# Stadium Battles (archive)



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*PARIS 2012*





































*MOSCOW 2012*





































*MADRID 2012*





































*LONDON 2012*



























*NEW YORK 2012*


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

London without a doubt! 

Stade de France is cool, but not too new. NYC's is also nice, very nice design, but looks small. Moscow's looks too common and Madrid's looks quite... cheap.


----------



## tyronne (Nov 3, 2004)

London kay:


----------



## Mr Man (Sep 11, 2002)

London and New York are cool.

I wish New York's was twice as big though, with the roof of Londons


----------



## Alex Pox (Jan 9, 2005)

NYC
That stadium is fantastic and futuristic!!
I've never seen that design~~
London is cool too...


----------



## tayser (Sep 11, 2002)

London by a country mile.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

NYC is best in architecture. But i'll vote for Moscow.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

great response is this forum idea a good one?


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

London,

Well I guess you'd expect me to vote for my hometown but I do think it's the coolest design anyway!


----------



## Scraperlover (Dec 23, 2004)

london its amazing, i love the design.. the new work one looks too common.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

London is by far and away the best. Strange thing is, though, that's it's not the largest stadium in London's Olympic bid. The new Wembley stadium is.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

London of course, look at it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better


----------



## Estboy (Jan 18, 2004)

London for sure


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

i concur


----------



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

Undoubtedly London!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

WOW an amazing response to the forum thanks i think that we have come to a conclusion that the london 2012 stadium is the best proposed however im sure it would change after the olympic games due to an architecture competition...
GO LONDON 2012


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

I wouldn't assume it's all over with yet. Give it until tomorrow when our American and Australasian friends have had a proper chance to vote!


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

London


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

London pisses all over the others.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

London!

Is it me or are those renderings of New York's proposal confusing? I'm sure we are being shown 2 different designs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

Yes, NY's do look like two different ones. Unfortunately, they also look like the old style of boxy stadium that everywhere else in the world stopped building a couple of decades ago.


----------



## Confused Philosopher (Nov 14, 2004)

London for sure, for such a creative design.


----------



## GuilhermeC (Sep 24, 2004)

I mean London looks great but the most innovative is New York's, it's totally different from what you think of a stadium. Very nice! 
NY with London as a very tight close runner-up


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

GuilhermeC said:


> I mean London looks great but the most innovative is New York's, it's totally different from what you think of a stadium. Very nice!
> NY with London as a very tight close runner-up


No it isn't. All our stadia used to look like boxes a while back. Look at some of our older ones like Old Trafford and you'll see what I mean. New York's is retro, not innovative.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

London's is really beautiful. I hope it gets built. Paris' is also beautiful, but not that original. There a few in the US that look like that. Madrid's and Moscow's are fairly bland, and New York's is just ugly. Square? Who thought of that?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

i agree
watch the video below in my signature
very touching


----------



## 612bv3 (Oct 10, 2004)

London, no doubt, looks pretty cool, NYC in second.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

STADIUM RATINGS:

1. LONDON 8.8/10
2. NEW YORK 8.2/10 
3. PARIS 7.8/10
4. MOSCOW 7.3/10 
5. MADRID 7.1/10


----------



## jr07 (Dec 19, 2004)

They all look ugly if you ask me. Londons looks really horrible and I dont see how anybody can find that crap amazing because the are inserting a portion of ugly glass over some of the stadium. The least ugliest is New York. The design looks original and very modern, but I hate it looking boxy and what will be the capacity of the stadium??


----------



## Max the Swede (Jan 5, 2005)

Gotta Love the London proposal(The roof reminds me of the stadium in münich) even though I like the Urban look of the NYC proposal as well  

//Max


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2005)

Ive got to give praise where it is due.
Londons stadium looks phenomenol.


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

LONDON


----------



## PornStar (Jul 22, 2003)

NYC. 
The one in London somewhat reminds me of Munich's 1972 Olympic stadium. Don't like those organic roofs.


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> STADIUM RATINGS:
> 
> 1. LONDON 8.8/10
> 2. NEW YORK 8.2/10
> ...


Um... how'd you rate them? Or are they just random numbers with 0.1s or 0.8s to make them seem acceptable or even official?

Anyways... I think London's stadium is similar to Beijing's concept of a bird's nest (pay close attention to its roof) or.. a flower?

My second pick is Moscow. Really classic. The other two are ok, but not spectacular.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

London...

that NY stadium looks like the water cube in beijing..


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

the ratings take into account the following:
1. appropriateness of the stadium to the year 2012
2. the technical facilities incorporated in the stadium if any are mentioned
3. innovative design
4. multipurpose use
5. aesthetics
6. other...

under these categories i asked 8 architecture students and 4 architects for their scores... none of the architects were bias as none of them are from any of the bid cities
i tallied the scores and averaged them it was very simple i sent an email to everyone
i used four very different architects so that a different point of view was gained...

good enough? this was a very simple process...


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Pavv - The London design is actually meant to look like muscles flexing around the stadium .


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

London

New York's looks like every other stadium just surrounded by skyscrapers - It kinda looks out of place


----------



## dcb11 (May 25, 2003)

London for sure. The others aren't really interesting at all, although I'm sure they'd be nice places to watch sports.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

London by far. Paris version is like a millennium dome but trying to squish people as much as it can with no breathing space.


----------



## easysurfer (Dec 12, 2004)

London's plans overall are by far and away the best. This should be one of the main reasons it is picked because it shows all the preparation and effort gone into bringing the games to London. If it was a a purely sporting vote London would clearly win. Unfortunately there is lot corruption within the IOC and i believe quite a few vote with a political slant which is totally wrong. London and Britain has been a model of fair play for a long time and it only right they should be judged on their sporting and organisation ability. Go London, do the country and the world proud.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

thing is i dont doubt for one second london would do an awesome job imagine the atmospehere
venues filled to capacity the noise and singing of the english
the atmosphere and organization will make sydney look like 20 years ago hehe


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

I do think, that English and British fans will make it alot more enjoyable for visitors and spectators with enjoyable banter and great atmosphere

I just hope Englands Barmy Army are allowed to watch thier sport in 2012 in thier homeland :cheers:


----------



## Chad (Oct 10, 2002)

More...from *Moscow *

The futuristic $500 million Olympic Village, media hub, and press center would be the games’ most ambitious project. The Luzhniki Olympic Complex, built for the 1980 games, will receive major additions. A new fanlike stadium, for soccer, will also rise in the Otradnoe suburb of Moscow.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

last one is already built in 2004.

btw Moscow sport infrastructure already built. only we need for olympic games is two stadiums more and some upgrades.


----------



## Be_Happy (Aug 21, 2004)

Paris' Stadium is fairly average looking. Looks like any other big statium. Nothing special really.

Madrid's looks alright. It certainly doesn't look cheap in my opinion. A fairly nice stadium.

I really like Moscows. Reminds me of a giant Albert Hall in London. I particularly like the blue roof. Very nice. Shame about the inside though. Pretty strange colour scheme going on there.

New York's looks a bit on the rubbish side. Probably the worst of the five in my opinion. It also looks quite small compared to the others.

London's is certainly in a league of its own. Absolutely breathtaking. The best by far of the 5. If this doesn't get built, i'll be extremely dissapointed. I really like the roof design and it looks absolutely huge. Its certainly a building worthy of hosting the Olympics.


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

It sounds predictable, but I am pleasnetly surprised that I lke the London one best. Of course who knows if it would look like the renderings.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Will the 90,000 Wembley Stadium in London that is currently u/c be the largest stadium of any of the 2012 Olympic bidding cities (its by the way just for football and not actually for the field events)???


----------



## Falcon83 (Jan 10, 2005)

Moscow sure! New york stadium looks a shoes box!


----------



## Be_Happy (Aug 21, 2004)

Haha, a shoebox! Well, now that you mention it...


----------



## ferge (Aug 1, 2003)

Different view of London stadium as capped from tv, courtesy of Kat  



















I've been wanting to see the other stadia for months! hehe, so thank you for creating this post.. I think the London stadium is the best, its very elegent and blends well with the environment around it... Moscow has some nice buildings too mind, the NYC one looks very ugly IMO.. 

Go on, Let London host it for once! (Officially that is)


----------



## New Jack City (Dec 29, 2002)

London's is by far the most innovative, but architecturally, not my type. It's too much and overdone for my taste.

Probably with some bias I choose NYC's...


----------



## Pas (May 12, 2003)

London's stadium is awesome.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

AND LONDON TAKES A COMMANDING LEAD
NEXT VENUE THE AQUATIC CENTRE COMING SOON......


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

London wins.
Not America, they will get attacked and destroy the olympics.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2005)

London's then NYC's but it just looks so bland apart from the colours and any other stadium around the world.

Moscow's looks quite nice 

Paris well, its a bit old now, i would like to see something different.

And Madrid, There's gonna be zero atmosphere in it due to the open roofs ... A No Go!


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> the ratings take into account the following:
> 1. appropriateness of the stadium to the year 2012
> 2. the technical facilities incorporated in the stadium if any are mentioned
> 3. innovative design
> ...


Fair enough. I thought you were one of those people who just randomly puts in numbers. My bad.


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Pavv - The London design is actually meant to look like muscles flexing around the stadium .


Thanks.


----------



## philip (Jan 13, 2005)

Madman said:


> London!
> 
> Is it me or are those renderings of New York's proposal confusing? I'm sure we are being shown 2 different designs.


I think so too. The part where the roof and the wall connects are different in two pictures.

London stadium's leaf design is very graceful and elegant, truely a creation of a great culture. By the way, the leaf seems to be made of glass (or a transparent material), it makes the stadium look very futuristic at the same time. This is really something we would expect to see in the year 2012.

I think most people would want to take a picture in front of the London stadium and not the NY stadium if both of them get built, you know what I mean? Because when you stand on the ground and look at NY stadium, it just looks like any other boxy buildings, it doesn't look very special to give you the urge that you must take a picture in front of it. I doubt it will be a must-see for tourists and local residents.


----------



## GORAN3 (Dec 14, 2004)

madrids 1 suks !!!! new yorks is like some sort of an offfice building, paris is a bit ugly looking,moscow to small & boring, london's rocks !!!! very stylish and huge and well just realy cool and glasy


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

London only just beats NYC in my opinion. I like the box. I love London's roof. I can see NYC taking a different slant if they host the olympics. I think Madrid and Moscow are out of contention. Paris won't get the olympics just on their stadium!


----------



## JaVI® (Aug 14, 2004)

Madrid´s olympic stadium


----------



## PRoViDeZ (Jul 14, 2004)

Madrid´s stadium after olympic games will be used by Ateltico de Madrid football club, one thing very interesting for the COI decision


----------



## Speakerbox (Jul 26, 2004)

Reports in the press are coming to fruitation that its a 2 horse race between London & Paris with the latter being just ahead.

I think like Coe's been saying. London's bid will be enforced over the next couple of months, where it will shine through. 

I just hope whoever wins will be from Europe, then I can take Another European Olympics in


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

I like London's actually. No telling how the actual thing will look, but the rendering looks nice. New York's is second.


----------



## Lex (Oct 15, 2003)

I think that London is too Armadillo-like, NY is too boxy, Madrid's plan seem underdeveloped and there is nothing new about Paris'. My vote goes Moscow - quite classy.

One thing that I will say though, after Athens, I think we are going to see a lot more stadia that are aesthetically and architecturally pleasing.


----------



## JW (Dec 22, 2004)

Paris


----------



## roadtomadrid (Oct 5, 2003)

what is the use of london stadium before olympics games?? nothing use

madrid stadium will be the place of Primera Division of La Liga, Atletico de Madrid SAD.

madrid is not spectacular design but will be confortable and simple, with a lot of comunications (metro, routes, train)


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

The location of the London 2012 Olympic Stadium will be interesting - next door an international station (2hrs to Paris via Eurostar) is being constructed, and next to that is a station which is hub for the Central and Jubilee lines as well as a DLR line (by 2008 another DLR will go through the station) and there are also regional train services that stop at the station. Stratford is 5mins non-stop to London Liverpool Street (busiest station in the UK), 7mins non-stop to London St Pancras (which has London Kings Cross next door) and there will also be non-stop services to London Stansted Airport which is due north of Stratford. There is also the possibility that the Crossrail line may be completed before the Olympics start which could mean that there are non-stop services direct to London Heathrow Airport. It will become one of the best connected stadiums on the planet when and if it gets built 

The stadium will become a stadium dedicated to athletics. Afterall Twickenham in South London is being expanded to 82,500 which is a stadium used for Rugby, Wembley which is well under construction has a capacity of 90,000 and Ashburton Grove will be the home of Arsenal with a capacity of 60,000. Tottenham Hotspurs have been looking for a new stadium (White Hart Lane is stupidly small), although I don't believe they would be able to work with athletics and football due to a clash of events. Though saying that - Chelsea with Ambromovich behind them could go for an 80,000 stadium, but Chelsea are a West London club and I can't see them moving....I could see Stamford Bridge being majorly expanded within the next few years though.


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)

*New plans for New York City's new stadium:*

THE NEW YORK JETS AND WORLD-RENOWNED DESIGNERS UNVEIL DRAMATIC REDESIGN OF THE NEW YORK SPORTS AND CONVENTION CENTER 

New York - The New York Jets today unveiled a redesigned Sports and Convention Center that will stand as one of New York’s most exciting new buildings and an anchor for the new Hudson Yards community. 

Among the changes, the building’s height has been dramatically reduced - by more than 10 stories. A new destination retail corridor is now planned along 11th Avenue - the new main entranceway to the Sports and Convention Center - and an enhanced public space has been established. The building’s steel façade has been replaced with a glass veil, the first of its kind in the world. 

The modifications address specific concerns raised during the public review process, from the scale of the building to its assimilation into the future Hudson Yards community. In particular, the New York Jets worked in partnership with the Municipal Arts Society to move the main entrance to 11th Avenue and 32nd Street. As a result, the NYSCC will culminate in an east/west corridor that MAS envisions will one day stretch from the Farley Building to the Hudson. 

A new 60 foot high grand entryway on 11th Avenue will become a window from 32nd Street onto the football field and the River beyond. 

New York Jets President Jay Cross, “This building - inside and out – will showcase the best of New York. The changes unveiled today reflect months of spirited public discussion. What has emerged is a building that is just as grand, and yet reduced in height by more than ten stories. A new public plaza and corridor along 32nd Street will ensure the experience outside the New York Sports and Convention Center will be as inspiring as whatever takes place within - whether it’s a football game, the flower show, or a Final Four.

Cross continued, “Its unique design – an inner structure and glass veil overlay – will become a destination for New Yorkers and tourists alike in an area of Manhattan which has been desolate for too long. I want to thank Amanda Burden and the Municipal Arts Society, for their input to make this new design a reality. But most importantly, I want to thank our talented and dedicated team of architects and designers, who devoted hundreds of hours to give form to numerous suggestions.” 

"I am pleased by this dramatic redesign of the NYSCC and believe it goes a long way to addressing concerns raised by the community, concerned citizens and the City Planning Commission," said City Planning Director Amanda M. Burden. "The lightness and transparency of the exterior, as well as the significant reduction in height, greatly improve the scale of the facility. I especially applaud the reorientation of the entrance to 32nd Street, which provides an opportunity to extend the pedestrian way from Moynihan Station provided for in the Hudson Yards plan. I look forward to working with the Jets and their architects as they develop and refine this exciting concept. 

“The New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects has called the New York Sports and Convention Center 'a significant architectural anchor for the development of the Far West Side,’” said Rick Bell, Executive Director of the New York Chapter of the AIA. “The building design is extraordinary and environmentally advanced. It demonstrates that New York City can once again construct creative and innovative structures that are at the leading edge of technology."

The redesign reduces the height and bulk of the structure by 120 feet; greatly enlarges 11th Avenue’s area for pedestrian circulation by setting back the interior walls 15 feet and creating a dramatic new public space; establishes a destination retail complex, and a television broadcast studio; and replaces the exterior steel structure with a floating glass veil emphasizing the building’s relationship with the waterfront. 

Led by architect Bill Pedersen of Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF), the world-renowned design team includes wayfinding designer Bruce Mau of Bruce Mau Design; lighting designer Herve Descottes of L’Observatoire; and interior designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg of Yabu Pushelberg. 

“The new design envelops the building in a glass veil as an ephemeral gesture to the city while simultaneously heightening its vibrancy and drama along 11th Avenue,” said Pedersen. “The outer veil hovers above the inner structure floating above the ground without ever touching it.” 

Pedersen added, “The previous design harkened back to the steel structures of the George Washington Bridge and other New York landmarks for its inspiration - the redesign looks forward to create a new icon representing New York’s future, not its past. The veil gives the structure a chameleon like quality – everchanging in color and texture – to respond to its surrounding environment.” 


HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW DESIGN

EAST/WEST CORRIDOR ALONG 32ND STREET

The main entrance has been moved from the north side of the building to 32nd street to offer a long vista from the stadium to the east into the surrounding community and to the west towards the waterfront. 

Pedestrians will be drawn to the entrance of the building because the spectacular glass veil peaks at its highest and most transparent point, creating a “fold” through which one can see all the way down the entire length of the football field to the riverbed. 

As pedestrians approach the stadium, they will be drawn into the fold, a vast public space that funnels underneath the structure into the entrance. The vestibule flows 80 feet into the structure, an urban zone featuring public and retail space. 

Similarly, from the west façade, a reciprocal portal has been created to give ferry passengers and pedestrians an unobstructed visual axis from the river to the city. 


REDUCTION OF OVERALL MASS

After rigorous research and significant testing, the New York Jets identified that other sources of power would be more efficient than that generated by the wind turbines. As a result, the wind turbines have been removed and the Jets will rely on green power sources in upstate New York. Whereas the wind turbines produced enough energy to meet 60% of our football needs, the new design will produce more than enough energy to meet all of our football needs. Even more efficient and energy friendly than the original design, the NYSCC will serve as a model for buildings of its kind in terms of its commitment to sustainability. 

The removal of the wind turbines and the significant reduction of structural steel reduces the mass of the building by 120 feet (more than 30% of the building or the equivalent of 10 stories.) 

While simultaneously minimizing the bulk of the building, the new design creates a more dramatic icon for New York City. Less monumental in size, the sleeker design is in fact more efficient and more dynamic - connecting to its surroundings and activating the street through vibrant lighting and graphics to correspond with all of the buildings various uses. 


NEW PUBLIC SPACE

By moving the lower levels of the structure back fifteen feet, the sidewalk along 11th Avenue has doubled in width from fifteen feet to thirty feet creating a significantly larger public space. This increased space will give pedestrians and patrons a meeting area to convene and enjoy their surroundings. 

In addition, world renowned designer Bruce Mau has created a retail and entertainment corridor which will feature stores, restaurants and entertainment options for New Yorkers to enjoy. 


AESTHETIC ICON

The most striking element of the new design is the “veil” – a semi-opaque glass structure that hovers around the internal building.

Standing underneath the building, one can see that the veil is actually a glass curtain that floats several feet off the main structure, supported by thin steel beams. The milky white veil alternates between opaque and transparent areas, letting in light through a muted pattern. The retail graphics by Bruce Mau Design on the inside appear as pixilated washes of color from the exterior.


ABOUT THE NYSCC

The New York Sports and Convention Center (NYSCC) will be built over rail yards located between 11th and 12th avenues and 30th and 33rd streets on Manhattan’s Far West Side. Located just south of the Javits Convention Center, the NYSCC will be used primarily as a 180,000 square foot, column free convention hall with 30,000 square feet of meeting space. 

Moreover, in the span of only 24 hours, the building can change from a top-tier convention center into a state of the art NFL football stadium. This transformation is achieved through the closure of the building’s retractable roof, the insertion of a palletized playing field, the unfolding of modular seating, and the lifting of a lighting grid. In this mode, the facility will be able to operate as a 75,000 seat stadium or a plenary hall seating up to 45,000 people. When it opens in the fall of 2009, the NYSCC will serve as a new home to the New York Jets, who will relocate from New Jersey, and as the Olympic Stadium if New York is awarded the 2012 Summer Games. 

The NYSCC will create thousands of temporary and permanent jobs for hard working New Yorkers; generate millions of dollars in new annual revenue to help pay for more teachers, cops and firefighters; create new public spaces and waterfront access; help build a broader base of minority and women-owned business in New York City serving as a model for future MWBE programs in New York and across the nation and provide New York with a world class venue for events such as the Super Bowl, the Final Four and the 2012 Olympic Games.


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)




----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2005)

> *Madison Square Garden’s Offer Could “Derail” New York 2012 Bid*
> *Posted 3:52 pm ET (GamesBids.com)*
> 
> Madison Square Garden announced Friday it was offering $600 million for the property where the New York Jets want to build a stadium, which is pivotal to New York’s bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. The amount is nearly twice as much the New York Jets were asked to pay.
> ...


I find this a little bit worrying in terms of their bid. Is this the straw that breaks the camel's back?


----------



## Imperial (Aug 22, 2004)

London stadium is no doupt, the best.


----------



## waustralia (Nov 23, 2004)

London, with the rendering's on the first page! It looks so nice.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

i really hope that new york gets the stadium issue sorted out as im really starting to like the proposals and the bid and for me comes in at close second to london as my favourite followed by madrid, moscow then paris


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

GVNY said:


>


And the running track and long jump pits are going to go where exactly (bearing in mind a gridiron field is narrower than a soccer pitch, which fits inside an Olympic track...)??


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

75,000 seater as a American Football stadium ... whats it gonna be with an Athletics track 60,000?

Not big enough for Olympics.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

underground of course!!!


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Oh yeh, by the way, have you Londerners heard about this new railway line proposed from London to Birmingham, then extended to Newcastle and Edinburgh.

Up to 186 to 225mph and would take just under 1 hour to get from New Street to London. 

This would be fantastic for London's bid, as it would allow quicker and easier access for the northern UK to experience the games, and should break up traffic down to the south.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Mo Rush said:


> underground of course!!!


Underground what?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

birminghamculture said:


> 75,000 seater as a American Football stadium ... whats it gonna be with an Athletics track 60,000?


Yes, but my point is that the tiers are so steep in the rendering, that if you somehow put in a running track (which would start about where the front row of seats in the bottom tier are), the outer lanes would be underneath that double row of boxes... I wouldn't be very happy paying through the nose for seats up there if I could only see three of the runners in the Olympic 100m final!!


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)

You guys need not worry about the stadium. It will be built.


----------



## vivayo (May 6, 2003)

London all the way,


----------



## roadtomadrid (Oct 5, 2003)

i dont like this new ny stadium


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

London, Madrid, Moscow and Paris is too typical stadiums...

NY stadium is unique and looks nice, very urban. I like it.


----------



## Ekumenopolis (Feb 2, 2005)

Unique?? Visit almost any stadium in UK or Sweden. 

The London one for me, its almost sci-fi!!!


----------



## Tosco (Nov 30, 2004)

Who is the architect of the London's stadium?


----------



## jer4893 (Feb 5, 2005)

New York's stadium is ugly. Anyway, there is no chance that New York is going to get the 2012 olympics. It's not the city's fault, it's just that because the 2010 olympics went to Vancouver and they are never held on the same continant 2 years in a row.

VANCOUVER 2010 OLYMPICS!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Welcome to SSC....i agree i dont like New York Stadium. I dont know about same continent it would be alowed in Europe i suppose.


----------



## KulasKusgan (Jan 27, 2005)

jer4893 said:


> New York's stadium is ugly. Anyway, there is no chance that New York is going to get the 2012 olympics. It's not the city's fault, it's just that because the 2010 olympics went to Vancouver and they are never held on the same continant 2 years in a row.
> 
> VANCOUVER 2010 OLYMPICS!


Vancouver will be hosting the Winter Games 2010...while 2012 is for Summer Games my friend...

@ Chad: THanks for that pics... Im voting for Moscow...

I like NYC... looks festive...

London is overly-designed... somehow begging for attention... Its another Millenium Dome in the making...

I like Moscow tho the color-theme inside sucks.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Paris has had a nice little set-back, with its swimming pools ... :hahaha:

Broken promises dont win you the Olympics ... WOO HOO


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

birminghamculture said:


> Paris has had a nice little set-back, with its swimming pools ... :hahaha:
> 
> Broken promises dont win you the Olympics ... WOO HOO


Don't gloat too much birmingham culture! Remember which city reneged on its promise to host the 2005 World Championships :doh:


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Madman said:


> Don't gloat too much birmingham culture! Remember which city reneged on its promise to host the 2005 World Championships :doh:



Yeh but Birmingham save your white arse's and the UK's international sporting prestige when it came into save the World Indoor Championships in 2004 as it was the only feasible option with all facilities set-up in such short notice.

Ohwell, if London doesnt get the Olympics least Birmingham wll be home to the Europeans in 2007 AGAIN ...


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

without looking at the poll results, I'm going to make a prediction. This is SSC. There's no Toronto proposal. No HK proposal, so London must be leading. As I post this, I still haven't looked. Sorry, but that is an ugly stadium. I know this board likes the most envelope pushing designs, but that doesn't mean it looks good.


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> without looking at the poll results, I'm going to make a prediction. This is SSC. There's no Toronto proposal. No HK proposal, so London must be leading.


 lol.


----------



## redstar (Nov 24, 2004)

Strangely enough, I hate London the most, as well as Beijiing for 2008. 

New York is vibrant and modern and futuritsic. 
Paris is simple, efficeint and plain.
Moscow is classical and big.
Madrid is downright awful and boring.

So I'm for New York City.
If not, then Moscow.
Then Paris.

Has anyone noticed, these stadiums/locations are all affiliated with a country fighting the War On Terrorism. Moscow is excepted but Russia is full of civil conflict and Paris is where the movie, Team America is set which is a perfect hub for terrorists. 

Good Luck to whoever gets it (Not London) I couldn't stand the barmy poms blurting their awful accent through the microphones.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

redstar said:


> Good Luck to whoever gets it (Not London) I couldn't stand the barmy poms blurting their awful accent through the microphones.


Thats rich from a country with one of the most 'unique' accents in the english speaking world.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ive updates the new new york stadium design for 2012, what do you think now?


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

> Good Luck to whoever gets it (Not London) I couldn't stand the barmy poms blurting their awful accent through the microphones.


idiot...u speak OUR language...


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Madman said:


> Thats rich from a country with one of the most 'unique' accents in the english speaking world.


To be fair, the New Zealand accent is a lot worse than the Australian one...


----------



## Javi (Mar 18, 2005)

Madrid´s stadium will be more spectacular than you can appreciate in the pics


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Londons is by far the best!

I think London will get the olympics because there it will actually regenerate much of run down London....There is no regeneration plan in any of the other bids...thats why i think London will get it!


----------



## Barragon (Dec 26, 2004)

London is the best kay:


----------



## nukey (Apr 17, 2004)

I actually think that the London stadium design is a bit tacky and unsubtle in its formal allusion to muscles, but at the same time I still think its miles more adventurous than any of the other designs. New York's just looks like its some normal stadium built for a normal football team in a tight urban site... Moscow's looks like some sort of weird return to 70s kitschy futurism (along with alot of the other buildings in their plan), Madrid's is just plain dull and Paris' Stade De France, though fabulous, is old, and not becoming of as the centre of the Olympics.

I realy REALY hope London wins cos I genuinely think that we deserve it. London has changed so much over the past ten years, entirely reinventing itself, and I think this would just cap it all and bring londoners together to celebrate the transformation as well as giving a boost to the overhall of our transport system which will insure the longevity of London's newfound vitality. London realy needs this... Paris doesnt. Paris has got it all anyway and I will be quite upset if they get it. For me it should be down to NYC and London. NYC because of the change it has also gone through that is just as startling as London's...


----------



## BOLSCHOI (Dec 27, 2004)

that's the stadium of moscow


----------



## Manu84 (Nov 16, 2003)

New York: for me this stadium looks like a circus!!!!


----------



## Qatar4Ever (Feb 3, 2004)

the new york one looks like crap. I think spain should do better than this


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

London's is the most unique and inspiring.

then after that, I have no real desires for any of them  unfortunately. Maybe Stade De France because its already built. Moscow's looks a bit to drab for an Olympics. Madrids renders arent the greatest and NYC's looks a bit to squashed, plus theres a huge amount of troubles behind it.


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

A larger version of the London stadium


----------



## Flagg1982 (Jan 16, 2005)

Paris shits all over the others. The brits are just jealous.
The Stade de France is already the most prestigious sport arena in the world ( a victorious '98 World Cup final, the 2003 Athletics World championship, a Champion's League final etc...).
If Paris get the games, it will become legendary.



The London stadium is butt ugly.
I like the NY one, though. Very original.


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

Flagg1982 said:


> Paris shits all over the others. The brits are just jealous.
> The Stade de France is already the most prestigious sport arena in the world ( a victorious '98 World Cup final, the 2003 Athletics World championship, a Champion's League final etc...).
> If Paris get the games, it will become legendary.
> 
> ...



I believe the Millenium Stadium is better then Stade De France so why would the Brits be jealous?

They already have Twickenham 82,000 seater Bigger then the stade De France, Wembley 90,000 seater bigger then ... Yes The Stade De France ... it will also have the 80,000 Plus Olympic stadium if it wins the bid ... also Bigger then the Stade De France

Old Trafford is expanding to 75,000 next year, Arsenals Emirate Stadium is U/C at 60,000

They have Millennium Stadium at 74,500 , Murrayfield at 67,500, Celtic Park at 60,506, Hampden Park at 50,670, Ibrox Stadium at 50,420, St. James's Park at 52,143 

Do the Maths

Not to mention the planned 60,000 super Stadium in Birmingham and other huge proposals for the Country.

I think France are just ingering on to the Stade de France a tad to much and are stalling, and not moving forward which the British Isles are with new designs year after year for major stadiums.


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

Flagg1982 said:


> Paris shits all over the others. The brits are just jealous.
> The Stade de France is already the most prestigious sport arena in the world ( a victorious '98 World Cup final, the 2003 Athletics World championship, a Champion's League final etc...).
> If Paris get the games, it will become legendary.


P.S I personally think Wembley is still more prestigious then Stade De France and its not even built yet, the History of the last stadium still makes it more world wide famous and more important then the Stade de France will ever be.

Sorry to put it bluntly. But even when I was living in Australia everyone knew about Wembley same with Wimbledon and Lords and Twickenham.

:cheers:


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

You forgot to mention New Anfield at 61,000 

Construction is said to start Spring 2005 (now then)....thats what it say on Liverpool FCs Official site!

Im Half French so no Bias views from me....Whoever gets the Olympics Paris/London i win anyway!

Ive been to the stade de france....and alot of work would need doing if it was to get the olympics.....its has squat toilets for a start....and is pretty dank!


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

Everton FC are also set to start pursuing a new stadium again after the last attempt stalled. 

a 55,000 all seater stadium was designed for Kings dock and was considered to be one of the most advanced technological stadiums in the world once finished.

Unfortunately private funding stalled this project and later collapsed. but a revival is on the cards with investors no approching the club.

I just looked up also, that France only has 2 50,000+ stadiums and I think only 11 over 30,000


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Wow....thats sucks....it realy does....i mean wow...that realy is bad!


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

^that stadium is horrible...is that the Madrid proposal?


----------



## BOLSCHOI (Dec 27, 2004)

yes.


----------



## New York Yankee (Mar 18, 2005)

the londen one is real great, beatiful architecture....


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

And after the Onlympics....Londons Stadium will be reduced to 25,000 and someone like Leyton Orient wont play in it....it will become the official home of British Athletics and the stadium will be for Athletic only!

Three of the surrounding 10,000 capacity sports arenas will be moved to other parts of the country!


----------



## exciter (Mar 2, 2005)

madrid olympic stadium: the main part of it is already done
























madrid is making not much noise, as london does, but we are making the works


----------



## Marvell (Apr 30, 2004)

Interesting roof design in the Madrid stadium. The render of the roof material doesn't look 'real' somehow though, whats it made of, anyone know? Come to think of it, how will it stay up? Doesn't seem to have any visible supports. This render certainly is an improvement on what we've seen of it so far.


----------



## exciter (Mar 2, 2005)

the architects are the same from Sevilla's stadium. Here are some pics from Sevilla. The solution is similar, but more advanced, and with transparent materials to let the light pass trough.


----------



## Forza Raalte (Sep 18, 2004)

Stade de France maybe is old but is a wonderful stadion and it is good enough for the Olympics

The London Stadium looks a bit weird in the first pic but if you look at it real good it just is a marvellous stadium. And on the inside is looks fantastic

The Madrid stadium isn't that bad on the inside but they should really change the outside it's really boring. I mean the roof is ok but they should do something with the walls.

Moscow Stadium is very bad it is a monsterous arena. Is it a proposal or does it already existes? It looks old and i don't like it.

But the worst is the New York stadium. How do they dare to call that a stadium it's.....strange. Something tells me I don't like it. Arena's suppose to be round, they shouldn't look like boxes.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

the madrid stadium is not amazing but i think its nice its got a special place in my heart
the walls outside are not great but the stadium is not so awful perhaps not a 2012 modern stadium but its practical functional and will suit madrids needs i doubt madrid will get the games so im not worried really


----------



## onetwothree (Nov 14, 2004)

London for sure. Moscow, Paris and Madrid are too normal-stadium-like, without any personal touch or characteristic things. The London has those cool leaves like things, which makes it cool. The New York one has personality too, but it doesn't look like a stadium. It's too boxy


----------



## eievar (Nov 4, 2004)

london stadium seems to be going to creep... it's like a worm or something like that... jaja


----------



## israelblue (Nov 21, 2004)

for my, you better stadiums are those of Madrid anda New York, are the only ones that seem more of our time, that of London looks like a reptile, and that of Paris and Moscow, I see them for football, but not for Olimpic Games, a stadium must be modern and functional, not futurist and bowl as that of London


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

Do you have anything good to say about London Israelblue? everything you seem to say critisizes it.

How will it not be functional? it will have an athletics track, a field and 80,000 supporters. thats all it needs. 

stupid response :sleepy:


----------



## exciter (Mar 2, 2005)

i really don't like this kind of false architecture, if you take off the london's stadium roof, all that you have is a simple stadium, without anything new. i'm sorry, it's my opinion.
all this kind of buildings are out of place, just only looking for being 'spectacular' but not good architecture.
so a rather like the ones in paris or madrid


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Says someone from Madrid...

"i really don't like this kind of false architecture, if you take off the london's stadium roof, all that you have is a simple stadium without anything new. i'm sorry, it's my opinion."

How do we know there wont be anything new....and what knew things can there be?

"just only looking for being 'spectacular' "

Ah so maybe they should of done what Madrid have done and design one of the most boring stadiums ever?


----------



## exciter (Mar 2, 2005)

i don't think is boring, but, otherway...a stadium has to be 'funny'? as a circus?


----------



## Citrus-Fruit (Mar 26, 2005)

Oh look at all these Madrid supporters flounderign around with jealousy.

Its your own fault for producing a rubbish design. Hull city FC's stadium is nicer then your one. 

least NYC have tried to do something with theres considering the small space. It looks as if you've just thought will have a stadium with a nice little curve and then add a see through roof which will blind all the spectators when the sun shines through.

Guess you guys never thought of that did you :sleepy:


----------



## urbanphx (Apr 3, 2005)

Well, I like New York's 'boxy' stadium.


----------



## Azcamadrid (Sep 16, 2002)

Madrid has a good stadium, but it doesnt seem very modern. Otherwise, London one seems as a cockroach.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

As rubbish as New Yorks is it is the second most impressive stadium there!


----------



## Kat. (Nov 19, 2004)

I would put the stadiums as follows:

1) London- Its a very sleek and modern design. I love this perspective 








2) New York- Even though Im not overly keen on boxy stadiums it suits NY perfectly.
3) Paris- As good a venue as it is, its not the most inspiring design. It looks great at night but by day it reminds me of a painful toilet seat  If paris gets the games I hope that they give it abit of a face lift.
4) Moscow- It looks nice lit up at night but its abit old.
5) Madrid- The worst imo. It looks quite bland, especially the outside. Not spectacular enough for the olympics.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

That London Stadium is hideous. I agree with whomever talked about the false architecture or whatever. Its my beef with Beijing. It's my beef with athens. Look at the bowl renderings. It's Atlanta with an ugly roof. 

As for NYC's, I don't know why people think this will be small. Just picture Reliant with the entire exterior ended for the atriums instead of just the rounded bulges of Reliant. Would anyone accuse Reliant of being small?


















To put in a track would be easy. Build the stadium for the track initially with a slightly high wall like Texas Stadium or Giants Stadium. Additional convertible stands that could cover the track could easily go in over the track during football games. After the olympics, the field would simply be lowered a few feat, and more permanent convertibles would be added. Its done all the time. No big deal.

As for which stadium is best, they all have their flaws, and they all would be great hosts.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Do they use real grass in American Football or astroturf? Just wondering as many of the stadiums seem quite dark.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Some places real grass, Some use infill turfs(plasticy grass with rubber 'dirt'). For American football purposes both surfaces play about the same. American football is very tough on real grass, especially in rainy or cold environments, so you mostly see real grass in southern cities and infill turfs in the north or rainier places like Seattle. Reliant uses real grass.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

*Stadiums.....EUROPE v The USA*

Who has the best stadiums?

Remember...

Looks
Facilities
History
Atomsphere

P.S
Im not going to include canada....because I said so  

In the intrest of fainess (and im english/french) all stadias under construction can be included!

Right then....show of your stadiums now then!


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

i like the way they look too, but its kinda like, seen one, seen them all from the outside.

now, when we are talking british football clubs, and you see "Manchester" painted on the seats of old trofford, or you see the rises at St James Park (TOON ARMY!) theni am in awe. Those football parks are brilliant and steeped in tradition and atmosphere. 

On the same note, college football stadiums are essentially the same thing with an enourmous amount of history, renovations, tradition, etc. I can post some pics when i get home of Texas gameday tradition, but i'm at work (not working tho' *wink*). 

I am looking forward to the day when i can take in a game at St James and see a Euro cup final in the new Wembley with England and Denmark playing (my 2nd and 3rd favorite teams).


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Millennium Stadium (75,000)---Europe----UK---Wales---Cardiff


----------



## Be_Happy (Aug 21, 2004)

The stadiums in Europe look much more pleasing to the eye. They're also all (in most cases) fully seated. American stadiums tend to be bench'd, which is probably the reason for the larger capacity. The European stadiums look much more professional for some reason and more comfortable.


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

I like the huge-ness of the American college stadiums, along with their history of expansion and those kind of things, but I think the architecture of them is lacking a bit, although that seems to be changing now, at least in the pro-area. Examples are Soldier Field, QWest Field, Reliant Stadium, the proposed Jets stadium in Manhattan, etc.

Hard to decide, but the US certainly isn't lacking anything.


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

Be_Happy said:


> The stadiums in Europe look much more pleasing to the eye. They're also all (in most cases) fully seated. American stadiums tend to be bench'd, which is probably the reason for the larger capacity. The European stadiums look much more professional for some reason and more comfortable.


only for the college stadiums. All pro leagues (National Football league, Nat'l Basketball Assoc, Major League Baseball, Nat'l Hockey League) are all fully seated. If you want to compare Pro to Pro, then Europe really has no arguement because both of our stadiums are fully seated -- albeit, they are all mostly new and lack lots tradition because of their novelty.

Pro stadiums bore me -- but many of them are beautiful.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Look more?

Are more!

And they have roofs...I think stadiums look better with roofs!









That one in Russia (83,160) /\








Twickenham Stadium UK (75,000)








Estadio La Cartuja ESP (72,000)


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

You're right about college football being very similar in tradition to the football clubs. While college stadium may not be best looking the atmosphere far makes up for it. Here some are videos of pregame traditons at Michigan State these are all from Nov. 2001 in game between MSU and our rival the University of Michigan.

One the main traditons is to line the streets as the band makes way to the stadium
March to the Stadium  

This the band entrance rountine you see it pretty clearly at the start of video
Kickstep Entrance  

Pregame Fanfare  

By far my favorite words can't describe it you just have to watch it
Pregame Fight (Spin the "S")


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

Awesome movies urbanlover, I'm a big fan of college football (and I'm European, go figure , but I'm not much of a soccer fan so maybe that explains it).

When the marching band formed that S I went 'Holy ****' out loud, that was really awesome. How big is your marching band anyway :runaway:


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Personally, i love both American and European Stadia, but in my own opinion the European Stadiums come first. You can cite the tradition of college Stadiums but they're monstrousities, huge benched stadiums that lack the intimacy of the Euro stadiums. Sure they have 100,000 capacity, thats great but they look plain and unimaginative. Also, the Pro Stadiums are great in America, i do like them but so do the European ones which don't resort to crazy architecture to be 'awe-inspiring'.

Also, for you Americans that cite luxury Boxes as a problem for these crazy designs, please have some sense Most top flight Stadia in Europe deal with Luxury boxes too except we don't hark on about it, because we make them fit into the designs seamlessly.


----------



## Nameless (Jul 8, 2004)

eddyk said:


> Look more?
> 
> Are more!
> 
> ...





I would definitly have to disagree. Sports like baseball, American football, and soccer need to be played outdoors. Indoors it feels stale. Now we have a retractable roof stadium where I live because of the summers we have here but when the weather is ideal I prefer the roof to be open. The only cases where I think roofs are acceptable on stadiums are places where it either gets extremely hot or extremely cold. And even then the roofs had better be retractable.


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

urbanlover said:


> By far my favorite words can't describe it you just have to watch it
> Pregame Fight (Spin the "S")


HOLY SMOKES! That was so fucking sweet. I wasnt aware that MSU had that tradition before. Thanks for sharing. I wish UT would do a home-and-home with MSU, that would be a fun series.

I will make a post of some of UT's stadium and traditions a little later.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.stadiumguide.com/index.htm

easier than posting all the UK stadiums xx


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

So, then how do you justify Dome teams then? Domes are ridiculous and ruin the experience, if i wanted to weatch my Eagles, i wouldn't do it in a dome thats for sure. Also as much as its about watching outside, a roof also serves as making it more comfortable for the fans during the season, it counts as shade, as shelter from the rain/snow whatever weather happens and it also adds character to the stadium. A roofless stadium seems incomplete to me.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Indeed....the roof is the main par of the stadium IMO!


----------



## NovaWolverine (Dec 28, 2004)

American Stadiums are every bit as good as Euro ones are. While I like the Euro ones, you know they try to be artistic, but the American ones are a lot more diverse IMO. 

And it's only in college where the stadiums aren't fully seated. I have yet to see any professional team in the US w/ bench seating. 

I go to the University of Michigan, the largest crowd was about 113,000, and there is nothing bad about not having seats. You set your drink on the ground, you stand the entire game and yell your ass off, that's why college football is every bit as intense as european football stadiums are. 

All the biggest pro stadiums, fed ex field, giants stadium, qualcomm, reliant, new jets stadium, they're all fully seated. 

A roofless stadium may seem incomplete to you but it's different in America. Games that take place in snow and rain storms are some of the most memorable, it's the pride and pleasure people have at Soldier Field, Lambeau, and many college stadiums, during the winter.

Like I said, the US' stadiums are more diverse, they have domes, retractable roofs, open. When you have a retractable roof in Seattle or Phoenix, you're shielded from the elements, but when you have an open top in Pittsburgh, or San Francisco, you can see the beautiful cities or add an entire new element to the game like McCovey Cove at Pac Bell Park.


----------



## Chalaco (Aug 29, 2004)

Pro Player Florida


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

European stadiums arnt diverse?

Lets settle this...someboddy post what they think are there best stadiums in the USA...and me and im sure some other europeans will post our best!


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

to me european stadium's are really ugly and i hate their roof structures. 

it seems as if in europe they don't know how to build a stadium without having a some sort of thing on top,which i find repeated and ugly .the same as if architects would draw a spire on every building they built.

eurpoeans care to much about the exteriors of the stadium instead of interior.

and yea i know there can be some ugly american stadiums but in my opinion 75%of european stadium's are cookie cutter's repeated over and over.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

I think that would be the best bet... making unsubstantiated comments about other countries/continets stadiums is pointless... Put the stadiums out there and see what the rest come up with.


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

Some Portuguese ones:
Alvalade

















Da Luz

















Dragao

















Bessa









Aveiro









Leiria

















Guimaraes


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

MoreOrLess said:


> You seem to contradict yourself there by first claiming that roofs make stadiums look worse then saying that european stadiums focus on the exterior rather than the interior when the point of having roofs is to shelter the fans inside from the elements.
> 
> I agree that its a pretty impossible question to answer as both sets of stadia are trying to achieve different goals. Really all I'd say is that I do see more variety in eurpoean stadia probabley because there are greater differences between the cultures that build them and they normally include a roof that offers more oportunities for different designs.


You see more variety in Europe because you're more used to seeing their stadiums. I will (already am) dispel this myth with individual stadium posts. Funny, as I post more and more of a variety in each post, the comments are less and less, and even criticism because the designs aren't standard bowl and cantilevers.


Isn't this the 4th time we've had this post?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> You see more variety in Europe because you're more used to seeing their stadiums. I will (already am) dispel this myth with individual stadium posts. Funny, as I post more and more of a variety in each post, the comments are less and less, and even criticism because the designs aren't standard bowl and cantilevers.
> 
> 
> Isn't this the 4th time we've had this post?


I agree that most of the modern stadiums you've been posting in the last few days show alot more variety but unless you come up with alot more that I havent seen I'd still say that overall theres more in europe for the reasons I mentioned.


----------



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

IMO most US stadiass have the same architecture


Nou Camp 98 934 










Giuseppe Meazza 85 700 










Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki 84 745 









NSK Olimpiys'kyi 83 450 









Olìmpico 81 368 









Atatürk Olympiyat 81 283









Santiago Bernabéu 80 162
^

Croke Park 80 000


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

what on earth is going on here?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

brummad said:


> what on earth is going on here?


That's what I was going to ask!


----------



## Kat. (Nov 19, 2004)

Personally I prefer European stadiums, maybe its because Im used to their design (with roof) than the US. One thing that I dislike about Us stadiums is the HUGE car parks next to many of them. Most stadiums in Europe tend to rely on public transport


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

urbanlover said:


> It's around 300 people. How'd you become big college FB fan I can't imagine that college FB is shown a lot in Europe?


I went to college in the US for one year after my high school in Holland, that pretty much did it  I'm still avidly searching for a way to watch ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU on the internet or some other way, because I kinda miss it  For now I just listen to the games of my own school through webradio.



brummad said:


> what on earth is going on here?


I think its a combined football (american) and baseball stadium, which is the reason they didn't enclose the entire field, and they have removable stands (the rectangular one on the side). The stadium's got quite some history I think, just google it if you're interested in it


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Yes its a dual purpose facility so thats why it looks strange. Those things are a dieing breed though, because instead of doing one thing well they do 2 things poorly, and they tend to be ugly which is why they are heardly built anymore.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

That's the old stand. A new modern stand was built and the whole stadium was rennovated adding luxury hundreds of luxury suites. Its Network Associates Coliseum, and one of only 3 duel purpose stadiums left. That pic is from the 70s


























As for whomever said there are as many luxury suites in European stadiums, that simply isn't true. This can be seen with the naked eye. You have some NFL and MLB stadiums with 200+. Even Allainz only has 1 ring of them, While you have places like Texas Stadium or Reliant Stadium that have 4 rings of them around the entire stadium.

To say US Stadiums have the same architecture is funny if anyone has even looked at any of my post. Every stadium looks different, not just the roof. Its a one-ups manship that the billionaire owners are in a game of.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Explain the repetitiveness of the College Stadia then? 

Thats the problem with expanding old style stadiums, they all look the same...


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

It was you americans who said all the european stadiums looked alike!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

You must be new to the board eddyk. This post has been done several times, and the moniker around here was that there is no uniqueness in American stadiums. Its a ridiculous notion. Yes, there are the cookie cutters and inflata-domes from the seventies, but after that the stadiums are unique, even if they are in the same genre. Keep in mind I haven't even started with baseball yet. There are some crazy designs there with truly unique features, yet all you guys can say is they have brick so they must be the same. Its like saying your stadiums have metal so they are all the same. On the other hand, the new European stadiums are all going for the cantilevered roof and saddle seated look. You know, Da Luz and Emirates or heck the whole Portugese set. Thank goodness for the Germans, who have broken this up a bit. I like their eye for design, and their stadiums would fit well in the US. Thank goodness for Wembley, though it is just FedEx Field's layout without its absurd amount of suites and a fancy roof.

As for college stadiums looking the same, I give a big huh? Those stadiums have very funky configurations. Very unique.


----------



## JacobRit (Sep 11, 2002)

EddyK.. represent for London/Uk?europe by all means... but do so with a little humility and respect, you seem to be arguing that black is white just to prove your own point, I love our country too, but sometimes ya gotta hold your hands up and admit that things/places/people from elsewhere are pretty damn cool too! Peace fella... anyway.....

I like the reliant stadium, invesco field, soldier field and lambeau(sp?) the best out of the American football stadia... how many of these have hosted Association Football matches (soccer)?


----------



## JacobRit (Sep 11, 2002)

to prove disprove the whole recogniseable/samelyness debate... why not post 10 random us and eu stadia from the air... and see how many can name em.... ok might not put this one to rest but would be fun!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

You guys are from Europe, so you would recognize your stadiums. Same would happen if you ask someone here in the states.

Friendlies as well as national team games are hosted all over the US. In southwestern states like California, Texas and Arizona you even get lots of Central American country vs Central American country due to the large numbers of immigrants. The MExican national team plays in Texas and Cali a lot. A whole lot. Usually at Reliant, Texas Stadium or the Cotton Bowl.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

"Thank goodness for Wembley, though it is just FedEx Field's layout without its absurd amount of suites and a fancy roof."

You mean a 3 teired stadium?

They are nothing alike...and A stadium like that needs a fancy roof....Its Wembley for crying out loud...Only the best and nothing else!

And whats wrong with stadium suites anyway?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

No, not a 3 tiered stadium. The seating layout for Wembley and FedEx Field are virtually identical. Even the capacities are the same. The difference is that FedEx has an absurd amount of suites.

HOK did both I believe.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

The layouts are similar, but not identical... Also, wembley has an absurd amount of suites except it isn't as obvious to the naked eye as it is in Fedex Field.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

See....much Different....and I think Wembley will have many many suites....Ill try and find the exact number on the net!


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> As for college stadiums looking the same, I give a big huh? Those stadiums have very funky configurations. Very unique.


No kidding. These are the REAL stadiums in the US. So they have bench seating ... who cares. We dont need luxury to watch football. I dont think i've ever watched a complete football game sitting down. In Texas and at Texas A&M (and i'm positive elsewhere) the whole student section remains standing throughout the whole game. Its more exciting that way. Actually, we end up standing on the benches and they sway like crazy during a really good play. Once when we scored the go-ahead touchdown vs. the Nebraska Cornhuskers (ranked #3 in the nation out of 117 teams), our whole section collaped in celebration. I fell four rows down and it was fucking great.

So, yeah, college stadiums are where its at. They have been through so many renovations due to schools increasing demand for tickets, big-wig donors demanding luxury boxes (actor Matthew McConaghey has a box right above the student section at Texas), refusal to break tradition and move to a new stadium, and perceived home field advantage, that they add on instead of re-build. They are the true cathedrals of the gridiron.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

There was a post on one of these threads.....Americas largest stadium (At least i think it was) was compared to Wembleys shortest side....and Wembley was still bigger.....Ill try and dig it up!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Just doing a little research, Wembley will be the tallest.

"As the worlds tallest stadium with the biggest single-span roof, it is also
expected to be the worlds most spectacular"

Its not known whether they mean the bowl or the arch. I also guess that means there are larger double spans? LOL


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

But they're not that similar, the Suites are laid out differently, because the Video screen was taken up a tier it makes 2nd tier different to that of Fedex. Also, the lower tier at Wembley has a shallower angle and if you want to really nit pick, ours has a roof... with an arch...


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Wembley will also have the largest Accomodation Area at 177,000 SQ Feet.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Is this the largest stadium in the USA? (SIZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

LOL at you two. I already mentioned that(video scree) as a difference, but its not that much. I would bet the lower tiers are about the same angle. I know Wembley has a roof(actually more of a retractable awning as it doesn't close) and arch. I was referring to the bowls, designed by HOK. Very similar.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Wembley has a permanent roof....with retractable ends to cover north and southern stands in bad weather!


P.S
I still say the Stade de France looks even more like Wembley!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

No, eddyk, it isn't. It only seats 73,250

For Sheer size(height, volume, capacity) I'd say Ohio Stadium, Neyland or FedEx probably take up the most space


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

good lord


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Rantanamo, you'll never get us to admit what you think as Wembley isn't as similar as you think... Yes, it is similar but the differences aren't as subtle as you let on. Like Eddy said, the Georgia Dome is more similar to Fedex than New Wembley. Also, whilst Fedex was design primarily by HOK, Normal Foster had a hand in the New Wembley design.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Accomodation Area Comparison
Wembley - 173,000sq m
Stade de France - 70,000sq m

The New Wembley is 2.5x larger than the Stade de France, yet has only 10,000 more seats - the stadium is immense.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Dont blame me for this


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Accomodation Area Comparison
> Wembley - 173,000sq m
> Stade de France - 70,000sq m
> 
> The New Wembley is 2.5x larger than the Stade de France, yet has only 10,000 more seats - the stadium is immense.


why?

What is all the extra space for? Is it a waste of space? (and money)


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Extra seat space....and then a stadium councourse the size of a motorway....and they're lined with bars and shops!

If you want to build the best....it has to be big!


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Exactly, I'm looking forward to walking through the concourse and being in sheer awe.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)




----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Looks a little more like it....but the top tier is still too steep!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

but you should get my point. I only changed two things.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Two major things....the shape of the bowl for one!

Still the stadium looks nothing like this...


