The New Lansdowne Road

fresca

murphym7 wrote: »

Havelock Square end looks like a joke - the sporting world TV viewers will think Ireland has a fetish for half finishing stadium's.

maybe they looked for some balance with the hill 16 end of croke park?

recently, i asked a steward in croker when were they going to finish the job and replace hill 16 with an all seater enclosure.... he was not a happy camper!!!

Son of Stupido

FYI


Actual capacity of new Lansdowne road is 54,000

The 50,000 spin was not including stewards, disabled and press seats.

citycentre

donvito99 wrote: »

Murrayfield is an atrocious stadium, you sit about 40 metres from the pitch and its god awful ugly. I'll take the New lansdowne any day.

Yes Murrayfield is crap - Landsowne Road will be even worse unfortunately. It may look slick and shiny and architecturally "interesting" (moreso externally than internally which is a bit pointless) but the fundamental rule of good stadium design - providing a strong sense of enclosure all the way around the playing area - has been completely ignored. It's going to take a lot to create any sort of decent atmosphere in such a flawed space.

Even though Hill 16 gives Croker an unfinished look at least it's still an enoromous terrace accommodating 10,000 people. On the TV it looks great and still provides a strong sense of enclosure to the stadium when full of people despite the lack of upper decks etc.

How many people will there be behind the posts at the North end of Lansdowne? 1000 maybe, if even that? It's pathetic.

Deedsie

Son of Stupido wrote: »

FYI


Actual capacity of new Lansdowne road is 54,000

The 50,000 spin was not including stewards, disabled and press seats.

Any reference for that?

Son of Stupido

Deedsie wrote: »

Any reference for that?

If you wade through the EIS and Planning documents you will come accross it.

Son of Stupido

BTH wrote: »

Yes Murrayfield is crap - Landsowne Road will be even worse unfortunately. It may look slick and shiny and architecturally "interesting" (moreso externally than internally which is a bit pointless) but the fundamental rule of good stadium design - providing a strong sense of enclosure all the way around the playing area - has been completely ignored. It's going to take a lot to create any sort of decent atmosphere in such a flawed space.

Even though Hill 16 gives Croker an unfinished look at least it's still an enoromous terrace accommodating 10,000 people. On the TV it looks great and still provides a strong sense of enclosure to the stadium when full of people despite the lack of upper decks etc.

How many people will there be behind the posts at the North end of Lansdowne? 1000 maybe, if even that? It's pathetic.

The new stadium is almost identical to the new Arsenal stadium in London. Different roof but the structure is practically the same.

I don't here people dishing that stadium!

Heroditas

Deedsie wrote: »

Against Italy in fairness. Wales and Scotland will sell out. Is something like 15000 of the Landsdowne seating not corporate?

For most IRFU matches back in Lansdowne Road, we will always have sell-outs.
This is because the clubs buy the vast majority of tickets. Clubs must take up their full allocation every match or they will get their allocation slashed for subsequent matches.
As a result, the IRFU ensures they get the money for all the seats and it's then up to the clubs to sell the tickets.
I've only heard of one instance where the clubs were allowed to return tickets and that was for the Italy game last month. This is a rarity and won't happen again.

To be honest, 50,000 is the right size.
Even this season my club has had massive difficulties shifting tickets for the matches. Despite everyone saying how much interest there is in rugby and the team being the Grand Slam holders, people were reluctant to pay €75 for a stand ticket or €30 (35? can't remember) for a terrace ticket.

That sums up the level of interest for me.

fresca

Heroditas wrote: »

... people were reluctant to pay €75 for a stand ticket or €30 (35? can't remember) for a terrace ticket.
That sums up the level of interest for me.

Or maybe affordability?
i would have liked to have attended that game.
but e75 for ticket? that e150 for 2 + diesel + a bite to eat + round trip kerry / dublin...

i can only afford to do that a few times per year...
so ticket prices are an issue ... just not for the fai & irfu but also the gaa...

trellheim

Crowd signposts are starting to go up, corner of Dodder bridge/Bath Avenue, only yesterday, new entrance for crowds there at Dodder Walk instead of Havelock Square.

Heroditas

fresca wrote: »

Or maybe affordability?
i would have liked to have attended that game.
but e75 for ticket? that e150 for 2 + diesel + a bite to eat + round trip kerry / dublin...

i can only afford to do that a few times per year...
so ticket prices are an issue ... just not for the fai & irfu but also the gaa...

Affordability is indeed an issue but from my own point of view, I'd rather give up a few weekends out in Dublin over the course of the rest of the year so I can save money for the rugby matches.

The IRFU have a professional game to fund, along with developing it at a grassroots level, along with paying for the new stadium.

