# Stadium design questions / debate / ideas / technology



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Why was my question merged into this thread? It's not right since the question wasn't about new stadium or arena development thread. It is impossible to demerge a single post from a thread. And worst of all, my question didn't get answered.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

en1044 said:


> I think its time that more and more stadiums are built with solar energy in mind.


The new stand at the Schuco Arena in Bielefeld, Germany has solar panels in the roof that help power the stand. I'm sure there are others, but that's the only one I've been given a tour of and had specifically pointed out.


The black nets are to help people behind the goal see the rest of the game. Sitting in the front row behind the goal sucks unless the ball is in the six yard box, because you can't see anything. It's even worse when the net is white, as it is very distracting.


Terraces=atmosphere. In Europe and the UK especially, a large amount of fans want to see safe-standing areas re-introduced into grounds. It's harder to get people singing when they are all sitting down. As nice as new grounds are, I'd rather watch a game at La Bombonera in Buenos Aires than in the Emirates stadium in London.





















Is football alone in this ideal of the 'traditional' stadium?


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

whats your definition of a traditional stadium?


----------



## AndreÇB (Jan 31, 2007)

There's no exact model for a "traditional stadium". That depends on a taking a place and a moment in history.

In the last decades of football, the trend is on building stadiums with a "good experience" for the fan. That means proximity to the game field, good view perspective, good infrastructure... and a lot more. That means football-specific stadiums, without athletics track.

Here in Brazil we still suffer from the 1960's stadia fever, where too many were built, usually with a oval ou circular shape (so more people could fit in). That is outdated, and Brazil will need major investment on stadiums for World Cup 2014.

Our tradition is based on watching the game stading, jumping, singing 100% of the match time (and I like that), but a cultural change will also be necessary, in the way of defining the areas for standing and siting. That´s a BIG challenge. *I like very much the german tradition, with seating and standing areas co-existing.*
---------
Sorry for the poor english.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

Ganis said:


> whats your definition of a traditional stadium?


I like stadiums that are distinctive, not necessarily the best designed or the most comfortable. Atmosphere is the most important thing. I also think it's important that their is a 'home' end. Every team used to have their equivalent of the Kop, the Holte End or the Stretford End, and that's now been lost. I support Crystal Palace, and while Selhurst Park may be a pretty dingy, horrible ground, I would say it counts as a traditional ground.


















I love the old fashioned roof on the Main stand (the one with the Custom sponsor on it) particularly, and the Holmesdale Road Stand certainly counts as a home end!

In England, most clubs building new stadiums are stuck with soulless one tier bowls in industrial estates that their fans hate. You can't tell the difference from ground to ground except for the colour of the seats.

Cardiff City:









Southampton:









Almost identical. There a load of stadiums very similar, but with one side stand having an extra tier.

Hull City:









Reading:









Derby County:









Coventry City:









They are all nice, clean stadiums with a good view; but it takes away part of the fun of going to away games, if no matter where in the country you go it always looks the same. It's a shame because Cardiff City's Ninian Park, Derby County's Baseball Ground and Southampton's The Dell were all intimidating places for other teams to go. I don't mean in terms of violence, but the atmosphere created combined with each stadium's unique style and setting certainly had an effect. I give a lot of credit to Bristol City, who are trying to design their new stadium with a more unique feel in an effort to try and preserve some of the Ashton Gate atmosphere.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Ganis said:


> whats your definition of a traditional stadium?


This is my definition of a traditional stadium:









If you watch these clips you'll easily notice, that the major difference between historic and new szenes is that the new ones are all in colour. 
Oh and yes, I allmost forgot, you also have far less people up in the posts of the floodlights nowadays. Watching a match in that good old stadium was almost like making a little timetrip back into the fifties.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Jim856796 said:


> I have yet to learn the reason why HOK Sport Venue Event change its name to Populous. You may know Populous better as a series of video games. The company split from the main architectural firm Hellmuth Obata Kassabaum sometime before the name change. I myself hate the new name because of fears that they will design things non-sports related and it gets annoying of having to see the new name on names of projects done before the name change.
> 
> Populous the architects- Good company, good stadium design, bad name.


