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 12th, 2008, 02:59 PM   #541
theespecialone
Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 309
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benn View Post
Short of total economic collapse I would be shocked if the US doesn't host in the next 20 years or so. If you take the assumption that FIFA is just going to keep going to countries that have yet to host, then I don't think you understand FIFA and how money driven it is. Our economy should pick up in the next couple of years (assuming we get out of or scale down the stupid war we are in at the moment, and stop borrowing trillions of dollars to fund it). China will probably host before too long but I think 2026 is more realistic, not to mention just about every major Chinese stadium has an athletics track, which FIFA will try to avoid when possible (though not as much as one would expect).
if china gets the world cup they will spend billions on football specific stadiums

although it would be great to see some of the current ones in use, including the beijing and guangzhou olympic stadiums
theespecialone no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 12th, 2008, 03:04 PM   #542
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: One of the cracks at AMI Stadium
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 33

nothing gets eurotrashed more upset than talk of the us holding a saccer world cup
__________________
Of Course you Canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea  
Old July 16th, 2008, 06:00 AM   #543
Tritons
Registered User
 
Tritons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 17
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
I dont think he wants the US to host a WC

Are you kidding me? So are you implying that you agree with this guy? I'm sorry, but if you don't see the wrong in hoping for a complete catastrophe in South Africa, just so you can host a WC sooner rather than later, then your moral compass must be off a bit. It has nothing to do with whether I want the US to host a WC or not (which I do want it to host, btw.)

How would you feel if you were a South African soccer fan, and somebody told you that they hoped that South Africa didn't make the deadlines and such, just so that their country could host the WC instead? Probably not too happy.

And you wonder why some people outside the US think that Americans are arrogant and hostile to foreigners.
Tritons no está en línea  
Old July 16th, 2008, 07:10 AM   #544
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritons View Post
Are you kidding me? So are you implying that you agree with this guy? I'm sorry, but if you don't see the wrong in hoping for a complete catastrophe in South Africa, just so you can host a WC sooner rather than later, then your moral compass must be off a bit. It has nothing to do with whether I want the US to host a WC or not (which I do want it to host, btw.)

How would you feel if you were a South African soccer fan, and somebody told you that they hoped that South Africa didn't make the deadlines and such, just so that their country could host the WC instead? Probably not too happy.

And you wonder why some people outside the US think that Americans are arrogant and hostile to foreigners.
dude what the hell is your problem? I suggest you actually go back and READ what i was saying. I never wished ill will towards anyone...try again.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2008, 04:12 PM   #545
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
Ummm...FIFA requires stadiums to have covered seats (soldier field isn't) and theres 32 games.

Plenty of games to go around. Plus, it makes sense to group the cities to facilitate fan travel.

Boston/NYC/DC

Minneapolis/Chicago/Indianapolis

Dallas/Houston/New Orleans?

Seattle/LA/Phoenix

something like that.

I didn't know the seats could move. For the world cup the fields need to be 120 yards by 75. I think that may fit. Worse case scenario, it's nothing a jackhammer couldn't fix. :P
Ummmm I believe that back in 1994, aside from the Silver Dome, no stadium had covered seats.

Those groupings would never happen. 1994 was the highest attended World Cup ever, so distance between venues does not matter as far as attendance goes.

Minneapolis, Indianapolis and New Orleans would never see a World Cup game, and Phoenix is highly unlikely.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2008, 09:54 PM   #546
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
Ummm...FIFA requires stadiums to have covered seats (soldier field isn't) and theres 32 games.

Plenty of games to go around. Plus, it makes sense to group the cities to facilitate fan travel.

Boston/NYC/DC

Minneapolis/Chicago/Indianapolis

Dallas/Houston/New Orleans?

Seattle/LA/Phoenix

something like that.
FIFA has also revised their rules and require that only the press be covered now. Also, as the poster above me mentioned, FIFA will make exceptions for the US. They made huuuuge exceptions in 1994 and while we will not receive as much leeway as last time, we won't be required to fulfill also requirements.

Regardless, Indianapolis was never really in the running to host. If I were putting the clusters together my guess is it would be something like that:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford FIeld like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 02:07 AM   #547
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
FIFA has also revised their rules and require that only the press be covered now. Also, as the poster above me mentioned, FIFA will make exceptions for the US. They made huuuuge exceptions in 1994 and while we will not receive as much leeway as last time, we won't be required to fulfill also requirements.

