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 June 13th, 2010, 05:06 PM   #2121
bd popeye
Registered User
 
bd popeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids IA USA
Posts: 6,390
Likes (Received): 10445

RaiderATO, I understand now.You meant stadium capacity. Qualcomm seats 71,000..Right now the new stadium would seat only 62,000..

What the NFL dislikes about Qualcomm;
1) Press box too small.
2) Upper level concourses to narrow.
3) Lower lever seats to low . In fact the first 12 rows of the front seats on the lower level have not been sold for the three Superbowls held in SD...
4) Not enough "skyboxes"
5) Club seats and Skybox Clubrooms/accommodations inadequate.

I think the low seats would be something FIFA would like.

There is a thread about the "Q"..

Qualcomm Stadium



Quote:
Qualcomm Stadium San Diego CA- Photo credit Ken Rockwell




Quote:
Qualcomm Stadium San Diego CA in it's present configuration.

Last edited by bd popeye; June 14th, 2010 at 12:57 AM.
bd popeye no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 13th, 2010, 05:13 PM   #2122
KingmanIII
Registered User
 
KingmanIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Killa City, Misery
Posts: 2,627
Likes (Received): 415

seems like you could orient the pitch either way
KingmanIII no está en línea  
Old June 13th, 2010, 05:26 PM   #2123
eMKay
Registered User
 
eMKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,585
Likes (Received): 224

If they just replaced the lowest level at Qualcomm it would be fine, redesign it so it's closer to the sidelines. They don't need to fit baseball in there anymore.
__________________
BASEBALL America's pastime since 1791, Washington Nationals (Senators) est: 1901, Buffalo Bisons est: 1879
FOOTBALL Buffalo Bills est: 1960
SOCCER DC United est: 1995, Buffalo FC est: 2009
HOCKEY Buffalo Bisons/Sabres est: 1940/1970
BASKETBALL Buffalo Braves->LA Clippers est: 1970
eMKay no está en línea  
Old June 13th, 2010, 09:22 PM   #2124
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,852
Likes (Received): 2401

San Diego will almost surely have a new stadium by 2022. And if not, this place will be too decrepit by then anyway to host.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old June 13th, 2010, 09:45 PM   #2125
bd popeye
Registered User
 
bd popeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids IA USA
Posts: 6,390
Likes (Received): 10445

"Futbol" at the "Q"
Quote:
Soccer

Qualcomm Stadium has been a venue for many international soccer matches. The stadium has hosted FIFA tournaments, including the CONCACAF Gold Cup, and the U.S. Cup (an international invitational), as well as many international friendly matches involving the Mexican National Team.[4] The most recent international friendly at Qualcomm set an all-time attendance record for the sport in the region. The match between Mexico and Argentina which was held on 4 June 2008 drew 68,498 spectators.

The San Diego Sockers of the North American Soccer League played at the stadium from 1978 to 1983. Portsmouth fc will play their for pre-season against club america on 14th july then edmonton select on 21st july.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingmanIII View Post
seems like you could orient the pitch either way
LoL not quite. Baseball was once played in the stadium from 1969-2003. Qualcomm was built as a multi-purpose stadium

I know when Mexico played there in 2007 & '08 the very ends of those lower seats were removed to accommodate "futbol" pitch. Those sections of seats are moveable.







Quote:
San Diego will almost surely have a new stadium by 2022. And if not, this place will be too decrepit by then anyway to host.
Hopefully..the "Q" is not so beat up as another stadium of her age may be. Why? The weather in San Diego. Only 9 inches of rainfall a year. However I'm sure the infastructure of the stadium needs attention.