HOK S+V+E was branch of HOK, which is one of the largest firms in the world. The sports division based out of Kanas City split off from HOK in a mutual decision as HOK was looking to tighten its belt and HOK SVE was looking for autonomy and creative control. So after the split earlier this year they rebranded themselves Populous. I don't think they are looking to go beyond their current scope of sports related design at the moment, but you never know.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

^^Those arguments aside, I still refuse to call that company by its new name. Why did they even choose that name, anyway?


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

*Reflective Sound Material?*

Qwest Field in Seattle is built with a certain type of material that reflects and enhances sound. That makes the cheers sound alot more than it would noemally do. 
Apparently this has payed of for Seattle since they have the highest referee decisions in favor of the home team than any other venue. 

My question is: 
Has any other stadium in the NFL or ellswhere used this material? It seems stupid not to. Who dosent want a loud stadium?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

1772 said:


> Qwest Field in Seattle is built with a certain type of material that reflects and enhances sound. That makes the cheers sound alot more than it would noemally do.
> Apparently this has payed of for Seattle since they have the highest referee decisions in favor of the home team than any other venue.
> 
> My question is:
> Has any other stadium in the NFL or ellswhere used this material? It seems stupid not to. Who dosent want a loud stadium?


the material is called BirdAir. Many stadiums including Cowboys Stadium and, Reliant and Paul Brown use it. Its not just the material that makes Qwest loud on the field, but the angle at which the roofs face the field. The Cowboys Stadium sound engineer talked about it on Sports Take. Any old roof angle doesn't work, and some materials absorb a lot of sound. But he said, there's always some compromise with how a stadium is designed as far as noise and that the fans still have to be loud.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

rantanamo said:


> the material is called BirdAir. Many stadiums including Cowboys Stadium and, Reliant and Paul Brown use it. Its not just the material that makes Qwest loud on the field, but the angle at which the roofs face the field. The Cowboys Stadium sound engineer talked about it on Sports Take. Any old roof angle doesn't work, and some materials absorb a lot of sound. But he said, there's always some compromise with how a stadium is designed as far as noise and that the fans still have to be loud.


Cool, thanks! 
And while we're at the subject; 

Why does many NFL-stadiums have none or very small short ends?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

1772 said:


> Cool, thanks!
> And while we're at the subject;
> 
> Why does many NFL-stadiums have none or very small short ends?


American Football is best watched from the sidelines. Theres really no need to put a lot of seats at the ends.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

What would you say about this ''beauty'' ???










stadium reconstruction started in 1998 for 1999 military games, and this is result...............I dont know what idiot has designed this, because now they cant put stands together, no order, nothing is same, entrances are hardly 2 m wide, so many matches stands are closed (those on right side of pic, west upper and north upper), there are no toilets..........and stadium's cost is around 60-70 M euros for nothing, and as Zagreb mayor told they will have to spend 150 M more to finish it........ + 200 M euros for 10k seater stadium so Dinamo can play there until this is finished hno:


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

200 million for a 10k seater, is it made out of gold ?


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

It doesn't matter anyway though! For Zagreb games they can give the curved stand to the away fans and open the north & west lower stands for the Ultras & executives respectively!

No-one else turns up to watch do they?

Going to lose a bit of revenue for international matches but not having a specific stadium for the national team to play in isn't great anyway. Sharing a stadium with a club rarely works well.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

ReiAyanami said:


> 200 million for a 10k seater, is it made out of gold ?


well, I dont know, but it is published so.........200 M for 10k seater for Dinamo to play on while Maksimir is renovated, and later would be used by some other Zagreb club..........


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

en1044 said:


> American Football is best watched from the sidelines. Theres really no need to put a lot of seats at the ends.


Well, I suppose all sport is best watched from sidelines  

But with the pressure on tickets in the NFL, the stadiums shouldn't have a problem filling up the ends.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

1772 said:


> Well, I suppose all sport is best watched from sidelines
> 
> But with the pressure on tickets in the NFL, the stadiums shouldn't have a problem filling up the ends.


But if you can put a majority of the seats on the sideline and minimize the end seats, why wouldnt you?


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Then you wouldn't have home and away ends.


----------



## AndreÇB (Jan 31, 2007)

NFL is not like football (soccer)... Fans are not separated by team... You can just buy your seat and support your team, with no fear of violence... There are no 'ultras' in north-american sports...

North-americans see the game more like entertainment... Europeans and South Americans are more passional into sports...


