USA - College Football Stadiums - Page 4 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | 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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 3rd, 2006, 10:43 AM   #61
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,246
Likes (Received): 3015

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonChickenpants
kingdomca and asohn,thanks.Can you also explain why these Uni's have smaller staduims than the others?.Are they smaller Colleges?

generally they are considerably smaller then the big state schools and most public universities. Also their major sport programs are usually not very good nationally (with lacrosse a possiable exception) since they have tougher academic standards for their student athletes so they don't often get the better athletes.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 3rd, 2006, 11:33 AM   #62
BaronVonChickenpants
Registered User
 
BaronVonChickenpants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON W12
Posts: 314
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee
generally they are considerably smaller then the big state schools and most public universities. Also their major sport programs are usually not very good nationally (with lacrosse a possiable exception) since they have tougher academic standards for their student athletes so they don't often get the better athletes.
thanks for that,always found it strange that you could get a scholarship to College based on being able to run very fast in a straight line
if we had the same system in the UK,i might have got a University place.Instead purely because i'm as dumb as an ox,i was barred from entry..
BaronVonChickenpants no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2006, 02:13 AM   #63
Scoots71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 14

Bryant-Denny Stadium could not be continued in the original design because the 2 current upper decks were not identical. One had luxury suites and the other had the press box and an extra small seating level, making for a height difference of six feet between the 2. Since the new deck would not be able to connect with both of the other two, they left a gap between the new one and the old ones, and created a slightly different, yet similar design.
Scoots71 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 4th, 2006, 04:21 AM   #64
Zaqattaq
Registered User
 
Zaqattaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,018
Likes (Received): 81

Your Beaver Stadium pics are out of date, also we can get in 109,000+











Someone find the old thread? It had so many good pictures
Zaqattaq no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2006, 05:21 AM   #65
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 363

Quote:
Originally Posted by EADGBE
You'd think with all the money sloshing around at Harvard, they could install a few seats! Considering they're housing some of America's (and the world's) most pampered arses, there is nowhere less appropriate for a stadium which is an incitement to a mass outbreak of haemorroids.

:-P
that should stop questions about bench seating in college stadiums. Its a tradition thing, nothing to do with money.
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2006, 05:41 AM   #66
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 363

Quote:
Originally Posted by EADGBE
My take on college stadiums is that they're often (but not always) visually spoiled by their piecemeal development. Very few seem to have a uniform or cohesive design. One of the few that has had (Byrant-Denny) then seemingly goes out of its way to interrupt the aesthetic it had created. What was wrong with carrying on the second tier behind both endzones to create a 'finished' effect? Does that invite criticism of being a cookie-cutter?

For all its enormity, Beaver Stadium suffers from this syndrome, as does DKR (although the current imbalance will to a large extent be rescued if the final 115,000 masterplan comes to fruition).

Maybe someone will try to tell me that it's not an issue of budget or planning but a physical manifestation of the 'back-to-basics' philosophy of the college football experience. While I don't doubt that its selling point is its integrity, an antidote the corporate, polished, pricey NFL, I don't see why this has to translate to the architecture.

To me, Ohio Stadium has a very strong identity and it looks all the better for it. Old-style bowls like Michigan, Pasadena and the Coliseum seem to best reflect the stripped-down approach that the fans always cite. The only place you would see these old style crater-style grounds outside of the USA was in the old European Eastern Bloc (Leipzig, Warsaw and St. Petersburg spring to mind), and even there they've been replaced - well two of those three have (I'm not sure St. Petersburg has).

I still feel that of all the sports in the world, only US College football has the abundance of money, the promise of demand and even the will to spurn current never-mind-the-width-feel-the-quality trends in stadium design. If one of the Universities wanted to, they could truly create a super-stadium that pushes the boundaries of capacity as far as it can go. Like a 4-sided DKR with curved ends the old upper deck running right the way around. Something that gets close to a 150,000 capacity.

They all seem to be doing a good job of getting to 90-100,000 and precluding themselves from going further.
i just think you simply don't understand college football. Example. Oilman T. Boone Pickens recently donate a few hundred million dollars to Oklahoma State's football program. Are they trying to build Reliant Stadium? nope. That's simply not what its about. I know that its something different from the outside and likely hard to understand. I wish for a little more conventional from the stadiums, but not too much. Too much uniformity is boring and architecturally causes a need for ornamentation. I prefer the functional oddities of an Autzen Stadium or Soldier Field.
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 02:49 AM   #67
EADGBE
Resonation's what u need
 
EADGBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo
that should stop questions about bench seating in college stadiums. Its a tradition thing, nothing to do with money.
I know, I know!

Can you not see the irony, though? The most expensive academic institution in the world invites its clientele to sit on bare concrete because of its Greek-influenced, corinthian values and traditions.

Of course, I'm familiar with the concept. In the UK, we have lots things that are shit because of tradition - but then we also have lots of things that are shit because [whoever] can't/won't pay more for better facilities. American tourists who encounter this usually think this is 'quaint' and because it's 'England', it's okay.

Conversely, it's very rare to see things kept deliberately shit for the sake of tradition in the US - and especially ironic when it's somewhere where there's enough money to buy a small country. Bench seating is fine. But no actual seating at all?! Probably only Harvard could get away with that.
EADGBE no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 03:24 AM   #68
EADGBE
Resonation's what u need
 
EADGBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo
i just think you simply don't understand college football. Example. Oilman T. Boone Pickens recently donate a few hundred million dollars to Oklahoma State's football program. Are they trying to build Reliant Stadium? nope. That's simply not what its about. I know that its something different from the outside and likely hard to understand. I wish for a little more conventional from the stadiums, but not too much. Too much uniformity is boring and architecturally causes a need for ornamentation. I prefer the functional oddities of an Autzen Stadium or Soldier Field.
Maybe I understand it more than you think I do - from the outside.

I would never have mentioned Reliant as to do so confuses the issue as it represents more than just architectural uniformity. It also carries connotations of modernity which I know is not necessarily the 'point' of college sport.

I understand and admire the fact that college culture rejects the polished sophistication of the NFL. I appreciate that it is about the stripped-down experience with bench seating, old-fashioned parades without the cup-holders, WiFi access, etc. etc.

I was just bemoaning the fact that there doesn't seem to be a plan to push the boundaries of capacity, even in the long term, beyond UT's intended 115k. Where extensions are built, they often appear out of place almost to the extent of being ad hoc in their design.

I take your point about functional oddities, albeit a personal view borne of aesthetics. I'm not sure you can compare Soldier Field's daring attempt to break conventions with, say, Kyle Field's ugly pragmatism and describe them both as having 'functional oddities' as if they are in any way comparable. Of all the venues above, I would say that Neyland is the most comfortable with its completed style. As I also intimated earlier, the same could be said to be true of the old single-tier 'bowls' at Ann Arbor, LA and Pasadena.

Imagine Beaver Stadium with its rounded endzone 2&3 tiers extended throughout. Imagine the numbers it could accommodate. With its unclad supports, it would still retain its credentials. And yet from the experience of other college stadia, its next extension is more likely to be a different shape. Like Texas, it might be for reasons of planning conditions. Or like Bryant-Denny, it may be through lack of foresight in the construction of the previous elements.

I'm not criticising the colleges for this. They all have hugely impressive monuments to their sporting and cultural prowess. I'm just surprised that at least one of them hasn't appeared to pursue a 'sky's-the-limit' model which has the potential to be greater than all of them.
__________________

BigB1967 liked this post
EADGBE no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 03:54 AM   #69
Zaqattaq
Registered User
 
Zaqattaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,018
Likes (Received): 81

@EADGBE

I have a season ticket at Beaver Stadium and I think you will find that if it was rounded the whole way the experience would be ruined. Out of the exposed corners you can see Mount Nittany and Downtown State College. I really like open corners on stadiums as you can feel the full setting, Highbury is a good example.



Zaqattaq no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 04:04 AM   #70
Zaqattaq
Registered User
 
Zaqattaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,018
Likes (Received): 81

I have some more pictures of Beaver Stadium













Zaqattaq no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 07:48 AM   #71
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 363

[QUOTE=EADGBE]Maybe I understand it more than you think I do - from the outside.
[quote]

From reading that post, no. You(and others) are simply not grasping things. the points I should make.

a.) All of these big schools have 'buildout' plans. You get to a point of efficiency for a given era. College football is reaching that now like European soccer and the NFL already have. You're already seeing a new emphasis on things besides seating capacity for the huge stadiums. So the buildouts aren't planned at 200,000. The schools aren't growing to the point where that's needed for 100 years or more.

