USA - Stadium and Arena Development News

[DeMaFrost]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Busch might be the last.

What were they? Busch, Riverfront, Three Rivers, Fulton County, the Vet (to an extent), oh, forgot about San Diego, though its all football now, ummmm, Anahiem, though it was nice renovated and doesn't resemble the cookie cutters now. Can't think of anymore.

Anyways, like the new stadium. Yes, the MLB parks use a lot of bricks, but each one has its own feel and style.

I think the only 5 true cookiecutters were the first 5 you mentioned. They were so similar at first that players would (jokingly?) remark they didn't know whether they were in St. Louis, Philly, or Atlanta until they looked at the other teams players. What were they thinking???

I think the other ones you mentioned were similar to cookie cutters. Anaheim had the rounded bowl shape, but it wasn't truely circular, same with Jack Murphey/Qualquomm in San Diego. They were not molded in the same style that was eerily similar at the other 5 parks

[Nameless]

The new stadium looks awesome. For a cookie cutter staidum Busch really doesn't look that bad. They have done a nice job with what they have.

[FerrariEnzo]

Its ugly and unimaginative.

I see that the photo for Jordan-Hare Stadium at Auburn University (#10, 86,063 seats)
is no longer showing up, so here are several photos (the last 7 were shot by me):












WIDE Panorama -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

[Toadboy]

The scale is amazing, the design dull. I'm suprised a nation as modern and sophisticated as the US allows benches to be used in place of individual seating.

How practical is to have such huge stands at the sides? What's the viewing like from the upper decks and how do so many people disperse and circulate outside once the game is over?

[rantanamo]

I guess its hard for those that didn't grow up with college football to understand college football. College football is about tradition. The same songs have been sung for decades or over a century in some cases. School alumni come back and support their school more vehemently than any pro teams in the US. This allows for huge fan bases in comparison to pro teams. One may move to different cities and find new pro teams, but you take your college Alma-Mater wherever you go. So the stadiums must balance luxury, capacity and tradition which includes a lot of pageantry. Its not about trying to be modern and sophisticated when you're talking about college football. More benches are tradition, plus they allow more capacity. The old stadia are way too beloved, so they expand and renovate. The stadia have luxury suites, some individual seats and modern communication, but something like Wembley or Soldier Field would be considered blasphemous in the NCAA. That's just how college football is. Even the uniforms of the major universities rarely change, if much at all. Teams like Texas, USC, Penn State or Ohio State have been wearing the same uniforms for many, many years, and they are basic, even though these are universities with budgets in the billions and athletic departments with budgest well into the tens of millions.

Just look at the training and accomodations at Texas. Does this say, not modern to you?

Practice facility:









The orientation of the stands have everything to do with the nature of the game. When viewing our football, the sides are by far the best view. Our football is very complicated and you can simply see more of the strategy and individual battles from the sides, as opposed to the endzones. The endzone view is great when the team is on your end only, otherwise you are too flat to understand why the Belly 34 or Y slant has been killing your defense all day. The viewing angles are high, but you can really see the field. Our football is funny in that being close is a really horrible view unlike basketball or hockey. Near the top of the first tier on the 50 yardline(mid field) are the best seats and most expensive usually. So, owners try to get as many people with decent views, so they can charge more. People circulate just fine. I've never had a problem getting out of the upper decks at DKR after games.

Someone mentioned how big the stadiums are without being closed in. Neyland and the Horseshoe(Ohio Stadium) show just how big these things can be when enclosed. Here's an expansion plan for DKR that would increase capacity from nearly 81,000 to 0ver 114,000 making it the largest football venue in the US. Being the largest university in the US, the University of Texas has reached the alumni + student mass that it needs this by the end of the decade. At over 80,000 the place is sold out every game far in advance and is literally spilling over.

Now:




Expansion

[Toadboy]

Fill the ends in!

I know what you mean about tradition and the 1st time I visited the states (1990) I was shocked at how big college football was.

The point about individual seats and benches is a safety issue, you simply couldn't build a new stadium in the UK with benches or bleachers in the seated area, the law demands an individual seat for every fan. In terms of tradition football fans like standing terraces but they are a big no no at the larger venues. Do any stadiums there still have standing sections? I believe Cleveland did. That goes for most of Europe I believe. You also wouldn't get away with building a stadium without any cover for spectators which also drives the cost up.