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

canarywondergod said:


> It's because the European and American game is so different in terms of fans. Us Europeans will go for some food and drink, watch the game without breaks for 45mins until half time then go and have some more food and drink before then watch the last 45 mins. American Football and Baseball is so different. It's a game with plenty of breaks to go and grab food, which means the last thing you want is to be at a food stall and miss the game, open concourses mean that isn't the case. Both games have to be put into context. But as a European NFL fan, I totally get the way it is done in America and Europe. It makes perfect sense in both.


I don't really think that has anything to do with it. It's more of not having the view blocked by seats and having the corridor feel more open and even flowing.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

See this people? Opening the concourse gives a nice feel while walking around the stadium. That's it. It looks nice. Don't look too far into it.


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

An "open concourse" is one thing. A "split upper deck" is another.

In baseball, many recent stadiums have been built with a split upper deck--Citi Field, NYS, Busch Stadium, Citizens Bank park, Target Field and Nationals Park.

But in the NFL, none of the stadiums, including the recently built stadiums, feature a split upper deck--they all use the traditional upper deck with the narrow tunnels being the only "view to the field" from the concourse.

Any opinions on why the NFL stadiums upper decks are "closed to the field" while so many MLB stadiums are "open"?


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

ADCS said:


> In short, the appropriateness of open concourses depends on the given location.


my point exactly.



eMKay said:


> Yeah I'm sure they have a LOT of events going on when it's that cold :nuts:
> 
> Be realistic


Check the weather in Piter, then the event calendar. Then argue...
Even in Poland we have some games played in snow and really low temperatures during the year despite having a milder climate than many parts of Russia that have professional football.



JJG said:


> I don't really think that has anything to do with it. It's more of not having the view blocked by seats and having the corridor feel more open and even flowing.


It has quite a lot to do with it. The way of experiencing a football game in Europe seems to be completely different. I would not imagine to enjoy standing in the concourse and watching anything from there. It's a place you go ONLY when there is nothing other going on. So why would anyone need an open view if there is nothing to watch? 



en1044 said:


> Opening the concourse gives a nice feel while walking around the stadium. That's it. It looks nice. Don't look too far into it.


Sounds fair  But that does not make it a necessity and would still not always make the game experience that pleasurable.


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

michał_;87064623 said:



> It has quite a lot to do with it. The way of experiencing a football game in Europe seems to be completely different. I would not imagine to enjoy standing in the concourse and watching anything from there. It's a place you go ONLY when there is nothing other going on. So why would anyone need an open view if there is nothing to watch?


Who said anything about _standing_ in the concourse to watch the game?

The reason their open here is because of how cramped people feel walking around. The fact that it's open makes you feel like you're not missing anything.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Marckymarc said:


> Any opinions on why the NFL stadiums upper decks are "closed to the field" while so many MLB stadiums are "open"?


The weather.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Marckymarc said:


> An "open concourse" is one thing. A "split upper deck" is another.
> 
> In baseball, many recent stadiums have been built with a split upper deck--Citi Field, NYS, Busch Stadium, Citizens Bank park, Target Field and Nationals Park.
> 
> ...


Have you ever been to, or seen Gillette Stadium? The lower bowl features an open concourse and the upper tier has a split like you see in the baseball stadiums you alluded to.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

JJG said:


> Who said anything about _standing_ in the concourse to watch the game?
> 
> The reason their open here is because of how cramped people feel walking around. The fact that it's open makes you feel like you're not missing anything.


Who said about missing anything if there is nothing going on during the break? I don't particularily enjoy a very narrow and aobstructed view of the people I see during the game while they do absolutely nothing. While I see you mean this as an advantage.


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

massp88 said:


> Have you ever been to, or seen Gillette Stadium? The lower bowl features an open concourse and the upper tier has a split like you see in the baseball stadiums you alluded to.


Gillette Stadium is the only NFL stadium with an open upper deck. Quite different from MLB where it seems to be the norm for new stadiums.


----------



## pregersthehobo (May 8, 2010)

Marckymarc said:


> Gillette Stadium is the only NFL stadium with an open upper deck. Quite different from MLB where it seems to be the norm for new stadiums.


How many have the reverse? Mile High Stadium has the upper concourse open on the opposite side from the field, so you can see the city, mountains etc...just not into the seating bowl. Is that common for others?


