SkyscraperCity Forum banner

LILLE - Stade Pierre Mauroy (50,157)

1110239 3807

Lille OSC

4x League:
1933, 1946, 1954, 2011

6x Cup:
1946, 1947, 1948, 1953, 1955,
2011



:) Hi everybody here. i'm new, i'm in france .

This is the trhead of the new Stadium for the Losc (lille olympique sporting club) which played 2 last edition of Uefa champion's league.


After the rejected project of 'Grimonprez jooris 2' due to its location near an old historical Citadelle Vauban , They reflected on a total new project like Schalke04 and Amsterdam arena.

Main characteristics:

- 50186 seats
-Retractable roof
-scheduled to ??
-Not a 5 stars stadium but 7 stars stadium!!!!!!! :eek:





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
































reality now :




















































  • Like
Reactions: geometarkv
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
I suspect it looks small because the stands are dwarfed by the huge roof... But we'll know for sure when it's finished.
^ Agreed. That's a useful pic of the Turk Telekom Arena. It also doesn't look as big, there, as it looks now, with all the seats. Nowadays the TTA looks in fact bigger than it actually is, at least to my eyes.

Also, congratz to Lille for securing the CL spot. I hope they make it to the group (won't be easy though, many good teams in the third qualifying round.
Does it matter for the grass anymore? By now all major clubs are growing the grass with movable light installations, at pitch level. Am I wrong?

And yes, there are already two "artificial" (not really the correct word) pitches in Ligue 1 (Nancy & Lorient), and I can see them becoming more popular.
I'm sure Lille will afford some of those installations, especially since they don't pay for the stadium themselves. :p
^ the stadium was designed to be a venue for indoor sporting events, yes, so the roof makes sense indeed.

I like the letters being seen through the cladding, nice touch.

Looking forward to the opening...
Nice, it does look well lit when the roof is completely retracted (I admit this was an issue for me too).
stop!!!!

more pics from official facebook:











The closed roof pics are jawdropping. Make me thing of a secret UFO hangar. Or even the bowels of a huge spaceship.
I made a few screen caps from the pre-match material of beINsport. From the TV images, I can say that the stadium doesn't look dark (like it does in some photos), and it doesn't look small (in some angles, especially those from above, it actually looks bigger than just 50k).















The press area:













The grass looks bad there where the pieces of pitch connect. Isn't there any solution for this?
^ because it looks bad, simple as that. I didn't say it is deteriorated, just that it looks bad (ugly, annoying, whatever you may want to call it).
Sorry for the late answer... And yeah, it's not a major issue at all.
michał_;96273268 said:
If that's the only price of this unique solution, I'd say it's a really small one.
Before the Lille - Toulouse game in the league cup, there was video presentation of the stadium and one administrator whose name I don't remember explained why the seat colour consists of shades of grey. He said that they opted not to use bright colours because there will be events when the attendance in the upper tier will be low or the tier will be completely closed (like for certain type of arena-hosted events). When that happens, bright colours would make the upper tier stick out like a sore when compared to the grey colour of a lower tier that is full of people, while grey diminishes this effect.
Some images of the stadium interiour with the roof closed:







All screencaps by me.
Hehe, I was out in the city and I thought I see the Lille stadiums on the TVs in bars - but there was rugby, not football. Now it seems I was right. It means that the Lille interiour is iconic enough for me to recognize it from short moments of video images seen from distance. :D
Who won?
The pitch has been changed, from what I understand. Looking forward to the highlights of the game from last night.
Yeah that's ridiculous. Lille has retractable roof (but not membrane like in Bucharest), retractable pitch with arena configuration, modern cladding (which Bucharest doesn't have at all) with led display. Also I can't see how it is a good idea to give Bucharest as a good example for costs, as the price almost doubled from the initial project, because of incompetence and corruption.

As a Romanian I am proud of the new national stadium, but not because it is a state of the art stadium (it isn't) or because it was good business (it wasn't).
That's ridiculous, again.

First, concrete structure visible isn't "modern design" while led cladding is "classic". It's the other way around. That's why so many idiots go to the Bucharest stadium thread and say it looks "communist" to them.

Second, a stadium is a "necessity" only when other, more pressing issues, such as hospitals, schools, transport infrastructure or housing have been dealt with. Thirdly, even when it's a real necessity, public money shouldn't be thrown without any constraint. Every decision has to be thought in terms of cost efficiency and respecting the proposed budget. Public investment also needs amortization, not just private investments. The big difference is that public investments can afford to wait much, much longer for amortization.

The only thing you say and I agree with is that many other stadiums, especially in Eastern Europe, have a final cost much higher than the initial cost. But that doesn't make it OK. People from Kyiv, Warsaw etc. are also upset because the governments have wasted a lot of money.

Finally, how is the case of the Lille stadium the same as for Bucharest? The Lille stadium wasn't supposed to cost an amount which then almost doubled, like in Bucharest. On the contrary, the Lille stadium was supposed to cost (for the public finances) 613M euro and it ended up costing 324M euro instead. That's how I like governments to treat public funds (the people's money). When there are hard times, it is better to save and to be very careful when spending.

If I am Romanian, don't expect me to accept that bad is good and black is white. I like the Bucharest stadium and I am happy it was built even in the way it was built, but I just don't think it's a good example to give in terms of cost efficiency (or design).
Is really hard to give in this days such examples, becouse the same thing is happened with all new stadiums in Europe including this one from Lille. That's why your intervention was without a reason. You can find incompetence and coruption in every country when we are talking about big money, so the France is not an exception. But you, as a romanian patriot just throw away bad words... Just tipical... :eek:hno:



Maybe is time to explain what good business means to you when we are talking about stadiums... In first place, an national stadium is a necesity and not a business. The National Arena is not an art stadium but is a stadium with a modern design, not a classic one like the stadium from Lille... Maybe you get the point now...
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top