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 July 10th, 2009, 11:20 AM   #1301
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

St Louis would be more than fine stadium wise



Cleveland, Denver and Charlotte should be on the list. No shot is ridiculous for Cleveland, especially since the USMNT has actually played at Cleveland Browns Stadium
rantanamo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 10th, 2009, 12:27 PM   #1302
Horatio Caine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stockholm/Miami
Posts: 106
Likes (Received): 8

The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities.
Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago.
Semifinals in LA and NY
Final in Washington (being the capital and all)


Man, RFK is really misused. With it's awesome location a new stadium would improve the city so bad!
Think if they'd built a whole new inner-city neighbourhood around it with blocks of appartiments and commercial spaces in the bottom.
Horatio Caine no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 02:32 PM   #1303
Lord David
Registered User
 
Lord David's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,785
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchieTheGreat View Post
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same person Malcolm Glazier who owns the largest most famous football team in the world, Man Utd. Don't underestimate Glaziers influence within football which he could use to have games in Tampa.
Don't forget the pirate ship! A great way to show off the pirate ship! A pirate themed WC I say! :P
Lord David no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 05:26 PM   #1304
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Caine View Post
The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities.
Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago.
Semifinals in LA and NY
Final in Washington (being the capital and all)
They haven't said so officially, but I strongly suspect they'll keep the semi-finals within the same region. In 1994 the Italians complained about having the long flight from one coast going from the semis to the final, and I agree that seems egregious, even with the extra day.

Personally I'd prefer a regionalized tournament as a whole, but I'll trust US Soccer and FIFA to do what they'll abide.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 05:30 PM   #1305
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganis View Post
I would not be surprised is Boston got snubbed out since they will want to spread the games out more this time then last, which is why i add Denver and Indianapolis to the list.
Spread it out even more? After all the griping about travel conditions in '94 and '02?!! That would be a severe step back, in my opinion. While logistically possible it's highly frustrating and expensive for teams, to say nothing of the costs for fans.

At the least they'll have sites in regional pairs for group stages to compensate for the vast distance, because I know the folks traveling from DC/NY to Orlando in '94 were highly miffed (Ireland, Norway...).

I think people tend to put this into proper context as a multi-faceted event within a defined time frame. It's not like road tripping for a college football season, especially with modern security hassles at airports these days. (To say nothing of the publicity made by the environmentalists wanting to minimize the carbon-footprint! ) The USA ain't small, folks.

It may be possible to ship teams and fans across the vast expanse of this country without much trouble, but in that event count me among those who'd much, much prefer a more compact scene like what England and the Netherlands would offer.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 08:19 PM   #1306
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganis View Post
there are to many good and great stadiums ahead of Orlando now. If it comes down between Tampa Orlando and Miami then Miami would win. I would not be surprised is Boston got snubbed out since they will want to spread the games out more this time then last, which is why i add Denver and Indianapolis to the list.
The likelihood that Boston would be snubbed is very very small. To have either Indianapolis or Denver host over Boston simply would not happen (if that's what you are implying).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Caine View Post
The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities.
Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago.
Semifinals in LA and NY
Final in Washington (being the capital and all)


Man, RFK is really misused. With it's awesome location a new stadium would improve the city so bad!
Think if they'd built a whole new inner-city neighbourhood around it with blocks of appartiments and commercial spaces in the bottom.
What I find interesting is why Orlando was chosen over Miami back in 1994. Having the final stages played in the larger cities makes sense, but Miami would not be included as Dallas is larger as a city and a metro area.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 08:32 PM   #1307
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by massp88 View Post
The likelihood that Boston would be snubbed is very very small. To have either Indianapolis or Denver host over Boston simply would not happen (if that's what you are implying).



What I find interesting is why Orlando was chosen over Miami back in 1994. Having the final stages played in the larger cities makes sense, but Miami would not be included as Dallas is larger as a city and a metro area.
Miami didn't have an available stadium in 1994 because the Marlins play there and not only would they have to kick the Marlins out for 3 weeks for playing WC games there (assuming they don't get a semifinal or final), but they would also have to keep the Marlins out of the stadium for a couple weeks before and after to change and prepare the field.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 11:41 PM   #1308
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
St Louis would be more than fine stadium wise



Cleveland, Denver and Charlotte should be on the list. No shot is ridiculous for Cleveland, especially since the USMNT has actually played at Cleveland Browns Stadium
I'm not sure if it can fit a FIFA WC regulated field, plus the area they mandate around it.
SIC no está en línea  
Old July 10th, 2009, 11:59 PM   #1309
NMAISTER007
Euro 2012 Poland-Ukraine
 
NMAISTER007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kyiv
Posts: 1,653
Likes (Received): 4



How will they turn that into a football pitch?? (Football as in European football [For the Americans])
__________________
█████████
█████████
EURO 2012- POLAND AND UKRAINE

We Are Ready - Ми Готові - Jesteśmy Gotowi
█████████
█████████
NMAISTER007 no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 01:46 AM   #1310
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

They bring in grass and lay it out over the turf. It's not a bad pitch, but it's not great and while I think a US hosted World Cup will have that in a stadium or two, I don't think we'll see it in St. Louis. Grass rolled over turf will only be used in cities that really should host no matter what like New York or maybe Boston or Washington DC (if they get a new stadium with turf). St. Louis, while a fine city with great soccer heritage, just isn't a must when you list host cities and isn't worth laying down grass.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 01:53 AM   #1311
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jones_Dome

There's a picture in the article that shows how they can make the field wide enough.

And don't underestimate Charlotte when it comes to bidding for something. Ask Atlanta, Daytona, Michigan, and Kansas City what happened when they did.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 02:59 AM   #1312
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the EJ Dome. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 04:46 AM   #1313
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the EJ Dome. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.
Better candidates like what? FIFA has "recommendations" This stadium and city meets them, has a good hub airport and is in good travelling distance from others. We're looking at cities a lot. If that was the case, the initial list of cities that are being looked at would be much smaller, and much more regional.

We need to be more cognizant of the stadiums themselves as the competition will be much closer to FIFAs recommendations if we just go with the "big" cities. As much as they want to be in New York, the stadium only seats 80,000 and can be sold out elsewhere. Same with LA. Those markets are huge, but this is the age of television, and will be moreso by then, the actual games will be most important. We need more Cowboys Stadiums or Reliant Stadiums in the bid. Places like England, Spain, China and Australia will put up stadiums like that. This isn't 1992.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 07:55 AM   #1314
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94



As you can see here, the sideline walls are lower and the corners haven't been rounded off like you typically see in stadiums too narrow for soccer/football. If this stadium doesn't pass as wide enough then hardly any other NFL stadiums will
JYDA no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 08:18 AM   #1315
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

It's not a great stadium anyways, I don't know why you guys are getting upset about it...

St. Louis should concentrate on getting an MLS team and supporting it before getting to host a WC game.

There's just too many better options in the midwest.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 11th, 2009, 09:02 AM   #1316
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
Better candidates like what? FIFA has "recommendations" This stadium and city meets them, has a good hub airport and is in good travelling distance from others. We're looking at cities a lot. If that was the case, the initial list of cities that are being looked at would be much smaller, and much more regional.

We need to be more cognizant of the stadiums themselves as the competition will be much closer to FIFAs recommendations if we just go with the "big" cities. As much as they want to be in New York, the stadium only seats 80,000 and can be sold out elsewhere. Same with LA. Those markets are huge, but this is the age of television, and will be moreso by then, the actual games will be most important. We need more Cowboys Stadiums or Reliant Stadiums in the bid. Places like England, Spain, China and Australia will put up stadiums like that. This isn't 1992.
Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the EJ Dome. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.
..
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
en1044 no está en línea  
Old July 12th, 2009, 02:08 AM   #1317
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
I make my choice about 18 US cities for 2018 and 2022 world cups.
The cities/stadiums which could be selected in the US bid are:

Northeast
New York
Boston
Philadelphia

South
Washington DC
Miami
Atlanta
Orlando
Dallas
Houston

Midwest
Chicago
Cleveland
Minneapolis
Detroit

West
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Denver
Phoenix
Seattle

12 cities would be chosen between this selection.
Using this as a basis...

Northeast
NYC - lock
Boston- lock
DC- lock

Philadelphia- chance only as a backup to DC and if there are no other worthy city in the midwest

South
Miami- somewhat lock
Houston- near lock
Dallas- near lock

Tampa- doubtful only as a backup to Miami

Midwest
Chicago- lock
Denver- near lock (moved here due to the plentiful options in the west)

Indianapolis- chance, not as big as the other cities
Minneapolis- needs a new stadium to have a chance
Detroit- chance
St louis- chance, would be a lock with a new stadium
Cleveland- chance

West
Los Angeles- lock
Seattle- lock

San Francisco- near lock, needs a new stadium
Phoenix- chance if SF doesn't get a stadium
San Diego- chance if they get a new stadium built and SF stumbles

I think 10 out of the 12 cities are claimed.

1 more from the midwest. Hard to pick from all those cities. Honestly I'd rather give another city to one of the other regions.

1 more from the west in which all SF has to do is get a new stadium built. If not, then probably Phoenix.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 12th, 2009, 04:31 AM   #1318
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.

Last edited by krudmonk; July 12th, 2009 at 04:37 AM.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old July 12th, 2009, 06:46 AM   #1319
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,507
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.
San Francisco does though not in the city proper.

And if some of these stadiums want the WC, they will have to do some modifications to their stadiums. For example, Chicago is NOT a lock without modification or a different stadium. LA, Denver, SF, Boston, New York and Philly will have to at least add covering for press and dignitaries. Same with DC and Miami(last owner of the stadium did express interest in a retractable roof).

On the other hand, Phoenix, Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Seattle are ready now.

Without modification, LA and San Diego will be left out. St Louis is FIFA World Cup recommendation ready, while the LA and San Diego venues are not. That's what's so great about it. In case we haven't noticed, the stadium requirements now are vastly different from the World Cup event than just friendlies. We're talking everything from having all seats, covered dignitary and media areas(at the least) and even field size. This is different from international friendlies where such things can be negotiated. In order to win the bid, the stadiums are a huge part of the equation. Especially with the competition that we will have from England, Spain, China and the Aussies. Every country in the running has big cities with good infrastructure. We aren't gonna beat China with the Rose Bowl and Giants Stadium. Especially not with Qualcomm stadium.
rantanamo no está en línea  
Old July 12th, 2009, 08:15 AM   #1320
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.
Both are discussing stadiums though.

As far as "covered area for press and dignitaries," club seats.
hngcm 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