New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan

[Phil Horatio]

Yeah, it does, but to me the Bernabeu looks much bigger.

I actually think the San Siro looks more "massive" if you know what I mean.. but the Bernabeu looks taller and more expansive, with the way those multitude of (smaller scale) tiers would create a kind of optical illusion to the eye that they will just keep on climbing!

I still held the belief that the San Siro had a capacity of a few thousand over 80k and the Bernabeu a few thousand under 80k, though it seems in very recent years the former has been truncated to under 81k and the latter been increased to 85k... Don't know how that slipped me by, as I love stadium trivia!

 

[DHSF]

Me too. You been on the tour mate? Well worth going on and its only ?ú10-15, an absolute bargain compared to some things these days. You get to see a lot more than I imagined you would, go in changing rooms, directors box. Got to see in Levys office, his carpet is ?ú2,000 a SQ FT, wouldnt mind sitting in there with a post game whisky.

Highlight is getting to sit in Arrys chair, you wouldnt believe how comfortable it is. Weird thing is you can barely see the pitch from there.

I hate sitting too low because you just cant get any sense of perspective. I dont know how Managers can see from there and get any perspective as to how the team and individual players are doing. I have sat in the west stand in the first row and fudgein hated it - I absolutely despised it. My seat is the last row on south stand upper and would not swap it for any seat.

 

[chicken_badge]

Still, Harry's got a better seat than Arsene. Can't see nuffink from where Whinger sits...

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Loughton, PD, THFCTD: Great job on the pics. Very informative views, esp. of the lighting racks. Looks like some sort of Dalek ritual - 'Illuminate. Illuminate. Illuminate'

Some places also have big fans with huge ducts attached that swing back and forth blowing air across the pitch.

These shots also show the scale that massive clubs like Real have in their home ground. It's mind boggling when you're in the thick of it all. I couldn't get over seeing, on my first visit there, a vendor in the walkways between seats carrying a tray of brandy and hard liquor bottles, poured into small plastic cups and doing a lively trade on a hot night. If we hadn't been working, bottoms would have been well and truly up. Must say, they take their drink well there, did not recall seeing a lot of badly-behaved drunks.

Makes WHL look almost quaint. Until it fills up, that is. A shame stadium drinking rules are so strict in England. WHL looks like the sort of place where a hip flask would be fashionable.

 

[SteveAWOL]

I hate sitting too low because you just cant get any sense of perspective. I dont know how Managers can see from there and get any perspective as to how the team and individual players are doing. I have sat in the west stand in the first row and fudgein hated it - I absolutely despised it. My seat is the last row on south stand upper and would not swap it for any seat.

My seat was near top of South Upper for the Everton game and I did like the clear view of the whole pitch from up there, similar perspective to the TV cameras.

Although personally I prefer to be sat in one of the middle rows of Lower West stand on the halfway line, much closer to the action whilst still getting a good view of the whole pitch:

 

[SteveAWOL]

Schalke and Vitesse Arnhem can roll their pitches out of the stadium if the arena is used for other things. They both have retractable roofs.

San Siro and Amsterdam Arena are the most notorious when it comes to pitch quality. The pitch is relaid several times each season at both stadiums, at a cost of around Ôé¼200K each time.

Quite impressive how the football pitch is just floated in and out of the Sapporo Dome as required.

[video=youtube;1q24--xddtM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q24--xddtM[/video]

 

[chancer]

In all honesty when I look at various stadium porn sites, New WHL looks better than the majority of new or proposed stadiums. NWHL avoids some of the common elements I see in other new stadia that I really dislike:


> Nasty multi-coloured or otherwise overly-fancy cladding on the exterior.
http://stadiumporn.com/vtb-stadium-arena-moscow-russia/#more-1348
http://stadiumporn.com/krasnodar-russia/
http://stadiumporn.com/volgograd-stadium-volgograd-russia/#more-564

> Nasty wavey or rippled roofs which to me always look silly.
http://stadiumporn.com/estadio-la-peineta-atletico-madrid-spain/

> Running tracks or pitches otherwise too far from stands

> Locations in nasty brownfield sites on the edge of towns surrounded by motorways and retail parks

> Supposedly "innovative" or "clever" designs that just look silly or will date very quickly, or are just architects getting off
http://stadiumporn.com/arena-of-the-roses-sofia-bulgaria/

> Pure identikits that just look like other stadia or are otherwise boring. For example: Liverpool's revived ParryBowl, which just looks like a big Reebok: http://www.stadiumguide.com/liverpool-back-to-2003/

> Stadia that look like conference centres or railway station concourses.


