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 October 17th, 2008, 08:13 AM   #561
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

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.
Reliant Stadium is an amazing facility. At least in my proposal, Houston would host along with Dallas.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 17th, 2008, 02:42 PM   #562
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

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.
I didn't mean it as an argument against clustering. Only to say that "accommodating traveling fans" is a non-argument. The games will sell-out. FIFA couldn't care less about fans being able to travel to all their teams matches.

The only effect of grouping would be one city being picked over another on location. FIFA won't sent a team to Boston for ther first, Seattle for the second and Miami for the third match. Whether you group or not doesn't matter in that sense.

Another thing is the amount of teams. It's currently 32. I think it's the ideal number for a WC. But EURO 2016 will see an increase from 16 to 24. 16 was perfect. The average level of competing teams was arguably higher than the WC. 24 will make for a messy tournament set-up with a lot of bad teams added. But more revenue for UEFA... I wouldn't be surprised if Fifa would increase the tournament as well in the coming decades... That could increase the amount of stadiums needed...

My personal favorite 12 at the moment would be the exact 12 you picked BTW
mavn no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 08:36 PM   #563
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 507
Likes (Received): 36

Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:

Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting

I like ryebreadraz's locations, however, I'd replace Denver with Toronto in his example (yes, it sucks, but if we're considering transportation, Denver's far away from everything, and the altitude difference is such a wild card. Toronto is much closer to the Midwest US). At that point, Detroit would be the preferred other Midwestern city

I would also replace Boston with Montreal under this plan.

Semifinals would be in Toronto and Dallas, both having relatively central locations to where the rest of the matches would be held, with the finals being in Chicago, owing to its central location, location in the US rail network (assuming it's upgraded by then), large airport, relatively large PT system, and soccer-oriented stadium design.
ADCS no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2008, 11:39 PM   #564
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADCS View Post
Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:

Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting

I like ryebreadraz's locations, however, I'd replace Denver with Toronto in his example (yes, it sucks, but if we're considering transportation, Denver's far away from everything, and the altitude difference is such a wild card. Toronto is much closer to the Midwest US). At that point, Detroit would be the preferred other Midwestern city

I would also replace Boston with Montreal under this plan.

Semifinals would be in Toronto and Dallas, both having relatively central locations to where the rest of the matches would be held, with the finals being in Chicago, owing to its central location, location in the US rail network (assuming it's upgraded by then), large airport, relatively large PT system, and soccer-oriented stadium design.
Where would Montreal host the games? I would think Canada would have to have more than 2 cities being the co-hosts with the US.

Chicago will no doubt be a host city, but it won't host the finals. Soldiers Field, while a very nice stadium, is simply too small when you compare it to the Rose Bowl and the new Giants Stadium. If the Giants/Jets new stadium can handle a soccer pitch, then I would bet it would win out having over 82,000 seats versus Soldier Fields 62,000.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 01:27 AM   #565
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADCS View Post
Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:

Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting

I like ryebreadraz's locations, however, I'd replace Denver with Toronto in his example (yes, it sucks, but if we're considering transportation, Denver's far away from everything, and the altitude difference is such a wild card. Toronto is much closer to the Midwest US). At that point, Detroit would be the preferred other Midwestern city

I would also replace Boston with Montreal under this plan.

Semifinals would be in Toronto and Dallas, both having relatively central locations to where the rest of the matches would be held, with the finals being in Chicago, owing to its central location, location in the US rail network (assuming it's upgraded by then), large airport, relatively large PT system, and soccer-oriented stadium design.
Soldier Field cannot host the final. The site of the final must hold at least 80,000 and Soldier Field holds just over 60,000. My guess is the final goes to New York while LA and DC get the semifinals. Regarding the co-hosting idea, no way. First of all, FIFA has stated that they will no longer allow co-hosts. Second, why would the USSF share the profits with Canada? Also, neither Montreal nor Toronto has a suitable stadium. Olympic Stadium is a dump and Rogers Centre is mediocre at best for soccer. The co-hosing idea will NEVER happen.

Last edited by ryebreadraz; October 18th, 2008 at 01:40 AM.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 04:05 PM   #566
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

FIFA are not enthusiastic abut co-hosts. Would Canada automatically qualify as hosts too? Would CONCACAF be willing to give up a qualification place?

Minimum capacity for the final is 60,000 (not including VIP's/media)
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 05:18 PM   #567
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,780
Likes (Received): 10347

Quote:
Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting
That'd harm the bid more than help it. It would mean one of the world's worst footballing nations (Canada) getting an automatic qualifying spot. It would be a joint hosting with a token-partner rather than a neat 50/50 split. It'd be weird for the sponsors and weird for the teams playing in Canada while the rest of the tournament is taking place in the USA. It'd be harder to market a bid with two national identities rather than one and FIFA would have to deal with two sets of laws for protecting their logos and copyrights etc.

