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 23rd, 2008, 11:15 PM   #421
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
i have no doubts what so ever of the US dealing with the number of visiting fans in fact im certain that the US could handle it better then anywhere else in the world. In terms of the number of fans visiting at EURO 2008 here some links with rough estimates

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/...tia-clash.html
http://switzerland.worldcupblog.org/...s-in-bern.html

to be honest i dont expect that amount of fans to make the trip as obviously travel costs are a lot higher. But for the world cup in 2002 in Japan + South Korea something like 15-20,000 england fans alone made the trip.
I would guess that some european teams could bring up to 20,000 fans i have no idea as to how many mexican, brazilian and argentinian fans would make the trip but im guessing it would be pretty high. But then you would get teams from africa and the middle east that would probably only bring something like 2-3,000 fans.
How does this sound England V Costa Rica in Chicago 2022 for a group game and there are 20,000 england fans and there is 10,000 Costa Rica fans and then with all the other fans in the area for this game alone there are 50,000 fans in the city and that includes some without tickets.
I think for the most part the US will handle the incoming traffic very well. Some people coming from Europe might be a little shocked if they go to cities such as LA that has next to no public transportation.

If the exchange rate for the dollar to the pound and the Euro stays constant, who knows if it will, but if it is anywhere near what it is today, I would expect thousands and thousands of Europeans to come to the U.S. in addition to those already living here.
massp88 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 24th, 2008, 12:06 AM   #422
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
How does this sound England V Costa Rica in Chicago 2022 for a group game and there are 20,000 england fans and there is 10,000 Costa Rica fans and then with all the other fans in the area for this game alone there are 50,000 fans in the city and that includes some without tickets.
I think Chicago could pretty handle it. Chicago has enough parks (for one, Washington Park alone where the 2016 Olympic stadium is slated for, leaving behind an amphitheatre of some 5,000 seats -- that could certainly be fitted again to accommodate many thousands of fans). I'm not an expert on what Chicago else has to offer, having been there only 1x -- but if you look at the Chicago 2016 website, they have lots of parks and lakeside open areas that willfigure prominently in the 2016 bid. New York has Central Park, Battery Park, etc., etc.

San Francisco has Civic Center, Yerba Buena Gardens, the Justin Hermann Plaza (where the Torch Relay in April 2008 was to have ended), AT&T Ball Park can be fitted with large screens (capacity - some 41,000) -- and San Francisco is the 'most European' of American cities. Boston has the Harvard Green and the Esplanade by the Charles.

Sure, the thing is, prospective fans will just have to put up with visa requirements and all that -- which is the same hassle for people going to an Olympics as well.

Last edited by rover3; June 24th, 2008 at 12:26 AM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 12:25 AM   #423
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post

San Francisco: New 49ers stadium
I don't know about the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara if and when it gets built. Yes, it would be the largest, state-of-the-art facility for the area but I don't know that the Org. Committee would spend to fit a soccer field in that.

For the SF 2016 Olympic plan, the new 49er stadium was to host the soccer finals but with an infield on a raised platform for T&F. It is the same stadium plan.

However, in that 2016 Olympic plan, the SF scenario was the first to have all 4 soccer venues within the same local area. Those 4 were: MacAfee, AT&T, Spartan and Stanford. In any case, for a WC 2022, these are the available facilities for the SF Bay Area:

1. McAfee stadium in Oakland which can seat some 60,000 in a soccer config
2. perhaps the extant Candlestick stadium which can seat 65,000 for a soccer match, altho a bit awkwardly;
3. AT&T Ballpark right in San Francisco, which can seat 40,000 in soccer config
4. Stanford Stadium (now just down to 50,000) but w/ individual seats
5. a new Earthquakes stadium in Fremont; and
6. Farther afield, in San Jose (pop: 900,000+), there is Spartan Stadium.

