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 31st, 2008, 02:30 AM   #721
KingmanIII
Registered User
 
KingmanIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Killa City, Misery
Posts: 2,627
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
He isn't a troll just because he doesn't join in the Let's-all-praise-America singsong. He just reminded you that there is more than just the USA.
Maybe someone should remind him that there is more than just South Africa.

And it didn't help that he called someone a Neanderthal.

Last edited by KingmanIII; October 31st, 2008 at 02:37 AM.
KingmanIII no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 31st, 2008, 03:29 AM   #722
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
we have absolutely no need for roofs. It may not cost a lot, but it completely changes the design of the stadium. European stadiums have influenced stadiums all over the world, except North and south america. It rains in Europe, so it was standard procedure to put roofs on stadiums, and the trend spread whether roofs were needed or not. The US is across the ocean so european designs never made it here and we wernt influenced by them. No rain here=no roofs. It ISNT necessary because it DOESNT rain here.
Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
What it has to do with creativity???? Its the defining difference between European style and american style. The focus in european stadiums is the exterior, and creative ways to put on the roof seems to be popular. Putting a roof on a stadium usually means that the stadium will be symmetrical in design with all the tiers even because its the easiest way to but on a roof. The interior in european stadiums tends to not differ form field to field. Now look at american stadiums. No roof means that there is more freedom to be creative with the interior. you will see that since we dont have roofs we can have one side of the stadium look completely different than the other side. Sure you can put a roof on it, but it would look horrible. So to sum up...Europe-focus on the exterior. America- focus on the interior.
It doesn't take evenly sized stands to cover them. In fact one usually constructs a roof on each stands separately. Apart from Wembley, the Immigrants and the Millennium Stadium there is no football ground in Britain I can think of with a single roof structure that spans over the entire ground.

European grounds are only symmetrical when built at once. But many grounds are rather a patchwork where each part of the ground were added at different times. These grounds tell a story. American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
they may be secondary but they were still built with soccer in mind. They are all capable of hosting the game.
They're still no genuine football grounds.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 03:37 AM   #723
koolio
Registered User
 
koolio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,107
Likes (Received): 1558

If the stadium in Philadelphia had roof over the stands, the game would still have been delayed as they don't play baseball when the FIELD is wet ... nothing to do with the fans.
koolio no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 04:02 AM   #724
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.
It still doesnt rain enough here to warrant building a roof. Football and baseball games arent rained out often. Actually football games are almost never rained out-we play through it, and the fans stay. The only place where it really does rain here is the northwest, in Seattle and Oregon. There are roofs there. Not really anywhere else. Guess why?


Quote:
It doesn't take evenly sized stands to cover them. In fact one usually constructs a roof on each stands separately. Apart from Wembley, the Immigrants and the Millennium Stadium there is no football ground in Britain I can think of with a single roof structure that spans over the entire ground.
yes but now you are getting into the design of stadiums based on convenience for the fans. We prefer to watch our game on the sidelines, meaning that we stack the seats on the side. The design of soccer stadiums in Europe tend to have evenly distributed stands on each side of the field. We dont. Imagine putting a roof on this...

it wouldnt work. European stadiums are not designed like this.


Quote:
European grounds are only symmetrical when built at once. But many grounds are rather a patchwork where each part of the ground were added at different times. These grounds tell a story. American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.
wrong. obviously you have never seen the average college football stadium, the absolute definition of patchwork building.

for example


or read one of the many college football threads on this site.

Quote:
They're still no genuine football grounds.
doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 05:11 AM   #725
Arist
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.
whats wrong with a little rain?

Quote:
American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.
hmmm, ever seen a college stadium? And are you also telling me Lambough, Arrow Head, Texas Stadium and Dolphin Stadium dont tell a story? THE CATCH, THE ICE BOWL, Emmit, Favre, Marino, Aikman and Star. Just because a venue was made all at once with no patch work expansion done in the future does not mean a stadium does not tell a story. In the USA, the stories are made on the field.
Arist no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 07:34 AM   #726
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

"They're still no genuine football grounds."

What BS.

A full-sized FIFA regulation pitch fits in those stadiums, therefore they're football grounds.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 08:06 AM   #727
Arist
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 1

Id say a US Football stadium would be better to watch soccer in then a Euro Soccer stadium. After watching plenty of football games from high up nose bleed seats in Denver, Dallas and Kansas City, I think soccer would be no problem for any US football stadium, and would most likely do better..
Arist no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 10:49 AM   #728
matthemod
Registered User
 
matthemod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gillingham, Medway
Posts: 766
Likes (Received): 95

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
"They're still no genuine football grounds."

What BS.

A full-sized FIFA regulation pitch fits in those stadiums, therefore they're football grounds.
Yes but they weren't designed with priority to host a football game. It's like the New Wembley can be configured to host athletics, or even motorsport, but it was designed with priority for football, so it's a football stadium.

