# Funny Stadiums and Stands



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

ManchesterISwonderful said:


> But they can extend behind the other goal. And do something to the stand infront of those terraces to bring the ground together.
> 
> I think it'll look great once finished.


Indeed and a three sided main stand looks far more balanced if you ask me. If we bid for another world cup I'd guess that might provide enough leverage to get around any planning problems with the other side stand aswell.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Köbtke said:


> The reason why they aren't really able to do anything about the Bernabeu outside, is because it's been in the same place since it was build in 1947, and is right smack bang up against streets on pretty much all sides. That's the same reason why, when they wanted to expand and modernise, they had to go up (which explain the ridiculous steepness of the stands).
> 
> Here's how it will look when they finish the new retracteble roof - I think it's awesome, lots of a character, looks and a truly massive stadium (although those arches could be stolen from the new Wembley design :


nah the archs were stolen from athens for shore, which is ok, because its a good looking stadium IMO.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> Indeed and a three sided main stand looks far more balanced if you ask me. If we bid for another world cup I'd guess that might provide enough leverage to get around any planning problems with the other side stand aswell.



Hope we get the World Cup in future. Reckon we'd put on a great show.

As for St James', I was thinking on the lines of the San Siro, like Newastle it has a side that can;t be extended. However the smaller stand infront of the old Hippodrome, still has a huge roof above it, that makes the whole stadium feel complete even though it's not. NU could continue the roof over the small main(?) stand, but also have a smaller one like the one above the smaller stand in the San Siro, this would give the standium good balance but at the same time cover the fans in that stand from the elements.

Any idea to how tall those huge stands are at St James'. 50m surely?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

ManchesterISwonderful said:


> Hope we get the World Cup in future. Reckon we'd put on a great show.
> 
> As for St James', I was thinking on the lines of the San Siro, like Newastle it has a side that can;t be extended. However the smaller stand infront of the old Hippodrome, still has a huge roof above it, that makes the whole stadium feel complete even though it's not. NU could continue the roof over the small main(?) stand, but also have a smaller one like the one above the smaller stand in the San Siro, this would give the standium good balance but at the same time cover the fans in that stand from the elements.
> 
> Any idea to how tall those huge stands are at St James'. 50m surely?


They could of I spose do the same as I sujested for Old Trafford in that othet thread and have a wall of directors boxes behind the other side stand. Wouldnt add much to the capacity(I have my doubts Newcastle could fill 70,000+ often anyway) but I'd guess it would bring in alot of money if theres the demand for them.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> nah the archs were stolen from athens for shore, which is ok, because its a good looking stadium IMO.


So any stadium which now has arches stole them from Athens? Maybe they use them because it's the most sensible thing to do?


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.
> 
> We've explained this over and over. Many Americans take offense to these repeated comments because they imply that we are either stupid or don't have the money. There are factors that determine this. And even if some don't there are plenty of retractable roofed stadiums (more in the U.S. nation than European continent) and more domed stadiums here as well.
> 
> ...


that's a great explanation, and true. though there have been times that I really wished I had a roof over my head...


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

as for soldier field, I think its great! just cause something was built in a fake greek style doesn't make it sacred. they did a great job mixing the old and new. certainly a lot better than if they had just abandoned soldier field to rot.


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

*beaver stadium, home of Penn State*

I can never tell if my favorite stadium is ugly or beautiful. 

the stands have been built piecemeal since the 1900's, so are mostly just ugly steel pylons...










then









now









but there's something so beautiful in having 110,000 other fans cheering your team on...


----------



## Grollo (Sep 11, 2002)

The northern half of the MCG was the worst stadium ever until it was demolished to make way for the new stand which will make it the best stadium ever


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> I can't understand why American's can't figure to put roofs over at least the stands of their stadiums, especially up north, like Giant Stadium, Soldier Field etc. etc.
> 
> We've explained this over and over. Many Americans take offense to these repeated comments because they imply that we are either stupid or don't have the money. There are factors that determine this. And even if some don't there are plenty of retractable roofed stadiums (more in the U.S. nation than European continent) and more domed stadiums here as well.
> 
> ...


I'm of course not implying that American's are either stupid (in general) or lack money (by God, in your franhice sports industry, money is the least concern), but I do wonder though (it was also part of a friendly joke). You speak about the weather yourself, in Chicago, Wisconsin, New York and New England for instance, rain is no stranger, and it's gets quite cold, as you also mention. Why not protect at least the fans against the elements (if not the cold, at least the downpoor)? (You might say the fans prefer to be open to the element, but I doubt it, it might benefit their team if theyø're used to it, but I think most people would like to be covered under a blizzard) Chicago (to take an example) is called "the windy city", it gets windy enough when sitting at the upper tier of Copenhagen's fully covered and enclosed stadium of Parken, I can only imagine how it must be sitting at the top tier at Soldier Field, on a windy day 

I agree, a roof might, or cetainly ruin the lines of Soldier Field, but a retractable roof could easily be incorporated into a solid mass of cement that is Giant Stadium, without ruining the look, it would probably improve it.

Domes suck yes, but I'd personally, given the climathe in the northern US, build more stadiums with retractable roofs.

The difference is probably the mentality, as you also insinuate.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Köbtke said:


> I'm of course not implying that American's are either stupid (in general) or lack money (by God, in your franhice sports industry, money is the least concern), but I do wonder though (it was also part of a friendly joke). You speak about the weather yourself, in Chicago, Wisconsin, New York and New England for instance, rain is no stranger, and it's gets quite cold, as you also mention. Why not protect at least the fans against the elements (if not the cold, at least the downpoor)? (You might say the fans prefer to be open to the element, but I doubt it, it might benefit their team if theyø're used to it, but I think most people would like to be covered under a blizzard) Chicago (to take an example) is called "the windy city", it gets windy enough when sitting at the upper tier of Copenhagen's fully covered and enclosed stadium of Parken, I can only imagine how it must be sitting at the top tier at Soldier Field, on a windy day
> 
> I agree, a roof might, or cetainly ruin the lines of Soldier Field, but a retractable roof could easily be incorporated into a solid mass of cement that is Giant Stadium, without ruining the look, it would probably improve it.
> 
> ...



Mentality: Here's an exercise for you. Go to this site: http://bears.hosttown.com/index.php?showforum=2

Suggest to them to put a roof over Soldier Field to protect fans from the elements. Better yet, visit a Green Bay or New England fan forum and ask the same. Good luck.

Weather: And BTW, you can't be covered from a blizzard. Not the kind that happen in Chicago, Boston or Green Bay where you are getting feet of snow in gail force winds at times. Otherwise it is usually sunny and just cold as heck, which is 90% of the time. So you build a roof that can't protect the fans from the extreme weather and that blocks out the sunshine the other 90% of the time? And yes, rain is a stranger during football season to most of the nation. The US gets a lot of its rainfall in the spring. 

Fun: 
How could you deny fans? This stuff is culture, tradition and homefield advantage to many of these cities.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

Millenium Stadium in London :lol:


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

^When I was trying to rank my favorite stadiums, I was looking at pics of Millennium. Its great inside for 3/4 of the stands. That one side is hideous though. Then the outside is :vomit:. What were they thinking for such a top notch venue? Its almost overdone on the outside and underdone on the inside. It doesn't flow as a design. At least Soldier keeps with its unusual theme and blendings throughout. For a large super modern venue, you may have found us a winner.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Siopao said:


> Millenium Stadium in London :lol:


Maybe i missed a joke or something, but u mean the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales right?!

This stadium right?



























Is this the stand u mean?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Yup that's the stand. I know they were going for something different, which I usually like. Just not in that case. Something odd about the way it looks next to the other stands. Doesn't flow or something. Can't put a finger on it.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Its caused by their next door neighbours not selling up so they had to change the design to shorten the stand - out of necessity not whim. I am sure Eddyk knows the full story


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

I'm glad we don't have this kind of behaviour in Europe (except for some parts of Germany).


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Well I never expected the Millennium Stadium to appear in this thread.

And to call the outside overdone :bash: 

And no they wasnt doing an america and going for something stupid 










There is a proper reason the stand is like that.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Whether there's a purpose or not is irrelevant. I PERSONALLY don't like it and the outside is ugly and overdone. I do like the venue though. Don't know why you throw the Linc up there. I don't like its design either(not because of the stands design, but because of the modern + brick design that doesn't compute), but I do respect it as a great venue as I do Millennium. Is that ok, with you guys?

As for your fans not behaving that way, what difference do the specifics make? Everyone has crazy fans that have their own out of sorts behavior.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Millenium Stadium in this thread!? Ridiculous! This stadium is among the Top 15 in Europe, if not Top 10. The design isn't overdone but great! Hearing an American talking about overdone stadium designs is somehow...strange. Look at the commerce temples in the US! That's overdone! Some people really have a strange taste. But...ok.


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

Sparks said:


> Darlington is the only possible case in England for a new stadium move that's gone wrong. The Riverside is nothing like a failure, it's the complete opposite. Boro's attendances are still significantly above what they were in the final years at Ayresome Park. Income at the Riverside would be about three times more than what they were getting at the old ground, if not more. Most importantly though the new ground cost just £16 million. It was a complete no-brainer moving there.


Sunderland?


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

Jade stadium:


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)

Love the siganture!


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Martuh said:


> Sunderland?


They're in the middle of a very bad spell the last three/four season, which is why attendence have dropped. But there's no reason why they wouldn't bounce back...for the time being.

Hmm...difficult to say at the moment. Maybe the new ground at Düsseldorf would qualify in terms of *A)* because that club's playing in the German fourth division. I could also say the rebuilt ground for Boavista because that club hasn't had much support historically. Braga I won't say yet since Sporting's competitive at the moment but should they slip down again then the crowds might start staying away.