Last edited by rover3; June 24th, 2008 at 01:35 AM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 01:28 AM   #424
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

-The new Earthquakes stadium will be in San Jose at the Santa Clara border.
-Baseball stadiums are awful for rectangular configurations.
-Spartan Stadium is way too narrow for soccer. MLS fans bitched about it for years.
-The new Stanford sits 50K, not 35K. It's also not "down the road," as the SF Olympics were also sunk by their village in Palo Alto being considered too far.
-Candlestick is not up to quality standards these days.
-The new 49ers stadium may never get built with all the strong-arming and bluffing going on.
-If any site in Santa Clara County is selected, the venue should be "San Jose" just like the local MLS host.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 01:40 AM   #425
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
-The new Earthquakes stadium will be in San Jose at the Santa Clara border.
-Baseball stadiums are awful for rectangular configurations.
-Spartan Stadium is way too narrow for soccer. MLS fans bitched about it for years.
-The new Stanford sits 50K, not 35K. It's also not "down the road," as the SF Olympics were also sunk by their village in Palo Alto being considered too far.
-Candlestick is not up to quality standards these days.
-The new 49ers stadium may never get built with all the strong-arming and bluffing going on.
-If any site in Santa Clara County is selected, the venue should be "San Jose" just like the local MLS host.
Oh, you're right. I had read somewhere (when we were planning SF 2016) that because Lew Wolff owns the Earthquakes, he was going to place their new stadium in Fremont, close to the new Oakland (or Fremont) A's home.

The proposed Olympic Village in Moffett Field was for the 2012 plan; moved up to Hunters Point for the 2016 plan.

So if the new 49ers stadium never gets built, then the team is stuck at Candlestick, and maybe that'll get refurbished.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 04:27 AM   #426
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
People need to realize that any bid is going to include pretty much the same stadiums/cities as in 1994. The bid will use stadiums from the largest metro areas, along with the areas with the largest population of foreign residents. With all due respect, no games would ever be played in New Orlans at the Super Dome, or at LP Field in Nashville, or at Browns Stadium in Cleveland or at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. Those cities are small and aren't that diverse when you compare them to Chicago, Boston, New York, LA, etc.

The bid will look like this:

New York: New Meadowlands
Boston: Gillette Stadium
Washington: FedEx Field (Or whatever Schneider has built by 2022)
Dallas: Cotton Bowl
Los Angeles: Rose Bowl
San Francisco: New 49ers stadium
Seattle: Qwest Field
Chicago: Soldiers Field
Philadelphia: Lincoln Financial Field
Tempe: University of Phoenix Stadium
Denver: Invesco Field at Mile High
Miami: Dolphins Stadium
Tampa: Raymond James Stadium

The tournament would only really need 9 or 10 venues for the tournament.
Boston, New York, Washington, Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles are locks. With Seattle, Philadelphia and Tempe strong possibilities to be included. I think Detroit is out as Ford Field is pretty small and who knows, maybe Orlando will get in as well.

One thing to note, FIFA is not big on domes, nor artificial turf which of course is the preferred playing surface for American sports nowadays.

One of the main differences between the stadiums of America and those of Europe and South America is the amount of suites and just the shier size of the stadiums. Pretty much any stadium in America, built within the last 10-12 years, has enough suite space to accommodate the press, dignitaries etc. so the roof requirement would be null.

I hope the United States gets this, I think it would be even bigger than in 1994. If the dollar stays the way it is now (who knows where it will be in 14 years) I would expect to see a bigger flood of people from Europe than in 1994.
Im pretty sure that the Cotton Bowl wont be the selected venue if Dallas is to host a game, and domes or artificial turf wont be a problem if they just lay down grass as theyve done in the past. Remember the Pontiac Dome?
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 07:43 AM   #427
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
So if the new 49ers stadium never gets built, then the team is stuck at Candlestick, and maybe that'll get refurbished.
That place is beyond repair. It has had cracks in concrete and non-functioning escalators for years. I think a big section of the lights crashed down on the seating a couple years ago, thankfully while the place was empty. It is decrepit. Sadly, the team may pack up and move to LA because the Yorks are heartless business people and that region is desperate for a team.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 08:16 AM   #428
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
That place is beyond repair. It has had cracks in concrete and non-functioning escalators for years. I think a big section of the lights crashed down on the seating a couple years ago, thankfully while the place was empty. It is decrepit. Sadly, the team may pack up and move to LA because the Yorks are heartless business people and that region is desperate for a team.
That's even better; then they would have no reason to retain the "San Francisco" name. LA 49ers doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 11:12 AM   #429
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

[QUOTE=massp88;21976742]
Dallas: Cotton Bowl[/QUOTE

Umm...Jerryworld?
hngcm no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 01:50 PM   #430
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1