b.) The ridiculous notion of comfort, views and symmetry somehow being related is just that...............a notion. Neyland loses a lot vs some of the other stadiums. If designed today, the last expansions of Neyland would have looked completely different. It should be a stacked type design. The overall design reflects expansions before the modern era. I bet it gets an Ohio Stadium like makeover.
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 07:51 AM   #72
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 363

shit and tradition aren't the same. To think the big college stadiums are shit as you say is simply a wrong impression. They are just old and have benches, but are very well maintained.
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 12:43 PM   #73
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomca
It means the prestigious universities, the american versions of oxford and Cambridge.
Nah, mate, it's the American version of the Russel Group in the UK, innit? It's a hell of a lot more than Oxbrdge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Group#The_members
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 04:57 PM   #74
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,898
Likes (Received): 2079

Cool, I went to a "Russell Group" university . Doesn't have quite the same cachet as "Ivy League" though...
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 06:32 PM   #75
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

What gets me is how far down the top universities in the UK list some of the Russel Group ones are.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 12:40 AM   #76
EADGBE
Resonation's what u need
 
EADGBE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 76

Ranatanamo,

Maybe I don't understand, or maybe we're just having a discussion about aesthetics, in which case we will both think we're right - and I can respect that.

I still have my views, many of them based on the (possibly naive) notion that this is a quite unique situation in world sport where both demand and funding are seemingly in abundance. It seems incongruous to me that the supply of extra seating to harness this demand is not done in a more organised fashion in order to maximise future capacity. In a nutshell, the laws of supply and demand come first.

I'm not sure I accept unreservedly your point that all stadia have a buildout plan, even though I'm sure many do. If that was truly the case though, then somewhere in the corridors of Penn State or Alabama there must be 10-plus-year-old buildout models (like the one we've seen of DKR) showing them exactly as they are today. I simply can't believe that these very different elements were all planned deliberately from the very start.

If they're not deliberately built differently, then surely future extensions are compromised in terms of either size or aesthetic.

Fundamentally, we are just viewing the situation from different perspectives. Mine is one of marketing and economic rationale, whereas yours I would say is one of design and architectural considerations.

Zaqattaq,

Great pics! I do take your point about the design of Beaver Stadium having other features to consider, like the way it incorporates the surrounding scenery - which may or may not have been deemed important enough to incorporate into its design over the years. I tend not to share your personal preference for open corners but again, that's just an issue of aesthetics.

BTW, I hope this hasn't come across as criticism of Beaver Stadium. I'm sure it's even more imposing in the flesh (so to speak) than it appears on the pictures and it must have a fantastic atmosphere when it's full.

I have a few slightly mischievous questions. Which of the two endzone extensions do you prefer? Would you rather they both matched? Finally, is it as big as it can be - or how many fans do you think it could be extended to accommodate, given the chance?
EADGBE no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 01:00 AM   #77
Zaqattaq
Registered User
 
Zaqattaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,018
Likes (Received): 81

EADGBE,

The two stadium extensions came a decade apart. The north one in 1991 and the two tier south extention in 2001. As for preference the new two tier one is much more comfortable as it has NFL style stadium seats. It also features a large restaurant and other amenities which face Mt. Nittany. It is hard to really explain but the mountain has sort of a sacred value for the fans which is why I would not want to see the view restricted. I have to say I also like the two different endzone extensions as it adds character. If you look at the luxury boxes on the east side vs the old press boxes on the west you can see how the stadium has been built up over the years.

I cannot see the capacity rising higher in the near future but they may eventually have to rebuild the east and west stands; they do seem quite rusty in some parts

I do not think I higher capacity is really needed though, for big games extra stands are added in the concourses. The largest ever attendence was 110,753 in 2002 which is higher than there is actual seats.
Zaqattaq no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 01:04 AM   #78
Zaqattaq
Registered User
 
Zaqattaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,018
Likes (Received): 81

Here is a shot I took yesterday from downtown

Zaqattaq no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 01:19 AM   #79
jamesinclair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 426
Likes (Received): 108

The size of these things impress me, but not the style. Im a fan of stadiums that offer more of a closed feeling, like a box. Even a limtied roof would do wonders, and it would help the game, since the noise would bounce back in.

Im a fan of Estadio Azteca as a big stadium. Not a bowl, but also offers the huge size.
jamesinclair no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 07:40 AM   #80
The Baz
Season Tix Avail
 
The Baz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sunset Strip, West Hollywood
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 5

Dartmouth's stadium looks ridiculous.
The Baz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
america, new orleans, usa

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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us