Other grounds that might qualify:

Estadi Olimpic Montjui (Espanyol)
Estadio Algarve 
Stadio Marc Antonio Bentegodi (Hellas and Chievo Verona)
Zentralstadion (Leipzig)
Estadio Dr. Magalhães Pessoa (Uniao Leiria)
Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja (Sevilha)
Estadio de Gran Canaria (UD Las Palmas)
Ewood Park


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> Jade stadium:


Hey, leave Jade alone legless one! Once the new stand is built Christchurch will have a fine stadium.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

how is this any better?


----------



## Sea Toby (Mar 3, 2006)

Frankly, I can't think of one stadium in the United States that does not fill up for at least one event each year. College or professional.

I am willing to admit some losing teams don't fill their stadium for every game, but when a large winning team with a regional or national following is booked, their stadiums will fill up with these winning teams fans.

Why will Jade Stadium be better? More seats and more fans generate more revenue for both businesses and government. When 60,000 fans spend up to $100 per game, the economy is stirred into action. Tickets, parking fees, beer and food sold by vendors, increase ridership of transit, fans spilling into restaurants and clubs, and for out of towners increase hotel business. Spending usually results in increase tax revenue which can be used to pay off new stadiums. Its a ground swell of economic activity.

60,000 times $100 is $6 million. The government gets something like 30 percent of big business income, if not more. Therefore, the government has the potential of receiving $2 million per game. For a $400 million stadium, 200 games pays off the stadium. On the other hand some economists proclaim for every dollar spend for construction, this dollar turns into $7 of economic activity. $400 million turns into $2.8 billion in economic activity. If the government takes 15 percent of this, the government gets its investment back at the start. No need to wait for 200 sold out games. Economics 101.....

As I have noted before, the only negative is the initial capital expense of building new stadiums and stands. But a city, region, or nation in every case sees a positive result in tax revenues in the long run that easily pays off the stadium. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO WRITE THIS!


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> how is this any better?


You need to give us more of a clue. What is it you don't like about the redeveloped Jade, and can you say what kind of stadium design would be better suited?

Also remember that small square carbuncle attached to the DB stand will be a temporary addition for the 2011 Rugby WC only.


----------



## legslikeaspider (Nov 9, 2006)

Rugby Park, home of Kilmarnock FC has been extensively redeveloped in the last decade and has an all seated capacity of 18,000. kilmarnock average 10,000 if they are lucky so at most home games one of the two huge double tier stands behind the goals lies mostly empty. Completely crap for the atmosphere.

One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a ****-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.


----------



## CharlesJJ (Dec 6, 2006)

The Game Is Up said:


> They're in the middle of a very bad spell the last three/four season, which is why attendence have dropped. But there's no reason why they wouldn't bounce back...for the time being.
> 
> Hmm...difficult to say at the moment. Maybe the new ground at Düsseldorf would qualify in terms of *A)* because that club's playing in the German fourth division. I could also say the rebuilt ground for Boavista because that club hasn't had much support historically. Braga I won't say yet since Sporting's competitive at the moment but should they slip down again then the crowds might start staying away.
> 
> ...


Great examples, these.
Would you say the poor attendance figures in any of these cases has anything to do with the design of the respective ground, and if so - what is wrong with the design?


----------



## CharlesJJ (Dec 6, 2006)

Sparks said:


> Darlington is the only possible case in England for a new stadium move that's gone wrong. The Riverside is nothing like a failure, it's the complete opposite. Boro's attendances are still significantly above what they were in the final years at Ayresome Park. Income at the Riverside would be about three times more than what they were getting at the old ground, if not more. Most importantly though the new ground cost just £16 million. It was a complete no-brainer moving there.


What about Darlington, why is it not working there?


----------



## CharlesJJ (Dec 6, 2006)

EADGBE said:


> D'Oh!
> 
> From about the 3rd line, I was thinking "Delle Alpi", then you went and cited it as an example! There's loads of theories about this from the supposed antipathy of fans who loved the Communale and hate the running track to the notion that Juve are not now a Turin team in the way that Torino are and are more a team for out-of-towners (as is regularly levelled at Man United) or they somehow represent Italy in general (I guess like the Irish see Celtic). I've heard and read lots of thoughts (usually on these pages) but I can't fully explain it either.
> 
> ...


Maybe my post was a little bit unclear... Please don't limit yourself to football grounds - please tell me more as to why you come to think of the Montreal Olympic Stadium.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

^^
Most of those stadiums are simply to big for the teams that play there. La Cartuja is hardly used since both Real Betis and Sevilla FC refused to leave their homegrounds and the chances of Sevilla ever hosting the Olympics are slim to none.


----------



## nosehairuk (Apr 7, 2006)

<------ points to my Location.
25k stadium ... 5k crowds & even if we could pull in 25k every home game the council has imposed a maximum capacity limit of 8k because of inadequate traffic provisions ... CRAZY!


----------



## veronika (Sep 29, 2006)

Have to agree Darlington fc in UK is the classic example although I do not have access to their books so maybe they are not running a loss. Certainly the stadium is bigger than the club at the moment but look at Wigan Athletic.
MK Dons are currently doing the same thing.
Nothing is impossible with the right type of investor/chairman!!!

If there was an advice table for clubs on how big a new stadium to have in uk this would be the common sense advice table-
If you get to the 
Premiership min 25000 max-anything!
championship min 15000 max 35000
league 1 min 8000 max 20000
league 2 min 8000 max 15000

I don't think anyone would build a pro level stadium less than 8000 seats it wouldn't be worth building. Also their are regulations regarding min/max which are probably different to the common sense table.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_If there was an advice table for clubs on how big a new stadium to have in uk this would be the common sense advice table-
If you get to the 
Premiership min 25000 max-anything!
championship min 15000 max 35000
league 1 min 8000 max 20000
league 2 min 8000 max 15000_

The first bit makes sense but the rest of it is completely impractical. Putting maximum capacities would disqualify two clubs in the Championship already!


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

KiwiBrit said:


> You need to give us more of a clue. What is it you don't like about the redeveloped Jade, and can you say what kind of stadium design would be better suited?
> 
> Also remember that small square carbuncle attached to the DB stand will be a temporary addition for the 2011 Rugby WC only.


look at it, its shit
a stadium design which would be better would be a stadium with management who would think long term and build an enclosed stadium which could have been 
done by instead of the beautiful tui stand, the lower bowl could have been continued around


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

A lot of people look at Ameriquest Field in Arlington, Texas as a disaster of sorts. The park is a beautiful example of how nice brick and limestone can look with great metal work. A very urban square park that would fit on a block in any city. Problem is, its out in the suburbs. Many think its too far west in DFW and that gives it low attendance in the summer. Many think if it was in either Dallas or Ft Worth it would have far greater walk-up attendance during the summer. When the stadium opened, the Texas Ranger were a good, playoff contending squad and this was one of the better attended venues. The money paid for it was made back pretty quickly in 6 or 7 years. Since, attendance continues to drop. So what are the problems:

- Location. Arlington, Texas sits directly between Dallas and Fort Worth. Problem is, there are a lot more people living east and far north of the stadium. Arlington also has no public transit, so one must drive to this park, creating a ton of parking need, and making adjacent development difficult, though it apparently is about to happen.

- Design. Baseball parks are about the quirkiest sporting venues out there. Comparable to a racing circuit in how they have their own quirks. Ameriquest has a large office building behind the centerfield wall with a large plaza in front. Office space there is expensive as it opens up into the park. One can work and enjoy the game. Its actually quite beautiful if you ask me. The problem is, during the summer, in North Texas, the wind blows SE to NW most of the time. This is usually the only defense for the Rangers who normally have bad pitching staffs. No help from the wind blowing in, usually means home run fest for both teams. With the Rangers pitching, they usually give up more. Everyone knows this, and there was lots of media speculation about tearing the building down. The owner says no way jose. 

The other design flaw is the lack of a roof. The other teams in similarly hot places are Arizona and Houston. Both have retractable roofs. A summer in 100+ temperatures and high humidity all summer takes a serious toll on players. Its hard to convince top notch pitcher to come to Arlington and burn up in the sun like that.

The stadium reflects the Franchise. Nice looking from the outside, but truly lots of problems that will keep them from being great.


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)




----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> look at it, its shit
> a stadium design which would be better would be a stadium with management who would think long term and build an enclosed stadium which could have been
> done by instead of the beautiful tui stand, the lower bowl could have been continued around


So you are more of a fan of "bowl' stadiums. Fair enough, although I think 'shit' is wrong.

Personally I think four seperate stands is better. My reasoning being you get better atmosphere at a ground with seperate stands. With a bowl you end up being further from the pitch in the 4 corners. Jade has character AND room to redevelop in the future if required, something the 'cake tin' in Wellington would find expensive and hard to do (hence why very little work is being done for the 2011 WC).

I think a stadium should have a sense of intimidating opposing teams who play at your ground. Jades huge North stand replicated on the South side gives a feeling of being big and imposing. Something a 40,000 bowl never does.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

torino-stadio del alpi i think its called.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

CharlesJJ said:


> Great examples, these.
> Would you say the poor attendance figures in any of these cases has anything to do with the design of the respective ground, and if so - what is wrong with the design?


The Algarve is a better than decent ground. In fact, a lot of people like the way it looks. Problem is the local clubs play in the _Divisao da Honra_ and historically have not drawn well. Basically, it's the Selecçao when they want to go to the beach before a match. 

Similar problem with Zentralstadion: nice ground, crap clubs.

However, a more classic example would be Las Palmas. They went from a proper football ground (even if they said it was crumbling) to a multipurpose stadium (read: stadium with a track). Similar thing happened with Espanyol. I'm not sure with Mallorca but I think they went from one multipurpose stadium to a newer one. 

Now with Ewood Park, I read that there are sections that are older and that people don't like being in them. But don't Blackburn struggle to draw historically? It seems like crowds are often 10,000 less than capacity. 

Now that I think about it, the Luziniki in Moscow would also qualify. Spartak have not drawn well in that place. It's multipurpose, so that may be a factor. There are plans to build a smaller ground, so I read.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

^^

Real Mallorca went from this:









to this:










Pretty similar to Las Palmas who went from this:









to this:


----------



## Alien x (Jul 9, 2005)

Another of Italy 90 pointless investments is San Nicola Stadium in Bari, even though esthetically is a nice looking stadium it is actually very sterile when taking in a game. Like Delle Alpi it is not very functional as a football pitch. - Pointless athletic track (think it was used for Mediterranean Games) – facilities are lacking in every sense and last but not least absolute lack of fans (the only decent crowds are when other teams use it as a neutral site.
















This is actually how it looks and feels during games there.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

KiwiBrit said:


> So you are more of a fan of "bowl' stadiums. Fair enough, although I think 'shit' is wrong.
> 
> Personally I think four seperate stands is better. My reasoning being you get better atmosphere at a ground with seperate stands. With a bowl you end up being further from the pitch in the 4 corners. Jade has character AND room to redevelop in the future if required, something the 'cake tin' in Wellington would find expensive and hard to do (hence why very little work is being done for the 2011 WC).
> 
> I think a stadium should have a sense of intimidating opposing teams who play at your ground. Jades huge North stand replicated on the South side gives a feeling of being big and imposing. Something a 40,000 bowl never does.


not so much a bowl, more like 1 tier all the way around and the 2nd and 3rd tier at the sides, similar to telstra stadium, paramatta stadium and Estadio do Dragao in Portugal. Also the light towers should go, and make the top tier of west stand a bit wider, allowing a bigger roof, and place lights along the roof, as has been done in grounds all around the world (because light towers are ugly, and distribute light poorly, if tyou notice at twickenham, aussie and teslstra staidum e.t.c. there arn't the shadows created like at anywhere with 4 light towers, if you can understand what i am saying)
as for atmosphere i have no idea how you could possibly nelieve that huge ugly gaps improve it.
Jade has no character, and the main reason the cake tin can't have any redevelopment is because the platform it was built on can't take any more weight(foolishly enough) and it would be cheaper to start from scratch than make it take more weight and then redevelop the ground.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Canadian Chocho said:


>



It is only used a few times a year for football. But they usually have a huge crowd when it is used.

I was going to show the Skydome/Rogers centre as it rarely sells out for sporting events.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Most stadiums have "gone wrong" as you would say over in NZ. Eden Park is a shocker as well.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Most stadiums have "gone wrong" as you would say over in NZ. Eden Park is a shocker as well.


so very very true


----------



## Zaro (Jun 4, 2006)

Alien x said:


> Another of Italy 90 pointless investments is San Nicola Stadium in Bari, even though esthetically is a nice looking stadium it is actually very sterile when taking in a game. Like Delle Alpi it is not very functional as a football pitch. - Pointless athletic track (think it was used for Mediterranean Games) – facilities are lacking in every sense and last but not least absolute lack of fans (the only decent crowds are when other teams use it as a neutral site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a football fan, when I go to a match, I go to the match and not to enjoy the facilities. Modern stadiums that are built nowadays are more like malls - offering plenty of facilities where one can spend one's money, and, by the way, watch some football. Now, this is not what football is about. A football ground needs a club shop, some refreshment stores and that's all.


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

legslikeaspider said:


> Rugby Park, home of Kilmarnock FC has been extensively redeveloped in the last decade and has an all seated capacity of 18,000. kilmarnock average 10,000 if they are lucky so at most home games one of the two huge double tier stands behind the goals lies mostly empty. Completely crap for the atmosphere.
> 
> One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a ****-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.


Errr, there were 64000 people at the Scotland Australia game


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Zaro, when I go to football matches, I also go to watch the match, not for the facilities and so on, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a decent view of the action, no matter where you are sat in the stadium. Stadia with athletics tracks, if you ended up directly behind the goal, can actually cause the far goal to be 200 metres away. That's not enjoyment of the game if you ask me!



legslikeaspider said:


> One might also argue that Murrayfield (home of Scotland's rugby team: cap 67,000) is a ****-up from this point of view. For most games it doesn't come close to selling out. Even recently v Australia there were only 40,000 fans. That should be loads but it looked soulless and empty.


Are you on drugs? There are 5 or 6 internationals played in that stadium each year, depending on how many home 6N games Scotland have. 2 - 3 of which have any importance at all, the other 3 being friendlies. If you look, the 6N games this year against Ireland and Wales are SOLD OUT already. A friendly against Australia got a crowd of about 65,000 in the end, and the only games with disappointing crowds were against Romania and Pacific Islands, both minnows of world rugby that simply don't have the power to attact large crowds - The Pacific Islands, for example, was the only game not to sell out at Lansdowne Road for about 10 years, even though it was the last ever international game to be played at Lansdowne Road. 

The only thing I can possibly think is that you're talking about average attendances at Murrayfield over the course of a year, including Edinburgh Rugby games. But let's not get into support for Scotland's regional club rugby teams. 

The biggest **** up I can possibly think of is the proposed stadium at the Maze in Northern Ireland. It's basically a composite of every single stadium **** up in the thread so far - capacity far to large, in the middle of nowhere, enormous pitch size that leaves fans for 2 out of the 3 sports to be played there a horrendous distance from the pitch, poor transport links, lack of local support etc.


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto (Apr 11, 2006)

Canadian Chocho said:


>


Chocho you just pcitured the biggest stadium disaster of alll time and it will never be surpassed LOL. It is so bad the province cant give it the city of montreal . The city doesnt want the 30 million dolar a year maintenance budget. LOL
unless they cant have it from the 19 cent a pack cigarette tax the province had to collect for the last 30 years to pay of the olympics. 

Good one CHOCHO Good one. 

No possiblity of a tennant and the stadium drove the expos to washington DC. 

jim jones


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto (Apr 11, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> It is only used a few times a year for football. But they usually have a huge crowd when it is used.
> 
> I was going to show the Skydome/Rogers centre as it rarely sells out for sporting events.


This year the big owe. One football game adn 32,000 fans for 50,000 plus seats
The argos are doing better in the skydome on a realistic basis. 10 games at over 25,000 trumps 32,000 for a once off. The montreal autoshow will not occupy the building because of the roof colasping and the ice that damaged the new cars. 
They should blow the damm thing up or tear it down. It cost 30 million a year to maintian and has no possible tennant willing to risk the liabliity. 

jim jones


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Jonestowncultinpicto said:


> This year the big owe. One football game adn 32,000 fans for 50,000 plus seats
> The argos are doing better in the skydome on a realistic basis. 10 games at over 25,000 trumps 32,000 for a once off. The montreal autoshow will not occupy the building because of the roof colasping and the ice that damaged the new cars.
> They should blow the damm thing up or tear it down. It cost 30 million a year to maintian and has no possible tennant willing to risk the liabliity.
> 
> jim jones


Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol: 

Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.


----------



## Zaro (Jun 4, 2006)

NeilF said:


> Zaro, when I go to football matches, I also go to watch the match, not for the facilities and so on, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a decent view of the action, no matter where you are sat in the stadium. Stadia with athletics tracks, if you ended up directly behind the goal, can actually cause the far goal to be 200 metres away. That's not enjoyment of the game if you ask me!


We're sharing the same view on this point. I also prefer football-only grounds and no tracks. My point was about those large 'football' malls that begin to emerge, which target consumers and not football fans.


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto (Apr 11, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol:
> 
> Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.


It is all screwed up really unfortuately the talk is NfL for toronto but two thing prevent that . One the NFL wants a team in the LA/orange couty area first and 
B. The NFL would demand a new stadium in toronto. Sports leagues down south are about to close the door on the sharing of stadium for good with the oakland A's going to a new park in fremont CA. the oakland raider and oakland As were the last outdoor sport franchises in the united states to share the same stadium. 

Toronto under those conditions I beleive dont have a chance. Think is calvin you really have to wonder where did everyone go in regard to the cfl????
Sask and alberta seem to be the only place that fill stadia for the game. 
I personally think cable tv and multiple feeds of NFL have really killed the CFL. 
and then you have us college football on saturdays. 

I think the skydome is not great but nowheres near as bad as the big owe. 
The CFL really left in the late 1980's and returned to the city at the end of the 90's in molson stadium with better attendance. 

I remember great Grey cup parties in halifax in the 1980s and we were under no allusions we would have team even with an ownership group exploring it . 

The ass has really fallen out of the Cfl here and it is a sad passing of canadiana. the superbowl parties in sportbars here have taken the place of the grey cup parties. 
When people have options they op for what is considered to be the best. not my opinion of either league just the way I see it. 
jim jones


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Martuh said:


> Sunderland?


Original constuction of 42000 seats for just £16 million was a no brainer - plus it's actually closer to the city centre than the old ground was. For first three seasons it averaged over 40000 in attendances, then they added another tier to the North Stand which moved the capacity up to just under 49000. THIS may have been over ambitious. 

The current board are suggesting that they will extend the West and South stands as well if things continue to improve over the next few years - taking capacity to 64k. Having lived in the town up until the end of 1999, and experienced attendances varying from just under 10k (one cold night against Plymouth) in the late 80s, to just over 42k (the day we thumped Chelsea) in late 1999, I'm not sure exactly what the crowd potential in Sunderland is!


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto (Apr 11, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> Well if Toronto can't sell out 50000+ seats for 9 "Clown Football League" games what chance would Halifax have!:lol:
> 
> Seriously the Skydome was just as big of F**K up as Olympic Stadium.


on a seroius note calvin what would be the result if halifax got a team when ottawa has gone out of business a couple of times , interested parties walk away from taking over and toronto is only doing 25 to 30 thousand a game. 

I think you would have good attendance barely breaking even in halifax but that would only last about 5 years . You have to have a winning club also. The mossehead are having a downturn for MQJHL and used to have 9000 now it is around 6500. I frankly dont see the money or the interest here two keep two sports franchises that the seasons overlap.

Quebec city would be the best option they have PEPS stadium at 18,000 and can expand. The Premier is also eyes logically developing a witner olympic bid over a long period of time. The first thing would be a opening closing stadium that could be used for a quebec city CFL franchise. You have a tennant and one of your more expensive items covered with no big spec changes over a decade or two. The interest is in football in that area as laval has sold out crowds for many of their games. A rivalry in the province of quebec would beneift both montreal and quebec city. 

