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 November 1st, 2008, 04:48 AM   #741
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Oh come off it. Flierfli

The Super Bowl is hosted in January and World Series in october. Of course theres a really high chance of rain in those months.

But the World Cup takes place in SUMMER. The risk is usually sunburn, knowing how pasty most northern europeans are. Also, there is more than plenty of the logical host stadiums are completely indoor stadiums (exceeding FIFA reqirements).

So just....yeah. Your argument makes no sense, none of them do.

I mean...if Emirates and Wemblem are "football grounds" then pretty much every NFL stadium is too. Especially since they were designed by the exact same firms.

Also, you want "story" in your stadium? Heres some history for you.

But no...I guess the stadium was built to preserve the stadium was not for sentimentality...but sheer business sense. Although it would have clearly been cheaper to just knock it down and start over.

Theres plenty of stadiums in Britain that are built in a bowl shape with single span roofs. Enough so that they're not really an anomaly. Heres a partial list there might be more but I stopped looking for them, Man City Stadium, Ricoh Arena, swansea stadium, Madejski Stadium, walkers stadium, plus the ones your mentioned Emirates and Wembley (by immigrants you mean...Dons...right? Just checking). Plus with the new stadiums proposed more might join the list.

American football is played on a rectangular field, it's not like they're made for cricket or anything. The only real difference is that the seats on one side are 6ft high instead of being below ground like in England. But is that really so bad? I rather not sit at midfield and stare at the substitutes all game.

I love how you're clutching at straws, just admit it. Theres no reason for us not to have another shot at a world cup. Theres just not, even the FA had to basically bribe their way to have Jack Warner say otherwise.
SIC no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 1st, 2008, 05:20 AM   #742
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

The main problem for using US stadiums (other than roofs) is the size of the playing area. It's been discussed before, but the US football field is narrower than the FA football field - yes, there's space on your sidelines, but is it enough?

Many of England's finest, and newest, stadiums actually fail the FIFA regulations with regard to run-off area beside and behind the pitch, for media and advertising requirements. Sunderland's Stadium of Light and Aston Villa's Villa Park, for example, would both have to have the front few rows of seats removed completely in order to provide the required run-off.

The total field dimensions are to be no less than 125m long by 80m wide (with the playing area being 105m by 68m).

I'm not sure exactly how many seats would have to go from the sidelines in the US to get field width up to 80m, but I'd imagine (possibly incorrectly) that it would be more than a couple of rows, which with the front seats already raised a couple of yards, could lead to the front row being 10 feet above pitch level. In short, getting the playing field into the stadiums isn't the concern, it's getting all the extra space - 6 meters either side, 10 meters at either end - that is the problem.

Last edited by Benjuk; November 1st, 2008 at 05:26 AM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 06:09 AM   #743
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Maybe flierfly will have some appreciation for this new stadium under construction in New York.



JYDA no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 06:27 AM   #744
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
The main problem for using US stadiums (other than roofs) is the size of the playing area. It's been discussed before, but the US football field is narrower than the FA football field - yes, there's space on your sidelines, but is it enough?

Many of England's finest, and newest, stadiums actually fail the FIFA regulations with regard to run-off area beside and behind the pitch, for media and advertising requirements. Sunderland's Stadium of Light and Aston Villa's Villa Park, for example, would both have to have the front few rows of seats removed completely in order to provide the required run-off.

The total field dimensions are to be no less than 125m long by 80m wide (with the playing area being 105m by 68m).

I'm not sure exactly how many seats would have to go from the sidelines in the US to get field width up to 80m, but I'd imagine (possibly incorrectly) that it would be more than a couple of rows, which with the front seats already raised a couple of yards, could lead to the front row being 10 feet above pitch level. In short, getting the playing field into the stadiums isn't the concern, it's getting all the extra space - 6 meters either side, 10 meters at either end - that is the problem.
The older stadiums would have issues with this, but the majority of the new stadiums are built with enough room.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 06:30 AM   #745
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
The older stadiums would have issues with this, but the majority of the new stadiums are built with enough room.
Exactly.
Thats what we mean by "built with Football in mind", we mean built with "the world cup" in mind. Not MLS or some rinky-dink european friendly tour.
SIC no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 11:31 AM   #746
JohanSA
Registered User
 
JohanSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Napier/Stellenbosch/Cape Town
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 478

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.

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.

they may be secondary but they were still built with soccer in mind. They are all capable of hosting the game.
Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.

Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .

Secondly whats wrong with a stadium with a iconic exterior? Theres only so much you can do with the interior of a stadium - here what realy matters is the sightlines of the spectators and the atmosphere.

"Skyscrapercity so easy even JohanSA can do it" - I dont have to defend my intellegence and Im not even going to bother to stab back....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreed View Post
Wow, so you really are fruity. Damn, I thought they were joking.
Twitter, Instagram : @JohanTTBlom
JohanSA no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 02:38 PM   #747
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohanSA View Post
Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.

Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .

Secondly whats wrong with a stadium with a iconic exterior? Theres only so much you can do with the interior of a stadium - here what realy matters is the sightlines of the spectators and the atmosphere.

"Skyscrapercity so easy even JohanSA can do it" - I dont have to defend my intellegence and Im not even going to bother to stab back....
More clutching at straws.

You do realize all the games in the US would be played in the afternoon to accommodate Europe. So don't worry about the lights.
But again....look at the stadiums themselves about half of them actually have a roof! Moveable ones.

So what..does this mean we have a built-in excuse when we aren't "loud enough". "well it's because we don't have a roof to trap the sound in...thats right." :P

Seriously, you're going to get a WC in 2010 and the way they did. The US is way closer to SA on every level when it comes to infrastructure.
SIC no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 04:06 PM   #748
x-marien-x
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Limoges
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

HARRISON - Red Bull Arena (25,1989)

very beautiful stadium for a american's team
x-marien-x no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 06:40 PM   #749
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohanSA View Post
Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.

Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .

Secondly whats wrong with a stadium with a iconic exterior? Theres only so much you can do with the interior of a stadium - here what realy matters is the sightlines of the spectators and the atmosphere.

"Skyscrapercity so easy even JohanSA can do it" - I dont have to defend my intellegence and Im not even going to bother to stab back....
let me just put it out there that american fans once set the record for loudest noise at a game without a roof
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 07:43 PM   #750
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 07:45 PM   #751
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
Maybe flierfly will have some appreciation for this new stadium under construction in New York.



I do have. This ground has anything I appreciate. The stands are erected around a football pitch, all seats are covered and the ground is within walking distance from a metro station with services to the central parts of the city.
America can build proper football grounds. This here is the ultimate proof
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 08:01 PM   #752
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1


Come on Flierfly you cannot tell me that you would prefer a game in this stadium to say the New Cowboys Stadium or Reliant Stadium or for that matter Michigan Stadium (Which apart from the no roof would be well suited for atmosphere because fans are close together).

I agree that their stadiums are far from perfect for football but you cannot deny that they are impressive structures and more importantly they all have very healthy capacities which means there would be more tickets for fans which is probably the most important thing for a World Cup stadium. I for one don't see why the US couldn't host a very good World Cup (After England of course).
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 08:06 PM   #753
El Cholo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 144

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
No reason 40 sides would decrease the quality, you could argue that it would actually increase the quality...

9 of the top 22 teams in the world, according to the (flawed) FIFA rankings, failed to make it to Germany 06. If they handled the distribution of places for the finals correctly there's no reason the quality would decrease.

For example - who would be more at home in a tournament of the world's greatest teams:

Trinidad & Tobago, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Togo, Serbia/Montenegro and Tunisia (highest ranked at 47)

or

Russia, Cameroon, Turkey, Greece, Uruguay and Bulgaria (all ranked in top 20)

There should be opportunities for the 'smaller' nations to qualify, but there should also be better chances for the 'better' footballing nations to qualify.
40 teams would be great! Longer tournament, more games to watch.
El Cholo no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 09:23 PM   #754
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
Come on Flierfly you cannot tell me that you would prefer a game in this stadium to say the New Cowboys Stadium or Reliant Stadium or for that matter Michigan Stadium (Which apart from the no roof would be well suited for atmosphere because fans are close together).

I agree that their stadiums are far from perfect for football but you cannot deny that they are impressive structures and more importantly they all have very healthy capacities which means there would be more tickets for fans which is probably the most important thing for a World Cup stadium. I for one don't see why the US couldn't host a very good World Cup (After England of course).
Honestly, no. That stadium in Arlington is huge. Yes. But there is nothing that really impresses me. Large stadia always tend to struggle to create some atmosphere. Especially when most people in the ground are corporate ***** that paid several $100.000.

So I for one would prefer the ground in Harrison, NJ. Rather modest sized but great than huge and quiet.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 09:47 PM   #755
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.
well, uh..having watched a soccer game at an NFL stadium sitting next to the so called "ugly walls", i can tell you that me viewing experience was just fine
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 09:49 PM   #756
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
Honestly, no. That stadium in Arlington is huge. Yes. But there is nothing that really impresses me. Large stadia always tend to struggle to create some atmosphere. Especially when most people in the ground are corporate ***** that paid several $100.000.

So I for one would prefer the ground in Harrison, NJ. Rather modest sized but great than huge and quiet.
but of course, if we were talking about a non american stadium that was huge you would probably have another opinion...

__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 10:11 PM   #757
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.
If you look at Germany for example, all of their new stadiums are being built with these "ugly walls" to improve views. If you've ever sat in the first row at an English stadium you can attest to the fact that the view stinks. In lower league games where the games don't sell out nobody sits in the first few rows for this very reason. For older stadiums like White Hart Lane where the stands are extremely close to the pitch it makes sense for the first row to be at ground level. However, at new grounds where the first row is set well back from the touch line (Emirates for example) the spectator sightline angle becomes shallower when the first row remains at ground level. The walls are simply meant to compensate for this.
JYDA no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 11:54 PM   #758
Indiana Jones
Top Gear is back!
 
Indiana Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gramercy / London at times
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
but of course, if we were talking about a non american stadium that was huge you would probably have another opinion...


This is so true. The Nou Camp is beloved because it's a great stadium. The outside may be a bit ugly, but it's full of character. This is my genuine opinion and the opinion of most in this forum.

Of course if the Nou Camp was in America you would start to get comments about it's ugly exterior and lack of a roof!
Indiana Jones no está en línea  
Old November 1st, 2008, 11:58 PM   #759
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

I have to add this in general response to flierfly. I fully understand where you're coming from but you need to look at this from both sides of the coin. In certain places roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In the case of Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are not a necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.
JYDA no está en línea  
Old November 2nd, 2008, 01:39 AM   #760
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
I have to add this in general response to flierfly. I fully understand where you're coming from but you need to look at this from both sides of the coin. In certain places roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In the case of Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are not a necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.
I wouldn't attribute the lack of roofs solely to the climate. When you look around Europe you find most roofless grounds in southern and eastern Europe which are also the economically less advanced regions.
The construction of a roof often fails due to the lack of money. But as soon as cities and regions get wealthier the football stadiums there sooner or later get covered.
You mentioned Spain where most of the grounds date back to the 1950s. Back then the country was one of the poorest. That has changed. And with this newly gained wealth they cover all seats. Valencia, Espanyol and Barcelona are just the prime examples of a general trend.
Italy is similar. The economic divide between the north and the south makes the difference between stadium in various regions of the country. The dry climate is just a bad excuse to omit the construction of a roof.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy 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 08:44 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