to the pitch:
a) that would infringe on FIFA's (absurd) standards for distance around a regulation pitch. Gotta leave room for advertising and, more importantly, be at least a good stone's throw away from the fans in case one decides to, well, throw stones. Classic example of overly-cautious thinking ruining the fun for all.

b) More detrimental to the idea, however, is the notion that lowering the pitch to accommodate the additional closer rows would impact the visual angle from the back of the lowest tier, possibly leaving the back rows without a view of the near side of the pitch.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 05:02 PM   #215
HOI
Eh?
 
HOI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA via Beeston
Posts: 734
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
re: Sunderland, averaging 44k in a relegation fight - a little bit of success and the attendances could go through the roof (literally).

re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.
Not many people would lend anything to Bates. But then again, he's knocking on abit, he'll probably be dead by 2018. To be honest I don't see him being at Leeds in 2 years time. If back in the Premiership Leeds could easily fill 50000, We had plans for a new stadium around that capacity, well before everything went downhill of course. But still, we had 250000 ticket applications for the Championship play off final a couple of years back, and probably a few more for the league 1 play off final.

I mean we got 38000 for the last game against Gillingham, and that's in league 1.
HOI no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 05:06 PM   #216
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

Why bother expanding Wembley? Seems quite big to me as it is.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 10:45 PM   #217
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannard View Post
Why bother expanding Wembley? Seems quite big to me as it is.
The way I see it Wembley is one of the great stadiums of the world and is meant to be the home of football so if there is a chance of making it bigger then it definitely should be done. For games such as the Cup Finals, England International games and WC games I would say they could easily get over 100000 at Wembley so why not expand if it is possible to do so even if it is marginal. As long as isn’t too expensive or involve closing the stadium down for a significant period why not. I'm not saying do it now but in 5/6 years the debt owed will have been cut down and surely there would be a bit of cash to finance a small expansion and there most certainly would be the demand for it.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 10:54 PM   #218
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.

If it is possible then surely wembley could be expanded to 100,000 - 110,000 capacity for the WC finals...?
I answered this question on the previous page "Yes but it won't happen"
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 01:31 AM   #219
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Lets not worry too much about Wembley. It's neither here nor there whether the FA can squeeze in another 10,000 seat.

It's far more important to the bid what the chances of expansion at Brammal Lane or elland road are.

As I said earlier, the top 4 or 5 facilities are fine as they are more or less taken care of.

It's the other 6 or 7 we need to look at.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 02:58 PM   #220
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Or Hillsborough, its the Yorkshire region what needs a lot of focus if the games will be spread out region by region.
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
world cup 2018

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 01:42 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