Artificial turf isn’t a problem UEFA has had that problem and all that is done is that the artificial turf is removed and replaced by grass a week or two before the event. As far as i know at least one EURO 2008 stadium had artificial turf before hand and at the recent champions league final it was played at the Luzniki Stadium which had artificial turf but had grass laid on before the game. So the only problem that this leaves with regards to American Football stadiums hosting football is the field measurements.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 06:34 PM   #431
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

New NFL stadiums are being built with FIFA measurements in mind.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 08:13 PM   #432
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Sadly, the team may pack up and move to LA because the Yorks are heartless business people and that region is desperate for a team.
I'm not debunking your thoughts on the Yorks, but I can't agree that LA is "desperate" for a team. They've gone long enough without that many fans are now accustomed. In fact, TV ratings in LA have often been higher since the region is more inclined to get the best match-up of the day as opposed to just the local team. It's really just the owners who want a team there because of the franchise rights that would come along with it. This is also why they'd prefer an expansion if possible, and why we'll likely have to wait several years till another city or three can join LA in the fold (so as to even the number of teams).

- - - - -

I've missed the last few pages. Has there been any consideration for a regionalized WC bid? One comment I hear from some opposing a US bid is the vast space involved that would increase travel costs and time on fans and teams. So perhaps something compartmentalized like:
Bos, NY, Phil, DC,
Pitt, Cleve, Chi, Stl
Miami, Orl, Atl, Nash
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 08:39 PM   #433
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
- - - - -

I've missed the last few pages. Has there been any consideration for a regionalized WC bid? One comment I hear from some opposing a US bid is the vast space involved that would increase travel costs and time on fans and teams. So perhaps something compartmentalized like:
Bos, NY, Phil, DC,
Pitt, Cleve, Chi, Stl
Miami, Orl, Atl, Nash
Far? What about Brazil? South Africa? Australia? Those are far from the major centers of Europe, North American and Japan?

An equally spread-out 2022 design, much like the 1994 template, will work out fine. That's where the metro areas and accommodations and infrastructure are. I didn't hear too many complaints on that score in 1994. Besides, the airlines and travel agents will work out group discount deals. And remember much of the 787s and giant A380s will already be in service then.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 09:14 PM   #434
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Far? What about Brazil? South Africa? Australia? Those are far from the major centers of Europe, North American and Japan?
Not far as in "far from other countries" but far as in too spread out across the American continent. You said you didn't "hear too many complaints on that score in 1994," but the press was full of complaints from supporters and teams having to travel across 2-3 time zones in the same tournament, or traveling from, say, Pasadena to Detroit and back for the group stage (Romania). Two groups featured host pairings of Chicago/Boston/Dallas!! Ireland went from NY to Orlando and back.

Given the rise in fuel costs it's safe to say that, at the least, such travel demands would be cited as a negative compared to likely more compact bids like those from Mexico and possibly China. FIFA would rather not have travel schedules eat up so much time if it can be avoided. Again, I'm not saying it's a deal killer, but something to be considered.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 09:26 PM   #435
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Given the rise in fuel costs it's safe to say that, at the least, such travel demands would be cited as a negative compared to likely more compact bids like those from Mexico and possibly China. FIFA would rather not have travel schedules eat up so much time if it can be avoided. Again, I'm not saying it's a deal killer, but something to be considered.
With 32 teams (as of now), maybe up to 36 by 2022, they know that going in. Still, the schedule could be tweaked so that distances would be minimized. Also, in a WC, as the programme builds up to its finish, the rest times between the quarters, and the semis, and the finals lengthen exponentailly, so it's NOT like fans have to rush over to the semi- and finals venues right away. They can take the train, charter buses, see the other parts ofthe country -- probably visit relatives and friends, as quite a number of foreign visitors do have.

Make it a larger experience than a simple, blinders-on WC-only trip which you can do in Europe since the countries are so much closer together -- and you know those neighbors will always be around to visit the next year or so. Anything is possible.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 09:45 PM   #436
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

I get that such trips are possible and depending on the person might actually be preferable. I simply think the costs for travel will do nothing but increase exponentially and can impact the benefits and costs of facilitating such events. And for the avg fan I'm sure they'll love the experience of 2-hour waits at the airport while being searched by FTA agents!