Last edited by bd popeye; June 13th, 2010 at 09:59 PM.
bd popeye no está en línea  
Old June 13th, 2010, 10:22 PM   #2126
eMKay
Registered User
 
eMKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,585
Likes (Received): 224

Looks awesome! And no need for it to be replaced, buildings can last forever if they are maintained.
__________________
BASEBALL America's pastime since 1791, Washington Nationals (Senators) est: 1901, Buffalo Bisons est: 1879
FOOTBALL Buffalo Bills est: 1960
SOCCER DC United est: 1995, Buffalo FC est: 2009
HOCKEY Buffalo Bisons/Sabres est: 1940/1970
BASKETBALL Buffalo Braves->LA Clippers est: 1970
eMKay no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2010, 07:07 AM   #2127
Anubis2051
Captian Clutch
 
Anubis2051's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Princeton
Posts: 372
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderATO View Post
I'd be surprised if we had more than two 50,000+ "soccer only" stadiums by then. The FB and Soccer seasons don't overlap much, so I can easily see the "in demand" MLS games moving to the local 70,000 seat FB stadium.

Even in '22 all FB stadiums will outpace any soccer stadium in quality, size, amenities, etc.

The US wouldn't have a lack of public support or ticket sales even if the event were to take place tomorrow. (and that's with the short notice too)
I don't even see any 50,000 plus soccer stadiums. Baseball, Hockey, and Basketball are all well ahead of Soccer in terms of popularity, and out of those, only Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Coors Field, and Turner Field are over 50,000, with most MLB stadiums in the 40-50 thousand seat range. The two largest Soccer stadiums are the Red Bull Arena and the Home Depot Center, and they only averaged about 16,000 and 19,000, respectively, last season.
Anubis2051 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2010, 07:45 PM   #2128
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis2051 View Post
I don't even see any 50,000 plus soccer stadiums. Baseball, Hockey, and Basketball are all well ahead of Soccer in terms of popularity, and out of those, only Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Coors Field, and Turner Field are over 50,000, with most MLB stadiums in the 40-50 thousand seat range. The two largest Soccer stadiums are the Red Bull Arena and the Home Depot Center, and they only averaged about 16,000 and 19,000, respectively, last season.
In the United States, we will never see a soccer only stadium that has a capacity of 50,000 (seats) in the next 10-15 years.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 01:01 AM   #2129
Archbishop
Registered User
 
Archbishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 642
Likes (Received): 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I still can't believe that my farking city (Chicago) withdrew from the bid. Someone at city hall needs to pay for that decision.

I thought that Chicago just wasn't chosen? Indianapolis is close enough with a better stadium anyways!
Archbishop no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 01:23 AM   #2130
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archbishop View Post
I thought that Chicago just wasn't chosen? Indianapolis is close enough with a better stadium anyways!
Chicago refused to pay the relatively small guarantee every city had to pay to host.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 09:26 AM   #2131
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,852
Likes (Received): 2401

Honestly, I think the attendance/ticketing issues we are seeing in South Africa coupled with Brazil's stadium delays/infrastructure issues will give FIFA even more reason to hold it in America in 2022. Will be as smooth a tournament as has ever been hosted.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 09:46 AM   #2132
crazyalex
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
Likes (Received): 19

Russia or Belnelux 2018
USA 2022
crazyalex no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 10:20 AM   #2133
BoulderGrad
Registered User
 
BoulderGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,479
Likes (Received): 1143

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
In the United States, we will never see a soccer only stadium that has a capacity of 50,000 (seats) in the next 10-15 years.
We will never see a soccer only stadium because a soccer pitch is not all that different from a gridiron football field. Even if you find a market where you can draw 50,000 people to a soccer game, its probably already big enough to have a football team that could also easily draw more than 50,000 people to a game (Seattle anyone?). The trend seems to be designing our new NFL stadiums so that they can be configured for a proper soccer pitch (i.e. New Meadowlands, Qwest Field, University of Phoenix stadium, etc).
__________________
My safety word is "Keep Going."
BoulderGrad no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:57 AM   #2134
Will737
...
 