FIFA aren't keen on co-hosting after their Japan/Korea experience and the USA is more than capable of going it alone. Having Canada is not necessary.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 06:57 PM   #568
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Reliant Stadium is an amazing facility. At least in my proposal, Houston would host along with Dallas.
I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 07:01 PM   #569
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
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.
Well, if either the Raiders and/or 49ers don't get a new stadium I would almost go all in in saying that one of them will move to L.A. and with a move would come a new stadium in L.A. So either LA or the San Fran metro I think is almost guarented to have a new stadium in the next ten years. I would actually put good odds that both LA and San Fran metro will see at least one new NFL facility in the next ten years.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 09:14 PM   #570
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 507
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
That'd harm the bid more than help it. It would mean one of the world's worst footballing nations (Canada) getting an automatic qualifying spot. It would be a joint hosting with a token-partner rather than a neat 50/50 split. It'd be weird for the sponsors and weird for the teams playing in Canada while the rest of the tournament is taking place in the USA. It'd be harder to market a bid with two national identities rather than one and FIFA would have to deal with two sets of laws for protecting their logos and copyrights etc.

FIFA aren't keen on co-hosting after their Japan/Korea experience and the USA is more than capable of going it alone. Having Canada is not necessary.
I thought about that aspect of it, and it's true, it would most likely need a shift in FIFA's perspective about the whole thing. However, it would be a great way to do a whole "210 years of peace" themed WC, which is always a big plus for FIFA (they like to think of themselves as great ambassadors for world peace).

Also, the USSF wouldn't be as worried as many other soccer federations as to the splitting of the cash. For one, it isn't going to go toward renovations and construction of new stadiums like it would in other countries; the US already has a suitable stadium infrastructure, and any other construction would be done under the auspices of the other professional leagues.

Along with this is the integration and unification of the Canadian and US soccer programs, as represented by the existence of Toronto FC in the MLS. This will also downplay the potential for money tensions. The argument will be that enhancing the Canadian facilities will benefit the MLS as a whole, and thus the role of soccer in North America.

Meanwhile, both the Rogers Centre and Stade Olympique are nearing the end of their useful lives, and will most likely be replaced soon with newer facilities. This is a prime opportunity for FIFA to enhance their position within Canada by flushing the new stadiums with WC cash, with the indication that they be built to FIFA standards (which isn't that difficult, since Canadian football dimensions are very compatible with this). As the US infrastructure is already in place, there won't be too much competition.

Finally, it addresses both the US's reduced world standing ("We're willing to share the spotlight") and partially mitigates the whole "only 28 years ago" argument. In response to the whole "terrible football team" argument, people were most likely griping about the same thing when the US got it in 1994. That investment is starting to pay off.
ADCS no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2008, 11:05 PM   #571
Arist
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.
Denver. Its close enough for the cluster to work better.

Why does New York and LA automatically get considered for the Final game? The New Dallas Stadium will be able to Hold 100,000, as well as the most modern stadium out of all of them.
Arist no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 12:59 AM   #572
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.

Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.

I'd pick these -

Refurbished Coliseum; Los Angeles, CA (Final)
Relient Stadium; Houston, TX (Semi)
Qwest Field; Seattle, WA
U of Phoenix Stadium; Glendale, AZ
Soldier Field; Chicago, IL
Gillette Stadium; Foxborough, MA
New Stadium; Washington, DC
Refurbished Dolphin Stadium; Miami Gardens, FL (Semi)
Lucas Oil Stadium; Indianapolis, IN
New Cowboys Stadium; Arlington, TX
Rentschler Field; Hartford, CT
either LP Field in Nashville, TN or Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC

Hartford covers New York.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 02:10 AM   #573
jkramb
Registered User
 
jkramb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 104
Likes (Received): 1

no way will they have it at rentschler field. it's not even 60k and not very nice compared to the stadiums in philly and NYC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.

Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.

I'd pick these -

Refurbished Coliseum; Los Angeles, CA (Final)
Relient Stadium; Houston, TX (Semi)
Qwest Field; Seattle, WA
U of Phoenix Stadium; Glendale, AZ
Soldier Field; Chicago, IL
Gillette Stadium; Foxborough, MA
New Stadium; Washington, DC
Refurbished Dolphin Stadium; Miami Gardens, FL (Semi)
Lucas Oil Stadium; Indianapolis, IN
New Cowboys Stadium; Arlington, TX
Rentschler Field; Hartford, CT
either LP Field in Nashville, TN or Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC

Hartford covers New York.
jkramb no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 02:43 AM   #574
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,075
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.

