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 25th, 2009, 09:16 AM   #1641
Lord David
Registered User
 
Lord David's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,785
Likes (Received): 104

Can't SF just host with an upgraded Stanford Stadium? it's 50,000 now, but what about adding a 10,000-20,000 third tier?
Lord David no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 25th, 2009, 09:25 AM   #1642
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord David View Post
Can't SF just host with an upgraded Stanford Stadium? it's 50,000 now, but what about adding a 10,000-20,000 third tier?
Stanford Stadium was built to be expandable to 65,000, but they struggle to sell close to the 50,000 they have now so I doubt Stanford would be in favor of expansion. As a result, Stanford has no reason to fund an expansion so who would fund it? The bid committee isn't going to fund stadium expansions when there are so many capable stadiums already and there won't be any government funding.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 25th, 2009, 09:31 AM   #1643
Lord David
Registered User
 
Lord David's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,785
Likes (Received): 104

^ Oh and your just hoping that SF get a new NFL stadium some time soon. Which isn't going to happen btw, because stadium plans and what stadiums will be used should be set in stone come bid book time.

Just because a new stadium just happens to be built years after the bid has been won, prior to hosting the WC, doesn't necessarily mean it will be used. Any proposals to build new stadiums should be put forward now and included in the bid, as for SF, the US bid site states Stanford Stadium as the stadium for that city should it be chosen, which even at a marginally low capacity (by US WC standards)m would most likely be chosen.
Lord David no está en línea  
Old October 25th, 2009, 09:36 AM   #1644
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

South Africa and Brazil have changed their bids A LOT after they've won the rights to host, I'm sure FIFA will let the USA do the same if it makes for a better world cup.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 25th, 2009, 09:44 AM   #1645
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

I never said that I San Francisco would host because I'm aware that the stadium situation is poor. I've said that IF the city were to get a stadium it would host. Stanford Stadium is still listed as a possibility, but so are other stadiums like Michigan Stadium, Husky Stadium and the Los Angeles Coliseum, all longshots at best to host.

Stadiums don't need to be set in stone by bid time, especially in the US' case. Other bids have changed considerably after bids and the US would most certainly be given more leeway in that sense because it has so many capable host stadiums. Brazil didn't even have a final list of stadiums or cities until after the bid. They petitioned successfully to have 12 cities host instead of 10 after they won the bid. Things can be changed post bid. Most likely, if the US is granted the right to host, they will do so with 16-18 approved cities by FIFA and won't have to narrow it down to a solid 12 until 5 years or so before they host as stadiums progress.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 25th, 2009, 06:34 PM   #1646
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

Sanford Stadium's field is too narrow now, actually. In '94 that wouldn't matter, in 2022 it will.
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old October 26th, 2009, 02:21 AM   #1647
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

My choice of cities can be divided in two "conferences" like NBA, NFL, MLS or NHL: East and West. These conferences are big clusters because of the United states' geography.
East: NY, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, Miami, Atlanta
West: LA, Dallas, SF (Phoenix), Houston, Denver, Seattle
for the group matches, each team will play its two first games in one conference and the last in the other.
A, C, E, G: East, East, West
B, D, F, H: West, West, East

I think the US will have lots of time to build new stadiums for cities which need of modern stadiums
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 26th, 2009, 05:08 AM   #1648
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
My choice of cities can be divided in two "conferences" like NBA, NFL, MLS or NHL: East and West. These conferences are big clusters because of the United states' geography.
East: NY, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, Miami, Atlanta
West: LA, Dallas, SF (Phoenix), Houston, Denver, Seattle
for the group matches, each team will play its two first games in one conference and the last in the other.
A, C, E, G: East, East, West
B, D, F, H: West, West, East

I think the US will have lots of time to build new stadiums for cities which need of modern stadiums
That's unnecessary travel IMO. I say four regions and two groups in each region, without the last match somewhere else.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 29th, 2009, 07:03 AM   #1649
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

According to an independent firm, a US hosted World Cup in 2018 or 2022 would bring $5 billion to the economy.

Quote:
NEW YORK (October 27, 2009) – The USA Bid Committee today released a study conducted by an independent consulting firm that estimates a conservative domestic economic impact of five billion dollars if the United States is chosen to host the FIFA World Cup™ in 2018 or 2022. The analysis also estimates that between 65,000 and 100,000 total new jobs would be created in the various host cities during the preparation and operation of the tournament in the year of the event. The study was undertaken by the Economics practice at AECOM, formerly Economics Research Associates (ERA), the world’s leading international sports and entertainment attraction consulting firm. The research firm previously conducted the economic and community impact analyses for the 1994 FIFA World Cup™ in the United States and multiple studies for the Olympic Games, beginning with the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles.

The findings of the study indicate that the total economic impact projected for any one host city ranges from approximately $400 million to $600 million at today’s dollar value. That figure is based on 12 host cities staging five to six matches, along with ancillary venues such as the International Broadcast Center (IBC) in one city and FIFA Fan Fest™ in each city. The study also estimates 5,000 to 8,000 jobs would be created in each host city during the event’s operation.