One other thing you notice about north American stadia is their locality which more often than not seems to allow for car parking all around the area. Most European stadia are inner city or suburban.

I went to an NFL game in Tampa and the buzz around the car park was something you simply don't get here, although people here tend to disperse to loacl pubs, bars and cafes pre match.

If Texas do fill the ends of that stadium it will be intense with 114,000 covering 4 sides - a real home advantage!

I wonder how loud arrowhead would be if it had over 100,000 seats... whoo...
It only has 80,000 seats yet it's still one of the loudest in the nation.
Go Chiefs!!!!
[img]http://photos.***************/kcgridlock/kansascitymissouriattractions/arrowhead.jpg[/img]


And don't forget the other football played at arrowhead...

[SDK4]

Doak Campbell Stadium in Tallahassee, Florida is not only the best college football stadium, it is the best ever built anywhere. This place can get really loud during FSU-Florida rivalry games.

Sounder should have noted which of those 51 stadia were on college campuses and not used by professional teams (28 of them). Apparently, some people didn't read the explanation for why college stadia use bleachers instead of individual seats. While cities can use bonds and tax revenue to build brand new stadia for professional teams, colleges primarily rely on alumni donations to build or expand their own stadia. Most college stadia were first built in the early 1900's with only a fraction of their present-day capacities and were slowly enlarged over the years by different expansions to meet increasing demand for tickets. And still most have waiting lists for season tickets and could benefit from even greater capacity to accomodate all of their fans. So bleacher-style seating is obviously more beneficial for college stadia for a number of reasons.

I'll give you an example of the growth history of one college stadium--Jordan-Hare Stadium at Auburn University:

1939 - opened with a capcity of 7,500 (lower east side of present-day stadium)
1949 - capacity increased to 21,500 with addition of seating on the west side
1955 - additional seating added to east side, bringing capacity to 34,500
1960 - seating added to one end zone to create a horseshoe with a capacity of 44,500
1970 - seating added to other end zone to create a bowl with a capacity of 61,261
1980 - west upper deck added, bringing capacity to 72,169
1987 - east upper deck (with 2 levels of luxury skyboxes) added, bringing capacity to 85,214
1999 - 398 seats added to south end zone, bringing capacity to 86,063

Another small expansion project is presently underway which will raise capacity even further, and their are plans for further expansion in the near future.


By the way, why don't the Europeans who are comparing our college stadia (built mostly by private donations) with their professional stadia (built with public funds) show us photos of their college stadia? What? Your colleges don't have stadia this large and impressive?

duplicate post

nah...the majority of the european stadia belong to the clubs and hence were built by private funds

Originally Posted by Rudi Völler

nah...the majority of the european stadia belong to the clubs and hence were built by private funds

Regardless, professional sports here in America usually charge much more for tickets than colleges do which helps them generate more revenue. Professional stadia also benefit from corporate sponsorship and advertising. Anyway, it's hard to compare stadia in the USA and Europe since there aren't a lot of massive college stadia in Europe as there are over here.

true. in fact we dont got any college stadium that is worth mentioning (if anyone knows one you can correct me). college sport is either non existant here or negligible, so a comparison is bs

[kingdomca]

Randy please dont start embarrassing americans again by making silly comparisons based on your own country. Sport is simply not based around schools in europe, but clubs and as such comparisons are a joke, in fact in my country comparisons would be impossible as there isnt a single university field of any kind. students do sports at local clubs.

Britain (and perhaps others) are slightly different in that schools play organised sports, in fact thats where the origins of both US and european football are, but not as a spectator sport. Fans would always go to the pro game.
Dont forget in europe pro sport is not a small closed shop. The number of pro teams is infinite. any team can decide to go pro and get promoted to ever better leagues etc. No club would let themselves be held back by having only students if they could sustain being pro.

How about we found a country where company sport is big, played by the employees. Could we then compare them to coca cola or microsoft´s venues?

However unless I am mistaken there are just 30 pro american football teams which is the same as a shocking one per 10 million!!
That would be the equivalent of just 6 pro teams in england.
If you want to compare something just take all the US teams and compare them to all the european teams.

[rantanamo]

^ I don't get your point. Randy was pointing this out, and I pointed out why certain things are the way they are, but some simply don't get the point.

