Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Just to show a small new stadium I've been in, Badalona in 3rd tier Spain, capacity 4100 but you can see it could be expanded as those grassy slopes above two sides (lower right and centre) could be fitted with seats. It is built over a long slope so part is underground and part well above. Cost just over 7 million euros, land from the city.

 

Resultado de imagen para badalona stadium inauguration

Why am I thinking about Christie Pits with the slopes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As someone who attended every Pacific game, as well as countless games at Clarke in Edmonton and other smaller venues before then, I can assure you that Westhills numbers did not feel greatly inflated

Living Sky Sports second concept stadium drawing for CPL Saskatchewan :  

Just thought I’d post a photo of the completed pacific fc stand.  

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

There may be an opportunity here for some creative thinking when it comes to fieldside seating and running tracks.

I wonder if it's possible to have some sort of roll-away fieldside seating which would normally sit on top of a running track for athletic matches, but can move (either away from the field or under higher, permanent seating) when the running track is needed.

I've tried to make the drawing below based on what measurements I could find (or what made sense).  Eight-lane running track with 4 feet width per lane, 2 meters between there and the pitch, 36 inch gap between rows, and eight-inch elevation between rows.

Leaving a two-lane walkway in front of the fieldside seating (dark gray), and a yard or two gap between the track and the elevated permanent seating (light gray), you could add nine rows of fieldside seating which could roll away under the permanent seating when not needed.  Your permanent seating would have to start at an elevation of about six feet (nine rows x 8 inches elevation per row), which some universities are already doing to prevent students from rushing the field.

In terms of capacity, going with 24 inches width per seat and a pitch length of 100 yards, you get 150 seats per row, or 1350 seats for the entire nine-row rollaway seating.  If you assume an equal number of elevated permanent seats, and the same setup on both sides of the field, you get 5400 seats in total - not far off what the CPL would be looking for and that's before counting any seating you put along the goal lines.

There would be some downsides - increased costs with maintenance, pre/post-game setup, lack of room under the permanent stands for things like concessions, change rooms, washrooms, etc - but this possibility isn't exactly new or novel - most arenas change up their seating for hockey vs basketball, so the technology and ability already exists in some form.  Could be an interesting way of partnering with universities and other owners of existing fields to keep those areas as multipurpose as possible.

CPL stadium.png

The problem is that many stadiums with tracks have the first row of seats in fact very low, relatively near your lane 8 or 9. So you have no margin to add seats in front of a main grandstand. But usually there is the possibility to add seats behind both ends without blocking views, even if there is seating beyond the track curves either end. And then, often opposite sides are available, they have just one main stand.

The example of Swangard is clear. There is no reason you could not add seats opposite, as they did for the u-20 WC. And behind both goals. Burnaby, dumbly always opposed a more permanent set up like this, often citing its natural presence against Central Park (the track gets limited school use). More important to see the trees than have a good experience at games. Which is why their facility is being ignored (TSS was there this year; they may want to reconsider if being at Swangard really meets their needs, and what alternatives they could come up with).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The problem is that many stadiums with tracks have the first row of seats in fact very low, relatively near your lane 8 or 9. So you have no margin to add seats in front of a main grandstand. But usually there is the possibility to add seats behind both ends without blocking views, even if there is seating beyond the track curves either end. And then, often opposite sides are available, they have just one main stand.

Assuming that they remain the way they are now.  Depending on the local situation, it may be worth someone's money to redesign the whole thing if you're going to go the effort of building a new stadium anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

There may be an opportunity here for some creative thinking when it comes to fieldside seating and running tracks.

I wonder if it's possible to have some sort of roll-away fieldside seating which would normally sit on top of a running track for athletic matches, but can move (either away from the field or under higher, permanent seating) when the running track is needed.

I've tried to make the drawing below based on what measurements I could find (or what made sense).  Eight-lane running track with 4 feet width per lane, 2 meters between there and the pitch, 36 inch gap between rows, and eight-inch elevation between rows.

Leaving a two-lane walkway in front of the fieldside seating (dark gray), and a yard or two gap between the track and the elevated permanent seating (light gray), you could add nine rows of fieldside seating which could roll away under the permanent seating when not needed.  Your permanent seating would have to start at an elevation of about six feet (nine rows x 8 inches elevation per row), which some universities are already doing to prevent students from rushing the field.

In terms of capacity, going with 24 inches width per seat and a pitch length of 100 yards, you get 150 seats per row, or 1350 seats for the entire nine-row rollaway seating.  If you assume an equal number of elevated permanent seats, and the same setup on both sides of the field, you get 5400 seats in total - not far off what the CPL would be looking for and that's before counting any seating you put along the goal lines.

There would be some downsides - increased costs with maintenance, pre/post-game setup, lack of room under the permanent stands for things like concessions, change rooms, washrooms, etc - but this possibility isn't exactly new or novel - most arenas change up their seating for hockey vs basketball, so the technology and ability already exists in some form.  Could be an interesting way of partnering with universities and other owners of existing fields to keep those areas as multipurpose as possible.

CPL stadium.png

It will depend on the city, but let's say KW is the example. Why would you invest in temporary seating at a venue you don't own and still won't look good. You could use the same money/stands for a pop-up at Centennial(yes I'm pushing this idea whenever possible).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gopherbashi said:

Assuming that they remain the way they are now.  Depending on the local situation, it may be worth someone's money to redesign the whole thing if you're going to go the effort of building a new stadium anyway.

I've seen stadiums dig down 3 metres to gain rows of seats. Maybe it is not worth the effort for smaller ones, you'd have to refit the track and the field, then worry about your temp stands as per your configuration. Just saying though: your set up could be viable where the stand is actually well above the last lanes, as you have drawn. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ReedOnTheGrand said:

Any idea how much this one was, it's beautiful.

