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 February 27th, 2009, 04:16 PM   #521
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,042
Likes (Received): 4851

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
Swapping Eastlands for a stadium in the East would be a waste of money - there's no question. If FIFA want a stadium in the East then they'll build one, but if they don't want one and allow Eastlands to be used then that'll be a lot more convenient for us.
If we were going to go down that sort of route (which we won't, because FIFA won't allow it), then it would make far more sense to use three London stadiums than to use Old Trafford, New Anfield and Eastlands.

1. The population of the south east is twice as big as that of the north west.

2. Twickenham and / or a new Spurs or Chelsea stadium will be superior to even an expanded Eastlands.
JimB está en línea ahora  

Sponsored Links
Old February 27th, 2009, 06:03 PM   #522
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:

1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?

Just pure speculations, just interested to hear your opinions.
IMO England have better stadia than Spain, but I doubt England beat Spain-Portugal.
And the "only-one-city-with-two-stadia rule" is more of a disadvantage for England than for Spain-Portugal.
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 06:44 PM   #523
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,859
Likes (Received): 10553

None would be tipping points as at this stage all the FA have to do is present a list of stadiums which could be worked into a final list of stadiums. It's only after a country has won that FIFA and that country choose the definitive list.

I have no problem including Twickenham and the Emirates on that long provisional list of possible stadiums during the bid. From my personal perspective, if England win I hope the case for the Emirates is then argued by the FA.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:39 PM   #524
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Edit: So as not to confuse readers, due to some miracle of technology my post has been placed ahead of one that I quoted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:

1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
1. I think most Englishmen would be fine, if it was the tipping point.
2. Ditto here, as the relationships of England/Wales and FA/Millennium are more intertwined at present I feel. Plus, as I've opined before it would be a 1-facility deal wherein Wales could be convinced to waive any rights to an autobid in exchange for the publicity. Meanwhile...
3. ... the coordination with Scotland would be more politically involved and thus less appealing. Whereas the use of Millennium would be taken as a nice, cooperative gesture, the idea of "needing" Scottish aid/venues seems to rub some people raw. Sure, Murrayfield and either Parkhead or Hampden would add large established venues but would they be worth it? Which English cities would have to forfeit their hope to be involved? Would Scotland ask for an autobid in exchange?
Quote:
Just pure speculations, just interested to hear your opinions.
IMO England have better stadia than Spain, but I doubt England beat Spain-Portugal. And the "only-one-city-with-two-stadia rule" is more of a disadvantage for England than for Spain-Portugal.
Well the Spain Portugal bid already has one disadvantage in Blatter's recent dismissal of joint bids for those nations capable of hosting on their own. England doesn't want to even appear in need of aid, and in theory FIFA would look more favorably on their independent efforts than on Spain trying to gain an advantage by calling upon a neighbor country. Personally I don't think Spain needs the help but are using this to try and leapfrog England in the race for the next European host. And while you're right in that the "1-with-2" rule appears to hurt England, if done properly this will aid the nation in the long run by forcing stadium upgrades in places that otherwise might not have pursued them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
I have no problem including Twickenham and the Emirates on that long provisional list of possible stadiums during the bid. From my personal perspective, if England win I hope the case for the Emirates is then argued by the FA.
Agreed. The use of an acceptable club football ground should be given priority if available. Even if it's in Tot... erm, I mean Chel... uh, yeah even if it's an expanded Valley!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place.
So you're certain that an expanded Eastlands, for which there is no current need or plans for an expansion, would be better than the new s**** ground, for which we've seen only a few concept sketches, and yet you're unclear about it being better than a new Chelsea home despite that concept being nothing more than doubted internet fodder? Amazing!
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:44 PM   #525
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English...
Because that would mean three countries bidding for a WC. FIFA would not want that for certain.
KiwiBrit no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:53 PM   #526
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
If we were going to go down that sort of route (which we won't, because FIFA won't allow it), then it would make far more sense to use three London stadiums than to use Old Trafford, New Anfield and Eastlands.