First of all, there are not just 30 professional football teams. In NA, there is the CFL, Arena FL, Arena 2 FL, and hundreds of semi-pro teams, that play in smaller stadia throughout the country. I would say there are hundreds of teams actually. Same for baseball(minor leagues) and NBA(CBA/NBDL). Pro sports is not a closed shop. What most see oversees are simply the top level.

I believe the root of American football is at the high school level. This is where fans are born, players gain reputations, and the passion is big. College football is simply the same thing on a higher level, with bigger stadia, bigger/better athletes, more fans, etc. In our two most popular sports right now (baseball and football) there takes a great deal of skill(baseball) or, skill and mature body(football).

Baseball uses the system of drafting players from college or high school. Some players choose the college atmosphere or to get a free education. Some choose to go to the minors and make smaller money now. There are hundreds of minor league teams. These are considered professional as it is pay to play as well as many major leaguers being dropped their to rehab injuries or player are immediately called to the majors to fill spots.

Football simply uses a different system. On paper, to football is a very mentally tough game to play. There is a lot of technique to learn. A large skillset to master. On the field, the game is very, very fast off of the lines. On the lines it is very skilled and physical. A high school kid, or even high school graduate simply does not have the speed, brains, contact balance, strength or musculature to be able to play at the pro level. So the college game is used as the training ground. So why not just have a minor league system like baseball does. My quick answer would be two things: a.)football is very hard to judge for the future, and b.) football rosters are huge, having often more than 100 players in leagues below the pro-level. As for the judging, you get many raw super athlete's out of high school. Some guys are simply great athletes and go on to play baseball or run track events. They may not have the mental make-up to play football, or be able to develop the necessary skill-set. U.S. track and field is filled with these guys. Yes, skill athletes on a football field are that fast. As for the numbers, How do you pay them all? You can't. College football is a great training ground, and it features the best players for those ages 18-22/23, so you are still getting great entertainment.

So, its just different. Not better or worse. Just how it is. College football is huge!!! Can't wait for the season to start. Hook em' Horns!!.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Fill the ends in!

I know what you mean about tradition and the 1st time I visited the states (1990) I was shocked at how big college football was.

The point about individual seats and benches is a safety issue, you simply couldn't build a new stadium in the UK with benches or bleachers in the seated area, the law demands an individual seat for every fan. In terms of tradition football fans like standing terraces but they are a big no no at the larger venues. Do any stadiums there still have standing sections? I believe Cleveland did. That goes for most of Europe I believe. You also wouldn't get away with building a stadium without any cover for spectators which also drives the cost up.

One other thing you notice about north American stadia is their locality which more often than not seems to allow for car parking all around the area. Most European stadia are inner city or suburban.

I went to an NFL game in Tampa and the buzz around the car park was something you simply don't get here, although people here tend to disperse to loacl pubs, bars and cafes pre match.

If Texas do fill the ends of that stadium it will be intense with 114,000 covering 4 sides - a real home advantage!

I agree. Texas fans want the endzones filled badly. The delay has been the need to upgrade the other sports first. We hired a first rate basketball coach and actually reached the Final Four a couple of years ago, so the basketball arena and training facilities took first priority. Then the baseball team won the college world series and was second this year. Now alumni want the baseball stadium renovated and upgraded. So I guess the football upgrade will come towards the end of the decade unless we get a nice gift from alumni(UT is second to only Harvard in alumni gifts)

I'm curious as to the safety concern about benches as opposed to seats. Is it a capacity concern? The benches are steel or plastic and often have dividers and even seats that fold.

I can't think of any standing sections. The new Cleveland stadium has a benched section to replace the old Dog Pound. As for covers for the stands, it simply a taboo. Though we have a ton of domes, covered and retractable roof stadia, they still have a bit of a stigma. You often hear, "_______ was meant to be played and watched under the sun." That goes for rain sleet or snow. I couldn't imagine Michigan or the Green Bay Packers with covered stands or in a dome. Just ask any American fan about this. I don't know why, but its just that way for whatever reason. Yes, we are weird.

