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 20th, 2009, 04:13 AM   #1621
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

The legacy of the 1994 World Cup is three fully professional divisions. Hard to argue with.
Bobby3 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 22nd, 2009, 10:05 AM   #1622
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

The US bid will have a least six modern or new generation stadiums (Chicago, NY, LA, Dallas, Phoenix,Houston, Seattle). I found this article a bout Los Angeles stadium. They may have cleared a step before beginning to build this stadium.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,649786.column

I consider LA, NY, Washington DC to host the opening match and/or the final.
Seattle seems to be an important city for the US bid.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...16_regr21.html

In case of 2022 world awarded to the US, It would have only three stadiums to be built for the event: LA, SF, Washington DC.
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 06:10 PM   #1623
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
This is part of the reason I think Russia has a good shot in 2018. Of the European bids they would benefit the most from a stadium infrastructure legacy.
True, but on the flip side the cost efficiency of that investment doesn't seem to make sense.

It's an interesting debate at every bid process - How much is the event a celebration of existing passion and facilities versus intended to create so many new venues and new legacies?!

Viva la difference, I guess.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 07:05 PM   #1624
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
The US bid will have a least six modern or new generation stadiums (Chicago, NY, LA, Dallas, Phoenix,Houston, Seattle). I found this article a bout Los Angeles stadium. They may have cleared a step before beginning to build this stadium.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,649786.column

I consider LA, NY, Washington DC to host the opening match and/or the final.
Seattle seems to be an important city for the US bid.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...16_regr21.html

In case of 2022 world awarded to the US, It would have only three stadiums to be built for the event: LA, SF, Washington DC.
The LA stadium has essentially gotten the go-ahead, but is waiting on a team to commit. Once a team has announced its intention to move here, they will break ground. There has been no mention as to the width of the playing surface at the stadium though so if it could host a World Cup match, we're not sure. I attempted to contact them and ask, but they provide no email address so I sent out a letter the other day. Hopefully I get a response.

I don't think both Seattle and Phoenix host unless San Francisco doesn't get a new stadium. With 2022 looking far more likely, that's 13 years so I think SF gets their stadium and Seattle and Phoenix have to fight it out to be able to host.

I also believe Washington DC has a new stadium by 2022 and knowing Daniel Snyder, it will rival what Jerry Jones has built so it will be 90,000-100,000 seats with a roof, making it my choice to host the final. I would have New York and LA hosting the semifinals, with those two also battling it out to host the opening match. Las Vegas gets the draw.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 07:42 PM   #1625
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Please do not let them put the semi-finals on opposite ends of the country. The more confined the geography and limited the travel, the better. This isn't the middle of the NFL season, so I hope they treat the fans and teams better than that.

Given the community's soccer pedigree and how beautiful Qwest Field has proven, if Seattle is passed over for another city that would rank as a travesty. SF is a nice city and Univ of Phoenix stadium is pretty good, but Seattle has earned this as much as any other city in the US.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 08:56 PM   #1626
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Please do not let them put the semi-finals on opposite ends of the country. The more confined the geography and limited the travel, the better. This isn't the middle of the NFL season, so I hope they treat the fans and teams better than that.

Given the community's soccer pedigree and how beautiful Qwest Field has proven, if Seattle is passed over for another city that would rank as a travesty. SF is a nice city and Univ of Phoenix stadium is pretty good, but Seattle has earned this as much as any other city in the US.
If San Francisco has a stadium, they will host. They're a world-renowned city that is far more enticing to foreign visitors. That leaves it to Seattle and Phoenix. Qwest Field is beautiful, but so is Univ. of Phoenix Stadium and while Seattle has shown amazing support for soccer, Phoenix has almost three time as many people. I don't think it's a given and grass at University of Phoenix versus turf at Qwest could be a determining factor.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 10:28 PM   #1627
TugaMtl
Registered User
 
TugaMtl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,679
Likes (Received): 18

I'm against having the world cup in USA because the country is too big. Going from the West Coast to the East Coast takes like 4-5 hours by plane. At least in a small countries you can go to all of the cities that are playing the games and get a piece of the atmosphere whether you watch the game in the stadium or not. You could theoretically do this in the States too but doing so would rape your wallet.

Last edited by TugaMtl; October 23rd, 2009 at 06:57 AM.
TugaMtl no está en línea  
Old October 22nd, 2009, 11:51 PM   #1628
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

**** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 12:31 AM   #1629
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
**** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team.
**** visitors? It's the World Cup...a time to welcome visitors and the rest of the world. The size of the country presents a hurdle, but I don't think it's a big enough problem to do much damage to the bid when there is so much good about it.

As for MLS support, that shouldn't be a major determining factor as to who hosts. Then you're penalizing cities without teams that may not have a team because of something completely out of the soccer fans hands in that city. Look at St. Louis. It's one of the best soccer cities in America, but it doesn't have a team. Should they be ignored because of that? Seattle has proven to be a fantastic soccer city, but had the World Cup been here in 2006, would you have said they can't host because they don't have a team? Yes, soccer support is something that should be taken into account, but it's not the biggest of factors and support for the sport goes well beyond MLS.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 01:13 AM   #1630
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

I don't think SF would be favored over Seattle anymore. Seattle supported the USL Sounders pretty well, too. The Victory had like 6 fans.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 03:53 AM   #1631
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

On the Go USA Bid site, San Francisco's proposed stadium is down at Stanford, across two county lines and at least half an hour away with no traffic. The San Jose Earthquakes, about twice as far, are the team noted as being local. SF is beloved and praised for being a walkable city, but even access to Candlestick would be tough for most visitors, let alone Palo Alto or Santa Clara (proposed 49ers stadium). It's hardly even a San Francisco bid.

Seattle's facility is quite close to the city core and has at least some soccer heritage. The team itself dates back to 1974 and that should be emphasized to foreigners who may not realize the legacy of the game in the United States. The only hangup I have right now is the artificial turf, but I assume they'd take care of that long in advance, not like the sod they rolled out for Chelsea and Barcelona. Oh, and the prized visitors will be fine with a city in the same vein.

I'm lobbying against games being played closer to me and for a fanbase that honestly annoys me, but that's not of paramount importance. I'd rather a World Cup showcase American soccer over American cities. Plus, that god damn high-speed rail should be built by 2022 so I can just hop a train to Los Angeles and likely catch more important matches than we'd see anyway.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 06:06 AM   #1632
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
I'm lobbying against games being played closer to me and for a fanbase that honestly annoys me
care to elaborate?
JYDA no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 06:10 AM   #1633
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
care to elaborate?
Eh, just the self-aggrandizing talk, as if there was no quality MLS support before the Sounders...
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 06:38 AM   #1634
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Some of the stadiums they have currently listed as potential sites are basically holding sites. Candlestick or Stanford Stadium won't host a match, but they need something to list for San Francisco. It's why the Rose Bowl and Coliseum are listed for LA, RFK on there for DC, etc.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 07:44 AM   #1635
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
ryebreadraz Quote:

Originally Posted by krudmonk
**** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team.


**** visitors? It's the World Cup...a time to welcome visitors and the rest of the world. The size of the country presents a hurdle, but I don't think it's a big enough problem to do much damage to the bid when there is so much good about it.
A little harsh but I know what Krudmonk means. Fans will still fly anywhere, it may be a logistical struggle to fly 20 000 fans from one side of the country to the other within a couple of days but in any case, the Stadiums will still be filled by enthusiastic locals. Some actual teams may be a little to precious, they should learn something from domestic leagues of the US, Australia and Russia who would travel cross country every fortnight.

Anyway, long distance travel its going to happen because one WC is going to Europe and the other will either be the US (lower 48) or Australia which are roughly the same size.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 08:23 AM   #1636
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Some of the stadiums they have currently listed as potential sites are basically holding sites. Candlestick or Stanford Stadium won't host a match, but they need something to list for San Francisco. It's why the Rose Bowl and Coliseum are listed for LA, RFK on there for DC, etc.
A placeholder for what, though? The only stadium which is even a dream right now woul be (won't be) in Santa Clara. That's not even close to San Francisco. Places like Liverpool and Manchester or Glasgow and Edinburgh are nearer each other. Sprawl is the only reason we see it as being the same area.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 08:26 AM   #1637
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

A placeholder for a possible future stadium. If they only considered stadiums that currently stand, San Francisco and Los Angeles would not be viable candidates. If they didn't consider stadiums that need renovations to be able to host, Washington DC is out. The stadium being proposed means very little right now. It's the city that matters and Santa Clara is plenty fine if the stadium meets the requirements.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 23rd, 2009, 09:50 AM   #1638
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Seattle will host no matter what.

Phoenix will replace SF if they don't get a stadium.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 24th, 2009, 11:59 PM   #1639
emergencyroom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

..
emergencyroom no está en línea  
Old October 25th, 2009, 12:03 AM   #1640
emergencyroom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

San Francisco is an iconic and beautiful city with people from all over the world.
It is popular with tourists and has good infrastructure. People from outside the US would choose it over Phoenix any day even if the actual stadium is in Santa Clara or Stanford.
emergencyroom 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 05:49 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