1. The population of the south east is twice as big as that of the north west.

2. Twickenham and / or a new Spurs or Chelsea stadium will be superior to even an expanded Eastlands.

Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place. I'd swap Eastlands for Twickers any day. It's not exactly costly to change the pitch in Twickers and swap the rugby posts for football nets for a couple of weeks.

I just don't like seeing World Cup quality venues not being used because of their Geography or current use. Building a new stadium in Norwich/Nottingham when there are perfectly good stadia in London makes no economical sense. It would be convenient to have 4 or 5 stadiums in London, but it won't happen!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:

1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
I'd like to see Twickenham used. No bid would overlook a 82,000 seater stadium! The Millennium stadium and grounds in Scotland would damage the English bid. England will have enough stadiums without having to borrow from other countries...
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:54 PM   #527
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.
a)FIFA rules and Blatter's stated preference for single nation bids, unless the joint bidders would be incapable of hosting on their own. The issue of allotting automatic births with shared bids is a big logistical problem here.
b) Pride. As the "home of football" England doesn't want to suggest a "need" for outside assistance.
c) Lost opportunity to upgrade facilities elsewhere. If England is supposedly weak enough to need such outside help then it begs to question the their worth to begin with.

On the surface it would be very appealing, but especially in dragging the socio-politics of England vs Britain into the picture the organizers know it's best to stay away from that if possible. The only reason Millennium might be applied is if 1) Wales waives their right to automatic entry (very possible), and 2) the notion that Wales could never host a major tournament on their own. Scotland could possibly do the latter through a Euros.
Quote:
Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?
Based on things as they are today? Unlikely. Based on what's proposed and possible, it becomes very likely. Whether people agree with it or not some government monies would be used to ensure the completion of several new/upgraded facilities to ensure a top-notch event. We simply don't have the level of conceptual images to base this on as yet, as opposed to what we've seen for Spain.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:56 PM   #528
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Methinks this is a Star Trek episode. I keep quoting posts that apparently occurred after my own!
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 08:59 PM   #529
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,042
Likes (Received): 4851

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place.
We can't really say which will be the "prettier" - if that even matters.

Eastlands looks reasonable on the outside. I like the roof but the remainder of the exterior is no more than okay. The interior, however, seems rather soulless to me. When (and if) expanded, I rather think that the interior will look a lot better but the roof at either end will almost certainly have to be rebuilt in order to accomodate the extra 12,000 seats. In which case, the best aspect of the exterior will have been compromised.

As to Spurs' new stadium, we can't really be sure how it will look yet. The initial renders weren't of the highest quality and much will depend on the cladding. It's also possible that there will be changes between those first images and the final design. It's now more than two months since Spurs released those images and they said then that further renders would be published within a month. The fact that that hasn't happened could suggest that the architects are working on some design changes after guaging initial reaction to the original design.

On the inside, I'm hopeful that the new White Hart Lane will look rather better than the interior of Eastlands. The stands should certainly be closer to the pitch. I also expect that the new White Hart Lane's corporate areas will be both more extensive and of a higher standard of finish than Eastlands.
JimB está en línea ahora  
Old February 27th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #530
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
Because that would mean three countries bidding for a WC. FIFA would not want that for certain.
Well, not necessary, Wales would not really host the WC, just lend one of their stadiums.
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 09:17 PM   #531
Wolds Mariner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 0

Quite simply, Loranga, yes.
Wolds Mariner no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 09:21 PM   #532
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post

I'd like to see Twickenham used. No bid would overlook a 82,000 seater stadium! The Millennium stadium and grounds in Scotland would damage the English bid.
For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
England will have enough stadiums without having to borrow from other countries...
Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 09:21 PM   #533
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.
Not being at all English. The stadiums are in a different country! This would mean a joint host with the Welsh and the Scottish... and FIFA won't allow joint bids.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?
If it hasn't got good enough stadiums then it will have to build more or revnovate/expand current stadia. If it doesn't build new stadia it won't win the bid! England could host a World Cup tomorrow but it would use a few grounds that aren't World Cup class.
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 09:24 PM   #534
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,859
Likes (Received): 10553

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
As to Spurs' new stadium, we can't really be sure how it will look yet. The initial renders weren't of the highest quality and much will depend on the cladding. It's also possible that there will be changes between those first images and the final design. It's now more than two months since Spurs released those images and they said then that further renders would be published within a month. The fact that that hasn't happened could suggest that the architects are working on some design changes after guaging initial reaction to the original design.
Some changes may be needed, but the reports suggested a good deal of design work had already gone into this stadium.