If Atlanta were to be considered it would be Sanford Stadium at UGA in Athens...that's where the Olympic finals were played in 1996. Legion Field in Birmingham also hosted some Olympic early round games.
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 03:09 AM   #575
TexasBoi
Texas-NoVA
 
TexasBoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,259
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.

Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.

.
Why not? It holds over 90,000 now and can easily host a FIFA game.
TexasBoi no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 03:30 AM   #576
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBoi View Post
Why not? It holds over 90,000 now and can easily host a FIFA game.
The Cotton Bowl doesn't have a chance to host because it has benches, which is a no no with FIFA. All seats must be individual seats to host in a WC, plus all the suites and club seats at Jerry World will be too much for FIFA to pass up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain1974 View Post
FIFA are not enthusiastic abut co-hosts. Would Canada automatically qualify as hosts too? Would CONCACAF be willing to give up a qualification place?

Minimum capacity for the final is 60,000 (not including VIP's/media)
By rule the minimum capacity is 60,000, but FIFA made it rather clear to S. Africa and Brazil that they expected nothing less than 80,000. While not officially a rule, there's no way nation with as many big stadiums as us would host a final in a stadium with under 80,000. FIFA won't allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arist View Post
Why does New York and LA automatically get considered for the Final game? The New Dallas Stadium will be able to Hold 100,000, as well as the most modern stadium out of all of them.
Dallas-Fort Worth isn't big enough to host the final. FIFA wants the final at one of the nation's biggest cities that are world renowned (LA or NY) or in the nation's capital. DC isn't big enough to host a final, but because it is a big city and a capital I think it gets a semi-final along with LA and NY gets the final. NY gets the final over LA because LA hosted the final in 1994.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.
I think Miami becomes the 3rd host in the cluster. While Denver is closer, the south needs a host and there isn't room in the northeast cluster for a southern host. By default, the southern host, likely Miami, gets thrown in with the Texas cities.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 05:16 AM   #577
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,075
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I think Miami becomes the 3rd host in the cluster. While Denver is closer, the south needs a host and there isn't room in the northeast cluster for a southern host. By default, the southern host, likely Miami, gets thrown in with the Texas cities.

On the same note...Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte are closer to Miami than the Texas cities.
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 06:56 AM   #578
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
On the same note...Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte are closer to Miami than the Texas cities.
Atlanta is a dome and while grass can be brought in, FIFA doesn't like to do that. Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte aren't big enough cities. Miami is a large city with a very multi-ethnic composition.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 07:26 AM   #579
WeimieLvr
Love me, love my dog...
 
WeimieLvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,075
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Atlanta is a dome and while grass can be brought in, FIFA doesn't like to do that. Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte aren't big enough cities. Miami is a large city with a very multi-ethnic composition.

As I stated a couple of posts back, Atlanta would be Sanford Stadium at UGA...which hosted the 1996 Olympic finals in soccer - not the Georgia Dome. Atlanta is also a large city with a multi-ethnic composition...

In what way are Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte not big enough? I know Legion Field in Birmingham has done some World Cup hosting before...Charlotte and Nashville are as large or in the same league with Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and some other cities that have been suggested in this thread.
WeimieLvr no está en línea  
Old October 19th, 2008, 07:39 AM   #580
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeimieLvr View Post
As I stated a couple of posts back, Atlanta would be Sanford Stadium at UGA...which hosted the 1996 Olympic finals in soccer - not the Georgia Dome. Atlanta is also a large city with a multi-ethnic composition...

In what way are Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte not big enough? I know Legion Field in Birmingham has done some World Cup hosting before...Charlotte and Nashville are as large or in the same league with Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and some other cities that have been suggested in this thread.
First UGA would have to agree to host and that would be tough because to fit a WC field they would have to take out the hedges, something they did in '96 and got heat for. Second, they would have to replace all their benches with seats to accommodate FIFA rules and I doubt UGA would be willing to decrease capacity for that. Then, FIFA would have to agree that a stadium an hour and 20 or 30 minutes away from Atlanta is still considered Atlanta. Neadless to say, with all these things that would have to happen, Atlanta is a long shot.

Legion Field had hosted WCQ's before, but they have since put in turf and the USSF said they won't even receive WCQ's anymore. On top of that, Legion Field has benches. Nashville is not a world renowned city. When people list of major US cities, some people bring up Miami, but few, if any bring up Nashville and the same could be said for Charlotte. Charlotte's Bank of America Stadium also has one of the smallest press boxes in the NFL and would require a very large auxiliary press area that would lower capacity significantly. In addition, neither Charlotte nor Nashville have the multi-ethnic composition of Miami. Miami would be the host in the southeast.
ryebreadraz 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 09:48 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