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Of course they look similar, they are both three tiers of seats surronding a sports field in an oval shape. There's only so much individuality you can have within this format. Wembley has a big roof which is different but apart from that the differences are not that great imo.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Why don't you guys build an altar and worship the New Wembley... seriously, I think everything can be exaggerated, and what some people are saying about the New Wembley sounds as if it was the eighth wonder of the world. Calm down.
Everybody knows that it's gonna be a fantastic stadium!... All those superlatives...ridiculous


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Jonesy55 said:


> Of course they look similar, they are both three tiers of seats surronding a sports field in an oval shape. There's only so much individuality you can have within this format. Wembley has a big roof which is different but apart from that the differences are not that great imo.


Right! And due to UEFA and FIFA regulations there is not much room left for creativity in the interiour of a modern football stadium.


----------



## dande (Jan 28, 2005)

I wonder if they will keep the same size pitch at the new wembley and also will it be removable like it was before for concerts and similar.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Zizu said:


> Right! And due to UEFA and FIFA regulations there is not much room left for creativity in the interiour of a modern football stadium.


Maybe that accounts as to why NFL stadiums have much more variety in their seating arrangements.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

The Bristol Speedway looks really impressive!


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Zizu said:


> Why don't you guys build an altar and worship the New Wembley... seriously, I think everything can be exaggerated, and what some people are saying about the New Wembley sounds as if it was the eighth wonder of the world. Calm down.
> Everybody knows that it's gonna be a fantastic stadium!... All those superlatives...ridiculous



Now now no sour grapes!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I know what Zizu means. Even Wembley's website makes a lot of claims. There are a ton of great, modern stadiums out there.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> Maybe that accounts as to why NFL stadiums have much more variety in their seating arrangements.


Hmm, maybe. But there's also the fact that most european stadiums have roofs. And when you have a roof on stadium there are limits for the design of the interiour too. I'm not an engineer nor an architect but maybe also for statics reason. Maybe someone knows more on that....


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Its not as if they're false claims!


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> Maybe that accounts as to why NFL stadiums have much more variety in their seating arrangements.


Hmm, maybe. But there's also the fact that most european stadiums have roofs. And when you have a roof on stadium there are limits for the design of the interiour too. I'm not an engineer nor an architect but maybe also for statics reasons. Maybe someone knows more on that....
A roof on some US stadiums with their seating arrangement would look kind of strange imo... just wouldn't fit

Sorry, double post


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Zizu said:


> Why don't you guys build an altar and worship the New Wembley... seriously, I think everything can be exaggerated, and what some people are saying about the New Wembley sounds as if it was the eighth wonder of the world. Calm down.
> Everybody knows that it's gonna be a fantastic stadium!... All those superlatives...ridiculous



Sorry, but I had to say that! Don't wanna offend anybody


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Wembley is the 8th wonder of the world 

North americans will never get it though....Like you Zizu....im sure the Munich Olympic stadium is very special over there....and the Stade de France in France...The Melbourne Cricket ground in Oz....and that big one in Brazil....The USA hasnt got a stadium like this!(I dont think)


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

right, you don't think. If you are meaning in a historic sense, yes we do. If you mean, large, national icon, we have several.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

eddyk said:


> Wembley is the 8th wonder of the world
> 
> North americans will never get it though....Like you Zizu....im sure the Munich Olympic stadium is very special over there....and the Stade de France in France...The Melbourne Cricket ground in Oz....and that big one in Brazil....The USA hasnt got a stadium like this!(I dont think)


Sorry, but I've to disappoint you. I'm not american but bavarian!! Just in case you don't know, Bavaria is in Germany. A bit less patriotism and a bit more reason would be good for you eddy.  So I know that the Olympic stadium in my Home town is very special, just like the new Allianz Arena.


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

eddyk said:


> Wembley is the 8th wonder of the world
> 
> North americans will never get it though....Like you Zizu....im sure the Munich Olympic stadium is very special over there....and the Stade de France in France...The Melbourne Cricket ground in Oz....and that big one in Brazil....The USA hasnt got a stadium like this!(I dont think)


doesnt have one what? a national stadium? Well we have RFK, which is the official national stadium for US Soccer. 

You're right, we dont have one ... we have about 10.

RFK
Reliant
Rose Bowl
LA Coliseum
Jets Stadium
Cardinals Stadium
Jerry Land
Superdome
The Big House
Orange Bowl
Jacksonville
FedEx

... off the top of my head


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I never thought you were american Zizu!

And yes im sure the US does have national icons.....but Im on about the stadium of stadiums...and as i said, you wont understand (thats not an attack)...Lets be honest here.....Hardly anyone outside of the US has heard of the FedEx field or the Reliant Stadium....Its just the way our countries historys have gone....You chose American Football and Baseball......we got Football and cricket....which just happen to be the most popular sports in the world!


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> You seem to contradict yourself there by first claiming that roofs make stadiums look worse then saying that european stadiums focus on the exterior rather than the interior when the point of having roofs is to shelter the fans inside from the elements.
> 
> I agree that its a pretty impossible question to answer as both sets of stadia are trying to achieve different goals. Really all I'd say is that I do see more variety in eurpoean stadia probabley because there are greater differences between the cultures that build them and they normally include a roof that offers more oportunities for different designs.


i meant that the roof are built more for ornamentation,so i didn't contradict myself


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

P.S
its the fact you have so many national soccer stadiums that makes them less special!

During Wembley redevelopment our Football has been played all over the country aswell!


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

eddyk said:


> I never thought you were american Zizu!
> 
> And yes im sure the US does have national icons.....but Im on about the stadium of stadiums...and as i said, you wont understand (thats not an attack)...Lets be honest here.....Hardly anyone outside of the US has heard of the FedEx field or the Reliant Stadium....Its just the way our countries historys have gone....You chose American Football and Baseball......we got Football and cricket....which just happen to be the most popular sports in the world!



you seem to love to add some snouty remark at the end of everyone of your post


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

@eddy
Oh, then I misunderstood you


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

The Mad Hatter!! said:


> you seem to love to add some snouty remark at the end of everyone of your post


My words were wong there....Chose was the wrong word....almost as if I was inclining you made a mistake!

P.S
I know you are on about the Cricket Footbal remark!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Jonesy55 said:


> why?
> 
> What is all the extra space for? Is it a waste of space? (and money)


*Cost per seat in terms of construction*
Wembley - £3,918
Stade de France - £3,332

As you can see, it wasn't that much more expensive, yet is nearly 2.5x in size - sounds like were on to a winner here. Thank our lucky socks we didn't pay the astronomical fee of £5,839 per seat for the Saporro Dome!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

The Mad Hatter!! said:


> i meant that the roof are built more for ornamentation,so i didn't contradict myself


Then your wrong as the roofs in all european stadiums(and world wide too I'd guess) are primaryly to keep people dry/cool not for ornamentation. Obviously many such as the Athens Oylimpic stadium are designed to look nicer but without the need to protect people from the elements they would not be there in the first place.

I'd guess that at least some of wembleys size is down to corperate hospitaility/convention facilities as the FA made alot of money from that kind of thing in the old wembley due to the prestige of the stadium.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Which is why people should not make comments without thinking them through. A roof is designed primarily as shelter, thats it purpose and that to complete the construction of a building, Stadiums are unqiue in that they are not closed buildings (not the majority at least) and thus a roof is there as a way of sheltering people from the weather or extremities of the location. Modern Stadia have taken rooves and added an artistic edge to them that to those unaccustomed to the needs of a roof (i.e someone from miami which apart from tropical storms has perfect weather all year long) will think act as a form of decoration. 

Also, its culture thing with Americans thinking rooves are unsightly parts of the stadium that has no need to be there, Football alone has shown that they think that you either have a dome (retractable roof which is basically the same thing, just with the option to allow natural light in) or a roofless stadium, thus you brave the weather. But Europe isn't quite like that, in such places as Russia, Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandinavia etc etc we play into the Winter of which gets incredibly cold and ruthless, thus a roof is something that allows for the fans to have some semblance of comfort (yes i know America gets Cold winters with snow, I'm not a moron, but they are hardly as bad as those of the extremes of Europe). Also a roof helps the acoustics of a stadium, where it helps to keep in the atmosphere and thus make it a better experience altogether. 

All in all a Stadium's roof serves a very important purpose and whilst you Americans might think otherwise, it doesn't make your opniions anymore important or even anymore right. You may think that you deserve Stadium superiority, but at the end of the day, your sports are mainly localized affairs that have just begun to bleed its way into the world. We enjoy sports which are enjoyed by billions of people. So, when we look back at stadiums in 100 years time, the European Stadium culture will be more3 dominant than that of the American... simply because more people watch our sports and thus see our stadiums.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

another lecture on our ignorance and lack of popular sport.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm sorry but in a Texas rain storm, what the heck is the roof on Da Luz or Stade De France going to do to keep me dry? In a Chicago or Boston snow storm, what is that roof going to do to keep me warm? Nothing. They are just like a too small umbrella. They don't even block the wind from the top of the stadium the way Reliant or Texas Stadium does. They might stop a small shower. What would you do about this?


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Well, then try a Scandinavian blizzard or a Siberian blizzard, they play sports there and their stadiums have rooves. 

Also i never said rooves shelter people perfectly, don't try and put words in my mouth.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

What you on about.....Roofs provide great protection....of course them closer to the pitch will be less sheltered....but it does keep most fans dry....or in the shade or whatever!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

If you are playing in a blizzard, a mere roof will do nothing. If blizzards are worse than they are in Wisconsin and Minnesota or more snow than Chicago or Buffalo, than one had better be truly indoors considering blizzard snow blows sideways. 

Please post these Scandanavian stadiums that can protect one from a blizzard. Anything short of a true indoor dome ain't enough.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Ah but as it blows sideways.....One half will always be covered 

Better than noboddy!


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Not once have i said these rooves protect them perfectly, i merely said the stadiums have rooves over there. This was as a counter to your saying that stadiums which face these conditions don't have rooves as its a pointless exercise. please don't try and put words in my mouth, i know what i wrote and i know i never once said these rooves protect people perfectly.


----------



## Morten M (Apr 17, 2004)

etched Chaos said:


> Well, then try a Scandinavian blizzard or a Siberian blizzard, they play sports there and their stadiums have rooves.


We don't play under those conditions in Scandinavia very often. In Sweden and Norway they normally don't play football from the beginning of November until this weekend. 
This year the Royal League was started, so some matches has been played in very bad conditions.

The match between Tromsø IL and FC Copenhagen was the first official football
match played north of the polar circle in December.


















The young South African national team player Elrio Van Herdeen had his first starter for FC Copenhagen, a bit funny for a South African 










The Match between Malmø FF and SK Brann was played in a snow blizzard, but the snow blizzards in the Copenhagen/Malmø area is not as bad as the ones in Boston.








'
That match should never have been played, it has nothing to do with football.


I am an european but I love NFL and one of the most fantasic games I have ever seen is the match between New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins in 2003 played in a snow blizzrd.



















Those pictures of the fans throwing the snow up in the air under the touchdown celebration on "The HEY" in the celebration are fantastic.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

you guys are shitting me right? 
legendary Fenway Park-Boston Red Sox


the green monster


Camden Yards--Baltimore Orioles


Busch Stadium--St. Louis Cardinals--notice a world famous landmark?


how about Wrigley Field--Chicago Cubs--built in 1914


yup..those are people watching the game from their APARTMENTS


right down the road...my home city stadium..Miller Park--Milwaukee Brewers..retractable roof


the Frozen Tundra itself--Lambeau Field..Green Bay Packers. Can you find a city of 100,000 people with a team as iconic as the Packers? Can you find stadiums that are filled to capacity even when it is literally freezing outside and snow blinds the view? A stadium where it takes 60 years to get season tickets! The following the Packers have can easily match ANY European football club--I guarantee it. 



how many stadiums see their players and fans unite in such a way as the Lambeau Leap? Will you see David Beckham jump into the crowd and get his pretty hair all tangled? 


Historic Yankee Stadium--NYC-NY Yankees


finally...SBC Park in San Francisco? SF Giants. How many stadiums in Europe look like this! How many stadiums of the world are right next to the harbor and have boats coming up right next to them?





American stadiums are clearly the winner here. Being an urban site..you should recognize how much more urban our stadiums are over here. They blend the city, sports, and archtecture very nicely together. Most of the stadiums posted in Europe are nice..but are all just big, futuristic, and lack character from what I see.


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

baseball stadiums are the crown jewels of american sports.


----------



## SDK4 (Jul 14, 2004)

American stadiums are easily the best in the world. We do everything to please the fan. European stadiums just throw everyone into the stands and let fans fend for themselves. Although there is a little more passion in the soccer matches in Europe then in American sports.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Baseball stadia have lots of character, is it maybe because a lot of of them are quite old and have been built up over the years, each having their own little quirks?

The view from SBC stadium looks amazing!!

Cricket stadiums in the UK are similar but smaller (unlike in Australia or India where they can be huge)

Lords in London:





































Old Trafford, Manchester










Some of our stadia are very urban, the Millenium stadium in Cardiff for example is right in the heart f the city centre, almost touching the office buildings around it


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I dont think a player is allowed to jump into the fans....there allowed to throw stuff though!

Another facinating rule....Its not allowed by UEFA to play a league match under a roof...thats why there are no domes in europe!

P.S
Baseball V Football stadiums....On history you still lose...Thats My Opinion anyway!

How many people outside of the US have heard of them......Football stadiums in Europe have by far a better histroy than any US stadium can throw at us!

And like I said.....Size isnt an issue....Because in the USA its normaly one team to a city.....In Europe it can be up to 15, maybe more!?

P.S
Wembley - Home of Football (Not literally but thats what they say)
Lords Cricket Ground - (Literally)
Silverstone - Home of Motor Racing - (Literally)
Wimbledon - Home of Tennis 

P.S
Did you know Baseball was invented by the British?(sort of)

Its true...The game rounders was taken to America where it was called 'Town Ball'.....Alexander Cartwright took the game changed the rules slightly and formed the first team the New York Knickerbockers....Whos first game was against a Cricket team!

Knowledge is the bomb!


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

eddyk said:


> I dont think a player is allowed to jump into the fans....there allowed to throw stuff though!
> 
> Another facinating rule....Its not allowed by UEFA to play a league match under a roof...thats why there are no domes in europe!
> 
> ...


You're pretty arrogant Eddyk! Just because you haven't heard of a stadium means it isn't well known or doesn't have a history??? I think it says more about your ignorance than anything.

You are looking at things from a very Euro/anglo-centric point of view. I'm sure most people outside Europe haven't heard of most European stadiums either.

Most US cities have loads of teams in most sports just as in Europe, most of them are at a lower level as in Europe which is why you haven't heard of them. Again just because you haven't heard about something doesn't mean it isn't there!

You can play matches in Europe under a roof, several matches have been played at the millenium stadium Cardiff with the roof closed:


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Im not saying they dont have history!

I mean (I think you're english) Look at wembley...Possible the most famous stadium in the world....and many worldwide would agree.....Americans would debate that...because im positive most of them havnt heard of it.....Like I havent heard of most of theres!

That is what this whole thread is isnt it....a huge debate on who has the best stadiums....On Looks History and Atmosphere.....I didnt ecpect this thread to be....a bunch of people posting pretty pictures!

P.S
I did say _league_ matches couldnt be played under roofs!


----------



## Morten M (Apr 17, 2004)

Schalke have played many UEFA Cup matches and Bundesliga matches with roof closed. So it is allowed.
In Copenhagen we have played a couple of RL and a cup match under the roof in Parken.


----------



## memyself and I (Feb 20, 2005)

the most famous stadium has to be Rio 's maracana 

(200 000 people now it's down to 120 000)

the stade de france is a nice stadium from the inside but it's really blend from the outside ( totally un-spectacular)

the name is also pretty stupid ( it took a year for scholars to figure it out )

sdf also means sans domicile fixe a.k.a. homeless people !!!! :eek2: 

that's what you get when asking "intelligent" people to find a simple and powerful answer !!!

the all ;"i'm american so our stadiums are the best " "i'm european and i've never heard of something called the NFL " ; argument is funny but not really constructive 

i think we all agree that portugal now has fantastic stadiums


----------



## PHXbevo (Jul 22, 2004)

if you go back and re-read the thread, you will find very VERY few claims by Americans that our stadiums are the best, but are taking the time to refute that European stadiums are hands down the best, finest, most famous parks in the world. Its stupid to claim that. Basically, the americans on here are trying to enlighted the ethnocentric views of europeans, re: stadiums.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm not afraid to make the claim at all. I do think American stadiums have the most variety, most innovative designs, and are probably on average the biggest with the most luxuries. There's no FIFA for the NFL to restrict design as well as lots of flexibilities left in each design. 

At the same time, I don't dismiss the history of stadiums anywhere else nor would I dismiss that there are some great stadiums in Europe. I just think some of the roof designs(just like in America for Seattle or Texas Stadium) are more for show than function as well as a lot of plain bowl designs. I also think there are great designs like Allainz, Da Luz, Bernboau(sp?), Da Luz and Schalke. There simply aren't enough of these yet. Doesn't mean there aren't great stadiums, with great fans, great designs and great history. Just means between major college football, the NFL, and Major League Baseball there are a ton of great, large places to play.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

eddyk said:


> I dont know where this repetitive thing is coming from....because that is totally not true....you actually couldnt be further from the truth!
> 
> Someone said it now you all are!
> 
> ...


Some more....


















































































































That'll do for now!


----------



## antigr12 (Apr 1, 2005)

bwahahahahahaha , the most variety , look at the exterior of your baseball stadiums or simply look at them overall to see the unbelievable variety , it's very impressive ; they are the most boring stadiums in the world and all the same , without saying absolutely unimpressive . Same for nfl , tampa , nashville , new england , philadelphia , cleveland , pittsburgh , please don't call that innovative . They have no roof , are like college ones for bowl structure , and are constrained to put huge amount of vip boxes between real seats to make them bigger than they really are . I take 10 seconds for the design .


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

'They have no roof' does not make a stadium unimpressive. 

Again, we see the same European stadiums posted over and over and more than half would not be acceptable by American pro sports standards. Again, the nice ones are nice, but there simply aren't enough of them.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

"more than half would not be acceptable by American pro sports standards"

And vice versa!

Random Pic 









P.S
I think more european stadiums have been posted than american ones!

P.P.S
Of course you would say a stadium without a roof isnt less impressive!
But I dont think thats the case!


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

antigr12 said:


> ; they are the most boring stadiums in the world and all the same , without saying absolutely unimpressive . They have no roof ,. I take 10 seconds for the design .


is that all you europeans have to say,oh where's the roof we need a roof.i can't stand to get rained on, snowed upon,or feel the hot sun.

whoa you guys only care about a roof,what does a roof do for a stadium absolutely nuthing.just because you don't like certain elements in our stadium design it doesn't mean they're crap.

why don't you go admire one of your crappy roof's


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

Only POrtugal's Stadiums alone kick America ass!!!  

just kidding.

But I think that it is difficult to compare. Europe wins because it's more diverse. No doubt about that. American Stadiums seem to look all alike.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

eddyk said:


> "more than half would not be acceptable by American pro sports standards"
> 
> And vice versa!
> 
> ...


More European stadiums have been posted because this is a European dominated board. What I was saying is that just because a stadium doesn't have a roof, doesn't make it bad. Example, Athens Olympic Stadium vs Lincoln Financial. The roof is beautiful in Athens, but the stadium is simply not NFL calibre.

Portugal would get its ass kicked. Da Luz is the only one big and nice enough to sniff the NFL. It would still have to be renovated with more suites and larger hospitality areas. Considering its age, it would need a couple of widescreens as well. The rest are either too small or don't have the extras. If the Alamodome isn't considered NFL calibre, then Portugal would get its ass kicked.

As for diversity, just stay tuned to my individual stadium posts.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Back to size....I thought we cleared that up.....Europe has more top class sports teams....and thus more stadiums....alot more....worldstadiums.com has 1767 US stadiums/Arenas etc. on the site.....But 3811 European Stadiums etc.!

"Da Luz is the only one nice enought to sniff at the NFL"

If you say so :Sarcastic smilie:

"Example, Athens Olympic Stadium vs Lincoln Financial. The roof is beautiful in Athens, but the stadium is simply not NFL calibre."

And why not?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Alamodome*



rantanamo said:


> If the Alamodome isn't considered NFL calibre, then Portugal would get its ass kicked.


I've been to the Alamodome and it's pretty poor quality. While I haven't been to Portugal before I can say that the Alamodome is a second rate facility. I terms of overall spectator comfort it's about 30 years out of date.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Europe.........continent with twice the population. There should be more stadiums. Problem is most are small just like the majority of our minor league baseball and small college stadiums. You don't have enough nice large ones is the problem.

When I said Da Luz, I was referring to the Portugese stadiums. The smallest NFL stadium seats more than 60,000. The others are either too small or don't have NFL stadium amenities. 

A pretty roof will not get a stadium NFL ready. One glaring missing item is the abundance of suites. Lack of minimal concourse areas. No executive areas with field views, therefore no club seating area. An NFL Owner would not stand for the distance between the field and stands. Lack of duel video boards. It would make no revenue for any owner. If the Alamodome isn't good enough, neither would the Athens stadium.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Iain1974 said:


> I've been to the Alamodome and it's pretty poor quality. While I haven't been to Portugal before I can say that the Alamodome is a second rate facility. I terms of overall spectator comfort it's about 30 years out of date.


That's not true at all. Especially for a barely 10 year old facility. It simply lacks the extras that NFL owners want. As a basic stadium its pretty nice, and beats most of the crap passed off as great stadiums on this board.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

World Football and American football are very different sports.....We dont tend to need video boards....and what are you on about suites?
Just about every stadium in europe has executice suites and club boxes!

You see we could say your stadiums arnt fit for world football.....Stands too far away from the action....lack of a roof!


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Ranatanamo, our top stadiums are more than worthy enough for the NFL... It is your blatant bias, single mindedness, and egocentric views that are giving the Americans on this board a bad name. Also it doesn't help that none of them can objectively look at European stadiums. 

'It has a roof, rooves serve no purpose, they're waste of space and money... All Euro stadiums must suck because they have rooves.'

I have tried to be objective, i like American Stadiums i really do, but your constant moaning and whining about our superiority complexes is ruining your argument. How can you expect any Europeans to like American stadiums when you are putting us off by not accepting out stadiums as the great stadiums they are. Our top ones would all fit in the NFL, infact I'd go as far to say that I could come up with 32 stadiums that would fit the NFL perfectly.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

Rantanamo, the smallest NFL stadium is the RCA Dome and i think that seats 58000 so get your facts straight before boasting about the American's superiority in all things Stadia based.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Alamodome*



rantanamo said:


> That's not true at all. Especially for a barely 10 year old facility. It simply lacks the extras that NFL owners want. As a basic stadium its pretty nice, and beats most of the crap passed off as great stadiums on this board.


10 years old? I went in 2001 and thought it was poor quality. Just goes to show that it didn't age well at all. 
And before anyone gets all defensive and labels me 'anti-american' Yankee Stadium is a first rate ball-park that combines history with facilities. No, it might not have the escalators or width of concourses of the Ballpark in Arlington but it's an infinately preferable place to watch the finest of American sports. Even without a roof.


----------



## Morten M (Apr 17, 2004)

etched Chaos said:


> Our top ones would all fit in the NFL, infact I'd go as far to say that I could come up with 32 stadiums that would fit the NFL perfectly.


There is not 32 stadiums in europe there could fit NFL standards.

NFL Standard stadiums in Europe:

Finished:
Arena Auf Schalke (Gelsenkirchen)
Estadio da Luz (Lisabon)
Millenium Stadium (Cardiff)

Under Construction:
New Wembley (London)
Allianz Arena (Munich)

"The maybe catagory"
Westphalen Stadion (Dortmund)
Old Trafford (Manchester)
Estadio Bernabeu (Madrid)
Stade de France (Paris)

USA is ahead but we are catching up in Europe with some of the current constructions.


----------



## Sparks (Jan 14, 2004)

What are NFL standards then?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

etched Chaos said:


> Rantanamo, that isn't NFL standard, thats NFL owners standard, which is a big difference, the owner have 8 home games a year the suites are essential to keep the club ticking over and to avoid having to get help from other clubs. it is also why new NFl stadiums are topping out at about 70,000 capacity, because if they build them too big, they'll have to share more money among the clubs.
> 
> Also, new stadiums are built with the Superbowl in mind, which is why Detroit has a Dome stadium and why Minnesota will keep a Dome stadium etc etc.


It doesn't matter who's standard it is. That is a standard. Its all about maximizing revenue, and the stadiums will be about as nice as they can be because of this. There is no set number for top out. Its more about each individual market and each owners choice. Its why FedEx is so big. There is huge demand for the Redskins. Like several seasons long. Same reason why seats were added to Lambeau. If a stadium isn't set up to make a ton of revenue its simply not good enough. 

Some new stadiums are built with the Superbowl and Final Four, and pro Rodeo circuit and large concerts, and large conventions in mind. Some aren't. Soldier Field isn't. New Lambeau isn't. M&T isn't. Most aren't. Some are.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Jonesy55 said:


> Yes so it would be stupid to judge non-NFL stadia by those criteria as they have other priorities rather than entertaining businessmen to make money because they have only 8 home games per year.
> 
> European clubs make their money in different ways so of course the stadium design is going to be different.
> 
> Billionaire owners invest in European football teams whose stadia do not meet your criteria but they still make their money.


Its just something that's not understood. I guess it can best be said, that in the process of creating a venue that maximizes revenues, a bad ass stadium is the result. Its not about some layout being better than another. Its simply about something being the best of its shape or form or whatever. A lot of the stadiums posted are big. A lot have some pretty designs, but you guys know they aren't as nice as Schalke or Allainz. You guys know they aren't top shelf like Emirates or Da Luz.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

But for the best you need the revenue. the NFL is a huge business, it makes billions of dollars a year which is split amongst 32 teams. In Europe we have alot more teams and those teams aren't allowed the equality that the NFL has... Which is why alot of teams cant afford; the biggest, brashest most badass stadium... 

Also, in regards to the standards i was setting the issue straight, you said NFL standards which implies there are regulations, I said NFL owners standards which is alot different in how you interpret it. At the end of the day its about money and new stadiums whilst costing money also generate alot more than old stadiums. Thats the way the cookie crumbles. 

The stadiums that are posted here are the stadiums of the biggest teams on the planet, we don;t have a slary cap, we don;t have a way of putting parity into our game due to the sheer size of it and ther amount of teams involved, so at the end of the day we're working froma disadvanatage. More teams to dilute the financial pool, more teams to compete for every dollar and more teams which have no financial parity. So whilst we have fewer huge, bold, new stadiums ours are every much as beautiful, innovative and trend-setting... We also, have more sports events, so we have to have a compromise in design so that these stadiums that fit the broad array of sports.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Ah yes the salary cap.....Really only the biggest clubs in europe have large stadiums....Its actually sort of a vicious circle....Money = Stadium = Money = Success....but you cant get money without the success!

Many teams are reluctant to build new stadiums because of the history of their stadium anyway!

P.S
One thing I hate now and i know im not alone is that money is controlling the game now....To win the european cup was just that....Winning a cup....and the huge amount of pride that went with it....Now its the biggest sporting event in the world with the winners getting £30M ($55M)....and thats all they care about now!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

> We also, have more sports events, so we have to have a compromise in design so that these stadiums that fit the broad array of sports.


Its probably not that different. We have sports that you guys don't have also. We also have a ton of teams, though set up in a different way. One mistruth on this board is that U.S. sports are limited to NFL, MLB, NBA, major collegiate and NHL. Not true at all. Those are just the top of the top. There are cactus league, texas league, AFL, NBDL, CBA, etc, etc. Tons of leagues that never see the light of day here. Europe as a whole though, with twice our population, should have many more teams.


----------



## etched Chaos (Apr 7, 2005)

If you look at it from a Western European view which is about even in regards to the US, we still have alot more teams by far. In England alone there are over 200 football (soccer) teams, some of which play in parks with fencing and a makeshift single stand that can hold 50 people.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

In the U.S. in the official designation of minor league baseball, there are over 190 teams alone. Add in the "Independent Leagues" and there are over 300 professional baseball teams. Add in major college baseball, as it is about the size between AA and AAA baseball and you are pushing well into 500-600. Basketball and Football also have tons of teams like this as well.

http://www.minorleaguefootballnews.com/2004rank.htm

not to mention sports like Softball, LaCross, Rugby(yes we have a small pro rugby league), tons of minor league hockey and its system that is similar to baseball which is very popular. Dallas Freeze vs Ft Worth Fire used to be kind of a rivalry until the Stars showed up. We even have tons of professional soccer leagues, and even sports like Arena Football that is actually played in NBA/NHL arenas and does very well in attendance, and even has a network contract with NBC.


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

etched Chaos said:


> If you look at it from a Western European view which is about even in regards to the US, we still have alot more teams by far. In England alone there are over 200 football (soccer) teams, some of which play in parks with fencing and a makeshift single stand that can hold 50 people.


So do we, not every pro or college teamsy plays in a 60,000+ venue. For instanc,e in Michigan Wayne State University which is mainly a commuter school plays in little dinky stadium. It is only the large, state schools that have the massive stadiums, which you have seen pics of, there're least 20 college football programs is this state alone. Add the minor pro teams of which I found another 14 that means there's at least 34 non-NFL football teams in a state of 10 million.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Teams*



rantanamo said:


> In the U.S. in the official designation of minor league baseball, there are over 190 teams alone. Add in the "Independent Leagues" and there are over 300 professional baseball teams. Add in major college baseball, as it is about the size between AA and AAA baseball and you are pushing well into 500-600. Basketball and Football also have tons of teams like this as well.
> 
> http://www.minorleaguefootballnews.com/2004rank.htm
> 
> not to mention sports like Softball, LaCross, Rugby(yes we have a small pro rugby league), tons of minor league hockey and its system that is similar to baseball which is very popular. Dallas Freeze vs Ft Worth Fire used to be kind of a rivalry until the Stars showed up. We even have tons of professional soccer leagues, and even sports like Arena Football that is actually played in NBA/NHL arenas and does very well in attendance, and even has a network contract with NBC.



The FA Pyramid contains about 40,000 teams.

Please can you let us know about the 'tons of professional soccer leagues'? As far as I was aware, there is only MLS which contains just 12 teams, has never broken even, and has only two owners. A-League is amateur to my knowledge.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

of course there are the USL leagues.

Also, I have no way to tabulate how many teams there are in the US


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Doing a little research, there are 40,000 FA teams. But that same research reveals that this number includes a huge number that would hardly be called professional. Youth Leagues, disabled leagues, senior leagues fall into this number as well. It like if Major League Baseball controlled not only pro and minor leagues, but also older Pony, Connie Mack, women's softball leagues, and college sports as well as the national teams for each age group.


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

Can anybody tell me what's the history behind that patch of grass at Wrigley Field, that looks like its part of the stands or something. I'm sure its got some history, just like the Green Monster 

I'm talking about this green patch: (picture from ReddAlert in post #154)


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

r you serious you don't know about the ivy at wrigley,we need a chicagoan to explain it to you because i'm sure that if i did i would forget some of symbolic meaning of it


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Well sadly I dont think there is much history behind it. Every stadium in the MLB is required to do that so the batter can see the baseball coming out of the pitchers arm. If the seats were there the ball would get lost in the crowd and the batter would have a tougher time hitting the ball.

You can see every park has a similar patch


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> Doing a little research, there are 40,000 FA teams. But that same research reveals that this number includes a huge number that would hardly be called professional. Youth Leagues, disabled leagues, senior leagues fall into this number as well. It like if Major League Baseball controlled not only pro and minor leagues, but also older Pony, Connie Mack, women's softball leagues, and college sports as well as the national teams for each age group.


The big difference I guess is that all the football teams in each european country normally compete on the level, even the lowest team could with 10-15 years of promotions get into the highest league. Its the uncertainy of revenue that teams moving up and down leagues causes that stops massive investment in grounds by all but the largest teams.


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

DrJoe said:


>


I would go to see the match just to admire this great skyline! mg:


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

MoreOrLess said:


> The big difference I guess is that all the football teams in each european country normally compete on the level, even the lowest team could with 10-15 years of promotions get into the highest league. Its the uncertainy of revenue that teams moving up and down leagues causes that stops massive investment in grounds by all but the largest teams.


Yeah, I was reading that and think its pretty cool. Just was pointing out that there aren't 40,000 teams competing for one trophy.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Wimbledon*



rantanamo said:


> Yeah, I was reading that and think its pretty cool. Just was pointing out that there aren't 40,000 teams competing for one trophy.


Well, actually, they can compete for the main trophies. Wimbledon managed a string of near-consecutive promotions throughout the late1970's and 1980's and went from the Southern League to Division One (the top level in those days) in just 10 years.

Wimbledon Fairy-tale 

Most fans in England are hoping the 'new' Wimbledon can do it all again. 6 more promotions needed now I think.

but, no, they don't all compete for the same trophy in one season but there no reason why some glorified pub team can't repeat what Wimbledon did. It just takes time and effort.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I meant, there are different age groups, etc that don't compete against each other and a huge amount of young and senior amateur teams. No where near 40,000 professional teams.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Teams*



rantanamo said:


> I meant, there are different age groups, etc that don't compete against each other and a huge amount of young and senior amateur teams. No where near 40,000 professional teams.


Actually they're all mens teams. Youth football and/or 6-a-side is not included.

Of course the vast majority are not professional, but the top 4 divisions are, 92 clubs, and in reality most of the Conference are fully professional these days with some players reputedly earning $100K a season. The next 200 or so are often described as semi-pro.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

According to the FA website, the 40,000 goes down to boys 16 and under, girls, women's and senior leagues.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

I don't like the franchise system in major US sports, the way that a businessman owner can say 'I'm not making enough money in Houston, I'll just move to Nashville, screw the fans i'll just get new ones' That pisses me off :no:


----------



## th0m (Oct 14, 2004)

DrJoe said:


> Well sadly I dont think there is much history behind it. Every stadium in the MLB is required to do that so the batter can see the baseball coming out of the pitchers arm. If the seats were there the ball would get lost in the crowd and the batter would have a tougher time hitting the ball.
> 
> You can see every park has a similar patch


Thanks for the explanation, makes sense!

@ The Mad Hatter

How would I know about the Ivy on Wrigley Field? What do you know about the grass in the Amsterdam ArenA?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Liverpool Fans Singing....Scroll down the page you will see a list of 10 liverpool songs sung by the fans during a match....click on them (only You'll never walk alone....and L I V you can listen to).....then click on your media player....enjoy!

http://liverpoolfc.tv/lfc_story/classics/


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Jonesy55 said:


> I don't like the franchise system in major US sports, the way that a businessman owner can say 'I'm not making enough money in Houston, I'll just move to Nashville, screw the fans i'll just get new ones' That pisses me off :no:


We don't like it either. Ask Cleveland about that. Cleveland is one of the oldest, most storied teams in the NFL and now they are the Baltimore Ravens. The current Cleveland Browns are basically a new franchise, though the NFL allowed the statistical history to stay with the new Franchise. Moving doesn't happen that often though, as it is a big deal. Almost like a corporate HQ moving. Houston was not that shocking of a move, but Cleveland was. That's like the Cowboys or Redskins moving.


----------



## JacobRit (Sep 11, 2002)

to be fair its happened here now...Wimbledon AFC moved from London to Milton Keynes and have become the MK Dons!


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

and inverness caledonian thistle! but to be fair these are only two exceptions


----------



## SDK4 (Jul 14, 2004)

While all the U.S. sports leagues except hockey are doing tremendously well, I think they are becoming a little too diluted. There needs to be a huge overall and a good look taken at some of these cities who shouldn't have certain sports franchises. And some cities that need teams, like L.A. (Number 2 T.V. market in the U.S.) who doesn't even have an NFL team.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

Iain1974 said:


> The FA Pyramid contains about 40,000 teams.
> 
> Please can you let us know about the 'tons of professional soccer leagues'? As far as I was aware, there is only MLS which contains just 12 teams, has never broken even, and has only two owners. A-League is amateur to my knowledge.



theres the MLS, A-League, and an indoor league. I dont think you Europeans realize how big soccer is here......especially in the suburbs. The problem is that some of you assume we only play basketball, football, and baseball--the sports we invented...however there are alot of people who do play or watch soccer, rugby, golf, or tennis--sports that are usually thought of as being more European. Plus, I would bet that auto racing (NASCAR) is almost as big as baskeball or baseball.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

The stadiums in Europe are much better. No doubt about it. The look better, feel better, they have better atmosphere and the crowd are always really genuine. Plus, there are A LOT more new modern stadiums in Europe than in America. Probably because in Europe the people are there because they LOVE their club and the LOVE football. In America the crowd are there to eat junkfood and the "men running on that grass rectangle" is just some kind of bonus or something. America feels so ... NOT genuine. It is just a circus.


----------



## [Smeagol] (Dec 22, 2003)

EUROPE WIN

Portuguese stadiums 

Luz (65 647seats)










Dragão (50 106seats)











Alvalade XXI (50 300seats)










Municipal de Aveiro (30 678seats)










Municipal de Braga (30 154 seats)










Cidade de Coimbra (30 616seats)










Estádio Algarve (30 305seats)










Don Afonso Henriques (29 643seats)










Magalhães pessoa (29 771seats)










Bessa XXI (28 263 seats)


----------



## Morten M (Apr 17, 2004)

staff said:


> The stadiums in Europe are much better. No doubt about it. The look better, feel better, they have better atmosphere and the crowd are always really genuine. Plus, there are A LOT more new modern stadiums in Europe than in America. Probably because in Europe the people are there because they LOVE their club and the LOVE football. In America the crowd are there to eat junkfood and the "men running on that grass rectangle" is just some kind of bonus or something. America feels so ... NOT genuine. It is just a circus.




Thats very narrow minded!


----------



## wolbol (Apr 7, 2005)

I think the best is Paris, has anyone ever passed 'le Stade de France'?it's so big and impressive , so nice , even I became silent by passing this magnificent Building of Men. Of course this topic is a bit ridiculous because it's the IOC that has to decided where the Games will be held (I think though)


----------



## wolbol (Apr 7, 2005)

Citrus-Fruit said:


> I believe the Millenium Stadium is better then Stade De France so why would the Brits be jealous?
> 
> They already have Twickenham 82,000 seater Bigger then the stade De France, Wembley 90,000 seater bigger then ... Yes The Stade De France ... it will also have the 80,000 Plus Olympic stadium if it wins the bid ... also Bigger then the Stade De France
> 
> ...



Sorry , but I don't think the 'bigness' (or how you call that) is more important than beautiness and spirit, Wembley is ugly but ...
the new model can be as even beautiful as Stade de France , :eek2: 

Moscow is also very beautifull , especially the olympic village (very nice)


----------



## satit28 (Mar 9, 2005)

London..........

NYC is also nice.........


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

wolbol said:


> Sorry , but I don't think the 'bigness' (or how you call that) is more important than beautiness and spirit, Wembley is ugly but ...


Wembley isn't built yet so how do you know it's ugly? The renderings aren't ugly.

bigness= size


----------



## gurukool (Apr 20, 2005)

london rides ahead, but paris is the winner !


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

> i really don't like this kind of false architecture


Normally I might agree with you but this is an Olympic stadium after all and not a supermarket or something. To have an iconic value is not whimsy, it's a fundamental part of its job.

Should London get the 2012 Olympics, these are the images that the whole planet will see on its TV screens. If you want an example of this you of all people you must realise what that diving board did for Barcelona's image and that was just a view.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

agreed on the diving board comment! genius idea by the barca team


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

New yorks Sleek futuristic design is awesome, it fits In with the Manhattahn skyline.


----------



## LDN_EUROPE (Dec 1, 2002)

@Charlie P - My heart felt apologies, I must admit I was wrong to do that... I feel really bad about it. I really hope it didn't offend you too much. Ofcourse you are correct it should be "stadium".

Wembley in LDN is mine but I also like the new Olympic one in LDN and also Ashburton Grove in LDN.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

You could have made it a multiple-option poll 

Seriously though, what is with the "LDN" in every one of your posts? Is it an acronym for anything? Are you doing it deliberately as part of some sort of campaign? Don't you realise that people on international fora might not have a clue what you're talking about?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

SSC did it aswell



Thats was the banner I made....and I did notice they put LDN


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Why? What the flaming hell does "LDN" mean? Is it some hare-brained London tourism thing that some idiot in "new media" came up when sozzled on Chardonnay?

Why not do the same thing for every city in the UK? I'll change my Location: to WFD right away, though I'm not sure that anybody outside of the LDS forum will understand...


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Olympic Stadium? Can I see any pictures of the design?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

My favourite London stadium?

That would be White Hart Lane, though it doesn't seem to be included in this poll even though two stadia that have been included are yet to be completed and two others haven't even been started! And in one case - the Olympic stadium - there is no guarantee that it will ever be built.

Bit of silly poll then, really, isn't it?!


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

The O2 arena has started!

But I do agree....

London is the stadium capital of the world...yet this poll only has 7 choices


----------



## FORA (Jun 22, 2005)

*Vienna Ernst Happel vs. Istanbul Ataturk Olympic*

Ernst-Happel-Stadion Vinenna-Austria
























































Ataturk Olympic Stadium Istanbul-Turkey


----------



## Hoferat (Apr 16, 2004)

Why are you comparing these 2 stadiums? 

One has a capacity of 80 000 and is fairly new and the other has a capacity of 50 000 and is over 70 years old.

This comparison is sort of unfair.


----------



## raswok15 (Feb 11, 2004)

**** New Wembley or Redeveloped Bernabeu? ****

Which do you prefer? .... the New Wembley or the Proposed Redeveloped Bernabeu.

New Wembley (capacity:90,000) :










































Proposed Redeveloped Bernabeu (approximate capacity: 80,000):


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

why is Ataturk called an olympic stadium?


----------



## dewback (Jun 28, 2005)

I am a Real Madrid supporter, but the Wembley project is superior in my opinion. The change nvolved the virtual destruction of the old stadium, while the Bernabeu will basically remain the same.


----------



## dewback (Jun 28, 2005)

Because its the central piece of Istanbul's constant Olympic bids. They had Olympic bids for 2000,2004,2008, and 2012...without much success. Oh, and btw, they are preparing an Olympic bid for 2016.


----------



## Sikario (Feb 5, 2005)

Wembley by a mile, the Bernabeu is a fantastic stadium and will look even more impressive when the redevelopment is finished but Wembley will be the greatest stadium ever imagined.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

13-0



Compare any stadium in the world to Wembley and it would probably lose.


----------



## Tricky (Jul 24, 2004)

hmmm difficult one....

but I think I have to go for the Bernabeu. Yes, it's not as iconic and traditional as Wembley, but at least the players also remain dry and it doesn't cost billions of Euros. I think the Bernabeu is probably better value for money (quite frankly: with GBP 750m any country in the world could build the greatest stadium on earth....). However, if I could choose between watching a match at the Wembley or in Madrid I would definately go to Wembley purely for the history and tradition that comes with it.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Well it's Wembley by far!! The area around Wembley is also being redeveloped so the surrounding area will improve as the stadium is finished. 
The Bernabau only wins on cost


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Wembley isnt costing billions of euros either.

£350,000,000 - £400,000,000 is the cost.


----------



## nickswfc (Oct 21, 2004)

Wembley is an amazing stadium

But 90,000 isn't big enough

It should of been 110,000


----------



## raswok15 (Feb 11, 2004)

Earlydays I know but I thought the poll would be much closer not 20-0 :eek2:


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

Wem-ber-lee. Easy. Bernabeu is old. Needs knocking down in place of a modern state of the art stadium. The roof won't add anything.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

eddyk said:


> Wembley isnt costing billions of euros either.
> 
> £400,000,000 is the cost.



It'll cost more than double that figure.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

The whole site maybe.

I cant see them going more than £50m over budget.

On the official site they say the cost will be £350m


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

This is old. The costs may have gone up:

_The £750m cost of redeveloping Wembley is in stark contrast to the £190m spent to build Cardiff's impressive Millennium Stadium. 


Rival bids from Birmingham and Coventry were also half the price now being put on a new Wembley. 

The breakdown of costs for the new Wembley project is as follows: 


£325m to build the stadium
£120m to buy land
£50m for improving infrastructure
£23m for demolition
£40m for development costs
£80m in financing costs
Fees to bankers and lawyers alone are reported to add up to £82m, double the cost of building a stadium for a First Division club. 

About £170m has come from public money, comprising £120m from the National Lottery and £50m from the Government and London Development Agency. _ 


Near on a billion quid. . . for a stadium. Crazy. 

Nice stadium mind.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

ManchesterISwonderful said:


> About £170m has come from public money, comprising £120m from the National Lottery and £50m from the Government and London Development Agency. [/I]
> 
> 
> Near on a billion quid. . . for a stadium. Crazy.
> ...


I'd guess that alot of that £50 million is going on upgrading public transport near the ground. Beyond the public money spent on it I don't really care how much the stadium costs aslong as it can support itself financially once open.


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

*Wich Arena is bigger?*

*A.*









*B.*


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

do i care?


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

don't care and don't write here then...


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

i bet for arena B


----------



## waccamatt (Mar 7, 2004)

they're both tiny arenas, but I would say B has more seats.


----------



## Christos7 (Nov 20, 2003)

B looks bigger but I know this arena and know it's capacity.... but I bet A is bigger it is just deceptive.


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Yes the second one is bigger. 8,500 seats. The first one looks like it is about 5,000 seats or even less.


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Arena B from the outside









And when it is full


----------



## Jose Luis (Jun 15, 2004)

B is much bigger, but both are tiny.


----------



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

the bigger one


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

Ok, I will decleared the result. According to some people A is the bigger. It is the new sport hall in İzmir and I have never believed that it is 10.000 ppl. As MrT. says it looks really 5000. And I got angry with the people who diffend this hall and made this thread. As you know the result is very clear. All of you said the Arena of Thessaloniki is bigger and it seemed to me like this too. And I feel cheated about this sport hall in İzmir


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

B looks bigger.


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

New Wembley every time just look at it's sheer size and brilliance. Bernabeu planned redevelopment looks really impressive who designed the plans?


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

A seats 50 thousand people, you just cant see the stand to the right of the picture fully. The view from the top isnt too good. they give you binoculars.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*STADIUM BATTLES 2005*

*Enter your top 10-16 stadia in the world, the favourites will go into a draw where they will go head to head, voting will either take place between four cities having the top two proceed to the next round, in the following round cities will then go head to head based on their popularity...and a winner will be decided in a one week poll where the two favourites will go head to head..

the rules are easy

min capacity 25,000
used for football in general or athletics or cricket or rugby or any sport, generally a field of play with seats around the field
must be the final design, construction must have begun therfore wembley stadium can be included

GOOD LUCK TO ALL*


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*STADIUM BATTLES 2005 DRAW RELEASED !!!!!*

*After the nominations were counted the top 16 stadiums have been revealed and will be entered into a draw. The draw altough not easy to understand is not that difficult either and will be laid out so that one draw is used throughout. 

THE FORMAT OF THE DRAW:

FOUR GROUPS of four stadiums will be formed i.e GROUP A - D. A poll will be released for each of these groups. The polls will not last for very long and the top two will advance into the quarter finals. Each Group will have a seeded stadium which will have gained this rank (1*) due to its top five nomination position. e.g. each favourite stadium in each group will receive the rank 1* in the group.

The top 8 will then go head to head and battle it out until two stadia meet in the final and decide the STADIUM BATTLES 2005 CHAMPION.

THE DRAW was conducted randomly and the groups from A-D are in random order.

GROUP A

1* ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM
SAN SIRO
AZTECA STADIUM
LORDS


GROUP B

1* OLD TRAFFORD
MILLENIUM STADIUM
BERNABEU
SOLDIER FIELD

GROUP C


1* WEMBLEY STADIUM
DA LUZ STADIUM
NOU CAMP
RELIANT STADIUM

GROUP D

1* ALLIANZ ARENA
EMIRATES STADIUM
ESTADIO DRAGAO
TELSTRA STADIUM

QUARTER FINALS:

BATTLE A: Winner Group A vs second place GROUP D
BATTLE B: Winner Group B vs second place GROUP C
BATTLE C: Winner Group C vs second place GROUP A
BATTLE D: Winner Group D vs second place GOUP B

SEMI FINALS:

BATTLE E: WINNER BATTLE A VS WINNER BATTLE D
BATTLE F: WINNER BATTLE C VS WINNER BATTLE B

FINALS:

WINNER BATTLE E VS WINNER BATTLE F

The polls will be released shortly. Stay tuned for more*


----------



## christoph (Jul 4, 2005)

Da Luz, Wembley, Athens and Allianz will reach semi-finals! Wembley then beats Allianz, Da Luz-Athens is a toss-up. Wembley will run rings round all.


----------



## danJonze87 (Jun 7, 2004)

group B looks like the group of death!


----------



## skyperu34 (May 25, 2003)

nou camp and bernabeu are to be in the semifinals


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

skyperu34 said:


> nou camp and bernabeu are to be in the semifinals


not if i get my way mwahmwah! :devil:


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

OMG! YOUR A MADMAN!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Too bad it was cutoff. I decided to research most of the stadiums I could find on worldstadiums and hadn't perfected my personal preference scoring system yet. Perhaps I'll post the formula so posters can find what stadiums they really like overall.


----------



## italimex (May 28, 2005)

Azteca Stadium

The only stadium to have hosted two World Cup finals.


----------



## stadiumfuture (Apr 21, 2005)

Is the Azteca stadium realy impressive.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*STADIUM BATTLES 2005 ROUND ONE GROUP A VOTE NOW!!!*

GROUP A

1* ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM
SAN SIRO
AZTECA STADIUM
LORDS

All users are free to promote, post images and so forth to tempt voters to vote for their favourite stadiums. The images posted of each venue are simply a standard images, any other views or renderings can be posted to give voters a better feel for the stadium.

*ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM*


















*
AZTECA STADIUM*


















*










[LORDS CRICKET STADIUM




















SAN SIRO


















*


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*STADIUM BATTLES 2005 ROUND ONE GROUP D VOTE NOW!!!*

*GROUP D

1* ALLIANZ ARENA
EMIRATES STADIUM
ESTADIO DRAGAO
TELSTRA STADIUM*

All users are free to promote, post images and so forth to tempt voters to vote for their favourite stadiums. The images posted of each venue are simply a standard images, any other views or renderings can be posted to give voters a better feel for the stadium.

*
ALLIANZ ARENA*





























*EMIRATES STADIUM*





























*ESTADIO DRAGAO*



















*TELSTRA STADIUM*


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

I love Lords, but that Calatrava roof...#1 it is


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I voted the Telstra Stadium....but here is the Emirates stadium....some of the pics above dont work.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Some pix more of san Siro


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

I like San Siro but those seats look all old and used up, and the pitch in that last photo looks a bit worn down.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

I'd guess a large part of Lords popularity is down to the old pavilion.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> I'd guess a large park of Lords popularity is down to the old pavilion.


Mount(?) Stand's class as well. But that's about it. Don't really like the rest of it.

Oval's new stand is sexy, shame they've not got something as jaw dropping on the other side. Would dearly love Old Trafford to get a make over as well. Love the atmosphere of the ground, and it's special to me, but it ain't half ugly bar the pavilion.


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)

Athens Olympic Stadium


----------



## JacobRit (Sep 11, 2002)

Dont like Athens.... its too fussy.... i like all the parts, but put it together and it just does not go... went for San Siro more on a scale and symbolic level than one of quality - it has brutal appeal


----------



## Christos7 (Nov 20, 2003)




----------



## linostar1982 (Dec 27, 2004)

Its easy...Athens looks so beautifull ! Calatrava is superb,he made an usual stadium the most beautifull and breathtaking stadium!


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Tough decision but I am afraid dear Sydney folks that I'd give the nod to Munchen.


----------



## DaDvD (Nov 1, 2004)

Allianz Arena 
Dragao Stadium
Emirates Stadium
Telstra Stadium


----------



## DaDvD (Nov 1, 2004)

San Siro, I don't like running tracks!


----------



## Christos7 (Nov 20, 2003)

yeah but you need them for Olympics!


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

When does this poll close?


----------



## cphdude (Apr 18, 2004)

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM


----------



## cphdude (Apr 18, 2004)

ESTADIO DRAGAO


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

Allianz


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

Athens Olympic Stadium


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Dragao


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Azteca.

120,000 screaming fans.

TWO World Cup Finals.

If a stadium with a running track wins, i'll shoot myself.


----------



## limited (Oct 10, 2004)

calatrava is my hero!!! Even though I love the Aztec stadium I must go with Athen's... sure to be a finalist!

Although being inside a 115,000 seat stadium IS very impressive aswell.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Pinche traidor.

No mas es un techo bonito.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

Athens stadium is an awful looking thing - it's not superb or breathtaking or beautiful - it's hideous. Azteca and San Siro are my favorites and I think Lords is a bit out of context in this group. I voted for San Siro although I would like to see more pix of Azteca.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

oh yes ofcourse. 95% of the worlds architects are idiots for looking up to calatrava for his design....

do u feel you have done a good job at sabotaging the hellenic effort?


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

^^
Its ok Girogos he has his own opinion even if we disagree with it.

@hngcm: You need running tracks for the Olympics!!!!!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I know its your opinions, but I hope that stadiums aren't being penalized for having non-soccer fields. As was said, tracks are necessities in some sports.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

I know, i'm just joking.


----------



## limited (Oct 10, 2004)

hngcm said:


> Pinche traidor.
> 
> No mas es un techo bonito.



Jajaja pathetic...

calling me "fucking traitor" because I didn't vote for Mexico's stadium. You are a very pathetic small person. I feel sorry for you and your extreamly narrow vision.


----------



## Melchisedeck (Jul 29, 2005)

San Siro


----------



## MightyKC (Dec 20, 2004)

Athens Olympic Stadium


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Where are the other groups?


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Athens Olympic Stadium.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

limited said:


> Jajaja pathetic...
> 
> calling me "fucking traitor" because I didn't vote for Mexico's stadium. You are a very pathetic small person. I feel sorry for you and your extreamly narrow vision.



A mi me gusta bromear.


----------



## christoph (Jul 4, 2005)

San Siro should instal new seats. Those look awful: wash out and multicoloured. Not very comfortable looking as well.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Telstra Stadiums size and versatility (retractable seating) just shades the rest for me.

btw...the stadium was designed to support a future retractabe roof.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

NavyBlue said:


> btw...the stadium was designed to support a future retractabe roof.


Allianz is also designed to support a future retractable roof


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

hngcm said:


> Azteca.
> 
> 120,000 screaming fans.


It definitely has the biggest WOW factor of the four.

San Siro a close second.


----------



## Balleke (Sep 11, 2002)

san siro without a doubt!


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

san siro is huge but it is ugly..


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

i voted drago.

Drago
Allianz
emerates 
telstra


i dont feel telstra is good enough here.......sorry


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

Dragão:



















For me, Dragao is the prettiest, but Allianz is the most imponent.
But all four are (will be) top of the league.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

Telstra. Emirates is not finished. Allianz is like an inflatable ring. Dragao is nice.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

err theres allowed to be unfinsiihed stadiums....
read rules


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

It's funny when people get the hump because you don't vote for their choice and then try and ram their opinions down your throat:hahaha:


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

not ugly. 

just outdated i think.


----------



## unfrequented (May 8, 2005)

Allianz Arena


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> i voted drago.
> 
> Drago
> Allianz
> ...


why am i not suprised?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*STADIUM BATTLES 2005 ROUND ONE GROUP B VOTE NOW!!!*

*GROUP B*

1* OLD TRAFFORD
MILLENIUM STADIUM
BERNABEU
SOLDIER FIELD


All users are free to promote, post images and so forth to tempt voters to vote for their favourite stadiums. The images posted of each venue are simply a standard images, any other views or renderings can be posted to give voters a better feel for the stadium.

*OLD TRAFFORD*




























*MILLENIUM STADIUM*




























*BERNABEU*




























*SOLDIER FIELD*


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

Have a look at the virtual tour of Wembley to see why I voted for it.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)




----------



## JacobRit (Sep 11, 2002)

reliant and da luz are quality stadia that up against anything else would win hands down!

The Nou Camp has always filled me with awe and is a close second

normally i would not pick an unfinished stadium, but if your gonna throw history in there as well symbolism, obvious quality and the fact that we see before our eyes taking shape a stadium that is probably going to touch so many people the world over... i gotta plump with Wembley!

and if my team get a cup run going this season i can sing for the first time in 5 years

Were the famous Grimsby Town and were off to Wemberlee WEMBERLEE WEMBERLEE

well i can dream!


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Millenium*



Mr. T said:


> Is Millenium Stadium also used for Rugby?


I think it's a Rugby stadium that's also used for football.


----------



## Alexander21 (Oct 4, 2004)

Bernabeau.... awesome stadium!


----------



## findo102000 (Jun 24, 2004)

eek! what competition, well at least soldier field made it to the sweet 16. wow what great stadiums. perhaps someone else has pictures of soldier field worth submitting?


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Turbosnail said:


> Have a look at the virtual tour of Wembley to see why I voted for it.


ill pass on the link, i can see your location to the left :runaway:


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Wembley!

I thought I'd post a picture of the design model for the stadium as it its a bit different than the normal cgi renders and construction pic on this forum .


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

If 120,000 is not big, then I don't know what is.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Nou Camp


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> why am i not suprised?


i dunno.

Are you implying Sydney is a world class stadium? 
i dont think it is at all for todays standards.

it has a shoking sound system. it looks outdated, theres alot of things to mention

Telstra Stadium with the olympic torch seen:









dosent look world class to me...


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

I t is very big,it must be a great experience to be inside when it is full of people, but it is not the best for me.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

same...

id love to be in it! but it isnt state of the art.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> i dunno.
> 
> Are you implying Sydney is a world class stadium?
> i dont think it is at all for todays standards.


Why did you post a pic thats 5 yrs old???

I agree that it looked very tacky in Olympics mode because the organizers wanted to have the biggest stadium ever to host the games, knowing full well that a 112k venue wouldn't be feasible afterwards so they erected two temporary stands at both ends. Thank god they've been torn down.



> dosent look world class to me...


I disagree...it has
- 83,000 seats
- World class corporate facilities
- A retractable lower tier to accomodate most sports
- Designed to accomodate a retractable roof 
- Two video replay screens etc...etc...

Not my favorite and it may not be the prettiest stadium going around but to say it's not world class is just plain wrong.


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

During the 2000 olympics the Telstra looked like a monstrority..the Australian created a huge and ugly(even it is very functional by the way) stadium and loose the human scale..Dragao looks much more beautifull and noce-to-be-inside stadium.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

*Wrigley vs. Fenway*

Chicago or Boston, baseball fans, which is the winner between the two old timers?


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Wrigley is a terrible terrible stadium. I know that Cubs fans are going to attack me now but in all honesty why would I go to a stadium where there is a good chance I can be struck by falling concrete. As long as Cubs fans are dumb enough to continue to buy tickets to that place and not pressure the owners to either renovate Wrigley or build a new ballpark that stadium will continue to be terrible.

Wrigley is not even the best stadium in its city. That distinction belongs to US Cellular Field:









Fenway gets my vote.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

This group seems really really tight....a few deciding votes can turn this upside down


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

NavyBlue said:


> Why did you post a pic thats 5 yrs old???
> 
> I agree that it looked very tacky in Olympics mode because the organizers wanted to have the biggest stadium ever to host the games, knowing full well that a 112k venue wouldn't be feasible afterwards so they erected two temporary stands at both ends. Thank god they've been torn down.
> 
> ...


ur right, it is world class. Just not up to scratch for this comp im afraid...


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

Wrigley for me. Fenway certainly has its charm, but I'm a big fan of the area around Wrigley, as well as the ballpark itself, and think that the place has an atmosphere (especially on a balmy summer evening) that can't be beaten. That said, from what I gather Fenway is also pretty special, so lets just be glad that they both still exist when so many other greats have been lost.



> Wrigley is a terrible terrible stadium. I know that Cubs fans are going to attack me now but in all honesty why would I go to a stadium where there is a good chance I can be struck by falling concrete. As long as Cubs fans are dumb enough to continue to buy tickets to that place and not pressure the owners to either renovate Wrigley or build a new ballpark that stadium will continue to be terrible.
> 
> Wrigley is not even the best stadium in its city. That distinction belongs to US Cellular Field:


Funny - from what I understand, White Sox fans have never really liked the new stadium, even with the recent changes. I think it's fair to say that the majority would rather still be at the old Comiskey watching a game in a place that is filled with history, atmosphere and interesting architecture, rather than in the bland cookie cutter-esque stadium they now call home. It might be a better _stadium_ than Wrigley, but it's never a better ballpark.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

While modern and certainly world class both Telstra and Emirates lack the character to truely be considered the best IMHO. I'd actually say the same of Da Luz which for me isnt nearly as good looking as the Dragao.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

The Azteca has a capacity of 105 k these days I believe, probabley due to increases in seat size.


----------



## DaDvD (Nov 1, 2004)

Wembley


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Wembley easily.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Dragao for me. It may be Emirates when finished as I'm unsure as to how it may turn out. I don't particularly like Allianz Arena.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Millenium Stadium.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

A question on Wrigley, do the people who live over the outer end of the stadium pay anything to the club? I notice that some clever entrepreneurs have built their own little stands on top of their apartments.

If I was a Cubs baseball follower I know where I would be buying a gaff!


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> ur right, it is world class. Just not up to scratch for this comp im afraid...


What a load of crap!

Your the same that said the Sydney Olympics were poor and lacked character..

Now the Athens stadium..DIRTY ugly bowl!..with a completely ugly overated roof!...


----------



## dewback (Jun 28, 2005)

Bernabeu


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Wrigley over Fenway but Sox over Cubs


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> same...
> 
> id love to be in it! but it isnt state of the art.


So what?

It's all about the atmosphere.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Old Trafford


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Wrigley


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)




----------



## dynamoultraclean (Nov 2, 2003)

I vote they're all terrible. Lords wins it because on the "inside" it looks good. The aerial leaves a lot to be desired though.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Wrigley- the purest in the sport.


----------



## DeMaFrost (Jun 25, 2004)

Having been to both, it's close but I vote Wrigley the home of my slumping Cubbies


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

I am a die-hard Red Sox fan so I have to choose Fenway. All die-hard fans of their teams should understand.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

hngcm said:


> So what?
> 
> It's all about the atmosphere.


Maybe for you. Some may answer that architecture does matter too.


----------



## Lucky 24 (Aug 10, 2003)

After being to Wrigley for the first time last week, I can easily say it's a far superior ballpark experience than I received at Fenway. I just didn't get the same sense of awe when I first walked into Fenway as I did with Wrigley. Other than seeing the green monster and peskey's pole I just didn't find Fenway to have as much character as Wrigley. Wrigley not only has the brick walls and the fence and the rooftop seatings, but it has the infamous 7th inning stretch, the great experience of walking around addison, wavland and sheffield. The concourses and layout of the scoreboards in the stands is also much better at Wrigley than at Fenway. However, I haven't been to Fenway since 1995, so a lot may have changed since then.



Mr. T said:


> Wrigley is not even the best stadium in its city. That distinction belongs to US Cellular Field:


Please tell me that your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek because you can't be serious.


----------



## expat_marla (Feb 22, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> Wrigley is not even the best stadium in its city. That distinction belongs to US Cellular Field


wwo, even most of the sox fans i know readily admit that the "new" cellular field sux. 
wrigley all the way


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Jeaolous. Just coz Sydney builds generic venues without personality? unlike calatrava designed masterpeices. give me a break


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

^^
I am not a White Sox fan. I support the Washington Nationals. 

US Cellular is an all around better ballpark. The only takewaway is that it is not as historic as Wrigley.

I guess when the White Sox win the World Series this year it will add a bit more to the history of the ballpark.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

US Cellular is newer and more modern, but that doesn't mean its better.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Every Sox fan I have met is ashamed of US Cellular field, and when Cubs fans rub that part in they always say that "it'll always be Comiskey to me."


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

Reliant is top quality. 

How can anyone vote for an incomplete stadium without having step foot inside, re: sightlines, acoustics, atmosphere, concourse, etc, etc?

Is it because you are English ... or is it the history of Old Wembley, which having been in '96, was massive, but largely unimpressive.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Yes, but atmosphere matters more than architecture.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Take Wembley out and Da Luz and Nou Camp are still better.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> same...
> 
> id love to be in it! but it isnt state of the art.



Nor is Athen's. It's crappy old concrete stadium with a nice roof. 

If that's the criteria, fucking hell.


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

*Wrigley*

Go Cubbies!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

40Acres said:


> Reliant is top quality.
> 
> How can anyone vote for an incomplete stadium without having step foot inside, re: sightlines, acoustics, atmosphere, concourse, etc, etc?
> 
> Is it because you are English ... or is it the history of Old Wembley, which having been in '96, was massive, but largely unimpressive.


Reliant would probabley me my no. 2 pick in this group but really there isnt much difference between looking at photographs of it and previsualisations of Wembley which I'v at least seen in person in its semi complete state.

I wouldnt have minded seeing semi complete stadiums not included(if only because I think Wembley is a shoe in to win this thing) but the original nomination thread was the place to bring it up not here if you wanted to change it.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

Only completed should be included. No one nows how Wembley will turn out. Yes potentially it's the best stadium in Europe yadda yadda yadda.......but it's not finished, so you can't judge.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

ManchesterISwonderful said:


> Only completed should be included. No one nows how Wembley will turn out. Yes potentially it's the best stadium in Europe yadda yadda yadda.......but it's not finished, so you can't judge.


Have you visited every other stadium in this vote then?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

hngcm said:


> Take Wembley out and Da Luz and Nou Camp are still better.


What makes them better than Reliant?


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> Have you visited every other stadium in this vote then?



I've seen them all on TV atleast with a full crowd. I've also seen the making of the Reliant, and everything that's gone into it. So yes, I can make my mind up, because I've actually have an idea. Better than a few drawings of a non existant stadium. I'm sorry but it's simply not the same thing.

Same goes for the Emirates, or even Old Trafford WITH the corners. 

The English do my head in when it comes to Wembley. We'll see when it's completed.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Ive said this before and ill say it again.


Wembley stadium has always been my favorite stadium...the new one or not...because they're rebuilding it it doesnt mean we still cant like it...and im sure im not the only one wh thinks this.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Its fine I guess. Just really hard to judge whether or not it will be what its supposed to. On looks alone New Wembley is up there. In spectacle it should be. You do have examples out there like US Cellular Field or the original configuration of FedEx Field, that for some reason rubs people the wrong way, but looked incredible on paper or the new Cardinals Stadium, which is very weird looking in renderings, but is actually turning out much more sedate and handsome than the flashy renderings. So really, who knows. Guess its fine to have it there.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I think its because its so far along now...if this poll was say...8 months ago...I would be able to understand some of your comments...but seeing as the stadium opens in 6 months.

We have a pretty good Idea how its going to turn out aswell...


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

I dont think that u have ever been into the Athens stadium,Manchester. it is tecnologically advanced as only a few stadiums in the world. In which other u can see athletics,soccer,rally or see it become a huge lake?????????


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

ManchesterISwonderful said:


> Nor is Athen's. It's crappy old concrete stadium with a nice roof.
> 
> If that's the criteria, fucking hell.


You should really take some time to learn about the stadium. Saying it is an old crappy bowl stadium really shows how little you know about it.

It was completly stripped down to its skeleton before the Olympics and was totally modernized.

The modernization include(these are only the ones I know of and there are probably more):

New roof
New seats
New light system
New sound system
Extra suites and luxury seats(where all the world leaders seat at the Olympics
New jumbotrons
New track
Restaurants and more fan services
Not to mention great views at all angles, even for football matches

Is it the best stadium in the world? No. But it is by no means a crappy old bowl with a nice roof.

Really the only thing that the redesigned stadium has in commom with the old version is the name and the skeleton. Besides that it is completly renovated.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Very Tough indeed.

But im going with Estadio Drago


----------



## Zarkon (Dec 22, 2004)

Estadio Dragao for me..


----------



## Zarkon (Dec 22, 2004)

San Siro is unbeatable


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Athens. It can be used for many more events.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Estadio Dragao for me too


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I was having a little think the other day about this...

Wembley...it probably has a very good chance of winning this whole competition...even though its first event is 6 months away.

So I decided Im going to vote for Wembley up untill the final...but not vote fo it in the Final...if it gets there of course.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Zarkon said:


> San Siro is unbeatable


^hehe


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Bernabeu...the history, the players! With stadiums like the Emirates, New Anfield et al Da Luz is looking very generic nowadays (still great though ).


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)




----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)




----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Dragao. I'm biased towards football stadia.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Close but I go for Bernabeu.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Allianz Arena. Its a bit more stylish than the Millenium Stadium. Both are good though.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Drago is nice, but Athens is more elegant. if it wernt against athens, id vote it no doubt,


----------



## Paulo2004 (Oct 13, 2004)

Luz - Benfica


----------



## Paulo2004 (Oct 13, 2004)

F.C.Porto Stadium - Dragão. More elegant, sophisticated, architecturally designed for watching soccer and built obviously for only that purpose.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM

Sorry to upset people by posting pics  but theres non here yet and i couldnt help myself.
































































Under Construction Pic:


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Paulo2004 said:


> F.C.Porto Stadium - Dragão. More elegant, sophisticated, architecturally designed for watching soccer and built obviously for only that purpose.


yes but architecturaly, this stadium looks average. it resembles sydney stadium and many others built like this from the 1995-2005 era. and lets not forget this _is_ an architecture forum.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

seems like a true battle here
remember polls only open for 3 days!!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Da Luz. I love portugal and i love the stadium itself!


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Wembley by miles simple as hosts the F.A Cup final the oldest club cup compitition in the world and most watched in the world as well as the WORLD FAMOUS Live Aid twenty years ago. Simple as Wembley is more well known that the san siro and the redevelopment sees the stadium becoming the best in the World ENOUGH SAID!


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

Bernabeu - Simply more impressive to behold. Add the history of the stadium and of Real Madrid and it just edges the Luz. That said both are probably in the top five of European stadia, so (to use a cliched football-related phrase...) it's a shame that one has to go out at this stage.


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

Wembley - it might not be finished, but will clearly be the one of the best in the world when in it is (and costing as much as it did, so it bloody well should be!). Add to this the history of Wembley and it's the clear winner over the San Siro, which although great, is in dire need of refurbishment.


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)




----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

Ooooh this is harsh, allianz is more class, and had more money spent on it, but daytime looks and interior fails to sway me from voting for Millennium Stadium


----------



## Paulo2004 (Oct 13, 2004)

F.C.Porto- Dragão- The stadium pics:


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

I've never been a fan of Athens olympic stadium, I think it's shape is a little weird! Therefore my vote goes to Dragao!!


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

I like the barnabeu but I think our stadium is not only sleeker, more modern but also and aesthetically more attractive!


----------



## yonny (Mar 9, 2003)

D R A G A O alllll the wayyy


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

Wembley is simply out of this world!!


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

I think dragao will will this poll (especially because it's a soccer stadium) but i'm sure it won't have any chance in the next round. For me it's a really good soccer stadium but not world class. It's one league below stadiums like the da luz, allianz arena, new wembley or a few others


----------



## linostar1982 (Dec 27, 2004)

Athens much better..............


----------



## Christos7 (Nov 20, 2003)

damn this one is very very hard. It's hard to match an Olympic Stadium vs a Football only stadium....


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

quote:I like the barnabeu but I think our stadium is not only sleeker, more modern but also and aesthetically more attractive!

i totally agree with that. i like the bernabeau and it has a wonderful history but it's not state of the art anymore. it will remain a wonderful soccer stadium but the da luz is decades newer. so it's not really comparable.


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)




----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)

oh and a mini slide show of the opening ceremony of the Athens 2004 Olympics...










All images by
© ATHOC ATHENS 2004 - Getty Images


----------



## DaDvD (Nov 1, 2004)

Athens Olympic Stadium


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

Dragao Stadium:























































As a soccer stadium, dragao is a perfect sight.


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

And the way it fits on the landscape is magnificent:


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

And this is just a 52.000 attendance stadium...


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

I agree that Luz outsides are not very pretty, yet, Barnabeu can't create this kind of atmosphere:




























So, my vote is Stadium da Luz.


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

How can someone vote in a stadium that isn't yet concluded???
Wembley will be great, no doubt about it, but nowadays for me is 0.
My vote goes to S Siro.


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

Maybe we can come up with next Barcelona stadium, that will cost 5000 milion euros and will be finished in 2067...


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Herrmando said:


> Maybe we can come up with next Barcelona stadium, that will cost 5000 milion euros and will be finished in 2067...


Hilarious.

Seeing as Wembley is around 80% completed....I dont see why It cant be entered.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

All polls should be Public from now on.

Da Luz was 5 votes ahead last time I was in this thread.

Im not saying some funny business has gone on....but just incase.


----------



## Herrmando (Jul 14, 2004)

Because i dunno how it will really really look when it's finished...
Renders are computer generated, no imperfections on renders. No clear image of the unfinished stadium can be made. It's not a fair thing!!


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I think we do have a good idea...the only thing we dont really know is the roof...everything else...yeah.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Been to San Siro and I have never sat in such filthy seats. I doubt that the seats have ever been washed. 

However I will never forget the stadium, the atmosphere and match. It was my first time at a soccer game.

Unforgetable.

Nice touch with the cricketers on the gates of the stadium. Apparently "AC" Milan stands for Atheltic and Cricket Club of Milan.

Too small to play cricket in however, would make a superb rugby ground.


----------



## RonJon (Sep 11, 2002)

Bernabeu for me!


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

San Siro is icky


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Allianz!!!!!!!!!! without a doubt


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

From my visit














































Me showing un-yielding support  :cheers:


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

And it changes colours


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Fern said:


> I've never been a fan of Athens olympic stadium, I think it's shape is a little weird! Therefore my vote goes to Dragao!!


ok i now i know your trying to sway peoples votes by attempting to downrate athens. Wtf is weird about a standard bowl?


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

eddyk said:


> All polls should be Public from now on.
> 
> Da Luz was 5 votes ahead last time I was in this thread.
> 
> Im not saying some funny business has gone on....but just incase.


Yes they should be. (but ever since the 2012 Olympic poll you have been suspicious of the spanish haven't you lol )


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Do Dragao.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Santiago!


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

My vote goes to the completed one


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

millenium stadium


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

athens olympic stadium is more appealing to me


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

bernabeu.the history of the stadium and the atmosphere are wonderful






































one shield to own all


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

wembley


----------



## danJonze87 (Jun 7, 2004)

not too keen on allianz arena, i think the interior of the bowl is a little dull with all those grey seats (i know they gotta keep the colours neutral, but still). Plus it looks like a fancy japanese toilet. Not biased honest


----------



## yyyves (Jan 15, 2003)

Im a football fan and wd like to watch this game in the Dragao stadium...

wouldn it be a nice idea to compare and rate all Olympic-Stadia since 1960 ?
Unfortunately im not into producing poll-threads at all...


----------



## yyyves (Jan 15, 2003)

Bernabeu is just unbelievable steep, like a wall....wonderful


----------



## RonJon (Sep 11, 2002)

Dragao


----------



## RonJon (Sep 11, 2002)

Millenium for me.


----------



## RonJon (Sep 11, 2002)

Wembley too...


----------



## 101er (Jul 9, 2005)

Wembley for me...I'm not a fan of grounds (ie San Siro), with just benches to sit on rather than actual seats.


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

eddyk said:


> I think we do have a good idea...the only thing we dont really know is the roof...everything else...yeah.[/IMG][/URL]


That's "lol" for me... 80%...
There is still a lot of concrete-work and don't forget the interior fittings. I didn't even see a photo of one single room or part of the concourse . It will still take some time.
Even the tiers aren't completed yet...

And if you say "So I decided Im going to vote for Wembley up untill the final...but not vote fo it in the Final..." ... sorry. That's ridiculous.
I can understand if someone really believes it is/will be the best (we are all subjective) that he votes for it... but you're doing too much "calculation" in my opinion...


----------



## Tricky (Jul 24, 2004)

Wembley - in this case it's a boring and fairly straight forward decision (for me at least).

One thing that annoys me about these stadium votes is that Wembley costs so much money that it's hard to beat by any standards .... no major feat really. But how would you vote if you had to compare Wembley with the new Allianz Arena in Munich? .... and remember it's not always size that matters!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

In terms of the actual construction cost Wembley isnt really that far ahead of other stadiums built within countries with similar construction costs if their website is to be believed...

http://www.wembleystadium.com/brilliantfuture/thenewdesign/StadiumComparison.htm


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

1/3 of wembleys cost has come from buying the land.

Abd Tricky....I would still vote Wembley....Compare the AA to the Emirates Stadium...not Wembley.


----------



## Tricky (Jul 24, 2004)

*New Wembley vs new Allianz Arena*

One thing that annoys me about these stadium votes is that when Wembley is involved it almost always wins - "and so it should" you might think, but bear in mind: it costs so much money..... no major feat really to build the best if money doesn't count. Hard to compare like with like.....

I reckon though that the people of Munich get more for their money: Allianz Arena cost heaps less compared to Wembley, and yet its design is so unique I reckon it even beats Wembley. Yes, it's not as big, but hey: Munich people don't have a small dick syndrome, so I think that money is wiser spent. Let's forget about history here for a moment (obviously Wembley has tradition whereas Allianz Arena doesn't), and concentrate on the value for money.

So how would you vote if you had to compare Wembley with the new Allianz Arena in Munich? .... remember it's not always size that matters! 










*vs*


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Wembley will win this poll, Its beaten the AA in polls before on this site...and rightly so I think.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=3816778#post3816778

Wembleys cost per seat is lower than other smaller stadiums.

Take note people...1/3 of Wembleys cost has come from buying the land...Londons land being some the most expensive in the world.


----------



## aliena (Jun 11, 2005)

Wembley Arena for sure, i don't like this giant german donut!


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Remember this thread?


----------



## Tricky (Jul 24, 2004)

aliena said:


> Wembley Arena for sure, i don't like this giant german donut!


LOL ... fair enough. 

.... mind you the new Aquatic stadium for Bejing 2008 has a similar facade to the Allianz Arena. I think this kind of material will be adopted more often in future designs. Anyhow, even though previous polls showed Wembley as the winner, I was trying to have people think about the economics has well, and ask them to take that into consideration as well.

Cheers.


----------



## Theogr (Jul 14, 2005)

Athens of course!

pc: savas you always post the best pics!great job


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

I don't know about this one. The newer American arenas are excellent, like Soldier Field and such.

But I don't like that so many hasn't got a roof on. It makes them look uncompleted, and reminds me of Eastern European grey and stale grounds.

The grounds I like the most, are the new German ones. Well, some of them. The ones that has retained some standing places, like AOL Arena in Hamburg, Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen, Borrusia Park in Gladbach and so forth.

And also in Westfalen Stadion in Dortmund. Sure, the terracing looks crap when it's not filled, but when it's filled, it helps create an atmosphere, that could just top the balance to Europe's advantage. They just don't have sights like this, in North America:





































This is why the English Premiership should allow terracing again (of course modern terracing, like in Germany), and why the Westfalen fans are, in my opinion, the best in the world.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

A bit naughty trying to steal the thunder of the main poll Mo has done a fair bit of work on so I'm not voting myself.

As to the cost the wembley site states £350 million for construction compaired to £250 million for Allianz which doesnt strike me as a massive difference. Also remember that on side of the ground at Wembley includes alot of offices and corporate meeting/dinning facilities which must add on a fair bit to the cost.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

Allianz!

The coolest Arena in the world! :cheers:


----------



## Mac (Apr 7, 2005)

LuckyLuke said:


> Allianz!
> 
> The coolest Arena in the world! :cheers:



Maybe, but only until you get inside, then its..dull...dull...dull..ZZZzzzzz

I would agree the Allianz is the more 'unique' design and Wembley is a more 'traditional' football stadium, but for my money Wembley will be the better all round experience.

Munich should be proud though, i would definately place it in the Worlds top 10 of stadiums, just for the outside appearance....well done Munich, i look forward to seeing it in 2006.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Wembley without doubt. I can't say I like Allianz Arena much except at night.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Dragao, but I like Athens Olympic stadium too.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Wembley, even if it isn't yet finished. The history behind it and it's the home of football not to mention the superb design and I love the arch.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Millenium stadium. I've never been a fan of Allianz Arena except for its changing colours at night.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Bernabeu in my opinion.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)




----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

Where is this millenium Stadion and how does it look like?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

Da Luz


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

> But I don't like that so many hasn't got a roof on. It makes them look uncompleted, and reminds me of Eastern European grey and stale grounds.


yeah, yeah yeah. Discussed over and over. On that same note, I could say European interiors are unimaginative, boring and the roof is often gaudy and too much, taking funds away from the stadiums themselves being as nice as American ones. But I'm not going to say that. This has all been discussed over and over on this same post, over and over.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Exactly my thoughts on Allianz. Incredible unique exterior, but plain interior. Having said that, I do like the interior layout. One would just expect more innovation inside. Question, are there LED ribbons around the tiers? And such small video.

I also think Wembley is being a bit overstated on this board too. No doubt it will an awesome venue, but the retractable roof is................................I dunno, contradictory? Contrived I guess. You play soccer in rain. It rains a lot. Posters on this very board complain about stadiums not having a roof or people being exposed to the sun. So why would a stadium in this sense, not just have a permanent roof? Why put on a roof that merely become more of a roof. I think that most don't even realize that the roof does not close, but merely opens and closes more. The true jewel of the stadium itself will be what's under/behind the bowl itself as well as looking up at the arch.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

MoreOrLess said:


> In terms of the actual construction cost Wembley isnt really that far ahead of other stadiums built within countries with similar construction costs if their website is to be believed...
> 
> http://www.wembleystadium.com/brilliantfuture/thenewdesign/StadiumComparison.htm



That is a very interesting comparison chart. Thanks for the link.


----------



## reyrey (Jul 28, 2005)

the roof does close over the east and west parts, norman fosters website has a video of it somewhere. its retractable so the stadium doesnt have problems of stadiums like the millenium stadium and old trafford have of not enough sunlight being able to get to the grass and also allowing wind to get to the grass which apparently is very important! im sure when its pissing it down, the roof will be very much closed. also theres some crap on the website saying about kickoff time for the fa cup final there wont be any shadows on the pitch.
um yeh, i vote for wembley.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> Exactly my thoughts on Allianz. Incredible unique exterior, but plain interior. Having said that, I do like the interior layout. One would just expect more innovation inside. Question, are there LED ribbons around the tiers? And such small video.
> .


No...No stadium in Europe (I dont think) has LED ribbons around the tiers...but many do have LED avertsing boards at pitchside...

P.S
The roof opens and closes at the sides to allow light to the pitch for better grass growth and TV pictures...thats why there isnt a fixed roof.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> yeah, yeah yeah. Discussed over and over. On that same note, I could say European interiors are unimaginative, boring and the roof is often gaudy and too much, taking funds away from the stadiums themselves being as nice as American ones. But I'm not going to say that. This has all been discussed over and over on this same post, over and over.


A bit touchy, are we?

I stated my opinion. I'm totally indifferent to whether or not the subject of no roofs have been discussed over and over. The roof part is an integral part, as to why I'm not fond of many American stadiums, and so it had to be included.

And well, I don't think anyone in northern Europe, would want a stadium without a roof over.

I agree about many new European stadiums being unimaginative inside. Look at the new (though awesome) German grounds, they're very similar inside. I still think they're great, though.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Wasn't there another thread somewhere about this? Anyway, Wembley. The other one looks like a giant pillow.


----------



## Scarecrow (Oct 28, 2002)

Just to be a tad pedantic, Wembley Arena is shite. Wembley Stadium, as pictured is going to be better than anything in the world for a good while yet. 

Allianz is pretty great, but reminds me of the Michelin Man's bumhole for some reason. :cheers:


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

There once was a nice report in a German culture magazine on TV, which explains the interior of the Allianz Arena. I try to translate it... well... 

_Jacques Herzog in the aspekte-interview:
"If you were blind, you probably could feel how physical the inside of the stadium is. You can feel, how you are forming a room together with the people, which frames the sports happening. It was most important for us that football is the central aspect. This sounds banally, but it has actually never been done so radically before, as it is here."

The interior of the stadium: naked. Concrete with seats on it, which are painted silver, i.e. a concrete-like color. The arrangment of the tiers, so steep that you almost become a bit dizzy. This is for football-fans only, the architecture steps back to serve one single thing, the game - a challenge between 22 men on a green rectangle._
Source

That's lots of architects/designers blabla, but he's right.

Dull... maybe if there's no crowd inside. But then the only color you notice is the green of the pitch. The rest is a grey skeleton which lives when people fill the stadium.
And I think that was really nicely done in Munich. Da Luz for example is a bit overdone in my opinion. I don't know what the inside of Wembley will look like.
There's always a difference between plans and reality, visualizations and photographs.

I guess it will be even more impressive in reality, but it's far from being completed. I wonder if there really will be the FA-Cup final next year...


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

quote: But how can Wembley be profitable with so few events every year? You need a lot of events to make a stadium profitable, and it is almost imposible with out a regular user (a club).

---

that's a good question. but perhaps eddyk can help us here?
in germany the city of düsseldorf build a new stadium with 50.000 seats and a retractable roof. but then düsseldorf was not chosen as a world cup venue. due to the fact that düsseldorfs soccer team "fortuna" is not in one of german professional leagues right now and therefore doesn't use this great new arena on a regular basis they have a problem right now. in germany the persons in charge of other big stadiums say that's it's not possible to operate such a stadium without a soccer team that plays all it's game in the arena because you can't have a lot of concerts in such a big stadium. there are only few artists out there who ca fill a stadium of 60.000 or more. the problem in düsseldorf is in addition to that that there are a few other soccer stadiums in the area (schalke, cologle and mönchengladbach) with enw stadium of the same size.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Köbtke said:


> A bit touchy, are we?
> 
> I stated my opinion. I'm totally indifferent to whether or not the subject of no roofs have been discussed over and over. The roof part is an integral part, as to why I'm not fond of many American stadiums, and so it had to be included.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm touchy on this.  You guys post your soccer stadiums and quickly shoot down the stadiums of other sports that are simply designed differently for different reasons.

The roof discussion has been done over and over and over. The roof is not an integral part of a stadium. IEspecially in places with great weather. Ever wonder why Spain doesn't have roofs all over the place? Because their weather is very similar to most of the U.S. Why would you put a roof on a stadium that is played in decent weather without rain for 90% of the year? Why would a baseball stadium have a roof over the fans if the game can't be played in rain anyway? If you'll notice, places like Seattle(where it rains a lot), Minneapolis or Detroit(where it snows a lot during the season), there are roofs or indoor stadiums. In sunny places that aren't trying to host the Final Four, like San Diego, or Tampa you have wide open stadiums. What are you gonna do, block the beautiful 80 degree sun from the fans? You say why would someone in Northern Europe. North America is not Northern Europe. We have much more severe weather that the European roofs would simply do nothing for. 

There is also a psychological difference as well that goes with the weather. Some places simply have a tradition of a cold home field advantage. In Green Bay, it is cold as heck during the season. So, do I put a roof over these fans that doesn't protect them from the cold? That doesn't make sense. Perhaps the weather is more conducive of such structures in Western Europe, but not in much of North America. The other day, Lamar Hunt was talking about the decision to roof the new FC Dallas stadium. He said it was useless as the weather is great during the MLS season, so they took that extra money and put it into the stadium itself. Notice how much more elaborate the video and other display systems are in American stadiums.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Funny how people are having ago at us for liking the stadium because 'we dont know whats it going to like like yet'
But it certainly seems like Nils has a time machine of somesort.

If you say Wembley isnt special...you say alot of stadiums are crap.

To quote someone who was on about our Olympic Stadium

'Since when has crazy been better?'

The Australian company who are paying for this stadium have said 'We dont expect to make a profit for 10 years'

As for the number of events a year...

FA Cup Final
FA Cup Semi 1
FA Cup Semi 2
Carling Cup Final
Community Shield
Playoff Final C'ship
Playoff Final L1
Playoff Final L2
England internationals/Friendlys...whats that....6/7 a year.

Then the concerts...

No doubt all these will sell out...heck I would spend £100 on a ticket to see Disney the musical if it was a Wembley Stadium.

Still...It was just a reply to Ch1le...who said Wembley was just another stadium...

Just another stadium with the biggest seating Space in the world...Largest cideo screen, Largest football stadium...Tallest in world...

P.P.S
You can say size doesnt matter and every other excuse you can come up with, but do you think the Eiffel tower would be just as special if it was 20M high?


----------



## Sonic from Padova (Nov 23, 2004)

Allianz Arena is the BEST!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

Oh no. Athens might lose.


----------



## sakor1 (Aug 5, 2004)

I can't say much for Wembley... apart from the arch going over the top to me is is a pretty boring design, big yes, but boring. 

So I voted for Allianz, the exterior is absolutely stunning, especially at night... and inside is no worse than the inside at Wembley. Allianz all the way.

Stu


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Allianz- More unique


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Very tough.

Have to go with Athens, though.


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Da Luz!


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Outside- Allianz

Inside- Millenium

Tough. Gonna go with Allianz.


----------



## mumbojumbo (Dec 8, 2004)

Wembley


----------



## SDK4 (Jul 14, 2004)

A stadium doesn't have to have a roof to be great. Even though most teams are getting smart these days and building retractable roofs which do come in handy sometimes.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

"Just another stadium with the biggest seating Space in the world...Largest cideo screen, Largest football stadium...Tallest in world..."

God... i think we already defused that myth, but i guess having 3000+ post within a few months requires some recycling of old material.
Individual seating space is average, it is not the "largest" football stadium, it's also not particularly tall (apart from the arch).
There's no engineering feature which truly stands out, so it's by no means the eiffel tower of stadia in modern times.
Even the PR-department of the Wembley web site has to spin the story and use false numbers, in order to make it look more attractive.
Well Wembley might be "massive" (it better should be) but thats about it.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Morten M said:


> I think they are great both of them.
> Allianz a fantastic football stadium
> Wembley is massive though it is just Feedex Field in Washington with a roof.
> 
> But how can Wembley be profitable with so few events every year? You need a lot of events to make a stadium profitable, and it is almost imposible with out a regular user (a club).


As Eddy pointed out its going to host around 15-20 major sporting events per year(add in the Rugby League challenge cup final) plus a number of concerts. Also Wembley's revenue stream is about as garenteed as anything can be in football since the following events will always happen season in season out. A club on the other hand can fail to qualify for the champs league or slip down leaguewise so losing a great deal of revenue.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

I don't think there will be any problems refinancing Wembley. Sale of clubs seats and boxes is progressing nicely, there are lot of potential events in the pipe... 
Maybe Multiplex will get annihilated over it, but i don't think it will end up as a white elephant.


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

rantanamo said:


> ...And such small video...


Funny, but I don't want any video in a stadium. And so does practically every fellow Feyenoord-supporter. You come to the stadium for the game, maybe for some great atmosphere. Video is created for people that want to stay home...

Like somebody said before, I don't care for a giant donut with nifty colors. And the inside is kinda dull. I prefer Wembley.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

Do you suffer from an inferiority complex, regarding stadiums, rantanamo? You jump on the defence when there hasn't even been motion for attack.

As I said, I don't care if it has been discussed over and over. That doesn't have anything to do, with whether or not I like the stadiums in question, or not.
I never said stadiums had to have roofs on to be great, I live Soldier Field, for instance. What I did say, was that I'm not that fond of many American stadiums, due to the fact that many of them haven't got a roof. That's an opinion. I'm not saying it's stupid not to have a roof, I know there are reasons to not have a roof, you don't have to explain. What I am saying, is that I don't like most stadiums that doesn't have roofs.

And well, I view the roof as an integral part of most stadium designs. Because, as I said, I think many stadiums looks unfinised without roofs on. Again, that is a personal opinion, don't jump out of your seat, because of it.

Your point on Pizza Hut Park, is kind of off point. Pizza Hut Parks enterior, looks extremely boring. And well, if American stadiums have more elaborate display systems, it could be because European football fans, in particular, would rather watch what's going on the pitch, than some screen.
And otherwise, most new European grounds, have great display features.


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

@Eddyk

i think you have some kind of inferiority complex. I said it 100 times: Wembley is a wonderful stadium but it is not the one and only stadium.

quote: If you say Wembley isnt special...you say alot of stadiums are crap.

Where did i say that a lot of stadiums are crap? i only said the stadium wembley itself isn't anything really special. that doesn't result in a bad stadium as i said before. is it too hard for you to understand my opinion about new Wembley? 

quote: I would spend £100 on a ticket to see Disney the musical if it was a Wembley Stadium.

That's the reason why you are not able to have an objekctive discussion about this!

but it seems that it doesn't make sense to have such a discussion with you about any english subject. whatever it is, england is the best. sure. don't take anythink in person what we are talking here. for you wembley is the best of the best, for others there are some stadiums out there on the same level. that life.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

...


----------



## dgnr8 (Apr 22, 2003)

Whilst the inside of the AA is fairly average, the outside is wonderful. But considering the lameness of the inside, the tiers are steep and knowing Bayern fans, the atmosphere will always be intense so it should be a perfect footballing stadium. Haven't and won't likely get to visit, but I trust it'll prove to be a World class bit of stadia. 

Wembley is also awesome however, but for different reasons. Externally, it's pretty silly to say it's amazing. It's pretty naff to be honest except for possibly the entrance from Wembley Way. Internally is where it's interesting. The flatness of the bottom tier is worrying, but it won't be as flat as the Millenium stadium so it should be fine. The locations of the video screens is decent because hey, it breaks up the monotonous bowl design we see in every bloody new stadium proposal anywhere and adds interest to the stadium. And the partial opening roof is superb. Football is a game that should be exposed to the elements, but the fans needn't be so. On a sunny day, the roof opens and the fans bask in glorious sunshine. On a wet day, they're covered and get to cheer on the football knowing that football is a game to be played in wet and dry conditions. Sod covering the pitch because a top Brazilian signing can't cope with the cold (or whatever). 

But either way, the main point is this is an incredibly silly poll. You can't compare a stadium with one that's not even finished construction yet, let alone held a sodding match. Do this in a year, then we'll have a reason to conduct such meaningless polls.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> "Just another stadium with the biggest seating Space in the world...Largest cideo screen, Largest football stadium...Tallest in world..."
> 
> God... i think we already defused that myth, but i guess having 3000+ post within a few months requires some recycling of old material.
> Individual seating space is average, it is not the "largest" football stadium, it's also not particularly tall (apart from the arch).
> .


Seats....Show me numbers than say otherwise.
Or just making stuff up again? :sleepy: 

Height...Find me another stadium with a higher roof height.

You lot are taking away whats great about wembley...and using it against it.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

@Nils...and the rest

I never said you called any stadiums crap...

I said if you said wembley wasnt special...you say alot of stadiums are crap.

All these people calling it boring dont know what they're on about.

1- Youh have ago at us for acting like its finished...and here you are doing the same.
2- Would like you to name a list of 5 stadiums with a more exciting design than Wembley.

You lot are just making a load of bull up and are ganging up on wembley.

You are just like every other loser on this site...picking at the opponent instead of the one you like.

' and inside is no worse than the inside at Wembley'

Really....because Ive only seen 1 pic of the inside of Wembley...do you also have a time machine?

P.S
Poll should of been public..the Allianz has gained 10 votes over last night.

P.P.S
as for the me spening £100 to see a Musical if it was held at wembley..
It because ive been following the construction of the stadium for a few years..and hasve really got involved.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

As long as Wembley is a construction site and a mass off posted renders,then Allianz gets my vote.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

Can someone tell me what Lenin, is doing outside Allianz Arena?:









Oh, and I like both stadiums equally, I'd say. I like Allianz because it combines innovation with the traditional ingredients, that usually makes a good stadium. And I like Wembley due to the fact, that it simply looks to be one hell of a stadium, all 'round.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

eddyk said:


> IRW
> 
> 
> Wembley breaks many records.
> ...


yes it does.the allianz arena provides shopping opportunities which are unrivalled.It has introduced a tottally new concept where not only Bayern Munich and 1860 munich are present with their Fanshops,but also the arena with the partner allianz itself has their own flagstore and cinema and it features separate stores for audi and T-mobile (Deutsche Telekom) aswell.Ive read somewhere that the arena provides the biggest shooping area being built in a stadium so far.
the car park next to the stadium is also the biggest car park in Europe.


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

eddyk said:


> Height...Find me another stadium with a higher roof height..


_The stadium roof rises to 52 metres above the pitch._ (wembleystadium.com)

Olympic Stadium Montreal 171ft, that's exactly 52m if I'm right. Another source says 70m roof height (maybe when it's closed, which isn't possible any more).

Daegu Soccer Stadium says 52m there.

Bernabeu in my opinion definitely over 50m. Couldn't find any data though.

(This isn't inteded to be an offense! I really don't care about roof heights, normally...)



eddyk said:


> You lot are taking away whats great about wembley...and using it against it.


Oh, come on... It's a stadium. A special stadium. A really big and impressive stadium. And I like it, yes. But it's not godlike...
What you do is to polemize every person on this forum about Wembley...
Cool down a bit - if possible.


----------



## londonindyboy (Jul 24, 2005)

Wembley Arena for sure i will also take some pics of it i got a amazing view from my school's top floor so i'l try to take some pics.


----------



## londonindyboy (Jul 24, 2005)

WEMBLEY STADIUM


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

In terms of roof height I doubt Wembley holds any kind of record as if you look at the plans on the offical site the line of the roof is pretty much level from the back of the stand outwards. Many other stadiums such as those in Daegu and Montreal on the other hand have roofs that slope upwards from the backs of the stands. Wembley's height record I'd guess is for the overall structure at 133 meters tall if you include the arch which does hold up alot of the weight of the roof.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

I don't like Wembley, it has no real purpose. Its not used for athletics and it doesn't need to be used for football (having the games rotated round various parts of the country was a fantastic idea, a lot easier for anyone outside the M25).


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

I'd say Wembley. Allianz Arena looks pretty cool but Wembley is a bit more impressive.


----------



## katatonic (Mar 11, 2005)

Allianz Arena..just cos it looks more modern


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

MoreOrLess said:


> Wembley's height record I'd guess is for the overall structure at 133 meters tall if you include the arch which does hold up alot of the weight of the roof.


Which is quite similiar to Montreal, where a tower holds the roof. This tower is 168m tall.

However, I'm not keen on such comparisons... The arch of Wembley is impressive and nice. It's a real landmark, especially when lit up in the night.
But I really don't care how tall it is... at least not in the first place


----------



## HD (Sep 17, 2003)

both area great, but I chose allianz


----------



## pacorro (Jun 6, 2005)

Wembley the best render, San Siro the best stadium at the moment. Ask next year and we will see. My vote is for San Siro.


----------



## pacorro (Jun 6, 2005)

Bernabeu is one of the most legendary stadiums in the world, is bigger and has better location. My vote goes for Bernabeu.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

GASpedal said:


> _The stadium roof rises to 52 metres above the pitch._ (wembleystadium.com)
> 
> Olympic Stadium Montreal 171ft, that's exactly 52m if I'm right. Another source says 70m roof height (maybe when it's closed, which isn't possible any more).
> 
> ...



North Stand at Old Trafford is 55m from pitch level, to the top of the third tier. 60m to the tip of the scaffolding effort on the roof,


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Estadio Da Luz by miles what a stadium.


----------



## xXMrPinkXx (Aug 11, 2005)

I choosed Allianz Arena, cause of the unique Design! But I like the new Wembley as well...


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

Wembley is not only used for football remember that the Great Britian rugby league finals and internationals will be held there as well.

It can be converted for athletics, the stadium has been designed with that in mind should London, want to go for the world championships!


----------



## Eastender (Feb 16, 2003)

interesting, how the votes for wembley picked up (allianz has been leading from the beginning) after eddyk posted a link in the british forum ...


----------



## Barragon (Dec 26, 2004)

It's normal thay Santiago Barnabeu wins..... there are more Spanish forumers! :sleepy:


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Allianz was never leading from the beggining.

When I went to be last night Wembley was 5 ahead...this morning when I got on the AA was the one with 5 votes in hand.


----------



## Barragon (Dec 26, 2004)

eddyk said:


>


:hilarious

Great picture..... i always tought that the Dragão was a Space Ship with ugly alien's on board :lol:

My vote goes to Dragão Stadium... altough the both could not be compared... !!


----------



## Prometheus (Jan 10, 2003)

It's not fair to neither to compare a pure stadium with an athletics track to a football stadium.

The Dragao is a new modern stadium. Top of the line. Very smart and the clean lines are very attractive.

OAKA is a large Olympic style pure stadium. Very Calatrava-esque and elegant and much more versitaile. 

Personally the Da Luz is nicer football stadium in Portugal, but I prefer Boavista's Bessa myself. 

Anyways, in terms of a 'stadium', I choose Athens because a) I am Greek, and b) it can do much more.


----------



## Prometheus (Jan 10, 2003)

I'm sorry Bernebau, but until Wembley rolls around the Luz is the best pure football stadium in Europe.


----------



## Prometheus (Jan 10, 2003)

Wembley will best Europe's best football stadium.

The San Siro, like alot of Italy's stadium needs work.


----------



## Prometheus (Jan 10, 2003)

2 things that bug me about the ultra modern Allianz Arena:

1) The outside is ugly. I'm sorry. This is one of those designs that is revolutionary and hip when it's new, but doesn't age well. Watch and see.

2) The seats are bland. Colourless. 

So I vote for Cardiff.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

Eddy, you're starting to sound like a loony. Obviously you've become obsessed with all things Wembley. Please respect that there might be people that hold different beliefs and are questioning the divinity of Wembley and their builders.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Da luz is hell nicer. its a stunning all football venue. even more perfect in real life.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

My vote goes to the completed one.

...but ask me again next year


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

My part in the roof argument - up until a few years ago, the MCG had a few unroofed sections from decades ago, and I've heard complaints about how the top tier is too windy and wet during winter. And the wind can be quite a problem because it comes straight across the ocean from Antarctica. And the roof is good for sunny days watching the cricket, because you probably don't want to spend hours roasting in the heat.

And after reading the thread - pardon my ignorance but what the hell is a stadium that meets NFL standards? What criteria do they have to meet? The AFL here hosts matches in stadiums with capacities of several thousand a few times a season, even though average attendances are right up there compared to other leagues in the world.

What I do like about the stadiums in America is that a lot of them appear to be very steep.


The bare patch of grass in baseball stadiums is a bit weird to me too - for cricket, you normally just get a huge black or white screen erected directly in front of the batsman, on both sides of the pitch.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> Eddy, you're starting to sound like a loony. Obviously you've become obsessed with all things Wembley. Please respect that there might be people that hold different beliefs and are questioning the divinity of Wembley and their builders.



What you on about...I have no Problem with people voting the AA.

Its stupid comments that do my head in

'Wembley Stadium is boring'
'Its just like any other stadium just larger'
'Seating Space at Wembley is Average' 
'The Inside of Wembley is no better than the AA' (WS isnt even finished)
etc etc.

I say Wembley will have the largest video screen in stick and ball sports...I get 'You dont pay money to watch a video screen, they're not important'


----------



## traveler (Jun 12, 2005)

Luz. Is nicer. Go bemfica..


----------



## traveler (Jun 12, 2005)

Dragao. Great stadium.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I like the patch of grass...I wish they would do that In cricket.

NFL stadiums and World Football stadiums are different though.

The stands on US stadiums are not next to the pitch but seaten above it...










Not a bad thing though...it will no doubt be better to watch US Football this way.

Also you could find yourself sat behind a few dozen players and staff...No dugouts like in baseball.


----------



## New York Yankee (Mar 18, 2005)

the europian stadiums are the best looking ones.


----------



## New York Yankee (Mar 18, 2005)

that's a fact.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*QUARTER FINAL COMPLETE*

CONGRATULATIONS, TO THE WINNING STADIUMS WHO ADVANCE TO THE SEMI FINALS:

SEMI FINAL DRAW

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM VS WEMBLEY STADIUM
ALLIANZ ARENA VS BERNABEU STADIUM


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

CONGRATULATIONS, TO THE WINNING STADIUMS WHO ADVANCE TO THE SEMI FINALS:

SEMI FINAL DRAW

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM VS WEMBLEY STADIUM
ALLIANZ ARENA VS BERNABEU STADIUM


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

CONGRATULATIONS, TO THE WINNING STADIUMS WHO ADVANCE TO THE SEMI FINALS:

SEMI FINAL DRAW

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM VS WEMBLEY STADIUM
ALLIANZ ARENA VS BERNABEU STADIUM


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

CONGRATULATIONS, TO THE WINNING STADIUMS WHO ADVANCE TO THE SEMI FINALS:

SEMI FINAL DRAW

ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM VS WEMBLEY STADIUM
ALLIANZ ARENA VS BERNABEU STADIUM


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

I guess Athens run is over. Nobody is going to beat Wembley.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Athens olympic Stadium V Wembley....gonna be the one to watch.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

invincible said:


> My part in the roof argument - up until a few years ago, the MCG had a few unroofed sections from decades ago, and I've heard complaints about how the top tier is too windy and wet during winter. And the wind can be quite a problem because it comes straight across the ocean from Antarctica. And the roof is good for sunny days watching the cricket, because you probably don't want to spend hours roasting in the heat.
> 
> And after reading the thread - pardon my ignorance but what the hell is a stadium that meets NFL standards? What criteria do they have to meet? The AFL here hosts matches in stadiums with capacities of several thousand a few times a season, even though average attendances are right up there compared to other leagues in the world.
> 
> ...




There is no set standard of rules for an NFL stadium, but they are on average nicer than what you get in Europe. If anyone notices all we get are the same set of stadiums on this board. Da Luz, Millennium, Emirates(not even built), Wembley(not even built), And Allianz. These represent the newest, nicest and most expensive of the European Stadiums, yet from posters here, you would think these represent the norm. They don't. They represent the top of the top in Europe and are far above most. Would I put these stadiums above Qwest, Paul Brown, Soldier Field, Reliant, AZ Cardinals, Cleveland Browns, etc, etc. No I wouldn't. The difference is, these stadiums are much more representative of the norm in the NFL. You simply won't see a stadium built without certain amenities, technologies and luxuries. This is not even mentioning baseball stadiums, that are in some cases even more amenity laden. We even got the, The U.S. doesn't have nice smaller stadiums, which ignores the hundreds of brand new and fantastic minor league ballparks.

It just gets old to read about what makes a stadium great over and over, when what is actually being stated is what makes a great soccer stadium. Its also tiresome to read about what makes US stadiums bad, but then when similar issues come up in European stadiums it becomes a "we don't need that" or "we don't want that". If you guys can question us not being unecessary and unfunctional roof crazy, then I can question why your stadiums have flat sidelines rather than having the audience face the middle of the field. I can question why your club seating is so limited. I can question why there is a lack of variety in designs and so many square boxes.. I can question why some amenities that showed up in the 70s in US stadiums are just now showing up. I can question why the European display and information systems are much less prevalent than those in Japan, U.S. and Canada. 

And it is no fact that European stadiums look better. They have ugly and beautiful just like the U.S. That's an opinion.

How can I suffer from an inferiority complex when you guys are just catching up? The only thing I suffer from is being sickened by the closed-mindedness towards different sports and ideas in stadium design. Also sick of the fabrications, exaggerations and flat out lies about things like cost or putting old college stadiums in the US as what represents modern stadium design in the U.S.

You want inferiority complex. Look at all the back patting in the so-called world stadium contest. Then a best baseball stadiums post shows up and there are no comments whatsover. You put BOB, Safeco and Miller Park in Europe, you'd have 50 posts slobbering all over them daily.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

There are plenty of great new stadiums all over Europe. Just look at Germany and the new world cup venues. Allianz Arena, Arena AufSchalke (now called Veltins Arena), the new stadiums in Cologne, Leipzig, Hanover are all as good as the best NFL stadiums. And the reason why amenities are just now beginning to show up is that we saw no need for them in the 80s and 70s. Americans go to a stadium not just to watch the game but to eat hot dogs and visit the stadium shop (and then they go home after the 2nd period of a hockey game or after the 7th inning stretch). We just have a totally different fan culture over here, our priorities are different.


----------



## reluminate (Aug 3, 2004)

Kampflamm said:


> There are plenty of great new stadiums all over Europe. Just look at Germany and the new world cup venues. Allianz Arena, Arena AufSchalke (now called Veltins Arena), the new stadiums in Cologne, Leipzig, Hanover are all as good as the best NFL stadiums. And the reason why amenities are just now beginning to show up is that we saw no need for them in the 80s and 70s. Americans go to a stadium not just to watch the game but to eat hot dogs and visit the stadium shop (and then they go home after the 2nd period of a hockey game or after the 7th inning stretch). We just have a totally different fan culture over here, our priorities are different.


You seem to be a bit misinformed...


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Kampflamm said:


> There are plenty of great new stadiums all over Europe. Just look at Germany and the new world cup venues. Allianz Arena, Arena AufSchalke (now called Veltins Arena), the new stadiums in Cologne, Leipzig, Hanover are all as good as the best NFL stadiums. And the reason why amenities are just now beginning to show up is that we saw no need for them in the 80s and 70s. Americans go to a stadium not just to watch the game but to eat hot dogs and visit the stadium shop (and then they go home after the 2nd period of a hockey game or after the 7th inning stretch). We just have a totally different fan culture over here, our priorities are different.


Maybe Allianz and Auf Schalke are as good as the best in the NFL That's it. 

But this post simply illustrates what I am talking about. Stereotypes the American fan and defends the European stadium by saying the culture is different. OF COURSE the culture is different, so the stadiums will be different. We are not afforded that courtesy though, and because we have different venues, it somehow has made our stadiums inferior to those in Europe. I saw a comment that Da Luz was better than Reliant anyway. What is better about it? Sightlines? Design? Exterior? Amenities? Information systems? Traffic flow? Public transit access? What exactly? What makes Da Luz or Allianz better than Paul Brown, M&T, Browns, Qwest, Edward Jones, Superdome, Soldier, Ford or perhaps Safeco, Miller Park, Bank One, PNC, Minute Maid, Ameriquest, Comerica and on and on. 

And our fans come to watch the game. Baseball is just a bit different as the season is more of a marathon than other sports. You come to watch the games, but it is much more methodical and leisurely than football or soccer. That is why the stadiums are so amenity laden.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

> And our fans come to watch the game. Baseball is just a bit different as the season is more of a marathon than other sports. You come to watch the games, but it is much more methodical and leisurely than football or soccer. That is why the stadiums are so amenity laden.


Exactly, that's what I wrote as well. And I never said that European venues are somehow better than their American counterparts. I just think that NFL stadiums tend to be a bit boring, Gillette Stadium, the one in Tennessee and Lincoln Field all look pretty similar IMO. Doesn't mean they're bad stadiums though it just means that they're no architectural jewels.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

asohn said:


> You seem to be a bit misinformed...


Why am I misinformed? I lived in the US for 6 years and had plenty of opportunities to watch games of all four major sports. It's quite weird to see someone leave during the 2nd intermission of a tied game but it happened and you'd never see it in Europe.


----------



## obispo (Dec 27, 2003)

The AllianzArena is the best looking stadium in the world from the inside. I don´t like it´s outside at night.
It´s true the AllianzArena looks kind of small in the inside for 66000 seats but that was the architects goal. It´s a stadium all about football. I was in there and the green looks amazing surrounded by the silver seats. The stands are very well placed with inconspicuous vip-seats.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Kampflamm said:


> Exactly, that's what I wrote as well. And I never said that European venues are somehow better than their American counterparts. I just think that NFL stadiums tend to be a bit boring, Gillette Stadium, the one in Tennessee and Lincoln Field all look pretty similar IMO. Doesn't mean they're bad stadiums though it just means that they're no architectural jewels.


First of all, Lincoln Financial looks nothing like Gillette and The Coliseum(which are probably the two most similar venues in the NFL besides the two inflata-domes). Do you really want to say they are boring compared to the endless "Lego boxes" and saddle roofs? Every country has their boring stadiums. Again, the vast majority of stadiums around the world are very boring. Look at the interior of Allianz. Look at the exterior of Da Luz. Boring boring. The NFL has a great variety of designs. Some gems, some ugly. 

And you simply can't take a small sample set like that and generalize american sports fans like that. I'm sure there are cases in Europe where the same happens. Perhaps these people had work? Perhaps they brought their children. Perhaps they were disgusted with their team. Also depends on where you were. Some areas simply don't have great fans. Some have incredible fans that stay after games and do cheers.


----------



## DetoX (May 12, 2004)

*You know what I think? This whole discution has no sense because every single person from the US will vote for US stadia .. and people from the EU .. you know. This is caused not just by patriotic but love to national sport. Americans love baseball when we love Football .. and that`s it.*

Agree with me .. or not?


----------



## DetoX (May 12, 2004)

Very nice thread! .. and I was a little problem to choice .. After a moment I select: Wembley... 

But AA is just a lil bit beyond .. and It`s the coolest arena in the World (this colorful illumination is great!)


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I think this is going to be the final in Mo Rushs' Stadium Comp.


I hope it isnt though.


----------



## New York Yankee (Mar 18, 2005)

the wimbley looks good, but the allianz look much more better, it's lovely!


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

.






















Topping out...tallest stadium in the world.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

agreed


----------



## reluminate (Aug 3, 2004)

agreed


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Well duh. 

Who seriously expected any europeans to support US stadiums and Americans to support Europeans ones?

Its he same everywhere on this site...People support there own country/continent etc.


@Rantanamo

' I saw a comment that Da Luz was better than Reliant anyway. What is better about it? Sightlines? Design? Exterior? Amenities? Information systems? Traffic flow? Public transit access? What exactly?'

A few pages back you said 'Da Luz is the only european stadium that can sniff at anything the NFL has'

'If anyone notices all we get are the same set of stadiums on this board.'

You have said this comment before...I then posted these....



EUROPE

Wembley Stadium (U/C) 2006) 









Allianz Arena (U/C) 2005)

Emirates Stadium (U/C) 2006)
























Estadia Dragao








Atatürk Olympic Stadium 








Amsterdam Arena 








Athens Olympic Stadium








Da Luz








Camp Nou 








Old Trafford
















































































































































































































































Atatürk Olympiyat 81 283


















*Thats 36 Different Stadiums.*


Note Ive added a few just now.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*FRAUDELENT VOTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED*

I will look into the stadium battles forums and if it is indeed true that 10 people voted with having no previous posts, then 10 votes will be removed from the athens olympic stadium tally, i know this wont impress people but in all fairness, if other stadia deserved to go through then they will, any votes that were cast from "new" accounts should not be added. Therefore, upon the confirmation of these allegations 10 votes will be removed and athens olympic stadium will be disqualified, estadio dragao will then progress to the semi finals...


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*FRAUDELENT VOTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED*

*I will look into the stadium battles forums and if it is indeed true that 10 people voted with having no previous posts, then 10 votes will be removed from the athens olympic stadium tally, i know this wont impress people but in all fairness, if other stadia deserved to go through then they will, any votes that were cast from "new" accounts should not be added. Therefore, upon the confirmation of these allegations 10 votes will be removed and estadio dragao will progress instead...!!!!*


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

^^ Good thing


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Considering that this is mainly an english forum (isn't it??) it's surprising that Wembley isn't ahead by more votes! 
I like both stadiums but I also think that it is unfair to compare an unfinished stadium with a stadium that's already finished. Maybe some accolade has to be withdrawn when finished. Maybe it's gonna be the other way round. We'll have to see...


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

and what is your point?

Most of those are not regularly posted, and only a handful would go in the NFL. I guess you are trying to show variety? Everyone has variety. I was merely pointing out that there are some very common designs in Europe.

I am in the process of research and doing a world wide study on what people actually like in Stadiums. I'm distributing this to random users on sports forums all around the world. I will send an equal amount of venues to sights in each country. None to one's own nation. The fields in the pics are being blurted out and each stadium is broken down into sections of the stadium. Finding the factual information and corresponding photos has been long and hard, but the result is all I want and I can't wait.. So far I've done US College Stadiums, Canada, Australia, China and a few European nations. The results so far a truly interesting and I think many of you will really hate the results once I post them. A certain Chinese stadium has recieved the highest average score so far. I would be surprised if anything beats it out. That is versus, US College Stadiums, Canada, Australia, China, Japan and Europe A-G so far. So yes, it has beaten out Allianz and Wembley. Because the data set is so large, I'll probably either post only the scores of the commonly posted venues or like a top 20 or something.


----------



## Balleke (Sep 11, 2002)

westfalen stadion: wow  it must be a GREAT atmosphere overthere! love it


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

i hate stadiums that have a track around them.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

i hate stadiums where the rake is so low that the people at the 'top'of the stands are about 100m from the action. luckily this is becoming a thing of college american 'football' as the NFL new stadia seem to have learnt to build upwards as well as outwards


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Japanese Results are in.

New top 10. 1 American, 6 Asian, 2 Australian, 1 European. Of course this is still incomplete as has a ways to go. Haven't recieved all of the H-Z in Europe or professional American stadiums.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> I will look into the stadium battles forums and if it is indeed true that 10 people voted with having no previous posts, then 10 votes will be removed from the athens olympic stadium tally, i know this wont impress people but in all fairness, if other stadia deserved to go through then they will, any votes that were cast from "new" accounts should not be added. Therefore, upon the confirmation of these allegations 10 votes will be removed and athens olympic stadium will be disqualified, estadio dragao will then progress to the semi finals...


let me start by saying that it dosent matter how many people have voted with no posts, new members can vote too. Secondly, if people made new accounts to vote for athens, the same could have been done by others for Dragao. Obviously, some people dont want athens to win, and have gone to extreme lengths to remove the votes. Not saying that it is right to make a new account, but it could be someones brother or sister using the same computer, signing up to give there vote to a stadium. Now, please justify why new accounts votes shouldnt be added. is this discrimination against new users?


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

hngcm said:


> Nope, but nothing can beat having the stands right next to the soccer field.


but it isnt a soccer stadium....


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> let me start by saying that it dosent matter how many people have voted with no posts, new members can vote too. Secondly, if people made new accounts to vote for athens, the same could have been done by others for Dragao. Obviously, some people dont want athens to win, and have gone to extreme lengths to remove the votes. Not saying that it is right to make a new account, but it could be someones brother or sister using the same computer, signing up to give there vote to a stadium. Now, please justify why new accounts votes shouldnt be added. is this discrimination against new users?


if the new accounts were created for the purpose of voting for the athens olympic stadium then they will be removed, as no discrimination against new users will take place, however if the allegations are true then which ever stadium it is will be disqualified, if nothing can be proved then nothing will happen...


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

But how can we tell.

The only evidence we have is that its happening in my olympic thread.

I think you should just let it go...do the semi final...but make the polls public.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

i agree. theres not enoguh proff. Both stadia will only get slaughtered anyways.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

I'd have voted Dragao. By quite a lot. I don't like the Athens Olympic Stadium at all. 

It's basically like sticking an overly adorned designer hat, on a vagabond. He's STILL a vagabond.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

u dont see the full picture. i feel sorry for people like you.

btw, what did greeks do to people from Copenhagen to make them hate us so much?


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> u dont see the full picture. i feel sorry for people like you.
> 
> btw, what did greeks do to people from Copenhagen to make them hate us so much?


What the Hell? Who says I hate you? 

I don't like Athens Olympic Stadium, no. But how do you get from that fact, to the fact that I hate Greek people? Absurd.

I just don't see what people like about the stadium so much. The roof looks nice, admitted. It'd look even nicer, if it had a matching stadium underneath.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Is it possible to create a poll where the amount of votes is not visible, kinda an IOC voting system?


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

iv never come across a danish person who has made a nice comment about greeks, so i assume that we have done something politically, or on the forum.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> Is it possible to create a poll where the amount of votes is not visible, kinda an IOC voting system?


i dont think so, unless we pmed u the voting or something. 

why didnt u just make a poll with all the stadiums nominated?
Its more logical,


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> iv never come across a danish person who has made a nice comment about greeks, so i assume that we have done something politically, or on the forum.


With the amount of Danish tourists going to Greece, my girlfriend being in Athens at the moment, I don't think your assumption holds any merit


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

yes but do they say nice things wen they get back


----------



## Theogr (Jul 14, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> I will look into the stadium battles forums and if it is indeed true that 10 people voted with having no previous posts, then 10 votes will be removed from the athens olympic stadium tally, i know this wont impress people but in all fairness, if other stadia deserved to go through then they will, any votes that were cast from "new" accounts should not be added. Therefore, upon the confirmation of these allegations 10 votes will be removed and athens olympic stadium will be disqualified, estadio dragao will then progress to the semi finals...


I am relatively new at the forum and voted for athens olympic stadium but I've been reading most of the threads for quite a while. If my vote is not counted I will be really annoyed.

On what basis you will not take into account votes of people with no previous post?I can sense some bias here. 

please present facts!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

its ok theo, people get pissed off when athens wins things on this forum.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> yes but do they say nice things wen they get back


I can't account for everyone who goes to Greece, but yes, in general, people seem to like it. I've liked it too, the three times I've been there.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

and did you visit the newly renovated OAKA?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Theogr said:


> I am relatively new at the forum and voted for athens olympic stadium but I've been reading most of the threads for quite a while. If my vote is not counted I will be really annoyed.
> 
> On what basis you will not take into account votes of people with no previous post?I can sense some bias here.
> 
> please present facts!



Because its happening in my Olympic Stadia thread.

Athens has at least 9 votes from users with no posts....who all joined during this polls run time.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

soo?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

'On what basis you will not take into account votes of people with no previous post?'

Soo...that!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

so new users arnt allowed to vote?

thats what your effectivly saying


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Bloody hell...you are not defending this are you?

They are not new users at all...its one user, with many accounts, trying to fix the poll(s)

Every mod on this site will agree with me on this.

9 new accounts registerd in the last 3 days...none have made a single post...but it seems they are voting for Athens in these polls.


----------



## vip1973 (Aug 11, 2005)

I voted also for athens so what?????????????What happens here?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

ah...I know whats going to happen now...

The culprit ^^ you

Is now going to make posts using his many accounts...thus...they wont have a post count of 0 anymore.


----------



## vip1973 (Aug 11, 2005)

??????????????????????????????????


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

lol ambitious theory there. problem is how do you prove it and also, anyone could do it even non athens voters.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I have already sent a PM to a mod asking them to check vip1973's IP address to the voters in the Olympic Stadia thread.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

how come?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

How come im doing it?


I prove or disprove my theory.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

It's simple, American stadiums are U.G.L.Y.

European ones are innovative and stunning.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Wembley is the best and Tricky had to make loads of excuses for Allianz at the beginning which was laughable.

I like the Allianz tho, really original and space age design, love the light show. Wembley however is just out of this world on scale, much bigger, much more important and historic, and the light show with the arch when illuminated is a good as anything Allianz can do.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)




----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

il fenomeno said:


> aa
> wembley is boring


Hotdog we have a weiner.


You're from Spain right?


----------



## il fenomeno (Sep 11, 2002)

aa is bigger and higher and has more space in any way


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

I'll see if I can find some numbers for you eddy. 
poll is fishy!? Come on eddy...Iwas with you when 10 aaccounts were created by the same user to push the Athens Olympic Stadium...but now you seem to suffer from a slight persecution complex. Just check the votes if you smell something fishy here...


----------



## easysurfer (Dec 12, 2004)

Any stadium that skimps on the interior seats deserves to lose. Why did the germans ask the french what the best seats were for the interior? the Stade de france desingners chose wrongly with grey seats and so have the designers for Allianz arena. Allianz does look quite futurisrtic but wembley is bigger, more elegant, has better facilities, and screams the home of football. No contest, even though both are great stadiums. Wembley all the way. Which would you want to visit if you could only attend a match at one of them?


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

btw. why don't you make the polls public..

oops, isn't your poll. Sorry


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

il fenomeno said:


> aa is bigger and higher and has more space in any way


 :weirdo: 

Wembley is alot bigger than the AA, 

Wembley is the tallest stadium in the world..and biggest football stadium (size)...it has an aircraft warning beacon.

Wembley does not have less space per seat (if that what you are on about) and has passageways the size of a 4-lane road within its walls lined with shops bars and resturants.

New Wembley Stadium will have more than 2,000 lavatories, more than any other building inthe world.


----------



## il fenomeno (Sep 11, 2002)

damn wembely is leading again, even though i voted with all my 12 other accounts for aa


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

see, he admits it


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

eddyk said:


> :weirdo:
> 
> Wembley is alot bigger than the AA,
> 
> ...


You are repeating yourselt eddy. Show me some numbers. Wembley just isn't the tallest stadium in the world... what do you mean by size... amount of people to visit a match...then Azteca is far bigger.
I don't think Wembley has less space per seat.. I think both are equal
I also doubt that lavatory thing...there are more important things than lavatories however....


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

il fenomeno said:


> damn wembely is leading again, even though i voted with all my 12 other accounts for aa


That doesn't make sense to me. Why should you admit manipulating a poll. If you really did your ip should be blocked :bash:
You such polls are hardly representative, but idiots like you are destroying the idea. You obviously don't have better things to do


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I think it was a joke Zizu.

Anyhoo...Wembley _is_ the tallest stadium in the world by far...if you include the arch....which holds up half the roof.

And I said size...not capacity...

Source http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=136420

London: The New Wembley Stadium in London has become the tallest stadium in the world following the erection of a giant 133m (436ft) tall arch.

The skyline of North London has been changing gradually as the huge steel structure inched its way to full height, topping off what will become one of the world's largest stadia with a capacity of 90,000. The arch replaces the world-famous twin towers of the old Wembley Stadium, which played host to many well known footballing moments as well as hundreds of concerts and events, including Live Aid.

The new stadium will eventually form the centrepiece of a new urban quarter including a renovated Wembley Arena, apartments, offices, retail, leisure and a number of tall buildings in a recently approved masterplan by Richard Rogers Partnership.

Despite having very few tall buildings, London is now home to the world's tallest stadium, ferris wheel and hospital.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

You are right when you include the arch of course. Wait, how tall is the Montreal Stadium. It's roof is held by a big tower.
Size? You mean circumference or diameter??


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

I know there was a site where one could compare buildings by size and other facts. I can't remember it...
the article says one of the worlds largest stadiums, not the biggest.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Ground Accommodation Area (sq. m)


And yeas the article does say one of the world largest stadiums...in capacity.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Ground Accomodation Area...ok...that is probably true


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Found it. The tower that holds the roof of the Montreal Stadium is 556 foot tall. The Wembley Arch is "only" 436 foot tall. So, Wembley isn't the highest stadium in the world.
Source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/olympic_stadium.html


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

I am not a big fan of the Allianz external cladding, though it is aobviously a great stadium, Ihtink Wembley suits my taste more. 

I didn't liek the bullring in Birmingham (not a stadium but looks similar) because I just don't take to that sort of building surface.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

obispo said:


> The AllianzArena is the best looking stadium in the world from the inside. I don´t like it´s outside at night.
> It´s true the AllianzArena looks kind of small in the inside for 66000 seats but that was the architects goal. It´s a stadium all about football. I was in there and the green looks amazing surrounded by the silver seats. The stands are very well placed with inconspicuous vip-seats.


It would be actually possible to put around 72000 spectators in, if the seating layout would be changed.No problem.
Actually there have been made some changes regarding quite a big section of the lowest tier.
business seats had been placed there,but after a few games,some spectators suggested to replace these business seats by normal ones, because a lot of the atmosphere got lost there.
And so they did.For every business seat 2 normal seats were just installed.
That alone increases the capacity by quite a number.
But the officials already stated that the arena has only been tested for 66000 spec. in case of an emergency.So they will somehow keep the capacity at the same level.for now.
I would also say that if the AA would use Wembleys layout for seats they could cram even more people in the stadium.

BTW:I got a question.does Wembley actually feature an athletics track?? like the one in the stade the France??


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Zizu said:


> Found it. The tower that holds the roof of the Montreal Stadium is 556 foot tall. The Wembley Arch is "only" 436 foot tall. So, Wembley isn't the highest stadium in the world.
> Source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/olympic_stadium.html


The tower is actually seperate to the stadium...and is Still UC...the Stadium was build nearly 30 years ago.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112444


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Checker said:


> It would be actually possible to put around 72000 spectators in, if the seating layout would be changed..
> 
> BTW:I got a question.does Wembley actually feature an athletics track?? like the one in the stade the France??


It was been mentioned that the seats on the lower tier of wembley could be moved closer and maybe resized to make Wembley a 100,000 seater if the demand gets to great.

Wembley isnt built with an athletics track...but it is build to an athletics track can be installed...and the loss of half the lower tier...thus losing 25,000 seats.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

^I see.so how do they fill the gap between the lowest tier and the pitch?


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

il fenomeno said:


> aa is bigger and higher and has more space in any way


Anti-British Spaniard! Siete intrépidos escritores, hemos creado, "A Sangre y fuego", un blog literario lleno de relatos y reflexiones.


----------



## il fenomeno (Sep 11, 2002)

A Sangre y Fuego

Lo peor era que Xavier era plenamente consciente de todo esto. Él sí que leía su mente!	:hahaha:


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Checker said:


> ^I see.so how do they fill the gap between the lowest tier and the pitch?


Im sorry....but I dont get what you mean.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

^i mean since the stadium is planned to house an athletics track in the future there must be a gap between the lowest tier and the pitch.similar maybe to the gap that you see in the stade the france behind the goal.
So since they dont install that athletics track in the first place they gonna have some empty space behind the goal,and Im just curious what they are going to do with it.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

The stands will be pretty close to the pitch...and there isnt much of a gap.










The stands at the stade de france move back to reveal the running track.

At wembley the running track will be delivered piece by piece and build on top of the pitch and half of the lower stand like in that rendering I posted on the last page.

Construction of the track is supposed to take a few months.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

ah ok thx.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

I'd guess the track will only be used if London gets a world athletics championship sometime in the future, the dowsized olympic stadium will have enough capacity for minor events. I doubt that will ever happen myself as now London has got the Olympics one of the other major cities(Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow) of the UK will most likely bid for the next big event.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

Sitback said:


> It's simple, American stadiums are U.G.L.Y.
> 
> European ones are innovative and stunning.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Allianz Arena.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

eddyk said:


> The tower is actually seperate to the stadium...and is Still UC...the Stadium was build nearly 30 years ago.
> 
> http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112444


The Arch is separate too. But both are an integral part of the stadium because they hold up the roof! What's "UC"? Does it change thei height of it that it was built in the 70s??


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

The most hyped thing about the arch is actually that its the worlds largest single span "roof" structure in the world.

Going back to the cost question I remember reading a newpaper article awhile ago that claimed the FA where looking at bringing in a revenue of £230 million per year from the stadium compaired to £100 million per year from the old stadium.


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

Zizu said:


> The Arch is separate too. But both are an integral part of the stadium because they hold up the roof! What's "UC"? Does it change thei height of it that it was built in the 70s??


No it doesn't.
They changed the roof, which is now non-retractable and permanently closed. But that's all. The tower still holds the inner side of the roof which closes the gap over the pitch.
But eddyk doesn't take that into account. I posted about roof heights and this "tallest stadium"-crap already before...


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

Rantanamo, they aren't identical twins like Emirates and Da Luz, no.

But they are quite similar in design. Maybe Invesco Field was a bad choice, since it has three tiers that goes around 75 of the stadium, and one smaller end, (the design isn't much off the ones I posted though.) 

And well yes, Dolphins' and FedEx are quite similar, FedEx is shaped a bit differently, and you can add all the tiers you want, they still have virtually the same design. An open bowl, (fair enough, Dolphins is an octagon or something of the sort, but not much off.)

These stadiums, and many more of their cousins in the NFL are, in my opinion, more identical than most European stadiums.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

GASpedal said:


> No it doesn't.
> They changed the roof, which is now non-retractable and permanently closed. But that's all. The tower still holds the inner side of the roof which closes the gap over the pitch.
> But eddyk doesn't take that into account. I posted about roof heights and this "tallest stadium"-crap already before...


To be fair he's not just come up with that himself I'v seen it mentioned many times in news articles so maybe theres some kind of "petronas spire" classification difference?


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

MoreOrLess said:


> To be fair he's not just come up with that himself I'v seen it mentioned many times in news articles so maybe theres some kind of "petronas spire" classification difference?


All those exaggerations fit the hype of the stadium. It was almost the same here in Germany with the Allianz Arena. But some things just aren't true, no matter hoe often they are stated.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Yes...they are all made up. :|

On the official site and on Emporis...


Maybe it isnt even a football stadium.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Is their any kind of internet database with stadium heights listed? Really the only comparison I'v been able to find to another famous stadium is that the 4 big towers of the San Siro are 68.5 meters tall.










I'd guess that maybe 1/4 of that height is above the roof though which would put thats stands at around the same height as Wembley.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Where are the figures to say that AA has the same volume of seating space as wembley, I don't believe that i'm afraid.

I can't imagine AA being as high either, for one. Wemble has a much bigger capacity, and if both stadiums had the same volume of seating space per seat then quite clearly Wembley is gonna be well higher.


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

Morten M said:


> normally it is the americans who are norrowminded and know nothing about the rest of the world.


No, normally that's how american's are STEREOTYPED to be by other nationals. In reality the American ratio of ignorant idiots to educated, intelligent people who DO know something of the rest of the world is about the same as it is in any other country.


----------



## ASupertall4SD (Jun 6, 2005)

agreed xiaobai. that is definitely a stereotype fed by our prowess. And as it is known, and has been known, those in that position are automatically stereotyped as having a "self-righteous" complex. It is my opinion that as americans, given our freedoms to voice opinions, we breed the exact opposite of that stereotype.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

why are london/UK forumers the most retarded posters?


----------



## Roekie (Aug 10, 2005)

Rantanomo, German stadiums old ??
Just look at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/tickets/venues.html and you'll see there are many brand new ones as they will host the next worldchampionships football.
But many other brand new stadiums are there.
I guess in Europe there are many more stadiums than in the US so it is easier to find also some crapy ones. But stadiums like Barcelona,Real Madrid,Milan,Juventus,Olympic stadium Rome,Athens,New Wembley,St Denis Paris etc etc are superb.
Not to speak about stadiums that you never even heard of like the one in Bari,Mongengladbach,Eindhoven,Seville,Arnhem,Copenhagen, which are maybe only up to 50.000 people but are very modern and beautifull


----------



## ASupertall4SD (Jun 6, 2005)

that is another good point roekie. europe probably doubles the amount of stadiums of america. easier to find great ones, easier to find worse ones.


----------



## Roekie (Aug 10, 2005)

I liked the old Wembley much better, my vote goes to Munich


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

ASupertall4SD said:


> I agree great prairie. The thread is dumb because you can only compare american Football Stadiums and European Soccer Stadiums. That is it. Design wise, they are the damn same. Bowl shape. Americans prefer open sky above the field so we have open style bowls with blue sky above. Europeans, it appears, like the shade or cover from rain. So they have these really neat roofs over head. It looks neat, but they are both essentially the same. If i had to choose, Europe would win that competition.


Another reason Europeans like a roof on a soccer stadium is because it tends to intensify the atmosphere inside. 



ASupertall4SD said:


> But To me, true american stadium design is evident is baseball fields. Football stadiums are basically three-tiered cookie cutter designs with variations in aesthetics. Baseball fields are totally unique. From the dimensions of the field, to the openness, to the view. And hence, IMO, better than anything Europe can offer.


I understand what you mean. US Baseball stadia are very nice. Having said that, the nature of the sport lends itself to such unique designs. 
Unlike with baseball,the ambience inside a football stadium isnt really made any better for having a gaps in the stands for spectacular views,swimming pools, choo choo trains, steamboats etc.



great prairie said:


> why are london/UK forumers the most retarded posters?


You seem quite retarded yourself but what with me being from London I spose it takes one to know one. :hug:


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

DrJoe said:


> Well sadly I dont think there is much history behind it. Every stadium in the MLB is required to do that so the batter can see the baseball coming out of the pitchers arm. If the seats were there the ball would get lost in the crowd and the batter would have a tougher time hitting the ball.


What if the pitcher's a lefty?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*European vs American Stadiums*

Who's bored of this topic and why?


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

i ate a hot dog from Circle K today, which was rather dry, so i had to put cheese and jalepenos on it. I also had some Ruffles, and washed it all down with a Squirt, which, next to beer, is the sweet nectar of the gods.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

voted asia


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

I voted...

*Who gives a shyte, there are great stadiums everywhere*


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

stupid poll in my opinion.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

great prairie said:


> why are london/UK forumers the most retarded posters?


Please, you're such a tit it's beyond belief, and with dumb ass comments like that it only reinforces that fact.


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

I'm not a massive fan of the new Wembley to be honest, but I really don't like the Munich stadium. So my vote has to go to Wembley, putting wembley back in the lead as well .


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Ive always thought wembley would be lit up at night aswell...Still..thats the reason why I think this poll is so close....AA is finished....Wembley is 7 months away from being completed.










I think wembley at night will be better than the AA at night...if it turns out like any of these renderings...


----------



## linostar1982 (Dec 27, 2004)

i m the only one on earth who find the new Wembley ugly>?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

It all depends where you are from...If you are from Wales Scotland or Ireland...Its obvious why you would say that...if you are from Europe...I can possibly see it.


But if you dont live in europe...I cant see why you would say such a thing.


----------



## linostar1982 (Dec 27, 2004)

I live in Thessaloniki,Greece. It seems to be a vey modern and advanced stadium but the design is very ugly,for my aesthetic criteria,thats all.


----------



## SDK4 (Jul 14, 2004)

CharlieP said:


> What if the pitcher's a lefty?


It works both ways.


----------



## don_gato (Jul 30, 2005)

hi i am new i from venezuela and i think that the best stadium are in europe, they are nice


----------



## M16A2 (May 19, 2004)

this thread suck!

Europe = Futbol

USA = Baseball


Me = Baseball = Vote USA


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Roof does not make a better atmosphere. Fans do.

and BTW, the final results are in from the big stadium poll. I think many non-Asian forumers might be upset at the results. Once I compile all the data, I'll make a big posting on it. To explain again, those with the forms were only given stadiums off of their continent to judge part by part and all language and trace of the sport played in each venue was taken away. The voters were first asked if they recognized the venues before being allowed a vote. A stadium could not have a higher score for having extras or for having a smaller capacity or smaller roof. Such parts would simply be ommited or even have the opportunity to hurt a score if they are deemed, "ugly" or useless" .So basically you can only blame your own countrymen for giving such high scores to other venues. The stadiums were grouped and randomly mixed together in packages that were sent to 10 different people, 5 different times. So the 50 scores for each stadium are then averaged. Keep in mind I sent out packets for over 100 stadiums. Surprisingly, scores were very consistent. 

Interesting finds:
- There was a runaway winner by over a tenth of a point over second place. Both were given their scores by Europeans, Asians, Australians and South Americans. So take that clue for what its worth. 

- In the top ten, there were 5 American, 4 asian and 1 European. 

- Surprising omissions (from what I was expecting) from the top ten were:
- Allianz
- Estadio Da Luz
- Wembley Stadium
- Safeco Field
- Invesco Field
- Stadium Australia(In Olympic form)
- Miller Park
- Millennium Stadium
- Athens Olympic Stadium

- Don't shoot the messenger, but here is the top ten and their average score. I will post the score breakdown and why each stadium scored what it did. To summarize that, basically the stadiums that scored high in many areas would be the winner. So a stadium with some outstanding parts and some boring parts would be highly disadvantaged. Blame your own countrymen for scoring others too high if your stadium didn't win

1.) Soldier Field(definitely the most consistent scorer from each continent) 4.666666667
2.) Qwest Field 4.5
3.) Guangdong Olympic Stadium (after the European results only, this stadium had a perfect score of 5) 4.454545455
4.) Tokyo Dome(big surprise I think)	4.333333333
5.) Ford Field	4.25
6.) Paul Brown Stadium(big surprise I think) 4.230769231
7.) New AZ Cardinals Stadium(highest scoring u/c stadium) 4.214285714
8.) Sapporo Dome 4.181818182
9.) Fukuoka Yahoo! Dome 4.166666667
10.)Estadio Santiago Bernabeu(led after the North American results)	4.153846154


- An interesting tie at 11. Soldier Field was the last full result and knocked these guys out of the top 10 when entered.

11.)Reliant Stadium	4.142857143
Safeco Field 4.142857143
Wembley Stadium 4.142857143

I should also add that I did not use names and blurred out names on the packets. The stadiums were instead given numbers.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> Roof does not make a better atmosphere. Fans do.


 hno: Are you trying to say that a roof has no acoustic effect on the noise made by spectators in a stadium? If so I would have to question whether you have ever been in one.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Not only have I been in many, but I've played in Texas Stadium several times as well. Yes, roofs make stadiums louder than they would be otherwise, but not necessarily the loudest. Visit Invesco Field or the Swamp in Florida. That is loud and raucous. No roof in site at those places. I've been to dead silent domes where the roof was too high. I've been to stadiums with low roofs that couldn't hold the noise of the fans closest to the action because there was sky over half or more of their heads.

- Noise isn't exactly atmosphere
- Roofs aren't always the loudest venues.
- lateral and forward design effect noise just as much as what's above.

I should add that I think Kyle Field is a great example of atmosphere. Its very loud, but its not the loudest. It doesn't have a roof. Its more about how the fans go about things. They make certain noise, do certain cheers, and that whole waving back and forth in unision thing is pretty interesting to see in person.


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> Not only have I been in many, but I've played in Texas Stadium several times as well. Yes, roofs make stadiums louder than they would be otherwise, but not necessarily the loudest. Visit Invesco Field or the Swamp in Florida. That is loud and raucous. No roof in site at those places. I've been to dead silent domes where the roof was too high. I've been to stadiums with low roofs that couldn't hold the noise of the fans closest to the action because there was sky over half or more of their heads.
> 
> - Noise isn't exactly atmosphere
> - Roofs aren't always the loudest venues.
> ...




I dont want to piss anyone off, but i would put Louisianna State University's stadium "Death Valley" against any Euro stadium, and bet a year's mortagage that it would be louder. I would bet double if it was a night game. Those cajuns can sure yell after a day of Voodoo Dixie Lager and spicy gumbo.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> Yes, roofs make stadiums louder than they would be otherwise


 That contributes to the atmosphere then does it not? Regardless of the volume of noise in a stadium without one, that same stadium will be louder with one. It would also have other effects acoustically on the noise made by spectators. Of course the size of stadium and nature of the spectators and sporting event occuring inside it also contribute to the atmosphere.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

it can only contribute if the fans are noisy, coordinated and into the game, if the roof affectively does that. All fans aren't loud, and into the game. All roofs don't reflect sound well. For years, Texas Stadium was known as the den of quiet fans coming to the game to be seen, not heard. When the Cowboys rose to the top of the league again, the stadium was much, much louder. Different generation of fans, same stadium. Its all about the fans.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> it can only contribute if the fans are noisy, coordinated and into the game, if the roof affectively does that. All fans aren't loud, and into the game. All roofs don't reflect sound well. For years, Texas Stadium was known as the den of quiet fans coming to the game to be seen, not heard. When the Cowboys rose to the top of the league again, the stadium was much, much louder. Different generation of fans, same stadium. Its all about the fans.


Of course the fans are the most important element in what makes for a good atmosphere but you yourself have already admitted that it isnt neccessarily ALL about the fans. The design of the stadium also has a very significant effect on the atmosphere. 


rantanamo said:


> Yes, roofs make stadiums louder than they would be otherwise


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

like I said, fans more important than stadium. A roof doesn't necessarily make a good atmosphere. Fans, fans, fans. It CAN contribute if the roof is right. How much louder is negligible as sound tends to travel at its current wave state in the direction it was sent. That frequency upward is much lower and different. Most roofs can't reflect it back anyway. Easy to see if you sit up high vs low. Unless you have a low roofed dome, most soundwave will dissipate or escape. Tall, stands are more important to this. If you can somehow bunch the most people opposite each other and closest to each other you'd get the loudest. I'd imagine Bernabeu is loud as heck. I'd imagine Neyland is loud as heck. I'd imagine that Da Luz is loud as heck. I'd imagine the closed end of Invesco is loud as heck. None of these because of the roof, but because of the stands. I would imagine that the roof on Da Luz absorbs any of the ambient rising waves though. I'd say that Texas Stadium and Allianz and their rising upwards from the fans roofs are good noise enhancers, though the stands again would control this more.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Of course fans are more important than stadium but this is a stadium forum not a fans forum and we are discussing the effect of stadium architecture on atmosphere.It has a dramatic effect as you have now admitted.You are right to suggest that a tight bowl with high stands tends to provide a noisier arena, but I think an appropriately designed roof has a far more dramatic effect on acoustics than you are now suggesting.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

Actually the retractable sunblinds of Allianz are purpose-built for reflecting the noise and keeping it inside the stadium. They used a special material for it. Don't know which one exactly...


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

carlspannard said:


> Of course fans are more important than stadium but this is a stadium forum not a fans forum and we are discussing the effect of stadium architecture on atmosphere.It has a dramatic effect as you have now admitted.You are right to suggest that a tight bowl with high stands tends to provide a noisier arena, but I think an appropriately designed roof has a far more dramatic effect on acoustics than you are now suggesting.


Negligible =/= dramatic. The affect is not dramatic. Using basic physics, it is easy to understand that noise does not travel up with the same strength that it travels forward and down. You speak as if roofs are something new or unique to Europe or something. They aren't. Tall stands and great fans. A roof doesn't hurt, but they aren't the microphones that tall and proximate stands are.

If you want a dramatic effect, enclose the stadium completely with a relatively short roof. Where there is no direction that soundwaves can escape.



Interesting tidbit from Guiness:

Loudest Outdoor Stadium Roar
On October 1, 2000, Broncos fans celebrated the launch of guinnessworldrecords.com. They shrieked the world’s loudest roar for 10 seconds, with a reading of 128.74 decibels, blowing away the Irish world record of 125.4 decibels. The spectators sounded off during the half-time ceremonies, with crowds in the south stand crying out the loudest. The south standers have a rowdy reputation in American Football. They’ve been known to lean over railings and bellow taunts at players retreating to their locker rooms. And they’re not afraid to let out vein-popping screams as enemy quarterbacks call signals. Mike McCaslin, of Englewood, USA, was feeling loud and proud. "I’ve been in the south stands for 23 years, and this is wonderful," he croaked.

No roof. Just tall, close stands. Could it be louder with the right roof? Probably, but how much so? how many stadiums with roofs are there in the world that Invesco beat out?


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> Negligible =/= dramatic. The affect is not dramatic. Using basic physics, it is easy to understand that noise does not travel up with the same strength that it travels forward and down. You speak as if roofs are something new or unique to Europe or something. They aren't. Tall stands and great fans. A roof doesn't hurt, but they aren't the microphones that tall and proximate stands are.
> 
> If you want a dramatic effect, enclose the stadium completely with a relatively short roof. Where there is no direction that soundwaves can escape.



Why do you think The Allianz Arena has a roof purpose-built for reflecting the noise and keeping it inside the stadium if the difference is negligible? In what way does what I have said suggest that roofs are new and unique to Europe? What do you mean by a roof not hurting? My own experience is that a roof makes far more difference than the word negligible would suggest.Think about it Rantanamo. What was the first thing you said in response to me suggesting that a roof was good for atmosphere? Ahh yes...


rantanamo said:


> Not only have I been in many, but I've played in Texas Stadium several times as well. Yes, roofs make stadiums louder than they would be otherwise


Why did you say that rather than the difference is negligible as you now suggest?


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

rantanamo said:


> Interesting tidbit from Guiness:
> 
> Loudest Outdoor Stadium Roar
> On October 1, 2000, Broncos fans celebrated the launch of guinnessworldrecords.com. They shrieked the world’s loudest roar for 10 seconds, with a reading of 128.74 decibels, blowing away the Irish world record of 125.4 decibels. The spectators sounded off during the half-time ceremonies, with crowds in the south stand crying out the loudest. The south standers have a rowdy reputation in American Football. They’ve been known to lean over railings and bellow taunts at players retreating to their locker rooms. And they’re not afraid to let out vein-popping screams as enemy quarterbacks call signals. Mike McCaslin, of Englewood, USA, was feeling loud and proud. "I’ve been in the south stands for 23 years, and this is wonderful," he croaked.


Very interesting. Read this.  
RAISING THE ROOF
The noise on the Kop reached 119.8 decibels at its peak last night, well below the world record 131 at this year’s Carling Cup final in Cardiff and the 150 a jumbo reaches at take-off.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,762-1597205,00.html

In case youre wondering the whole of Liverpools stadium has a capacity of around 40000 with the Kop only holding 12000. Both Anfield and Cardiff have a roof.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

lordy lordy. 
The thing is, neither of know:
- what the average decibals is for a stadium. It could be 122 for all you know. It could be 125.
- Do you know what the difference in sound is between 119.8 decibels and 128.74 decibels
- Who decided that 131 was an official count and what body recorded it as a record.

But, I'll be nice and simply point out that Invesco holds the outdoor record according to Guiness. The article seems to suggest that the Cardiff claim is with the roof closed. As I stated, with nowhere for the soundwaves to go and a relatively low roof you will see more noise.

negligible means more but not this huge difference that you are trying to make it out to be. Unless 3 decibels is a huge, huge margin, why is a closed Millenium Stadium only 3 decibels more? Even if it is a decent margin and each interval is exponentially bigger, percentage-wise, Millennium should be much louder. But again, we don't know the margin.

As for the roof being purpose built for sound, get outta here. The roof was built to cover the stands. The material used is less sound absorbent than others. No different than the American Airlines Center. If you are going to have a roof, you cover it in sound reflecting material if its not built of concrete and with the right curves and angles, otherwise you get horrible echos that don't enhance the sound, but make it simply echo.

And yes, you guys talk about roofs as if there are none anywhere else in the world. I am quite aware from witnessing games and playing games in stadiums with or without roofs. Personally, the loudest I've ever heard was at Kyle Field sitting in the lowest tier. The sound seemed to fall on top of you there.

No credit to the fans at all. I thought yall were the baddest, loudest, craziest fans in the world.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

You can't really compair the effect of a roof from those figures since we've got no idea how loud the two sets of fans were in the first place. I'd guess the Bronco's fans were probabley louder as they were all screaming at the same time with the intension of breaking a record.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> As for the roof being purpose built for sound, get outta here. The roof was built to cover the stands. The material used is less sound absorbent than others. No different than the American Airlines Center. If you are going to have a roof, you cover it in sound reflecting material if its not built of concrete and with the right curves and angles, otherwise you get horrible echos that don't enhance the sound, but make it simply echo.


Of course, the roof was built to cover the stands. What else should it do?? I was talking about the retractable sun-blinds which are installed below the roof and its acoustic features. I bet this is something not always considered when building a stadium. btw. With the latest audio engeineering it's possible to have a perfect sound in almost every place. And a stadium just isn't a concert hall as your comment would suggests. The American Airlines Center is a closed Arena, not comparable to a stadium. In stadia sound engineering certainly doesn't play a leading role. That's why I was referring to Allianz as being special in this case.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> You can't really compair the effect of a roof from those figures since we've got no idea how loud the two sets of fans were in the first place.


I agree with you, they were just 2 "tidbits" of information as Rantanamo would put it.


MoreOrLess said:


> I'd guess the Bronco's fans were probably louder as they were all screaming at the same time with the intension of breaking a record.


From the looks of it the Denver measurement was apparently part of a deliberate attempt to break the record whereas the Cardiff measurement was made during the game.


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

eddyk said:
 

> Back to size....I thought we cleared that up.....Europe has more top class sports teams....and thus more stadiums....alot more....worldstadiums.com has 1767 US stadiums/Arenas etc. on the site.....But 3811 European Stadiums etc.!
> 
> "Da Luz is the only one nice enought to sniff at the NFL"
> 
> ...



LAMO......The U.S. between the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL could dish off almost 120 teams for at least 100 million (most teams would be between 200-400 million). Are you going to tell me that Europe has 120 teams of any kind that could sell for that much?? Stop being such a homer my friend.


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

Welshlad said:


> Is there a European Stadium that has opens up on one of its ends like Seahawk stadium in Seattle so that the whole downtown can be looked at during the game?? This being a skyscraper forum I think that would be given a plus.
> 
> Is there a football stadium


Thats hilarious, who the **** wants to look at the skyline when a footy game is on??? kinda proves how shit American Footy is!!!![/QUOTE]


Yea, I forget how I am supposed to hate to be anywhere with great skyline views and and picturesque scenery in the midst of what I am doing. I mean who wants to look outward into some a wonderfll park, skyline, or body of water when you can look as some more drunk fans just like you from a 300 foot distance and some plastic seats.


----------



## King-Tomislav (May 21, 2005)

European vs American stadiums (or is it stadia?)

Looks : Europe

Size : America

Diversity : Europe

Minimum standard present at every stadium: America 

Commodity and cosiness of spectators : Europe

Atmosphere : Europe


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

I don't say how you could say that Europe has move diveristy or has better looking stadiums but again this is just opinion.

And in terms of commodity and cosiness of spectators I would have to call it a draw. While Europeans might be closer to the sightlines due to the fact they are usually smaller and lack skyboxes I would say the parking, comfort of the seats, jumbo trons, and wideness of the aisles are better at U.S. stadiums.

I mean for hecks sake the new Arizona Cardinal stadium EVERY seat is going to be linked up to the world wide web and you will be able to electronically order food and drinks from your seat. Does Europe have anything close to being that customer friendly?


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

tootshibbard said:


> I mean for hecks sake the new Arizona Cardinal stadium EVERY seat is going to be linked up to the world wide web and you will be able to electronically order food and drinks from your seat. Does Europe have anything close to being that customer friendly?


Is that true? And how do you get your food? Service for about 60.000 spectators? How much personnel would you need? I doubt this would work.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

tootshibbard said:


> I mean for hecks sake the new Arizona Cardinal stadium EVERY seat is going to be linked up to the world wide web and you will be able to electronically order food and drinks from your seat. Does Europe have anything close to being that customer friendly?


This is not the right way to tackle America's obesity problem.  I think this service will probably only be offered to people in luxury sections of the stadium, I mean after all not every fan can get his private waitress.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

tootshibbard said:


> I don't say how you could say that Europe has move diveristy or has better looking stadiums but again this is just opinion.
> 
> And in terms of commodity and cosiness of spectators I would have to call it a draw. While Europeans might be closer to the sightlines due to the fact they are usually smaller and lack skyboxes I would say the parking, comfort of the seats, jumbo trons, and wideness of the aisles are better at U.S. stadiums.
> 
> I mean for hecks sake the new Arizona Cardinal stadium EVERY seat is going to be linked up to the world wide web and you will be able to electronically order food and drinks from your seat. Does Europe have anything close to being that customer friendly?


This makes the difference in mentality between Europe and the US, when it comes to stadiums, blatantly obvious.

I, for one, don't care about all the things you list. And they doesn't make a stadium" cosy", in my eyes. Just the fact that you close with asking a questions, in where you entitle the fans in attendance, as "customers", shows a big difference. A title I'm sure, most Europeans attending a football game, would be offended by. I'm not a customer who want's to be entertained. I, along with my fellows, AM the club (there's a difference of course, in that the European games are run by clubs, not franchises), and we create the game, along with the team, on the pitch.

We obviously also disagree on the diversity part, so let's leave that.
But I really don't care if I can order stuff from my seat, view a huge jumbotron, have comfy seats (hell, I'll be standing up most of the match anyway) or go online. The online part and an oversized and overused entertainment system and such, would more be annoying features, than pluses, at my stadium. I go there to watch a game and support my team. Not sit an my fat ass, and order beer and pretzals and watch the nice view or some screen.

So, I can fully support King-Tomislav's list, it's very similar to the way I'd rank them.

(Since you have to be very specific here: I'm not saying the American way of doing things is wrong, or any less good than the European - if you can talk of a collective European way - just different.)


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

don't be so naive. The average North American is every bit of a "fan" as its European counterparts. It is just naive to beleive that ownership and professional sports teams and leagues of all varities don't look at the public as "customers". To think that you are not a "customer" along with being a fan is simply naive.

My home town Wrigley Field in Chicago doesn't have many of the "perks" of newer baseball stadiums but I would be kidding myself if I were not to think that those parks with perks are better for the customer. Are they always necessary? No. But then again many Europeans here are talking about how important it is to have a nice roof crying out loud. If having a roof is at all relevant I think things like wider aisles, concessions, sightlines, seats, and the like are important as well and have a direct impact as some "roof".


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Concessions*

I should think that in the US sports concession sales are more important with the games taking 3-4 hours (with many breaks) rather than in football which is a 90 minute game with one 15 minute break at half time. 

The US sports simple have move breaks in which to sell food/drinks.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Well.....*



Nils said:


> stupid poll in my opinion.


30 votes though so I don't think it was that stupid.


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

tootshibbard said:


> don't be so naive. The average North American is every bit of a "fan" as its European counterparts. It is just naive to beleive that ownership and professional sports teams and leagues of all varities don't look at the public as "customers". To think that you are not a "customer" along with being a fan is simply naive.
> 
> My home town Wrigley Field in Chicago doesn't have many of the "perks" of newer baseball stadiums but I would be kidding myself if I were not to think that those parks with perks are better for the customer. Are they always necessary? No. But then again many Europeans here are talking about how important it is to have a nice roof crying out loud. If having a roof is at all relevant I think things like wider aisles, concessions, sightlines, seats, and the like are important as well and have a direct impact as some "roof".


Jesus Christ. You DO have to be very specific. Did I say they weren't every bit as "fan"? No. I said they were different. I'm not passing judgment. But I' honestly (and porobably obviously), like the "European" way of doing things better, at least from what I've epxerienced in the US, but that doesn't mean it's a better or more correct way of doing things.

Of course I am a customer, I buy a certain good. I never said I wasn't a customer. What I did say was that, I don't think any European fan, would label themelves as customers, or like being labeled as mere customers, the buyers of a certain comodity - entertainment.
And there's also the added fact, that in many European leagues, you can be a member of your club, like FC Barcelona. Not of the fan club, but the actual club.

Roofs and aisles are things that have actual practical meaning. And you'll find that I haven't argued against wider aisles. Concessions, sightlines and such also have a certain impact in that respect.

My point was, that there's a big difference, in both the general view of stadia criterias in Europe and America, and - more specifically - in what constitues "cosy", in a stadium.
I think you'd find many (or most) Europeans, would think, that a new ultra-modern, American stadium - where you'd find such things as huge screens, nice views, wider aisles, etc. etc. - was very UN-cosy, stale and "overdone". As is the case with many of the new European stadiums.

In my opinion, many American stadiums are simply way overdone, and so is a number of the newer European stadiums. Overdone in a manor that shifts focus away from the game. American's seem to enjoy that, or some of them at least. Whereas it seems more disputed in Europe.


----------



## Sikario (Feb 5, 2005)

> I mean for hecks sake the new Arizona Cardinal stadium EVERY seat is going to be linked up to the world wide web and you will be able to electronically order food and drinks from your seat. Does Europe have anything close to being that customer friendly?


That's hilarious. I can just imagine that happening in the UK, old men in flat caps ordering a pukka pie and a pint of bitter via the internet, when the stadium cafe's just a few feet underneath their arses.


----------



## SDK4 (Jul 14, 2004)

That service already exists in Tampa at Tropicana Field. (Or at least it used to) Problem is, the team sucks and no one wanted to pay that much to sit behind home plate and use wireless controllers to order food.


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

all continentas have good stadiums :yes:


----------



## potto (Sep 12, 2002)

Again on the International forums we get the word 'design' used solely to explain aesthetic appeal. The attention to detail that has gone into the design of Wembley is second to none. You dont expect anything less from Norman Foster. 

Architecture isnt just about sitting pretty. Having said that the AA looks good at night (so does the new Wembley... and thats just after seeing the arch lit up), but the AA looks a bit err cold and isolated by day.


----------



## traveler (Jun 12, 2005)

I would agree the Allianz stadium is more ;unique; in design. And the Wembley is a more traditional stadium. But Wembley without dout. In comparing the Wembley and the Allianz and the Oporto stadiums, I prefer the Oporto stadium. It looks like a spaceship from Star Trek movies.


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

I think Wembley will be more technologic...However this poll is not fair. We don't know how Wembley will look like. From the rengerings of Wembley, and real pictures of AA, AA looks more aesthetic, but this can be an illision. Because We didn't see the Wembley yet. It is just a construction...

I wonder wich one will be better, London Olympic Stadium or Wembley?


----------



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

Wembley will be better than the London Olympic stadium


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

^^yep! the olympic stadium will be transformed into a rather small cricket stadium after the event.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Checker said:


> ^^yep! the olympic stadium will be transformed into a rather small cricket stadium after the event.


I don't think the exact design has been finalised yet but the concept from the bid was to shrink it to a 25,000(i'd guess that number could be the main thing that may change) athletics stadiums by replacing one side of the stands with a training facility.

Overall I'd guess it won't come near matching the facilities of Wembley but the current design does have a brilliant facade IMHO, better than both Wembley and Aillianz for me.


----------



## jef (Jan 21, 2005)

The new Wembley looks better than AA. BTW: The roof structure of the old olympic stadium in Munich is by far the most striking one I have ever seen


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

eddyk said:


> Ive always thought wembley would be lit up at night aswell...Still..thats the reason why I think this poll is so close....AA is finished....Wembley is 7 months away from being completed.


Not dissing AA I think when everyone sees the finished product they'll come to realise it is the best in the world!! Still the AA is quite stunning!


----------



## Imperial (Aug 22, 2004)

Allianz A is better IMO, but I think that both is ones of the bests on the world.


----------



## Alle (Sep 23, 2005)

Allianz Arena becouse it seems you are sitting closer to the action in that stadium. not big difference but... they are both good anyhow.


----------



## Paulo2004 (Oct 13, 2004)

Da luz lost?? How could  it?


----------



## Zorba (Sep 7, 2005)

Hey Mo what happened to Stadium battles? You kind of just stopped right in the middle of it.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Certain people started signing up mutiple forum accounts to vote so it became a bit pointless.


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

allianz is so damn sexy.


----------



## highburysouljah (Sep 29, 2005)

AA looks like a gaint white sponge


----------



## highburysouljah (Sep 29, 2005)

the inside of AA looks like stade de france & not just because of the grey seats


----------



## FCB_Flo (Oct 22, 2004)

Red: AA
Blue: New Wembley
There you can see the difference in distance (stands -> pitch)

IMO that's the biggest advantage of the AA !


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

thx FCBflo! maybe you also want to post that in the Wembley thread.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

24,000 seats more at Wembley with more seat space.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

FCB_Flo said:


> Red: AA
> Blue: New Wembley
> There you can see the difference in distance (stands -> pitch)
> 
> IMO that's the biggest advantage of the AA !


I suppose that you're trying to make the point that the AA will have a steeper lower and middle tier than Wembley?

While true, I really don't think it will make slightest difference in terms of the quality of the view. All seats at both stadia will have perfect views.


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

^^That's true. The tiers of AA are steeper and, more important, closer to the pitch. I suppose the tiers in Wembley have to be a bit further away from the pitch because the stadium has a higher capacity. And as the tiers aren't much higher, they have to be further away. The inside must be bigger to sit 30.00 people more, which means the circumference has to be wider.
The seating space is identical in both stadia


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Zizu said:


> The seating space is identical in both stadia


Where is your source?


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

> Where is your source?


Where is yours ? Of course, apart from propaganda drivel offered by the FA.
We already had this disussion, the seating space is totally identical.



> While true, I really don't think it will make slightest difference in terms of the quality of the view.


Yeah, cool. Why don't they build tiers which are totally flat, would be dirt-cheap and we'll still get excellent quality regarding sightlines (who needs those stupid sightline calculations anyway ?).

:cheers:


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

fman80939 said:


> Where is yours ? Of course, apart from propaganda drivel offered by the FA.
> We already had this disussion, the seating space is totally identical.


OH OK I BELIEVE YOU NOW. Don't talk tosh until you post a source I'll take it your talking made up figures.


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Wem-berly! Wem-berly! Wem-berly! Wem-berly!

Who the f***ing hell are you!!
Who the f***ing
Who the f***ing
Who the f***ing hell are you!!

Oh England till I die!
Oh England till I die!
Oh England till I die!
Oh England till I die!


















Now who can beat that f***ing no one! "ave some of that!"


----------



## Zizu (Jan 17, 2005)

^^Very informative hno:


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

lol.


----------



## FCB_Flo (Oct 22, 2004)

JimB said:


> What are you talking about? Under FIFA rules, there is no precise dimension for football pitches. The laws only state that a pitch must be between 90 metres and 120 metres long and between 45 metres and 90 metres wide.
> 
> In other words, there may well be 86 metres between the two main stands but every single centimetre of that 86 metres could, in theory (though not in practice), be the pitch.


It's good that FIFA has regulations for everything...
FIFA-WC: 105 x 86
Normal games: 90-120 x 45-90 
International games: 100-110 x 64-75

http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,3,00.html
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_regulations_2006_090604_en.pdf


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

> As to the renders, as I say, they confirm to me that the distance from the pitch looks nothing like 17 metres.


Yes of course, if you consider the players and spectators being 
3 ft.-midgets.



> Finally, regarding your claimed figures for the gradient of the lower tiers of Wembley and AA, I suggest you also look at the cross section comparison. You will see that the difference isn't so very big.


I appreciate your invaluable advice... but just how do you think i calculated the gradients ? I obviously didn't guess them.



> What are you talking about? Under FIFA rules, there is no precise dimension for football pitches. The laws only state that a pitch must be between 90 metres and 120 metres long and between 45 metres and 90 metres wide.


FIFA-Standards means of course FIFA-standard for the final tournament of the world cup. I thought you didn't like quibbling.

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/wembley/
"It will be 4m lower than the previous pitch but with dimensions of 105m long by 68m wide as required by the FIFA and UEFA regulations, it is the same as the old pitch."

There has been ample evidence from at least 3 independent sources all from official documents and illustrations and yet you still deny the fact that the pitch will be at least 9 metres from the supporters.
There is absolutely no basis for discussion with you, it's like arguing with that Black Knight from the Holy Grail.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> The comparison is valid, you can extrapolate the missing rows quite easily.


Indeed you can, I was just stating that taking the distance where the wembley stand ends and where the allianz one does at the point of cut though will not tell you the difference in distance to the pitch.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Pitch Dimensions*

There is no official size of pitches in football. There is a range which is 100-130yards long by 50-100 yards wide. This is more or less equivalent to the 45-90 X 90-120M quoted by *fman80939*

However, FIFA prefer dimensions of 68X105M which interestingly enough is often called the 'Wembley standard'

The size was defined by the Home Nations International Board (containing the FA's of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and yes, it is in yards and not meters.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> There has been ample evidence from at least 3 independent sources all from official documents and illustrations and yet you still deny the fact that the pitch will be at least 9 metres from the supporters.
> There is absolutely no basis for discussion with you, it's like arguing with that Black Knight from the Holy Grail.


I see that you are still unable to grasp the very simple concept that the view from every seat at Wembley will still be perfect and uninterrupted and that, given Wembley's greater capacity, it would have been impossible to have configured the stands in the same way as at AA.

Since you're so keen on quoting from that sportsvenue site, I'm surprised that you missed this:

"The stadium's geometry and its steeply raked seating tiers will ensure that everyone has an unobstructed view"

I suggest that we cease this discussion since we both seem to have come up against brick walls!


----------



## FCB_Flo (Oct 22, 2004)

Another regulation:
68x105m
http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf CL group-stage; same for UEFA-Cup 1st round and so on
"Exceptions may be granted... only at written request... before the start of the season."

So the pitch will be about 68-75 x 105-110... OK, they could go up to 90x120, but that would result in more distance between pitch and stands (for international games which might take place in that national stadium  ) 


The posted picture with the comparison of AA, Old and New Wembley (red, blue, ...) is a little bit misleading ! (for me at least) 
The stands actually go to the pitch and don't end in 2-3m height. You could think that by looking at the pic, but it's the 'pitch-entrance'

You can see that here: http://scifi.pages.at/abbafan/wembley_big.gif


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

MoreOrLess said:


> Indeed you can, I was just stating that taking the distance where the wembley stand ends and where the allianz one does at the point of cut though will not tell you the difference in distance to the pitch.


That's correct.
I forgot to mention that i didn't use that illustration, instead i measured and calculated the distance using a reconstructed combined blueprint, the comparison only shows a part of this blueprint, therefore it is not possible to tell the distance to the pitch from that excerpt for the AA or Wembley.

http://scifi.pages.at/abbafan/wembley_big.gif


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

JimB said:


> I see that you are still unable to grasp the very simple concept that the view from every seat at Wembley will still be perfect and uninterrupted and that, given Wembley's greater capacity, it would have been impossible to have configured the stands in the same way as at AA.


Nonsense, Wembley is not optimized enough for a 90000+-seater. What about the SanSiro, Nou Camp and the Bernabeu ?

If you look at the sightlines Wembley offers, it is clear that there are two important factors which were considered by the architects :

1) the mobile track: requires greater distance for optimum view of all lanes and flat bottom tiers (so that the gradient of the higher tiers would not exceed limits). The focal point of the sightlines is located about 9 meters in front of the pitch, a total waste. 

2) extensively "stepped" design in order to accomodate masses of club level seating / boxes etc. (every step requires steeper gradient of the following upper levels, but there are limits to this, so the lowest tier must be kept as flat a possible).

If the designers had stopped caring about that stupid track, Wembey would have been twice as good.



> Since you're so keen on quoting from that sportsvenue site, I'm surprised that you missed this:
> 
> "The stadium's geometry and its steeply raked seating tiers will ensure that everyone has an unobstructed view"


Well, i can't see any steepness in the lower tier so they obviously talk about a different stadium.
The seats in the Olympiastadion München also offer unobstructed view, but they are still crap.



> I suggest that we cease this discussion since we both seem to have come up against brick walls!


Nobody forces you to participate. 
Aufwiedersehen.


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

I am a really Foster fan, but this time H&dM do it much better. My favorite is Allianz Arena.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> Nonsense, Wembley is not optimized enough for a 90000+-seater. What about the SanSiro, Nou Camp and the Bernabeu ?


I'd guess that Wembley has a larger seating area than all three of those by some way though(Nou Camp and the Bernabeu don't have espeically steep first levels either), Wembley also avoided having overhanging stands which IMHO is a good thing as it doesnt cut you off from part of the atmopshere.

The most obvious comparason with Wembley for me is Fedex Field, a modern stadium with almost the same capacity which to the best of my knowldge doesnt have the ability to add a platform running track yet looks very similar to Wembley.


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

*Wich Stadium is better? Basel St. Jakob Park vs. Istanbul Sukru Saracoglu*

*Basel - St. Jakob Park*





































*Istanbul - Sukru Saracoglu*


----------



## arash (Sep 11, 2005)

Istanbul stadium is amaaziing..

I love the style...Such a great stadium...

St.Jakoc park doesnt stand a chance..


----------



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

Sükrü Saracoglu: 52.500 (all-seater)
St. Jakobs-Park: 33 010 (all-seater)

But Kuvvaci
Suisse will play its game in the Stade de Suisse Wankdorf Stadium (32.000)


----------



## vivayo (May 6, 2003)

wow i never thought that the capacity diference was that big, in the images Sukru Saracoglu seems to be larger but just a little bit


----------



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

because SS hast more rows

hey .::G!oRgOs::.
why? 
whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Why wat? Sukru beats this by a mile.


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


> Sükrü Saracoglu: 52.500 (all-seater)
> St. Jakobs-Park: 33 010 (all-seater)
> 
> But Kuvvaci
> Suisse will play its game in the Stade de Suisse Wankdorf Stadium (32.000)


Sercan, St. Jakob's Park is more than 40.000 now...This is why I put this poll...


----------



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

but you vote for St. Jakobs

Kuvvaci
No
its still 33.010
they still do not start to build the 3rd tier for the mainstand(?)
how it will look at the EURO2008 (42.500)


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

it will look worse then... without harmony


----------



## Greg (Nov 9, 2003)

Sukru Saracoglu is nice, but I personally vote for St. Jakob Park. It's from the same architects who designed the new Allianz Arena in Munich. 
St. Jakob's Park capacity will be well above 40'000 after the extension for Euro 2008. Part of the project is a residential highrise.


----------



## easysurfer (Dec 12, 2004)

GASpedal said:


> You still have a glimpse of whats going on out there on the facade. It's glow can be seen through the entries of the top tier and the narrow gaps at the bottom of the roof.
> 
> Blue when 1860 München plays, red for Bayern München and there's also a neutral white.
> 
> ...


The wembley arch has been lit up at night on many occassions, and as far as i'm aware it will be lit up for the night matches that take place there as well.


----------



## vertigosufferer (Aug 20, 2005)

Can you imagine fireworks and lighting displays going off on the top of that Arch.  Fantastic!


----------



## FCB_Flo (Oct 22, 2004)

GASpedal said:


> You still have a glimpse of whats going on out there on the facade. It's glow can be seen through the entries of the top tier and the narrow gaps at the bottom of the roof.












Due to the motorway there's only 1 'light-change' within 2 Minutes allowed


----------



## cgrassham (Sep 23, 2002)

Oh you can, that looks cool actually


----------



## xXMrPinkXx (Aug 11, 2005)

Allianz Arena


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

Allianz Arena!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

For external views I'd say Allianz takes it at night while Wembley takes it during the day.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

But Wembley isn't finished yet how can anyone really judge until it's finished?


----------



## Desven (May 18, 2004)

Allianz Arena!I visited it,it's pretty amazing!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Sitback said:


> But Wembley isn't finished yet how can anyone really judge until it's finished?


As far as the external view goes it is almost finished.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Errrr no not at all.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Perhaps we don't yet know exactly how Wembley will look from the outside in daytime. But we do know exactly how Allianz Arena looks from the outside in daytime. And, in my opinion, in daytime it looks rather plain. Just a mass of off white bubbles with nothing to break up the monotony.

Night time, however, is altogether a different matter. The AA comes into its own and does, indeed, look spectacular.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

JimB said:


> Perhaps we don't yet know exactly how Wembley will look from the outside in daytime. But we do know exactly how Allianz Arena looks from the outside in daytime. And, in my opinion, in daytime it looks rather plain. Just a mass of off white bubbles with nothing to break up the monotony.
> 
> Night time, however, is altogether a different matter. The AA comes into its own and does, indeed, look spectacular.


We've currently got a much better idea of what Wembley looks like from the outside than on the inside at least(its now much further advanced than that picture aswell), plus of course you can see it first hand.

I'd agree about the AA during the day, one of the rare stadiums that I felt actually looked better during the pre vis stage with the shiner coating. I was rather disapointed in it until I found out about the lighting system which IMHO make it one of the best looking in the world.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

> Just a mass of off white bubbles with nothing to break up the monotony.


Actually the outside is, surprisingly, rather multifaceted.
During the course of the day the whole exteriour changes its appearance rather dramatically, with the daylight light playing on the surface in various ways.
The shape of clouds are actually (partially) projected on the surface which acts like a giant silver screen.
Sadly, most photographs fail to deliver some of the magic.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> Actually the outside is, surprisingly, rather multifaceted.
> During the course of the day the whole exteriour changes its appearance rather dramatically, with the daylight light playing on the surface in various ways.
> The shape of clouds are actually (partially) projected on the surface which acts like a giant silver screen.
> Sadly, most photographs fail to deliver some of the magic.


I see what you mean about the play of light on the surfaces but the same could be said of any number of different materials and shapes used on other stadia. So I still maintain that, in daylight, the mass of off white bubbles cladding AA looks rather plain and monotonous.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

JimB said:


> I see what you mean about the play of light on the surfaces but the same could be said of any number of different materials and shapes used on other stadia.


No. Because the AA has been designed conciously to maximize that effect throughout the whole site, whereas on most other buildings this is mostly coincidental and works on a very limited scale.



> So I still maintain that, in daylight, the mass of off white bubbles cladding AA looks rather plain and monotonous.


Maintain what you want, but that is absolutely hilarious. The bubbles aren't even white. 
How often have you been visiting the Allianz Arena ?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Grey/white....whats the difference.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

fman80939 said:


> Maintain what you want, but that is absolutely hilarious. The bubbles aren't even white.
> How often have you been visiting the Allianz Arena ?


Don't be such a pompous arse. I don't have to have visited the Allianz Arena to have an opinion on its exterior aesthetics. I've seen more than enough still and video pictures.

Off white. Grey. Pink with turquoise polka dots. Call it what you like. The colour is unimportant. What makes the daylight exterior of Allianz Arena plain, in my opinion, is not the colour but rather the fact that there is nothing to break up the monotony of the bubbles - play of light on the surfaces or not.

To you, of course, the AA may be the most beautiful thing in the universe. And I wouldn't dream of denying you your opinion. But this is aesthetics we are discussing. There are no rules and no absolutes. There will be as many differing opinions as there are sentient beings.

I realise that you have positioned yourself as AA's champion on this thread but try not to take any slight criticism of AA so personally.


----------



## cmc (Oct 4, 2005)

Both stadiums have good architecture, but my vote goes to the Allianz Arena because it's more innovative.


----------



## fman80939 (May 7, 2004)

JimB said:


> Don't be such a pompous arse. I don't have to have visited the Allianz Arena to have an opinion on its exterior aesthetics. I've seen more than enough still and video pictures.


No, you haven't. Because then your objective conclusion (and we are talking mainly technical/scientific aspects, not how much you adore them) would be slightly different.
The bubbles' visual appearance varies significantly for each season, each time of the day, each side of the building.. even if you don't like it, it still does change its looks,... sorry, i can't define this kind of wealth of variants on an incredibly large scale as dull and monotonous. 



> I realise that you have positioned yourself as AA's champion on this thread but try not to take any slight criticism of AA so personally.


Well, then.
The AA is far from being perfect (the interior is in fact depressingly dull) but describing the bubble exteriour as monotonous stretches reality a little bit too much.


----------



## Maccabi (Mar 28, 2006)

*NOKIA ARENA vs. STAPLES CENTER*

*NOKIA ARENA*​
*VS.
*​*STAPLES CENTER*​


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Maybe you can actually post pictures so people know what they look like?

Anyway, I searched for a picture of that Nokia thing and it looks completely crap compared to Staples Center. It's like comparing the Ramat Gan with the Alianz Arena...


----------



## batista (Mar 31, 2006)

how do you can compare nba arena with european one???  los angeles lakers and staples center No 1 in nba


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, Maccabi. But the love for you club his getting you quite blind in all topics and posts you're submiting.


----------



## Maccabi (Mar 28, 2006)

Hey men this thread was an JOKE!!IT'S APRIL FOOL DAY YOU KNOW!HAVE FUN.THE REST OF MY THREADS ARE JUST FINE I THINK


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Never heard of NOKIA Arena. Staples.


----------



## Maccabi (Mar 28, 2006)

Nokia arena is our stadium.Staples center is home arena of LA Lakers and LA Clippers in nba and of many other teams.The best arena in the world no doubt.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Yes. I never knew your stadium is called NOKIA Arena. Is the name new?


----------



## Maccabi (Mar 28, 2006)

Quite new.It's our sponsor.


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

I vote for Maccabi. April first. Hehe.


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

*STAPLES CENTER*


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

*NOKIA ARENA*


----------



## Zorba (Sep 7, 2005)

You guys, Maccabi is not serious. Just ignore him and his stupid threads. 

NOKIA Arena is nothing compared to Staples Center.


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

I never understood why Euro basketball arenas have such HUGE amounts of space between the court and the fans. It would be hard to get into the game from that far away.

BTW, American Airlines Center in Dallas destroys the Staples Center


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

I agree 40acres. At least on the outside I think the AA in Dallas is likely the best in NA. Inside almost all the new stadiums are too like the others to real have seperation. The old stadiums (the Garden, Chi Stadium, Montreal Forum, etc. were much better at provide unique atmosphere and differetinal inside the stadium). So really the big differances for the new stadiums come on the outside and I think AA Center in Dallas is much nicer looking then Staples Center.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

You know what's funny? Right across the street from the Staples Center, a large entertainment center is currently under construction. One of the main components is the 8,000 seat Nokia Theatre.


----------



## eli (Sep 10, 2005)

Which is considered to be the best NBA Arena?


----------



## tootshibbard (Aug 9, 2005)

Madison Square Garden in New York is certainly the most famous (but usually not considered "the best").  I would say that there is much less differance in rankings between NBA stadiums compared to baseball or NFL stadiums. 
Some people talk highly though of Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Staples also gets good pub as well as the Air Canada Center in Toronto. Those stadiums are not held in nearly the same esteem as the best baseball or football stadiums though I would say.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Maccabi said:


> Hey men this thread was an JOKE!!IT'S APRIL FOOL DAY YOU KNOW!HAVE FUN.THE REST OF MY THREADS ARE JUST FINE I THINK


Wow, hilarious stuff. Are you a stand-up comedian? :|


----------



## Maccabi (Mar 28, 2006)

*KARAISKAKI Stadium vs. PHILIPS Stadion*

Hey guys.In my opinion Karaiskaki and Philips Stadion have many things in common.So,let's see which one is better.

Check this out and then vote.
*
KARAISKAKI STADIUM*

*33,400 seats
Used by:Olympiacos CFP*
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki.html <---THE ULTIMATE KARAISKAKI

Then watch this www.karaiskaki.gr

And then u can vote!But why in the bigining of the topic there is only on pic from Karaiskaki showing just seats?
































































It also has a museum,a large shopping centre with shops and restaurants,the above restaurant http://www.prest.gr mini football piutches and so on.More pics from th restaurant














































For sure it's the most luxurious 

And the last pics (the area around may seem a little muddy but the fotos are old.It wasn't completed yet)
It is located exactly in the Faliro center




























And this is the whole area from space!!!Just magnificent!!!!!!
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/spacepics/Athens_Port_Area_SINA_06_13_04.jpg
*
PHILIPS STADION*
*36,500 seats
Used bySV Eidhoven*


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

[Gioяgos] said:


> Based on that then I guess you can vote for Ataturk.
> Basing it on the Stadiums appearnce, I fail to see how this:
> 
> 
> ...


Lol I think you know how Istanbul is big(Istanbul= 8*Athens)
And again I think you know Istanbul has more 2,000 scrapers
And that means they cant build an awesome stadium in city centre
Because city centre is full of buildings...
Because of this this stadium is far away from city(I can say in forest)
And again we know Athens is empty and there is no scrapers 
So they can build an awesome stadium in city centre
Because of this you can always see some pics like this
Like sercan said,it hasnt finished yet
And my vote goes to Istanbul Ataturk Olympic Stadium !
Champions League 2005 Final Stadium Istanbul kay:


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

oH & how come Atuturk stadium is in the FIFA 06 game & Athens is not? I thought they also play soccer there?


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

^^:lol:


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

eemreee said:


> Lol I think you know how Istanbul is big(Istanbul= 8*Athens)
> And again I think you know Istanbul has more 2,000 scrapers
> And that means they cant build an awesome stadium in city centre
> Because city centre is full of buildings...
> ...


Istanbul
Population
12,673,969 in metro 

Athens
Population
4,200,000 in metro

from emporis.com

Is it 8*?


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

I didnt mean population
I mean Area


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Durbsboi said:


> oH & how come Atuturk stadium is in the FIFA 06 game & Athens is not? I thought they also play soccer there?


Obviously because Ataturk hosted the Final...

Athens and Ataturk are UEFA 5 star football stadiums so your argument is invalid.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

eemreee said:


> Lol I think you know how Istanbul is big(Istanbul= 8*Athens)
> And again I think you know Istanbul has more 2,000 scrapers
> And that means they cant build an awesome stadium in city centre
> Because city centre is full of buildings...
> ...


Ever heard of one of these things:








It can destroy things to make way fro stadiums! Just like in Athens! 

And btw, Athens has a larger population density than Istanbul dosnt it?


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

Durbsboi said:


> oH & how come Atuturk stadium is in the FIFA 06 game & Athens is not? I thought they also play soccer there?


I think there a whole videogame ATHENS 2004 about olympic stadium i n athens and many other greek stadiums


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

Durbsboi said:


> oH & how come Atuturk stadium is in the FIFA 06 game & Athens is not? I thought they also play soccer there?


And alos ataturk is very simple and programers can depict it n a game easier.Olympic stadium is a complicatd and sophisticated structure.It takes more time to design it.Anyway,there will be in FIFA 07


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

[Gioяgos] said:


> Ever heard of one of these things:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Athens has Population density 19,133 inh./km²
Istanbul has Population density 5246 inh./km²

Athens is almost 4*


----------



## atila (Apr 21, 2006)

Let us be hournest, even though we are from Turkey, the stadium in Athen is much more beatyfull. But if the stadium in Istanbul will be finished with new tribunes as well as new roads, parks etc., we could discuss it again


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Solomon said:


> Athens has Population density 19,133 inh./km²
> Istanbul has Population density 5246 inh./km²
> 
> Athens is almost 4*


Ha! I knew it! 

btw, Thanks for the honesty atila  
I like ataturk, dont get me wrong, but I dont know about it being that good.


----------



## decapitated (Feb 12, 2005)

Veltins Arena, I've visited both and I prefer Schalke's stadium.


----------



## xXMrPinkXx (Aug 11, 2005)

My vote goes to Veltins Arena it can generate great atmosphere!


----------



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

yes
like atila said

Atatürk olimpiyat = "old" athens olympic stadium (without roof)

actually thats our situation now here in Istanbil 


















BTW
accorind to stadia.gr (i think the best source for greek capacity)
the capacity of the stadium is 71,030
and 74,473 is only the record attendance


----------



## shayan (Oct 9, 2005)

AMSTERDAM


----------



## pawelsz (Jul 10, 2005)

Amsterdam Arena loooks better...


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

The first looks like a shoping center the second looks like a wharehouse.Don't know what to choose.


----------



## xXMrPinkXx (Aug 11, 2005)

Solomon said:


> The first looks like a shoping center the second looks like a wharehouse.Don't know what to choose.


Does this look like a warehouse??



Kampflamm said:


>


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Ajax over Schalke


----------



## Solomon2 (Apr 21, 2006)

xXMrPinkXx said:


> Does this look like a warehouse??


Guess not.  But i was misguided from this pic


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

I dont know, i've never really thought of the Athens Olympic stadium as 'all That' i can't really understand why its seen as such a great stadium, only the roof gives it something of an edge. the seating and interior is pretty boring. The Atartuk stadium main stand is massive but the the stadium is still not finished yet and it is a bit obvious, so i'm not sure at the moment which to vote for.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Ataturk because it hosted the greatest game in history


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ that is very subjective, ther have been other finals as shocking as that, anyone remeber Man UTD and 1999 final?


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

Unfair. Schalke is bigger than Amsterdam and more modern and recently built. I voted for 'I dont like arenas'


----------



## matherto (Oct 17, 2005)

neither

I just don't like the look of the Ataturk, but Athens is a boring stadium

Ataturk is in the middle of nowhere, which is shit
Athens is in the middle of a dump/building site, which is shit


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

matherto said:


> neither
> 
> I just don't like the look of the Ataturk, but Athens is a boring stadium
> 
> ...


Coming from someone who hasnt visited the fully landscaped Calatrava site at all.


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

matherto said:


> neither
> 
> I just don't like the look of the Ataturk, but Athens is a boring stadium
> 
> ...


Which stadium isnt shit int world ?


----------



## Nils (Nov 20, 2003)

The option to expand the ataturk stadium for a possible future olympics doesn't mean that it's unfinished right know. there are so many other stadiums out there which can be expanded as well and nobody says they are unfinished. in addition to that you can't compare the old athens stadium with the new ataturk. keep in mind that the old athens stadium was build decades ago where as the ataturk was build in the 21. century.

For me both stadiums can't be added to the top 10 stadiums of europe but i like the athens one more tha the ataturk. but as sercan said, the ataturk main stand is really beautiful and impressive. if the turks had build the whole stadium like the main stand (that can't make this good by the possible expansion) it would obviously one of the best stadium sin europe an definitely the europes best athletics stadium. but there is a material "if" in this.


----------



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

i still hope they will make a cladding for the Olympics
so i i hope its unfinished and they only used the cheaper version 

this one for the main stand would be good









and something like that for the other stands


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Half of it is uncovered....


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)

the good thing about the ataturk stadium is that there is so much place to create a great sport complex... 










i personaly dont like the stadium in its present shape.... the one side of the roof is too "heavy" the other one looks to small... there is no balance!... what i do like is that it is made out of concrete... i know, the most people do not like concrete but i like it... well not that they could not use some colour...


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

I just watched a program on ANT1 here in Australia and it showed how people in Istanbul are modern and live like Europeans. 

I then compared to the Turks living in Villages and it showed a village which overlooked Ataturk Stadium! I was like wow, I just replied in a Thread about that stadium!

But how far is it from Istanbul? You could clearly see it from this poor little farm town. 

Btw, Istanbul looked great on the show kay:


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

It was a BIG mistake to build the Atatürk Stadium!! Who knows when Olypics will be hosted in Istanbul!! Although Athens' isn't that special it looks better with its new roof than Atatürk Stadium!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

messiah said:


> It was a BIG mistake to build the Atatürk Stadium!! Who knows when Olypics will be hosted in Istanbul!! Although Athens' isn't that special it looks better with its new roof than Atatürk Stadium!


Istanbul will eventually get the olympics! 
Especially if what I saw on the documentry is true.  
She looks beautiful and modern in some parts. kay:


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

[Gioяgos] said:


> I just watched a program on ANT1 here in Australia and it showed how people in Istanbul are modern and live like Europeans.
> 
> I then compared to the Turks living in Villages and it showed a village which overlooked Ataturk Stadium! I was like wow, I just replied in a Thread about that stadium!
> 
> ...


Can you tell me which program this was? I can't see any villages around the olympic. ( Google earth helps much  )


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

[Gioяgos] said:


> Istanbul will eventually get the olympics!
> Especially if what I saw on the documentry is true.
> She looks beautiful and modern in some parts. kay:


 At that time the stadium will be too old and outdated


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

> I just watched a program on ANT1 here in Australia and it showed how people in Istanbul are modern and live like Europeans.


What does this mean? Living like europeans?


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Im not sure about what the program was called now, Ill try find the name 
but it was about Turkey and the European type of people.

It showed mainly how the women of Istanbul who are muslims dont wear head scarves and dont cover up, they dress like western Europeans and they where walking around a shopping centre which was very nice and modern with many designer stores inside. 

They interviewed some women who were muslim but who wore all brand name clothing and nothing to show their muslim identity and they said they did it because they are 'European Muslims' in other words Muslims that follow a western culture.

They then compared the people of Istanbul with a small poor village out of istanbul and showed how everyone there follows Muslim customs and they were showing a panaromic view of the village and its streets and in the back you could see the Stadium. They also compared things like fashions and beauty shops where in Istanbul people attended a huge luxurious beauty parlor to in the village where people attended a small dirty barbers shop. 

It might play again, if so ill try and take stills. 

It was a nice program too watch actually. Makes me want to visit Istanbul!


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Rare Athens Olympic stadium angle:





look at the curves :drool:


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

HoldenV8 said:


> Are you for real or is it just a case of you can't stand anybody on here having a negative thing to say about something Greek? Especially your precious Olympic Stadium.
> 
> All I am saying is that the roof, while yes, it is part of the stadium, doesn't mean that the rest of the stadium is suddenly transformed into this wonderful engineering marvel. Take the roof off and you still have the same bland looking stadium that was built in 1983 (or was it 82?) The stadium does indeed look better now than it did pre-olympics. But does all that mean that its one of the worlds great stadiums? Does it mean its better than the Ataturk Olympic Stadium?
> 
> ...


Firstly, you have to throw out your grudge before making such comments. 

Secondly, you have to quote where I mentioned it was one of the best stadiums in the world on this thread

You tell us that if you take of the roof, it will be just a crap old bowl from the 80's. I can say well if you remove the grandstands of Ataturk it will be a crappy little grass pitch. Its using the same logic. 

You contridict yourself by saying that yes, the roof is part of the stadium, then going on to bash whats under the roof. 

Does it mean its better than Ataturk? Bloody oath. Give me one reason why it isnt. Athens Olympic Stadium....and I mean the one that is presented in these pics and not the one you have plastered in your imagination looks trillions of times better than Ataturk. 

I have nothing against negative comments however I do have something against stupid comments using sickening logic. 

Once again, I could rate the MCG judged on how it looked in 1956 for the Olympics, or I could be sane and judge it how it looks NOW with its new stands. 

The question is, are you for real? 

oh and btw, How could you not intend to racial offend me with a comment like this:
Try looking at it objectively Gioяgos and not through *Souvlaki* coloured glasses.

My god...get real. 

And I cant believe someone who thinks AAMI stadium is the best is telling me that Athens isnt a great stadium. :weirdo:


----------



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

[Gioяgos]
sorry
i don't want to tell that our stadium is better 
come on
everbody knows, like kuvvaci said, Athens is better 
i only wantd to say

current Atatürk Olimpiyat = Athens Olympic before 2004


so i hope that our stadium will look also great after a possible Olympic


come on Kuvvaci
Stade de France vs Wembley and Stade de France is the winner??!?!!
its your opinion, but IMO wembley is better 
but you also like Fenerbahce Sükrü Saracoglu stadium


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

Has Istanbul any official bid for next olympics?


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

[Gioяgos] said:


> I have nothing against negative comments...


Ya right :rofl:


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Durbsboi said:


> Ya right :rofl:


oh please, I dont.
I admit to flaws and I bash stupid arguments.


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

[Gioяgos] said:


> oh please, I dont.
> I admit to flaws and I bash stupid arguments.


Stop it you killing me here :laugh:


----------



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

dANIEL2004 said:


> Has Istanbul any official bid for next olympics?


actually there is a law in Turkey
that the current government should bid for the olympics and they should invest money in the bid etc
but i think because of london we will not bid
BUT Rogge said last week, that Istanbul has got chances and that they could host the olympics.

IMO we will not bid
EURO 2016 is maybe more important now


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ istanbul may well still bid, it can be associated with Asia, so london may not be a problem


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

www.sercan.de said:


> actually there is a law in Turkey
> that the current government should bid for the olympics and they should invest money in the bid etc
> but i think because of london we will not bid
> BUT Rogge said last week, that Istanbul has got chances and that they could host the olympics.
> ...


Istanbul bids like every year.
They will win soon! Keep bidding!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ but just to bid takes several million doesn't it?


----------



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

^^^

i mean if i bid every time
i will win win someday 
but the question is when 
2028?
or 2112
or 2560
??????????


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Yea true....ok dont bid for 2 years but instead make all the facilities!


----------



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

and thats waht we are doing now 
Olympic stadium ~ ready

Sinan Erdem Dome -never ending story but it will be finished very fast

Tennis Court are u/c now, but the biggest one is only 10,000. smalll???

Fenerbahce Sükrü Saracoglu 52,500 is ready

new Ali Sami Yen ~50,000 (God, pleaseeee,,,this time we can built our stadium 

infrastructure is u/c or already finished


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

I would love to see olympics in Turkey but IMO Turkey has a million serious problems to solve before, such as the kurdish problem and issus concerning the true democracy that doesnt exists today . After all and when Turkey will be a member of EU (I hope for), it will be very easy to bid!


----------



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

IMO turkish problems are not bigger than chinese problems??!!

BTW
will be F1 also olympic?
Istanbul has got also a F1 track


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

I would love if F1 was an olympic sport, so it gives us something more exciting than swimming to look forward too, but alas, its country vs country, so that means the country has to build the car & so on.


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

Not but the chinese economy is in a better condition than the turkish ;-)


----------



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

nearly every economy is better than chinese


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

^^I'm sure you mean turkey........right?


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

Kuvvaci said:


> I wondered who made this poll, and when I saw emre's name it was not suprrise for me. What a stupid poll. Unfortunatelly, our stadium is one of the ugliest modern stadiums of the world. When I got there first time, I wanted to cry because of its uglinest. And our dear Emre put it onto a poll , also with the last Olympic stadium. Emre, are you okay? Do you have fever?


If you dont want,DONT join this poll,fool


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

dANIEL2004 said:


> Not but the chinese economy is in a better condition than the turkish ;-)


Turkish economy, turkish human rights, turkish infrastructure etc.. everything in better than chinese! In addition to that Turkey has been a democratic country since 1923! We may have some minority problems but that doesn't make Turkey undemocratic! Could one of these forumers who say Turkey is not democratic tell me why they make such statements?


----------



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

Durbsboi said:


> ^^I'm sure you mean turkey........right?


haaa
sorry
i wanted to say the opposite 

its hard to have a better economy than the chinese one


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe the human rights are a bit better from China's ,,,but are centuries back from the Europeans..Turkey has been a democratic country since 1923, but if it had affect in the real political life, Turkey would be already a full member of EU.. C mon, everybody knows that the generals and teh army is the chief there..


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

centuries back from europe? Ehmm 50 years ago Europe was burning people because of their different religion so your statement can't be true.
The army plays a big role (which is correct if you have neighbours such as Iraq,Iran,Syria and PKK) but the army doesn't have any decission on the government. If this is wrong give me an example!

You say Turkey would be a full member if everything was allright! Then tell me why Bulgria and Romania are joinng the EU next year although both are poorer and less developed than Turkey?


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

The army has not any decission on the goverment? And who occupied the half Cyprus? The Aliens from outer space?????


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC (Dec 13, 2004)

I would rather have the Olympics in Turkey than China ANY DAY.

It is a disgrace that the Olympics are being held in a nation that is pretty much a dictatorship. A country where people "disappear" because of their beliefs or if they dare to stand up to their government. A country that has no respect for human rights, the environement, animal rights, etc. A country with a "government" that censors the media, and so on and so on. China has NOTHING in common with what the Olympics of the Ancient Greeks stood for.

Sure, Turkey has some problems but they pale in comparison to the ways of the Chinese. I would vote for Olympics in Istanbul over any Chinese city in a heartbeat.


----------



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

^^^
and Turkey is nearer to greece 
maybe you can visit the Olympic in Istanbul when you are in greece for vacation


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC (Dec 13, 2004)

www.sercan.de said:


> ^^^
> and Turkey is nearer to greece
> maybe you can visit the Olympic in Istanbul when you are in greece for vacation



I have actually been to Istanbul before and I enjoyed it. I never saw the stadium as it is quite a distance outside the city limits. This year I only have 3 weeks for vacation so I will be spending it in the Ionian islands, Athens and central Greece.


----------



## messiah (Sep 11, 2002)

dANIEL2004 said:


> The army has not any decission on the goverment? And who occupied the half Cyprus? The Aliens from outer space?????


Can you tell me please first how old you are? First of all I want to know if you are able to understand my words. The turkish army "occupiad" Cyprus in 1974. Normally lands are occupied by armies and not by governments. Is it Bush and other ministers who's fithing in Iraq right now? It was not like that the government didn't want to occupy the island but the government did it without permission. The turkish people had to be rescued and all turks were infavour of an accupation!


----------



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

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> I have actually been to Istanbul before and I enjoyed it. I never saw the stadium as it is quite a distance outside the city limits. This year I only have 3 weeks for vacation so I will be spending it in the Ionian islands, Athens and central Greece.


not this year
2028 or something 
when we have the olympics


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Turkey will have them in 2016


----------



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

2016 would be great
but i think 2016 will go to america or africa


----------



## dANIEL2004 (Jan 7, 2005)

2020 maybe !


----------



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

yeah
2020 looks also great
20 20 <- you can make a simple logo 

i hope
2016 EURO
and 2020 Olympics

thats it
we don't need more
maybe in 50 years world cup


----------



## Joya (Sep 3, 2005)

If the olympic commitee knew the big bang time, they would announce the Istanbul games for the following year. 2020 is quite optimistic.


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

Absolutely 2016 New York ( I am sure about this)
Maybe 2020 or 2024 Istanbul


----------



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

[Gioяgos] said:


> hehe, ok ok.
> The master plan looks nice.


accoring to fussballtempel. Olympiakó Spýros Loúis 85%


----------



## Stevens (May 4, 2006)

*Which is better?*

Millennium Stadium
Stade de France


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)

SdF


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Stade de France for me - it doesn't have as many "ugly bits" as the Millennium Stadium.


----------



## titou (Apr 8, 2006)

They are two very different stadiums.
both are huge and national stadiums but that's all.

With wembley soon achieved, millenium won't be anymore a place where big things happen until a UEFA final.

I think the Stade de France is a better stadium because it's bigger and far more beautiful. Paris is a capitol (cardiff is not a capitol because wales is not a country) and the national team is competitive.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Wales is not a country? What gives you that idea?????


----------



## titou (Apr 8, 2006)

HISTORY


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Wales is a Pricipality of England, like Asturias is a Principality of Spain. However it has a language, literary and artistic tradition of it's own and can be considered a nation. However it is also a land of immigrants, principally from England, Ireland and latterly the rest of the World. The ratio of Welsh to the rest of the population must be quite low. But Wales IMO can be considered a Nation in the same way Catalans consider themselves a nation.


----------



## titou (Apr 8, 2006)

yes absolutly!
nation, land, people are ok with me. Not contry. 
period.

Wathever, We're here to talk about wich stadium is better.
the retractable roof is a great asset favouring the millenium but SDF with all the other advantages i listed, and I may have forget few.
Two too different stadiums....


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

Isaac Newell said:


> Wales is a Pricipality of England, like Asturias is a Principality of Spain. However it has a language, literary and artistic tradition of it's own and can be considered a nation. However it is also a land of immigrants, principally from England, Ireland and latterly the rest of the World. The ratio of Welsh to the rest of the population must be quite low. But Wales IMO can be considered a Nation in the same way Catalans consider themselves a nation.


Catalonia is not a nation.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

From the pics I have seen I think Stade de France looks pretty darn underwhelming and ho-hum for a "national" stadium IMO.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Millenium Stadiums lower tier is too shallow IMO, on TV it looks pretty silly that lower tier, you can even see the brick wall in the background.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Socrates said:


> Catalonia is not a nation.


I think they consider themselves a nation. What is a nation ? is it people of the same race ? or the same language ?


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

Isaac Newell said:


> I think they consider themselves a nation. What is a nation ? is it people of the same race ? or the same language ?


No. A nation is a nation. The UN does not consider Catalonia a nation, so neither do I, and neither should you.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Socrates said:


> No. A nation is a nation. The UN does not consider Catalonia a nation, so neither do I, and neither should you.


A nation is a nation ? what does that mean. What the UN considers is irrelevant, the UN is a collection of states. Kazakhstan was an autonomous republic of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Now it is a member state. 

Quebec is a province of Canada, eventually it could be a seperate state. It will then be a member of the UN, it's parliament is called L'Assemblie National. The Quebecois regard themselves as a nation. The Scots are a nation but they belong to the UK, the Catalans (who have more autonomy than the Scots) regard themselves as a nation but they are a part of Spain. 

A nation is nation ? what does that mean ?


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

Spain is a nation. Catalonia is a region of Spain. There will be no debate about this. Catalonia is not a nation.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Spain is a sovereign state, like the UK. And like the UK it is made up of nations. England does not have a seat at the UN, but it is a nation. Many Catalans do not regard themselves as Spanish.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Socrates said:


> Spain is a nation. Catalonia is a region of Spain. There will be no debate about this. Catalonia is not a nation.


Wrong. Spain is a country, made up of various nations (Basques, Catalonians, Galicians etc.).

And who the hell are you to define whether or not Catalonia can be considered a nation?


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

Isaac Newell said:


> Spain is a sovereign state, like the UK. And like the UK it is made up of nations. England does not have a seat at the UN, but it is a nation. Many Catalans do not regard themselves as Spanish.


I don't care what they regard themselves as. They're just a bunch of Spaniards to me.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Socrates said:


> I don't care what they regard themselves as. They're just a bunch of Spaniards to me.


socrates, thats being quite insensitive towards the catalans etc who percieve themselves as seperate to spain, i know alot of scottish people get angry for people calling them British or even English.


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

It makes no difference what they perceive themselves as. Catalan people are Spanish, Scottish people are British. It is a fact. 

If Scottish people get annoyed at being called British then they are morons. They're British whether they like it or not. 
But they are entitiled to be annoyed at being called English. Are you following so far Sport?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Socrates said:


> It makes no difference what they perceive themselves as. Catalan people are Spanish, Scottish people are British. It is a fact.
> 
> If Scottish people get annoyed at being called British then they are morons. They're British whether they like it or not.
> But they are entitiled to be annoyed at being called English. Are you following so far Sport?


don't tell me that, tell that to other scottish people


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

I will next time I see one.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

It's how you define a nation. Is British a nationality or a geographical term. Catalans in Spain are certainly Iberians with an almost identical culture to the Spanish, but that also goes for the Scots the Welsh and the English. Our British cultures are almost identical. But our nationalities are seperate. I'm English not Scottish. Geographically you can call me British but my nationality is English.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

actually your nationality officially is British


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

Socrates said:


> Spain is a nation. Catalonia is a region of Spain. There will be no debate about this. Catalonia is not a nation.


A nation is a people who consider themself bonded by their culture (language etc). Several nations can live in one state, like in Spain.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> actually your nationality officially is British


I thought it was UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Isaac Newell said:


> I thought it was UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


yes, and your nationality is British, your point?


----------



## Liwwadden (Nov 12, 2005)

Catalonia a nation? Yes? No? Yes! No! aah whatever , I voted Milleniumstadium anyway.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> yes, and your nationality is British, your point?


My nationality is English, the state I live in is called the UK. Officially I'm a UK National.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Isaac Newell said:


> My nationality is English, the state I live in is called the UK. Officially I'm a UK National.


you are a British citizen, on travel documents thats what your classified as.


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

Isaac Newell said:


> My nationality is English, the state I live in is called the UK. Officially I'm a UK National.


You're a Brit.


----------



## Liwwadden (Nov 12, 2005)

This discussion is so useless ..


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

My nationality is English, whatever is on my passport is irrelevant, I am a stateless national, My state is the UK of GB & NI but my nationality is English.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

ferdinand Sluiter said:


> This discussion is so useless ..


Well it's way off topic but an important question is being discussed.

Stade de France


----------



## toRRone (Feb 16, 2006)

voted Stade de France.
"Torna al tuo paese, sei diverso!" - Impossibile, vengo dall'universo
CapaRezza, _Vengo dalla Luna_​


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Isaac Newell said:


> My nationality is English, whatever is on my passport is irrelevant, I am a stateless national, My state is the UK of GB & NI but my nationality is English.


Last comment (hopefully), officially your nationality is British, what you see yourself as is another story, doesn't change the fact that you are still british

ok i'll stop now


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Probably a good idea to stop but I'll finish with a question. Do you regard England as a region or a nation ?


----------



## Liwwadden (Nov 12, 2005)

Isaac Newell said:


> Well it's way off topic but an important question is being discussed.
> 
> Stade de France


Well, have fun then


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Isaac Newell said:


> Probably a good idea to stop but I'll finish with a question. Do you regard England as a region or a nation ?


well i thought we stopped, but you've got a question? ok, England is a Country so can say i am English but official status is still British.


----------



## cianobuckley (Nov 28, 2005)

Socrates said:


> Catalonia is not a nation.


Nice Observation Mate and the Basque Country is nothing more than a province- if we use this mentality!


----------



## 2752 (May 5, 2006)

Catalonia is NOT a country. Nobody recognises it as a country. It is an area of Spain, like Yorkshire is an area of England. Scotland, for example, has it's own legal system, it's own education system, it's own laws, it's own army divisions, it's own parliament and even it's own bank notes. This makes it a country. It is a country within an even greater country - the UK. 

Most importantly, people around the world recognise Wales and Scotland as countries. Most people around the world don't think of Catalonia as a country, they think of it as an area of Spain, and that is what it is. When people talk about European countries, nobody talks about Catalonia, they talk about Spain.

As an autonomous community of Spain, Catalonia has no official status or recognition at an international level.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

I think we need to clarify the definitons of country, state, and nation. A region can be considered a "nation" w/o being an independent country. For example most Kurds would say that they're part of a Kurdish nation although we all know that no country named "Kurdistan" actually exists.



> Most importantly, people around the world recognise Wales and Scotland as countries. Most people around the world don't think of Catalonia as a country, they think of it as an area of Spain, and that is what it is. When people talk about European countries, nobody talks about Catalonia, they talk about Spain.


I'd say Wales and Scotland are nations but definitely not countries. Countries have things like a foreign policy, their own army, embassies abroad etc. Does Scotland have that?


----------



## Stevens (May 4, 2006)

*Which stadium is better?*

Twickenham or Murrayfield Stadium?


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

CharlieP said:


> Since when do you decide the rules?


What I mean is... I'm sure the FA and Millenium Stadium directors would agree to stage matches at the stadium.

It would give them a good profit, international exposure etc... Realistically, the Millenium Stadium PLC would not like to see their stadium empty whilst the greatest show in the world is taking place nearby.


----------



## Whoopee Cushion (Jul 23, 2006)

but would FIFA agree??? Doubt it!


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

As far as I'm aware there has never been a cross boarder game at a WC but the UK would certainly be a unique situation. A typical host would not want to pass the benefits of hosting matchs on to any of their neighbours where as England and Wales are part of a single nation politically and share strong links when it comes to football. Those links would IMHO mean that using the Millenium stadium would be much less damaging to the individual image of the WC than say the Germans using the Stade De France aswell.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

australia of course doesnt have the the wide range of stadia ...so u cant really compare that easily...mcg and telstra stadium as well as the telstra dome are pretty good..


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Whoopee Cushion*
> We are way behind Germany!!


That might have something to do with the Germans having just held a certain World Cup.
:yes:

Try looking at things in perspective. England _may_ get the 2018 WC, that's 12 years away. I like to think we are in a good postition with our stadiums, for a tournament still so far away. I wonder what condition Germany's were in back in 1994?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*EMIRATES STADIUM VS ESTADIO DA LUZ*

*EMIRATES STADIUM*



















*ESTADIO DA LUZ*


















Post images of these stadia in support of your favourite. 
These images arent the greatest..therefore go wild!


----------



## The Concerned Potato (Jun 1, 2006)

i bet you £100 there will be flaming in this thread

Exterior - Emirates
Interior - EDL

they're BOTH winners!!!


----------



## Liwwadden (Nov 12, 2005)

Damn! Diffecult! Uhm.. can't really chose. Exterior of Emirates Stadium is fabulous! Interior is ok. Exterior of EDL is ok. Interior is fabulous! .. So not really a winner for me. But if I _had_ to chose, Emirates. Because of Arsenal. But talking about football is illegal right here, so don't listen to me.


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

Don't forget that according to the FIFA rules, there can only be one stadium in each city, but one city may have 2. That might limit some of England's choices.

Australia would never use AAMI stadium.

Of our current stadiums, we would use the MCG(100,000), Telstra Stadium(83,500), Telstra Dome(56,347), Suncorp Stadium(52,500) and Aussie Stadium(42,000).
The Western Australian government is looking at a new stadium for Perth(60,000+)
Upgrades to Dairy Farmers Stadium(21,500), EnergyAustralia Stadium(26,126), Bruce Stadium(24,647), Gold Coast Stadium(25,000)


----------



## zee (Nov 30, 2005)

the telsstra stadium looks very much like the city of manchester stadium


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

this will be a very informative and healthy topic of discussion...

anyway
exterior-Emirates
interior-im not sure,i dont like the many different logos in Da Luz

can somebody post a full house Da Luz photo?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Toadman said:


> Don't forget that according to the FIFA rules, there can only be one stadium in each city, but one city may have 2. That might limit some of England's choices.


As it would Australia's:



> Of our current stadiums, we would use the MCG(100,000), Telstra Stadium(83,500), Telstra Dome(56,347), Suncorp Stadium(52,500) and Aussie Stadium(42,000).


----------



## 2zanzibar (Dec 13, 2005)

Luz = ghastly roof
Emirates = slick, sexy and curvy, but perhaps sloping downwards too much

Luz = horrific exterior
Emirates = simply oozes class. All those that can't digest that concrete fail to understand contemporary vanguard design; its all about setting up contrasts and juxtapositions, wise up phillistines

Luz = very impressive interior: clear sightlines, the 3 tiers are set at an intimidating gradient
Emirtates = God it pains me to say it but even though I absolutely love it and its perfect for us, its tiers are too shallow and as said above the roof slopes too much. Overall this gives the impression that it holds slightly less than the 60 000. Luz and AA both hold 66 000 but give the impression of a larger capacity.


----------



## RPM (Jan 31, 2006)

Emirates has the better exterior, but the interiors are the same, except for the white seats. Edge goes to Emirates.


----------



## Diaby (Feb 11, 2006)

My vote goes to the Emirates (A bit of a biased opinion :wink2 A few pics to why I pick the Emirates.







































































































































*EDIT*
For some reason some of the pics have come out smaller than the others.


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

tv123 said:


> can somebody post a full house Da Luz photo?


I'll give you seven.


























































From the inside, Luz beats Emirates. Why? Although they're so much similar, Luz looks like a 80.000, Emirates a 40.000. And I do like Luz roof the most.

From the outside... Hum... yeah, Emirates is much more prettier and classy. Yet, from the photos I've seen it looks like it has the same problem the inside has: it's smaller. When you go to the Luz you know that it looks like an unfinished stadium - well, it was cheaper xD -, but you don't really notice that, because the thing is smashingly huge, and you stay all the time looking up with your mouth open. But I'll give the advantage to Emirates, it's prettier.

To be honest, although they look like twins (from the inside) I can't really compare them booth. Each one has it's own charm and beauty.

Thankfully we have them booth in our beloved sport.


----------



## zee (Nov 30, 2005)

ok let the bets begin

i reckon this thread would be closed by the end of tomorrow 

imo, the emirates of course...its jus looks soo much slicker than la luz


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Keep this thread to the point. Go wild with images. No reason for this thread to be closed, everyone is allowed to give their opinions relating to each stadium.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

doesnt every1 think that da luz looks good in the pics with the england fans and flags in them? i have seen it advertised so many times with the england fans in them, not the benfica 1s


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

i think we must wait a few? months till the Emirates completely finished


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Weebie said:


> Adealdie would habe to build a new Stadium along with Perth Subiaco right nwo isn't up to scratch let alone in the year 2018.


Thats what one would think but look mate, I have been talking and looking into this for about 2 months now and the paper has too...AAMI will be submitted for the bid, not a new stadium. It will recieve a few upgrades such as new Replay Screen etc, but it will be far from enough for a FIFA bid.

Not my choice and Im far from happy but its going to happen despite it being a shithole which most likely wont meet the standards of FIFA.

So no, for the bid, Adelaide wont be building a new stadium...to win the bid...Adelaide probarbly will need to build a new stadium - and I never said it didnt.


----------



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

Weebie said:


> But in my opinion if they do get it Both Wembley and Olympic stadium to be used not emirates.


incorrect. they'd use wembley and the emirates stadium. why the emirates? because it's a football-specific stadium without a joke running track separating the fans from the action, david dein (arsenal vice-chairman) is a former vice-chairman of the FA, and currently sits on the board, so he's got a lot of influence in that respect, and the olympic stadium may well have been downgraded to a 20-something-thousand seater athletics stadium by then, which would make it completely useless in any world cup bid.


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

Comon man by the time 2018 comes along United could be getting 25k 30k a match that will then justify a new purpose built stadium?


----------



## crossbowman (Apr 26, 2006)

Emirates is a true jewel!
I prefer Dragao over Da Luz...


----------



## SkyLerm (Nov 26, 2005)

Da Luz for me.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Weebie I think you should give up trying. :lol:


----------



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

Exterior - Emirates
Interior - da Luz

but for me the interior is more important


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

I luv the roof of the emirates, Da Luz roof, gives the stadium alot of height, but it looks bland, so the stadiums are basicaly the same, apart from the roof & the exterior, so far the emirates is in the lead for (& not because its new)


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

edennewstairs said:


> incorrect. they'd use wembley and the emirates stadium. why the emirates? because it's a football-specific stadium without a joke running track separating the fans from the action, david dein (arsenal vice-chairman) is a former vice-chairman of the FA, and currently sits on the board, so he's got a lot of influence in that respect, and the olympic stadium may well have been downgraded to a 20-something-thousand seater athletics stadium by then, which would make it completely useless in any world cup bid.


If the downgrading plan goes though it obviously wouldnt be used, if it was used by club afterwards and kept at 70K+(maybe with Stade De France style moveble stands) I could see it being used. It would most likely stay publically owned and there would be pressure for it to reclaim some of the construction cost.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

Toadman said:


> Don't forget that according to the FIFA rules, there can only be one stadium in each city, but one city may have 2. That might limit some of England's choices.
> 
> Australia would never use AAMI stadium.
> 
> ...


you have two staduims each from Sydney and Melbourne,so one will have to go from your list


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


> Exterior - Emirates
> Interior - da Luz
> 
> but for me the interior is more important


Totally agreed.

Emirates far better from the outside. Also better facilities.

But Da Luz is far better from the inside of the bowl.

1. Da Luz is bigger.

2. No part of Da Luz is obscured by the roof.

3. The tiers are steeper.

4. The curves of the upper tier are less extreme.

All of which makes Da Luz more impressive from the seats. And that's what really counts.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Alright, supposing you could only have 1 per city and 2 for London....

*London*
- Wembley 90,000 (UEFA 5*)
- Emirates Stadium 60,000 (UEFA 5*)

*Manchester*
- Old Trafford 76,000 (UEFA 5*)
City of Manchester Stadium 48,000 (UEFA 4*)

*Birmingham*
- Villa Park 42,573 (UEFA 4*)

*Liverpool*
- Anfield 45,362 (UEFA 4*)
New Anfield 60,000 (UEFA 5*)

*Middlesborough*
- Riverside Stadium 35,100 (UEFA 4*)

*Newcastle*
- St. James' Park 52,387

*Southampton*
- St. Mary's Stadium 32,251 (2001)

*Bolton*
- Reebok Stadium 28,723 (1997)

*Wigan*
- JJB Stadium 25,000 (1999)

*Reading*
- Madejski Stadium 24,225 (1998)


............................................................................
Wales & Scotland stadia that might/might not be used:

*Cardiff*
- Millenium Stadium 74,500 (UEFA 5*)

*Glasgow*
- Ibrox Stadium 50,411 (UEFA 5*)
- Hampden Park 52,500 (UEFA 5*)
- Celtic Park 60,832


----------



## Seth Gecko (May 23, 2006)

Both decent, though both have many flaws that include have horrendous roofs on both. 

Emirates has all red seats with no cheap silly logos, Estadio de Luz is almost as bad as Old Trafford when it comes to brash crappy logos. 

Emirates corners look pretty gay, Estadio de Luz are less curvey and so less gay. 

Clincher: On TV the Estadio Luz looks much grander than Emirates, so I think I'd have to plump for the Portugeuse work horse over Arsenal's fancy curves.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_If the SRU were up for it, a joint England / Scotland bid would look good - add Hampden, Ibrox and Murrayfield and you're rocking!_

Who says the FA would be up for it or the good people of England for that matter. Why do you have the cheek to assume that other Englishmen share your disgusting and deferential attitude to Caledonians. I would campaign vigorously against a joint English-Scotland Bid and want no part in it, just as I will cheer on every single team that the "Great Britain" team plays in the London Olympics.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_............................................................................
Wales & Scotland stadia that might/might not be used:

Cardiff
- Millenium Stadium 74,500 (UEFA 5*)

Glasgow
- Ibrox Stadium 50,411 (UEFA 5*)
- Hampden Park 52,500 (UEFA 5*)_

They will not be used!. Stop seeing England as an extension of the happy little Celtic Family.


----------



## kingdomca (Apr 14, 2004)

A world cup is rahter unlikely to be staged solely in stadiums that existed 12 years prior to the tournament.

This would be like the venues of Germany 2006 being discussed in 1994 based on what Germnay had then...

Of course many current new english venues would be used but there would also be new venues. Its more important for England to spread the matches around the country.
Many cities have several top several stadiums which is great, but not for a world cup.

If 10 venues, I would think something like,

Wembley
Emirates
Old Trafford
St.James or stadium of Light expanded
new in portsmouth or southampton expanded
New in Leeds
New in Liverpool
New in Birmingham
New in Bristol
best of Nottingham, m´boro,Hull, Sheffield


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

For me, the Emirates stadium is architecturally better than Da Luz.
The only thing I'd swap from Da Luz is the allegedly steeper lower tier. (Would be nice to see some official evidence that supports this other than distorted photographs)


----------



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

an england world cup bid would provide huge potential for massive redevelopments or total relocations for clubs from the following areas: 

1) liverpool (lfc/everton)
2) birmingham (city)
3) sheffield (wed/utd)
4) leeds (lufc)
5) nottingham (forest/county)
5) east anglia (norwich/ipswich) 
6) and bristol (rovers/city).

who knows, old trafford's expansion may be widely regarding for what it is by then, that being a bit of a shambles, and united may use an event like the world cup as an opportunity to redevelop or, (gasp!) relocate.

the important thing is we've got the basis of a good few modern stadiums to build upon, and plenty of clubs that might be interested in pressing forward with new projects.


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

Emirates turned out to be much better than I thought at the beginning of the construction. I think it's much better than da Luz, except sightlines.


----------



## Whoopee Cushion (Jul 23, 2006)

Lostboy said:


> Stop seeing England as an extension of the happy little Celtic Family.



but that is what you are!! Scotland is your master.....and you know it!!

Bow to your noble Scottish masters...you English swines!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

this poll is a close one..as expected


----------



## Whoopee Cushion (Jul 23, 2006)

I predict everybody from England will vote Emirates, and everybody from Portugal will vote Da Luz.


----------



## Diaby (Feb 11, 2006)

I disagree slightly Whoopee. Expect club rivalry and loyalty to play a part in some peoples decisions.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Whoopee Cushion said:


> I predict everybody from England will vote Emirates, and everybody from Portugal will vote Da Luz.


its the neutral voters who will decide the WINNER...in 29 days. if this thread lasts that long.


----------



## Malso (Jul 24, 2006)

both look great, far better than Old Trafford that's for sure.

the Emirates (on the inside) needs the bare concrete end of tiers painted, (the 3 concrete barriers running all around the bowl)


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

:sly: both are great, Emirates have a better exterior Estádio da Luz have a better interior and I adore the roof with the red archs.


----------



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

da luz is steaper


----------



## Whoopee Cushion (Jul 23, 2006)

Da Luz simply looks a lot bigger (looks more than 5000 bigger!!) and more intimidating, whereas Emirates looks soft and comfy - designed for shandy drinking Southern poofters with their laptops and mobile phones!! 

Has to be Da Luz!!


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Thank You SE9 for posting interesting/new pictures of those stadiums! All the threads seem to have the same pictures in as each other... so thanks for finding different ones


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

not another england 2018 thread...i support england 2018 but not another thread...please!! mods?


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

Just make sure you mind your heads if you choose the highest seats at Da Luz.


----------



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

i don't think it stayed so

maybe it is taken before they lifted etc the roof?


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

The Sydney Football Stadium(cap42,000) would certainly be part of an Australian bid.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Whoopee Cushion said:


> Da Luz simply looks a lot bigger (looks more than 5000 bigger!!) and more intimidating, whereas Emirates looks soft and comfy - designed for shandy drinking Southern poofters with their laptops and mobile phones!!
> 
> Has to be Da Luz!!


yeah da luz does seem to be more imposing..


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> da luz is steaper


see all the best pics of Da Luz have the england flags in them for some reason.

anyway, architecturally and facility wise i think Emirates just edges it.


----------



## Filipe_Golias (Aug 22, 2005)

The quickest impression i have and through which i can compare both stadiums is the MUCH MORE classy exterior façade of Emirates :yes: Face it, Luz's exterior is awful and only some glass would do wonders to it.


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

Fillet Tower said:


> Just make sure you mind your heads if you choose the highest seats at Da Luz.


There are no seats there. 

What about the seats for blind people on the back of Alvalade's screen? xD


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

Filipe_Golias said:


> Face it, Luz's exterior is awful and only some glass would do wonders to it.


Glass on concrete? Hum...... don't think so.

But I have an idea: mirrors.


----------



## Filipe_Golias (Aug 22, 2005)

Mirror = reflective glass :lol:


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

Filipe_Golias said:


> Mirror = reflective glass :lol:


Offal merchant!!


----------



## fgdf (Sep 15, 2002)

I prefer Emirates because it's quality is much better than Da lus - I consider both stadiums as one of the most beautiful in Europe (top 5) but my vote goes to Emirates. Just look at those details especially roof - da luz looks cheap here.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

fgdf said:


> I prefer Emirates because it's quality is much better than Da lus - I consider both stadiums as one of the most beautiful in Europe (top 5) but my vote goes to Emirates. Just look at those details especially roof - da luz looks cheap here.


what do u mean quality?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> what do u mean quality?


its done to a higher spec


----------



## Filipe_Golias (Aug 22, 2005)

Just one thing: It's DA LUZ... not LA LUZ nor DA LUS.


----------



## Rocco Siffredi (Jul 24, 2006)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> its done to a higher spec


I bet you have been in neither!! Quality of materials/build should only be judged by visitors to both stadiums!


----------



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

i think its off. Estádio Sport Lisboa e Benfica


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

Official name: Estádio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica
Nickname: Estádio da Luz

Estádio da Luz = Stadium of Light (although Luz is a neighborhood)

Then, da Luz = of Light.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Inside, both look pretty average for most new build stadia. I'll never get the curvy upper tier thing... but da Luz takes it from the exterior.


----------



## serial_man (Aug 21, 2005)

Estádio da Luz! No Doubt!


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

Ashburton for me


----------



## matherto (Oct 17, 2005)

I must be the only one who prefers the roof on Da Luz, at least it doesn't block your view of the rest of the stadium, and more importantly, I bet you wouldn't feel cramped/claustrophobic at the top tier of Da Luz, which seems to be the impression from Emirates photos.

I must also be the only one who doesn't like the steelwork design on top of the Emirates roof


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

fgdf said:


> I prefer Emirates because it's quality is much better than Da lus - I consider both stadiums as one of the most beautiful in Europe (top 5) but my vote goes to Emirates. Just look at those details especially roof - da luz looks cheap here.


i think the da luz quality is quite good if not better.


----------



## Aka (Jan 2, 2006)

And Luz roof has those 4 glass "eagles".


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

Ashburton Grove is a much better designed stadium, while Estadio Da Luz uses concrete as a wall in order to avoid the wind coming through the spectator areas of the stadium, the Emirates Stadium uses glass, while there are irregularities at the curves of Da Luz, Emirates stadium's curves are smooth all the way. Also, the Arsenal stadium is designed mainly for the sport, with a sloping roof that allows more light into the stadium, while at the same time improving the acoustics so that the players can hear the fans more clearly. The jumbotrons at the Emirates are superior in every aspect to Da Luz' screen, and Arsenal's home has 100% upholstered seats, which is a first for a stadium in britain. At night, I feel the Emirates Stadium is far more impressive, as the ilumination of the stands is top notch, while at Da Luz, due to the height of the roof and the absence of a 'clean' roof, the lights are not as good. 

Something I find ironic is the fact that during the day, Benfica's ground always has a huge shadow over it, because although the 'stadium of light' allows a lot of fresh air and some light through the stands, the material used for the roof, which is not transparent, and the height of the structure, create this annoying shadow that disturbs those who have to watch from TV. At the Emirates, the roof is a lot lower, and half of the roof is made of glass, which makes the shadows considerably less annoying.

Another thing with Da Luz is the ilumination at night of the pitch itself, as the roof is too far away from the pitch, the pitch tends to look much darker than when the floodlight trials were made at the new Arsenal ground.

Remember also that many Benfica supporters are forced to seat in plastic bags. As advertising in the seats is not allowed by UEFA competitions, what they do is that they write the advertising with plastic (or so I've heard from some portuguese Benfica fans who I happen to know)
Look at the plastic on the chairs:









The following pictures show the difference in ilumination of the stands at night:

Benfica:








Also notice the imperfection in the corner between the 'stands'(curves) 

Arsenal:









Look at the shadows during the day:

Benfica: 









Arsenal:








^^^that's as worst as it gets, although I have to admit the 'mild' london sun helps.

Veredict:

EMIRATES STADIUM (Ashburton Grove) 8/10

ESTADIO DA LUZ (Benfica's Stadium) 6.5/10

EMIRATES WINS!


----------



## JAB323 (Aug 21, 2005)

I would say Estadio da luz.


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

Forgot to mention, 

The Exterior at Emirates is so much better than that at Lisbon that 80% of this thread's posts state it.

Just compare them:

Arsenal:

























Benfica:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

emirates stadium starts to lead the way...


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

JimB said:


> Emirates far better from the outside. Also better facilities.
> 
> But Da Luz is far better from the inside of the bowl.
> 
> ...


^^ What he said ^^

All the bells and whistles are nice but imo the interior is the most important part of a stadium, and Da Luz just looks more imposing than Emirates.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Emirates is a nothing more than a fancy copy of Da Luz. I don't like copy paste stadiums so I go for Da Luz which looks a lot more impressive/imposing as well.


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

^^Oh god, lets not start this shit again


----------



## SkyLerm (Nov 26, 2005)

@ mauritius gunner: Interior is refered to the general view of the stands not to the facilities or how pretty are the toilets and restaurants, don't forget it's a stadium and the most important things are the pitch and the stands.
Ooops you've said the same as me sercan sorry


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

the Emirates Stadium of Course


----------



## Zorba (Sep 7, 2005)

I prefer La Luz. All that Emirates Stadium did was copy the design of La Luz and make some additions to it(in the exterior). It (Emirates Stadium) has a total lack of creativity in its design.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Here's some more *Emirates* photos:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

SE9 said:


> ^ Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The roof may well have been designed by sound engineers and it may well help to keep in whatever atmosphere the Arsenal home support manages to create, but it is still an unsatisfactory solution, IMO. I really dislike the fact that the roof obscures much of stadium from a significant number of seats.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Well, I guess they went for a compromise.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Well I have to vote for Emirates but I shouldn't becuase our stadium is named after a bloody Arabian airline and not Ashburton Grove


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Telstra Stadium looks like the City of Manchester stadium


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

Emirates is clearly ahead now, it makes sense.


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

I can't understand this fascination for wanting to see the whole opposite side of the stadium. Surely football supporters want to see an unobscured football pitch for the 90 minutes, not other football fans. Besides, if it really is a must, then choose a different seat. It's that easy. I personally dislike sitting within the first half a dozen rows, so I don't sit there.

And i'll say it again... it would be nice to see some official evidence that the lower tier at Emirates is more shallow than at Da Luz, other than in distorted photographs....
....for example, this photo, taken from above, makes Da Luz's lower tier look as shallow as Emirates from a similar angle... Whereas photos taken from pitch level tend to make the tier look steeper.


----------



## matherto (Oct 17, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


>


I love these pics

if you look at them, it looks huge compared to Emirates

either way, they're both fantastic stadiums, no one can doubt that, but designed to meet their purpose perfectly, and the fact of which is the better stadium is down to personal preference


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Fillet Tower said:


> I can't understand this fascination for wanting to see the whole opposite side of the stadium. Surely football supporters want to see an unobscured football pitch for the 90 minutes, not other football fans. Besides, if it really is a must, then choose a different seat. It's that easy. I personally dislike sitting within the first half a dozen rows, so I don't sit there.


You can't understand people wanting an unobscured view of the whole stadium? I suspect you're in a small minority.

Have you ever been an away fan, 10-15 rows back (or further) from the front lower at Goodison? Or Stamford Bridge, in the old away section? Have you ever sat 10-15 rows back in the West lower at Highbury?

I have. And you feel cut off from much of what goes on inside the ground in all those seats. Sure, you may be able to see the whole pitch. But you have a limited field of vision of all the stands and fans around you. The interaction between rival sets of fans is diminished. You are cocooned.

Trust me. It is a far less satisfying experience. Going to football isn't just about what happens on the pitch. It's about the holistic experience. The atmosphere. The craic. The banter. The spectacle. And most fans hate to miss out on even a bit of that.


----------



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

i think both have a 1st tier at 16°

i used this small pic for da luz
maybe da luz is 18°
http://www.newspagedesigner.com/users/2829/catedral-do-futebol.jpg


----------



## skyperu34 (May 25, 2003)

impressive !!!!!!!!!!!!!! i like it !!!


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

^ I wouldn't say "huge" in comparison:


----------



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

upps
http://schlauchboot.bizhat.com/arsenal_1.gif
according to this pic and my geo triangle
Emirates 1st tier is aorun 14°

da Luz is ~16°


2nd tier:
Emirates ~ 31,5°
da Luz ~ 32°

which satdium is higher (highest row/ highets point of the tribunes)


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

JimB said:


> You can't understand people wanting an unobscured view of the whole stadium? I suspect you're in a small minority.
> 
> Have you ever been an away fan, 10-15 rows back (or further) from the front lower at Goodison? Or Stamford Bridge, in the old away section? Have you ever sat 10-15 rows back in the West lower at Highbury?
> 
> ...


well,the away fans can see everything in Emirates


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

JimB said:


> You can't understand people wanting an unobscured view of the whole stadium? I suspect you're in a small minority.
> 
> Have you ever been an away fan, 10-15 rows back (or further) from the front lower at Goodison? Or Stamford Bridge, in the old away section? Have you ever sat 10-15 rows back in the West lower at Highbury?
> 
> ...


Actually, I've had a season ticket for the 24th row of the West Lower at Highbury for 12 years and had a perfectly good view of the entire East stand and most of the North Bank and Clock End, so it was far from cocooned. I've also been to a fair amount of away games and have sat in the front row and the back row. (which in most stadiums are the worst seats IMO)

I personally don't like being too near the opposing fans. Each to their own preferences, but I don't find the 'banter' of certain sets of 'fans' to be that entertaining. The football and the emotion that comes from it is more important for me than trying to wind up a rival set of supporters. (Superstitious as I am, I leave that bit until we win!)


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

tv123 said:


> well,the away fans can see everything in Emirates


Not the point.

The point is that large portions of the stadium are obscured from view from a significant number of seats.

When starting with a blank canvass, I find it hard to believe that Arsenal's architects couldn't come up with a more satisfactory solution.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Fillet Tower said:


> Actually, I've had a season ticket for the 24th row of the West Lower at Highbury for 12 years and had a perfectly good view of the entire East stand and most of the North Bank and Clock End, so it was far from cocooned. I've also been to a fair amount of away games and have sat in the front row and the back row. (which in most stadiums are the worst seats IMO)


Well, we're not discussing Highbury so I'm not going to get bogged down in detail. Suffice to say that when I have been towards the back of the West lower in the away section at Highbury, I found the experience disappointing - and not just because my team usually lost! What I disliked was the upper tier intruding on my view and the sense of being cut off from much of what was happening around the stadium.

It matters not whether I was a home or away fan, winning or losing.


----------



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

Signal Iduna Park, Dortmund


----------



## tocino (Mar 26, 2006)

Estadio gets the big edge here for orginality and atmosphere. They built their stadium first and they (Benfica) sing.

Ashburton looks plastic and poorly designed. Plus Arsenal gives out free tshirts to the middle class cockney supporters which makes them look like a bunch of trained schoolboys.


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

JimB said:


> Well, we're not discussing Highbury so I'm not going to get bogged down in detail. Suffice to say that when I have been towards the back of the West lower in the away section at Highbury, I found the experience disappointing - and not just because my team usually lost! What I disliked was the upper tier intruding on my view and the sense of being cut off from much of what was happening around the stadium.
> 
> It matters not whether I was a home or away fan, winning or losing.


I agree with you there. The very back of the West stand is a tad disappointing and drab, but i don't think you can compare it to the Emirates until you actually go to the stadium. It's far more spacious and less view obscuring than Highbury ever was. But as I said, each to their own. A lot of people actually enjoy the tightly packed, claustraphobic stadiums.


----------



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

like Emirates
distance pitch stands is too big
more than 7,5m


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

tocino said:


> Estadio gets the big edge here for orginality and atmosphere. They built their stadium first and they (Benfica) sing.
> 
> Ashburton looks plastic and poorly designed. Plus Arsenal gives out free tshirts to the middle class cockney supporters which makes them look like a bunch of trained schoolboys.


Arsenal's stadium was designed first.

Both are remarkable stadia, no doubt they deserve to be 5-star rated, unlike certain frankenstein stadium in Manchester. 

Both stadiums are very well designed, and it is clear they didn't just add a bunch of rubble for decades before building the 2 most hideous quadrants in human history on it.


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS (Jun 5, 2003)

Interior --> Luz

Exterior --> Emirates


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Fillet Tower said:


> I agree with you there. The very back of the West stand is a tad disappointing and drab, but i don't think you can compare it to the Emirates until you actually go to the stadium. It's far more spacious and less view obscuring than Highbury ever was. But as I said, each to their own. *A lot of people actually enjoy the tightly packed, claustraphobic stadiums*


I think that those stadiums seem uncomfortable but those types of stadia do have a fantastic atmosphere. I love WHL not just because I'm a Spurs fan but because its so close to the pitch. I look at the stands behind the goals at both stadiums (Emirates and EDL) and I can't help but think that I wouldn't enjoy it that much. At WHL your very close to the action. The last time i visited the Lane was the first home game of the season. I was in the the East upper siting infront of the back row and I could still see everything and everyone. Its like the upper tiers at Highbury . I like the Emirates stadium but I couldn't but look at the space between the nets and the fans during Bergkamps testimonial.


----------



## Seth Gecko (May 23, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> Signal Iduna Park, Dortmund


Whats your point caller?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

i cant decide..


----------



## salaar (Jul 20, 2006)

Both are impressive in scale. One seems "municipal" the other more "corporate". Da Luz has been functional for longer so appears to have more character. Ashburton Grove looks slightly more "designed". The sightlines seem superb in both but both have an oustanding flaw - the distance to the pitch. Of course UEFA regulations stipulate...but those regulations are misconceived and should be protested.


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

2005 said:


> I like the Emirates stadium but I couldn't but look at the space between the nets and the fans during Bergkamps testimonial.


I forgot. That would be the other thing I would change. Unfortunately the rounded design and Uefa's stupid star rating rules mean that probably won't happen. Still, at least it's no athletics track.


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

yes but Telstra is much larger!!

83 300


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> i cant decide..


I know what you mean . . . it's like choosing a favorite sibling from a set of identical twins :cheers:


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Why is there pics of Dortmund here?


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

I know this question must have been asked a million times, but I some how missed the answer, on Da Luz, whats the white things joining the roofs for?


----------



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

Estádio da Luz is a fantastic ground...for when FCP come to visit.


----------



## Chairman (Jun 1, 2006)

The problem with Australia's football grounds is that 90% of them are built for another sport.

I wonder if there will come a day when we build a 70,000 seater that is specifically built for football.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Durbsboi said:


> I know this question must have been asked a million times, but I some how missed the answer, on Da Luz, whats the white things joining the roofs for?



From what I can see its just the way the roof has been constructed. It looks like the main part of the roof is made up of 4 seperate semi circular main structures that are joined together by the white corner bits to make up a complete roof.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

I voted for the Emirates Stadium because although both are excellent stadiums,my vote goes for the one that's a 10 minute walk down the road from me.


----------



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

On a more serious note, what I see in the debate is an example of the difference in culture and how that translates into what's important for the football stadium. The Emirates, while marking a bit of a departure from norm, is still very much the type of ground you'd find in the Premiership. Estádio da Luz conforms more with the style and appeal of the continental game. 

Whatever differences between the two better reflect the culture of the leagues themselves. So even two grounds built along a similar platform can reveal what people believe is important.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

www.sercan.de said:


> But i still don't understand why da Luz looks bigger etc
> 
> its only a little bit steaper


I guess thats the reason. Then theres the roof and I could imagine that you have more space per seat in the DaLuz than in the Emirates.
And then theres the capacity of course.


----------



## cpcat (Jul 20, 2006)

www.sercan.de

Amen (allow me put on my reading glasses) - Right it says here The Emirates Stadium's Diamond club package includes gourmet cooking, champagne, an exclusive bar and padded seats near to the halfway line. And Diamond Club members can travel with the team on the plane. In addition to the 160 or so seats in the Diamond Club, there are 150 executive boxes, all of which have been reserved and 6,700 'Club level' seats.

Does the Da Luz offer such facilities?


----------



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

Checker said:


> I cant believe that there are people here who bash the roof of DaLuz
> Its one of the most beautiful roofes Ive seen.
> 
> Sorry but they really spoilt it a bit in the Emirates with the roof.
> ...


i like the lower surface of the roof of Emirates
its smooth and you don't see the construction elements

















and its better for the aquistic

IMO it looks cheap if you cann see the contruction elements































but the top side / from above i like the roof of da luz


----------



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

cpcat said:


> www.sercan.de
> 
> Amen (allow me put on my reading glasses) - Right it says here The Emirates Stadium's Diamond club package includes gourmet cooking, champagne, an exclusive bar and padded seats near to the halfway line. And Diamond Club members can travel with the team on the plane. In addition to the 160 or so seats in the Diamond Club, there are 150 executive boxes, all of which have been reserved and 6,700 'Club level' seats.
> 
> Does the Da Luz offer such facilities?


thank you
But i am a turk 
don't ask me 

so Emirates will have 160 VIP boxes?
I think only Wembley (170?) has got more in Europe


----------



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

this was the first proposed projects
covering the old da luz









BTW
who would win Highbury vs old da Luz 

old da Luz 77,800




























Highbury 38,500


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

www.sercan.de said:


> i it looks cheap if you cann see the contruction elements


I dont think so.
You can see the construction elements but that doesnt make it ugly.
The roof corresponds nicely with the stadium.
It looks very elegant and it looks very light.

























Those arches are just beautiful

In the emirates it looks a bit too crowded and low.


----------



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

yeah
i love also the arches

But i still prefer a smooth roof like Allianz Arena


----------



## Chairman (Jun 1, 2006)

RSG said:


> There will never be a 70 000 seat in Australia specifically for one sport.


Never is a very long time but you're probably right.


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

I think the white roof of the Emirates combines perfectly with red on the seats to portray Arsenal's Red and White colours. I believe the roof of the new stadium will undoubtletly become a symbol of Arsenal's home.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

I'd guess you can put down most of the problems people have with Emirates to the restrictions placed on it. Most obviously it could not have been built any taller than it has been so the stands could not be any steeper and the roof needs to slope inwards to lower the supports. Theres also the British weather to consider as a stadium with a level roof results in the pitch getting limated sunlight/air.


----------



## cpcat (Jul 20, 2006)

Correction, that's 160 Diamond club seats 
The emirates only has 150 executive boxes.

I feel that you can actually spot the polished detail in the emirates stadium's interior and exterior that the Da Luz, in my humble opinion, lacks.

But I guess its all subjective.


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

By the time this poll ends there will be better pics of the emirates available, so if you can't decide you should consider holding your vote for now.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

The first the best! Estadio da Luz, also because it is bigger in cap.
is this because of the seating or is it realy bigger? the diffrence is about 12.000 no?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

The roof is better of the Emirates, by the way


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I think there is not realy a Vs in this thread, nicer challenge for England might be (because to my opinion they'll win this one easy) is England/GB Vs Iberia (Portugal and Spain) that is I think the only Vs with possible the USA England might have a diffecult time. Maybe Germany, but these stadiums are not to my taste, but that is personaly I guess. So who's gonna open these threads?


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

skaP187 said:


> The first the best! Estadio da Luz, also because it is bigger in cap.
> is this because of the seating or is it realy bigger? the diffrence is about 12.000 no?


The Emirates was designed years before Estadio da Luz. In fact, the project of Da Luz had nothing to do with how it looks today until they hired the architect who had designed the Emirates.

Also, the attention to detail at the Emirates is unbelievable, and it's not even finished (!). The quality of the roof, the exterior, the seats, the concourses, the VIP facilities, etc. are enough to hand the crown to Arsenal on this one.


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

i think the Emirates pitch is the best in Europe


----------



## SkyLerm (Nov 26, 2005)

^^I think is the newest one.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

*---England Vs Spain top 10 footballstadiums---*

I saw that there were a lot of Vs's going on nowadays, well let's put this one in I thought. 
As England has so much nice stadiums even on the lower level. I thought to keep it to the best/biggest top 10 stadiums to give Spain a chance. (and I am not gonna count Wembley, because nobody knows when that one will ever be finished... :runaway: hehehe)
Maybe some photos are outdated as I stripped stadionwelt.de for the photos Stadionwelt.de is slipping by the way, in the passed very good, but now very commercial and very outdated to my opinion, great big pics though, but don't let this little coment disturbe you all...

Great pics garantied in this thread, whoever the winner maybe!


We start with....
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! England !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Old Trafford, Manchester 
Cap. 68.500-75.000

























Emirates stadium, London
cap. 60.000

























St. James Park, Newcastle
cap 53.094

















Stadium of Light, Sunderland 
cap. 48.353

























City Of Manchester Stadium, Manchester
cap 48.000

























Anfield, Liverpool 
cap.45.362 

























Villa Park, Birmingham
cap, 42.799 

















Stamford Bridge, London
cap. 42.522 

























Elland Road, Leeds 
cap. 40.228 

























Goodison Park, Liverpool
cap. 40.260 

























and then the rivals

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SPAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Camp Nou, Barcelona 
cap. 98.600

























Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid 
cap. 80.162

























Mestalla Camp, Valencia 
cap. 55.000

























Vicente Calderón, Madrid 
cap. 54.851 

























Ruiz de Lopera, Sevilla
cap. 52.500

























Estadio Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán, Sevilla 
cap. 45.500

























San Mames, Bilbao 
cap. 40.600 

























Manuel Martinez Valero, Elche 
cap. 38.740

























Riazor, La Coruna 
cap. 34.611 

























Estadio La Romareda,Zaragoza 
cap. 34.596

























That's all folks! let's start :bash: 'in


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

im undecided...leaning towards england though


----------



## Slimboy Fat (Jul 27, 2006)

I am judging it as a structure. The design of Emirates and its comfy features attracts crap fans which makes it a poor stadium. I have been to many stadiums and the fancy ones tend to be the poorest due to shit atmospheres. They have shit atmospheres because the comfy features attracts nancy boys. The best stadium I have been in in the last 10 years is the terrace behind the goal at Dortmund. A wonderful experince due to the design of the stand. A stadium and its fans go hand in hand...one relates to the other.....it is no coincidence that Emirates will have one of the shittest atmospheres in Europe!! It will have a shit atmosphere because its features like 'wireless internet access' will attract boring bellends!

The fact that you supprot 2 clubs makes me question what kind of 'supporter' you are!! Real fans can only ever have one club..and it stays with them for the rest of their lives!! 

Emirates has gone overboard with the technical crap and this is to the detriment of the stadium, as fans will not be 100% fixed on the game due to these distractions. The fact that Arsenal already have really shit fans will make the problem even worse!!!


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

Slimboy Fat said:


> I am judging it as a structure. The design of Emirates and its comfy features attracts crap fans which makes it a poor stadium. I have been to many stadiums and the fancy ones tend to be the poorest due to shit atmospheres. They have shit atmospheres because the comfy features attracts nancy boys. The best stadium I have been in in the last 10 years is the terrace behind the goal at Dortmund. A wonderful experince due to the design of the stand. A stadium and its fans go hand in hand...one relates to the other.....it is no coincidence that Emirates will have one of the shittest atmospheres in Europe!! It will have a shit atmosphere because its features like 'wireless internet access' will attract boring bellends!
> 
> *The fact that you supprot 2 clubs makes me question what kind of 'supporter' you are!! Real fans can only ever have one club..and it stays with them for the rest of their lives!!
> *
> Emirates has gone overboard with the technical crap and this is to the detriment of the stadium, as fans will not be 100% fixed on the game due to these distractions. The fact that Arsenal already have really shit fans will make the problem even worse!!!


Colo Colo is the club my family supports. It is not a club I need to support, but is a club that needs my support. I didn't choose to support them, it's just in my blood, as local clubs deserve the support from local people. I love Colo, and I'm always there to get behind the team.

Arsenal is in the other hand, a club I chose to support, I fell in love with them a long time ago, and they are truly the club of my heart. I would take them above any other team in the world no matter what, I would be a just as passionate Arsenal fan if they were relegated. Please understand for once and for all that I'm a very loyal person, Once I choose to support a team then I will be with that team until I die, and at this stage of my life I could not betray neither Arsenal nor Colo, as those are the teams I support since my childhood.

Let's stop arguing about personal matter, please PM me if you want to know the story of my life and how passionate or loyal I am.


----------



## Slimboy Fat (Jul 27, 2006)

That's just gibberish. Support either Arsenal or Coca Cola...not both!! One has to go!!...it's your choice! Here's a bit of sound advice - get rid of Arsenal.


----------



## RC8 (Jul 25, 2006)

I just sent you a private message slimboy, let's keep our little chat there.


----------



## Zorba (Sep 7, 2005)

I prefer Englands stadiums. Spains are larger, but are in far worse condition.


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

Slimboy Fat said:


> Emirates is too clean and smooth. Too much of a nancy boy stadium. I prefer the rougher edges of Da Luz. Both great stadiums, but Da Luz is designed for real fans, Emirates for boring businessmen.
> 
> 
> Poofy -
> ...


Nice of you to show a picture of the English fans and call us passionate. Cheers.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

bravoman said:


> Do stadiums with running tracks not count in this comparison? If they do, I think the olympic stadiums of Barcelona and Sevilla should be added.


It is about a top 10 for FOOTBALL stadiums.
Sevilla and Barcelona (with a permenant player espanol) are nice but to my opinion not footballstadiums...
That's why I left them out. I hope you can live with that


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Abdi said:


> Hello and im new, but look at the amount of 40,000 and below spanish stadiums he put up there, and plus england can only get better with wembley and stanley park possibly coming.


In spain they are also constucting alot of new stadiums!
zaragoza, valencia, espanol, murcia which are already sure things.
Pluss a lot of clubs have planns. that's why I kept it with the stadiums which were allready excisting


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> england wins this one. fact.


not a fact. your choice. 
I personaly like the Spanish stadiums more, and then I am speaking about the Top 6 mainly, Barca, Madrid2x Valencia and Sevilla 2x 
But it is a matter of taste. To my opion the outside and bars and things like that are better in England, but as soon as you go inside, and see the inside and the pitch (which to me is the most important) the Spanish stadiums are real arenas. 
don't forget it is nice to have a roof, when you need it, in Spain it is nine out of ten times (depending on where your are) good wheather.(you know you're from SA aren't ya) + the things like skyboxes and things like that, just don't work here. Spanish people want to be outside!
It is a diffrent way of looking at the same game. just like the style of playing the game is diffrent in both countries. 
A diffrent style and so a lot of food for discussion/ :bash: 
I understand your choice and so far the mayority is with you, but about one third has another opinion. So it is not hands down. :cheers:


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

RC8 said:


> If you have not read the other Emirates Stadium thread(not you Tekno, you already stated that you didn't know this on another thread, and I don't blame you):
> 
> THE EMIRATES STADIUM WAS DESIGNED FIRST. The quality of the materials is also better, and the facilities are 1st class. SO, Independently of which one is a better stadium which should not be discussed in this thread, Emirates Stadium is an original structure, and is not a cheap copy of anything.


has nothing to do with this thread, :lol: :lol: :lol: :rofl: but 
Arsenal fans are so easy to bust there balls to compare there stadium with the bigger and better da luz stadium...


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Spainish Stadia have the edge at the moment, but oth countrie with the exception of stadia like Emirates and COM look hopelessly outdated when compared to Germany's or the Dutch.

As for the Emirates debate (if Emirates is a copy, its far from a cheap copy, and the Portugese should be careful about criticising Northern European Countries that effectively subsidise them) how many threads are there for it? Its not even a Spanish Stadium, so has nothing to do with this debate.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Lostboy said:


> Spainish Stadia have the edge at the moment, but oth countrie with the exception of stadia like Emirates and COM look hopelessly outdated when compared to Germany's or the Dutch.
> 
> As for the Emirates debate (if Emirates is a copy, its far from a cheap copy, and the Portugese should be careful about criticising Northern European Countries that effectively subsidise them) how many threads are there for it? Its not even a Spanish Stadium, so has nothing to do with this debate.


you are right!!! I let myself go for a minute... bad me I guess


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_Emirates is too clean and smooth. Too much of a nancy boy stadium. I prefer the rougher edges of Da Luz. Both great stadiums, but Da Luz is designed for real fans, Emirates for boring businessmen._

Considering that the Portugese League doesn't have a particularly great set of attendance figures, how many times have these passionate fans managed to fill the stadia since the European Championships? 

Yes Da Luz is bigger, but if its bigger without being able to regularly reach or nearly reach capacity, it just looks like a white elephant.


----------



## freddiewa (Apr 9, 2006)

I will have to vote for England... mainly because the stands are a lot closer to the pitch than in Spain... both have great stadiums, great teams, great leagues and great fans.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Estadio la Rosaleda, Malaga. Capacity 37,200:








[/QUOTE]

A that's what I meant with stadionwelt.de not beeing up to date anymore.
I tought it was bigger and extended. It is def. More beautifull then the zaragoza for sure, the photos on stadiumguide are up to date?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

As the list is determed on size an adjustion.
Zaragozo goes out and this one goes in.

......
If I could only get the pictures in 
damn...


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

Lostboy said:


> Spainish Stadia have the edge at the moment, but oth countrie with the exception of stadia like Emirates and COM look hopelessly outdated when compared to Germany's or the Dutch.
> 
> As for the Emirates debate (if Emirates is a copy, its far from a cheap copy, *and the Portugese should be careful about criticising Northern European Countries that effectively subsidise them*) how many threads are there for it? Its not even a Spanish Stadium, so has nothing to do with this debate.


:weird: i dont get it..


----------



## pauliezaz (Jul 3, 2006)

I can't understand why did you create this thread... Anyway, my vote to Emirates stadium


----------



## cpcat (Jul 20, 2006)

Slimboy Fat said:


> That's just gibberish. Support either Arsenal or Coca Cola...not both!! One has to go!!...it's your choice! Here's a bit of sound advice - get rid of Arsenal.


 :bash:


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

Lostboy said:


> _Emirates is too clean and smooth. Too much of a nancy boy stadium. I prefer the rougher edges of Da Luz. Both great stadiums, but Da Luz is designed for real fans, Emirates for boring businessmen._
> 
> Considering that the Portugese League doesn't have a particularly great set of attendance figures, how many times have these passionate fans managed to fill the stadia since the European Championships?
> 
> Yes Da Luz is bigger, but if its bigger without being able to regularly reach or nearly reach capacity, it just looks like a white elephant.


it gets full in CL games and derby´s with Sporting and Port0. For the rest of the games last season we were about 43000 averagehttp://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/avepor.htm

Considering high prices, bad defensive played by weaker teams and bad moment of our economy i can say it´s not a bad average.


----------



## pauliezaz (Jul 3, 2006)

*Arena Riga vs. Siemens Arena*

Which is better?

Arena Riga
*Capacity:* 12500
*Place:* Riga, Latvia
*Built:* 2006









Siemens Arena
*Capacity:* 12000
*Place:* Vilnius, Lithuania
*Built:* 2004


----------



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

to the portugese users
do you have more pics of da luz?


----------



## pauliezaz (Jul 3, 2006)

Well, England stadiums have bigger design variety than Spain's. A lot of Spain's stadiums is same! Nou Camp, Vicent Calderon, Ruiz de Lopera. Of course my vote to England


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

tv123 said:


> i think the Emirates pitch is the best in Europe


It looks good yes.

Im wondering if its a mixture between artificial and natural grass?


----------



## Javi (Mar 18, 2005)

Anoeta, San Sebastian, 32.000
















I like it so much


----------



## serial_man (Aug 21, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


> to the portugese users
> do you have more pics of da luz?


My photos taked with cell phone, sorry for quality 

CL: Benfica - Villareal 










CL: Benfica - MU


















CL: Benfica - Liverpool










Championship - Benfica - FC Porto


















Other photos:


































Hope you enjoy! :cheers:


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

"Considering high prices"

i think its not an excuse if you compare the attendances

i dont know why


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

TeKnO_Lx said:


> :weird: i dont get it..


Where do you think all those EU billions that are "given" to countries like Portugal, Spain, (Southern) Italy and Greece come from? They don't grow on trees you know...


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Quintana said:


> Where do you think all those EU billions that are "given" to countries like Portugal, Spain, (Southern) Italy and Greece come from? They don't grow on trees you know...


I'm not sure that Tekno was asking about that.

I think he was wondering - rightly so - what the hell EU subsidies have got to do with this discussion. It was a totally gratuitous and inflammatory comment by Lostboy.

No need.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Judging form these two pics I would say that the Siemens arena is better


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

skaP187 said:


> not a fact. your choice.
> I personaly like the Spanish stadiums more, and then I am speaking about the Top 6 mainly, Barca, Madrid2x Valencia and Sevilla 2x
> But it is a matter of taste. To my opion the outside and bars and things like that are better in England, but as soon as you go inside, and see the inside and the pitch (which to me is the most important) the Spanish stadiums are real arenas.
> don't forget it is nice to have a roof, when you need it, in Spain it is nine out of ten times (depending on where your are) good wheather.(you know you're from SA aren't ya) + the things like skyboxes and things like that, just don't work here. Spanish people want to be outside!
> ...


taking everything into account..design..atmosphere..history.quality of the stadia...england does come out tops. i dont expect u to agree though.


----------



## Sakaarnis (Mar 1, 2006)

Well, you might want to use this picture for Arena Riga


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Javi said:


> Anoeta, San Sebastian, 32.000
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a very nice design, but not a footballstadium... It has got a runningtrack and therefor it is disqualified (however you may wright that)


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lostboy said:


> _Emirates is too clean and smooth. Too much of a nancy boy stadium. I prefer the rougher edges of Da Luz. Both great stadiums, but Da Luz is designed for real fans, Emirates for boring businessmen._
> 
> Considering that the Portugese League doesn't have a particularly great set of attendance figures, how many times have these passionate fans managed to fill the stadia since the European Championships?
> 
> Yes Da Luz is bigger, but if its bigger without being able to regularly reach or nearly reach capacity, it just looks like a white elephant.


this thread is looking for the best stadium. full stop. how you decide that is up to you. Regardless of da luz being bigger and whether or not it gets filled every weekend is only relevant if thats how u decide which stadium is better.


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

Checker said:


> It looks good yes.
> 
> Im wondering if its a mixture between artificial and natural grass?


Yes, it is. I think we'll have to see what the pitch looks like after a season of football has been played on it though. The groundsmen did a wonderful job at Highbury, but with this stadium being a full bowl it may be more difficult.


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

its a bit unfair comparison,Siemens has a bigger,better picture,better camera angle,full house...


----------



## Slimboy Fat (Jul 27, 2006)

Berlin has a running track....but it was still an amazing venue to watch football in.


----------



## pauliezaz (Jul 3, 2006)

Sakaarnis said:


> Well, you might want to use this picture for Arena Riga


Thanks


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Arena Riga


----------



## Sakaarnis (Mar 1, 2006)

Honestly, they both look very simmilar, so it all ends up wich one is more technologicaly advanced and as im not an ingeneer, i cant answer. So a third option in poll - they both look great, should win this.


----------



## panamaboy9016 (Mar 29, 2006)

*I don't know!*

In my opinion I think the Emirates Stadium is nicer due to the fact if I'm not mistaken it is more modern and nicer.


----------



## Basel_CH (Jan 7, 2006)

panamaboy9016 said:


> In my opinion I think the Emirates Stadium is nicer due to the fact if I'm not mistaken it is more modern and nicer.


In my opinion the emirates stadium is a cheap (and small) copy of the estadio da luz, therefore I can`t understand why people vote for this stadium. Or there are to much blind biased english users in that forum? hno:


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

whay you think mods close the city vs city?


----------



## Fillet Tower (Jan 5, 2006)

Basel_CH said:


> In my opinion the emirates stadium is a cheap (and small) copy of the estadio da luz, therefore I can`t understand why people vote for this stadium. Or there are to much blind biased english users in that forum? hno:


Here we go, full circle again!


----------



## chester84 (Mar 18, 2006)

Basel_CH said:


> In my opinion the emirates stadium is a *cheap* (and small) copy of the estadio da luz, therefore I can`t understand why people vote for this stadium. Or there are to much blind biased english users in that forum? hno:


£390 million......... :crazy:


----------



## Abdi (Jul 26, 2006)

i'll rather play/manage in english stadiums then spanish ones.

I like the way the spanish/italians/portugese fans celebrate it sounds sooo cool

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

he ment to say espensive copy, not cheap


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

One big plus for the Benfica stadium is that the Stadio Da Luz is a much better name than The Emirates Stadium.(no offense Emirates Airlines I am sure you are terrific. :sleepy: )


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

^ Ashburton Grove


----------



## Köbtke (Jun 29, 2005)

LMAO

Emirates is almost a total copy/paste of Da Luz. Sure, the roof design might vary, but if you look at the differnt tiers and the curve of the stadium itself, its almost a 100% match.

That said, Emirates is better looking, it actually looks finished from the outside.

Both look to be great stadiums. But they could ahve used some imagination in Emirates, instad of copying Da Luz.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Emirates was designed before Da Luz


----------



## london lad (Feb 10, 2003)

Both stadiums wer designed by HOK- hence the similaritys- Da Luz was finished construced first but the Arsenal designs have been floating around from at least 1999/2000 so its debatable who's is a copy of whom- A lot of stadium designs thase days are pretty generic as the use the same architects.

They are both nice stadiums & a look of clubs would be happy to have them.

Why does everything on skyscrapercity have to degenerate into childish nationalisitic comments.


----------



## Diaby (Feb 11, 2006)




----------



## Tuesday (Oct 21, 2005)

Does anyone have any inside-stadium pics of the Emirates in at least 1280x1024 resolution? I want it for a background on FM2006, y'see?

Oh and...I probably very slightly prefer Emirates over La Luz. Maybe because of the roof.


----------



## tv123 (Nov 14, 2005)

Tuesday said:


> Does anyone have any inside-stadium pics of the Emirates in at least 1280x1024 resolution? I want it for a background on FM2006, y'see?
> 
> Oh and...I probably very slightly prefer Emirates over La Luz. Maybe because of the roof.


http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?...ates+Stadium&Title=Emirates+Stadium+Wallpaper


----------



## pauliezaz (Jul 3, 2006)

*Vote!: best arenas - Spain, Italy or Greece (only Euroleague 2007 teams')*

Best arenas (only Euroleague 2007 teams' home arenas):

*Spain* 

*Palau Blaugrana* 
*City:* Barcelona
*Capacity:* 7.300
*Home team:* FC Winterthur (Barcelona)









*Fernando Buesa Arena* 
*City:* Vitoria
*Capacity:* 10.400
*Home team:* Tau Ceramica









*Palacio de Deportes* 
*City:* Malaga
*Capacity:* 14.000
*Home team:* Unicaja









*Palacio Municipal de Deportes de Badalona* 
*City:* Badalona
*Capacity:* 8.500-12.000
*Home team:* Joventut


*Italy* 

*Paladozza* 
*City:* Bologna
*Capacity:* 5.700
*Home team:* Climamio









*Palaverde* 
*City:* Treviso
*Capacity:* 6.000
*Home team:* Benetton









*Palalottomatica* 
*City:* Rome
*Capacity:* 16.350
*Home team:* Lottomatica Virtus









*Palabarbuto* 
*City:* Napoli
*Capacity:* 3.800
*Home team:* Carpisa


*Greece*

*Peace and Friendship Arena* 
*City:* Athens
*Capacity:* 14.000
*Home team:* Olympiakos Pireaus









*Olympic Sports Hall (OAKA)* 
*City:* Athens
*Capacity:* 18.700
*Home team:* Panathinaikos









*Alexandrion Melathron* 
*City:* Saloniki
*Capacity:* 4.800
*Home team:* Aris









Thanks to Konstantinoupolis!


----------



## christoph (Jul 4, 2005)

Peace an d Friendship Arena for Baketball use looks so akward. Ain`t an arena for this purpose.


----------



## Malso (Jul 24, 2006)

that bare concrete on the inside of the stadium/tiers needs painting, it looks old and weathered already!


----------



## Diaby (Feb 11, 2006)

Malso said:


> that bare concrete on the inside of the stadium/tiers needs painting, it looks old and weathered already!


I think they intend on doing so. This pic of the Artist impression shows that it will be covered. impression








(Couldn't find the larger version of the image)


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

london lad said:


> Both stadiums wer designed by HOK- hence the similaritys- Da Luz was finished construced first but the *Arsenal designs have been floating around from at least 1999/2000 * so its debatable who's is a copy of whom- A lot of stadium designs thase days are pretty generic as the use the same architects.
> 
> They are both nice stadiums & a look of clubs would be happy to have them.
> 
> Why does everything on skyscrapercity have to degenerate into childish nationalisitic comments.


I could be wrong but I believe the project was announced October 2000. I do know that Arsenal annonced that they planned to have the stadium completed by 2004.


----------



## Abdi (Jul 26, 2006)

ITS A DUMP NOW.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Ouside yes, inside is pretty impressive my opinion!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

just to remind you fellas!!!
the good old Mestalla!!!


----------



## Scarecrow (Oct 28, 2002)

Here's a video of Goodison Park from 1937. Note the Bullens Rd side is still there and the Gwladys Street end under construction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqFR-cZDQ2U

Gwladys Street end (1937)









Bullens Rd side (1928)









Goodison Road main stand (1971)









Park end (1994)









Goodison Park now


----------



## Manu84 (Nov 16, 2003)

spain


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_Im a Wolves fan and I travel around quite a bit. Old Trafford was unrivalled in the Premiership (all change now with the Emirates). It had a good reputation along time ago for being nothing special but after euro 96 they cleaned the place up and the stadium is one of Europes best, no doubt about it._

Yes, Old Trafford was the best stadium in England for many many years, but the redevelopments have completely ruined it. The idea its amongst Europe's best is laughable. 

Within Britain and Ireland there are at least five better stadia of comparable size:

Emirates,
Croke Park,
Millenium Stadium,
Twickenham,
Wembley.

Thats just a small corner of Europe, there are many vastly better ones elsewhere. It's nowhere near Europes best only the quality of the club that plays in it, keeps it well known.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

I dont know much about football or its stadia, so can you explain why Old Trafford is so bad ? I really do want to know...

And I read all through this thread and well I may be wrong but it seemed like most people preffered English Stadia, yet the poll suggests otherwise?


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

TeKnO_Lx said:


> :weird: i dont get it..


Lostboy is a small minded conservative that objects to wealthier areas helping with development funds to less well off areas. 

He's an English nationalist and objects to part of the UK subsidising others. He also has some strange ethnicity oriented identity with Germany scandinavian countries, the Netherlands etc. 

He is saying becasue Portugal are net receivers of EU development funds you have no right to voice opinion, which is nonesence.


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

Andaluz said:


> Estadio de la Comunidad remodelation - Madrid - 70.000


I really like the look of that one.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_Lostboy is a small minded conservative that objects to wealthier areas helping with development funds to less well off areas. 

He's an English nationalist and objects to part of the UK subsidising others. He also has some strange ethnicity oriented identity with Germany scandinavian countries, the Netherlands etc. 

He is saying becasue Portugal are net receivers of EU development funds you have no right to voice opinion, which is nonesence._

There is nothing remotely conservative about what I believe. Stop trying to derail this discussion on stadia.


----------



## AdamChobits (Jun 7, 2006)

Quintana said:


> Where do you think all those EU billions that are "given" to countries like Portugal, Spain, (Southern) Italy and Greece come from? They don't grow on trees you know...



:crazy: You should learn a bit about the Spanish case. And this has nothing to do in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2006)

Lostboy, can I ask when was the last time you went to Old Trafford? Its an outstanding stadium. 

For me, theres no better stadium in Europe then the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff. Built at a cost of 1/7th of the new Wembley and hasnt aged a bit. A true credit to Welsh development.

P.S SkaP - The inside of Mestalla is quite over powering and impressive, but again, how steep do you spaniards want your stands. Im suprised knowone has ever fell to thier death from watching a game there 

The INSIDE, inside of the stadium (AKA concourse etc) is nothing shy of pants. Its rather disorganised and plain. Infact It seems corridors to fit a maximum of 3 people is the norm in Spain. Its a very unattractive stadium in almost every aspect apart from the size of the stands and the scoreboard. 

One thing I did like however was the club shop across the way (not directly linked to the stadium, as you find in British stadiums). The set out was superb and the amount on offer was fantastic however the prices are well over the top for most things.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

SimLim said:


> P.S SkaP - The inside of Mestalla is quite over powering and impressive, but again, how steep do you spaniards want your stands. Im suprised knowone has ever fell to thier death from watching a game there
> 
> The steeper the better!!! (and no I am not Spanish, even wurse, I am Dutch, and living in Spain yeah)
> 
> ...


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

zenith said:


> And I read all through this thread and well I may be wrong but it seemed like most people preffered English Stadia, yet the poll suggests otherwise?


the silent majoraty, but to be hounest so far the poll is a surprise for me too


----------



## tayser (Sep 11, 2002)

I want to see that new stadium get turned 90 degrees on its axis so it eventually has scope to be built right out past the 50,000 mark.

And similarly if Australia were to get a world cup, I reckon Melbourne should go for a record: 3 x round matches being played at the same time. AUS v ENG in the MCG, ITA v DE in T-Dome and BRA v ARG in the new football stadium, a million people in the city, mega-party atmosphere - if any city can pull that off it's Melbourne.

[/dreaming]


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> you have two staduims each from Sydney and Melbourne,so one will have to go from your list


Yes but the way that an Australian bid COULD market it is that the MCG and Telstra Dome in Melbourne, Aussie Stadium in Sydney and Telstra Stadium in West Sydney/Parramatta.

Seriously, Western Sydney is like a completely different place, third largest population base in Australia after Sydney and Melbourne. 

The Gabba won't be used because Suncorp will for two reasons:
1) It's rectangular
2) Higher capacity

Suncorp wins hands down.

AAMI is a terrible stadium and I thought it was bad for watching AFL. I can't imagine how bad it would be trying to watch a soccer game there.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

Toadman said:


> Yes but the way that an Australian bid COULD market it is that the MCG and Telstra Dome in Melbourne, Aussie Stadium in Sydney and Telstra Stadium in West Sydney/Parramatta.
> 
> Seriously, Western Sydney is like a completely different place, third largest population base in Australia after Sydney and Melbourne.
> 
> ...





yes,i can just see FIFA falling for that one...its a darn sight nearer to the centre of Sydney than Wembley of Twickenham is to the centre of London..


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

tayser said:


> I want to see that new stadium get turned 90 degrees on its axis so it eventually has scope to be built right out past the 50,000 mark.
> 
> And similarly if Australia were to get a world cup, I reckon Melbourne should go for a record: 3 x round matches being played at the same time. AUS v ENG in the MCG, ITA v DE in T-Dome and BRA v ARG in the new football stadium, a million people in the city, mega-party atmosphere - if any city can pull that off it's Melbourne.
> 
> [/dreaming]



Could work lol. Australia's 4 best are of great quality but most of the rest well suck!!!! I just love watching a game of footy at the Telstra Dome or The MCG. Such comfortable stadiums!


----------



## Mephisto (Nov 8, 2002)

Telstra Stadium, Aussie Stadium, MCG, Telstra Dome, Suncorp. (5)
New- 60k Perth Stadium, 45k Adelaide Stadium, Upgraded 40k Gold Coast Stadium


----------



## Tyson (May 2, 2006)

tayser said:


> I want to see that new stadium get turned 90 degrees on its axis so it eventually has scope to be built right out past the 50,000 mark.
> 
> And similarly if Australia were to get a world cup, I reckon Melbourne should go for a record: 3 x round matches being played at the same time. AUS v ENG in the MCG, ITA v DE in T-Dome and BRA v ARG in the new football stadium, a million people in the city, mega-party atmosphere - if any city can pull that off it's Melbourne.
> 
> [/dreaming]


LOL If they were able to pull that off it would be absolutely amazing. Would probably go down as one of the greatest moments in world sport  There would be about 200,000 spectators inside the stadiums themselves. All three stadiums would be almost within walking distance of one another with the CBD, Fed Square, Birrarung Marr and the Yarra all in the middle. If they did it they should make those three the opening matches of the cup and have a three way simultaneous kickoff. At Fed Square and other places they could get in huge screens and have three stacked next to each other with the three different games being shown together. If they planned for this the city would be absolutely packed and everyone would be going mental. Ah well, too bad the chances of that are less than zero! 

By they way I think if that new one needed expandinding they could do it on that axis by just building over the top of CityLink and Swan St.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

RobH said:


> Much, much prefer four stands, or the feeling of four stands with the corners filled in than a bowl.



Then you must like the new Anfield design.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Aren't they going back to the drawing board with that?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

As I understood the basic design from the inside would stay the same, it would only get bigger. correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I see this poll is closed and surpisingly Spain has won from England surprising easely!
I didn´t know that there are so many people with good taste!
:nocrook:


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

skaP187 said:


> I see this poll is closed and surpisingly Spain has won from England surprising easely!
> I didn´t know that there are so many people with good taste!
> :nocrook:


Thats mainly because people voted mostly FROM SPAIN ya dummy lol.


----------



## CORLEONE (Jun 15, 2007)

New Wembley is great. Really nice Stadium. I´m from Spain and I think that we have great Stadiums but I also think that we shoud start thinking about saving some money and expend it in build new stadiums insteads of buying one or 2 guys for a team.

Valencia and San Mamés are amazing, also the ESPAÑOL CF stadium which I like a lot.

I would give a technical draw between Spain and England in this subjet.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Quintana said:


> Iberia is a peninsula, not an island.


Being an island or not doesnt have anything to do with it...

UK = One country

Spain and Portugal = Two countries

The way this thread has been setout is should really be called "La Liga vs The Preimiership".


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Uk is one country excesting out of 4 (? or 5) countries).
I´ll never get that into my head, allthough you´re prob. right.

By the way the thread set up is pretty clear, 
england vs spain.
and Spain won glorious! 
Don´t think that there were that many more votes from Spain then from England, but who cares?


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

As the name would suggest, the United Kingdom is a Kingdom, so it's not, _technically_ a country in itself. It is a Kingdom comprised from three countries and a principality, although there are other splits and unions within history that can challenge that. While such a definition makes little difference to how it's governed, as much is still carried out by a central legislature, it's certainly not four countries in one country.

In terms of the thread, when you add in Ibrox, Hampden, Celtic Park and The Millennium Stadium (possibly Murrayfield if you feel like it), the impression shifts dramatically. Both England and Spain have a cluster of top stadia but after those, the rest aren't anything particularly special. When you add in the stadia from Scotland and Wales, since Northern Ireland has nothing at all to offer, that shifts a lot because it adds 4 or 5 top quality, or close to top quality, stadia to the top 8 or 9 already in England.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

You are right! 
That´s why I kept it to england... See start of thread, just to give Spain a chance...


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

I personally prefer Spain's bowls too, although the boxy stadiums are probably better for the atmosphere.

Btw any news about the new stadium of Real Zaragoza?


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

*Old or new London 2012 Olympic Stadium design*

Which stadium design for the London 2012 Olympics do you prefer

Old design:



















or 

The new design:


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

New, by a country mile. The new one is boringly average, but at least it's not grotesque.


----------



## Marcanadian (May 7, 2005)

The old stadium had a more unique design IMO. So, I prefer the older version.


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

The original one was better by far.
But that's not a problem: I don't care about Athletics because this sport is dead.
It's almost the same for Cycling and Boxing...which one will be the next ?


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> New, by a country mile. The new one is boringly average, but at least it's not grotesque.


Agreed. It's very hard to get excited by this new stadium by any stretch, but the old render is an absolute monstrosity, especially on the inside. There's a lot I don't like about this new stadium - most notably the number of seats that are going to be left uncovered - but that's fairly incidental when compared to the mess that is the seating area of the earlier render.


----------



## guigotz (Aug 10, 2007)

old designnn.... Why they decide to change???



now.... london will realize the olympic games ... start to change the projectsss ..... hno:

Parisss ohhhhh Parisss


----------



## Brilliant (Jul 12, 2007)

New one.


----------



## El Vampiro Ucraniano (Mar 29, 2007)

Old, i liked the concept of a roof...


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

guigotz said:


> old designnn.... Why they decide to change???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Silly post. Paris' Stade de France is no more exciting than this. And they wouldn't have a beutiful Olympic Park like London (see the website for renders of the park itself).

The velodrome and the aquatics centre will both be fabulous buildings. The stadium less so, but it will be fine. Sydney's was only ok (in fact, it was even less interesting than London's new design) and yet they put on the best Olympics ever.


----------



## Pickle33 (Feb 7, 2007)

guigotz said:


> old designnn.... Why they decide to change???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Paris would also have put on a great games IMO, but you have to admit that the stade de france looks like a toilet seat and like someone has said its not too dissimilar to this temporary London stadium.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

Why did they even bother producing that first render I mean what was the point of showing the exterior like that if they had no itention of ever sticking to it?

Oh and the new one really is a sack of shit


----------



## ingstad (Nov 6, 2007)

I prefer the first design: it's so groundbreaking. 
Also the new is nice but the original is better.

Even if, the better choice was to use wembley stadium also for athletics (that is a spectacular sport).

Hello!


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

BeestonLad said:


> Why did they even bother producing that first render I mean what was the point of showing the exterior like that if they had no itention of ever sticking to it?


To win the bid. It was simply a concept drawn by the masterplan architects to fit in with their idea of the Olympic Park being a wavy green hill form and to show the IOC London had an arching 'concept' for the look of the Olympic Park and a bit of vision in terms of how it will feel and be like. It had absolutely no future as the actual Olympic Stadium- firstly because the amount of steel and glass used in it would simply have blown the budget and left nothing for the essentials of hosting a fantastic games, secondly the point of the new stadium is to show how a stadium can be transformed quickly and efficiently into a smaller more manageable stadium which the first wouldn't have, and thirdly I'd imagine it's prety impossible to build in the first place - how on earth would they have balanced those 'leaf' bulbs on the tiny plinths they were illustrating? The engineers would have shaken their head in disbelief if they had had to value engineer that design.

Which do I prefer? I have no idea. One is a concept design that was never intended to be built and the second is an actual working stadium that can and will be built. I can't really make that kind of distinction of liking one over the other seeing as they are two completely separate entities.

And before the Parisians and moaners start complaining about London telling 'lies' and misleading the IOC - every single bid in the history of the Olympics has changed from its bid to being conceived - Sydney's was incredibly different, Beijing had a completely different stadium design and I have no doubt the bids we are now seeing for the 2016 games will be changed and remodelled before they are finally built.


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

ingstad said:


> I prefer the first design: it's so groundbreaking.


How is the second not groundbreaking? Name me another Olympic stadium that is being built specifically for athletics and has been designed so it can be dismantled from 80,000 to 25,000 in a matter of weeks, whilst the outside artwork is cut into 80,000 pieces and given to every spectator who was at he Closing Ceremony?

It's incredibly groundbreaking and a world first in terms of what it can do.


----------



## calenzano (Apr 3, 2006)

DarJoLe said:


> How is the second not groundbreaking? Name me another Olympic stadium that is being built specifically for athletics and has been designed so it can be dismantled from 80,000 to 25,000 in a matter of weeks, whilst the outside artwork is cut into 80,000 pieces and given to every spectator who was at he Closing Ceremony?
> 
> It's incredibly groundbreaking and a world first in terms of what it can do.


it can be dismantled from 80,000 to 25,000!well This is the only positive thing!hno:hno:hno:


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

DarJoLe said:


> To win the bid. It was simply a concept drawn by the masterplan architects to fit in with their idea of the Olympic Park being a wavy green hill form and to show the IOC London had an arching 'concept' for the look of the Olympic Park and a bit of vision in terms of how it will feel and be like. It had absolutely no future as the actual Olympic Stadium- firstly because the amount of steel and glass used in it would simply have blown the budget and left nothing for the essentials of hosting a fantastic games, secondly the point of the new stadium is to show how a stadium can be transformed quickly and efficiently into a smaller more manageable stadium which the first wouldn't have, and thirdly I'd imagine it's prety impossible to build in the first place - how on earth would they have balanced those 'leaf' bulbs on the tiny plinths they were illustrating? The engineers would have shaken their head in disbelief if they had had to value engineer that design.
> 
> Which do I prefer? I have no idea. One is a concept design that was never intended to be built and the second is an actual working stadium that can and will be built. I can't really make that kind of distinction of liking one over the other seeing as they are two completely separate entities.
> 
> And before the Parisians and moaners start complaining about London telling 'lies' and misleading the IOC - every single bid in the history of the Olympics has changed from its bid to being conceived - Sydney's was incredibly different, Beijing had a completely different stadium design and I have no doubt the bids we are now seeing for the 2016 games will be changed and remodelled before they are finally built.


Well can you please tell me what the point of the internal render was? Its not showing how the stadium will fit into the park as it is just of the inside. It seems utterly pointless for them to have made that render and somewhat misleading.


----------



## ingstad (Nov 6, 2007)

The first is groundbreaking in a different way: the shape, the general view, has no examples in history; and because of this aspect, it's sad that it will be dismantled.

There aren't Olympic stadiums builted only for athletics, because the Games involve different sports. 

Anyway a stadium only for athletics could be Estadio de la Comunidad in Madrid.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Original - Stunning, brilliant, ground breaking, unique etc.



New - Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz hno:


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

New design....it fits well with the plans to downsize seating after 2012.


----------



## Joe P (Jul 19, 2006)

Both are nice, but the old is much more vibrant and cool.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

i quite like the design - the focus on simplicity, legacy, and sustainability....very much unlike Beijing and Sochi. lets get realistic here, LOCOG has made a brave move and halted the era of over-architectured stadia. I liked Sydney's (though the additional seating wings were hideous), Athens was functional and with the roof was quite striking in its simplicity and now Beijing has gone all out gungho batshit with the Birds Nest. It is actually nice to just see a functional venue with few bells and whistles and absolutely no input from fucking Calatrava.


----------



## Barret (Apr 27, 2007)

I quite like the old design, its innovative and creative, two qualities i love to seen in architecture and design


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

OMG, another change for the Olympics games... hno: i don't like the new design, the old design was WAY better.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

The old design was good, but It could not be downsized from 80,000 to 25,000. I saw the renderings of the reduced-capacity stadium in the old design and it looked like a 45-50,000-seat stadium. The new design should have the ability to be reduced to a more than 25-30,000 capacity.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

Original for me. An olympic stadium should be about individuality, and the new one has been done a million times before


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

*London 2012 and possible Chicago 2016*


































Both will also have the same capacity and later be reduced in size


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

I like none of the 2 options that are provided, I like the 2nd design, this was released after the won that won the bid


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Obviously the old one.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Every city that has built a new stadium for the Olympics showed renders during their bid which looked nothing like the final stadium. You might not like it, but that's the way it happens; London isn't unique.


----------



## calenzano (Apr 3, 2006)

RobH said:


> Every city that has built a new stadium for the Olympics showed renders during their bid which looked nothing like the final stadium. You might not like it, but that's the way it happens; London isn't unique.


In fact the problem is not that!:lol::lol:


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

The new design reminds me of a modern version of Berlin's Olympic Stadium.


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

The Old design pushed boundaries, the new design pushes shit.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Reaper-strain said:


> The Old design pushed boundaries, the new design pushes shit.


Never mind - it will make a lovely new ground for mighty Leyton Orient :lol:


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Old one by a country mile!

The olympic stadium is the key landmark by which people judge and remember the whole olympic games (...lets face it so many of the sports are so riddled with drugs that few people take the competition seriously!) In my mind I can visualise Barcelona, the roof of the stadium at Athens and the Bird's Nest in Bejing. Atlanta and Sydney hold no memories and are hence easily easily forgettable.

London so frequently puts itself on a pedestal as the premier world city, so when it hosts the olympics people expect to be wowed and amazed by it's vision and creativity.

Instead we get possibly the blandest, cheapest looking and least imaginiative stadium ever to host an olympic games! Which is still costing a grotesque 500 million GBP!!

As a Brummie I must admit it always warms my heart to see London embarass itself on the international stage, but this really has surpassed all of my expectations! With people of the calibre of Tessa Jowell involved in the organisation this comedy of errors should make great entertainment over the next few years!:cheers:


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

I agree with every part of your post including how pointless the actual competition in the Olympics has become. Whatever anyone says, you are 100% correct on how people remember visuals in Olympics.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

rob_right said:


> Old one by a country mile!
> The olympic stadium is the key landmark by which people judge and remember the whole olympic games (...lets face it so many of the sports are so riddled with drugs that few people take the competition seriously!) In my mind I can visualise Barcelona, the roof of the stadium at Athens and the Bird's Nest in Bejing. Atlanta and Sydney hold no memories and are hence easily easily forgettable.


Maybe _you_ forgot them but Sydney hosted what are widely regarded as the best Olympics ever. :bash:

Shows how irrelevent having a monumental stadium is, doesn't it?


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

^^ in the anglo saxon, BBC, CNN world, yes, Sydney was the best.

For everyone else Barcelona was better. Why? One world. *Style.*


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

weird, how the hell can that stadium cost so much.....


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

whats the point of this? how is london 2012 responsible if people were stupid and naive enough to believe that a temporary 80,000 seat venue as stated in the initial proposal would look like that. It was there to win the bid and any city is allowed to produce these sorts of renders as long as they stick to what the text says in the bid book. You can't compare reality to imagination.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Reaper-strain said:


> ^^ in the anglo saxon, BBC, CNN world, yes, Sydney was the best.
> 
> For everyone else Barcelona was better. Why? One world. *Style.*


I don't live in the anglo saxon world.
Sydney was overall the better Games. Barcelona was the overall better project perhaps in terms of changing the city. and then there was athens.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

london and chicago have set the standard for major olympic stadia, dont be surpised to see temporary venues in 2020 and 2024, how each city chooses to present this proposal will be different and each stadium will have its own quirks but many stadia in the future will use this approach


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Reaper-strain said:


> ^^ in the anglo saxon, BBC, CNN world, yes, Sydney was the best.
> 
> For everyone else Barcelona was better. Why? One world. *Style.*


Firstly, don't pretend to speak for everyone who isn't from an English speaking country. It doesn't wash and is rather condescending.

I'll rephrase my post just for you: Sydney hosted one of the best Olympics ever with a stadium that wasn't really memorable. I have no reason to believe London won't do the same.

If you disagree that Sydney hosted a great games (maybe not the best in your opinion, which you're obviously entitled to have), I'm sorry, I can't really help you and we'll have to agree to disagree.

From my point of view though, if London is as good as Sydney I'll be over the moon.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> Firstly, don't pretend to speak for everyone who isn't from an English speaking country. It doesn't wash.
> 
> I'll rephrase my post just for you: Sydney hosted one of the best Olympics ever with an stadium that wasn't really memorable. I have no reason to believe London won't do the same.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt it will be better than Sydney and Beijing.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

ch1le said:


> weird, how the hell can that stadium cost so much.....


The reason the stadium costs so much is because 'too many people have their fingers in the pie' so to speak with all national projects that are located in London - essentially corruption!

Look at Wembley for example, that cost the best part of 1 Billion GBP for a 90,000 seater stadium where as 150km down the road Cardifff built a stadium of similar quality seating 80,000 for only 150million GBP. 

All national projects in London suffer from the same problem - the millenium dome which became a national joke cost 1 Billion GBP for what is essentially a large PVC covered tent!

The one thing London hosting the olympics will do is expose this current ineptitude to the whole international community, which can only be a good thing in my opinion!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I take it you won't be enjoying the party in 2012 then?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> The reason the stadium costs so much is because 'too many people have their fingers in the pie' so to speak with all national projects that are located in London - essentially corruption!
> 
> Look at Wembley for example, that cost the best part of 1 Billion GBP for a 90,000 seater stadium where as 150km down the road Cardifff built a stadium of similar quality seating 80,000 for only 150million GBP.
> 
> ...


I really do agree but that last paragraph stinks with bitterness. A quick visit to the Manchester threads will see the same sort. What you say in the first 3 paragraphs is correct.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

I think people in the UK have a right to be bitter about this - we'll be paying for it, you won't!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> I think people in the UK have a right to be bitter about this - we'll be paying for it, you won't!


Correct, but how would it be different if the Birmingham or Manchester bid was successful?


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

I think either city would try and make an effort to impress with the deisgn of the key stadium - i'm no great fan of Manchester but when they hosted the commonwealth games their main stadium at least had some memorable level of architectural merit. 

The Olympics is meant to be the greatest show on earth! What London is currently proposing is on a par with a generic Championship football ground that graces countless third tier small towns across the country! Quite embarassing really!


----------



## Sbz2ifc (Apr 16, 2006)

I think the old design was much better, even if I wasn't a big fan of it. The new design is quite boring.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Reaper-strain said:


> What I don't like about you is you are a dangerous combination of 1/denial that your flagship stadium is anything else but a disaster, (whether it be that the roof only covers two thirds of the spectators or the design itself is offensively bland) 2/ pretention, 'it that clear enough for you' :lol: who are you to decide if the stadium is a success or not for all of us? :lol: 'It has nothing to do with Architecture'?? Just an over patriotic Brit who treats other's opinions with natural pretension and lack of charm. 3/ You are politically correct. You toe the official line like Sabastian Coe's rat poodle and you do it in such a determined way that makes others with different opinions feel sick at the sight of your many, yet always predictable and bizarre mantras on how this stadium has nothing to do with architecture.
> 
> If I could ever meet you face to face I would try and recite this speech for you by Malcolm McDowell replacing the name Roundtree with your own:


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Awwwww!

I really got to you, didn't I?

Listen, mate, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You're quite happy to throw your own opinions around like confetti but appear unable to allow others the same freedom of expression without you bleating like a new born lamb!

Bless!

And for you info, a couple of answers to your points:

1. I never said that the stadium was a success. I merely highlighted the absurdity of the notion that the most important thing about any Olympics was the main stadium.

2. I'm in denial that the stadium is a disaster? Well, yes. That's true. I am in denial. It isn't a disaster. It is bland, uninspiring and unoriginal. But a disaster? No. A disaster would be a stadium that was structurally unsound; or a stadium that was unfit for its purpose; or a stadium that failed to meet the specific requirements of its brief (namely, in this case, that it should be easily dismantled). So try going easy on the hyperbole, eh?

3.


> ......this stadium has nothing to do with architecture.


Well, no wonder you're having such difficulty grasping the main elements of the argument! Now, if you substituted the words "the Olympics" for "this stadium" and "little" for "nothing", then you'd be up to speed. Okay?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

mr.x said:


> well, how's this for an Olympic Stadium?.....cuz this is Vancouver's in 2010:


well that depends if the roof doesnt pop again.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

If people in London have such low aspirations and are satisfied for their city to be represented in front of an expectant global audience by a cheap looking temporary shed with zero architectural individuality that will form the primary focus then I am somewhat suprised.

However I don't think it should come as a great suprise that most of the watching world will be somewhat unexcited and underwhelmed by the resulting event of what will be the equivalent of a 'no frills' or 'Tesco Value' Olympics!


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> Biased or not I think you will find given the poll results my views appear to be in the majority.


Err.......

If the only discussion at hand was that the first stadium design was better than the final design then, true, you wouldn't have many dissenters. But your views have nothing to do with the poll! Your views, as expressed in this thread, are mere bitter, chip-on-shoulder outbursts about London in general.



> ...to hold the olympics, the so called 'greatest show on earth' in one when every other country pulls out all the stops is somewhat of an embarassment!


What stops, exactly, did Barcelona pull out? They merely tidied up an existing and unremarkable stadium. And guess what? It was still a fantastic Olympics. Yes, even with a bland stadium! Go figure.....



> The whole sustainability and legacy argument is also a complete red herring. If for example we are so concerned about our carbon footprint why not just use Wembley or the Emirates with a temporary running track installed?


Because neither stadium, in athletics mode, would have sufficient capacity to meet IOC requirements. Next...



> The only reason we are building this temporary olympic stadium is to line certain peoples pockets - looking at how cheap that design is I'd be suprised if there was little more than about 100million GBP of actual construction costs involved. With a 500 million GBP price tag that makes it about 400 million GBP that will be siphoned off - of course that's before the costs esculate like they did for Wembley and the Dome! hno:


Ah, there's nothing like a good conspiracy theory, is there? On with the deerstalker and off you go, in search of clues...


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> If people in London have such low aspirations and are satisfied for their city to be represented in front of an expectant global audience by a cheap looking temporary shed with zero architectural individuality that will form the primary focus then I am somewhat suprised.
> 
> However I don't think it should come as a great suprise that most of the watching world will be somewhat unexcited and underwhelmed by the resulting event of what will be the equivalent of a 'no frills' or 'Tesco Value' Olympics!


Mind the chip!


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

rob_right said:


> If people in London have such low aspirations and are satisfied for their city to be represented in front of an expectant global audience by a cheap looking temporary shed with zero architectural individuality that will form the primary focus then I am somewhat suprised.
> 
> However I don't think it should come as a great suprise that most of the watching world will be somewhat unexcited and underwhelmed by the resulting event of what will be the equivalent of a 'no frills' or 'Tesco Value' Olympics!


Good god man have a listen to yourself! Take your head out from your arse and start thinking before you post! The last paragraph in particular is so cringeworthy it's ridiculous.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Barcelona 1992 had a beautiful stylish stadium with a classical facade at the summit of Montjuic, it had a vast piazza leading up to it lined by the magnificent Font Mágica fountains and next door to the imposing Palau Nacional home to the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya. It sits upon the rooftop of Barcelona the most stylish city in Europe. Take a trip there one day the place is simply magical!

London 2012 however will be housed in a temporary shed amidst the backdrop of council tower blocks and industrial warehouses that is Stratford - i don't somehow think it will hold the same romantic vision in my heart!:lol:


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

oops


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> If people in London have such low aspirations and are satisfied for their city to be represented in front of an expectant global audience by a cheap looking temporary shed with zero architectural individuality that will form the primary focus then I am somewhat suprised.
> 
> However I don't think it should come as a great suprise that most of the watching world will be somewhat unexcited and underwhelmed by the resulting event of what will be the equivalent of a 'no frills' or 'Tesco Value' Olympics!


I form part of the global audience and the largest urban park in 150 years is blood amazing. Along with all its venues. Please stop swimming in your own bitterness.


----------



## MasonicStage™ (Dec 30, 2006)

old definitely!


----------



## Booze (Jun 19, 2003)

The new stadium couldn't be more boring :S


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> I form part of the global audience and the largest urban park in 150 years is blood amazing. Along with all its venues. Please stop swimming in your own bitterness.


I also form part of that global audience and a large area of grassland with an uninspired temporary shed in the middle doesn't quite inspire me! 

Although of course how silly of me, it's the 'Legacy' that should inspire me - ie a 25,000 seater shed with no roof occupied by a lower division third rate football team like Leyton Orient - fantastic, this will be the best games ever! ::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> I also form part of that global audience and a large area of grassland with an uninspired temporary shed in the middle doesn't quite inspire me!
> 
> Although of course how silly of me, it's the 'Legacy' that should inspire me - ie a 25,000 seater shed with no roof occupied by a lower division third rate football team like Leyton Orient - fantastic, this will be the best games ever! ::banana::banana::banana:


when ure 8 years old and there is no athletics facility near stratford and you're living in a major city, that 25,000 seat facility counts, when theres no 50m pool that can host FINA event or that can be used by the public after the games..that counts. the legacy was always athletics and the price is obscene, london doesnt need an icon and if they can trim that price then they have achieved what was set out in the bid book 2 years ago, an athletics legacy

these will be the best games ever and they will also be the best after games ever, with your support or without, there are 9 other olympic park venues that will make a statement.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> when ure 8 years old and there is no athletics facility near stratford and you're living in a major city, that 25,000 seat facility counts, when theres no 50m pool that can host FINA event or that can be used by the public after the games..that counts. the legacy was always athletics and the price is obscene, london doesnt need an icon and if they can trim that price then they have achieved what was set out in the bid book 2 years ago, an athletics legacy
> 
> these will be the best games ever and they will also be the best after games ever, with your support or without, there are 9 other olympic park venues that will make a statement.


So effectively you're telling me that the great legacy of the games will be the equivalent of a local leisure centre for the price of 10billion GBP! Bearing in mind that if a lower league football side takes over the ground the athletics track may even get ripped up or will at least be inaccessible during match days. 

Given that the UK's national transport infrastructure is falling apart and ranks along side many third world countries in parts due to lack of investment, please excuse me if I don't join in the celebrations!hno:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> So effectively you're telling me that the great legacy of the games will be the equivalent of a local leisure centre for the price of 10billion GBP! Bearing in mind that if a lower league football side takes over the ground the athletics track may even get ripped up or will at least be inaccessible during match days.
> 
> Given that the UK's national transport infrastructure is falling apart and ranks along side many third world countries in parts due to lack of investment, please excuse me if I don't join in the celebrations!hno:



the benefits of the games extend beyond this leisure centre and if u cant see that then theres no point in debating, if im not mistaken you referred to these games as heading down the same road as Atlanta. I wish you well in Birmingham and I do wish you visit London in 2012.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

I don't think either of us will change our viewpoints, so I agree that it serves no purpose to continue the debate.

My final point however is that I fail to see how London will benefit from hosting these games? For an up and coming city like Barcelona or Bejing it's an opportunity to really impress the world and put yourself firmly on the map. For an established city like London that already occupies this position peoples expectations will be sky high! For it to then go ahead and host an uninspired, unimaginative and half hearted effort that falls well below expected standards is a considerable risk and can only cause damage to the reputation of London in my opinion. I truly believe on current performance that they may come to regret their decision to host it!

Anyway best of luck with the World Cup in 2010, I visit Cape Town quite regularly as I'm involved with some work at a hospital in Vergelegen. Cape Town is a beautiful city and truly will be a venue that wows the world!:cheers:


----------



## Ton-Tille (Aug 19, 2007)

Old, because it is much more unique than the new


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

all this whining is quite sad.


----------



## patroeski (Jul 8, 2005)

I prefer the old one but the colour should be white. The new one looks very alike with the Ernst Happel Stadium:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ben77 said:


> I don't mind the new design, i'm not to bothered about its looks as long as it does the job. London should be left with some pretty good facilities after the games that it currently does have (velodrome, aquatics centre etc).
> 
> But what i can't understand is how a temporary structure in place for 3 weeks is costing 450 million. And i wander if this stadium was built to be permanent would it actually cost anymore?


i couldn't agree more. while costs in south africa are lower, a 70,000 seat permanent stadium will be built for a third of the cost one year before the london stadium needs to be complete..allianz arena cost 3.2m euros this temporary structure will cost 7.5m...am i missing something?


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

It's amazing how so many people seem unable to grasp a simple concept these days.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> As for the whole London World Athletics Championships fiasco in 2005, if London is such an amazingly wealthy and powerful city, why could it not come up with private funding or the city authorities come up with an alternative plan? It was after all the name of London that was being dragged through the mud and it's reputation being undermined. There is no way of getting away from it, London bid to host a games and then London incompetently failed to deliver!


Okay. I'll be kind and assume that you are just congenitally dimwitted and can't help yourself.

So, with great forbearance, I will repeat one more time for you:

The only institutions involved in the bid for the 2005 world athletics championships were UK Athletics and central government.

Between them, they were the ones who organized and drove the bid forward - not London or any London institution. Between them, they were the ones who passed on the opportunity to use Wembley - not London or any London institution. Between them, they were the ones who decided, instead, to build a new stadium at Picketts Lock - not London or any London institution. Between them, they were the ones who failed to carry out a proper costing of the stadium and its requirements before successfully bidding - not London or any London institution. Between them, they were the ones who pulled the plug on the whole thing - not London or any London institution.

As to why London couldn't come up with private funding - why the hell should private individuals or companies fund UK Athletics? They weren't the ones who made promises to the IAAF. Why should they bale out those who had - to the tune of more than £100 million, no less? You are quite staggeringly naive if you believe that such a solution was ever likely.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> I really don't understand the conceopt of London's 2012 Olympics.


It might take a few years to realise but the hub of London's games will be a brand-spanking-new 500 acre park. We will be turning this:










into this:










THAT, is the main concept of the London 2012 Olympics. A huge new urban park, cleaning up old industrial land and leaving a legacy for East London.

If that doesn't impress you, you're very hard to impress!



> Firstly, the logo is the worst ever in the olympic history! Now, this new stadium doesn't show any upgrade to the olympic heritage in terms of architecture.
> 
> Beijing seems to do it better since they got the games in 2001.


Well, that's easy to say as Beijing has most of its new venues completed whilst London's Olympic Park is still wasteland. 

Whether you like the stadium or not, the London Olympics will have a huge amount of impressive venues and architecture both within the Olympic Park (aquatics centre, velodrome, the bridge design) and outside of it (Wembley, Lords, the Dome, Wimbledon, Eton Dorney, ExCel etc.)

London's venue list will be one of the best in Olympic history. Again, if you don't think that's a good enough concept for the continued heritage of the Olympic movement, then your standards are way too high as most cities could only dream of matching this, including Beijing.

London's concept for the Olympics is incredible: a 500-acre Olympic park with brand new venues leaving a lasting legacy to East London, combined with venues dripping with sporting history both inside and outside the capital. No recent Olympics can match this. It is a great concept. 

I hope that clears some things up for you Olympiaki-Agones and I really hope you enjoy watching the games in a few years. It'd be great if you came to London in 2012! :happy:


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

The problem London has and this would have been true to any of the 2012 Candidate cities, is that its after Beijing's Olympics. China is going to pour money into its games, and build whatever is needed to such an extravagant level, in order to show off its country to a huge international audience. Although London's Olympic stadium is not fantastic, I expect to get something to the similar standard of Beijings stadium, the UK would have to pay close to the £1 billion mark. Which I am glad we are not (yet). However we shall have lots of other great 2012 venues like the acquatic centre, the Dome and Wimbledon. I'm sure London shall put on a great show, just hopefully it won't rain all summer like it did this year!!!


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

JimB said:


> Okay. I'll be kind and assume that you are just congenitally dimwitted and can't help yourself.
> 
> So, with great forbearance, I will repeat one more time for you:
> 
> ...


I think you'll find I'm not the person having to resort to personal insults, so thanks for your assistance in reinforcing the strength of my argument!

All your explanation serves to illustrate is the complex of red tape and petty politics that has accompanied all recent major projects in London. Rather than being a 'can-do city' that get things done, the powers that be prefer to allow their own ego's and self interests to take priority, grossly inflating costs whilst they're at it. So much so in this case that they were humiliatingly forced to hand the event over to a rival city Helsinki!

The facts are inescapable - London was awarded the 2005 World Athletics Championships, London failed to deliver and they were held in Helsinki!

I hope Helsinki have still kept their running track, as it might be unexpectedly required in the summer of 2012!!:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

you really are a comedian aren't you? FYI, the Olympic Stadium will be started three months ahead of schedule.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> I think you'll find I'm not the person having to resort to personal insults, so thanks for your assistance in reinforcing the strength of my argument!
> 
> All your explanation serves to illustrate is the complex of red tape and petty politics that has accompanied all recent major projects in London. Rather than being a 'can-do city' that get things done, the powers that be prefer to allow their own ego's and self interests to take priority, grossly inflating costs whilst they're at it. So much so in this case that they were humiliatingly forced to hand the event over to a rival city Helsinki!
> 
> ...


that last line wreaks of bitterness


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Given what was submitted to the IOC during the bidding process appears to have been a little 'sexed-up' to say the least, and the London 2012 organising committee now seem to be taking a much more cautious approach to deliver a 'no frills' olympics to wow the world in 2012.

Hence the stadium design changed from this;










into this:











Do you think therefore it may be within the realms of possibility that although they promised this great urban park legacy during the bidding process.










We may in fact get somthing a little more conservative but of course highly 'sustainable' if not a little overpriced looking like this?:nuts:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

That particular render was drawn up a year AFTER we'd won the bid, after the final masterplan was confirmed in detail a year or so ago. It wasn't part of the conceptual drawings shown during the bid. 

It is therefore, like the new stadium rendering, what we'll see on the ground in 2012.

But then again, you'd know that if you'd followed the progress of London 2012 closely like many of us have.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> Given what was submitted to the IOC during the bidding process appears to have been a little 'sexed-up' to say the least, and the London 2012 organising committee now seem to be taking a much more cautious approach to deliver a 'no frills' olympics to wow the world in 2012.


the bidding process is always sexed up. whats new? thats how bids are won.


sydney did not bid with its final stadium design, beijing had a different design during its bid, final designs are usually only finalized once the bid is won unless its an existing venue.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

The new one is understated and cheap looking. I like it.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> I think you'll find I'm not the person having to resort to personal insults, so thanks for your assistance in reinforcing the strength of my argument!


It wasn't a gratuitous insult. Rather, it was an observation. And an entirely justifiable one at that - as this latest post of yours proves. It has been explained to you on a number of occasions who was responsible for the 2005 fiasco. It has been explained to you that no specifically London institution was responsible. But still you are too pig headed to see it or to accept the facts. And all for no other reason than that you are manically obsessed by and have a debilitating inferiority complex about London.



> All your explanation serves to illustrate is the complex of red tape and petty politics that has accompanied all recent major projects in London. Rather than being a 'can-do city' that get things done, *the powers that be prefer to allow their own ego's and self interests to take priority*, grossly inflating costs whilst they're at it. So much so in this case that they were humiliatingly forced to hand the event over to a rival city Helsinki!


The "powers that be" in this case being central government and UK Athletics - both of which are national institutions, not London institutions. As to another recent, major project in London, the parties involved were the FA, central government (again) and the contractors, Multiplex (which isn't even a British company!). There's a pattern developing here - yes, once again, none of the guilty parties were London institutions.

By contrast, if London institutions are left to their own devices, without political and outside interference, they are quite capable of delivering world class buildings to exact specifications and on time and on budget. Case in point: the Emirates stadium.

So is there a conclusion to be drawn? I believe that there is. The problem only occurs whenever you involve central government in major construction projects. The whole process becomes political. It takes an age before any decision is made. And when it is made, it invariably involves an unsatisfactory compromise. All of which leads to delays and massive cost overruns.

This isn't a London problem. This is a problem for all of UK sport - and the attitude that central government takes to its funding.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

JimB said:


> It wasn't a gratuitous insult. Rather, it was an observation. And an entirely justifiable one at that - as this latest post of yours proves. It has been explained to you on a number of occasions who was responsible for the 2005 fiasco. It has been explained to you that no specifically London institution was responsible. But still you are too pig headed to see it or to accept the facts. And all for no other reason than that you are manically obsessed by and have a debilitating inferiority complex about London.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just like the challenge of meeting deadlines on a stadium project in south africa is not an african problem but it happens all over the world.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

rob_right said:


> *Given that the UK's national transport infrastructure is falling apart and ranks along side many third world countries in parts due to lack of investment, please excuse me if I don't join in the celebrations!hno*:


Falling apart is it? There is nothing like exaggeration in our country is there. Have you been to third world countries? Do you actually understand what you are saying?


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

rob_right said:


> Yes, going on the attack is generally a sure sign that you're losing an argument!
> 
> Unfortunately it's not just Brummies criticising this stadium - no amount of spin or PR will hide the fact that this is a poor, underwhelming design lacking any architectural merit that will generally be considered sub standard in comparison to the stadia of previous host cities! People can clearly see it for themselves.
> 
> ...



Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham....yada...yada....yada...This is all great for Birmingham, and we all wish it well. It is a pity you cannot do the same for London. I lived in Birmingham once, and it's streets are not paved with gold...I can personally attest to this. Please stop boring us with your bitterness. London proves it can deliver everyday, and it's hosted two Olympics before. Why do I not go into detail in my arguments...because I simply do not need to. The bid, and London's abilities speak for themselves. Sure it is perfectly fine to criticise, but you are blinded by huge brutalist brummy chip shops residing on dodgy foundations on your shoulders.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

mr.x said:


> That's a poor comparison. Former Stadium Australia had 110,000 seats for the Olympics. After reconfiguration in 2001, it was downsized to 84,000 seats.
> 
> The London Stadium is completely different - quite a bit more downsizing, from 80,000 to 25,000 seats.


I was commenting on your quote about the Sydney 'wings' -or did that one go over your head?


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

JimB said:


> By contrast, if London institutions are left to their own devices, without political and outside interference, they are quite capable of delivering world class buildings to exact specifications and on time and on budget. Case in point: the Emirates stadium.
> 
> So is there a conclusion to be drawn? I believe that there is. The problem only occurs whenever you involve central government in major construction projects. The whole process becomes political. It takes an age before any decision is made. And when it is made, it invariably involves an unsatisfactory compromise. All of which leads to delays and massive cost overruns.
> 
> This isn't a London problem. This is a problem for all of UK sport - and the attitude that central government takes to its funding.


Unfortunately there is a great big hole in your argument. Emirates Stadium was NOT delivered by London or it's authorities, but soley by a private business called Arsenal FC! I'm not aware of Emirates being a local community facility in public ownership, although please correct me if i'm wrong? 

Emirates stadium demonstrates that if competent management is in place the true costs of delivering a major project in London does not need to be grossly inflated above that of what it would cost to build in the rest of the country - which further illustrates the sheer incompetence we have seen with the delivery of the World Athletics 2005, the Dome, Wembley and now London 2012.

As for saying "...well yes, London delivered an Olympics in 1908 and 1948..." that's just laughable! Yes Britain ruled half of the world the last time London staged an Olympics! Anyway having done a bit of research it would appear that London 1908 and 1948 were hardly what you'd call a roaring success either. http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/06/24/olympics_history_feature.shtml Love the fact in 1948 the IOC asked all the competitors to bring their own meals with them! Are the London 2012 organising committee planning the same this time around given their desire to see a 'sustainable' no frills olympics!? :lol::lol::lol: Like it or not cities such as Birmingham and Manchester, a fraction of London's size, have built up a solid track record for delivering - London's recent history is the fiasco of the 2005 World Athletics so the jury is still out!

As for all the accusations of bitterness - well not really, as I'm actually remarkably pleased! Birmingham has ambitions to host the World Outdoor Athletics Championships, as it's already successfully hosted the World and European Indoors in the last four years. If London had built a permanent 80,000 seater athletics stadium, i'm sure as is normally the case it will try and muscle Birmingham out of the way. However if all you'll be left with from your great olympic legacy is a small 25,000 seater stadium this will not satisfy the requirements of the IAAF. So a 55,000 seater City of Birmingham Stadium could therefore become the UK's top athletics venue and have a clear run in any bidding process. I hope you will agree fantastic news, although you can't help but feel that London has missed an opportunity!:yes:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

This was always the intention. You act as though you're shocked.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> As for all the accusations of bitterness - well not really, as I'm actually remarkably pleased! Birmingham has ambitions to host the World Outdoor Athletics Championships, as it's already successfully hosted the World and European Indoors in the last four years. If London had built a permanent 80,000 seater athletics stadium, i'm sure as is normally the case it will try and muscle Birmingham out of the way. However if all you'll be left with from your great olympic legacy is a small 25,000 seater stadium this will not satisfy the requirements of the IAAF. So a 55,000 seater City of Birmingham Stadium could therefore become the UK's top athletics venue and have a clear run in any bidding process. I hope you will agree fantastic news, although you can't help but feel that London has missed an opportunity!:yes:


not satisfy the IAAF? lol

Birmingham lol. London won the bid to be the home of the national stadium, Birmingham bid too..Birmingham also had its chance to bid for the olympic games.

Thats why London has Wembley, its 90,000 seat permanent venue, London doesn't need another one. Why would it want to sit with an 80,000 seat athletics venue after the games? To host one IAAF event every 10 years?
Why doesn't Melbourne not just leave a permanent track at the MCG?


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

London will be investing nearly 10billion GBP in sporting facilities and infrastructure for the Olympics in 2012 yet Birmingham has the opportunity to end up with the UK's best stadium for hosting athletics and the only stadium capable of satisfying IAAF requirements for a world championships with an investment of maybe 100 to 150 million GBP!

Great opportunity for Birmingham - shame London will miss out because of a lack of joined up thinking!:banana:


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

Didn't Birmingham try and bid for an Olympics once?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

DarJoLe said:


> Didn't Birmingham try and bid for an Olympics once?


yip for 1996 and then Manchester had its chance for 2000.


----------



## lucas-sgo (Nov 13, 2007)

http://www.panoramio.com/user/16634/tags/santiago del estero&comments_page=1&photos_page=1


----------



## lucas-sgo (Nov 13, 2007)

visiten mi página web. es www.lukas-sgo.blogspot.com


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> yip for 1996 and then Manchester had its chance for 2000.


Birmingham actually made a bid for the 1992 Olympics that were eventually held in Barcelona when Juan Antonio Samaranch (...from Barcelona!) was in charge of the IOC - can't really argue with the final result though as the games they hosted really were magical in my mind and truely 'the best games ever' - that would have taken some beating!

The problem with the Birmingham bid in 1992 was that central government based in London refused to underwrite the bid financially - an absolute requirement of the IOC, so it was always dead in the water. Unsurprisingly central government were subsequently quite happy to underwrite the bids for Manchester 1996 and 2000 and London 2012!...ever wondered why so many Brummies don't support projects in London?

That said, the IOC must have been impressed with somthing as they held their world congress in Birmingham in 1991 when Nagano was awarded the 1998 Winter Olympics ahead of Salt Lake City.

Birmingham also went forward and built a number of the venues it had proposed as part of the bid such as the National Indoor Arena which has been a great success, hosting everything from the Eurovision Song Contest to the recent hosting of the World and European Indoor Athletics Championships.

Birmingham has seen huge amounts of redevelopment since the 1992 Olympic bid and is now well placed to secure the World Athletics Championships. I'd much rather wow the world with the 'best ever' World Athletics Championships than hold the Olympics and deliver a sub-standard event that falls well below peoples expectations!


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

rob_right said:


> Birmingham has seen huge amounts of redevelopment since the 1992 Olympic bid


And yet they still moan.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> Birmingham actually made a bid for the 1992 Olympics that were eventually held in Barcelona when Juan Antonio Samaranch (...from Barcelona!) was in charge of the IOC - can't really argue with the final result though as the games they hosted really were magical in my mind and truely 'the best games ever' - that would have taken some beating!
> 
> The problem with the Birmingham bid in 1992 was that central government based in London refused to underwrite the bid financially - an absolute requirement of the IOC, so it was always dead in the water. Unsurprisingly central government were subsequently quite happy to underwrite the bids for Manchester 1996 and 2000 and London 2012!...ever wondered why so many Brummies don't support projects in London?
> 
> ...


Yes 1992 and not 1996. Thanks

You're really hooked on the whole sub-standard event and what peoples expectations are before any venue has risen from the ground and 5 years before 2012. London 2012 will be the best Olympic games ever staged and any premonitions you think you have about a "sub-standard" event is not going to change that.

Its fantastic what Brum has achieved with its facilities. This is London's chance.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> I'd much rather wow the world with the 'best ever' World Athletics Championships than hold the Olympics and deliver a sub-standard event that falls well below peoples expectations!


hno: Sad, very sad.

I think, whether they like the stadium design or not (which is what this thread was originally about), everyone here can see your motives for posting on this forum are anything but objective.

Your sniping is rather pathetic to be perfectly honest. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

RobH said:


> hno: Sad, very sad.
> 
> I think, whether they like the stadium design or not (which is what this thread was originally about), everyone here can see your motives for posting on this forum are anything but objective.
> 
> Your sniping is rather pathetic to be perfectly honest. I feel sorry for you.


Yes, I make no secret of my allegiances, but I have backed up my views with verifiable facts from which people can form their own objective opinions. The only reason this thread went off topic in the first place is because I dared to criticise the stadium design and instead of constructive debate was met with a whole barrage of insults about my home city of Birmingham - hopefully I've managed to enlighten a few people and put the record straight!

Anyway back on topic of the stadium design. London 2012 is following Bejing 2008 - no easy task for any city! Yes Bejing will be the biggest and best and throw vast amounts of money at everything to make a brash statement to the world that it is now a power to be reckoned with - how does any city follow that? 

My expectations were that if London had any sense it would host an event which was on maybe a lesser scale, but made up for this by being that little bit more subtle, stylish, innovative and just plain clever! The original stadium renders live up to these expectations and were that little bit querky, that little bit different and would have acted as a real icon for the whole event. The new renders offer none of that - they lack imagination and the materials used will make it look just plain cheap! Good innovative architecture doesn't have to vastly inflate costs. My apologies for using an example from Birmingham again, but the iconic Selfridges building was constructed for about 60 million GBP, almost the same price as constucting a simple box shaped building and I know which one I would prefer.

Like it or not the stadium design will define the games and the London 2012 organising team seem to have made a major error of judgement with this one! They could have easily got away with cheap temporary designs for the ancillary venues such as the velodrome or the aquatics centre - these venues are rarely featured or remembered, but not the main stadium which forms the centrepoint.

I'll leave you with this thought - close your eyes and ask yourself what are your perceptions of the forthcoming Bejing Olympics in 2008? When I do the single image that comes to my mind is the imposing Birds Nest stadium and from that single image I know that Bejing means business and really expect it to put on a show. Do the same for London 2012 - I honestly see nothing!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Do the same for Sydney....very hard to picture their stadium isn't it? Yet they put on a hugely successful games, one that Beijing with their imposing and memorable stadium will do very well to match.

London's games will not succeed or fail based on the stadium design. Fine, you don't like it, but that doesn't mean we'll put on a substandard games (as you keep stupidly insisting), just as Beijing having a monumental stadium doesn't guarantee them a successful games.

Like it or not, the stadium design DOESN'T define a games. It's one aspect of a hugely complex operaration. Sydney was miles better than Athens yet their main stadium design was inferior and hardly memorable. That fact alone blows your argument out of the water.


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

I'd rather have an iconic and world class aquatic centre and velodrome which are going to be there for decades than money being poured into a stadium that will be there for a month.



rob_right said:


> Like it or not the stadium design will define the games


I hope so! If everyone remembers the London games for being the ones that were the greenest, most sustainable and not coated in faux-nationalistic gestures but went back to what the Olympic sis really about - sport - then that's fine by me.


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

RobH said:


> just as Beijing having a monumental stadium doesn't guarantee them a successful games.


Exactly! As I posted somewhere else both Athens and Beijing's stadiums have design faults which impend athletes because they are of an iconic design.

London's won't impede athletes records because it is designed to give them 100%. Iconic design isn't the overriding factor in how the temporary stadium is designed, just as it should be with London's sustainable 'only building what is needed' Games.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> The original stadium renders live up to these expectations and were that little bit querky


Those renders were always just a concept and not a design. Just like the organice temporary arena's in the park and the "shell" looking fencing venue and the "green roofed" velodrome and the bland looking olympic village. none of them were designs and neither was the olympic stadium. 

london's park will be amazing, its network of paths and each cm planned. and its this vision and future success of london 2012 that eats at you the most and not the olympic stadium design.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

I think the new design will be a refreshing contrast to the Beijing stadium.


----------



## De Snor (Jul 28, 2002)

The 1st one was more original but I do prefer the 2nd , it is slender, more attractive.
Is the 2nd the final one ?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes. The new design is what we'll see built. The fabric "wrap" design (i.e. the bit with the athletes on) might be different come 2012 but the stadium will essentially be what's in those renders otherwise.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

Not much of a change but I say the new one.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

DarJoLe said:


> I'd rather have an iconic and world class aquatic centre and velodrome which are going to be there for decades than money being poured into a stadium that will be there for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so! If everyone remembers the London games for being the ones that were the greenest, most sustainable and not coated in faux-nationalistic gestures but went back to what the Olympic sis really about - sport - then that's fine by me.


I don't think you can really describe the building of a temporary 80,000 seater stadium that will be only used for 2 weeks as 'green'.:lol:


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

rob, please think carefully:

Only two thirds of the stadium is covered by a roof. Therefore 1/3 of the spectators will get soaked in the rare occurrence of rain in the UK summer. This third that get wet, some may get colds. What color is snot? *Green.*


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> We won the Olympics because we promised that the Games would regenerate one of the most deprived areas in the UK not because of flashy renders we used for the bid.Everyone knew that final designs will look different.
> Youre talking crap Coth - as always.


Really?? I thought you won it because someone got confused in the IOC vote! lol


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Red85 said:


> the main venue. eternal sin


Which will be used for a month.Only.Seriously why spend loads of many on a temporary stadium?Unlike China we dont need to send any 'messages' to the world.We dont need to prove anything to anyone.Etc.
The stadiums great - functional elegant and fresh.




Reaper-strain said:


> Really?? I thought you won it because someone got confused in the IOC vote! lol


Yes youre very funny.Carry on.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Red85 said:


> old, by nautical miles. why change it anyways. what a bullcrap. *I think realy it is breaking promises by doing this*. but yeah, the games where going over budget and this is where they found a subject to lower costs. the main venue. eternal sin


The original design of the stadium was not a promise.

It was only ever a concept. The IOC knew that perfectly well.

And, in this respect, London's bid was no different to the vast majority of other winning cities' bids.


----------



## Juanl (Jan 2, 2007)

Wel I see Chicago's jumped on the legacy bandwagon. Apparently their 80000 seater will be reduced to a 5000 seater. Hilarious. Lies. All lies. And the IOC falls for it.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Who's lied?


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

I suppose London has lied because it isn't building exactly how the park looked in the 2005 bid, down to the location of each of the trees.

Never mind refining the masterplan after winning the Games to increase security and allow for a better legacy for the local community. Seriously, you all honestly thought the park would actually look exactly like this in 2012?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Is this White Post Lane/Carpenters Road?










Seems like Kings Yard and Queens Yard are going then...


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

That's the A12.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

JimB said:


> The original design of the stadium was not a promise.
> 
> It was only ever a concept. The IOC knew that perfectly well.
> 
> And, in this respect, London's bid was no different to the vast majority of other winning cities' bids.


unfortunatley dude try telling that to the muppets on here but cos it's london it gets the extra attention but then again i think it's just jealousy cos london is the sporting capital of the world.(get ready for the snipes)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

That's maybe a bit harsh Marrio. Most people don't necessarily follow these things all that closely and won't have known London's stadium design was certain to change. They may also not know that the IOC was perfectly aware of this as well.

Ignorance (not meant derogatorily) of the process rather than petty spite and jealousy has led to accusations of broken promises for the most part.

It just needs explaining, that's all.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

DarJoLe said:


> I suppose London has lied because it isn't building exactly how the park looked in the 2005 bid, down to the location of each of the trees.
> 
> Never mind refining the masterplan after winning the Games to increase security and allow for a better legacy for the local community. Seriously, you all honestly thought the park would actually look exactly like this in 2012?


i suppose some people believed that the velodrome, temporary arena(s) and hockey stadium design concepts would also remain. They all follow the same theme and are therefore concepts just like the previous Olympic stadium concept. concept not design.


----------



## Juanl (Jan 2, 2007)

The lies refer to the breaking down of the London Stadium. It's not going to happen. You'll see. And if it does, at most it'll only be to fifty thousand. They'll do the numbers. The IAAF's bound to say something. I mean after Paris and Berlin in Europe where do you go? Helsinki? Rome? All crap. And as for knocking the Chicago stadium down to a five thousand seater? What a load of... The dust that settles will be greater than the seats left.


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

Reaper-strain said:


> Really?? I thought you won it because someone got confused in the IOC vote! lol


Yeah apparently some Greek idiot accidentally voted for the wrong city. That Greek spaz must have been dropped on his head when he was a kid lol to be that thick. How did he get that job? lol.



Bull shit.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

RobH said:


> That's maybe a bit harsh Marrio. Most people don't necessarily follow these things all that closely and won't have known London's stadium design was certain to change. They may also not know that the IOC was perfectly aware of this as well.
> 
> Ignorance (not meant derogatorily) of the process rather than petty spite and jealousy has led to accusations of broken promises for the most part.
> 
> It just needs explaining, that's all.


yeah i hear what your saying but if people are going to have a discussion about it then they should first know what they are talking about.at least read into the bid a bit more


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Newcastle Guy said:


> Yeah apparently some Greek idiot accidentally voted for the wrong city. That Greek spaz must have been dropped on his head when he was a kid lol to be that thick. How did he get that job? lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.


there was no mistake.

IOC Reiterates Voting Details For Host City Of The XXX Olympiad

27 December 2005
Following media speculation with regard to a possible error having been committed in the third and penultimate round of the election of the Host City of the Games of the XXX Olympiad, the International Olympic Committee has reiterated the facts of that round of voting:


* 104 voting boxes were distributed to the members eligible to vote (this does not include the IOC President, who chooses not to vote).
* 103 votes were cast.
* One IOC member did not vote.
* No abstentions were recorded, no votes were voided.
* The result of the vote was:
o London 39
o Paris 33
o Madrid 31.
* Having the least number of votes, Madrid was eliminated.
* Even if the 104th vote had been cast, it is mathematically impossible that it could have changed the outcome of the third round of voting i.e. even if the 104th vote had been cast for Madrid, that city would still have been eliminated, having one vote less than Paris, leaving Paris and London in the final round.

In accordance with the IOC's transparent process, full voting details were made available to media attending the IOC's 117th Session in Singapore.


----------



## Wendy is here! (Jul 25, 2007)

*This will cost $0.5 Billion!*

Back to the topic...!

The original cenceptual design was far more inspiring than the one we are stuck with now!

It seems to me that rather than going for a contemporary or even forward-thinking design, we have in fact gone backwards. I can't but notice that the overall design has leanings towards Coliseum and amphitheatre type buildings. Even the construction, whilst using modern materials, are decidedly staid. There's also a hint of industrialism to it; gas or water tower anyone?

Whilst I applaude the sustainable aspects of the design, it appears that the architects and/or committee have just suddenly stopped at this stage, without further development. As a result they've come up with a half-hearted, old and lazy design. Then again, that's what happens when you leave Design to a committee. Whatever happened to the architectural competition? What a shambles.

People are defending this scheme because of it's so-called sustainable credentials. What they don't seem to realise is that this is only one aspect of building design. It's not the be-all-and-end-all!!! The rest of the design is sadly lacking in substance. Don't forget this will supposedly cost HALF A BILLION POUNDS! So what do they intend on doing with the majority of the budget then? It clearly hasn't gone into the design nor the construction!

Just browsing through the various architecture journals and construction industry publications, the majority tend to share the same view point:

"After all that waiting, it's difficult not to feel disappointment... It will probably be serviceable for the Games, but it is NOT good value for money or sustainable, and could be an even bigger white elephant than the Dome." - Amanda Baillieu - Building Design - editor.

Another picture caption notes: "Great from the air, but what about the ground view?" hno:


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Wendy is here! said:


> Back to the topic...!
> 
> The original cenceptual design was far more inspiring than the one we are stuck with now!
> 
> ...


Agree entirely! From the ground all you will see is one of those cheap temporary canvasses over a scaffold - the type you see on building sites to cover up the ugliness that exists behind. Hardly a source of inspiration for an Olympic games!hno:


----------



## Wendy is here! (Jul 25, 2007)

rob_right said:


> Agree entirely! From the ground all you will see is one of those cheap temporary canvasses over a scaffold - the type you see on building sites to cover up the ugliness that exists behind. Hardly a source of inspiration for an Olympic games!hno:


Exactly, this is one of the reasons why the design is just 'lazy'! 

As someone mentioned, this is definitely NOT value for money! I mean the thing cost half a billion pounds! And as far as I can see from the scheme, there is nothing groundbreaking about the damn thing! Everything employed is 'tried and tested' - There are no structural innovations, just standard use of concrete and a simple structural steel frame. This no doubt will help with it's deconstruction after the Games, but again, this concept is nothing special, the idea of a temporary, demountable and down-scaled structural has been done before, it's old hat. The only difference is that this is on a larger scale. Again, this is no excuse for it's high cost! Rather, it's just a lesson in logistics!


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Just to put this into context of what half a billion pounds (500 million GBP) should buy you in terms of a stadium in the UK, here are a few examples of recent projects - however bear in mind these are permanent stadiums so in theory a temporary stadium should be a whole lot cheaper!

Millenium Stadium Cardiff (has a fully retractable roof!)
Completed: 1999
Capacity: 74,500
Cost: 126 million GBP










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium_Stadium


City of Manchester Stadium 
Completed: 2002
Capacity: 48,000
Cost: 110 million GBP









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_manchester_stadium


Sunderland Stadium of Light
Completed: 1997
Capacity: 49,000
Cost: 34 million GBP










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_of_Light

I can't believe even supporters of London 2012 would attempt to justify this - they should be up in arms! It's hardly any suprise that the UK gets fobbed off and ripped off with such uninspiring crap if there is then a whole band of people who sing it's praises and attempt to justify it!hno:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> I can't believe even supporters of London 2012 would attempt to justify this - they should be up in arms! It's hardly any suprise that the UK gets fobbed off and ripped off with such uninspiring crap if there is then a whole band of people who sing it's praises and attempt to justify it!hno:


Try not to be such a bitter, chippy plonker all your life.

No one has been singing the praises of the new design. Rather, they have simply been saying that it isn't the disaster that you claim it is and that it won't ruin the entire Olympics, as you imply that it will.

Incidentally, your comparisons are not genuine comparisons at all.

Built anything from 10 to 15 years earlier than the Olympic stadium, of course the Stadium of Light, the Millenium stadium and the City of Manchester stadium were cheaper. Do you know and understand anything about inflation? Building costs have soared over the past ten years.

Furthermore, those stadia were built in Sunderland, Cardiff and Manchester respectively - where building costs are half those in London.

And all three stadia have smaller capacities than the Olympic stadium (much smaller in the case of Manchester and Sunderland) and the Stadium of Light, in particular, was built to a very low quality, cheap finish.

Lastly, the Olympic stadium also includes the costs of dismantling and the costs of building permanent athletics facilities.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

maybe i should design a flashy permanent totally unsustainable 80,000 seat olympic athletics stadium.


----------



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

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=1570


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


>


For all that this stadium is very average from the outside, I quite like the inside.

Very clean and unfussy - an effect that is accentuated by the translucent roof.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, I agree. It actually looks very much like Athens' stadium from the inside.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I like the little VIP ring on the right.
What cap will it have 80 000 or something?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

80,000 yep


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

JimB - the reason this stadium is so unfussy on the inside is because it has no facilities!! No refreshments, no toilets and for many spectators no roof!

Anyway, I give you London 2012's amazing 500 million GBP Olympic Stadium, surrounded by it's multi billion pound legacy Olympic park
















As opposed to this disused gasometer surrounded by a tatty bit of grassland.:lol:


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

What´s that with the colours? Please not another ´Gaudi´stadium... Happy okay, but don´t overdo it.

The outside is pretty ugly by the way, if you compare that to the drawings they first came up with, that was something else.
Sorry it gives me the feeling of a circustent.

Inside is pretty okay mop.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> JimB - the reason this stadium is so unfussy on the inside is because it has no facilities!! No refreshments, no toilets and for many spectators no roof!
> 
> Anyway, I give you London 2012's amazing 500 million GBP Olympic Stadium, surrounded by it's multi billion pound legacy Olympic park
> 
> ...


and you claim that you aren't bitter. lol.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

RobH said:


> Yes, I agree. It actually looks very much like Athens' stadium from the inside.


Give the London Stadium more credit than that..Its a LOT better than Athens from the inside.


----------



## Artemis (Jul 2, 2006)

What are these "bubbles" around the stadium use for? _toiletts, kiosks?_


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

yes


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ArtHabitat3 said:


> What are these "bubbles" around the stadium use for? _toiletts, kiosks?_


they are called pods.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> and you claim that you aren't bitter. lol.


Yes Mo, i'm now eaten up inside with bitterness! So much so, that all of them kind words about my frequent visits to Cape Town were in fact hiding a certain key fact - the place is so dangerous that I never leave my hotel! Table Mountain may look stunning in the sunshine, but I've never been brave enough to go anywhere near it for fear of being robbed or stabbed! With crime at that sort of level, mix in a few en-ger-land soccer thugs and we should be in for one hell of a party in 2010!:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## somataki (Aug 10, 2005)

ExSydney said:


> Give the London Stadium more credit than that..Its a LOT better than Athens from the inside.


OF COURSE, u are kidding:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

ExSydney said:


> Give the London Stadium more credit than that..Its a LOT better than Athens from the inside.


:lol:



Mo Rush said:


> athens got a spectacular roof.


And,,,


























































ect ect


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Reaper-strain said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol. so unecessary but so typical and so expected. we were only talking about the olympic stadium as the thread title suggests. its ok to get carried away i suppose.


----------



## potiz81 (Aug 9, 2005)

ExSydney said:


> Give the London Stadium more credit than that..Its a LOT better than Athens from the inside.


:nuts::nuts::nuts:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

rob_right said:


> Yes Mo, i'm now eaten up inside with bitterness! So much so, that all of them kind words about my frequent visits to Cape Town were in fact hiding a certain key fact - the place is so dangerous that I never leave my hotel! Table Mountain may look stunning in the sunshine, but I've never been brave enough to go anywhere near it for fear of being robbed or stabbed! With crime at that sort of level, mix in a few en-ger-land soccer thugs and we should be in for one hell of a party in 2010!:lol::lol::lol:


I am not going to fall for that bate and I don't believe that you have visited Cape Town.

For such a horrible place the thousands of UK tourists who visit it each year seem to disagree. Consistently ranked in the top ten of world best destinations. I am not even going to try and understand whats in your head or heart that firstly, has you rubbishing London 2012 as "sub-standard" and secondly has resulted in you needing to rubbish Cape Town to avoid the reality that you that London 2012might actually be a success. Unfortunately, I am not insecure about Cape Town as I know exactly what it is and what it is not and I don't feel threatened by your pathetic attempt since our tourism figures speak for them self.


This thread is about the Olympic Stadium and London 2012, and you've hit a dead end and decided to rubbish Cape Town. Your need to rubbish London with images of a gasometer and describing the regeneration of East London as a "tatty bit of grassland" says a whole lot about you, and while it may not be eating you up inside London 2012 has certainly struck a chord inside of you.
Without resolving that, I don't think anybody would be able to have a meaningful debate with you. I do hope that you are happy sitting in Brum at home while Cape Town and London are host cities to the world's two largest sporting events in 2010 and 2012 respectively.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Reaper - why are you posting pictures of various Athens 04 Olympic venues - pretty though they may be?

This is a thread about the main London Olympic stadium. Okay, so someone likened the interior of Athen's main stadium to London's. It would therefore be quite reasonable to post comparative pictures, if you wish, to counter such a claim.

But pictures of every other Athens 04 venue? Oh, really!

Just meaningless in the context of this thread. And a rather foolish attempt on your part to score weasly little points. Especially since London will have myriad great Olympic venues other than the main stadium (including Wembley, Wimbledon and Lords - a trio of iconic sporting venues that no other city in the world, and certainly not Athens, could beat - as well as Eton Dorney rowing lake, the O2 arena, the new velodrome, the new aquatics centre and Horse guards parade). All that in addition to the biggest new urban park in Europe for 150 years.

So back to topic. I don't actually agree that the interior of London's stadium is similar to Athens' (though there isn't that much to choose between them in terms of the two tiers of seating) - mainly because Calatrava's roof is a far more dramatic backdrop.

However - and it's interesting that none of London's detractors have responded yet to this point (because they can't, perhaps?) - London's interior is superior to Athens' in one crucial respect. You might even say that it is THE most crucial respect. It is superior in that, unlike Athens, it is designed with the athletes and athletics in mind. Unlike Athens, the London Olympic stadium will not be a confusion of whirlwinds and eddies careering all over the stadium. London's roof, as undramatic and unexciting as it is, is designed to minimize the sort of turbulence that Calatrava's design created and, by so doing, helping the athletes to perform in the best possible environment.

It's a shame that you would rather have an Olympics memorable for a stadium with a fancy roof than an Olympics memorable for record breaking races and field events.

I guess it's just a matter of priorities. Seems to me that you've got yours all mixed up with your championing of style over function. Nothing wrong with style, of course. But surely it should serve function?

Ho hum.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> JimB - the reason this stadium is so unfussy on the inside is because it has no facilities!! No refreshments, no toilets and for many spectators no roof!


Duh!

Yes, because toilets and refreshment bars are ALWAYS situated inside the main bowl of the stadium and are ALWAYS on view from the seats!

:nuts::weird:

Really, if you haven't understood what's been written, it's best not to respond.

There's a good lad.


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

1/ Learn to read, someone campared the roof, another said all athens had was the roof, i responded to both. That's just reality.

2/ ''a confusion of whirlwinds and eddies careering all over the stadium'' This will not happen in London so therefore more records broken? How about most the athletes are on drugs and there is no such thing as a clean record unless you have faith in stupidity and naivety. 

3/ Everyone wants to see drug fueled records?? LOL What about the spectators not getting pissed on while watching the actual events because the roof in London will only cover 2/3 of the seats? You think that will be a nice experience? Grow up.


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)

JimB said:


> All that in addition to the biggest new urban park in Europe for 150 years.


This isnt right. The biggest Park to be ready in 2012 is the Hellenic Metropolitan Park in Athens which will be 530 hectares big.



JimB said:


> Unlike Athens, the London Olympic stadium will not be a confusion of whirlwinds and eddies careering all over the stadium. London's roof, as undramatic and unexciting as it is, is designed to minimize the sort of turbulence that Calatrava's design created and, by so doing, helping the athletes to perform in the best possible environment.


With all the respect but you are talking bollocks!

As for the Olympic Stadium of London. I liked the old better. Sure the new one is a decent stadium, no question about that and i am sure that the atmosphaire in the stadium will be fantastic not because of the design but because of the fans.

Still i dont like this "coffee to go" concept for the Olympic Stadium. Why? because those are the Olympic Games. And the Olympic Stadium is of an extreme importance. It would have been such a great opportunity for london to built a new London Olympic Stadium.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Reaper-strain said:


> 1/ Learn to read, someone campared the roof, another said all athens had was the roof, i responded to both. That's just reality.


Originally Posted by x-boy View Post
why change the design??
because it has nothing to do with the Olympics, it seems like a stadium constructed for a circus or something else, a big drum!! Beijing has a stadium that is already becoming an icon for all China, in 2004 Athens got a spectacular stadium by Calatrava, don't you think that London deserves something more special than this shit???
Originally Posted by Mo Rush
athens got a spectacular roof.

--I was merely correcting his statement that Calatrava gave Athens a spectacular stadium. Calatrava simply gave the stadium a spectacular roof. There was no reference to other venues or other designs and since Beijing and London's olympic stadium was the subject I thought you would have understood the response.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Reaper-strain said:


> 1/ Learn to read, someone campared the roof, another said all athens had was the roof, i responded to both. That's just reality.


I can read perfectly well, thanks very much. I suggest that you, however, develop the ability to understand what people have written. The person who wrote about the roof was clearly referring to the fact that only the roof of Athens' stadium was entirely new and that the main body of the stadium was merely tarted up. That person made no implication whatsoever that Athens 04 had built no other worthwhile venues. You simply misunderstood, inferred it to be a slight and, with complete loss of control, couldn't help shooting off your load.



> 2/ ''a confusion of whirlwinds and eddies careering all over the stadium'' This will not happen in London so therefore more records broken? How about most the athletes are on drugs and there is no such thing as a clean record unless you have faith in stupidity and naivety.
> 
> 3/ Everyone wants to see drug fueled records?? LOL What about the spectators not getting pissed on while watching the actual events because the roof in London will only cover 2/3 of the seats? You think that will be a nice experience? Grow up.


Since you seem to have such a low opinion of the Olympics and since you apparently don't care one iota for sport, it's a wonder that you should give a damn about the quality of any arena where these drug fuelled, worthless people cavort about.

Hypocrisy on your part? Surely not!

Incidentally, it is enlightening that, yet again, you fail to answer the crucial point about the wind turbulence created by Athens' dramatic roof. Style over function - instead of serving function.

As to London's roof only covering two thirds of the spectators, I agree - not good enough and I don't know why it has been designed thus. I would be interested to discover what justification for it, if any, the architects come up with.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Reaper-strain said:


> 3/ Everyone wants to see drug fueled records?? LOL What about the spectators not getting pissed on while watching the actual events because the roof in London will only cover 2/3 of the seats? You think that will be a nice experience? Grow up.


Are you implying that Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004 had Olympic stadia with roof structures that ensured cover for all spectators?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

savas said:


> > This isnt right. The biggest Park to be ready in 2012 is the Hellenic Metropolitan Park in Athens which will be 530 hectares big.
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Hellenic Metropolitan Park will be built on the site of the former Athens international airport - outside Athens or, at least, in the outskirts of the City. As such, it is rather different to Stratford, which is very much an urban park, in its truest sense. However, the Hellenic Metropolitan park will be a fantastic new outlet for Athenians.
> ...


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> I am not going to fall for that bate and I don't believe that you have visited Cape Town.
> 
> For such a horrible place the thousands of UK tourists who visit it each year seem to disagree. Consistently ranked in the top ten of world best destinations. I am not even going to try and understand whats in your head or heart that firstly, has you rubbishing London 2012 as "sub-standard" and secondly has resulted in you needing to rubbish Cape Town to avoid the reality that you that London 2012might actually be a success. Unfortunately, I am not insecure about Cape Town as I know exactly what it is and what it is not and I don't feel threatened by your pathetic attempt since our tourism figures speak for them self.
> 
> ...


Mate, rob right can protest his innocence until he is blue in the face but everyone else on this thread can clearly see the truth.

He is a deeply bitter and twisted brummie with a massive chip on his shoulder.

Pity him.


----------



## savas (Apr 10, 2005)

The Hellenikon Metropolitan Park will be built on the site of the former Athens International Airport, which was the Hellenikon Olympic Complex during the 2004 Games and is in Athens at the seafront. But enough with Athens..

I understand the practical aspect of the Olympic Stadium for London. And the Olympic Park will be (as far we can see from the renderings) fantastic. I just say that an Olympic Stadium is also a matter of prestige and it would have been great for London to have an Olympic Stadium which would be equal in an architectural point of view (after the Games) with Montreal, Munich, Beijing or Athens.

Still the new design is ok and as i already said its a decent solution, even if quite expensive


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

savas said:


> The Hellenikon Metropolitan Park will be built on the site of the former Athens International Airport, which was the Hellenikon Olympic Complex during the 2004 Games and is in Athens at the seafront. But enough with Athens..
> 
> I understand the practical aspect of the Olympic Stadium for London. And the Olympic Park will be (as far we can see from the renderings) fantastic. I just say that an Olympic Stadium is also a matter of prestige and it would have been great for London to have an Olympic Stadium which would be equal in an architectural point of view (after the Games) with Montreal, Munich, Beijing or Athens.
> 
> Still the new design is ok and as i already said its a decent solution, even if quite expensive


Yes it does feel as if there was absolutely no attempt by the architects to make some sort of statement in terms of design other than its functionality. I do hope that the choice of roof material and the choice of stadium facade will enhance the concept.


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

JimB said:


> savas said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Hellenic Metropolitan Park will be built on the site of the former Athens international airport - outside Athens or, at least, in the outskirts of the City. As such, it is rather different to Stratford, which is very much an urban park, in its truest sense. However, the Hellenic Metropolitan park will be a fantastic new outlet for Athenians.
> ...


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

My opinion is that reducing to 25 000 is absolutely the right thing to do. Almost all previous atheletics venues from the olympics are 'athletics white elephants'. Never or very rarely being used for that purpose by meaningful numbers of people again. They become sub-standard football venues, their continued existence only serves to block development of quality football stadia in that city, football being one of the only sports in the world (outside us) that requires a permanent venue on this scale. Atheltics certainly does not, in London or anywhere else. I don't want to single out Athens, but they are stuck with 1 large venue which is substandard for its only genuine use, football. 

Saying that London's venue gets:

environment 10/10
practicality 10/10
architecturally 4/10

surely for the amounts of money being quoted we could expect something with all 3 aspects at least 8,9 or 10?


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Thought it was worth posting the latest render for the London 2012 aquatics centre so that people can see how the other venues will wow the world with their iconic plastic sheeting architecture. Bejing must be devastated they will be followed by this!:lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, because as we've said so many times, the Olympics are ALL about architecture aren't they?! Who cares what's right for the athletes, what's right for London etc. :nuts:

I'd rather have the original design for the Aquatics Centre (the stadium is a different matter, I prefer the new one) but that clearly isn't possible for whatever reason and this one will work perfectly fine as a swimming venue. Glib comments comparing Beijing's and London's preparations do nothing to lessen that fact.

Besides, as has been pointed out to you countless times, competing with Beijing with regard to new venues would be a mug's game unless you're happy for the budget to be closer to £20bn. You'd whine a hell of a lot more if that was the case! Mind you, saying that, at least our venues will be visible from a distance; based on the photos I've seen much of the Olympics in Beijing will be viewed through a cloud of smog. I hope they sort that in the next year, I really do.

On top of that, Beijing has nothing to compare to the likes of Wembley Stadium, Wimbledon, Lords, the O2 Arena, Eton Dorney etc. And the famous old football grounds across the country including your own city's Villa Park, Old Trafford, Hampden etc. It doesn't have the backdrop of a city everyone in the world recognises instantly (though that may change after 2008, who knows).

London's games will be great, there is nothing I've seen to suggest otherwise. If a bit of temporary seating in a few venues (not the prettiest temporary seating in the Aquatics centre, granted) is enough to put you off, then you're not a real sports fan anyway and your opinion counts for little in my eyes.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> Yes, because as we've said so many times, the Olympics are ALL about architecture aren't they?! Who cares what's right for the athletes, what's right for London etc. :nuts:
> 
> I'd rather have the original design for the Aquatics Centre (the stadium is a different matter, I prefer the new one) but that clearly isn't possible for whatever reason and this one will work perfectly fine as a swimming venue. Glib comments comparing Beijing's and London's preparations do nothing to lessen that fact.
> 
> ...


nobody moaned when Sydney 2000 used a large chunk of temporary seating at its aquatic centre almost identical to this system.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

The new one just looks so cheap.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> Saying that London's venue gets:
> 
> environment 10/10


I know this is what the London 2012 organising committee would like us to all believe, but please think about this for yourself for a moment - they are constructing a temporary 80,000 seater that will only be used for one month. They have not given any specific details regarding re-use, so one can only assume that it will eventually go to land fill after the games?

The London 2012 concept is in fact a DISPOSABLE STADIUM! Like disposable nappies and disposable carrier bags, exactly the sort of environmental thinking the planet could do without!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I hope they can find a tenant, though even if they don't we need a better athletics stadium than Crystal Palace in the capital anyway and this will be it. It will be used by the community, by local athletics clubs and by elite athletes as well.

Comparing 55,000 detracable seats to carrier bags and disposable nappies (!) really does show how far you're scraping the barrel in this argument. London will try to sell on those seats to another country who want a cheap, ready made, RE-USABLE (not disposable) stadium.


----------



## Loranga (Apr 24, 2003)

Will there be any Speedway races at it?


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

rob_right said:


> I know this is what the London 2012 organising committee would like us to all believe, but please think about this for yourself for a moment - they are constructing a temporary 80,000 seater that will only be used for one month. They have not given any specific details regarding re-use, so one can only assume that it will eventually go to land fill after the games?
> 
> The London 2012 concept is in fact a DISPOSABLE STADIUM! Like disposable nappies and disposable carrier bags, exactly the sort of environmental thinking the planet could do without!


Of course spending money, energy and resources maintaining a 80 000 stadium that is rarely used, is excellent for the environment. :bash: I'm not from london and no rose-spectacled fan of the london olympics, but your posts on this subject come across as tedious rants. If you are going to criticize, at least try and be logical, constructive and/or sensible, people might take you more seriously.


----------



## rob_right (Jun 8, 2007)

Nice try Marrio, but not really the greatest of wind-ups, as most of your points have already been answered!

However just a quick summary;

1) London 2012 was only successful in it's bid due to the highly competent hosting of the Birmingham 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships and the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Prior to this London couldn't be trusted as it had cocked up the 2005 World Athletics Championships so badly they had to be held Helsinki!

2) "St Andrews football ground in Birmingham is a dump" - agree 100%!!! (I'm also a Villa fan so make that 200%!!) A disgraceful venue that looks set to be demolished and replaced with a brand new sparkling 55,000 seater permanent Athletics facility capable of hosting an IAAF World Outdoors Championship - somthing that will surpass any athletics venue in London following more than 10billion GBP investment in the Olympics!

No need for me to even try and wind you up - just stating the simple facts seems to be doing the trick!:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

if it wasnt for brum london would never host any event.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

rob_right said:


> 1) London 2012 was only successful in it's bid due to the highly competent hosting of the Birmingham 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships and the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Prior to this London couldn't be trusted as it had cocked up the 2005 World Athletics Championships so badly they had to be held Helsinki!


And still you are too obtuse to understand the fact that the parties responsible for the failure of the 2005 World Athletics bid were both national bodies - the NATIONAL government and UK (that is, the WHOLE of the UK) Athletics. If you persist with being so dim witted, small minded and chippy (and everyone else on this thread can see that that is exactly what you are), there really is no point continuing any discussion with you.



> 2) "St Andrews football ground in Birmingham is a dump" - agree 100%!!! (I'm also a Villa fan so make that 200%!!) A disgraceful venue that looks set to be demolished and replaced with a brand new sparkling 55,000 seater permanent Athletics facility capable of hosting an IAAF World Outdoors Championship - somthing that will surpass any athletics venue in London following more than 10billion GBP investment in the Olympics!


I've been to Villa Park on many occasions and, to be honest, it's a bit of a dump too. At least, both stands that I've been in - the Witton Lane (Doug Ellis) stand and North stand - are of poor quality. As to Birmingham City's new 55K stadium, good for them. I'm glad that they're happy with the compromise they'll have to make. Personally, I wouldn't want a multi purpose stadium for my team.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> London 2012 was only successful in it's bid due to the highly competent hosting of the Birmingham 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships and the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Prior to this London couldn't be trusted as it had cocked up the 2005 World Athletics Championships so badly they had to be held Helsinki!


Tosh! These played a part but that is overexaggerating your case.

The IOC gave London the games based on many factors:


A beautiful Olympic Park seven minutes from the centre of London
An athletics venues designed for athletes
A great presentation promising to get the youth of the world involved
Iconic venues such as Wembley, Wimbldedon, Lords, the Dome etc.
London, the weekend before the vote, was organising 3 or 4 big events pretty much simultaneously. The IOC could see we were more than capable.
The sporting knowledge and enthusiasm of British crowds.
The fact that much of the Olympic Park land was already in the LDA's hands.

I'm sure there are more but as long as you keep insisting London _only_ won because of our friends up north (who as I've said, undoubtedly played a part; unlike you I'm not wanting to turn this into an inter-regional spat) your opinion will continue to be discredited.

London put forwards a fantastic bid but if you can't admit that then that's your problem.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

It is still far better to have a few showers than to have constant and unbearable sunshine, especially in terms of safety.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

rob_right said:


> Nice try Marrio, but not really the greatest of wind-ups, as most of your points have already been answered!
> 
> However just a quick summary;
> 
> ...


You haven't answered a single point dude your just a whinger hno:
And regards the 55,000 seater good am glad englands second city is getting that stadium it should have it.People from all over on here are saying great that brum is getting that stadium and so they should but you don't say that of london.Answer me this whats the real reason you don't like it and looking at most of your posts it is london your attacking so for me it is down to jealousy just because it's london.


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

JimB said:


> This from someone whose city states and country were built on a system of widespread slavery!
> 
> Arf!


Arf? What are you a dog? What city do you think i am from? I will give you a hint, I was born in St Mary's. :bash:

BTW, were not the Northern cities such as manchester built on cheap cotten production - cotton picked by slaves? When we were banning Slavery, were not the only Englishmen rioting, the Mancunians?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Reaper-strain said:


> Arf? What are you a dog? What city do you think i am from? I will give you a hint, I was born in St Mary's. :bash:
> 
> BTW, were not the Northern cities such as manchester built on cheap cotten production - cotton picked by slaves? When we were banning Slavery, were not the only Englishmen rioting, the Mancunians?


Awwww....bless!

You may have been born in St Mary's but you are, first and foremost, Greek at heart. Either that or you desperately want to be!

I didn't claim that Britain had an unblemished history.

I merely pointed out the irony of your risible post about how the Olympic stadium was nothing more than a reflection of the British class system (of all the crass posts ever to have appeared on this board, that surely has to take the biscuit!).


----------



## masterpaul (Jun 27, 2007)

SOLUTION: WEATHER MODIFICATION SOLUTION!!!! WAS DONE IN ATHENS


----------



## Reaper-strain (Jul 26, 2007)

JimB said:


> Awwww....bless!
> 
> You may have been born in St Mary's but you are, first and foremost, Greek at heart. Either that or you desperately want to be!
> 
> ...


Well lets see if what I said is true shall we? Will the uncovered seats be cheaper?
If you don't know, then I spose you should be more careful, no? Reality is never really crass, but political correctness is truly pathetic in any culture.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

New one. The old was interesting, but the old one won't look horribly dated.


----------



## skytrax (Nov 12, 2006)

The old one is unique, really nice design.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

The old one certainly looked better but I always saw two problems with it...

1. Looked too expensive given that no other tenant but athletics was likey to sue the stadium after the games.

2. Having the stadium as a major symbol of the games but then dowgrading it afterwards would hurt the legacy.

At least now it looks like we have a stadium that won't waste millions and force the symbols of the games to be perminant venues and parks.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

am i seeing double?


















veeerry similar


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I am seeing triple... Triple X and it ain´t even a good movie...hehehe


----------



## maybeitsbecause (Jul 16, 2006)

Those who are worried about the environmental effect of building the facilities for the 2012 games should consider that the preparation of the Olympic site will involve the decontamination of a large brownfield former industrial area, as well as the cleanup and improvement of local waterways, which is hard to fault in terms of positive environmental effects.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

From a purely architectural point of view, this new stadium is very disappointing. I am sure London will still be able to put a great show but the effort from an outsiders perspective just seems poor. its as if people in London just expect people to praise them just because they happen to be a historically important city, atleast architecturally that is the message I personally recieve. And if that truly is the perception, then maybe London should not have bid for the olympics as many other cities would be extremely greatfull for such an opportunity.


----------



## The_Big_O (Jun 5, 2006)

I think someone needs to get in touch with hoksport


----------



## DarJoLe (Sep 11, 2002)

Zaki said:


> From a purely architectural point of view, this new stadium is very disappointing. I am sure London will still be able to put a great show but the effort from an outsiders perspective just seems poor. its as if people in London just expect people to praise them just because they happen to be a historically important city, atleast architecturally that is the message I personally recieve. And if that truly is the perception, then maybe London should not have bid for the olympics as many other cities would be extremely greatfull for such an opportunity.


London doesn't need to prove anything. It doesn't need an Olympic architectural wankfest to put on the best sporting Games in history (unlike some other cities I could mention). The city speaks for itself.


----------



## gilas (Dec 21, 2005)

DarJoLe said:


> London doesn't need to prove anything. It doesn't need an Olympic architectural wankfest to put on the best sporting Games in history (unlike some other cities I could mention). The city speaks for itself.


Then why bid for the Olympics in the first place?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Yeah Leeds would have to be some of the most loyal fans going around! Their crowd average in league 1 would make alot of premiership sides jealous!


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

I seem to remember leeds getting well under 20k crowds while they were struggling in the championship, Forest on the other hand have had 20k average gates for 3 seasons now in the third tier


----------



## nazor (Oct 31, 2007)

looks like the new perth stadium is back on track (60'000) just waiting for the state government to decide on where its going to go. 

east perth: 










or subi:










THE green light was yesterday given to a new 60,000-seat multi-purpose stadium to be built in Perth.

The Western Australia Government and the AFL yesterday agreed to build a new stadium, primarily for football, which will have priority access rights.

The stadium's location will rest with the state government.

A working group including AFL executive Gillon McLachlan will convene next year to formalise a detailed agreement by March.

State Minister for Sport and Recreation John Kobelke said it was a win-win situation for both parties.

"Football wants to support the stadium and wants to support the (state) government in building a world-class facility," he said.

"This is an exciting new sports infrastructure initiative being developed for the benefit of the community. We are now a big step closer to providing government with the details it requires for consideration before committing to building the stadium."

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the AFL was committed to helping the WA Government build the new stadium.

"The AFL will consider how it could contribute financially to the stadium project and looks forward to fruitful discussions by the working party in the coming months," he said.

"The AFL will continue to work with the government to try to bring to life this project and ensure the football community and investment in community football benefits from a new 60,000-seat stadium."

Subiaco Oval, home of the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers, has a capacity of 43,486.

AFL - Australian Football League


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

nazor said:


> AFL - Australian Football League


I find the fact that we must explain what AFL is quite funny! :lol:

Nice looking stadium.


----------



## nazor (Oct 31, 2007)

Giorgio said:


> I find the fact that we must explain what AFL is quite funny! :lol:
> 
> Nice looking stadium.


ahaha so true! its "football" to so most of them probably think its soccer or rugby .... 

:lol:


----------



## Луиc (Oct 4, 2007)

English stadiums are just brutal!! in my opinion, the stadiums which have more personality.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

BeestonLad said:


> I seem to remember leeds getting well under 20k crowds while they were struggling in the championship, Forest on the other hand have had 20k average gates for 3 seasons now in the third tier


I think charging ridiculous prices for tickets may have had something to do with it as well.


----------



## TU 'cane (Dec 9, 2007)

Com caneco.. nice avatar dude lmao..


----------



## Луиc (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr.Giggles said:


> Com caneco.. nice avatar dude lmao..


^^ thanks


----------



## customadam (Feb 16, 2008)

The best arena is,

Galatasaray' s new stadium called Aslantepe - Lion Hill


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Not really. To copy a 12 year old stadium is quite poor.


----------



## renco (Dec 5, 2005)

I agree,really lame.


----------



## veronika (Sep 29, 2006)

I prefer Millennium to both Veltins and Amsterdam but that was not the question so I go for Veltins because it picked up on a few mistakes made by Amsterdam and because of retractable field. 
For the future, Gazprom Arena (Zenit new stadium) will be a big challenger to Millennium but its not possible to say until it is built which is why i disagree with the posts about Galatasary-they didnt even complete the foundations yet so you can only compare renderings which as we know are rarely very close to finished look and feel.


----------



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

Yes, There can be some changes at the GS stadium (+55 suites, more seats ...)


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Schalke over Ajax. 

Because the germans are the "master race"..... :runaway:


----------



## renco (Dec 5, 2005)

2005 said:


> Schalke over Ajax.
> 
> Because the germans are the "master race"..... :runaway:


whats wrong wuth that


----------



## kazetuner (Jan 27, 2008)

customadam said:


> The best arena is,
> 
> Galatasaray' s new stadium called Lion Hill


 good for you man , but this is a poll between amsterdam arena and veltnis.....

And I 'll vote for schalke's


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

I prefer Schalke Velstins!! 
The ambiance seem to be better for football!! And the retractable field is delighted like in japan!

But a threat seems coming somewhere in France :lol:


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

of the two, veltins
although i do like some of the big arenas in the usa like ford field more


----------



## mlm (Sep 11, 2002)

That's one good comparison, and I would mean I have a qualified bid, although I have only visited both stadiums once. It was though, a game saturday at Veltins Arena, and the day after in Amsterdam. Veltins were sold out (first game of Bundesleague 2002 vs. Wolfsburg), and Amsterdam Arena also quite full (Super Cup 2002, Ajax vs. PSV). 

Both stadiums are without doubt very nice, but if I have to choose I would go for Veltins as the best. It seems more compact, although it has room for more people, and I like the fact that the fans still have a chance to stand instead of be seated. It also seems more modern, and the idea with the field that can be "driven" (?) outside when not in use, is brilliant. The result is (or was atlest) a pretty good pitch all the time, compared to Amsterdam where they had a lot of problems keeping it in good condition. Only thing I prefere more at Amsterdam is the color of the seats, but that doesn't really matter much, and aren't seen anyway when full.

Well, just my thoughts...


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

That brilliant pitch idea was copied from Arnhem. Veltins is basically an improved and bigger version of both the Amsterdam Arena and the Gelredome but it lacks originality.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> That brilliant pitch idea was copied from Arnhem. Veltins is basically an improved and bigger version of both the Amsterdam Arena and the Gelredome but it lacks originality.


So what recently constructed stadium _would_ you consider as original? Isn't every stadium partly a copy of another stadium?


----------



## renco (Dec 5, 2005)

Quintana said:


> That brilliant pitch idea was copied from Arnhem. Veltins is basically an improved and bigger version of both the Amsterdam Arena and the Gelredome but it lacks originality.


But also its improved end better


----------



## Club_Dru (Jul 11, 2007)

Schalke is more modern so I think better. The Amsterdam Arena is from 1996. This year there were plans to build a new stadium in Amsterdam/Almere for bidding the WC 2018.

Gelredome Arnhem, the Netherlands built in 1998. It was the first in Europe with a retractable roof and a retractablef field. Capacity 30.000


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Joop20 said:


> So what recently constructed stadium _would_ you consider as original? Isn't every stadium partly a copy of another stadium?


Stade de France, Gelredome and St. Jakob Park, the new Valencia one will probably be the next. Most stadiums are indeed complete copies of previous ones and only once in a while you'll find stadiums that really have unique features (which are than copied by others soon).


----------



## soy chiva y que..... (Dec 18, 2007)

Axelferis said:


> I prefer Schalke Velstins!!
> The ambiance seem to be better for football!! And the retractable field is delighted like in japan!
> 
> But a threat seems coming somewhere in France :lol:
> ...


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

They are both ugly stadiums without real spirit. In that case the old stadiums these clubs had were better.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

*What is your favorite 2014 Stadium project?*

População = City´s Population
Estádio = Stadium´s Name
Capacidade = Full Capacity

1º. *Rio de Janeiro*










População: 6,15 milhões
Estádio: Maracanã
Capacidade: 86.100

2º. *Brasília*










População: 2,4 milhões
Estádio: Mané Garrincha
Capacidade: 76.232


3º. *São Paulo*










População: 11 milhões
Estádio: Morumbi
Capacidade: 66.952


4º. *Belo Horizonte*










População: 2,45 milhões
Estádio: Mineirão
Capacidade: 74.300


5º. *Natal*










População: 750.000
Estádio: Estrela dos Reis Magos
Capacidade: 65.100


6º. *Porto Alegre*










População: 1,45 milhões
Estádio: Beira Rio
Capacidade: 60.000


7º. *Fortaleza*










População: 3,4 milhões
Estádio: Castelão
Capacidade: 60.000


8º. *Recife*










População: 1,5 milhões
Estádio: Arena Recife-Olinda
Capacidade: 45.500


9º. *Maceió*










População: 922.000
Estádio: Arena Zagallo
Capacidade: 45.337


10º. *Campo Grande*










População: 770.000
Estádio: Morenão
Capacidade: 44.355


11º. *Salvador*










População: 2,7 milhões
Estádio: Arena da Bahia
Capacidade: 44.100


12º. *Belém*










População: 1,41 milhões
Estádio: Mangueirão
Capacidade: 43.788


13º. *Florianópolis*










População: 410.000
Estádio: Orlando Scarpelli
Capacidade: 41.700


14º. *Curitiba*










População: 1,8 milhões
Estádio: Arena da Baixada
Capacidade: 41.375


15º. *Rio Branco*










População: 310.000
Estádio: Arena da Floresta
Capacidade: 41.264


16º. *Manaus*










População: 1,65 milhões
Estádio: Vivaldão
Capacidade: 40.550


17º. *Goiânia*










População: 1,225 milhões
Estádio: Serra Dourada
Capacidade: 40.000


18º. *Cuiabá*










População: 545.000
Estádio: Verdão
Capacidade: 40.000


----------



## Anberlin (Aug 11, 2007)

Belém and Cuiabá


----------



## Mares de Morros_XXI (Dec 16, 2007)

Curitiba one!!
for sure!


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

None of them


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I have picked 7 or 8 stadiums for my favourite 2014 world cup venue. My least favourite is the Mane Garrincha stadium because iI hate its proposed renovations.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

Hed_Kandi said:


> None of them


why?


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

Actually some of them dont have a real project yest, like Manaus, Fortaleza and Belem. While the projects of Sao Paulo and Salvador are very poor and will have huge changes.


There are also some other plan B Stadiums. Like Gremio's Arena in Porto Alegre and Corinthians and Palmeiras' stadium in São Paulo.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

*What is your favorite Porto Alegre New Stadium Project?*

This is one of the most controvertial topic in Brazilian forum. There are two projects for the main teams of Porto Alegre. Gremio and Internacional. They both wants to host the WC with their stadium. now I want to know the international thoughts about both stadiums and urs favorite.

*Beira-Rio*
Capacidade: 60 mil pessoas
Projeto: Reforma e ampliação do atual estádio 





















































vídeo apresentado à FIFA












*Arena do Grêmio*
Capacidade: 51 mil pessoas




























vídeo


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

I like both. but the place where is Beira-rio is beautiful


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

So many have tracks around them...


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Can't both of them host the worldcup? Aren't up to two stadiums per city allowed to host WC matches?


----------



## speed_demon (Jun 2, 2007)

I liked much more the Gremio project. The architecture from the Internacional project look so "United Emirates", I dont think this kind of architecture combine with this Country and with the state of Rio Grande do Sul in particular, it really doesnt combine. 

In the derby of Rio Grande do Sul, my favorite team is Internacional but this time I´ll have to support Gremio with its project. kay:


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Natal looks flippin wild!


----------



## Vilak (Mar 31, 2006)

Both stadium are great. I personnaly prefer Veltins arena which is bigger, prettier and technologically better but I find Amsterdam being a very great stadium.
What are the errors made in amsterdam you are most of you talking?


----------



## the runner (Feb 20, 2005)

I think the area of the Amsterdam ArenA is much better. They build not only a new stadium but also mega shops, officetowers, new station and a big cinema. This year they will also start to build a 150 meter high residentialtower.









The new Arenatower


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

I like the new station (although not on this area picture, and other pictures here). I am also curious about other projects there such as the GETZ Entertainmentcenter and the 150m residential tower you named. The public space is also improving.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

The new station is great, the area surrounding the stadium... Well, let's just say I personally wouldn't want to be found dead over there. It is surely one of the most soulless, cold and dead places I've ever been at. I really pity the people that have to go to work there everyday.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Judging by the pics I have to go for Brasilia or Rio Branco. Overall it is very disappointing though.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

You can't compare the areas around the stadiums, because Amsterdam is the most important city of the country, Gelsenkirchen isn't at all.
The area around Veltins-Arena isn't even important for Gelsenkirchen.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

fortcali said:


> How many cities will be host? because I see like 18 is a lot, I know that Brazil have alot big cities, I think that are 12, how will choose, I don't know if I'm wrone but it is can be the big cities in Brazil
> Rio, Sao Paulo, Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, Belem Curitiba, Manaos.
> I like that Brasil will host the world cup.


It will have a cut for only 10 cities. Brazil is trying to convince FIFA that 12 venues is posible. Confirmed is already: Sao Paulo (opening), Rio de Janeiro (final), Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Salvador. The most probably other ones is Recife and Curitiba. The two last spots are open but will probably go to Fortaleza and Goiania. If more two venues be allowed, it will be Manaus and Belem.


----------



## skyboi (Mar 30, 2008)

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> I think Madrid will win the bid....hehehe.
> 
> I'm very glad that London won, becasue, for one thing, it pisses the Frenchies off that they have failed to get it again, and losing to England is also salt in the wound  but mainly, I am glad becasue I really like London's Olympic stadium, and the whole Olympic park complex looks amazing! I think it will be one of the best Olympics ever, and you know the Brits always create the best atmosphere!
> 
> ...


I didn't know that you hate the French that much ,no wonder French never like The British at all and I am not French but I feel bad by reading your comment about other people's dissapointment


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Some nice pics of the Veltins Arena


----------



## Elensar77 (Apr 24, 2008)

Of course schalke veltins arena...


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Got to be the Schalke arena. Pitch slides out (compared to Ajax's problematic pitch), greater capacity, seats are close to the pitch, and most importantly it has modern standing areas, something I wish more clubs could have.


----------



## mikeeagle (Jul 29, 2006)

I voted for Veltins Arena but I don't like the roof construction and the shadows it produces. I also think it's a big problem that it's not possible to expand the stadium without totally rebuilding the roof which would be immensely expensive. It would be hard to refinance. The stadium is always sold out showing that it's way too small for Schalke. It's the same problem with Allianz Arena and Bayern Munich. Both Clubs would be better of with 80k+ stadiums. 










Schalke attendances for Bundesliga games:

2005/06









2006/07









2007/08


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

only one thing i dont like about the arena aufschalke. why did they build 2 entrances above eachother on the second tier?? most ugly


----------



## Apostle (May 17, 2006)

I really hate the Amsterdam Arena so I voted for the Schalke stadium


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

mavn said:


> The Veltins Arena is better as it has learned from the mistakes that were made in Amsterdam. The Amsterdam Arena looks in my opinion better though... In dayllight it looks quite weird perhaps, but at night it looks awesome.


Blue is a beautiful colour)


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

Exterior : A'dam Arena is more impressive.
Interior : I go for the Arena auf Schalke. It has more football atmosphere than the A'dam Arena; the stands are closer to the pitch and the lower tier is larger than the upper tier which results in a more intense relation between players and fans. The only thing that is better in Amsterdam are the rounded corners, which make a more elegant bowl.


----------



## patroeski (Jul 8, 2005)

It would be more honest to put the Aslantepe Stadi against the Veltins Arena. In that case I would choose the turkisch one.


----------



## Delmat (May 2, 2007)

Veltins Arena kay:

but there's one thing I cannot forgive as a football fan.

On the last football WC in Germany the ball hit the video box in the middle of the stadium and the game was interrupted. (well, this is not handball or any other indoor game for this to happen) Although it's not such a big deal, it bothers me soo much  
So PLEASE remove the videobox so the goalkeepers can normaly kick the ball without hitting the box 

edit: or place it a bit higher


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

I don't like arenas at all, I don't like ajax at all, I actually loathe them. But if I have to choose I'd say the Amsterdam Arena, because it doesn't have a sponsor name in their name. **** commercialism ruining football. 

Also from an architectural point of view, the Amsterdam Arena enjoys a way more interesting constructional design. Veltins Arena looks cheaper and is like an ice hockey arena on steroids.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

Delmat said:


> On the last football WC in Germany the ball hit the video box in the middle of the stadium and the game was interrupted. (well, this is not handball or any other indoor game for this to happen) Although it's not such a big deal, it bothers me soo much
> So PLEASE remove the videobox so the goalkeepers can normaly kick the ball without hitting the box
> 
> edit: or place it a bit higher


This happened about 3 times since the opening (Oliver Kahn was the first,
I don't think that the video box is a problem


----------



## Portobello Red (Aug 1, 2007)




----------



## Portobello Red (Aug 1, 2007)




----------



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

If Englans gts WC 2018
than it could be possible that they have to "cut2 the first rows at OT, because they are too close to the pitch
+6m at the and +7,5m at the endzone stands

At least it was done at Dortmund west stadium


----------



## dudu24 (Mar 20, 2007)

They managed to **** up the kop at the end.. unfuckingbelievable


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

The more I see of the New Anfield the less sure I am that I like it. The exterior looks the business but purely judging by the pictures the interior looks a bit of a mess. Hopefully it is just due to unflattering renderings.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*Stadium Battles 001*

Which member of this family is your favourite?

*Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium










London Olympic Stadium










Bay Arena









*


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

Well, interesting idea. Bay Arena?? First time I learn about it, any more info, it looks interesting!

Anyway, judging from the renders and the relative threads, I would say Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Sorry London, I like that too, but the Indian looks more sophisticated


----------



## nachop666 (Dec 21, 2008)

more photos please


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

More up-to-date renders of London's stadium:














































And the most recent photo:


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

The renderings are not as accurate, it's far more top heavy than they visualize it. I actually like the real thing more than the CGI


----------



## herb21 (Aug 12, 2008)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=598146 has a similar style


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

BayArena: it's in Leverkusen, Germany and home of the first division club Bayer Leverkusen. Its capacity is about 30.00 viewers.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

None of them. Give my Ernst Happel Stadion any day of the week!


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

I just can't fathom why people are defending the London Olympic Stadium.

When you look at the previous venues (and the incredible Birds Nest, for example) by way of comparison, London are preparing a venue that looks temporary and prefabricated at best.

When I traveled past it recently I was filled with "Meh".

I can't believe they won the hosting rights on the back of this stadium.


----------



## gho (Oct 9, 2007)

This thread needs more pictures and more information (ie capacity, year built, main uses etc.)


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Ragarms said:


> I just can't fathom why people are defending the London Olympic Stadium.
> 
> When you look at the previous venues (and the incredible Birds Nest, for example) by way of comparison, London are preparing a venue that looks temporary and prefabricated at best.
> 
> ...


Well to be sure of the facts, it is designed to be temporary, Olympics capacity of 80,000 downsized to 25,000 post Olympics.
So the temporary and prefabrication is justifiable.

What isn't is however, was that their original stadium design was dramatic, even if it was mostly temporary, far superior to what they're constructing now. I guess the global economic crisis and cost concerns caused the design change. 










It fulfills it's purpose, if only the concessions and facade were better designed.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I would pick London Olympic Stadium, but in all honesty, I don't really like any of them.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

My preference in descending order:

Nehru Stadium
BayArena
London Olympic Stadium


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> I guess the global economic crisis and cost concerns caused the design change.


Nothing like that. The original design was a drawing shown to the IOC. It was never a final design and they were aware of that (as they would have been when Sydney and Beijing showed different designs during their presentations). The new design was unveiled in Novemeber 2007, months before the credit-crunch became a reality. The Olympic Village is the main project which was affected by the recession, with fewer apartments now being build and the whole thing being publically funded after it proved impossible for the contractor to raise the money needed.

Anyway, the original London stadium "design" (concept drawing is more accurate description) may have looked nicer from the outside but it was in fact vastly inferior to what we're getting. It would have cost a lot more for starters because of the intricacy of the 'design' of the roof. Secondly, the stands were split up into lots of free standing structures with _massive_ gaps between them which would have been awful for wind flow and terrible for crowd atmosphere within the stadium. Thirdly, it looked god-awful in legacy mode after it had been downsized with random stands and huge gaps everywhere. The real London stadium will be the best ever for spectators with the stands closer to the track and field than at any previous Olympic stadium. Trading off some aesthetic beauty in the original "design" for huge amounts of practical benifits in the new one is well, well worth it; trust me.



> I just can't fathom why people are defending the London Olympic Stadium.
> 
> When you look at the previous venues (and the incredible Birds Nest, for example) by way of comparison, London are preparing a venue that looks temporary and prefabricated at best.
> 
> ...


Ragarms, the London stadium looks "temporary and prefabricated" because two thirds of it _is_! And you ask why London won on the back of this stadium design...well, the truth, as I explained above, is it didn't. London didn't, like most previous host cities, have a stadium design in place before they won as it would have cost a lot to completely design a stadium which would have only been built in the event of London winning the bid! So it showed the IOC drawings.

London won the hosting rights on the promise of building a stadium which in legacy mode would provide an athletics facility for London, not on the basis of any particular set of stadium aesthetics. Many people in this forum miss this point when they go on about the old "designs" (concept drawings) or comparison with the (now sports-free and very expensive) Birds Nest. And the choice of Rio for 2016 with their Havelange Stadium - another stadium which doesn't stand up well in comparison to the Birds Nest in terms of impressive architecture - is another sign that the IOC don't care half as much as some people here about the exterior of the Olympic stadium.

London's stadium is very expensive; perhaps too expensive (it's being built in London and there was no real competition in the tendering process). I'll admit that. But costs aside, it does what it does _very well_ indeed which is why it's very easy to defend as an Olympic stadium, and as a piece of (mostly temporary) architecture.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

Edit: Ok we all know why LOS is special in it's own way, but I think the point of the thread is that all of them have many things in common.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course


----------