As for our localities, it just depends on the sport and where. Most NFL stadia are build in a sea of parking lots, though some are built in urban areas. We are a car dominated society and the stadia are built for maximum revenue. Most MLB baseball stadia and basketball arenas are built more urban though. Most large college stadia though, are built on campus, and many are as old as the campus. Texas' DKR memorial has one student parking lot near it, that's scheduled to be covered with new student housing soon. Otherwise you bus in, walk in, have someone drop you off, or park in the parking garages on the perifery of the campus. Makes for great pre and post game atmospheres.

From what I understand on these boards, in spirit, our college sports are more similar to your pro sports. Our professional sports seems to be more corporate in nature.

You can move Florida Field up, it's way more than 83k now. I'm not sure about the actual number, but at the UF-FSU game last year there was 92k and change.

Florida Field, a.k.a. "The Swamp" is considered the loudest stadium in the country by many. Partly because of the capacity (90k we'll call it), partly because of the fans (notoriously rabid, including myself) and a large part due to the design. "The Concrete Pit" as one of my FSU friends calls it. There are angles and walls that only amp the sound up more.

Not the best pic, but it'll do:




Here's one of Michigan Stadium (don't fall )




An abnormal view of The Rose Bowl after they "won" the National Championship



Another view of Michigan Stadium:



That's all for now

[kingdomca]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

^ I don't get your point. Randy was pointing this out, and I pointed out why certain things are the way they are, but some simply don't get the point.

First of all, there are not just 30 professional football teams. In NA, there is the CFL, Arena FL, Arena 2 FL, and hundreds of semi-pro teams, that play in smaller stadia throughout the country. I would say there are hundreds of teams actually. Same for baseball(minor leagues) and NBA(CBA/NBDL). Pro sports is not a closed shop. What most see oversees are simply the top level.

I believe the root of American football is at the high school level. This is where fans are born, players gain reputations, and the passion is big. College football is simply the same thing on a higher level, with bigger stadia, bigger/better athletes, more fans, etc. In our two most popular sports right now (baseball and football) there takes a great deal of skill(baseball) or, skill and mature body(football).

Baseball uses the system of drafting players from college or high school. Some players choose the college atmosphere or to get a free education. Some choose to go to the minors and make smaller money now. There are hundreds of minor league teams. These are considered professional as it is pay to play as well as many major leaguers being dropped their to rehab injuries or player are immediately called to the majors to fill spots.

Football simply uses a different system. On paper, to football is a very mentally tough game to play. There is a lot of technique to learn. A large skillset to master. On the field, the game is very, very fast off of the lines. On the lines it is very skilled and physical. A high school kid, or even high school graduate simply does not have the speed, brains, contact balance, strength or musculature to be able to play at the pro level. So the college game is used as the training ground. So why not just have a minor league system like baseball does. My quick answer would be two things: a.)football is very hard to judge for the future, and b.) football rosters are huge, having often more than 100 players in leagues below the pro-level. As for the judging, you get many raw super athlete's out of high school. Some guys are simply great athletes and go on to play baseball or run track events. They may not have the mental make-up to play football, or be able to develop the necessary skill-set. U.S. track and field is filled with these guys. Yes, skill athletes on a football field are that fast. As for the numbers, How do you pay them all? You can't. College football is a great training ground, and it features the best players for those ages 18-22/23, so you are still getting great entertainment.

So, its just different. Not better or worse. Just how it is. College football is huge!!! Can't wait for the season to start. Hook em' Horns!!.

My point was that wanting to compare american university stadiums to european university stadiums would be pretty pointless given that there are no european ones.

I was aware that you probably had all sorts of smaller closed shop pro-leagues, but I would consider them beneath college and as such we would be pretty far down the comparison list. Judging from my own country Europe would have well beyond 2,000 pro clubs, though that sounds a bit high.

Anyway, one thing I really admire about college football is that they play so incredibly few games! I think thats great but its strange as it seems to be in stark contrast to both european and other american sport and is far better than having physically and especially mentally tired players.

Yes I understand you have lots of roofs and for all the ones that dont have its purely because you want it that way. Sure ok I shall not for as much as a second think that its because they cant afford it.
Nobody wants indoor football, I dont think, but I consider roofs over the stands important not least because of the atmosphere.

I am not sure why colleges compares to pro european clubs, colleges make little money play few games with amateurs, whereas euro clubs play too many games and is plenty coporate for the liking of most fans

[Lucky 24]

Some pics I took at Ralph Wilson stadium in Buffalo, NY:





Pano Scroll ->