Just my view from here

jim jones


----------



## zee (Nov 30, 2005)

old trafford


----------



## The Concerned Potato (Jun 1, 2006)

any stadium built within housing estates or alongside railway lines/rivers


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Zaro said:


> Here are my favourites:
> 
> Forest FC
> Sussex County League, Division Three


This is UEFA 5* quality :cheers:

Mo, if you read this thread, you got any Pic's of O.D Stadium? Sundowns ex home ground near Pretoria. I cant find any pics of it on the net, that grand stand is just wierd & funky.


----------



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

go_leafs_go02 said:


> This has gotta be a photoshop job.
> 
> Absolutely crazy though. I just can't figure out this picture.



no
it isn't D:
http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~tiga/baseball/stadium/osaka.htm


----------



## ICP (Jan 9, 2007)

www.sercan.de said:


> no
> it isn't D:
> http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~tiga/baseball/stadium/osaka.htm


Please, someone explain this to me. I really don't get it.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

'Het Kasteel' 
Home of the eredivisie club Sparta Rotterdam. I think its hidious, but it has something though...


----------



## Banjo (Feb 18, 2007)

Here's a pretty hilarious one.


----------



## 1878EFC (Jun 24, 2006)

Banjo said:


> Here's a pretty hilarious one.


am telling yer :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

go_leafs_go02 said:


> This has gotta be a photoshop job.
> 
> Absolutely crazy though. I just can't figure out this picture.


Very crazy, yet it appears it did exist at one point. I believe this is the remnants of it on Google Earth:










:hug:


----------



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

Kramyra Stadion, Norway
~10.000


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

That is truely amazing. Do you have any more pictures?


----------



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

i have only a pic in my stadionwelt magazine
taken from the wood above


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

-sorry, double post-


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

www.sercan.de said:


> lol


What's this? I can't visualise. Can someone explain what's going on here? :nuts:


----------



## SRB (Aug 1, 2006)

braga,portugal also have funny stadion,do someone have a picture of it


----------



## Tillman (Sep 14, 2006)

SRB said:


> braga,portugal also have funny stadion,do someone have a picture of it


----------



## Nikom (Sep 24, 2005)

It's Braga's Stadium funny?


----------



## kinggeorge (Nov 15, 2006)

i think braga is nice, its unique, i will never forget when greece played there in euro 04 but i dont think its the same in the portuguese league i cant see it being full game in and game out


----------



## Banjo (Feb 18, 2007)

Nikom said:


> It's Braga's Stadium funny?


It might not be funny but it's truly awful.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

You certainly need to be a concrete fetishist to appreciate it.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

I was wondering if Wigan's old Springfield Park could be a contender and after googling for a few pictures, I came across this. I think you'll find the headline particularly adds to the comedy value:


----------



## Garvm (Apr 22, 2007)

In Spain we could tell that the moving from Sarrià (44k) to Monjuit (55k) of RCD Espanyol made them losing attendance and pressure in the field (I don´t like stadiums with athletism tracks)

And in failed stadiums the Cartuja Stadium in Sevilla (60k) was buit for hipothetical olympic games in Sevilla, and now none of the 2 big teams in Sevilla uses it.


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

Durbsboi said:


> Aint nothing wrong with old trafford besides the quads & maybe leg room


the quads have ruined it....

how they did'nt think to make the gradiants of the 2nd tier east & west stands the same as the 2nd tier of the north stand is beyond me..but to try and marry them up is just as bad a decision,they should have carried the gradiant of the north stand around the corners..


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

^^Yes I know, it is a structrural nightmare to marry the two, hence I said, there stadium on the whole is good, but those 2 quads just went & F'd things up.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

I'm going to be accused of bias here but I've sat all over OT and never had a problem with legroom and I'd say I'm around 6'0", a regular height.

Again, don't take this the wrong way but by far the worst legroom problems I ever had in a stadium was in the seated Kop at Anfield. What was I (a United fan) doing in the enemy's inner sanctum? I was there for Italy v Russia during Euro '96. I was really looking forward to the duel between Kanchelskis and Maldini but spent most of the game shifting in my seat, trying to stretch my legs in various different directions. 

It's honestly not a Liverpool-Manchester rivalry thing. The seating rows were just too close together. I find it strange that this urban myth has grown about poor legroom at OT, but not Anfield...


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Iam speaking from what I have heard in these forums, I havent been to any of the mentioned stadiums, so you could be correct.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Durbsboi said:


> Aint nothing wrong with old trafford besides the quads & maybe leg room


And the sloping roof.


----------



## matherto (Oct 17, 2005)

EADGBE, I've had problems with legroom at OT, only in the first tier though, which is to be expected with it being older.

and I fail to see what's wrong with the quads, I mean sure they could've been done to look better, but they're not that bad, whether I'm just a biased United fan or not, they do the job and there is a great view from up there

and similarly, the sloping roof, it matters less now that the quads have been included, as thats really added space and given it a bit more of an airy feeling, and as long as you can see the pitch, then it doesn't matter


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

I don't think OT is perfect by a long shot. I wish the lines around the quads were seamless and I do think it was down to a 'schoolboy error' in stadium design - but it's not quite the crime against aesthetics that some are painting it as. 

Also, much as I appreciate the logic for the sloping roof, I hate that you can only really see the pitch from North T3. I'd much rather see more of the rest of the crowd, like you can from the lower tiers, especially since the quads opened up the second tier.

Tomorrow, I'll be in the South Stand, about 8 rows from the front. I have no problems with the legroom there - and we're talking about the oldest part of the ground. The only part that I haven't sat in for about 10 years is the Stretty T1 (lower) built c.1993 - right behind the left-hand goal on the TV angle. If someone was to say the legroom there is poor, I can't recall otherwise from memory and therefore couldn't argue.

I was in the Emirates in January and I honestly don't remember my seat being particularly more spacious. I think there's a bit of anti-United in some of this and perhaps my own experiences at Anfield support the theory...


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

EADGBE said:


> I'm going to be accused of bias here but I've sat all over OT and never had a problem with legroom and I'd say I'm around 6'0", a regular height.
> 
> Again, don't take this the wrong way but by far the worst legroom problems I ever had in a stadium was in the seated Kop at Anfield. What was I (a United fan) doing in the enemy's inner sanctum? I was there for Italy v Russia during Euro '96. I was really looking forward to the duel between Kanchelskis and Maldini but spent most of the game shifting in my seat, trying to stretch my legs in various different directions.
> 
> It's honestly not a Liverpool-Manchester rivalry thing. The seating rows were just too close together. I find it strange that this urban myth has grown about poor legroom at OT, but not Anfield...


Yes I too have been on the kop and spent most of the game shifting painfully from one position to another. Mind you I am 6'3" so have experienced this discomfort elsewhere, although not at a prem ground.
I think the quads at o/t were a bit of a disaster, but in hindsight, once we get used to them, I think we will realise they add some character. At least they break up the generic 'bowl' we see all too often these days.


----------



## The_Big_O (Jun 5, 2006)

Canadian Chocho said:


>


Two things come to mind when I see Olympic Stadium: 

1. Star Track

2. Oddyse


----------



## Bigmac1212 (Nov 2, 2004)

Canadian Chocho said:


>


Why is it that the phrase "Danger, Will Robinson" always comes up when I see Montreal's Olympic Stadium?


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

starship enterprise indeed


----------



## cianobuckley (Nov 28, 2005)

I was just about to say in some parts of Anfield the leg room is awful, i was in the Anfield Road end last week and we were right in the corner stuck under the overhanging upper tier it was cramped and really stuffy. But again we could only see the pitch along with the bottom of the other stands and i too would prefer to see as much of the crowd as possible because imo it adds to the atmosphere.Luckily i can arrange for a different more open seat next time but in old trafford i've heard the only place you can see the whole ground is from the pitch!


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

That's a bit hash. The whole lower tier allows fantastic views of the rest of the ground. I was in the South Stand last night for the Milan game and it was great to be able to see all the fans contributing to the atmosphere.

The higher up you sit, the more I'd agree with the point, though...


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Exhibition Stadium looks more like a spaceship from a sci-fi movie rather than a stadium.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

People are always saying that when MSG was built, its style was already obselete.


----------



## juanico (Sep 30, 2005)

In *Paris* we have 2 fine examples of stadia gone wrong :










The former '*stade Charléty*' (1939-1989) was destroyed and rebuilt in 1994, for a cost of €120M. Since then, the 25,000 seater has never managed to host any big club regularly, and is very unpopular amongst football and rugby teams due to the athletics track surrounding the field (seats are very far from the field) and the strong wind that goes through under the roof. Have played there on a few occasions :
- SF-Paris (France's top rugby team)
- Racing CF (2d division rugby team)
- Paris FC (3rd division football team)
- a Rugby XIII team that doesn't exist anymore
- plus a few athletics meetings (Golden League)
The only team currently hosted being Paris Université Club, a 4th division rugby team... In 2006 the manager gave up and sold it to the City of Paris... Next season it is said to host Paris FC since they will be promoted in 2d division (they currently play in a 2,500 seater).










The '*stade Robert Bobin*' in the southern suburb of Evry, a 19,000 seater without any tenant, since local football team has never overcame its amateur status. Hosts a couple of PSG friendly games every season, and a couple of France Under-21 and women's games here and there. Can't remember how muh it costed to the community though...


----------



## IndiexInxIndy (Dec 30, 2006)

Comiskey Park for the Chi Sox anyone?

AND PNC Park in Shittsburgh? Sure, it's a nice ballpark just wrong team & city! HaHa


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I hear ya on new Comiskey, but the redevelopment is outstanding.

What's wrong with PNC though? Many players call it the best ballpark in the league.


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

Whoever play in it are his team's rivals. Read the sentence again.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

cinosanap said:


> Whoever play in it are his team's rivals. Read the sentence again.