Regardless, Indianapolis was never really in the running to host. If I were putting the clusters together my guess is it would be something like that:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford FIeld like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)
There are not going to be any clusters involved if the U.S. gets awarded the cup. There is no need to do so. The World Cup in 1994 was the highest ever attended and a cup in 2018 or 2022, will only see higher numbers. FIFA will want to host the games in the largest cities, and the cities with the most diverse populations.

Guarantees to Host:

New York
Boston (Foxboro)
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Los Angeles
Dallas
San Francisco

Cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely to see games being hosted.

Last edited by massp88; October 16th, 2008 at 02:20 AM.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 09:18 AM   #548
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
There are not going to be any clusters involved if the U.S. gets awarded the cup. There is no need to do so. The World Cup in 1994 was the highest ever attended and a cup in 2018 or 2022, will only see higher numbers. FIFA will want to host the games in the largest cities, and the cities with the most diverse populations.

Guarantees to Host:

New York
Boston (Foxboro)
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Los Angeles
Dallas
San Francisco

Cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely to see games being hosted.
You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match.

You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 09:36 AM   #549
BoulderGrad
Registered User
 
BoulderGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,478
Likes (Received): 1143

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match.
Pool play cities for '94 world cup:

Pool A+B
Detroit, Pasadena (LA), Palo Alto (Bay Area)

Pool C+D
Chicago, Dallas, Foxborough (Boston)

Pool E+F
Orlando, DC, NY

They didn't make them run all the way across country, but they did have some good jumps up the coasts in there. So a team would never be required to do a SF to DC to LA, but maybe with the new crop of US stadiums, you would see an Indy to Dallas to Chicago, or an LA to Seattle to SF (Not saying those would be the host cities, just saying they might cluster pools as such).



Quote:
You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.
Seattle has a nice shiny new stadium (Qwest Field) that was built to hold soccer. It holds 67,000 people. A world cup game there would be friggin sweet. Just a plug, back to Indy
__________________
My safety word is "Keep Going."
BoulderGrad no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 04:23 PM   #550
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match.

You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.
You most certainly can have a World Cup no in clusters and it has already been done. As mentioned, the World Cup in 1994, was the highest ever attended. So to say that clusters are needed to assure high attendance is incorrect. The World Cup can run fine without 12 venues. I personally say that there will be 10 venues used for a World Cup in the United States. Of which cities like Kansas City, Phoenix, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely candidates.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 07:18 PM   #551
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

A world cup game will always be a sell out. Even if you built a 100000 stadium in the middle of the Nevada dessert. Ok, maybe Costa Rica-Saudi Arabia wouldn't at that location but still... The event as a whole isn't what it was in 1994. It has grown massively.

I would think there are few certainties when it comes to cities. FIFA will wan't world wide renowed "names" for their event:

Boston
New York
Chicago
LA
Washington DC
Dallas
"Florida"
and San Fransisco perhaps.

Some form of "grouping" will probably take place and will be easier to do with 12 instead of 9 venues. But it's definitely not necessary as an argument for attendance figures .
mavn no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 08:01 PM   #552
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
You most certainly can have a World Cup no in clusters and it has already been done. As mentioned, the World Cup in 1994, was the highest ever attended. So to say that clusters are needed to assure high attendance is incorrect. The World Cup can run fine without 12 venues. I personally say that there will be 10 venues used for a World Cup in the United States. Of which cities like Kansas City, Phoenix, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely candidates.
of course its possible to host it without grouping, but why would you? If its possible to host a WC with big name cities in world class stadiums and still group them then why wouldnt you do it?
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 09:58 PM   #553
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
A world cup game will always be a sell out. Even if you built a 100000 stadium in the middle of the Nevada dessert. Ok, maybe Costa Rica-Saudi Arabia wouldn't at that location but still... The event as a whole isn't what it was in 1994. It has grown massively.

I would think there are few certainties when it comes to cities. FIFA will wan't world wide renowed "names" for their event:

Boston
New York
Chicago
LA
Washington DC
Dallas
"Florida"
and San Fransisco perhaps.

Some form of "grouping" will probably take place and will be easier to do with 12 instead of 9 venues. But it's definitely not necessary as an argument for attendance figures .
The point of clusters isn't as much for the fans as much as it is for the players. The games will sell out regardless, but it will make for poor quality soccer if teams are jetlagged and flying from coast to coast. You've yet to make an argument against clusters? You can use all the cities you'd want in a WC and still have clusters to ease travel. Reread my proposal:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford Field like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)

12 is the preferred number of cities. FIFA has stated that while they allow more and less, they consider 12 to be the ideal number so there's no reason to think there won't be 12 host cities.