We seem to have avoided many of the pitfalls I hate to see in new stadia.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Nice links, Chancer. I'm a big fan of simple styling. Spurs design looks clean and distinctive. I just hope the interior layout will mimic the tightness of Dortmund's great Westfalen Stadion.

A shame the Atletico stadium has that poofy Edwardian collar for a roof. The stands below are kind of an acknowledgement to how their present home, the Vicente Calderon, is laid out.

Interesting how the Moscow project incorporates both a football ground and an ice hockey rink into one facility, esp. since it's an historic site. That glass facade surely can't be the best choice for keeping good skating conditions on the ice.

And Liverpool's? What can you say? Appropriately cheap-looking architectural styling. The roof dips inward. We can call it The Dipper Bin.

 

[jimmyb]

Although personally I prefer to be sat in one of the middle rows of Lower West stand on the halfway line, much closer to the action whilst still getting a good view of the whole pitch:

That picture is actually taken from the lower east. Looks to be just a few rows down from my seat.

I was in the Paxton upper for years. Great view from up there but it's even better from here, IMO.

 

[SteveAWOL]

That picture is actually taken from the lower east. Looks to be just a few rows down from my seat.

I was in the Paxton upper for years. Great view from up there but it's even better from here, IMO.

#-o I was sat in West Lower for the last NLD but the atmosphere there was so poor (they literally didn't stand up for anything other than the goals) I much prefer East Lower.

I've sat in Paxton upper a couple of times but always seem to get sat next to bunch of whingers so try and avoid it.

 

[chancer]

A shame the Atletico stadium has that poofy Edwardian collar for a roof. The stands below are kind of an acknowledgement to how their present home, the Vicente Calderon, is laid out.

Yes, I noticed that, with the strange detached stand on one side. Very like one side of the VC. But as you say, the roof is just meh, and overall there's something just wrong about the whole thing in my view.

That said, I do kind of like the idea of an asymmetric interior design. You see this more in American football stadiums, which tend not to be as uniform inside as soccer stadia but can look awesome.

 

[billyiddo]

i sat in the Paxton upper, right in the corner near the west stand for an away game shown on the big screens once - the view of the pitch from up there was incredible - having sat in the east stand lower (just to the right of the last gangway and infront of the first bit of yellow fencing you can see in PD's photo) for all of my Spurs supporting life any other view than that of one from the corner just doesn't seem right to me !

gonna be such a strange experience moving to the new stadium

 

[billyiddo]

here's some pics of old grounds designed by Archibald Leitch

(how cools that ?)

Molineux


link http://alexwarrenarchitecture3.blogspot.com/2010/10/archibald-leitch-early-football-ground.html

 

[THFCTB]

I actually think the San Siro looks more "massive" if you know what I mean.. but the Bernabeu looks taller and more expansive, with the way those multitude of (smaller scale) tiers would create a kind of optical illusion to the eye that they will just keep on climbing!

I still held the belief that the San Siro had a capacity of a few thousand over 80k and the Bernabeu a few thousand under 80k, though it seems in very recent years the former has been truncated to under 81k and the latter been increased to 85k... Don't know how that slipped me by, as I love stadium trivia!

I think you're right in that the Bernabeu's tiers are very decieving. They are much smaller than the San Siro's tiers. I would love to go to both stadia though.

 

[Howard Webb]

here's some pics of old grounds designed by Archibald Leitch

(how cools that ?)

