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 February 9th, 2009, 09:31 AM   #881
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

The only thing about that is that's they're not "requirements", more like "suggestions".
hngcm no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 9th, 2009, 04:11 PM   #882
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingmanIII View Post
Wow, FIFA can be some real ****-retentive S.O.B.s, can't they? I can't imagine why so many countries haven't gotten tired of trying to cater to their every single whim and told them to piss off. I mean, it's a joke if they would turn down freaking ENGLAND for the pitches at a few stadiums being 3m too narrow to cram another billboard into the corner.

They want advertising? Why not just run picture-in-picture commercials at certain intervals during the match like they do on ESPN for UEFA coverage? Think they might have issues with the camera angles? SWITCH TO ANOTHER BLOODY ANGLE.

Sorry, guys, something tells me that FIFA are getting a kick out of making countries jump through various hoops just to be thrown a doggy treat. I, personally, will not be the least bit disappointed if FIFA reject the U.S.' 2018 and 2022 bids, because a month-long event ten years down the road is the least-pressing of our country's concerns at the moment.
It's not a case of making anyone jump through hoops.

If you have a highly desired product/service, you ensure you get the very best deal. Here, for example, we have a very tough set of 'guidelines' and yet we still have 8 or 9 serious bidders. If there were only 1 or 2 bidders, or if no one was putting their hand up, you could be sure that the standards would be lowered.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 9th, 2009, 05:12 PM   #883
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,769
Likes (Received): 10321

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
It's not a case of making anyone jump through hoops.

If you have a highly desired product/service, you ensure you get the very best deal. Here, for example, we have a very tough set of 'guidelines' and yet we still have 8 or 9 serious bidders. If there were only 1 or 2 bidders, or if no one was putting their hand up, you could be sure that the standards would be lowered.
You're not wrong there. It's simple supply and demand.

BUT

FIFA will have to compromise more if they pick a country like England or the US where virtually all proposed stadiums will have existed before these regulations were put into place. That's just a fact. Even if England were willing to do everything short of knocking down some of the older stadiums and rebuilding them, there'd still be many instances where the "perfect" solution isn't reached.

Pick Qatar of course and you can have your set of perfect, homogenous stadiums.

FIFA will know this. But whilst they are unpredictable (moreso than the IOC I reckon), I don't think the FIFA Committee will be as anally-retentive when choosing the host as their organisation's guidelines suggest. They will know they could have a perfect set of inch-perfect stadiums in if they wanted; but they're footballing people and they won't let these regulations affect their judgement too much.

I think the 2012 Olympic race is a good comparison here. Technically, Paris and Madrid were the closest to what the IOC Evaulation Commission were looking for and they scored the highest marks overall. But the concept won it for London.

There will be talk of how a few feet here and there could affect one bid or another; but in the end it won't matter a jot. It just won't.
RobH está en línea ahora  
Old February 10th, 2009, 12:11 PM   #884
nandofutbolero
Registered User
 
nandofutbolero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: the world , el planeta tierra
Posts: 288
Likes (Received): 1

I think many regulations of FIFA sucks they just go for the bussiness that's all
__________________
Lastima que para viajar por el continente y el mundo necesitemos de una visa. saludos !
nandofutbolero no está en línea  
Old April 8th, 2009, 09:39 PM   #885
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/vie..._13762562.html

Full list of the venues contacted by the USSF re: hosting world cup matches. Over 70 were listed.

It's kind of interesting.

Last edited by Bobby3; April 8th, 2009 at 09:47 PM.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old April 8th, 2009, 09:57 PM   #886
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/vie..._13762562.html

Full list of the venues contacted by the USSF re: hosting world cup matches. Over 70 were listed.

It's kind of interesting.
Yeah it is. I can see why some of those were picked, but some of those choices...?

Some of them arent even capable of hosting.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old April 8th, 2009, 11:26 PM   #887
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
The only thing about that is that's they're not "requirements", more like "suggestions".
Thank you. Reading the language, they suggest and prefer a lot of things. As well as a lot "when possible" Including covering all seats, lumens and field dimensions. The problem is that you have some places that can go with most, if not all of their suggestions, while can only complete some of the suggestions. If we were to interpret the "suggestions" to the fullest, all stadiums would be either domes or retractable roof.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old April 8th, 2009, 11:29 PM   #888
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Yeah it is. I can see why some of those were picked, but some of those choices...?

Some of them arent even capable of hosting.
which ones?

I think its wise to contact the most you can and see who is willing to do what. Of course you probably have 15 that could host today and meet most suggestions, but you could have some like the Rose Bowl or Coliseum that may be willing to renovate and become even better venues for the World Cup.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 12:03 AM   #889
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
which ones?

I think its wise to contact the most you can and see who is willing to do what. Of course you probably have 15 that could host today and meet most suggestions, but you could have some like the Rose Bowl or Coliseum that may be willing to renovate and become even better venues for the World Cup.
Beaver Stadium, Michigan Stadium, Lane Stadium.

You can see in pictures that they just arent quite wide enough. And speaking from personal experiences at those three, I dont think it would be possible.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 12:32 AM   #890
parcdesprinces
churches & stadia/arenas
 
parcdesprinces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auteuil, Paris XVI | Quercy | Monaco, MC
Posts: 16,672
Likes (Received): 9686

I know Lane stadium very well and I agree !!
For hosting FIFA world cup you need big cities...

Anyway, here is my choice for a great world cup in USA:

NY: Meadowlands Stadium
Chicago: Soldier Field (I miss the old one which I've known)
Miami: Dolphin Stadium
Dallas: "New Cowboys Stadium"
Seattle: QwestField
Houston: Reliant Stadium
Washington DC: RFK Memorial Stadium or FedExField
LA: Rose Bowl (with a major refurbishment) or Memorial Coliseum (with a major refurbishment)
Phoenix: University of Phoenix Stadium
San Francisco: with a New Stadium ??????
New Orleans: Louisiana Superdome or New Stadium
Boston: Gillette Stadium (but it too far from the city...)
parcdesprinces no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 01:40 AM   #891
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by parcdesprinces View Post
I know Lane stadium very well and I agree !!
For hosting FIFA world cup you need big cities...

Anyway, here is my choice for a great world cup in USA:

NY: Meadowlands Stadium
Chicago: Soldier Field (I miss the old one which I've known)
Miami: Dolphin Stadium
Dallas: "New Cowboys Stadium"
Seattle: QwestField
Houston: Reliant Stadium
Washington DC: RFK Memorial Stadium or FedExField
LA: Rose Bowl (with a major refurbishment) or Memorial Coliseum (with a major refurbishment)
Phoenix: University of Phoenix Stadium
San Francisco: with a New Stadium ??????
New Orleans: Louisiana Superdome or New Stadium
Boston: Gillette Stadium (but it too far from the city...)
I think the midwest/north would need more representation. I also think that they would use a pod system so my choice of sites would look like this:

West
Los Angeles
Seattle
San Francisco (assuming they get a new stadium, if not Phoenix)

Central/North
Chicago
Denver
Minneapolis/Kansas City/St. Louis/Detroit/Indianapolis (any of these could host depending on the stadium situation in 13 years. If St. Louis builds a new stadium in that time, I'd love to see them get it as a nod to their soccer history)

South
Dallas
Houston
Miami

Northeast
New York/New Jersey
Washington DC (assuming FedEx Field is widened or more likely, Dan Snyder gets his new stadium)
Boston (Philadelphia is also a solid choice here)
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 04:27 AM   #892
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Beaver Stadium, Michigan Stadium, Lane Stadium.

You can see in pictures that they just arent quite wide enough. And speaking from personal experiences at those three, I dont think it would be possible.
The USSF is just identifying each and every stadium that has a slight chance of being a WC host from a facilities standpoint. I don't think they actually think the majority of these cities even has a chance. The USSF sent out information to every city on the list and asked that they be notified by stadium management if they are interested by April 17. If they're interested then you can start a dialogue and see if places whose stadium isn't wide enough, luxurious enough or whatnot has interest in a renovation to make it possible. This is just very preliminary and the USSF is doing the right thing by exploring every single possibility early on.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 08:11 AM   #893
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

I'd use these:

Meadowlands (East Rutherford, NJ)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, PA)
New Stadium (Washington, DC) -- OR Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte, NC) if DC United has to move.

Dolphin Stadium (Miami Gardens, FL)
LP Field (Nashville, TN)
Reliant Stadium (Houston, TX)

Soldier Field (Chicago, IL)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis, IN)
Cowboys Stadium (Arlington, TX)

UoP Stadium (Glendale, AZ)
Refurbished Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)
Qwest Field (Seattle, WA)

That would be twelve.

Eighthfinals: Glendale, Houston, DC/Charlotte, Indianapolis, Nashville, Chicago, Pasadena, East Rutherford
Quarterfinals: Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami Gardens
Semifinals: Arlington, East Rutherford
Final: Pasadena

I picked Charlotte as the "reserve" host because of it's location. I know New England would probably be more popular, but that area would have two venues already. Charlotte is a more capable host than people think, and DC should be punished by soccer bodies if DC United continues to receive unfair treatment.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 12:50 PM   #894
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

If they don't use Washington surely they would use the MT bank stadium in Baltimore, same geographical area, rather than Charlotte. Also I hope they don't use the Rose Bowl again it looks like an awful venue. Would the proposed City of Industry stadium be able to host football (soccer)? As this would surely be a better venue than either the rose bowl or the present Colosseum.
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 05:58 PM   #895
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
I'd use these:

Meadowlands (East Rutherford, NJ)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, PA)
New Stadium (Washington, DC) -- OR Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte, NC) if DC United has to move.

Dolphin Stadium (Miami Gardens, FL)
LP Field (Nashville, TN)
Reliant Stadium (Houston, TX)

Soldier Field (Chicago, IL)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis, IN)
Cowboys Stadium (Arlington, TX)

UoP Stadium (Glendale, AZ)
Refurbished Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)
Qwest Field (Seattle, WA)

That would be twelve.

Eighthfinals: Glendale, Houston, DC/Charlotte, Indianapolis, Nashville, Chicago, Pasadena, East Rutherford
Quarterfinals: Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami Gardens
Semifinals: Arlington, East Rutherford
Final: Pasadena

I picked Charlotte as the "reserve" host because of it's location. I know New England would probably be more popular, but that area would have two venues already. Charlotte is a more capable host than people think, and DC should be punished by soccer bodies if DC United continues to receive unfair treatment.
DC United hasnt been treated as unfairly as is portrayed. The city shouldn't be punished for something that isnt entirely their fault, thats just silly.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 09:24 PM   #896
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
If they don't use Washington surely they would use the MT bank stadium in Baltimore, same geographical area, rather than Charlotte. Also I hope they don't use the Rose Bowl again it looks like an awful venue. Would the proposed City of Industry stadium be able to host football (soccer)? As this would surely be a better venue than either the rose bowl or the present Colosseum.
It's still not clear if the proposed City of Industry stadium would be able to host soccer. The stadium's plans aren't the finalized yet so there's no word on soccer. If they get the financing done and a NFL team commits (two things I don't see happening), then they'll finalize stadium plans and we'll know for sure.

The Coliseum is horrible and won't be able to get the necessary renovations to host. The Rose Bowl is a better stadium and there are plans to renovate the stadium, but they don't have the funding. The promise of a World Cup may push them to get the money and complete the renovations they've planned:

ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 11:18 PM   #897
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

^ It would be cool if they put a 2nd deck on the Rose Bowl. 150,000 seat stadium for the final might wet FIFA's appetite
JYDA no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 11:34 PM   #898
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
^ It would be cool if they put a 2nd deck on the Rose Bowl. 150,000 seat stadium for the final might wet FIFA's appetite
Yeah but theres no need for the Rose Bowl to be that big, its losing enough money as it is.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old April 9th, 2009, 11:41 PM   #899
westsidebomber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 39

What about Cincinnati possibly being a Midwest host? Paul Brown Stadium has the width (I believe) to host and it is right in the middle of many of the cities who would also be hosting (Chicago, Indianapolis, etc...)
westsidebomber no está en línea  
Old April 10th, 2009, 01:00 AM   #900
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by westsidebomber View Post
What about Cincinnati possibly being a Midwest host? Paul Brown Stadium has the width (I believe) to host and it is right in the middle of many of the cities who would also be hosting (Chicago, Indianapolis, etc...)
Doubtful. Cincinnati isnt an attractive market.
__________________
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 08:41 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