Like I said, I'm not saying this is a deal-killer, but I also think the US has enough viable host cities and venues that it need not force something based on just the largest cities available. That's all.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 09:45 PM   #437
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I'm not debunking your thoughts on the Yorks, but I can't agree that LA is "desperate" for a team. They've gone long enough without that many fans are now accustomed. In fact, TV ratings in LA have often been higher since the region is more inclined to get the best match-up of the day as opposed to just the local team. It's really just the owners who want a team there because of the franchise rights that would come along with it. This is also why they'd prefer an expansion if possible, and why we'll likely have to wait several years till another city or three can join LA in the fold (so as to even the number of teams).
I meant more that politicians there are desperate for one, because the topic comes up constantly. I have heard your viewpoint from many Angelenos, though. People like having all the good games.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 10:03 PM   #438
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
I meant more that politicians there are desperate for one, because the topic comes up constantly. I have heard your viewpoint from many Angelenos, though. People like having all the good games.
True enough. It's become, ironically enough, a handy political football for both local officials and team owners. Officials can use it to rally support while owners can claim "We'll take the team to Los Angeles" if their city doesn't give them a new stadium, better concessions, etc. I followed the Minnesota dealings closely with my in-laws in Minneapolis, and am an avid opponent of overburdening governments with stadium costs. That's why I found comments from common Angelenos so enlightening.

I also find it ironic given how often my closest major league city, Atlanta, is so often chided for their "low" support. LA fans arrive late, leave early and couldn't hold onto 2 NFL teams, yet everyone thinks a team should go there and the Atlanta franchises should be folded.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 10:39 PM   #439
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I get that such trips are possible and depending on the person might actually be preferable. I simply think the costs for travel will do nothing but increase exponentially and can impact the benefits and costs of facilitating such events.

#1 - And for the avg fan I'm sure they'll love the experience of 2-hour waits at the airport while being searched by FTA agents!

#2 - Like I said, I'm not saying this is a deal-killer, but I also think the US has enough viable host cities and venues that it need not force something based on just the largest cities available. That's all.
Size-wise, China, the US and Australia are all about the same. But we (and Oz) have far better toilets. If the US will have too distant venues, wait until they get to Russia or Canada...

#1 - Then they should be induced to take buses or trains by all means.

#2 - I don't think they'd pick cities like Nashville or Phoenix, to name two, for main venues. Boring, colorless. The reason they go to the largest cities is because of accommodations and culture -- especially the Europeans. I don't think we would've seen the Three Tenors concert (or its equivalent) in Spokane or Indianapolis.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 24th, 2008, 11:11 PM   #440
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,130
Likes (Received): 3205

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Size-wise, China, the US and Australia are all about the same. But we (and Oz) have far better toilets.
Ah, yes. I can see it now: "USA '22 - The Best (toilet) Seats for World Cup Football!"

Quote:
If the US will have too distant venues, wait until they get to Russia or Canada...
I agree, and know that's one reason we don't see those countries bidding right now. Some in Russia are considering, but most know they're behind the curve and should bide their time.
Quote:
#1 - Then they should be induced to take buses or trains by all means.
Yes, that scenic Dallas - LA bus trip will be a surefire hit with the tourists! Seriously, though, this is what I'm getting at. The US lacks the comparable rail infrastructure and some of the auto trips we're talking about would be too egregious. People don't want to spend the money to fly to the US only to spend 4 days in a Sportage driving up and down I-85. Conversely...

Quote:
#2 - I don't think they'd pick cities like Nashville or Phoenix, to name two, for main venues. Boring, colorless. The reason they go to the largest cities is because of accommodations and culture -- especially the Europeans. I don't think we would've seen the Three Tenors concert (or its equivalent) in Spokane or Indianapolis.
Many tourists aren't coming to the US to see homogenized versions of their own culture, either. When the Olympics were in Atlanta stuff about the Civil War and Country music proved HUGE attractions to foreign visitors. Plus, just as some nations use the event to improve the awareness and facilities of lesser known communities and venues, the US could do the same by introducing a few less familiar destination to the roster of candidate cities. After all, it's not like Ulsan, South Korea or Polokwane, South Africa are ready-made global tourist destinations. Nashville has an active nightlife, a good airport, a burgeoning river front entertainment district, a nice stadium and is distinctly US-American. Sure, it's not as grand in scale as Chicago and LA, but it ain't Abilene, Texas either.

I'm just trying to think outside the box, is all.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket 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 07:16 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