Not if it’s sunk into the ground like the last proposal, that was a pretty impressive bit of lateral thinking and it removes the big wall which you’re complaining about.
It’s hard to have a stadium which isn’t inward focusing, you’re going to watch a game not the building.
I don't think its impressive lateral thinking, in a lot of ways it makes sense. But think of the additional costs involved with digging down and removing water, plus rising sea levels, and that idea, IMO, would be dead in the water (pun intended).
I think KLK is right, whats the harm in having it a few blocks back from the waters edge to allow for public space/ developments that are more human in scale?
The argument about Sydney's opera house is a little redundant also. As KLK mentioned, the footprint is far smaller than a stadiums. Yes its inwardly focusing, but I would argue that if it wasn't for its architectural merit, the public space around it would be largely vacant, much like many of the Viaducts promenades.
I think developments that activate areas around them at all times, not just game days, would be better use of our limited waterfront land.
