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 5th, 2008, 04:55 PM   #201
nyrmetros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
DC could care less about the soccer stadium
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052703320.html

really ??
nyrmetros no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 5th, 2008, 08:07 PM   #202
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmetros View Post
They will consider it, but it always seems as soon as they find the money could be spent elsewhere they scrap the idea
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 6th, 2008, 08:31 AM   #203
nyrmetros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 19

hey, 10 years ago they wouldn't have even considered it....
nyrmetros no está en línea  
Old June 6th, 2008, 08:59 AM   #204
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmetros View Post
hey, 10 years ago they wouldn't have even considered it....
Thats true. Right now the city isnt really ready to spend. Nationals Park was a lot of money and is planned to revitalize the area, much like Verizon Center. DC is very keen on removing its bad reputation (which shouldnt exist in the first place), and using new stadiums is in its plans. Unfortunately, DC United just wouldnt be able to fund a significant portion of the cost for a new stadium, so the city council probably wont go througgh with it for a few years. A new stadium would be great, and would likely revitalize the area its in, but i dont think now is the time. RFK will continue to serve its purpose for a few more years.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 04:17 AM   #205
BEATSLIM
Registered User
 
BEATSLIM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 14

With the kind of state of the art facilities that the USA has already, i doubt fifa will be strict about roofs and covers or whatever rules and regulations are put in place for WC's.

Also, you guys are mentioning just pro stadiums, there are plenty of college stadiums that can handle soccer matches as well.
BEATSLIM no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 04:40 AM   #206
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEATSLIM View Post
With the kind of state of the art facilities that the USA has already, i doubt fifa will be strict about roofs and covers or whatever rules and regulations are put in place for WC's.

Also, you guys are mentioning just pro stadiums, there are plenty of college stadiums that can handle soccer matches as well.
Absolutely. There's going to be a plethora of new venues to choose from. And it's not like it's the first time FIFA was dealing with the US. They produced a great tournament in 1994 with 24 teams. What's NOT to repeat about that?
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 05:01 AM   #207
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Absolutely. There's going to be a plethora of new venues to choose from. And it's not like it's the first time FIFA was dealing with the US. They produced a great tournament in 1994 with 24 teams. What's NOT to repeat about that?
Well... I could name a two things. Venues. As several people already said, there's a significant difference between US venues and "global" venues. The stadia in 1994 are surely not to be repeated for fans from outside USA. But that doesn't seem to be the problem with new stadiums of the NFL [and not only] already u/c, to start with...

Second- time. I know 1994 is quite some time ago, but in terms of World Cup frequency, it's still only 6 tournaments way from one another. So there might be some dissapointment in other countries...
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 05:11 AM   #208
brightside.
Honorary Scouser
 
brightside.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,110
Likes (Received): 8132

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Ill tell ya, FedEx just plain sucks.
Why?

ok i see you actually answered this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Jack Kent Cooke, the old owner of the Redskins, wanted a new stadium built in Washington, preferably before he died. Time passed and he realized that DC was never going to cut him a deal, so out of spite he build the stadium in the Maryland suburbs which opened in 1997. He built it as fast as he could so he could see it before he died (he never got to see it) and there are a lot of problems with it. Its not east to get around and its just plain uninspiring. It was ranked the 28th worst stadium in the NFL, although it has some of the most luxurious suites in the world it seemed to forget about the casual fan. New owner Daniel Snyder has put a lot of money into the stadium by increasing the capacity and adding extra amenities, but it seems to be to a point where it will never be good. Transportation sucks and its in a horrible location. It should be in the city, making it easier to get to. The Redskins are currently valued at $1.5 Billion, so a new stadium built in DC isnt out of the question. The preferred site is at RFK Stadium in the eastern part of the city. The site has a special place in Redskin fans' hearts and is a logical choice to place it. It would likely be another 90,000 seat stadium with a retractable roof, allowing it to host the Superbowl and the NCAA Final Four in basketball. It would be constructed better and be an overall better experience for the fans.
I don't see how transportation sucks or location is horrible. First time I ever went to FedEx field, I took the metro and there were so many other fans getting off at the Landover station that I had no trouble finding my way to the stadium. I got into the stadium in mere minutes, and found my way to my seat easily.

I can understand how the metro station might get blocked due to the large amount of people trying to get a metro ticket from the machines after the game, but this can be avoided by issuing special world cup passes so that people can move smoothly across the turnstiles.

I simply don't see the need for wasting money on a new stadium when the skins could spend that money on good players. Sure, a roof is great, but it's not the most important thing when it comes to a stadium. I find all the other features of the FedEx field to meet the standards of the other major stadiums of the world.
__________________
Bahria Icon Tower[PK] Motorways & Highways

Last edited by brightside.; June 7th, 2008 at 05:17 AM.
brightside. no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 05:43 AM   #209
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post

Second- time. I know 1994 is quite some time ago, but in terms of World Cup frequency, it's still only 6 tournaments way from one another. So there might be some dissapointment in other countries...
Yes, but it's done by continents. And realistically, how many countries can handle a $10 billion dollar extravaganza , without sending a whole generation of children to bed hungry, that a World Cup of today's magnitude requires to stage? Hmmmm?
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 05:47 AM   #210
brightside.
Honorary Scouser
 
brightside.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,110
Likes (Received): 8132

A world cup probably brings in more money than it costs.
__________________
Bahria Icon Tower[PK] Motorways & Highways
brightside. no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 06:11 AM   #211
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965



Especially when you are able to re-use the stadiums later.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 06:51 AM   #212
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEATSLIM View Post
With the kind of state of the art facilities that the USA has already, i doubt fifa will be strict about roofs and covers or whatever rules and regulations are put in place for WC's.

Also, you guys are mentioning just pro stadiums, there are plenty of college stadiums that can handle soccer matches as well.
As has been pointed out previously - there will be many bids for any world cup finals tournament, so FIFA has no need to alter the rules in order to let a country host without the required facilities. Doesn't matter if we're talking about America, Australia or Armenia.

That said, the US is the last place that would be worried about not having enough stadiums that are up to the required standard. It may mean not using your largest venues, but I'm sure it would be easy enough to come up with a dozen fully covered venues suitable for the world cup.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 09:23 AM   #213
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by brightside. View Post
A world cup probably brings in more money than it costs.
No kidding? Show me the records which justify this. How about Germany 2006; or Japan-Korea 2002? They're rather recent.

And stadia will be reused later? Like how many times a year?

Uhmmm. Did you know that Montreal 1976 finally paid off its $1.1 billion dollar of debts incurred in 1974-76 three years ago in 2005? 30 years later - more than a generation later.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 01:22 PM   #214
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,767
Likes (Received): 10315

Germany 2006 used stadiums from the Bundesliga, i.e. stadiums that are used regularly and will always be used regularly. I understand Japan/Korea had some problems with white elephants afterwards.

Out of the 2018 bidders England and the USA are the two bids certain to have no white elephant stadiums. I wouldn't have thought Ned/Bel would create any either, though they may end up with a few stadiums whose capacities are too big for the teams playing in them. China will do what they like. I'm not sure about Austrlia, though I'd imagine any bid from them will take legacy into account.

I think the statement "a world cup probably brings in more money than it costs" depends on the host therefore. In England and the USA that would certainly be the case as stadiums are funded by the clubs, not the state and there would be little needed in terms of upgrades. In countries which need to build six or seven new stadiums it might not be true.
RobH no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 02:28 PM   #215
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
In England and the USA that would certainly be the case as stadiums are funded by the clubs, not the state and there would be little needed in terms of upgrades.
I understood that most, if not all, US stadiums were funded by taxpayers rather than the teams themselves.

Your point still stands though, I don't think either bid would require huge investment on the scale of Japan/Korea.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 03:12 PM   #216
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Germany 2006 used stadiums from the Bundesliga, i.e. stadiums that are used regularly and will always be used regularly. I understand Japan/Korea had some problems with white elephants afterwards.

Out of the 2018 bidders England and the USA are the two bids certain to have no white elephant stadiums. I wouldn't have thought Ned/Bel would create any either, though they may end up with a few stadiums whose capacities are too big for the teams playing in them. China will do what they like. I'm not sure about Austrlia, though I'd imagine any bid from them will take legacy into account.
Germany has a pretty major white elephant in Leipzig... Capacity 44k, average club attendance below 5k.

Australia has no need for 8 x 40k 'rectangular' stadiums. The A-League average attendances (once Melbourne Victory is removed) are about 10-12k. It'll be a long time after 2018 before attendances have risen sufficiently to justify 40k capacities in the likes of Adelaide, Newcastle, Townsville, Canberra, etc.

Last edited by Benjuk; June 7th, 2008 at 03:27 PM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 03:49 PM   #217
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,633
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Yes, but it's done by continents. And realistically, how many countries can handle a $10 billion dollar extravaganza , without sending a whole generation of children to bed hungry, that a World Cup of today's magnitude requires to stage? Hmmmm?
That's quite arrogant to say since we have World Cups in RSA and Brazil to play next. And I bet this will be good investment for both countries, even though they're not planning expences of that scale.
Disagree it's done by continents. It is a factor, but not always key. It was now as Africa and Latin America were practically excluded before, just as Asia prior to 2002. This doesn't mean it will go on forever.
michał_ no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 03:51 PM   #218
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

What stadiums are used for Super14 games? What size are crowds? 25-30K?
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 06:55 PM   #219
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by michał_ View Post
Disagree it's done by continents. It is a factor, but not always key. It was now as Africa and Latin America were practically excluded before, just as Asia prior to 2002. This doesn't mean it will go on forever.
Uhmmm, up until 1994, the World Cup alternated between Europe and Latin America (including Mexico).

1930 - Uruguay
1934 - Italy
1938 - France
1950 - Brazil
1954 - Switzerland
1958 - Sweden
1962 - Chile
1966 - England
1970 - Mexico
1974 - West Germany
1978 - Argentina
1982 - Spain
1986 - Mexico (subbing for original host, Colombia)
1990 - Italy

#1 - What do you think the alternation is? By country? Except for 2 occasions (1934-38) and (1954-58) when I believe no other South American countries could take on the challenge (or FIFA just decided to keep the 1938 and 1958 tourneys local?), this tournament has always ALTERNATED between 2 continents.

#2 - And since the inaugural WC in URUGUAY in 1930, the tournament has returned to Latin/South America six (6x) and the 7th in 2014. So, what are you talking about 'Latin America' being excluded before?

#3 - And agreed that football has only w/in the last 2 decades picked up great popularlty in other parts of the world, then it's all the more imperative to encourage the further growth of the game in the new 'markets,' especiallly one as vast and important as the US/North America.

Again, as I said, except for some prissy quarters who insist on perfect stadia dimensions and roofs for the spoiled, sissy crowds, there aren't TOO many countries that can spend $10 billion dollars to host these expensive behemoths without taking away social services from their programmes which must have priority over such non-essential activities as a football tournament.

Last edited by rover3; June 7th, 2008 at 07:05 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:20 PM   #220
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
.........there aren't TOO many countries that can spend $10 billion dollars to host these expensive behemoths .........
South Africa? Brazil? They are managing.

Of the likely potential bidders I don't think a single one would struggle to invest $10bn for a World Cup.

China? Russia? England? Ned/Belgium? Australia can all easily afford €6Bn

Are you ignorant or arrogant?
Iain1974 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 01:31 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