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 November 26th, 2009, 10:20 PM   #901
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

I agree that the Olympic stadium shouldn't be used and the current plan of reducing it to a quarter of its capacity is a good one. However, why are they including that stadium over stamford bridge? It's just strikes me that they are concerned about something

Personally, I wouldn't touch the new WHL; its a terrible area miles from central London with poor transport links. There is nothing for fans to do around there and that is important. We already have one stadium in a bad local environment in Wembley (I live less than 10 mins from the ground and grew up around here, so i know how ill suited the place is for a 90,000 seater stadium!)
kerouac1848 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 26th, 2009, 10:21 PM   #902
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
RobH, it is virtually the same situation that is happenning in São Paulo. We're offering a fully renovated Morumbi, with two big inconveniences: the athletics track and the lack of space around the stadium (see my avatar). FIFA is willing to discuss the track situation, but the outside space is NON-NEGOTIABLE. They have already stated that, unless São Paulo builds another stadium, it will only host up to the Round of 16. But São Paulo already has 4 stadiums and no teams are interested in building a new one. So, what does FIFA want? A stadium with no tenants, i.e. a big ol' white elephant. They do not care about legacy.
If that really is the case I don't know why we're bidding. But as I said, I'm quitely confident nobody at FIFA will think twice about including stadiums like the Emirates in their world cup. Such venues are recognised the world over and that would more than make up for the kind of creative compromises they may have to make over space for sponsors.

I'll say this...if FIFA want the world cup in England, these problems will very quickly dissapear. If they don't, they'll be used as excuses.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 10:30 PM   #903
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
I didn't suggest otherwise with regard to the bid process and no, I'm not missing the point.

What is wrong, exactly, with offering Wembley, the Emirates and the New White Hart Lane? If FIFA think that's not good enough then we can do without their world cup as far as I'm concerned. A London bid with these three stadiums is more than good enough; in fact it's world class. So, there's absolutely no need for the Olympic Park legacy to be completely thrown out of kilter for the prospect of two or three matches. And I doubt anyone at FIFA would expect it to be if we explained the situation.

I'm convinced that if, in the new year, the Olympic Legacy body rubber-stamps plans for the stadium to be reduced in capacity post-2012, we'll not hear a single person from FIFA complaining, because it's obvious the other three stadiums being offered by London are more than good enough. London should follow through its post Olympic plans, and if they do, by 2018 the Olympic Park will be ideal for a fan-park, and the reduced stadium would be ideal as a training base for a team like Brazil. If they don't follow through on these plans what will be left in 2018 will be parts of a temporary stadium looking its age, temporary bridges and walkways where there should be parkland, and £100m wasted in maintainance and conversion fees.

Sorry for getting so worked up about this, but it's such a no-brainer. The discussion, as well as the inclusion of the Olympic stadium, is so unecessary given the stadiums London has!
It is indeed a no-brainer. The problem is, FIFA has extremely strict guidelines and they usually do not accept many exceptions.

One of the only times when they did, by accepting the Berlin stadium to the World Cup final, has caused a lot of cities in Brazil to use this precedent in order to make FIFA accept stadiums with blind points and a considerable distance to the pitch. And now FIFA repeatedly states that it was one exception, and because they might not grant this free-pass to all cities just because it did to one of them.

All we're trying to say is, FIFA is not afraid of pressuring cities to get them to do what FIFA wants in spite of legacy. Stadium legacy is not a factor to them. São Paulo and Munich had their plans rejected and had (will have to) to build new stadiums, at the threat of not hosting the most important games.

But now the bid commitee has already offerred the Olympic Stadium, hasn't it? FIFA doesn't even have to consider legacy. The comittee members were supposed to do it, and they still offered the stadium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
I'll say this...if FIFA want the world cup in England, these problems will very quickly dissapear. If they don't, they'll be used as excuses.
I do agree. But the FIFA pressure continues after the host choice. Actually, it starts there. I just wonder how they would pressure London to build a new stadium or to use the Olympic Stadium, since they couldn't threat the city like they did to Munich or São Paulo. A "we'll take the finals to other city" would obviously not fly.

Just to make it clear, I think it would be absolutely crazy to not accept a Stadium like the Emirates to a WC.