Indianapolis doesn't have an MLB team. Unless it spillover hate toward the Steelers 

Indi has a AAA team, with a pretty nice ballpark.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

*Just getting ahead of the game.....*

Wembley! Most overhyped stadium in history. Most fragmented crowd with massive viewing distances, and why put the score boards right in the middle of prime seating space, just where the most vociferous would be hoping to get maximum effect from the roof...... just shows how the architects know nothing about the matchgoing experience, but can operate a sightline modeller based only c-value manipulations. A bigger Millenium stadium would wipe the floor with it IMO.


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

Tom Hughes said:


> Wembley! Most overhyped stadium in history. Most fragmented crowd with massive viewing distances, and why put the score boards right in the middle of prime seating space, just where the most vociferous would be hoping to get maximum effect from the roof...... just shows how the architects know nothing about the matchgoing experience, but can operate a sightline modeller based only c-value manipulations. A bigger Millenium stadium would wipe the floor with it IMO.


It should be overhyped. It took 7 years to build, has 90,000 seats and cost $1.5 Billion.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

andysimo123 said:


> It should be overhyped. It took 7 years to build, has 90,000 seats and cost $1.5 Billion.


I know...... must've been the most expensive welder on earth working on that arch! and wouldn't you think they'd get the pitch right? Another fur coat no knickers job IMO.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

I hate stadiums that try to be multi-use but it sucks.. baseball, football, soccer everything at the same place wont work!!


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

What about this? It's an obsolete stadium in Daegu, South Korea. It was also used as venue for tennis matches during 2003 Summer Universiade held in Daegu.


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

That's pretty clever, you can see lots of matches from one seat and there is a big finals court.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Jarry Park in Montreal...once a baseball stadium it was converted into a multi court tennis center


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

this stadium was once used for baseball.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

theespecialone, I can't see the image.


----------



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

http://www.digitalballparks.com/National/Jarry_Park_-_Aerial_640T.jpg
How steep is the biggest temporary stand :nuts:


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> theespecialone, I can't see the image.


damn the photo's copyrighted


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

A stadium being built in Indonesia


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

^^ lol:lol:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

i guess this is fairly unusual...
university of Richmond Stadium


----------



## Anberlin (Aug 11, 2007)

Carrerra said:


>


:rofl:


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm supprized nobody has posted Headingely's linked stadiums...


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

MoreOrLess said:


> I'm supprized nobody has posted Headingely's linked stadiums...


One is football stadium and the other is cricket stadium? So people can be free to go and come from one stadium to the other? :lol: If football and cricket are played at the same time, what about the ticket price?


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

It's not a football stadium for one! It's a rugby stadium that I believe houses both Rugby Union (Carnegie) and Rugby League (Rhinos). Rugby and Cricket are played at different times of the year, so I can't imagine it clashing at all.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Thanks for your detailed explanations


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

While perhaps unique in that it is the only place where a cricket oval and a rugby stadium are joined, Headingly is not the only place where two stadia are joined. The Millennium Stadium and the Cardiff Arms Park (formerly, Cardiff Rugby Gound) are also attached:










http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cardiff_Arms_Park_and_Millennium_Stadium.jpg


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

Why not?


----------



## Sbz2ifc (Apr 16, 2006)

eMKay said:


> That's not funny, that's awesome! :banana:


Ok, it's not _funny_, but it's definitely in the "strange/special" category.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Zeno2 said:


> Boleyn Ground - West Ham :
> the stadium is okay, the main stand exterior is kinda funny. Imagine Playmobil Toy soldiers on top of the towers...


Outstanding!! Spot on and an early Post of the Year candidate!! Love it!


----------



## Vandoren (Jul 21, 2008)

I like this threat.Nou Mestalla looks funny too.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Sbz2ifc said:


> I don't think anybody has mentioned the Marina Bay Floating Stadium in Singapore:


Just went on the Wiki site for it, I can't believe that's a 30'000 seater stadium! Thats more than a host of 4 sided Football Grounds!


----------



## NickRivers (Sep 12, 2007)

Camp d'Esports de Lleida - *U.E. Lleida* (13500)


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Canadian Chocho said:


> Why? Just why?


It's a temporary venue for our National Day celebrations when the current venue, the National Stadium gets redeveloped.


----------



## KHS (Mar 13, 2007)

Scba said:


> The mother of all strange stadiums


OMG!!! WTF????


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

NickRivers said:


> Camp d'Esports de Lleida - *U.E. Lleida* (13500)


that stadium is really nice


----------



## dudu24 (Mar 20, 2007)

NickRivers said:


> Camp d'Esports de Lleida - *U.E. Lleida* (13500)


Whats so funny about it? Seems like a nice place.


----------



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

crazy exits at the 2nd tier


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> crazy exits at the 2nd tier


maybe to create more ventilation like the Bari stadium?


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> maybe to create more ventilation like the Bari stadium?


It doesn't look like a stadium that suffers from a lack of ventilation.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

I reckon the Compton and Edrich Stands at Lord's Cricket Ground belong in this thread.

For those that don't know, Lord's has a pronounced slope, and at the Nursery End the lower tier of the Compton and Edrich Stands follow this slope, whereas the upper tiers are level. This means that where the Edrich Stand meets the Mound Stand it looks pretty regular, but where the Compton Stand meets the Grandstand the gap between upper and lower is so small it's ridiculous:










Having said that, Lord's is going to be redeveloped in the near future, so both stands should be replaced...


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

Zeno2 said:


>


Just imagine when it's packed to the rafters. The stewards are bound to have their work cut out there. It would be great to see this stand on a match day at full capacity.

I've also noticed the sponsorship boards on the back wall. Must be one heck of a deal. :banana:


----------



## Qaabus (Aug 4, 2006)

I remember reading about a cricket stadium with a tree on the pitch. Anybody have any pictures?


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Yankee Stadium used to have monuments in center field (can see them on the right)










They're now behind the outfield wall.


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

Minute Maid Park in Houston has some odd designs. The giant archway and train in left field, and the hill and pole, in play, in dead center.




























Makes for some odd, rolling plays.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Qaabus said:


> I remember reading about a cricket stadium with a tree on the pitch. Anybody have any pictures?


I was going to say it's a bit odd, It's in Canterbury U.K. and home to Kent County Cricket club at the "St. Lawrence" ground. Amazingly the tree is active in play and special law's were drawn up in case it did affect the game. 



















Since then though that tree has gone the way of the dodo after a freak storm a couple of years ago. However the club has planted a new tree in it's place!


----------



## 1878EFC (Jun 24, 2006)

The link below is about the tree falling due to high winds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4160973.stm

It is four runs if the ball hits the tree.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

salaverryo said:


> They don't make any sense. Unless you're expecting those human pyramids that the Catalans like to build, what's the use? They could've added extra seats instead.


I've been looking for a rational explanation myself... 

I think that I have, at least partially, worked it out; the vomatories at this stadium are 13 rows high. This is not as huge as it may otherwise appear; most vomatories, in my own experience, are between about 9 and 11 rows high. These are only slightly larger. 

I think they appear to be larger for two reasons; firstly that they make up a much more significant proportion of height of the tier in which they are situated - 13 rows in a 20 row tier will always look much larger than 10 rows in the 25 row tier than in reality. 

Secondly, because while most vomatories are about 10 rows high, about half of this height usually comes in the form of a vertical wall, which this stadium doesn't have; the vertical part is about 2 rows high at most, compared with maybe 4 or 5 rows high - the opening is much larger than an average stadium but the vomatory itself, in terms of the space it takes up, isn't so comparatively large as it appears.

Accordingly, I guess that the lack of vertical wall and the slightly larger overall height are the result of the cheapest way of building this stadium and little more.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Most in my experience have been 6-7 rows, and those are in a steep stand where 6 rows would be plenty. This has got to be an aesthetic choice by the architect, can't imagine another reason for it. 10 maybe on some shallow lower tiers, but more than that it's either a very shallow tier or the alcove is taller than nessicary. It looks like they were thinking about a segmented stand (stade gerland, stadio san nicola) and then decided not to.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Most that take up 6 or 7 rows, in my experience, are those which have a stairwell leading into the opening of the vomatory, such as at Old Trafford. I tend to find that those with a flat 'platform' leading into the vomatory, such as Murrayfield, will have a larger vomatory that is about 8-10 rows high. As I said, while larger than normal, I don't think these vomatories are as excessive as they appear; I'd take lower cost of materials involved in building it like that over any particular design choice.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

^^ good effort, but I think you're wrong. It's not an impression, they really are very high. I think the rows on that tier are about 60cm tall, which makes a total height of the vomitory of almost 8m. The goal stand vomitory is only 7 rows or around 4m high (can be seen on the club's website) which is still more than large enough. 3m should be enough, and if you put stairs up to the vomitory, 3 to 4 rows would even be sufficient with a row height of 60cm.

EDIT: this reaction is to post 164, before 165 and 166 were posted.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

The alcoves at the Metrodome are 6 rows, have a level entrance to the concourse, and the second level has about a 32 degree rise to it if memory serves, so I would call that typical .In the target center (NBA arena in Minneapolis) the lower level entrances take up 7 rows, the upper ones ones 6. These do not have stairs leading up to them and are at concourse level, with about 6'10" of headroom. Now some of the NFL stadiums have sort of a split lower level with big alcoves that lead onto a handicapped accessable ring of seating (Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, ect) that do have 10 or 11 row deep alcoves, but the majority of American stadiums anyway (as well as the German ones I have been to) seem to have 6-7 rows the standard.


----------



## acarleial (Jul 27, 2008)

*Eco-Stadium Janguito Malucelli*

Here's the funniest stadium ever, *Eco-Stadium Janguito Malucelli*, in Curitiba, Brazil:
















































:lol:


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

LOL. Eco-friendly indeed


----------



## vidgms (Feb 11, 2008)

Zeno2 said:


>


Just think, if the view sucks, you could pick it up and move it to a better spot!


----------



## infernal (May 27, 2007)

has anyone shown a stadium in Cartagena being built that's in the middle of nothing?