Will737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Me!bourne
Posts: 889
Likes (Received): 36

Would the fact that America had it so recently be of detriment to their chances?
Will737 no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 12:10 PM   #2135
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Quote:
Would the fact that America had it so recently be of detriment to their chances?
Yes, certainly. I can't see how it could be otherwise. If '94 was in some other country and the US was bidding for its first world cup as well as Australia, then America would be hot favourites right now. It's only '94 which is holding America back and the new frontier factor pushing Australia forward, and not unfairly so as FIFA have to strike a balance between technical considerations and spreading the tournament around.

The extent to which it is detrimental is dependent on FIFA and USA 2022 though, and it needn't be fatal by any means.

You have to "spin" it your way. You play up the fact that '94 was generally well organised, record ticket sales etc rather than not mentioning it at all, because if you don't mention it at all in your presentations to FIFA it will be conspicuous by its absense.

Last edited by RobH; June 15th, 2010 at 12:17 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 12:47 PM   #2136
BeestonLad
PQS
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,219
Likes (Received): 551

What gets me is how the USA even thinks it has the right to host its second world cup in under 25 years over a country like England (who has done far more for the game then the USA) who have hosted it only once and that will have been over 50 years ago when this comes around.

It's bad enough that the USA put in a bid in the first place when you consider the above, but now it should just do the honourable thing and withdraw its bid for 2018.
BeestonLad no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 12:57 PM   #2137
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

The USA doesn't think it has the "right" to anything. Whatever gave you that idea? They've entered a bidding contest along with other countries to try to win a prize of hosting a tournament and why wouldn't they, given how lucrative it is?

The USA, like every other country, is spending millions on its bid, and putting a lot of effort behind it. Nobody has a "right" to anything. I mean, some Russians and Dutch might argue England has less "right" than them, having hosted once before. Start going down that road and where does it end? In 100 years time we'll end up with a World Cup in Malta!

They're perfectly entitled to bid (and possibly waste their money doing so if FIFA agrees with your point of view) just like any other country outside of Africa and South America for 2018/22.

I suspect they'll withdraw from 2018 and focus on '22 when they notice, as every other non-European bid has, that the winds are blowing towards Europe for 2018. If they upset that particular applecart they may blow their chances of getting either tournament.

But why would FIFA not want to at least have the option of a very safe technical bid on the table, and why would the US not, if it feels it has a chance, at least bid? Neither circumstance is anything to get angry about.
RobH no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 01:18 PM   #2138
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,423
Likes (Received): 21061

Why the complaints?

I don't understand why people see FIFA World Cup as sort of an entitlement. It is a FIFA event, so big and important that countries bid against each other to the "privilege" of hosting it.

Europeans countries already have a developed sport scene for soccer. They already have great stadia, great fan base etc. So it might make sense for FIFA to keep pushing its sports' frontier beyond.

As for attendance, the 94' World Cup still holds the absolute records for attendance so far and by large. The mere fact US has population > 300 mln. and large immigrant communities from many countries (communities that are wealthier than its average population) and so almost guarantee attendance.

As for the use of NFL stadia on World Cup, I don't see a big problem with the modern ones. Pitch dimensions are almost the same by the way.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 01:22 PM   #2139
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Quote:
Europeans countries already have a developed sport scene for soccer. They already have great stadia, great fan base etc. So it might make sense for FIFA to keep pushing its sports' frontier beyond.
You're not competing against Europe though really. One of the two world cups up for grabs (most likely 2018) will go to Europe. You're competing against Australia and Qatar for the other. It's your two main competitors who hold the new frontier card, not the US.
RobH no está en línea  
Old June 15th, 2010, 05:27 PM   #2140
Archbishop
Registered User
 
Archbishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 642
Likes (Received): 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Chicago refused to pay the relatively small guarantee every city had to pay to host.
I see. Well that's fantastic for Indianapolis' chances to get it then!
Archbishop no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
los angeles, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:05 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