Last edited by Chimbanha; November 26th, 2009 at 10:36 PM.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2009, 10:40 PM   #904
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

Quote:
But now the bid commitee has already offerred the Olympic Stadium, hasn't it? FIFA doesn't even have to consider legacy. The comittee members were supposed to do it, and they still offered the stadium.
Yes, the Olympic stadium has been offered, so you're right that it's not really FIFA's concern. It was a stupid decision to include it though and you do have to wonder why it's in the shortlist. Is it because of FIFA recommendations? Or is it because the legacy plans for 2012 are changing? Or is it purely wishful thinking on the part of "London United" (the team behind London's host city bid)? I'd love to hear an explanation, but I don't suppose we'll get one.

Whatever the reason, no explanation for the decision will convince me it's anything but a stupid one. Whether it's because of FIFA's requirements or a decision supported by the Mayor, tearing apart London 2012's legacy plans and including a stadium in England's bid which is far from ideal for football when there are better alternatives is a bad idea.

Last edited by RobH; November 26th, 2009 at 11:24 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 12:51 AM   #905
Marin Mostar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 21

Maybe they pickd olimpic stadium so that they dont have to chose bitwen WHL or Emirates. In that case neither club is favorised or damaged.
Marin Mostar no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 01:03 AM   #906
Bobsi
Registered User
 
Bobsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Likes (Received): 26

My Q. got lost in all the locomtion.

Is the public/city counsils/whatever gonna finance the stadiums in any way - for instance, if Liverpool gets chosen, will they receive money to help building their new stadium?
Bobsi no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 02:51 AM   #907
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

This from the Guardian website:

'Stadiums must have usable capacities of at least 40,000 (meaning a total of around 45,000 once dead seats are taken into account) and meet a series of exacting criteria including regulations about the amount of space around the ground, provision for fan parks, media and so on.

None of the stadiums submitted yesterday already meet the criteria, but all have promised to do so if selected. The amount of space required around the ground will be more of an issue for some than others – the Emirates Stadium and St James' Park, for example, will have to come up with alternative accommodation for hospitality and fan parks. In Liverpool, that will mean using Stanley Park. Cities will also be tested on hotel provision, transport plans and so on.'

Kind of kills that myth that 'we can host the damn thing tomorrow/next week'.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 10:39 AM   #908
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

Yes, but anyone who believes that is being silly.

It also suggests the space around the Emirates isn't an insurmountable problem and that solutions can and will be found. That's good.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 12:39 PM   #909
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
This from the Guardian website:

'Stadiums must have usable capacities of at least 40,000 (meaning a total of around 45,000 once dead seats are taken into account) and meet a series of exacting criteria including regulations about the amount of space around the ground, provision for fan parks, media and so on.

None of the stadiums submitted yesterday already meet the criteria, but all have promised to do so if selected. The amount of space required around the ground will be more of an issue for some than others – the Emirates Stadium and St James' Park, for example, will have to come up with alternative accommodation for hospitality and fan parks. In Liverpool, that will mean using Stanley Park. Cities will also be tested on hotel provision, transport plans and so on.'

Kind of kills that myth that 'we can host the damn thing tomorrow/next week'.
Exactly what I was saying. These are simply non-negotiable post South Africa 2010.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 01:35 PM   #910
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

Ever since Italia 1990 I have been very wary of how building stadiums around a World Cup can seriously ruin a country's stadium infrastructure. Rather than bending to FIFA who have shown they would happily choose an Athletics stadium over a real football stadium for their set piece matches, I would rather England drops out and let FIFA go ruin some other country's infrastructure.

Last edited by carlspannoosh; November 27th, 2009 at 02:02 PM. Reason: spelling
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 01:41 PM   #911
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

RobH

That’s the problem, people do. Most still seem to think that we have the best collection of stadiums in the world; when looking at Germany alone this is clearly nonsense. Even the media in this country tout on about how far ahead England are on this issue, despite the fact that the Spain/Portugal bid actually offers more 5 star UEFA certified venues than any other bid plus more capacity than any other Euro bid (they have 7 or 8 venues and England have 3 I believe). I think, however, a large part of that is due to average person kind of forgetting that Portugal are joint hosting and built a bunch of new grounds just half a decade ago.....

I guy I use to live with from Sheffield, who I regard as pretty smart and knowledgeable, said something like if England don't get the WC it will just prove that FIFA is corrupt and anti-English. This kind of thinking unfortunately appears the norm and really just reminds me that our island mentality is still strong.

