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 April 15th, 2009, 06:39 PM   #961
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

To be honest from what I have seen in the US there is a real mix. Even new stadiums often dont have roofs. The new New York stadium is an example. From what I have seen, it has all the luxury and bells and whistles Americans want. Invesco, Soldierfield,Lambeau are all extremely impressive and would probably have more luxury than 95% of stadiums in Europe, but they aint perfect for the other type of football. Can't see why some Americans get so defensive about it.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old April 15th, 2009, 06:46 PM   #962
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

defensive because there are enough large stadiums here to give you exacty what you want, yet we are still seen as unsuitable for some reason.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 07:07 PM   #963
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Roofs are a modern phenom in european stadia as well. Don't make as if it is tradition, a large proportion of stadiums even in England were unroofed or partially unroofed well into this decade. In fact my team arsenal never had a roof on the clock end before we switched grounds.

However if the rules say you need a roof you need a roof, simple as.

I personally am indifferent, as unroofed stadiums give nice aerial shots of the interior, whereas roofed stadiums are more intimate from the inside, and trap atmosphere. People arguing about the merits of roofs are dumb as it's personal preference, what you should be debating is whether the states should be allowed to bend the rules and host world cups without roofs, i personally say no because i'd rather 2018 and 2022 were in Europe but that's just me.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 07:34 PM   #964
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

For those claiming that FIFA requires stadiums to have roofs, what factual proof do you have? A link to a FIFA mandate would do. Outside of that I think it's silly to suggest that a roof is a requirement. Take a look at South Africa for example, out of 13 stadiums to be used for the tournament only 6 are fully covered. 1 covers three stands, 2 cover half the stands, and 4 stadiums only have one stand covered!

http://www.stadiumguide.com/wc2010.htm

I could be totally wrong here, but until someone provides factual evidence that FIFA requires roofs the idea is laughable. FIFA doesn't care about roofs, they care about revenue which comes from tickets sales, sponsorships and television rights. Will the fact the the new New York stadium not have a roof prevent people from buying tickets? Absolutely not. Will it prevent sponsors from signing on? Not a chance. Will it somehow effect the audience watching the game on TV? Of course not.

Roofs are not the issue. In my opinion the bigger issue is field dimensions.
metros11 no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 07:36 PM   #965
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Roofs are a modern phenom in european stadia as well. Don't make as if it is tradition, a large proportion of stadiums even in England were unroofed or partially unroofed well into this decade. In fact my team arsenal never had a roof on the clock end before we switched grounds.

However if the rules say you need a roof you need a roof, simple as.

I personally am indifferent, as unroofed stadiums give nice aerial shots of the interior, whereas roofed stadiums are more intimate from the inside, and trap atmosphere. People arguing about the merits of roofs are dumb as it's personal preference, what you should be debating is whether the states should be allowed to bend the rules and host world cups without roofs, i personally say no because i'd rather 2018 and 2022 were in Europe but that's just me.
Roofs are not a modern phenomena. Most British stadiums have been at least partially roofed for decades. The North Bank, East Stand and West were all roofed at Highbury since the 30s. As you say roofs make a stadium more intimate and trap atmosphere. It is a preference because they make a hell of a difference to atmosphere. If the debate is purely about whether the US should be able to host games in stadia without roofs I would say yes because as you say, they arn't necessary, they are a preference.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM   #966
salaverryo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Mexico in 1986 isn't a good example to use because they were replacement hosts. Columbia was supposed to host, but didn't have the money to build to FIFA's requirements so they had to change it. It wasn't as if Mexico was the first choice.
COLUMBIA is either a space shuttle or an American university. The name of the country is COLOMBIA.
salaverryo no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:08 PM   #967
salaverryo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
Roofs are not a modern phenomena. Most British stadiums have been at least partially roofed for decades. The North Bank, East Stand and West were all roofed at Highbury since the 30s. As you say roofs make a stadium more intimate and trap atmosphere. It is a preference because they make a hell of a difference to atmosphere. If the debate is purely about whether the US should be able to host games in stadia without roofs I would say yes because as you say, they arn't necessary, they are a preference.
Atmosphere my foot. In Britain partially roofed stadiums are not a preference but a necessity due to the foul weather. And this applies to northern Europe as a whole.
salaverryo no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:10 PM   #968
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
Why this roofed stadium debate is useless and stupid:

If the US had to host 2010 with all roofed, all seated stadiums, we could do it.

Reliant Stadium
New Cowboys Stadium
Alamodome
University of Phoenix
Georgia Dome
Lucas Oil Field
Louisiana Superdome
Ford Field
Pontiac Silverdome
Metrodome/New Vikings stadium
Edward Jones
Qwest Field

add to that, Cleveland and Miami are both talking about adding retractable roofs to their stadiums.
Only thing missing are the LA, NY, Boston and DC. If we didn't have to serve these markets then no one would even talk about roofs.
Except the 4 markets you mentioned would never be ignored, those 4 will without a doubt, be hosts for any future world cups in the U.S. No way in hell does Detroit get to have 2 stadiums used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
?

Do you have any idea how large these pressboxes are in an NFL stadium? Most take up an entire sideline area that you may think are suites and have larger capacities than individual suites. This is why they DON'T count press credentials for capacity in the NFL while they do in college. There are thousands of credentials given out each game and space to accomodate them. Especially stadiums like U of Phoenix who are bidding for the Super Bowl each year. Its the NFL that is being underestimated here. Its hard to imagine because its just an individual league in on nation, but these stadiums are built with these events in mind, not just the needs of their home team.

As I said, moot point as the US could host the World Cup tomorrow and have more than enough large roofed stadia. Why is this being ignored? Everyone talks of roofed stadia like they don't exist in North America. We have what you want right now

1.)Reliant Stadium
2.)New Cowboys Stadium
3.)Alamodome
4.)University of Phoenix
5.)Georgia Dome
6.)Lucas Oil Field
7.)Louisiana Superdome
8.)Ford Field
9.)Pontiac Silverdome
10.)Metrodome/New Vikings stadium
11.)Edward Jones
12.)Qwest Field

what's the problem?
The problem is that some of these stadiums are located in small metro areas, or areas that will simply not sell the tickets. 2 stadiums in Detroit? No way. San Antonio hosting? Nope. St. Louis hosting? Nope. Indianapolis hosting, very doubtful. Atlanta hosting is in the same boat as Indianapolis, with a slighty better chance.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:13 PM   #969
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by salaverryo View Post
Atmosphere my foot. In Britain partially roofed stadiums are not a preference but a necessity due to the foul weather. And this applies to northern Europe as a whole.
No they are not a necessity. I spent 15 years watching football in a British stadium in a stand that didnt have a roof. They are a preference.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:16 PM   #970
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
Roofs are not a modern phenomena. Most British stadiums have been at least partially roofed for decades.
He said "European stadia". Not just British stadia where roofs are more of a necessity than most anywhere else on the continent. A snapshot of stadia across Europe 20 years ago as opposed to the present/future is like night and day. Roofs were a totally foreign concept to Portugal prior to Euro 2004. Same thing is happening in Spain where La Liga is going through a stadium revolution moving from unroofed to roofed. I'd say roofs are a phenomena when you see how they are suddenly becoming a bare minimum necessity in even the driest and warmest parts of Europe.
JYDA no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 08:27 PM   #971
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

It seems unlikely that roofs are deemed absolutely necessary to protect people from wind and rain in Spain so if the reason isn't purely for protection against the weather there must be other advantages. One advantage is an improvement in atmosphere. This really is not rocket science.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 09:04 PM   #972
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
It seems unlikely that roofs are deemed absolutely necessary to protect people from wind and rain in Spain so if the reason isn't purely for protection against the weather there must be other advantages. One advantage is an improvement in atmosphere. This really is not rocket science.
Having a roof doesn't guarantee improved atmosphere. Some roofs actually absorb noise and don't improve atmosphere (I don't remember exactly how this happens, but it's a matter of design and material used). A lot of stadiums hold more noise and direct it to the field with superior acoustics than roofed stadiums without a roof than stadiums with a roof. A roof plays a part in all of the sound, but a lot has to do with a number of other things and a lot of American roofless stadiums are superior acoustically to roofed European stadiums.

Anyways, this argument about roofs for atmosphere is mute. FIFA requests that enough stand be covered so the media are not exposed, not so the atmosphere is fantastic. A Camp Nou style roof would be just fine where only a small percetage of seats are covered.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 09:13 PM   #973
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

As I have already said at least 3 times, in my opinion they are not necessary, and as such I would not use a lack of roofs as a reason for why USA shouldn't host the World Cup. If you ask me which stadiums I would like the US to use then I would choose the roofed ones because on the whole they would probably be better for a football atmosphere. Still can't see what is so controversial about this.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 11:51 PM   #974
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlspannoosh View Post
Roofs are not a modern phenomena. Most British stadiums have been at least partially roofed for decades.
what i said was...

Quote:
tradition, a large proportion of stadiums even in England were unroofed or partially unroofed
Quote:
The North Bank, East Stand and West were all roofed at Highbury since the 30s.
The north bank was only roofed behind the goal, the corners weren't. And it was only roofed in the mid 1950s. The original roof got destroyed during the war.

Quote:
As you say roofs make a stadium more intimate and trap atmosphere. It is a preference because they make a hell of a difference to atmosphere. If the debate is purely about whether the US should be able to host games in stadia without roofs I would say yes because as you say, they arn't necessary, they are a preference.
if they won it i am don't care if the stadiums don't have a roof!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 11:53 PM   #975
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
He said "European stadia". Not just British stadia where roofs are more of a necessity than most anywhere else on the continent. A snapshot of stadia across Europe 20 years ago as opposed to the present/future is like night and day. Roofs were a totally foreign concept to Portugal prior to Euro 2004. Same thing is happening in Spain where La Liga is going through a stadium revolution moving from unroofed to roofed. I'd say roofs are a phenomena when you see how they are suddenly becoming a bare minimum necessity in even the driest and warmest parts of Europe.
exactly!! Look at a lot of german stadiums pre 2006.

Look at italian stadiums, the only ones that seem to have roofs were because of italia 90. And even then cagliari and bologna don't!

Most english stadiums only were fully roofed due to the taylor report meaning new modern stands needed to be constructed
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 15th, 2009, 11:54 PM   #976
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by salaverryo View Post
Atmosphere my foot. In Britain partially roofed stadiums are not a preference but a necessity due to the foul weather. And this applies to northern Europe as a whole.
erm it rains more in places like rome and milan than it does in London or manchester.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 16th, 2009, 12:11 AM   #977
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
if they won it i am don't care if the stadiums don't have a roof!
Hmm all I will say is that although I thought 1994 was one of the best World Cups ever and would be more than happy for USA to hold another, I would be disapointed if they chose the Rose Bowl for the final again.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old April 16th, 2009, 12:22 AM   #978
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

USA 94 seemed a bit fake to me looking back. As a kid it looked glitzy and glamourous but tbf it just doesn't sit well with me.

And the 0-0 final penalty shootout was so ironic!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old April 16th, 2009, 12:24 AM   #979
El Mariachi
Registered User
 
El Mariachi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,156
Likes (Received): 5995

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
Except the 4 markets you mentioned would never be ignored, those 4 will without a doubt, be hosts for any future world cups in the U.S. No way in hell does Detroit get to have 2 stadiums used.



The problem is that some of these stadiums are located in small metro areas, or areas that will simply not sell the tickets. 2 stadiums in Detroit? No way. San Antonio hosting? Nope. St. Louis hosting? Nope. Indianapolis hosting, very doubtful. Atlanta hosting is in the same boat as Indianapolis, with a slighty better chance.
I disagree that these cities wouldn't be able to support these games with ticket sales and interest. I think you greatly underestimate Detroit and St. Louis when it comes to sports. Not to mention Detroit is a short drive from Toronto, which has a large international community. Indy is a few hours from Chicago, which also has a huge international community. You scoff at Atlanta, but its a bigger metro then Boston or San Francisco. The only concern out of those cities would be New Orleans. I don't think it really matters though, considering the ease of travel to the U.S. from international destinations, like Europe.
El Mariachi no está en línea  
Old April 16th, 2009, 12:26 AM   #980
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
USA 94 seemed a bit fake to me looking back. As a kid it looked glitzy and glamourous but tbf it just doesn't sit well with me.

And the 0-0 final penalty shootout was so ironic!
It was one of the first finals if not in fact the first I can remember where every stadium was full. Hagi on his own made the tournament worth watching for me. Anyway thats my two pennys worth..
carlspannoosh 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 08:51 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