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

eMKay said:


> Yeah I'm sure they have a LOT of events going on when it's that cold :nuts:
> 
> Be realistic


As crazy as that sounds, they actually do. Remember that St Petersburg sits on the 60th latitude, that is over a 1000 miles more to the north than for example Minneapolis.

In Russia some bandy matches are played in minus 35 to minus 40 degrees, I shit you not :nuts:


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

gincan said:


> As crazy as that sounds, they actually do. Remember that St Petersburg sits on the 60th latitude, that is over a 1000 miles more to the north than for example Minneapolis.
> 
> In Russia some bandy matches are played in minus 35 to minus 40 degrees, I shit you not :nuts:


Not mentioning that for example Spartak Moskva is building two stadiums - one for the regular weather games and one (smaller and fully covered arena) for those played in harsh winter condsitions. Of course there's more to it (the smaller will be used for rugby and other events in between), but still that has to ring a bell.


----------



## NesC (Nov 10, 2009)

eMKay said:


> Yeah I'm sure they have a LOT of events going on when it's that cold :nuts:
> 
> Be realistic


Actually even football is played all year around in Europe. Almost all countries in Europe have seasons between August-May. Both the Champions League and Europa League is played during the winter with games in December and February.


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

michał_;87074232 said:


> Who said about missing anything if there is nothing going on during the break? I don't particularily enjoy a very narrow and aobstructed view of the people I see during the game while they do absolutely nothing. While I see you mean this as an advantage.


No... I'm not talking about breaks at all. The feeling of being walled off is just unattractive.


----------



## kaz03 (Aug 17, 2011)

*Why Doesn't the U.S take any chances when it comes to stadium architecture?*

Why are American stadiums so bland? It seems like when other countries think of building stadiums they immediately try to catch the world attention with unique out of the box ideas for architecture. While when American cities think of how many luxury boxes they can fit into their design and what fast food vender they should carry and when it comes to architecture they say oh well i would rather have people have nothing to say about it than have them saying something bad about it. Here are some stadiums that represent the world and the U.S.









The Birds Nest is a perfect example of architecture around the world, this stadium caught the worlds attention this is something the U.S is lacking. 










This stadium, the New Meadowlands stadium is a typical U.S stadium. This stadium is a square block of mediocre architecture. This stadium with its bland exterior situated in parking lot central managed to cost about 800million more than the Birds Nest. 










Soldier field, one of the few U.S stadium designs that actually had thought for uniqueness in it. This stadium was build inside the old soldier fields shell has been criticized people calling it an eye sore on Chicago's lakefront even losing its historic building honors but it is still considered a huge financial success. This is probably a big reason why other cities don't take chances on unique stadium designs and it is a shame because the U.S could use more stadiums that are not typical U.S stadiums with there bland box exterior. 

That is my opinion on U.S stadium design. What are your opinions on the U.S's stadiums compared to world stadium and how can the U.S change this and become a center for stadium architecture?


----------



## xzmattzx (Dec 24, 2004)

The Bird's Nest was built for the Olympics, which is the world's biggest stage. It was meant to be an eye-catcher because billions of people would see it on TV as the centerpiece of the Games. MetLife Stadium, on the other hand, is meant to be for locals and local events. It's also supposed to be multi-purpose, hosting two football teams and hundreds of concerts, to start.

One thing you will have to explain is your definition of bland and out-of-the-box. Where does Cowboys Stadium or the University of Phoenix Stadium fall? The latter has a dynamic look to it and also features a retractable field that can get natural sunlight, then get wheeled into the stadium. Where do baseball stadiums fall? They are unique by definition since there's no standard for field dimensions.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

:redx:














brb University of Phoenix Stadium
brb Soldier Field


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

America has led the world in Stadium design and evolution throughout the 20th century. They no longer have anything to prove. These days its about functionality while maximizing club seating and corporate facilities. Plus downtown stadiums should fit into the character of the locality as opposed to competing with it. Stand alone Stadiums on Greenfield sites are more appropriate for "grand" architectural expression and the US did that in the 60's and 70's with the likes of Dodger Stadium, the Astrodome and Arrowhead Stadium / Kauffman Field in Kansas City. Others like Qualcomm Stadium, Giants Stadium and the Silverdome didn't age as well but they were non the less grand and ground breaking in their time.


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

Is this a troll thread?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I just think the OP doesn't have much knowledge of US stadiums or world stadiums really. I could say most places don't take many chances. Japan is truly the risk taker of any great number. Elsewhere in the world there really aren't that many chances.


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

The Tokyo Dome is of a style of stadiums that also includes the Pontiac Silverdome in Michigan, the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, New York, the Metrodome in Minneapolis and BC Place in Vancouver. Of those the Silverdome was the first one built (completed in 1975). The Tokyo Dome is the most modern in terms of aesthetics but it was also the final one to be constructed (finished in 1988), all of the ones in North America date from 1975 to 1983.

Nobody builds air-supported domes in North America any more because it is considered to be an obsolete and failed design style.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

The Tokyo Dome always reminded me of Tropicana field in St. Pete, Florida. Both were baseball-specific and have sloping roofs toward the outfield.

Another drawback to air-supported domes is their continuous need to be pressurized. Costs add up? Spectators have to enter and leave via revolving doors. It's not usually a big deal, but it does result in long lineups at large events.

BTW, Target Field is impressive looking. Personally I prefer its aesthetics over that of the retro-retro parks.

Another reason for the explosion in ballpark construction is the bottom line of the owners. Good money is made in corporate suites. The baseball and football owners also demanded sport-specific stadiums in order to keep the flow of revenues to themselves.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

to sum it all up. In America. The stadium is built to bring in revenue more than to look amazing. The more people you can fit in, the more suites you can add, the more areas you can find to have a corporate name glued to it, the better. American stadium also follow different trends than Euro or Asian stadiums do. 

American Trends:
We want more imposing stadiums that have an intimidation factor to them.
We want more private suites.
We want it to represent our team.
We want it to bring in more events than the primary event it was built for.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

and on the point of taking chances, what is considered taking a chance on a stadium?


----------



## Elwin135 (Oct 15, 2011)

WesTexas said:


> to sum it all up. In America. The stadium is built to bring in revenue more than to look amazing. The more people you can fit in, the more suites you can add, the more areas you can find to have a corporate name glued to it, the better. American stadium also follow different trends than Euro or Asian stadiums do.
> 
> American Trends:
> We want more imposing stadiums that have an intimidation factor to them.
> ...


Good Way to sum it up


----------



## kaz03 (Aug 17, 2011)

What i am calling taking a chance is an out of the box design. Spending a lot of money on suits and clubs levels aren't a big risk because they make a lot of money no matter what. Risks normally have to do with the aesthetics of the stadium.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I think in the USA it´s more important to make money with the stadiums, then the need or urge to make a landmark. A very healthy thing I think. 
Still I find the stadiums in the USA, specialy the inside, the IMPORTANT part of ANY stadium quiete unique and unchallenged by any country.
I think that´s saying something living in Spain where only (to much maybe), but only the inside of stadiums counts so far.


----------



## Flyboy41 (Jul 30, 2006)

Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati was considered "out of the box" when it was built. Doing away with corner seats and other elements were considered "new" at the time. 

















Also, if you look at other stadiums such as Miller Park with its fan-shaped roof or Safeco Field with its combination of an outdoor ballpark with a roof those are pretty unique. 

I love soccer and I really like a lot of the new stadiums I see popping up in Europe and around the world but most of them are just bowl shaped stadia with interesting exteriors. In the US we look at other factors besides exteriors when it comes to stadia. Cowboys stadium, U of Phoenix, and Target Field are all pretty new and interesting.


----------



## joezierer (Jan 16, 2011)

The US builds bland stadiums for the same reason China builds terrible cars and Europe builds brutalist skyscrapers.

Nobody's perfect.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

How are US stadiums bland? I have never really understood that.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

Flyboy41 said:


> Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati was considered "out of the box" when it was built. Doing away with corner seats and other elements were considered "new" at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Next to my hometown stadium (Cowboys) this is my favorite.


----------



## shhyvoodoo (May 21, 2010)

That Shanghai Tennis Center is toooo dope!!

ben
voodoo


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

joezierer said:


> *The US builds bland stadiums *for the same reason China builds terrible cars and Europe builds brutalist skyscrapers.
> 
> Nobody's perfect.


You must be blind...


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)




----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Marlins Stadium


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

that is so fugly.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Safeco Field


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Miller Park


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Georgia Dome


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Soldier Field


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Most only think of modern as taking a chance when it comes to architecture. I think Lucas Oil Field took a big chance in the other direction


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Like it or not, even though it was built before probably everyone here was born, its still more unique than 95% of what's out there


----------



## oxo (Jan 20, 2011)

nomarandlee said:


> Meh, they look modern but I don't think they look very refined design wise. Especially the baseball stadiums looks rather drab and cold including even the outdoor parks.
> 
> China on the other hand is really pushing the limits design wise for its stadiums with some truly fantastic looking stadiums. What make it all the more impressive is they don't have any truly renown major professional leagues utilizing them. I give mixed grades at best for of most of the new office towers, cultural institutions, and new transit infrastructure in China but their stadiums and arenas do seem rather class.


Very true. The qualities of refinement and finess are missing from American stadium design and, to a slightly lesser extent, British design. 
For example Wembley looks looks like a soul-less conference centre. The exterior of Arsenal's stadium (built just a few years ago) has about as much character as your local supermarket and the Olympic stadium in London has about as much sex appeal as a gas drum in Grimsby.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

kaz03 said:


> Why are American stadiums so bland? It seems like when other countries think of building stadiums they immediately try to catch the world attention with unique out of the box ideas for architecture. While when American cities think of how many luxury boxes they can fit into their design and what fast food vender they should carry and when it comes to architecture they say oh well i would rather have people have nothing to say about it than have them saying something bad about it. Here are some stadiums that represent the world and the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most of our stadiums are funded in a large part by taxpayer money, and unlike in China, taxpayers in this country have a say in how that money is spent.


----------



## joezierer (Jan 16, 2011)

I wasn't saying american stadiums are bland. I was joking about stereotypes. Europe doesn't make brutalist skyscrapers, and china doesn't make terrible cars. Just like America doesn't make bland stadiums.


----------



## oxo (Jan 20, 2011)

Warsaw - Stadion Narodowy.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

Cowboys Stadium


----------



## KiwiRob (Aug 2, 2009)

joezierer said:


> I wasn't saying american stadiums are bland. I was joking about stereotypes. Europe doesn't make brutalist skyscrapers, and china doesn't make terrible cars. Just like America doesn't make bland stadiums.


China does make terrible cars, you got that right.


----------



## Otto Racecar (Jan 13, 2011)

First of all, the birds nest was built by the government of china to showoff it's country. It was meant to impress the world. It is the same with any world cup venues as well. Comparing the birds nest/soccer city to stadiums that are built by a city or owners for their local sports team is flawed. The united states has the worlds largest stadium infrastructure so lumping all of the stadiums together as bland is also flawed. The united states in general recently has followed a trend of building retro stadiums for several reasons.

First, many of the stadiums that were built in the US over the years that were billed as modern or futuristic when built became outdated and were looked at as eyesores within 20 to 30 years. This has slightly dampered the excitement for the next "new fangled" design.

Second, Many recent stadiums that have been built have been taxpayer funded so the most outlandish or modern ideas generally have not made the final cut. Taxpayers have been looking at the overall cost and although still want comforts and good design are also not overally interested in a concept piece on their dime.

Third,Many american stadiums and arenas recently have been designed to fit in with asthetics of the area(repurposed warehouses, etc..), remind fans of the architecture of the stadiums they once attended when they were children or of the stadium being replaced, and represent the citys sporting heritage.

Fourth, A large amount of money has been spent on the renovation and refurbishment of stadiums in the US instead of building new. College football is a major example of this process. American colleges have spent large sums of money over recent years that are comparable if not exceeding any major sports league in the renovation,refurbishment, and expansion of stadiums. These universities are attempting to keep the character of the stadiums which are often 80 or 90 years old.Madison Square Garden and the superdome are recent examples of pro stadiums that have recently undergone restoration without changing the character of the building.

That being said there are cities that go modern with their stadiums in the US which are comparable to alot of modern stadiums in the world. At a lesser extent if you look at a league like major league soccer in which there is no history for teams to build off of, many of the new stadium designs like new york's red bull arena, livestrong park in kansas city, or houston's new compass field have many modern touches.

I feel it is as much about nostalgia and representing the cities sporting heritage in recent US stadium design then it is about one upping competition or trying to make a name for your city. Also although I'm not a huge fan of metlife stadium it was supposed to emulate giants stadium that it replaced and it also has modern touches such as exterior skin lighting that change colors like allianz arena in munich.


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

I like Marlins Stadium, Cowboy Stadium and Paul Brown Stadium, the Sprint Center in Kansas City is great too.

I think Safeco, Miller Park, and Lucas Oil stadium are ugly. Most of these stadiums with fake-old brick veneer already look dated without looking classic. Camden Yards is an exception, it will always be a beautiful stadium because it has good lines and elegant design. The roof on Miller Park is horrible looking, it makes the stadium look like some sort of Frankenstein creation.

In general most of the retro fake-old architecture built in the US in the '90s and '00s is terrible, kitchy and cheap looking, the stadiums are no exception.


----------



## Darloeye (Jun 15, 2010)

Think all American stadiums should have european style roofing to help keep the fans happy and safe from the poor architecture views :shifty:


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

Darloeye said:


> Think all American stadiums should have european style roofing to help keep the fans happy and safe from the poor architecture views :shifty:


on god no

eurpean stadiums are crappy ugly looking.

I dont want the history, architecture of Soldier field, chicago to get completely ruined by ugly roof.

US sports only lasts only 3 hrs. no roof needed

instead

huge gitantic cowboy stadium styled full HD LED widescreens needed everywhere.


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

JJG said:


> You must be blind...


agreed.

*cowboy stadium*: its literally an architectural museum

*soldier field*: an epidome of historic & modern state-of-the-art combination

*paul brown stadium*: as great & state-of-the-art as any chinese stadium

we build stadiums for ultra competitive sport not for tour sight seeing like rest of the world does.

NBA: # 1 basketball league in the world
NFL: Best sports league & most profitable in the world
NHL: #1 hockey league in the world
MLB: well the less said the better. :lol::lol:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Hindustani said:


> US sports only lasts only 3 hrs. no roof needed


No soccer match ever reaches 3h, even with additional time and penalty shootouts.

One advantaged of roofed stadia is that they are more suitable for parallel events like a music concert or a big religious event or whatever else.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

Hindustani said:


> MLB: well the less said the better. :lol::lol:


How about 70,000,000+ spectators a year. 

No that isn't a typo. Seventy Million plus. Try and wrap your heads around that number.


----------



## Darloeye (Jun 15, 2010)

70million thats more people than in Uk


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

Somnifor said:


> I like Marlins Stadium, Cowboy Stadium and Paul Brown Stadium, the Sprint Center in Kansas City is great too.
> 
> I think Safeco, Miller Park, and Lucas Oil stadium are ugly. Most of these stadiums with fake-old brick veneer already look dated without looking classic. Camden Yards is an exception, it will always be a beautiful stadium because it has good lines and elegant design. The roof on Miller Park is horrible looking, it makes the stadium look like some sort of Frankenstein creation.
> 
> In general most of the retro fake-old architecture built in the US in the '90s and '00s is terrible, kitchy and cheap looking, the stadiums are no exception.


..._fake_-old architecture? So just because it was built in this century but reflects a past style means it's ugly or cheap looking? 

What?


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

> MLB: well the less said the better.


MLB drew 73,425,568 fans in the 2011 regular season, marking the fifth highest attendance in the sport's history.

The average attendance over 2,418 games played was 30,366.

Anyone in the World that follows baseball can tell you that MLB is the #1 professional baseball organization on this planet.


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

eMKay said:


> How about 70,000,000+ spectators a year.
> 
> No that isn't a typo. Seventy Million plus. Try and wrap your heads around that number.


dude. easy

I'm a die hard yankees fan.

its just that first thing that comes to my mind when I think of MLB is "steroids controversy"

MLB maybe 3rd most successful league in the world only after NFL & NBA.

70 million foot drops is no joke. 

its incredibly successful. 

much more successful than wannabe soccer premier leagues accross the pond.


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

Why do Us stadiums need to take chances when we know what works for us and we dont have time to look around during the games in our stadiums.... excluding baseball...that has some boring spots in those games.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I'm sure if teams thought they could get 50,000 rather than 35,000 they'd expand


Some stadiums are built on such a small footprint that expansion would be difficult, if at all feasible, and/or likely destroy the ballpark's scenic views. Any money that a club would make on expanded general seating would be easily generated by hiking ticket prices and installing more corporate boxes, plus there's always standing-room-only sales.



> I guess it depends on the kind of job you have. I know run-of-the-mill games here would get low crowds if played in the afternoon.
> 
> It's still not something you could do too often, I'd have thought.