----------



## infernal (May 27, 2007)

NVM it's in Cali and here are some pics I found in the Brazilian forum


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

found this on a baseball forum :


----------



## dudu24 (Mar 20, 2007)

Thats something like that UEFA stadium


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

That stadium would probably have a 1.000.000+ capacity and a height exceeding ESB's. Not even mentioning the footprint :nuts:

I would pass for a seat on any of those circular tiers however. Bad sightlines and you wouldn't be able to follow gameplay.

This is even far more megalomaneous than Hitler's Deutsches Stadium plans.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

The view from the upper tier is terrible. You can't see the entire track.


----------



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

You wanna beat the germans? :lol:
We are back


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

I'd prefer to be among those 1.5 billion tv-viewers than having to watch the game in that stadium


----------



## G.C. (Apr 23, 2007)

www.sercan.de said:


> You wanna beat the germans? :lol:
> We are back


Are the oxygen masks provided or do you have to bring your own?


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

1.5 million capacity?


----------



## dudu24 (Mar 20, 2007)

Bilion


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)

Is it wrong if the first thing I think when seeing those stadiums is that it would be a mecca (not intended to sound like i mean all terrorists are muslim) for terrorists who has access to nuclear weapons.


----------



## tech_1 (Jul 25, 2008)

infernal said:


> NVM it's in Cali and here are some pics I found in the Brazilian forum



:lol: laughing so hard....best location ever :lol:


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

tech_1 said:


> :lol: laughing so hard....best location ever :lol:


I think we'll be able to fit an american sized parking lot around it.


----------



## frnja031 (Apr 28, 2008)

Maksimir Stadium Zagreb Croatia


----------



## frnja031 (Apr 28, 2008)

Gradski stadion, Pakarac Croatia


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

You sure that roof is stable as it doesn't look like there's much holding it up


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Kasimpasa Stadium, Istanbul

Normal...









Nothing wrong here...









Wait a minute...









... where's the rest?!


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

And the fantastic Princes Park, Dartford

Yes, that's a statue in the middle of the terrace
















Soil and gravel on the roof (it'll be grass now)


----------



## skyscraper100 (Oct 22, 2007)

CorliCorso said:


> Kasimpasa Stadium, Istanbul


wheres the missing pieces!!? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## skyscraper100 (Oct 22, 2007)

MoreOrLess said:


> I'm supprized nobody has posted Headingely's linked stadiums...


WOW! what a big toilet bowl! :lol: they should have place a big shit in the center of it! :lol:


----------



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

Cebeci Inönü, Ankara
Main stand has got a very small 2nd tier and roof 






































the other stands are quite normal
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2359/serkancirakcimg1343cy6.jpg
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/2149/serkancirakcimg1637ua9.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/TUR/Cebeci_Inonu2.jpg


----------



## Ballota (Oct 24, 2005)

frnja031 said:


> Maksimir Stadium Zagreb Croatia


This must be the uglyest stadium I've ever seen...and I've seen alot on this thread... :nuts:


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

What about this?


----------



## ~ Olympic ~ (Oct 4, 2008)

^^

lol :lol:


----------



## railcity (Apr 4, 2007)

Ballota said:


> This must be the uglyest stadium I've ever seen...and I've seen alot on this thread... :nuts:


Any stadium where your team loses too many games is ugly.


----------



## frnja031 (Apr 28, 2008)

railcity said:


> Any stadium where your team loses too many games is ugly.


Nope... It's ugly just because it is ugly... We didn't loose on that stadium in something like 49 out of 50 games...(If you are talking about national team)

Last time Hajduk was there they won...(If you are talking about Dinamo vs Hajduk)


----------



## renco (Dec 5, 2005)

railcity said:


> Any stadium where your team loses too many games is ugly.


well said kay:


----------



## JmB & Co. (Jan 5, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> What about this?


I was already uploading this pic to imageshack to post it here.:lol:


----------



## JmB & Co. (Jan 5, 2008)

*This looks like an UFO*










*The Mother ship and the little one*


----------



## skyscraper100 (Oct 22, 2007)

i donr know what stadium is this, its just funny


----------



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

Its the old Yankee stadium and its quite normal for a Baseball park


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

I never understood why the stands appear to be built at the wrong angle, is it so that more people are facing the centre spot thingy where the man with the stick who hits the ball stands or did the just measure it wrong?


----------



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

the hitting area is the important thing 
I think a US member can explain it better


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Sercan, a South Korean member can also explain it better :colgate: The old Yankees Stadium has extremely small 'foul territory' which is located between playing field and stands for spectators. That fact implies the stadium is a very hitter-favorable field because a hitter has less chance of flying out when he's at bat, thanks to smaller space for opponent fielders to catch flying balls outside the playing field.

In baseball, a typical hitter-favorable stadium is represented by two things. One is it has smaller foul territory in order for a hitter to have less chance of flying out and the other is that it should has shorter distance to outfield fences in order for a hitter to have more chance of homeruns.


----------



## jean1991 (Apr 26, 2007)

skyscraper100 said:


> i donr know what stadium is this, its just funny


Thats the most normal stadium posted in this thread. How is it funny? :nuts:

The seats may look "funny" because they face the infield where most of the action happens.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

To be more exact, the seats face the outfield, not the infield. The latter is separated by foul territory as you see in the picture. However, most of baseball fields have their foul territories extened up to outfield fences and that's what makes the old Yankees Stadium look funny or distinguished in poster's opinion, apart from its history and honor.


----------



## salaverryo (Apr 3, 2008)

jean1991 said:


> Thats the most normal stadium posted in this thread. How is it funny? :nuts:
> 
> The seats may look "funny" because they face the infield where most of the action happens.


People who don't know baseball find ballparks funny because of the odd shape of the playing field & the strange (for them) placement of the stands. They see all that green space with no stands nearby & wonder why. They just don't know that in baseball most of the action takes place in & around the diamond.


----------



## HoosierMan86 (Dec 28, 2008)

How have I read down this entire thread and no one mentioned Soldier Field?!

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/illinois/chicago_soldier.shtml

It's kinda funky-modern and almost...*almost* cool until you realize they left the outside of the old 1920s Soldier Field and landed a spaceship in it.

http://z.about.com/d/gochicago/1/5/n/-/-/-/soldier_field.jpg


----------



## HoosierMan86 (Dec 28, 2008)

Also, "Mount Davis" (for Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis) at the Oakland Coliseum is quite a sight.

Before:









After (OH GOD, NO!):









Fills some needs on the American Football side of things (luxury boxes, putting more fans in the stands, etc.). As you can see, it completely overpowers center field at baseball games.


----------



## Loranga (Apr 24, 2003)

OT: Mexico and Sweded played soccer at Oakland Coliseum last night. Looks pretty decent in football configuration.


----------



## kazetuner (Jan 27, 2008)

HoosierMan86 said:


>


WTF?!


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Made a wonderful stadium into a monster.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> Made a wonderful stadium into a monster.


Uh, Oakland Coliseum was already a craphole.

But at least it was a craphole with a good view.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Looks pretty decent for NFL though:


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Quintana said:


> Looks pretty decent for NFL though:


Until you've been through the concourses...

uke:


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

Stade du Pays de Charleroi during Euro 2000.


----------



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

How does it look now?


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

3rd tier was removed.

Btw I also think its one of the steepest stands in the world. I added a 2nd pic but it won't show atm.
Here is the small version:


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

I think the 3rd tier was moved to a cycling track.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

Quintana said:


> I think the 3rd tier was moved to a cycling track.


Indeed, and the latest news is that the stadium will undergo further transformation due to the conflict between the city and the neighbouring residents who say that the expension for Euro 2000 was built illegally.
The capacity will be reduced from 25.000 to +/- 15.000 by removing some upper tiers. :bash:
Therefore the clubs is thinking about a new stadium on a new location.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

The third tier of the Stade du Pays de Charleroi was indeed moved to the velodrome of Gilly, close to Charleroi. In order to understand the shape of the three new stands built for Euro 2000, you have to look at the plot of land the stadium was built on. There have always been complaints from neighbours about the height of the stands and the shadows they cast on the surrounding houses and appartments. But even after the removal of the 3rd tier (taking the capacity down by 5,000, from 30,000 to 25,000)the local residents were not happy yet, and now they are planning to remove more of the stadium, probably the entire second tier of the new stands, reducing capacity even further to approximately 15,000, or only half of the original capacity.

The fact is, Sporting Charleroi never managed to fill this stadium, not when it had 30,000 seats, not today, unless the teams plays against a team from the region or one of the top teams. Although Charleroi has one of the higher average attendances in Belgium (around 10,000/match; only Club Brugge, Anderlecht, Standard, Genk, KV Mechelen and maybe Cercle Brugge and Germinal Beerschot attract more fans), that still means more than half the seats remain empty most of the time. Nevertheless, the city wants to host World Cup matches in case the tournament takes place in Belgium and The Netherlands in 2018, and it wants to built a brand new 40,000-seater stadium at the outskirts of the city.


















These pictures were taken with the third tier already gone. Imagine the original height!

The 3rd tier at the velodrome, and velodrome and stadium on the map of Charleroi (roughly 2km apart in a straight line):


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

ReiAyanami said:


> Sorry people I *had* to do this:


Haha, first thing I thought of when I saw it


----------



## sauronbcn (Jun 16, 2008)

UNAM basic force fields


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

This is the best picture I could find. Crewe Alexandra has to be in here for most oversized and out of place stand. To put it in to context that Main Stand is double the size of the three other stands combined.


----------



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

One of the smalles 2 tier stands 
Roots Hall
http://www.darren-scrowston.net/Resources/Images/johnCommentating2_1632.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8539776


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> One of the smalles 2 tier stands
> Roots Hall
> http://www.darren-scrowston.net/Resources/Images/johnCommentating2_1632.jpg
> http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8539776


superb stand ! Mini Loftus Road


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

FC Brussels - FC Metz (friendly 2006)


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Love the beer gut.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

only in Belgium 



















(old stadium Union Royale Namur)


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

^^ Free advertising for the sponsors 

This is what it used to look like (Stade Michel Soulier):









It even has a tribute page: http://users.swing.be/ur.namur/

Infact I didn't know that practically the entire stadium including floodlights and ad boards remained, I thought they only kept the main stand...