I suspect the delay has more to do with our current league predicament.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old February 27th, 2009, 10:48 PM   #535
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
We can't really say which will be the "prettier" - if that even matters.

Eastlands looks reasonable on the outside. I like the roof but the remainder of the exterior is no more than okay. The interior, however, seems rather soulless to me. When (and if) expanded, I rather think that the interior will look a lot better but the roof at either end will almost certainly have to be rebuilt in order to accomodate the extra 12,000 seats. In which case, the best aspect of the exterior will have been compromised.

As to Spurs' new stadium, we can't really be sure how it will look yet. The initial renders weren't of the highest quality and much will depend on the cladding. It's also possible that there will be changes between those first images and the final design. It's now more than two months since Spurs released those images and they said then that further renders would be published within a month. The fact that that hasn't happened could suggest that the architects are working on some design changes after guaging initial reaction to the original design.

On the inside, I'm hopeful that the new White Hart Lane will look rather better than the interior of Eastlands. The stands should certainly be closer to the pitch. I also expect that the new White Hart Lane's corporate areas will be both more extensive and of a higher standard of finish than Eastlands.
I agree.

Also, with regards to using Twikenham - if it wins us the bid, then of course we'd go with it. Great stadium. But we don't need it and so shouldn't even begin to go down the path of using stadia outside the realm of football.
Same with Millenium stad. If we have to, and it's great but It'll never happen. The fact that it's in a different country means it's a non-starter. So is Scotland.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 27th, 2009, 10:52 PM   #536
Schmeek
Registered User
 
Schmeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,568
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
As the more iconic and larger venue, OT would appear to be the more likely.
More likely? The likelihood of using Eastlands over OT is about as likely as using the Hawthorns instead of Villa Park. Never.
Schmeek no está en línea  
Old February 28th, 2009, 01:01 AM   #537
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmeek View Post
More likely? The likelihood of using Eastlands over OT is about as likely as using the Hawthorns instead of Villa Park. Never.
Two things -

One - I've heard it suggested that Eastlands offers better opportunities for FIFA's commercial operations (tenting villages, etc.)

Two - with FIFA, you never know what's going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loranga View Post
For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.
Would it harm a purely Spanish bid if they had a single Portugese stadium, or the German bid if they had added a Polish venue rather than building in Leipzig? Wales and Scotland, for the purposes of football, are entirely different countries. It's really as simple as that.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old March 1st, 2009, 02:32 AM   #538
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

just a quick note.

this sort of thinking about whether venues are football or rugby may matter to England but FIFA really aren't interested whether you want to host matches in your "football realm" or outside of it.

It looks for a venue that offers world cup potential.
Reasonable distance to the main accommodation node, transport (within 2/3km), SPACE for the commercial and venue operations and of course the stadium structure itself which must provide the relevant spaces as required.

Because the English want a world cup within a "football realm" won't really impact on FIFA's choice of venues, whether its presented by the FA to FIFA or not.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old March 1st, 2009, 02:33 PM   #539
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,859
Likes (Received): 10553

You've said this more than once Mo and nobody disagrees with you. Doesn't make it right though and it doesn't mean many people won't feel as though we'll not be doing as good a job as we can do with FIFA's interferences.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old March 1st, 2009, 03:37 PM   #540
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
You've said this more than once Mo and nobody disagrees with you. Doesn't make it right though and it doesn't mean many people won't feel as though we'll not be doing as good a job as we can do with FIFA's interferences.
I don't think FIFA's concern for its sponsors that pump in prob closer to 5 billion dollars for 2018 should be considered an "interference".

The only reason I'm saying what I say is so that people don't get their hopes up for a football realm type tournament when thats not how things work.
Its venue vs. venue according to what FIFA needs to host a world cup.
Mo Rush 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 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium