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 July 6th, 2008, 07:36 PM   #481
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
The big problem LA may have is that they lack a large modern football stadium, things have moved on signifcantly since 94 and I wouldnt be supprized if neither the Rose Bowl or the LA Coliseum are considered suitible by FIFA when this bid happens.
They will have a new one by 2022
en1044 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 6th, 2008, 11:58 PM   #482
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

As long as the Chargers don't play in it I'm ok.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 12:00 AM   #483
Benn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,733
Likes (Received): 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrLess View Post
The big problem LA may have is that they lack a large modern football stadium, things have moved on signifcantly since 94 and I wouldnt be supprized if neither the Rose Bowl or the LA Coliseum are considered suitible by FIFA when this bid happens.
There is a renovation plan for the Rose Bowl that would change it over to entirely chairback seats, replace the press box and such. By the looks of it all of the club seats would be covered by a small roof, so assuming the rules don't change much it should be fine by then
Benn no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 12:34 AM   #484
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
As long as the Chargers don't play in it I'm ok.
LA doesnt deserve an NFL team, they already blew it twice
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 02:35 AM   #485
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
LA doesnt deserve an NFL team, they already blew it twice
Well it wasn't because of lagging attendance, it was about stadium issues.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 02:42 AM   #486
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
Well it wasn't because of lagging attendance, it was about stadium issues.
i know, but in the end it just didnt work out...twice. They had their shot IMO
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 03:30 AM   #487
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,307

Al Davis himself admitted he made a rushed decision in moving back to Oakland when he threw that tantrum.



I think at this point, it's the NFL who needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles begging for a team.
Kenni no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 03:53 AM   #488
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

The NFL doesn't really need LA and LA doesn't need the NFL.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 04:03 AM   #489
El Mariachi
Registered User
 
El Mariachi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,169
Likes (Received): 5999

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenni View Post
I think at this point, it's the NFL who needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles begging for a team.
no way does the NFL need L.A.
El Mariachi no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 06:42 AM   #490
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Doesn't NEED LA, but would still be nice to have a franchise there - especially if they want to expand the number of teams in the comp.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 06:54 AM   #491
Solanis_Rep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenni View Post
I couldn't do anything but laugh at this personal irrational view. Who in their sanity would choose San Diego over Los Angeles to hold an event of such magnitude?

San Diego is,...nice,.. hmmm, beautiful and all. But it's a MUST to include New York, Los Angeles and Chicago in any case.

I'm NOT going to list the very successful record Los Angeles has in hosting world events.
L.A. has never had a "Montreal 1976" oopsie.
Well, if I have a bias on this issue, then certainly you do too buddy, being in Los Angeles yourself. You couldn't possibly stand to not monopolize all the glory to yourself of hosting a WC game, let alone the final itself (I'll let you have that one, good luck with the other cities who would want to host it). Accessibility wise, venue wise (hopefully will stay on track), and attraction wise, San Diego is certainly fully capable of hosting a successful game. I'm sorry if you're too blinded by your ego to recognize that.

Sure, I wrote in my first post, that maybe we should just forget about LA altogether. That was just part of the plug I wrote. But both cities could certainly work together to each host games.

Quote:
San Diego is,...nice,.. hmmm, beautiful and all.
What are you trying to imply here? Sounds like another "San Diego is nice, but..." statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
Don't think they would rule out SD because of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart View Post
Of course it wouldnt, Germany had stadiums in Cologne, Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen, all about 25 miles from each other.
Certainly not, that is, if organizing officials don't buy into the Angelinos' superiority complex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
well the point still is that LA will, without a doubt, host a WC game. Because of that, SD cant. The cities are too close.
Why not? Certainly would make things a little more convenient for fans who, for example, may want to attend a game that would be hosted in San Diego. Shorter ride down to San Diego than a cross country flight. And vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
i think it does matter, we arent restricted by size. To start grouping cities near each other here would just be dumb.
It's not just about size and being/not being restricted. You have to take into consideration the quality of the venue and ease of access to the venue and other services by fans who'll come. It's not dumb if other cities who would compete for the honors of hosting games can't measure up. For that matter, here in the States there's the idea (in theory at least) that with the right stuff and determination, anything can be achieved. Could apply to cities as well. If SD could offer a better deal than some other western city in the US, why not let them host a game? Why award hosting based solely on entitlement? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Size, in my opinion, is a negative for the US, not a positive. It's much easier to buy a train ticket and board a train to go to the next venue than have to deal with the hassle of air travel. You're asking visitors to have to deal with an air system that's already taxed enough (in the big cities), and forcing them to compete with other domestic travelers.
Solanis_Rep no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 07:48 AM   #492
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solanis_Rep View Post
Well, if I have a bias on this issue, then certainly you do too buddy, being in Los Angeles yourself. You couldn't possibly stand to not monopolize all the glory to yourself of hosting a WC game, let alone the final itself (I'll let you have that one, good luck with the other cities who would want to host it). Accessibility wise, venue wise (hopefully will stay on track), and attraction wise, San Diego is certainly fully capable of hosting a successful game. I'm sorry if you're too blinded by your ego to recognize that.

Sure, I wrote in my first post, that maybe we should just forget about LA altogether. That was just part of the plug I wrote. But both cities could certainly work together to each host games.



What are you trying to imply here? Sounds like another "San Diego is nice, but..." statement.





Certainly not, that is, if organizing officials don't buy into the Angelinos' superiority complex.



Why not? Certainly would make things a little more convenient for fans who, for example, may want to attend a game that would be hosted in San Diego. Shorter ride down to San Diego than a cross country flight. And vice versa.



It's not just about size and being/not being restricted. You have to take into consideration the quality of the venue and ease of access to the venue and other services by fans who'll come. It's not dumb if other cities who would compete for the honors of hosting games can't measure up. For that matter, here in the States there's the idea (in theory at least) that with the right stuff and determination, anything can be achieved. Could apply to cities as well. If SD could offer a better deal than some other western city in the US, why not let them host a game? Why award hosting based solely on entitlement? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Size, in my opinion, is a negative for the US, not a positive. It's much easier to buy a train ticket and board a train to go to the next venue than have to deal with the hassle of air travel. You're asking visitors to have to deal with an air system that's already taxed enough (in the big cities), and forcing them to compete with other domestic travelers.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 08:34 AM   #493
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
i know, but in the end it just didnt work out...twice. They had their shot IMO
Yes, all those fans who are also politicians really blew it, huh?
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old July 7th, 2008, 09:20 AM   #494
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

xx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart View Post
Of course it wouldnt, Germany had stadiums in Cologne, Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen, all about 25 miles from each other.

Yeah, but Germany is what? Not even the size of Texas? We are talking about a country w/ 3,000,000+ square miles. And the venues would HAVE to be spread out as fairly as possible. With LA and the SF Bay Area sure bets as venues -- as they were in 1994, SD doesn't really stand a chance -- because that would give California THREE venues whereas there are 49 other states that have to BE CONSIDERED for the remaiing 6 or so slots.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 12:51 AM   #495
Benn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,733
Likes (Received): 169

Yeah, Texas is about twice the size of Germany. If San Fran didn't get it together San Diego would be a great spot, the weather and location are great, but LA is so much bigger, and will probably have a larger stadium. If it's still ten host venues, then I can't see any state getting more than two, and with LA and the Bay area being the most likely it's probably a long shot. FIFA cetainly likes to get a good spread across host countries and I think most Americans will agree with the idea. I like the idea of breaking it up regionally. Given likely (though not certain) construction I'd speculate the list might end up

East
Washington DC (probably large new retractable roof stadium +/-90,000-100,000)
New York (80,000 seat stadium, will open in a couple years)
Miami (75,000, may have a retractable roof by then)

Midwest
Dallas (100,000)
Chicago (61,000)
Minneapolis (new +/- 72,000 retractable roof stadium is likely by 2013 or so)

West
LA (renovated Rose Bowl 85,000)
Denver (76,000)
Phoenix (72,000)
San Fran (new 49ers stadium +/-72,000)

Semi Finals
LA
Dallas

Final
Washington DC

I could definately see Seattle, Boston/Foxboro, Philly, San Diego, Houston, especially if the new Vikings or 49ers stadium falls through. Both San Diego and Houston seem almost overqualified to host, but are in close proximity to other venues that seem to have the upper hand, so I think that would likely do both in.
Benn no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 03:30 AM   #496
Tritons
Registered User
 
Tritons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 17
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solanis_Rep View Post
Why not? Certainly would make things a little more convenient for fans who, for example, may want to attend a game that would be hosted in San Diego. Shorter ride down to San Diego than a cross country flight. And vice versa.
Yeah, that's a nice incentive, and I agree that San Diego would be able to handily manage the task of hosting, but SD is just overshadowed by LA. It's been a pattern ever since LA got chosen over SD for the Southern Pacific Railway in 1876. That and oil soon afterwards and things just took off from there, leaving SD to sniff LA's dust. All the important things have been happening in LA ever since, save for the Navy. It's sad, but true.

And I would love to see San Diego host too, but that chance is also very much reliant on politicians as well. Knowing SD's political scene, I'm not sure whether there would be enough momentum to get something going, to even be able to put up a fighting chance. We're already mired in pension scandals and lack of money, and there's still a lot of local lobbyists who want to keep San Diego out of the spotlight and keep it small and sleepy, like it used to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
And the venues would HAVE to be spread out as fairly as possible. With LA and the SF Bay Area sure bets as venues -- as they were in 1994, SD doesn't really stand a chance -- because that would give California THREE venues whereas there are 49 other states that have to BE CONSIDERED for the remaiing 6 or so slots.
Although I do agree that both LA and SF are highly likely, I wouldn't necessarily call them sure bets. We're talking 2022, a lot can happen in that time. Scandal, economic troubles, and a lack of political will could hamper the creation of new venues and other supporting structures/systems, which could potentially put either out of the running. Only in a situation like that could SD get a shot.

Like Benn said, there might preference for spreading things out, but that can't always be the overriding factor if venues aren't up to snuff. So I wouldn't take SD completely out of the running, like some of you have, but I agree its a long shot, for the most part.

And larger stadium in LA? We can't say for sure yet, neither SD nor LA have a new stadium yet, and I'd say that currently SD (well actually Chula Vista) has a larger incentive to build one.

Quote:
I could definately see Seattle, Boston/Foxboro, Philly, San Diego, Houston, especially if the new Vikings or 49ers stadium falls through. Both San Diego and Houston seem almost overqualified to host, but are in close proximity to other venues that seem to have the upper hand, so I think that would likely do both in.
Oh yeah, definitely, both are very qualified. And yeah, like I mentioned and you mentioned, the proximity to other venues is their problem, and only troubles in those other places could possibly give them a shot at hosting.

You also mentioned Denver. I was born there and lived there for part of my childhood, and have gone back a few times over the past few years to visit, so I love it to death, and would love to see them host. But I don't know. Unlike SD, Denver isn't close to other venues, so it doesn't have to compete with anybody regionally, but don't you think its elevation could be seen negatively? I mean, what would be the affect on the teams' performance?
Tritons no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 04:39 AM   #497
Benn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,733
Likes (Received): 169

It might, but it's a fairly important city on it's own with a 76,000 seater designed to handle FIFA demensions, so that is definately in it's favor. When Mexico city hosted the final the elevation really seemed to take something out of the players, but then there is also the heat and polution, so I don't really no. If they were worried about elevation Seattle would make a wonderful host city (stadiums smaller, but infrastructure is probably better, and with all the rain England would feel right at home). If FIFA were to really hold that main stand covered rule strictly this might change a little.
Benn no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 09:17 AM   #498
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 53

I get the feeling the final would end up in Miami. It's very attractive for all audiences.

Of Japan's WC 2002 stadiums, one, Miyagi, is in the red. Vegalta Sendai, the nearest J. League (2nd division) team, refuse to use Miyagi Stadium unless they have to. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has a nine lane track, and it's cold and lifeless when compared to their cozy purpose-built Sendai Stadium. Korea has some problems though.

I'll sound biased, but Charlotte could end up hosting a match or two. It has experience with large visitor influxes (the semi-annual NASCAR events for instance) and always receives good reviews when it hosts college basketball events. Granted the World Cup is bigger than that, but it also has the advantage of being connected to New York, Washington, Atlanta, and Miami by rail (Amtrak) and air (Charlotte-Douglas International). Charlotte isn't big or flashy, and while it lacks an identity, it doesn't carry around a stigma like a lot of larger cities do. It also has a "look at me!" quality about it where it's government will bend over backwards to host something. It won't host a final, or any knockout match, but a couple group stage matches isn't a bridge too far. What goes against it is being Atlanta's second-city of sorts and the heat.

I'd also go to Phoenix and Houston over a third CA venue or Dallas.

I'd use these cities: LA (G, SF), Miami (G, F), New York (G, SF), Chicago (G, QF), Houston (G, QF), Phoenix (G, QF), Washington (G, QF), San Francisco (G) , Charlotte (G), Seattle (G, Third place), Foxborough (G), Denver (G).
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 09:46 AM   #499
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
I get the feeling the final would end up in Miami. It's very attractive for all audiences.

Of Japan's WC 2002 stadiums, one, Miyagi, is in the red. Vegalta Sendai, the nearest J. League (2nd division) team, refuse to use Miyagi Stadium unless they have to. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has a nine lane track, and it's cold and lifeless when compared to their cozy purpose-built Sendai Stadium. Korea has some problems though.

I'll sound biased, but Charlotte could end up hosting a match or two. It has experience with large visitor influxes (the semi-annual NASCAR events for instance) and always receives good reviews when it hosts college basketball events. Granted the World Cup is bigger than that, but it also has the advantage of being connected to New York, Washington, Atlanta, and Miami by rail (Amtrak) and air (Charlotte-Douglas International). Charlotte isn't big or flashy, and while it lacks an identity, it doesn't carry around a stigma like a lot of larger cities do. It also has a "look at me!" quality about it where it's government will bend over backwards to host something. It won't host a final, or any knockout match, but a couple group stage matches isn't a bridge too far. What goes against it is being Atlanta's second-city of sorts and the heat.

I'd also go to Phoenix and Houston over a third CA venue or Dallas.

I'd use these cities: LA (G, SF), Miami (G, F), New York (G, SF), Chicago (G, QF), Houston (G, QF), Phoenix (G, QF), Washington (G, QF), San Francisco (G) , Charlotte (G), Seattle (G, Third place), Foxborough (G), Denver (G).
eh, miami is too out of the way...better sticking in LA or DC. I think Miami should host a game, but not the final. And i doubt Charlotte would host a game. Not saying that it wouldnt be able to host, i love the city, but theres just too many "qualified" cities here to do it. Plus, it would be the 5th east coast team. I doubt 5 teams in the east will happen.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 8th, 2008, 10:15 AM   #500
Kuvvaci
Strange User
 
Kuvvaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 19,708
Likes (Received): 64

U.S has many very impressive stadiums. But I don't think FIFA will give a WC to the U.S again , in a short while. Though 2022 won't be in Europe (Europe [UK or Spain]will get 2018)
Kuvvaci 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 06:10 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