----------



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

Zeno2 said:


> only in Belgium


Are you sure 
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4071/sinttulo0ud.jpg


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> Are you sure
> http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4071/sinttulo0ud.jpg


cheap Japanese copy ... :lol:


----------



## cooperman (Apr 24, 2006)

lpioe said:


> Stade du Pays de Charleroi during Euro 2000.


the link "1" of stadiums you've designed is identical in every way to the new Everton FC stadium. Did you mean it?


----------



## qymekkam (Jul 11, 2008)

im not sure if someone already said this but why would anyone want to pay to watch people live in there houses all day. :nuts:


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

qymekkam said:


> im not sure if someone already said this but why would anyone want to pay to watch people live in there houses all day. :nuts:


What else is reality tv?


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

cooperman said:


> the link "1" of stadiums you've designed is identical in every way to the new Everton FC stadium. Did you mean it?


Check the creative corner for answers (your own stadium design, page 100 and following)


----------



## Aiwa (May 8, 2005)

Some stadiums of Lithuania 


bronius said:


> (footbasketball)


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

This is Boise State's Bronco Stadium, with the famous blue turf










One of the most ridiculous stadiums for baseball, The Polo Grounds, former home of the New york Giants until they moved to San Francisco. The stadium has since been torn down. 

It's field dimensions were wild, 483 feet to center field and 279 feet to left field and 258 to right field. In contrast, most modern-day ballparks have dimensions of roughly 400 feet to center and 350 feet to left and right


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

Old stadium of UD Las Palmas:


----------



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

surreal 
what happened to it and do you ave other pics


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

^^ The stadium still stands in Las Palmas, but isn't used by any football club as far as I know. UD Las Palmas moved to the Estadio de Gran Canaria in 2003, a modern stadium with athletic tracks.









Some people want to modernize the old stadium and let UD Las Palmas play in there again. I hope they succeed.
Here is another shot:








You can find much more on Google, it's called Estadio Insular.


----------



## rhadookoo (May 11, 2008)

Tolka Park, Dublin









Dalymount Park, Dublin


----------



## danVan (May 16, 2007)

This one is in Toluca, Mexico:


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

That's a giant, who plays there?


----------



## STLCardsBlues1989 (Jan 19, 2008)

Scba said:


> Minute Maid Park in Houston has some odd designs. The giant archway and train in left field, and the hill and pole, in play, in dead center.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I'm quite late here, but I always thought that pole was a concussion waiting-to-happen. 

Jim Edmonds had a nice play on that hill a couple of years ago.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

Bobby3 said:


> That's a giant, who plays there?


UNAM, capacity 63,000

Estadio Olímpico Universitario it is called, located in Ciudad Universitaria (University City), Mexico. Was a venue for the 1968 Olympic Games.


----------



## danVan (May 16, 2007)

Bobby3 said:


> That's a giant, who plays there?


The Mexiquense, a second division team, the stadium is called Estadio Universitario Alberto Chivo Cordova, and the capacity according to wikipedia is 32000


----------



## Assemblage23 (Jan 6, 2008)

danVan said:


> The Mexiquense, a second division team, the stadium is called Estadio Universitario Alberto Chivo Cordova, and the capacity according to wikipedia is 32000


Indeed. It may not be easy to notice, but that huge tier was build over the "montain" (don't know if that's the proper term, it is not that large), so they didn't have to invest that much in structural support. :cheers:


----------



## STLCardsBlues1989 (Jan 19, 2008)

skyscraper100 said:


> i donr know what stadium is this, its just funny


That's old Yankee Stadium, built 1923. It's a landmark. 

Or was. I believe it's gone now. 

It doesn't have much foul ground, which is unusual. But I wouldn't call it ugly.

The View: 
http://soxblog.mlblogs.com/yankee-stadium.jpg

And I think it's one of the more expensive parks to watch a game. New Yankee Stadium is going to be even more expensive probably. 
New Yankee Stadium is process of being built
http://www.talkbx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/622articlestadium.gif



KingmanIII said:


> There's a handful of those, namely McAfee Coliseum in Oakland, Dolphin Stadium in Miami and, formerly, Candlestick Park in San Francisco (before the Giants moved to AT&T Park).


Busch Memorial Stadium was multi-purpose for a while. 
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/past/images/busch08950.jpg


----------



## alex_zebe (Dec 12, 2008)

Regie Stadium, Bucharest, Romania


----------



## youngtim (Mar 21, 2008)

how about this bad boy???

http://image53.webshots.com/53/1/43/10/503714310GSVcfL_ph.jpg


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

youngtim said:


> how about this bad boy???
> 
> http://image53.webshots.com/53/1/43/10/503714310GSVcfL_ph.jpg


I dunno...what about it?


----------



## CofRed (Apr 10, 2009)

Candlestick Park in San Francisco after the Giants moved into the beautiful AT&T Park.

















Frank Clair Stadium/Ottawa Civic Center, Frank Clair's north stand is built on top of the Ottawa Civic Center

























my hometown rink and one of the most beautiful arenas in the NHL the Pengrowth Saddledome in Calgary








We do have a new scoreboard haha









When the Summer Olympics were in Atlanta what now is Turner Field once looked like this
















Now looks like this


----------



## r4d1ty4 (Mar 10, 2006)

Only happenned in Solo, Indonesia..


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Why is the goalpost so... shallow?


----------



## Zaro (Jun 4, 2006)

Away stand at Pruszków, Poland










:lol:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^:hilarious


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

Estadio Ciudad de la Plata


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

pompeyfan said:


> Estadio Ciudad de la Plata


God I hate that one. Whoever decided to build it should be shot.


----------



## CofRed (Apr 10, 2009)

en1044 said:


> God I hate that one. Whoever decided to build it should be shot.


What's so bad about it?


----------



## kazetuner (Jan 27, 2008)

yeah, i don't why everybody hates that stadium... it's actually one of the finest venues in the country.


----------



## kuarif (Jun 8, 2010)

miguelon said:


> Are those seat selled as obstructed view??? :lol:


there are no seats there :lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## ensarsever (Dec 6, 2008)




----------



## makkillottu (Dec 30, 2008)

groby46 said:


>


First example of a trasparent stadia, isn't it? :lol:


----------



## MrYoung (Mar 4, 2008)

makkillottu said:


> First example of a trasparent stadia, isn't it? :lol:


You also have the corners at Phillips Stadion, which were built for ventilation. Makes me wonder if it can be ridicilously cold to sit in those seats with the wind coming through...










More pictures.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Ventilating_corner_seats_of_Philips_Stadion.JPG
http://imagene.youropi.com/philips-stadion-bezienswaardigheden-3(p:location,872)(c:0).jpg
http://www.wardenaarinfraroodverwarming.nl/Philips Stadion PSV 3.JPG
http://ajax-bg.com/uploads/71287084.5W48wK4Ofilips pedali.jpg


----------



## Punk (Jun 22, 2006)

*Nottingham Forest, City Ground Nottingham*


----------



## elHomo (Dec 28, 2009)

Whats wrong with this stadium? ^^ it's just a stadium with very interesting types of stands form different eras. Notting funny here.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

From the excellent footballgroundguide.com: Nottingham Forrest page;

At one end, the Bridgford Stand houses away fans in the lower tier; *it is odd because one third of this stand was built lower then the rest*, due to a local Council planning requirement to allow sunlight through to the houses in nearby Colwick Road. Opposite, the Trent End, is the most recent addition to the ground.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

MrYoung said:


> You also have the corners at Phillips Stadion, which were built for ventilation. Makes me wonder if it can be ridicilously cold to sit in those seats with the wind coming through...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They can be closed. Wich happens during the match. So it isnt ridicilously cold when supporters are in.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

elHomo said:


> Whats wrong with this stadium? ^^ it's just a stadium with very interesting types of stands form different eras. Notting funny here.


Indeed not funny to see how this stadium was turned into a mess for Euro 96.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Zeno2 said:


> Indeed not funny to see how this stadium was turned into a mess for Euro 96.


Any Pics on what it looked like before Football came Home?
I'm always interested in seeing English football grounds pre-Taylor Report


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)




----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

That stadium would have looked so cool if the stands were smaller and the seats weren't multi-coloured.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

vanbasten88 said:


> Any Pics on what it looked like before Football came Home?
> I'm always interested in seeing English football grounds pre-Taylor Report


This has a lot of pictures like that, some for replaced stands, and others for grounds that have gone completely.
http://www.oldgrounds.co.uk/

It doesn't have Forest's ground, sadly. The "strangely shaped" end was just an open terrace with the same footprint, and the other end was a covered terrace about half the size of the stand that's now there, although a bit wider.









http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v198/242/23/530481718/n530481718_792814_4263.jpg









http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v198/242/23/530481718/n530481718_792815_4645.jpg


Also, although Dundee and Dundee United are closer in Scotland, Nottingham Forest and Notts County are the closest in England at 400 yards - but does anywhere have three "organically" located (ie not part of a designated sports complex) stadiums as Nottingham, with the cricket ground just 150 yards from Forest's ground?

http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq191/nickh_album/trentgrounds.jpg


----------



## Curva Nord (Dec 11, 2010)

Faroe Islands


----------



## DenilsonUK (Jun 3, 2010)

Re. Forest's City Ground.


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Also, although Dundee and Dundee United are closer in Scotland, Nottingham Forest and Notts County are the closest in England at 400 yards - but does anywhere have three "organically" located (ie not part of a designated sports complex) stadiums as Nottingham, with the cricket ground just 150 yards from Forest's ground?
> 
> http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq191/nickh_album/trentgrounds.jpg


Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds used to be located within a square mile of eachother:









Same with Brave's Field and Fenway Park in Boston


----------



## westsidebomber (Feb 5, 2009)

Anubis2051 said:


> Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds used to be located within a square mile of eachother:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. Here's a screenshot of the two. What is now Nickerson Field was the first base/right field pavilion at Brave's Field.