Weekday afternoon crowds are usually lower but clubs with a lot of white-collar clientele (Cubs, Giants, Chowds, Yankoffs) don't suffer such a severe dropoff.



> each day of a test is sold individually, so many probably only attend one day.
> 
> The committed would book three days off, but each venue only hosts one test a year. The national league games, played in the week, have always had tiny crowds.


:bash: d'oh

I meant "first-class" or "List A," since international matches are obviously more of a nationwide spectacle.


----------



## JJG (Aug 4, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you think they'd do that would be so wrong?
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't want the designers of the many dull single tier bowls designing baseball grounds (I don't want them designing football grounds either, for that matter) but would a reshaped Allianz Arena or Emirates Stadium be so bad?
> ...


I just don't think it would work. Some things just need to be homegrown and local in order to understand what the locals want, ya know?

I love Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Classic style, looks western.

I don't know what a European would do with that.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> :bash: d'oh
> 
> I meant "first-class" or "List A," since international matches are obviously more of a nationwide spectacle.


Virtually nobody goes to midweek cricket national league games here. Crowds average about 1000 per day for each game (with Saturday crowds higher). It's pretty much always been the way, with the league clubs being subsidised by club memberships and the international games.

The Sunday and night (one day) games get significantly larger crowds


----------



## Cogan (Mar 5, 2011)

*Why not put a roof on it?*

Let’s see if this works...

I for one am fed up of threads being polluted with the whole 'Why not put a roof on it?' argument, so I have created this thread in the hope that it will help in the future. For those of you who don’t know, there are 2 main sides to the argument:

EUROPEANS: most European stadia have roofs because there is frequent rain during the long sports seasons. The fans want to be kept dry throughout the season, and are less likely to turn up to games if they are going to get wet week in, week out.

AMERICANS: most of the US does not have frequent rain throughout the sports season, so the cost of a roof is less justifiable. The American Football season has so few games that fans are less bothered if they exposed to the elements, and many fans pride themselves in playing/watching sport outside no matter the weather. Roofs and domes tend to be present in places that have a lot of rain (eg. Seattle), intense summer heat (southern states) or when indoor space is required for conventions/to attract big events (eg. Indianapolis).

As a European who watches American sports, I agree with both sides of the argument. Feel free to agree/disagree with any of my points, and feel free to voice your opinions. Please bash it out with each other here instead of spoiling the other threads!

In future it might be worth forum users providing a link to this thread when the topic inevitably arises in the future.


----------



## Cogan (Mar 5, 2011)

Sorry I started this thread in the wrong place, can anybody tell me how to move it? Or does a mod have to move it?!


----------



## Werkself (Jan 7, 2011)

GEwinnen said:


> I guess the only design from the U.S. the europeans love is Mc Donald's hamburger and Apple's products :lol:


actually, the classic Apple design is very north european as you look at the simplism approach and Dieter Rahms product design.

Mc Donalds center of innovation is germany as well, not compareable to the US junk food concept.

I would say there is no real origin anymore, its an global interchange of innovation.

I dont see a classical stadium layout. I dont see any difference between new european stadiums an those are build for Brasil WC.


----------



## Werkself (Jan 7, 2011)

Cogan said:


> Let’s see if this works...
> 
> I for one am fed up of threads being polluted with the whole 'Why not put a roof on it?' argument, so I have created this thread in the hope that it will help in the future. For those of you who don’t know, there are 2 main sides to the argument:
> 
> ...


Why does then the NY Giants stadium has no roof? There is nearly the same rain as in Europe, maybe a little more with freedom taste. :lol:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Because it just doesn't have one. Americans don't see a roof as a necessary part of a complete stadium. That's it. Rain, snow, wind, whatever. It doesn't bother us. Let us do our thing.


----------



## Timkale17 (11 mo ago)

I'm doing my university dissertation on whether the taxpayer should pay for Everton FC's stadium (given the £1bn economic boost). I've had to change my title to 'The role of the public in European sport stadia funding'. So, Everton will be my main case study but will use a few more examples from around Europe. I was wondering if you had any pointers for departments/groups/people/websites/literature please. Or if you had your own views / perspective of possible routes I could look into.

Examples of information I'd appreciate is around who owns stadia, the club or local government? Who pays for the stadia developments etc. Any example case studies would be great!
(I'm a final year Commercial Management & Quantity Surveying student at Loughborough University.


----------