I suppose it's about looking past the pedantics of FIFA regulations and looking into what aspects contribute to a "football" stadium. I've been to a couple of American football games since i've been in the U.S. and I, with no disrespect, honestly can't imagine myself watching football from the same stadium. There's just something inherently different i think, like in general it looks and feels a bit unnatural and disjointed. That's my opinion for all it's worth atleast.

Anyway I feel like we're going around in circles.
__________________
http://pricetown.myminicity.com

My MiniCity!
matthemod no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 04:06 PM   #729
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Some bizarre non-arguments on this thread. As an Englishman, living in Australia, enjoying the best stadia that both nations have to offer... I really can't see how anyone can even begin to argue that the US doesn't have the facilities to host a world cup, and host it in style.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 04:51 PM   #730
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
It still doesnt rain enough here to warrant building a roof. Football and baseball games arent rained out often. Actually football games are almost never rained out-we play through it, and the fans stay. The only place where it really does rain here is the northwest, in Seattle and Oregon. There are roofs there. Not really anywhere else. Guess why?
'cause Americans don't care about the game anyway and are more interested in getting drinks and food? I don't know. I just know that football grounds require roofs. To give shelter from the elements and even more importantly to keep the noise within the ground. But since American don't make any noise they aren't bothered to keep it in, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
yes but now you are getting into the design of stadiums based on convenience for the fans. We prefer to watch our game on the sidelines, meaning that we stack the seats on the side. The design of soccer stadiums in Europe tend to have evenly distributed stands on each side of the field. We dont. Imagine putting a roof on this...

it wouldnt work. European stadiums are not designed like this.
I don't know what's so difficult to put a roof on there. It was possible to cover this stand. And so it could be done in Philadelphia as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
wrong. obviously you have never seen the average college football stadium, the absolute definition of patchwork building.

....

or read one of the many college football threads on this site.
Well, I was referring to pro league franchise only. I didn't emphasise this in the first place. So I do it now. I know very well that college sport is completely different if not the total opposite of professional sports in north America. And so are their stadiums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.
It's only stupid to assume it would matter. Because it does. When you didn't know it before I tell it you know. Football isn't just a entertaining show you can perform in a soulless bowl of ten thousands of fat-arse seats. Football is part of our life. We feel it and we live it.
The only venues worth of hosting football matches are stadiums dedicated to this game. And that's what the stadiums mentioned in this thread are not.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 05:48 PM   #731
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.
Actually, the key issue here is the VIP guests and the press. FIFA guidelines state that both MUST be in covered areas. A press-box doesn't do any good due to the sheer number of press and the amount of space required for them (in Germany it was most of the upper deck of one entire side of each stadium). So, whether supporters can watch the games in comfort or not is irrelevent, all FIFA cares about is that in the unlikely event of a single drop of rain falling during a world cup match, it shouldn't fall on either a VIP or a journalist's notes/laptop.

I still believe that if the USA was awarded the finals, they'd provide the required stadia without any trouble.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 06:21 PM   #732
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
It's only stupid to assume it would matter. Because it does. When you didn't know it before I tell it you know. Football isn't just a entertaining show you can perform in a soulless bowl of ten thousands of fat-arse seats. Football is part of our life. We feel it and we live it.
The only venues worth of hosting football matches are stadiums dedicated to this game. And that's what the stadiums mentioned in this thread are not.
a) Roofs for stadiums are not a tradition since day one, they're the result of a need to address weather and comfort for fans and a measure of cost. There are plenty of pure football grounds across the globe without roofs, thank you very much, so while it's agreed that they're the European ideal it's tough to affirm that they're a bona fide requirement.

b) There's far more that defines a stadium than a roof, so the absence of a roof doesn't make it a "soulless bowl." If that was the difference, then architects have spent a great deal of time and money on other details and elements that apparently don't matter. And if this were true adding a roof in Berlin makes that a true football ground, which clearly it isn't.

c) Bottom line, you're passionate about having roofs. Good for you. I prefer them as well. Alas, your opinion doesn't dictate FIFA policy or translate into what does and doesn't suffice as a stadium for football. Right now our culture doesn't dictate them as in, say, England. Hooray for valuing differences in taste and opinion. Say you don't like them, but don't use that excuse to imply they're unworthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthemod View Post
I suppose it's about looking past the pedantics of FIFA regulations and looking into what aspects contribute to a "football" stadium. I've been to a couple of American football games since i've been in the U.S. and I, with no disrespect, honestly can't imagine myself watching football from the same stadium. There's just something inherently different i think, like in general it looks and feels a bit unnatural and disjointed. That's my opinion for all it's worth atleast.
NOW we're getting somewhere. Maybe this is what needs to be more clearly defined: The differences in design between common "futbol" stadiums and American football stadiums. (Apart from the obvious lack of roofs ) Clearly there's enough similarity that the Beautiful game has and will be played at American stadiums, and I'd like to think many fans find them more suitable than conventional athletics stadiums that can push fans so far away from the pitch. So what differences come to mind?

- Greater presence of premium seating in NFL stadiums, diluting the size and character of the crowd.
- Less seating along end zones/end lines where traditional football clubs often find their hardcore fans.
- Greater array of signs, electronic boards, etc at NFL stadia. Used to fill time during stoppages in play in the US game, these can seem out of place, or a distraction from the run of play in soccer.
- Most historic football stadiums are inwardly focused, and either as a bowl or four separate stands the intention is to close out the outside world. Many American football stadiums (perhaps taking a cue from MLB venues) try to integrate outside views and architectural elements into their design that stimulate views away from the field/pitch.
- All the elements above foster greater variety of designs among NFL stadiums, whereas most new football grounds in Europe and elsewhere are gravitating towards modest variations of the same box or oval. How many of you tuned into a Germany '06 game and couldn't distinguish which venue it was?!

Are NFL venues different than conventional football grounds? You bet. Does that mean they're unworthy? Hardly. And I defy any true fan of their national team to suggest he won't support his side, or that they lost the game, because of the venue! In the end it's a bunch of seating around the field.

Cheers.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 08:51 PM   #733
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Watching a match in a stadium without a roof is far superior to watching one at a stadium with a track. If a stadium with an athletics track can host a WC match, then a stadium with no roof should not be an issue. The roof has a few positives, none of which have a major impact on watching a match if there's no rain, while the track puts every fan in the stadium farther away from the pitch.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 11:53 PM   #734
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Tell me whatever you want. But a ground without a roof is simply crap. I stood long enough on open terraces to know how unhealthy it is. And even the absence of a running track is no replacement for a roof. If you were in the unfortunate position like me who has to work for his living then you'd think likewise. I can afford high ticket prices. But I can't afford catching a cold every other week.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2008, 11:57 PM   #735
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Tell me whatever you want. But a ground without a roof is simply crap. I stood long enough on open terraces to know how unhealthy it is. And even the absence of a running track is no replacement for a roof. If you were in the unfortunate position like me who has to work for his living then you'd think likewise. I can afford high ticket prices. But I can't afford catching a cold every other week.
you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 12:16 AM   #736
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting
The only one who's really ignorant is you. Guess why football grounds in practically every countries bar the USA have roofs? Right, because they do serve purposes, not just one. If you could be bothered reading any arguments I could have told you. But as every word is completely wasted on you I leave it.
You can clear away now to your earth hole in the Atacama desert where you never need a roof, *****.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 01:26 AM   #737
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
The only one who's really ignorant is you. Guess why football grounds in practically every countries bar the USA have roofs? Right, because they do serve purposes, not just one. If you could be bothered reading any arguments I could have told you. But as every word is completely wasted on you I leave it.
You can clear away now to your earth hole in the Atacama desert where you never need a roof, *****.
no, im not ignorant...actually it doesnt look like you even know what the word means. Since you still havent given me a reason for roofs, ill ask you again...why are roofs necessary when it doesnt rain?

remember, i already explained to you why countries around the world have roofs, because it rains in europe so roofs became standard practice whether they were needed or not. Our basic stadium design did not come from europe, it evolved separately, hence no roofs because of no rain. Here i am again explaining this to you.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 01:39 AM   #738
TexasBoi
Texas-NoVA
 
TexasBoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,259
Likes (Received): 33

Ok, so if you like soccer and you like a roof, than that is you. But people love elements in American Football, period. We love watching the game in the rain or the snow or the wind. Bringing up baseball is not helping your argument whatsoever. Completely different sport than American Football. But elements rarely causes delays or problems for both baseball and football anyway. How many times did it rain in Miami when the superbowl was held there save 2007? you'd be hard press to find any more. How many world series games was affected by the rain in the past few years? I can't think of many.

Besides, what's a little rain. The best game I ever attended was in a rainstorm and we all had fun in it while watching the sport we love. Oh and spare us the talk about Americans not making noise at our stadiums.
TexasBoi no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 03:31 AM   #739
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting
This is a World Cup thread - regardless of anti/pro-American stadium arguments, the fact is that to host the 2022 World Cup, stadiums will require cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
no, im not ignorant...actually it doesnt look like you even know what the word means. Since you still havent given me a reason for roofs, ill ask you again...why are roofs necessary when it doesnt rain?
In the context of this thread - the only reason that is required is that FIFA insists that at least their VIP guests and the media are covered... Ticket allocations for VIPs typically count into 8-10k range, and the media takes up around 3-4k spaces - that means that typically you'll need at least one more or less fully covered stand.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 03:52 AM   #740
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
This is a World Cup thread - regardless of anti/pro-American stadium arguments, the fact is that to host the 2022 World Cup, stadiums will require cover.



In the context of this thread - the only reason that is required is that FIFA insists that at least their VIP guests and the media are covered... Ticket allocations for VIPs typically count into 8-10k range, and the media takes up around 3-4k spaces - that means that typically you'll need at least one more or less fully covered stand.
i understand in the context of a WC what is needed, but my main argument is that flierfy is basically being a troll
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 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 11:22 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