“The numbers delivered by this study fully support our initial estimations,” said David Downs, the USA Bid Committee Executive Director. “While the economic impact to our country and our cities during the World Cup will be of vast significance, our goal is to have an even greater impact during the eight to 12 years leading up to the event that will stimulate the development of the game and the soccer economy, both at national and international levels.”

The USA Bid Committee worked with the Economics practice at AECOM to identify three prototype FIFA World Cup™ candidate markets – Phoenix, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. – to serve as guides for the potential economic impact of the FIFA World Cup™ hosted in the U.S. For this specific study, the identified cities correspond to examples of three predefined market types representative of the 27 metro areas under consideration as host cities. Atlanta was used as the prototype for a market that could host the IBC while Washington, D.C. served as an example of a host for the Opening Match or Final Match. The economic impact on the three cities was then factored by analyzing the following six characteristics: resident market demographics, tourist market factors, competitive market dynamics, climate, regional accessibility and prominence as a soccer and overall sports market.

A list of the finalist cities and stadiums, all of which are vying to be included in the USA Bid Committee’s formal bid book to FIFA on May 14, 2010, can be found on the bid’s official Web page, goUSAbid.com. Numerous U.S. markets that did not host matches during the FIFA World Cup™ in 1994 remain under consideration, including Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, Denver, Seattle and Miami.

From New York City to Los Angeles and Jacksonville to San Diego, the 27 remaining U.S. candidate cities range widely in size and community offerings. The cities are highlighted by 32 stadiums that average nearly 78,000 seats in capacity and represent a wide spectrum of facilities, including venues typically used for college and professional football, featuring open-air, domed and retractable roof venues. All 32 stadiums currently exist or are under construction with eight accommodating between 80,000 and 108,000 fans.

FIFA’s criterion requires a candidate host nation to provide a minimum of 12 stadiums and a maximum of 18 capable of seating 40,000 or more spectators. To host the Opening and Final Matches, FIFA requires stadiums have a minimum capacity of 80,000. The U.S. used stadiums in nine cities when it hosted the 1994 FIFA World Cup™.

The total potential impact estimates to each region as a result of a FIFA World Cup™ held in the United States in 2018 or 2022 incorporate several factors, beginning with venue and Fan Fest operations (staffing, utilities and maintenance). The figure also includes projected tourist expenditures surrounding the tournament (accommodation, food and beverage, transportation and retail), plus resident and tourist expenditures attributable to the FIFA Fan Fests. Expenditures made by media personnel in regards to the IBC are included as well, along with temporary stadium overlay expenses.

The IBC will be located in one World Cup host city and serve as the headquarters for national and global media leading up to and during the World Cup. It is estimated that more than 9,000 media and staff will be working out of the IBC for the World Cup, producing an estimated direct impact of more than $80 million for that host city. That figure includes more than 325,000 visitor nights during the operation of the IBC by accredited media from around the world and employees of FIFA’s designated host broadcast coverage provider.

The FIFA Fan Fest™ made a successful debut at the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany. These public viewing parties enhanced the atmosphere around the 64 tournament matches in 2006 by giving fans an opportunity to experience the community of the FIFA World Cup™ without purchasing a ticket. FIFA Fan Fest™ will continue to be staged in each host city in cooperation with FIFA and its major corporate partners. It is estimated that 18 to 21 million people attended the Fan Fest events in the 12 German host cities over the 31 days of the 2006 tournament. According to the Economics practice at AECOM economic impact study, the prototype U.S. cities would generate from $29 million to $37 million each from their Fan Fest events.

The economic impact, earnings and employment figures included in the study are assumed to occur in the calendar year in which the FIFA World Cup™ would take place (2018 or 2022). These numbers do not incorporate additional expenditures and impacts that would occur in the years leading up to the tournament, as the cities and local organizing committees prepare for the event. The analysis also presents its data for 2018 and 2022 based on today’s U.S. dollar, but an expected annual inflation of three percent could appropriately be applied to the figures.

“While the quantifiable results of this research are quite impressive, they do not begin to calculate the enormous goodwill and international advertising exposure that each city would receive by means of the billions in cumulative television audience that will tune in for the event worldwide,” added Downs. “We have shared this report with all 27 candidate host cities and envision it serving as a guide for them to develop their own proprietary analysis. Representatives from each candidate city have been encouraged to examine the data and draw their own conclusions based on their city's internal forecasts and economic predictions.”

The United States, Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan and Russia have formally declared their desire to host the FIFA World Cup™ in 2018 or 2022. Netherlands-Belgium and Portugal-Spain have each submitted joint bids for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, while Qatar and South Korea have applied as candidates to play host only to the tournament in 2022.