Basque architects are in general very talented. Look at those cuts where you have entry points in the stands, maybe not practical but very artful. Then, the roof is translucent. They say the 2001 projected cost was around 5 million euros, I don't believe it. Mind you, construction in Spain can be cheap as long as the corrupt politicians are not involved. 

Check out the concourses under the stands, very nice:

estadio_de_lasessare21.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

Both of those would be very expensive for the capacity @Unnamed Trialist. 17 million Euros in Spain in 2006 would probably mean 30 million dollars at a minimum in 2017 Canada, and that's assuming they don't have to pay for the land.

I am not allowed to give rep to you mr harrycoyster well excuse me.

I just assume that as Palencia is a provincial capital, although very minor (provinces are not like in Canada, they are sub-provincial in our terms), they decided to spend on design and prestige, political ambition. Also, built at the peak of the real estate bubble, probably inflated costs. 

I agree that Canada is expensive for building, probably double Spain. It is a hard call, but a stadium, have to remember, if done right, is a legacy that can last decades. And if done wrong, is in need of replacement from day one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Basque architects are in general very talented. Look at those cuts where you have entry points in the stands, maybe not practical but very artful. Then, the roof is translucent. They say the 2001 projected cost was around 5 million euros, I don't believe it. Mind you, construction in Spain can be cheap as long as the corrupt politicians are not involved. 

Check out the concourses under the stands, very nice:

estadio_de_lasessare21.jpg

So I did some quick looking and 5 million euros in 2001 is about 10 million CAD today. If you could get this stadium for 15-20 million it would be worth it. BTW do you have a wikipedia link or something for this stadium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ReedOnTheGrand said:

So I did some quick looking and 5 million euros in 2001 is about 10 million CAD today. If you could get this stadium for 15-20 million it would be worth it. BTW do you have a wikipedia link or something for this stadium. 

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_de_Lasesarre

English has v little. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a new one that is beautiful as stink, the Nuevo Malecón in Torrelavega, not far from Santander in the north. Capacity for 6000 cost 6 million euros and finished 2011. Artificial turf beside for the academy and youth teams. The team is usually in 3rd tier. Check out more pics at this link: http://www.arquitecturaviva.com/Info/News/Details/8110

Resultado de imagen para Los Nuevos Campos del Malecón

Resultado de imagen para Los Nuevos Campos del Malecón

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO a stadium design, even in the small details, is very important. It is architecture and then tons of intangibles. 

I go to many small stadiums and even fields to watch lower tier during the year, and often little details make me decide. Proximity to public transit or easy parking. A nice stand, with decent concessions or even a comfortable bar from where you could even watch the pitch. Properly covered on a rainy or cool day, and properly backed or wrapped (not with a huge gap between roof and stands where wind blows through!!) Good sight lines. Nice light. Decent atmosphere. Proper seats, not concrete slabs, and clean. Not too expensive, not overpriced for General Admission. No dumb long waits at the wickets, or at concessions, or for the toilets. A local supporter group, who you feel like joining in with or at least enjoy the presence of. Or the main granstand with lively support (you do occasionally find it). Other fans who are willing to talk to you, who can tell you who that player is or chat about the team, the FO, the coach, the teams woes.

So it is a total experience, and as I see it these examples we are showing of stadiums are only a small part of the story. You have a bad client, you will get a poor product. Most architects haven't a clue, and won't give you want you want. Problem is, most club owners haven't a clue either, they will be deficient clients and can easily fail even if they hire right. You have to hire a talented architecture team, be in dialogue, then together guide yourselves through what your stadium needs are, keeping all factors, major and minor, including peripheral (special needs) on the table and in the brief. From structural standards down to fine tuned detailing and signage, all of it. 

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Here's a new one that is beautiful as stink, the Nuevo Malecón in Torrelavega, not far from Santander in the north. Capacity for 6000 cost 6 million euros and finished 2011. Artificial turf beside for the academy and youth teams. The team is usually in 3rd tier. Check out more pics at this link: http://www.arquitecturaviva.com/Info/News/Details/8110

Resultado de imagen para Los Nuevos Campos del Malecón

Resultado de imagen para Los Nuevos Campos del Malecón

I love the outside of this. It very much is modern spanish architecture 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ansem said:

Saskatchewan as a whole is very solid and has a proven track record for sports...

Specifically for the CFL and lacrosse, which I mentioned and highlighted in my post, so there was no need for you to list and bold font the numbers as I was already well aware of them. Other cities like Kelowna have done better in junior hockey than Regina and Saskatoon over the last twenty years and for all we know at this point might do better in soccer as well. People in Newfoundland have a long track record of getting out and supporting amateur level soccer, for example, in a way that has no obvious parallel in Saskatchewan as far as I am aware, so given there is an almost ideal SSS already in place in St John's it's not clear to me why that possibility gets dismissed by people on here while Saskatoon or Regina are viewed as a slam dunk.

How much crossover is there between CFL and soccer in Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA? Not much is my understanding, so why is it going to be different elsewhere? It might be but I can't think of anything obvious, so I suspect Saskatoon would be the better location in Saskatchewan. My guess on where this could take off most easily would be a smaller city (not too small though maybe 350,000+, Saskatoon is growing and will reach those sort of numbers in time) with no CFL or NHL team (so a $1 million salary budget and/or 5,000 seat stadium doesn't look too bush league in comparison in an FC Edmonton sort of way) that is quite distant from the three MLS teams (at least two hours drive to be a fully separate sports market), with strong local media outlets that most people regularly watch, listen to or read that will make a fuss over the team, and ideally with a decades old grassroots amateur level soccer culture based either on post-WWII immigration or being one of the parts of the country like BC and Newfoundland where soccer was locally quite popular.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...