SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 485 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,982 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·



Football mode, athletic mode,rally mode...fairly beautiful with its floating roof...very modern...do we have a winner in the multipurpose category?
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
multipurpose means it's good for a lot of events but not great for one individual one.
 

·
Registered Abuser
Joined
·
17,047 Posts
Nah, the roof is wicked, the moveable stands are ok.

Everything else is a bit average...and i've been twice.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,646 Posts
I like the Stade de France as a venue, but I dislike the exterior.

I was also surprised at how far back the fans at either ends sat from the pitch. Apart from that, its a top-class venue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Superb stadium. Nothing 'average' about it at all. Do some people even know what the word average means???? There is no such thing as an average £300 million 80000 stadium!!! Walkers Stadium is 'average'.
 

·
Cute but Psycho...
Joined
·
6,023 Posts
the exterior is not all that, and i wouldn't call it the best, btw there is already a thread on this topic, of which is the best stadium
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
300 Posts
A decent stadium, but not without its faults. The distance between the stands and the end of the pitch behind the goals is unacceptable (in football mode).
The seats are also rather bland, and I'm not keen on the lower stairwells, wide at the top that get thinner toward the bottom, but this is fairly inconsequential.

All in all it was £300m well spent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Having watched football in it (France v Scotland), the distance was fine. I had a superb view behind the goal. It wasn't as close as some stadiums, but if you have normal eyesight then it is fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Those stands could go closer to the pitch for football games, the stands behind the goal would have lower angle but I think the oval shape could be preserved.
 

·
Hoj!
Joined
·
365 Posts
Hard to describe, but it feels like it is a athletics stadium which can adapt for football use. I would have preferred the opposite; designing it for football primarily, adaptable for athletics.

Maybe this could have been done by actually removing the lower stand on the end zones when using it in athletics mode? Of course the sightlines for the running track lane number 7 and 8 wouldn't have been optimal, but who cares? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
The roof and seating bowl are impressive, apart from the huge gap for football matches, but that is as far as it goes. The cheap looking exterior could be mistaken for a multi storey car park if it wasn't for the roof. Entrances and facilities are also poor. The place needs some colour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
this ground sucks because the goal line and sidelines are a "few miles" away from the front rows. and i dont like that. obviously the stadium was built multi-purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,982 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
so is it the best athletics and football stadium in the world combined? if wembley stadium is excluded...also having a retractable seating system.
 

·
PompeY2J
Joined
·
1,617 Posts
it's a good stadium but in my eyes it is starting to look old.... Maybe once i go there it will look better
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Exterior is crap, and for a recent stadium the facilities for fans are dire, about one urinal for every 1,000 fans i reckon, it was mental at the champions league. Seats are crap and for 300m i'd expect more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
The stadium has for more than 80 piss bins!!! The bog I was in had about 20 alone!! Are you saying the stadium only has 4 toilet blocks????? Stop talking mince!!


What's wrong with the seats???? Do they have spikes in them or something?? A plastic seat is a plastic seat!!
 

·
Divemaster!
Joined
·
6,699 Posts
Well, the short answer to this is most deffinitely no! I don't think even the most ardent of Frenchies would say that is was. Back in 98 it might...I say might...possibly have been the world's best, but it is starting to look quite dated now, which is quite sad when you consider it's barely 8 years old. I have never been inside the stadium but I saw the exterior of it up close a couple of years ago and from what I saw of it then and the pictures on the internet, it justs looks really bland and uninteresting, could really be any stadium. It just doesn't have any glamour or a unique defining characteristic that people would really recognise it with and talk about. Don;t get me wrong, it is a very decent stadium, one of the world's best, but quite far (and getting further) from being world's greatest. The thing it does have going for it (as has already been mentioned) is its easy capability of becoming either a football/rugby stadium or an athletics stadium...but each individual purpose is inferior to stadiums that are designed for just the one. Just my oppinion, don't get in a fuss if you don't agree. :)

Btw Mo, did you create this thread thinking it was the World's best stadium, or were you just interested in other people's views? Just curious.

:cheers:
 
1 - 20 of 485 Posts
Top