All candidates must have their bid applications to FIFA by May 14, 2010. FIFA’s 24member Executive Committee will study the bids, conduct site visits and name the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments on December 2, 2010, completing a 21-month bid and review process.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 29th, 2009, 10:15 PM   #1650
-Corey-
Je suis tout à vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,218
Likes (Received): 5222

Im glad that San Diego is being considered as one of the candidates cities for either 2018/2020 World Cup.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea  
Old October 29th, 2009, 11:03 PM   #1651
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Corey- View Post
Im glad that San Diego is being considered as one of the candidates cities for either 2018/2020 World Cup.
They kind of are. They're really just keeping their name in there, but if they don't get a new stadium soon, they sure won't be hosting matches.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 01:49 AM   #1652
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
According to an independent firm, a US hosted World Cup in 2018 or 2022 would bring $5 billion to the economy.
I am impatient to know ambassadors who will promote the US bid apart Mia Hamm and Landon Donovan.
It seems Washington DC would be presented as hosting opening game or final.
Phoenix and Atlanta could be in bid as candidates.
The bid team should use these numbers to show the potential to FIFA executive members and make the final presentation with emotion and show the heritage and legacy for the country and next generations.
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 02:02 AM   #1653
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
That's unnecessary travel IMO. I say four regions and two groups in each region, without the last match somewhere else.
On the last world cups since 1998, all teams played the three first games in three different stadiums. FIFA would use clusters for 2014 WC because Brazil is a large country. It could be an inspiration for large countries.
I made a consensus:

East
Northeast: Boston, NY, Washington DC
Central: Chicago, Miami, Atlanta

West
Midwest: Houston, Dallas, Denver
Pacific: LA, San Francisco, Seattle

I am reflecting about your opinion and solutions to reduce travels between cities.
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 03:14 AM   #1654
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
On the last world cups since 1998, all teams played the three first games in three different stadiums. FIFA would use clusters for 2014 WC because Brazil is a large country. It could be an inspiration for large countries.
I made a consensus:

East
Northeast: Boston, NY, Washington DC
Central: Chicago, Miami, Atlanta

West
Midwest: Houston, Dallas, Denver
Pacific: LA, San Francisco, Seattle

I am reflecting about your opinion and solutions to reduce travels between cities.
I also don't think Atlanta hosts in the Georgia Dome so the Falcons would have to get that new stadium that they've begun exploring. I think you're spot on with the Northeast and Pacific, but I'd have a South region of Dallas, Houston and Miami with a Central region of Chicago, Detroit and Denver.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 05:12 AM   #1655
incsrahug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

No, not yet at least. But I'm happy enough to trade less character for decent toilets, seats you can fit into, decent food outlets, better sightlines etc.

The old Wembley was a real tip on my (only) visit there 11 years ago.

That said, my only match at the old Wembley was the play-off final between Charlton and Sunderland (3-3 FT, 4-4 AET, 7-6 on penalties) which was voted the greatest match ever at Wembley by FourFourTwo Magazine even ahead of the '66 world cup final, so that kinda made up for the shittiness of the stadium! How lucky is that? The only match I went to at that stadium was voted the best one ever played there?!
incsrahug no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 06:35 AM   #1656
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I also don't think Atlanta hosts in the Georgia Dome so the Falcons would have to get that new stadium that they've begun exploring. I think you're spot on with the Northeast and Pacific, but I'd have a South region of Dallas, Houston and Miami with a Central region of Chicago, Detroit and Denver.
I found an alternative

East
Northeast: NY, Boston, Washington DC
South: Miami, Dallas, Houston

West
Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas city (or St Louis)
Pacific: LA, SF, Seattle
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 07:14 AM   #1657
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
I found an alternative

East
Northeast: NY, Boston, Washington DC
South: Miami, Dallas, Houston

West
Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas city (or St Louis)
Pacific: LA, SF, Seattle
Detroit is one of the top 15 most populous cities in the country. I don't know why you would want to exclude it, especially when it brings the World Cup to the north, a region that would otherwise be ignored.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old October 30th, 2009, 05:31 PM   #1658
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJones View Post
I found an alternative

East
Northeast: NY, Boston, Washington DC
South: Miami, Dallas, Houston

West
Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas city (or St Louis)
Pacific: LA, SF, Seattle
None of those cities are near each other. The closest would be St Louis and Chicago that's 5 hours. Chicago and Kansas is closer to 10 by road.

If you want an actual compact grouping that would allow tourist to follow their teams. It would have to be something like Minneapolis, Chicago, St Louis and Detroit/Indianapolis
SIC no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2009, 12:44 PM   #1659
BoulderGrad
Registered User
 
BoulderGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,478
Likes (Received): 1143

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
Detroit is one of the top 15 most populous cities in the country. I don't know why you would want to exclude it, especially when it brings the World Cup to the north, a region that would otherwise be ignored.
True, its up there population wise, but Chicago is #3 in the whole country and in the same region. I think Chicago (a city that's not shrinking, and got the shaft in the olympic bid) would be the best choice to represent the northern Midwest.
__________________
My safety word is "Keep Going."
BoulderGrad no está en línea  
Old October 31st, 2009, 05:54 PM   #1660
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

The Olympic bidding should not be a factor...
krudmonk 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 01:30 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