San Francisco would host over Phoenix if they get their new stadium, but until then, Phoenix is a host. Every other city listed is a major city with the exception of KC and they could be replaced by Detroit or Minneapolis.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 16th, 2008, 10:07 PM   #554
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
The point of clusters isn't as much for the fans as much as it is for the players. The games will sell out regardless, but it will make for poor quality soccer if teams are jetlagged and flying from coast to coast. You've yet to make an argument against clusters? You can use all the cities you'd want in a WC and still have clusters to ease travel. Reread my proposal:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford Field like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)

12 is the preferred number of cities. FIFA has stated that while they allow more and less, they consider 12 to be the ideal number so there's no reason to think there won't be 12 host cities.

San Francisco would host over Phoenix if they get their new stadium, but until then, Phoenix is a host. Every other city listed is a major city with the exception of KC and they could be replaced by Detroit or Minneapolis.
From a players standpoint, your ideas make sense. However, I don't believe Philadelphia would bump Boston and Phoenix would never be in place of the Bay area. Also one thing to mention, having the teams play all over the place allows fans to see their home country team play in their city.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 01:02 AM   #555
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
From a players standpoint, your ideas make sense. However, I don't believe Philadelphia would bump Boston and Phoenix would never be in place of the Bay area. Also one thing to mention, having the teams play all over the place allows fans to see their home country team play in their city.
The Bay Area will host IF they have a stadium, but the way negotiations are going for a new 49ers stadium, that's still a big if. There's no way they'll host at Stanford Stadium and have 50,000 people there (probably less because Stanford Stadium's press box is smaller than most and some seats would have to be given up to accommodate more press) when they can go to Phoenix and have 75,000. In addition, Stanford Stadium has benches in the corners and behind the goals and FIFA requires all seats to be chairbacks. San Francisco is certainly a city that FIFA would love to have host, but only if they have a suitable stadium, something currently lacking.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 01:11 AM   #556
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
The Bay Area will host IF they have a stadium, but the way negotiations are going for a new 49ers stadium, that's still a big if. There's no way they'll host at Stanford Stadium and have 50,000 people there (probably less because Stanford Stadium's press box is smaller than most and some seats would have to be given up to accommodate more press) when they can go to Phoenix and have 75,000. In addition, Stanford Stadium has benches in the corners and behind the goals and FIFA requires all seats to be chairbacks. San Francisco is certainly a city that FIFA would love to have host, but only if they have a suitable stadium, something currently lacking.
im pretty sure that in 2022 Candlestick will be no more
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 02:32 AM   #557
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
im pretty sure that in 2022 Candlestick will be no more
Candlestick will be no more and if the city (or a nearby city) isn't willing to give some public money to a stadium there won't be a San Francisco 49ers either.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 03:16 AM   #558
TexasBoi
Texas-NoVA
 
TexasBoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,259
Likes (Received): 33

Is there something wrong with Reliant Stadium in Houston being in the group. If not, why is Houston not being mentioned as a city that can host? I agree with Dallas no doubt. But Houston's Reliant Stadium which has hosted many international contests could hold games as well.
TexasBoi no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 06:14 AM   #559
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 507
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBoi View Post
Is there something wrong with Reliant Stadium in Houston being in the group. If not, why is Houston not being mentioned as a city that can host? I agree with Dallas no doubt. But Houston's Reliant Stadium which has hosted many international contests could hold games as well.
I think some people are a bit gun-shy on there being two venues in one state, not realizing that Reliant and Jerryworld are somewhere around 260 mi (420 km) from each other.

There's also holdover from 1994, when Houston didn't have a FIFA-sanctioned facility.

I've heard several people from all continents mention how they think Reliant is the best soccer-style stadium in the United States. If the US gets the WC in 2022, there's no doubt that Houston will be one of the cities selected to host.
ADCS no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 06:23 AM   #560
Arist
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADCS View Post
I think some people are a bit gun-shy on there being two venues in one state, not realizing that Reliant and Jerryworld are somewhere around 260 mi (420 km) from each other.

There's also holdover from 1994, when Houston didn't have a FIFA-sanctioned facility.

I've heard several people from all continents mention how they think Reliant is the best soccer-style stadium in the United States. If the US gets the WC in 2022, there's no doubt that Houston will be one of the cities selected to host.
No doubt the Cowboys new Stadium in Arlington will be selected as well. No way the largest and most advanced stadium in the world will be passed up.
Arist 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 04:22 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