Brave's Field as is used to look.


----------



## Besiktas23 (Apr 17, 2010)

Eco friendly stadium in Turkey:



foto : Arda Mehmet Öztürk - wowturkey

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



foto : Arda Mehmet Öztürk - wowturkey

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Foto: Emreceliker - Wowturkey
Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> This has a lot of pictures like that, some for replaced stands, and others for grounds that have gone completely.
> http://www.oldgrounds.co.uk/
> 
> It doesn't have Forest's ground, sadly. The "strangely shaped" end was just an open terrace with the same footprint, and the other end was a covered terrace about half the size of the stand that's now there, although a bit wider.
> ...










I guess...

MCG from the 19th century
Olympic park (athletics) 1956
Tennis centres from 1980's
Aami park soccer from this year


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

We have some stadiums bunched in, not anything like Nottingham and Dundee, but like New York and Boston. It happened organically.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

BoA Stadium is the biggest and newest, the Panthers own it. Irwin Belk is tiny compared to the other two, Johnson C. Smith plays there. Memorial is a WPA project from the 30's, holds about 21,000 today.

I believe they're within 2 miles of each other as the crow flies.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Boooh! Cry foul! I disagree!

That's Athen's Olympic Stadium for crying out loud! Only having been built in the 80's (i.e not that far back), without weird stands (i.e it's pretty, more so than some recently built stadiums!).

It was renovated for the 2004 Olympics with a flashy new roof (which compliments it btw, so therefore is harmonious with this "old" stadium as you put it), and general cosmetic alterations like new seats, repainting the whole stadium and two video boards.

Heck, look at their 1996 Olympic bid. The stadium was proposed to be as is, with perhaps the addition of a video screen or two.

If the stadium isn't broke, then why demolish it and build a new one?

Lipstick on a pig? It was never a pig to begin with (when it didn't have a roof). It was nicely symetrical.


----------



## Iemand (Aug 16, 2007)

Anderlecht (future)


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

^^
that's not funny... that's horrible! Only in Belgium, an underdeveloped nation when it comes down to stadium construction and renovation.


----------



## DimitriB (Jun 23, 2009)

Zeno2 said:


> ^^
> that's not funny... that's horrible! Only in Belgium, an underdeveloped nation when it comes down to stadium construction and renovation.


I only can agree with you.
The stadiums in Belgium are horrible. The have to do something about it and quickly.
There are plans to renovate and build net stadiums but all they do is talk. Gent - Brugge - Liège - Brussels - Antwerp - ...


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> ^^
> that's not funny... that's horrible! Only in Belgium, an underdeveloped nation when it comes down to stadium construction and renovation.


Not only in Belgium, by no means! Almost in every country you can find examples of stadiums looking different than desired because of local conditions. Belgian media have informed quite a lot about how they CANNOT move the road that restricts the stadium plot. So why are you so critical about it?
Actually, I think this cut corner is an advantage of this stadium. If it was a closed bowl, it would be nothing to talk about - there are many of these already. Since it's not, it got at least some character. I think the move to leave an open corner was a very fair one and not funny at all.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

michał_;87490319 said:


> Not only in Belgium, by no means! Almost in every country you can find examples of stadiums looking different than desired because of local conditions. Belgian media have informed quite a lot about how they CANNOT move the road that restricts the stadium plot. So why are you so critical about it?
> Actually, I think this cut corner is an advantage of this stadium. If it was a closed bowl, it would be nothing to talk about - there are many of these already. Since it's not, it got at least some character. I think the move to leave an open corner was a very fair one and not funny at all.


Yes only in Belgium. Only in Belgium it is impossible to obtain a building permit for a brand new stadium on a different location. 

That is the reason Anderlecht has decided to renovate and expand the old stadium as much as possible. And the result is -as you can see above- not funny at all, it is more like a bad joke. 

Apart from some diehard fans who do not want to move along, nobody is happy with the current situation. 

Same problem in Club Brugge, Antwerp, Standard de Liège, new Heysel...frustration all over the place.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> Yes only in Belgium. Only in Belgium it is impossible to obtain a building permit for a brand new stadium on a different location.


No, that happens everywhere. Take Everton for example.


----------



## KiwiRob (Aug 2, 2009)

Newcastle, St James Park, a very odd looking stadium.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

^^ It'll always look odd due to the fact that the buildings behind the one stand are listed. I think Newcastle had plans to redevelop the Gallowgate End, though. Something like this:


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

The problem lies with those houses. They are Grade II listed. To outsiders from England that means they cannot be knocked down without special permission from the government. Basically it means they won't be knocked down. Although Newcastle have these expansion plans it seems very remote given the nature of the road the new stand would need to cross and the money involved to build the new stand. It's very expensive for just a few seats, a shame as Newcastle deserve a 60,000 seater stadium.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

What is so special about those houses?


----------



## master_klon (Jul 20, 2011)

St James and the future Anderlecht stadium looks beautiful. Their stadiums are unique and have character.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

canarywondergod said:


> The problem lies with those houses. They are Grade II listed. To outsiders from England that means they cannot be knocked down without special permission from the government. Basically it means they won't be knocked down. Although Newcastle have these expansion plans it seems very remote given the nature of the road the new stand would need to cross and the money involved to build the new stand. It's very expensive for just a few seats, a shame as Newcastle deserve a 60,000 seater stadium.


Grade I listed according to this:

http://newcastlephotos.blogspot.com/2008/12/leazes-terrace.html


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

They're Georgian (built from 1720-1840) and protected by law so there is nothing the club can do with expansion on that side of the ground. However listings of buildings can be reversed, that is a committee can decide to reverse the protection on a building/buildings. However this is very rare.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

RMB2007 said:


> Grade I listed according to this:


I knew they were listed to some degree! Thanks for the conformation.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Iemand said:


> Anderlecht (future)


Can't they move the stadium some 40-50 metres? There seems to be more than enough room in the park around two sides of the stadium.


----------



## macas (Dec 31, 2011)

Quintana said:


> Can't they move the stadium some 40-50 metres? There seems to be more than enough room in the park around two sides of the stadium.


They are expanding not rebuilding because its just not cost effective, so no they cant just move it ove 40 or 50 metres


----------



## giap (Oct 16, 2009)

kuarif said:


> strange stadium :lol:


Como old stadium


----------



## giap (Oct 16, 2009)

groby46 said:


> I think that this is strange


:


it is not strange, it's horriblehno:


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6779540714/in/[email protected]/


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Lumbergo said:


> I think it's funny that even these tiny stands in England have to have a roof. I mean really, if a club is that small with so few supporters would it really deter people to go to the games if they didn't have a roof?


At a certain level in the football pyramid it's actually a requirement to provide spectators with covered areas. Failure to provide those facilities means a club would fail the ground grading requirements.


----------



## eagle in sky (Feb 9, 2010)

Kasımpaşa stadium


----------



## ohho (Apr 11, 2007)

Mosaic Stadium, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada


----------



## ttecture (Dec 11, 2012)

ohho said:


> Mosaic Stadium, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada


not for long.....


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Lumbergo said:


> I think it's funny that even these tiny stands in England have to have a roof. I mean really, if a club is that small with so few supporters would it really deter people to go to the games if they didn't have a roof?


uncovered seats are hugely unpopular, even it it's not raining.

At some grounds where they have uncovered seats, they often don't even bother opening the sections up, as there's so little demand


----------



## BJK67 (Mar 25, 2010)

There is this hill above the Inonu Stadium in Istanbul called 'Belestepe' (free-hill).


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Lumbergo said:


> I think it's funny that even these tiny stands in England have to have a roof. I mean really, if a club is that small with so few supporters would it really deter people to go to the games if they didn't have a roof?


it actually would deter people. even with the smallest clubs, also the weather in england can be absolutely shockingly bad, even in summer


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

eagle in sky said:


> Kasımpaşa stadium


They built round a tree!!! :rofl: 

That is priceless.


----------



## Lumbergo (Nov 17, 2009)

maybe it was a historic tree.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

2005 said:


> They built round a tree!!! :rofl:
> 
> That is priceless.


There's also a street turning there, so the tree just got lucky


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

The former oak tree at Clarence Park (St Albans City F.C.) was better. 





> Until 1999, Clarence Park’s main claim to fame (or rather infamy) was a large oak tree that protruded out of the terrace at the near end of the ground. Although it conveyed even more rustic charm on the ground and had a preservation order on it, the tree did require regular pruning by the club. In addition, visiting goalkeepers suffered from being pelted with acorns by home fans behind the goal!
> 
> In 1992/93 St. Albans finished as runners-up in the Premier Division of the Isthmian League but were denied promotion to the Conference on account of the tree (and the fact that the ground wasn’t fully enclosed). In 1999 the tree was found to be diseased (although some doubt that it really was) and it was cut down.
> 
> ...


http://www.pyramidpassion.co.uk/html/st__albans_city.html


----------



## Lumbergo (Nov 17, 2009)

*In addition, visiting goalkeepers suffered from being pelted with acorns by home fans behind the goal! *


ahahahahahahaha :lol:


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)




----------



## Lumbergo (Nov 17, 2009)

that's pretty cool actually - especially since one person can set it up in a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## ttecture (Dec 11, 2012)

Lumbergo said:


> that's pretty cool actually - especially since one person can set it up in a reasonable amount of time.


Totally agree. Really neat little solution. If only it was finished to a higher standard. Nicer materials, and more elegant details. 

Still pretty funny though.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)




----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^^ that's not funny...that's sad


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Speaking of trees, North Sydney Oval has a large Fig Tree at the northern end of the ground. I remember during the days of the NSL when Northern Sprit would play there, kids would climb it to get a good view. The tree itself is heritage listed so they can't move it.


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

RMB2007 said:


> Some of the smallest stands you'll find in England:


what would they cost? per section?


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

this must be the world's smallest "kop end", at Staines.


----------