Molineux


link http://alexwarrenarchitecture3.blogspot.com/2010/10/archibald-leitch-early-football-ground.html

nice pics!

i think the problem with the Dundee mound is that they had a similar stepped entrance at Ibrox, and basically loads died. Those Leich stands were pretty much universal too, Burnley is a pretty good example of a still complete version if I remember correctly

 

[jimmyb]

I think you're right in that the Bernabeu's tiers are very decieving. They are much smaller than the San Siro's tiers. I would love to go to both stadia though.

Some of us were lucky enough to see Spurs play in both last season!

 

[jimmyb]

Not especially exciting or revealing but someone on the skyscrapercity thread about the new WHL has posted a document that he found on the Haringey website. It's a letter from someone at Enfield Council to his counterpart at Haringey.

Main point of interest is:

"....in the event that the stadium capacity is increased as you suggest may be the case...."

Confirms what has long been rumoured. Still no detail as to how much of an increase, though.

 

[Howard Webb]

jimmyb, is there anything on proposed ticket prices? I seem to remember doing a club poll about preferred areas of the stadium.

 

[metalgear]

The drama goes on:


Olympic news
[h=1]Olympic Stadium pitch to be replaced[/h] February 22, 2012

By ESPNsoccernet staff

The pitch at London's Olympic Stadium will need to be replaced at a cost of around ?ú2 million after the Games because it does not match up to Premier League standards.

GettyImagesLondon 2012's Olympic Stadium seats 80,000




The stadium, which has cost ?ú486 million, has been built without the under-soil heating required to showcase top flight matches. Now the Olympic Park Legacy Company will have to foot the bill as it remains in public ownership.


"The Olympic Stadium is a white elephant and they now have to spend money to stop it being a white elephant," London Assembly member Andrew Boff told AP. "The problem here is the stadium was never designed for football. We've seen the results of really bad planning; really shockingly, awful decisions made during the planning stage before the OPLC was around. They have been handed a real mess to sort out."


Premier League rules state that a club must have "an under-soil heating system or some adequate system of pitch protection to the reasonable satisfaction of the board" and a reported ?ú35 million has already been put aside for the stadium to be downgraded from an 80,000 to a 60,000-seat facility after the Games.

"It is a mess, the stadium, because it's a stadium designed with an athletics legacy that they are trying to shoehorn football into," Boff added. "I would not think a Premier League team would want anything other than a stadium designed for football.


"A Premier League team cannot survive in the Olympics Stadium as it is. They decided too late to invite bids from football clubs. They are trying to cobble together a legacy when they should have planned it years ago."

 

[Dicko]

The drama goes on:


Olympic news
[h=1]Olympic Stadium pitch to be replaced[/h] February 22, 2012

By ESPNsoccernet staff

The pitch at London's Olympic Stadium will need to be replaced at a cost of around ?ú2 million after the Games because it does not match up to Premier League standards.

GettyImagesLondon 2012's Olympic Stadium seats 80,000




The stadium, which has cost ?ú486 million, has been built without the under-soil heating required to showcase top flight matches. Now the Olympic Park Legacy Company will have to foot the bill as it remains in public ownership.


"The Olympic Stadium is a white elephant and they now have to spend money to stop it being a white elephant," London Assembly member Andrew Boff told AP. "The problem here is the stadium was never designed for football. We've seen the results of really bad planning; really shockingly, awful decisions made during the planning stage before the OPLC was around. They have been handed a real mess to sort out."


Premier League rules state that a club must have "an under-soil heating system or some adequate system of pitch protection to the reasonable satisfaction of the board" and a reported ?ú35 million has already been put aside for the stadium to be downgraded from an 80,000 to a 60,000-seat facility after the Games.

"It is a mess, the stadium, because it's a stadium designed with an athletics legacy that they are trying to shoehorn football into," Boff added. "I would not think a Premier League team would want anything other than a stadium designed for football.


"A Premier League team cannot survive in the Olympics Stadium as it is. They decided too late to invite bids from football clubs. They are trying to cobble together a legacy when they should have planned it years ago."

^Stating the damn obvious right there lol!!^