I really think England is in danger of doing a Chicago or Paris.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 02:00 PM   #912
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

In order to please FIFA even Germany with its excellent stadiums felt compelled to use the white elephant Zentralstadion plus a couple of athletics stadiums.They show little regard for a country's long term interest when it comes to these things.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 02:10 PM   #913
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
Ever since Italia 1990 I have been very wary of how building stadiums around a World Cup can seriously ruin a country's stadium infrastructure. Rather than bending to FIFA who have shown they would happily choose an Athletics stadium over a real football stadium for their set piece matches, I would rather England drops out and let FIFA go ruin some other country's infrastructure.
Exactly. Certain compromises are fine (and I'm sure there'll be many), but some are beyond the pale - the London situation being the most obvious and frustrating example. I'd rather we stood our ground on certain important things and risked not getting a world cup than end up doing things which aren't right for cities and regions in this country. It's not as though England needs a world cup for the world to know our footballing heritage and importance. It'd be nice, yeah, but not at any cost. We're not Korea, Japan, or even South Africa - in footballing terms we have little to prove to the world.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 02:32 PM   #914
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

The things is, England has options. Lots of them.

So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.

That said, I think the rest of the venues all have sufficient space. Wembley will be tight but using some buildings around it could be fine.

The WC finals venue needs a 10,000sqm media centre, 6000sqm more than other WC venues.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 03:14 PM   #915
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

Quote:
So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.
Twickenham I could just about live with, but it's not even being put forward. The Olympic stadium, as you've probably gathered from my other posts, certainly wouldn't be "fine"

Last edited by RobH; November 27th, 2009 at 03:26 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 03:48 PM   #916
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 745

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
The things is, England has options. Lots of them.

So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.

That said, I think the rest of the venues all have sufficient space. Wembley will be tight but using some buildings around it could be fine.

The WC finals venue needs a 10,000sqm media centre, 6000sqm more than other WC venues.
Twickenham would be acceptable but for much the same reasons RobH stated earlier it still sounds like a grim idea to me.
The Emirates Stadium has hosted 60k sellout internationals very succesfully in the past and although there is no parkland directly around the stadium itself it certainly isnt as tightly situated as the likes of Anfield, Goodison or WHL and there is a 30 acre park within a 3 or 4 minute walk of the stadium plus more open space parkland a little bit further away.I am biased of course but I really like the idea of a World Cup venue in Central London. It would have a unique atmosphere, but maybe I am being impractical.The Olympic Stadium is the rubbish option and I hope it doesn't happen.
It is going to be interesting to see how the England bid pitches this though.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 04:09 PM   #917
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,273
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
Exactly what I was saying. These are simply non-negotiable post South Africa 2010.
if Old Trafford , with acres of parking on 3 sides of the ground, does not meet the criteria, today, I'll eat my hat...google map it!
TheFly no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 05:32 PM   #918
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

yah but the stands are surely too close to the pitch, i swear in Dortmund they had to demolish rows FIFA won't accept tarped seating by the looks...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 06:01 PM   #919
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,641
Likes (Received): 1543

Yep, look at the CL where grounds like Old Trafford and Anfield have several empty front rows due to their large advertising boards....

I agree with RobH, England should just present their bid as what’s best for England. Let’s face it; the country doesn't need the WC from a football perspective and even arguably a socio-economic one. They can't (or should I say won’t) do what London did for its Olympic bid and bang on about transforming a massive poor urban area and historical legacy. There probably won't be any more than 2 or 3 newly built grounds and most of the bid cities are just suggesting a bit of tarting up and some capacity increases. Leeds and Sheffield, to use 2 examples, are talking about spending no more than £20, £30 million in upgrades. Comparing to the past 4 WC's before it (so including Brazil) and this is pretty conservative. Most people just want it because they think it’s the best chance England have of winning the WC.

However it doesn't have to be a bad thing. The bid team should argue it from the perspective that they'll be organising a football fans WC and what would happen here would be totally unique to anywhere else as result. If that doesn't work then so be it, but no FIFA dick sucking please.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2009, 07:48 PM   #920
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10343

A certain amount of sucking up is fine. But as I said, whatever's done has to be what's best for England first, FIFA second. In 95% of cases what's best for FIFA will be what's best for England so it's not a huge worry. But sensible compromises must be made in the 5% of cases where FIFA and England may disagree - those compromises have to work both ways, not England pandering to FIFA's every whim.
RobH 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 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu