# Stadium enlargement



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

american college football stadiums probably go through more expansions than any other kind of stadium. Neyland stadium's expansion is pretty common.


----------



## kazetuner (Jan 27, 2008)

La Bombonera
1940-1953































1953-1996
















1996-








Possible expantion


----------



## Details (Nov 20, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> Bernabeu
> Begin with chapter 3
> http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1193041512791/Historia/Santiago_Bernabeu.htm


More from _Estudio Lamela_


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Quite unusual to use the same roof, but i like it


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

soldier field
http://www.soldierfield.net/movie.htm

neyland stadium
http://www.thevib.com/Neylandshouse.html


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI USA - NFL Packers)

http://www.lambeaufield.com/

Site's 'home' page has a rolling slide-show of the stadium from its first season in 1957 to the present at the top.

Mike


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

San Siro
1 tier
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ailand,_Fussballspiel_Italien-Deutschland.jpg


2 tiers
http://i29.tinypic.com/x3y7gm.jpg
http://www.haraldbeisemann.de/mailand_san_siro_800_01pg.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/4lgm49c.jpg

3 tiers
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2789206022_01dec35325_b.jpg


----------



## Lowdy79 (Jan 30, 2007)

www.sercan.de said:


> San Siro
> 3 tiers
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2789206022_01dec35325_b.jpg


I was wondering why are there glass panels in front of the third tier??


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Probably to serve as a safety shield to stop falls.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Lowdy79 said:


> I was wondering why are there glass panels in front of the third tier??


If IIRC this is a section where the away fans sit, so it's probably some form of segregation. it's the milan home end, so in derbys they get the bottom two teirs of that end i think, don't quote me though!


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Lowdy79 said:


> I was wondering why are there glass panels in front of the third tier??


Maybe to seperate the 2nd tier from the 3rd tier.
Otherwise many people would buy the cheaper tickets of the 3rd tier and just go to the 2nd tier.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Wow, I love this.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

staff said:


> Wow, I love this.


What's the capacity in that pic?


----------



## kazetuner (Jan 27, 2008)

i've always wandered about those strange acess ramps...i' mean, they are so long...if you have a ticket for, say the middle of the long side, you'd have to enter the ramp on the middle of the end side...wierd..


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

JYDA said:


> staff said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, I love this.
> ...


100,000+


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

bigbossman said:


> 100,000+


Way off. It was hyped as holding 100,000 when the second tier was completed, but in reality it was a lot less than that. I will check my copy of Inglis when I get home.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

CharlieP said:


> Way off. It was hyped as holding 100,000 when the second tier was completed, but in reality it was a lot less than that. I will check my copy of Inglis when I get home.


not true had crowds of approaching that, the 1965 european cup final had an attendance of over 90,000 (some sources). Lot's of stadiums in those days had a guidline capacity that wasn't reached, i mean maine road was between 80-90,000 and the record attendance was officially only 84,000 (although it was obviously bigger, gatecrashers etc)

The truth is a lot of stadiums from that era people didn't really know the true capacity...

was hyped as 150,000 iirc, i have read *"football grounds of europe"* also, he needs to bring out new editions of both books imho!


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

2nd ring was added 1940 and the proposed capacity was 150,000. But it just reached a record attendance of 125,000.

Later it was reduced:
-1952: 100,000
-1955: 85,000
-1988: 72,000

With the 3rd tier the capacity rised to 88,500.


----------



## patroeski (Jul 8, 2005)

This is realy nice :cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Wasn't the stadium in Dortmund reduce in capacity for the world cup?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ and in 1950, america was always destined to be car country!


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

weava said:


> US college stadiums have some of the worst patchwork additions and create some asymetrical stadiums.
> 
> Lane Stadium (V Tech) 1972
> 
> ...


and we wouldnt have it any other way.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Ali Sami Yen (At this date it was called Mecidiyeköy Stadi, 1944)









Ali Sami Yen Stadi (1963. Adding 2nd tier)










Made this one 12 years ago 
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4584/alisami07sn8.jpg


----------



## Sponsor (Mar 19, 2006)

*Lech Poznań stadium*

2003 - one stand behind the goal gets demolished and construction of the new stand starts:


*2004* *+ IV stand*









*2006* *+ roof for IV stand*









*2007* * + II stand*









*2008* *+ 3rd tier of the II stand*









*2008/2009* *+ deconstruction of I and III stand.*









*2010/2011 (?)* *DONE*











After 2012? Maybe 3rd tier for IV stand if needed 

:cheers:


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> Estadi Camp Nou
> 
> 1982-1994: 3rd tier 115,000


Although the capacity oficially was 115000 there were atleast half a dossen games played when the attendance was above that, The El Classico record I think is just below 119.000 and the stadium record attendance is 120.000.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Yeh.
I remember FIFA 98 where they wrote also the highest attendance.
Was as far as i remember something around 119,xxx etc.

Poznan is IMO not enlargment. Its a new stadium


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

florida state's stadium facade makes it look like a hospital.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Bernabeu
1947 (75,342)


















1953/1954 (extending the main / east stand and adding more terrace bloks. Capacity 120,000)



















1981/1982 (adding a roof and more seats. 90,000)


















1990-1992 (adding 3rd tier 106,500)


















1998: all seater 77,500

2002/2003: (Extending main / east stand and roof 80,354)


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

is there any particular reason why the bowl was never made completely symmetrical?


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

i think 2 tiers was the max. at the other stand (in the 1950s etc)
So instead of a 3rd tier they enlarged the 2nd tier of the main stand which had enough space behind it.


----------



## danny1010 (Dec 3, 2007)

Darrell K. Royal - Texas Memorial Stadium (Austin, TX)

Initial Plans (1923)









Memorial Stadium (1929-1968)









West Side Upper Deck (1969)









Eastside Upper Deck Expansion (1998)









Track removed, field lowered, and sideline seats (1999)









North Endzone Expansion (2008)









Eventual Full Build Out (TBD)


----------



## PepMan (Feb 7, 2009)

*Sports Arenas/Stadiums Then and Now*

Some arenas evolved and changed looks or some even change it with a newer and better one. HerE's mine:
Araneta Coliseum
THEN








1990's








NOW


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Subiaco Oval, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Opened in 1908

1920's









1950









1968

















1968
(this stand was supposed to be the first stage of a complete wrap around of the oval to seat 70 000+. It covered 1/20 of the perimeter and seated 5000. Typical of the cheap nature of West Australian governments, it remained the only part. Today it desperately needs replacing, it even has signs on the walls stating that it does not meet current building codes and standards.)

























1981

















1996









2000's
(after a undersized redevelopement which had 9000 less seats that report recommendations from 1993)
Still a shithole and a political bog.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Hinkle Fieldhouse

THEN









NOW









As you can see, they changed the direction of the court because the sun would get in the eyes of shooters. Not something you see every day for basketball!

GO BULLDOGS!


----------



## PepMan (Feb 7, 2009)

CUNETA ASTRODOME
1993








2008








2009


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

Ralph Wilson Stadium

Original configuration (80,290 seats, 24 suites)


















Current (73,967 seats, 164 suites)


----------



## mrfootball (Jul 6, 2005)

*Jones AT&T Stadium at Texas Tech University in Lubbock*

Stadium expansion and new East Side Stadium building underway.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Notre Dame Stadium from this










to this










You can see how they built the extra ~30K seats around the stadium with the aisle. I personally believe they should do another restructuring and make it up to about 100K, but that's just me.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

No article links handy, but the Green Bay Packers (NFL) are now considering another seating expansion at Lambeau Field. The added seats would be above and behind the south end zone and bring it up to just over 80K.

Mike


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

That would look a little odd, but they would have no trouble filling it. Just seems like the clean unified single bowl has been its thing for a long time now (yes I am aware of its original layout and subsequent renovations). I always wondered why they didn't go bigger in the last renovation; I suppose money, and keeping the suites a little closer, though 80,000-90,000 a game would be no problem.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Yeah don't the Packers have like 100,000 strong waiting list for season tickets lol


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Last I checked its an estimated 734 year wait for season tickets, so more seats are probably in order.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

mgk920 said:


> No article links handy, but the Green Bay Packers (NFL) are now considering another seating expansion at Lambeau Field. The added seats would be above and behind the south end zone and bring it up to just over 80K.
> 
> Mike


If they (the Packers) want another capacity expansion at their stadium, they're gonna have to add additional luxury suites to the south endzone.


----------



## derzberb (Aug 13, 2009)

weava said:


> US college stadiums have some of the worst patchwork additions and create some asymetrical stadiums.




Bad additions? I love that asymmetric patchwork-style.

Compare it to e.g. Emirates stadium in London. There is no patchwork, no asymmetry and no athmosphere, no style, no football-feeling in there.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Some places it works, some it doesn't, I would put Beaver Stadium and Kyle Field in the top 5 or 10 ugliest in the world. What they are doing at North Carolina right now, or did to Indiana Memorial Stadium and Lane Stadium is atrocious. On the other hand some are quite striking, like Autzen Stadium, Ohio Stadium, DKR or Doak Campbell.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Benn said:


> Some places it works, some it doesn't, I would put Beaver Stadium and Kyle Field in the top 5 or 10 ugliest in the world. What they are doing at North Carolina right now, or did to Indiana Memorial Stadium and Lane Stadium is atrocious. On the other hand some are quite striking, like Autzen Stadium, Ohio Stadium, DKR or Doak Campbell.


Whats wrong with Lane Stadium? Its far from terrible. In fact, it looks pretty nice in person.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

As the same with Indiana's Memorial stadium? I was luckily a student there both pre-building and post building and the only thing I can say about the extension is that is compliments the already existing structures well.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Holy crap, I hadn't seen the Blue Zone. Damn Keenan was beautiful. Now it will be adding a tackle box to one end. Interesting its coming at a time that their program might be in trouble.

And Lane is very disjointed. Every stand is different. It looks like its nice(meaning well maintained, with nice areas in each stand. But I think Benn is refering to how each stand is kind of its own thing. Like 4 different projects, where as Autzen, Michigan Stadium, Ohio Stadium, DKR, Doak Campell and Bryant-Denny have expanded very cohesively though the expansions have been just as spread out as place like Beaver or Kyle Field.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Benn said:


> Some places it works, some it doesn't, I would put Beaver Stadium and Kyle Field in the top 5 or 10 ugliest in the world. What they are doing at North Carolina right now, or did to Indiana Memorial Stadium and Lane Stadium is atrocious. On the other hand some are quite striking, like Autzen Stadium, Ohio Stadium, DKR or Doak Campbell.


What's wrong with Kenan?

I think the Blue Zone addition will look awesome. Won't disrupt the symmetry at all.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Benn said:


> Some places it works, some it doesn't, I would put Beaver Stadium and Kyle Field in the top 5 or 10 ugliest in the world. What they are doing at North Carolina right now, or did to Indiana Memorial Stadium and Lane Stadium is atrocious. On the other hand some are quite striking, like Autzen Stadium, Ohio Stadium, DKR or Doak Campbell.


I'm literally stupefied because I can't fathom the criteria you're using here. How on earth can you suggest the efforts at UNC and Indiana are "atrocious" yet find that Ohio Stadium is fine?!!! If you're citing Lane Stadium as a foul for its disjointed form, you'd think Indiana's solution, _which was the complete opposite_, would be pleasing to you. And while UNC's Blue Zone is overblown for what they'll get out of it, its form is arguably far more harmonious with the existing structure than the last end zone seating added at Ohio Stadium. 

I'm not being critical of you, I am just seriously confused as to what criteria you're applying because I don't see the pattern or reasoning behind it.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Regarding this idea of cohesive expansion, let's not get too carried away with making everything too harmonious.

Each construction, while needing to work with the existing structure, should also be respectful of its current time and context. Just we would want to use the latest materials and building codes, we're inclined to improve upon the old where possible. Maybe this means a steeper or closer tier for better sightlines, or higher qualities of seating, deeper concourses, etc. Putting these things in place will ultimately yield a different form compared to the existing structure, and that can be good. Otherwise we're staring at a world full of sterile bowls.

Notice that OSU didn't simply enclose their famed horseshoe. It was recognized that the architecture deemed that end a unique element, and that fans also preferred better sightlines than the deep bend of the old track end. While a simplistic extension of the current form all the way around might have been the most "harmonious" idea, the resulting form is arguably more fan friendly, provided better return for the costs and provided the stadium with a new, unique element. We know it's not part of the original, and it also says they revered the original stadium enough to let it retain it's own personality and form. 










I'm not saying Kenan or any other modern expansion is ideal, but we must always remember that the contextual decisions and conditions behind each expansion are different from the last, and as such the metrics used for judging what works and doesn't need adjusting, as well. The form of the Kenan proposal at least mimics the shape and scale of the other end, with some adjusted angles in the corners to create better sightlines. Arguably when full it would be more difficult to distinguish some of these differences. In the meantime UNC gets the prime seating sections their looking for at the best costs possible (presumably). Yes, I'd prefer another form that would more readily accommodate future expansion, but I can see where this meets the merits of their ambitions.

Bottom line, at least recall how each expansion has its own context and that what appears to be the ideal solution in form may not be the most practical, or even physically possible.

Cheers.


----------



## derzberb (Aug 13, 2009)

I've never been to USA. But all that stadiums (esp the college-stads) look really great. The more patchwork and asymmetry the better!

All these well-designed "state-of-the-art" stadiums are just sad. It takes some Chaos to generate athmosphere, life, feeling etc.


"takes some chaos to generate a dancing star" - hope this translation works.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> What's wrong with Kenan?
> 
> I think the Blue Zone addition will look awesome. Won't disrupt the symmetry at all.[QUOTE\]
> 
> ...


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

matthemod said:


> As the same with Indiana's Memorial stadium? I was luckily a student there both pre-building and post building and the only thing I can say about the extension is that is compliments the already existing structures well.


They put a neo gothic little cathedral thing in the end of a massive raw concrete stadium, with out changing the rest of the exterior at all, that club end is totally out of place from the exterior. If they had gone with something that actually related to to the existing building they were adding on to it would have been fine. it didn't really get worse inside the bowl, but I never cared for it personally.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm literally stupefied because I can't fathom the criteria you're using here. How on earth can you suggest the efforts at UNC and Indiana are "atrocious" yet find that Ohio Stadium is fine?!!! If you're citing Lane Stadium as a foul for its disjointed form, you'd think Indiana's solution, _which was the complete opposite_, would be pleasing to you. And while UNC's Blue Zone is overblown for what they'll get out of it, its form is arguably far more harmonious with the existing structure than the last end zone seating added at Ohio Stadium.
> 
> I'm not being critical of you, I am just seriously confused as to what criteria you're applying because I don't see the pattern or reasoning behind it.



Does it have to have a pattern of style or formal strategy, some seem balanced (by symmetry or asymmetry) and well executed, others don't. The formerly open end at Ohio stadium could have been done better, but they felt it had to be a separate entity for reasons of history and tradition, and I can get along with that. The rest of it still looks good to me. Lane stadium feels really ugly to me for a lot of reasons, mostly that the various parts don't seem to mesh at all, and the press box from the inside always bothered me, the new endzone isn't much better.
As stated above my main beef with Indiana as the exterior of the new end, and I never really cared for the interior. Both have the same odd cutbacks along the field which seems awkward for no good reason; I know it alows more curvature to the stands while placing them right along the sideline but it tends causes some partial views on the highest portions, and puts people lowest on the sideline right behind the benches which doesn't make any sense. Same problem at Wake Fores, but at least they went with a unified detailing scheme (tacky retro though it may be).

Your above comments about context seems prudent, many of the ones I don't like seem to disregard it on a lot of levels. The The renovations to Michigan Stadium for instance have applied huge Brick Arched facades to a building that never had anything to do with that style (not to mention it doesn't relate all that well to campus, the brick part does, but none of the big schemes to it). It looks fine, but thinking of context it feels like they could have done so much more.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Benn, thanks for clarifying your stance. I truly was curious and at least now have a better appreciation of where you're coming from.

Indiana Memorial: Yes, the exterior now has an element that appears decidedly too grand for the stadium as a whole. To their credit, they needed to dress up this element in order to make it appealing to the heavy spenders they're looking for in that special seating section. Further, the long-term aspiration is to incorporate the nicer look into future expansions. In the meantime, the fans and athletes (especially recruits) can get a sense that the University is investing in the program. Now Indiana has another structure worthy of postcards, even if only from one angle. For that the stadium is considered better, IMO.

Re: The retro/faux facade look
Architects will always have difficulty reconciling dynamism with the language of familiar form. What you might call a retro facade another might call classic, and in either case the common fan will see it familiar and evoking a desired mystique. Archways and colonnades are features that people relate to for civic and public structures, and they're highly functional. Let's face it, within the realm of practical experimentation there's only so many different ways to design a room, or a stadium. 

Again, for UNC and UM the idea is to improve upon the overall facility (in UNC's case, as part of a several phase plan), and structurally the form of the new additions required spaces that are often utilized and expressed through arched porticoes, etc. The traffic flow and the use of these for far more than simple seating areas demands this. There may be more detailing and minor touches we don't see in these images that can truly enhance the experience, but even without such there's at least the recognition that the owners wanted a space that was more humane than a minimalist concrete cavern. Again, trying to express the wealth and prestige behind the programs.

I say this only because I hope people realize the difficulty in such expansions, and that they shouldn't be evaluated as succinctly as totally new structures. I'm undecided about either structure expressed here, but I respect their efforts and think that overall both venues are/will be better for the additions. Whether or not there was an even better option, however, is debatable. 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Expansion history of a deceased stadium: Mile High stadium in Denver, United States.

1948 - Originally constructed as a baseball stadium with a single 17,000-seat grandstand stretching along the north side from the left field foul pole to the right field foul pole on the west side.
1957 - 8,000 seat south stand added, bringing stadium capacity to 23,100.
1960 - The new east stands were added increasing capacity to 34,657.
1968 - Second and third tiers were added along the west sideline, increasing capacity to 51,706.
1976 - Secong and third tiers were extended along the north endzone, increasing capacity to 63,000
1977 - Old east stands removed and a new movable three-tier stand was added in its place, increasing capacity to 75,000. The movable stands allowed the stadium to be transformed from football use to baseball use.
1986 - 77 luxury boxes were added along the west side of the stadium, increasing capacity to 76,123.
2002 - Mile High Stadium passes away.


----------