If we want to see the likes of POC, BOD etc plying their trade here in Ireland, we're going to have to pay big bucks for that pleasure.

Bluetonic

Son of Stupido wrote: »

If you wade through the EIS and Planning documents you will come accross it.

All the planning documents say 50,000. I've checked.

Maybe you can attach the ones which say it's 54,000.

Zebra3

Koloman wrote: »

I think you can argue with that. As Daysha has so eloquently put it, why would you want two stadiums of 70,000 plus in a country as small as ours?

As I have said before Denmark is another country with a similar population to us and it's soccer team play in a ground that holds 40,000 and no more. A 50,000 stadium in Dublin is looking quite spacious when you compare it to Denmark!

The temporary little arrangement of Croke Park has clouded many peoples judgement as to what is realistic for us.

PS; Look at the lovely green seats!

http://www.lrsdc.ie/gallery/singlecategory.asp?PCID=126

The national stadium in Denmark has actually undergone redevelopment recently which has taken its capacity from 42,000 down to 38,000 to allow for more corporate boxes.

People seem to be forgetting that the new LR will have a capacity of 50,000 for competitve football matches whereas the old ground could only hold ~35,000.

Bluetonic

Zebra3 wrote: »

People seem to be forgetting that the new LR will have a capacity of 50,000 for competitve football matches whereas the old ground could only hold ~35,000.

In terms of real capacity for football games there has been little change in capacity for the typical non corporate fan.

Old capacity was 35,000. With 3,500 away this left approx 31,500 for the typical non corporate fan. Granted a couple of thousand were corporate and sponsors.

New capacity is 50,000. With 10,000 corporate and box level, and 5,000 away allocation. This leaves 35,000 approx for the typical non corporate fan.

An increase in real capacity of just 3,500 to you and me.

Given this relatively small increase in capacity for the paying public the FAI have managed to only move 27 people off their block booking waiting list onto the full block booking list. Thats 27 people for 3,500 extra capacity.

A stadium which really caters for the public which fronted half the funds, don't you agree?

I can only imagine the rugby situation is ten times worse.

Pity we didn't get some thinking similar to the DAA had for T2.

L1011

The general assumption is that the FAI let each of those 27 completely take the piss and book as many seats as they wanted, Bluetonic.

Bluetonic

MYOB wrote: »

The general assumption is that the FAI let each of those 27 completely take the piss and book as many seats as they wanted, Bluetonic.

Yeah but they didn't book 130 each!

citycentre

Son of Stupido wrote: »

The new stadium is almost identical to the new Arsenal stadium in London. Different roof but the structure is practically the same.

I don't here people dishing that stadium!

I'm sorry but you are missing my point entirely. Emirates is a great stadium for many reasons, one of which is that it surrounds the pitch completely. The new Lansdowne Road has one end almost completely empty of spectators. Pretty major difference if you ask me. I'm not arguing that Lansdowne won't have a fantastic structure and look lovely and all the rest (although I have serious reservations about the clumsy and heavy looking roof trusses). I just think it's a complete scandal that a design with such a basic, fundamental flaw which is going to destroy the atmosphere of the stadium was allowed to go ahead.

Son of Stupido

BTH wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are missing my point entirely. Emirates is a great stadium for many reasons, one of which is that it surrounds the pitch completely. The new Lansdowne Road has one end almost completely empty of spectators. Pretty major difference if you ask me. I'm not arguing that Lansdowne won't have a fantastic structure and look lovely and all the rest (although I have serious reservations about the clumsy and heavy looking roof trusses). I just think it's a complete scandal that a design with such a basic, fundamental flaw which is going to destroy the atmosphere of the stadium was allowed to go ahead.

I think it is quite clever for the following reasons

1. Political reasons (PDs) capped the capacity. Hence 50,000 is boundied about. Actual capacity is 54,000. It was a condition of government funding.
2. It can in the future, physically if not politically, be expanded to the optimum size the developers wanted - 65,000.
3. The roof looks odd, but look again and only half the trusses (the ugly ones) need to be removed if the bowl is completed
4. The high enclosing roof at the open end will reflect noise and create a better athmosphere than croker.

Don't get me wrong, the open end looks very odd, but perhaps in the not too distant future the bowl might be finished without having to reconstruct the entire stadium.

p.s. the developers have purchased a number of properties on havelock square since the development started......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Deedsie

Son of Stupido wrote: »

I think it is quite clever for the following reasons

1. Political reasons (PDs) capped the capacity. Hence 50,000 is boundied about. Actual capacity is 54,000. It was a condition of government funding.
2. It can in the future, physically if not politically, be expanded to the optimum size the developers wanted - 65,000.
3. The roof looks odd, but look again and only half the trusses (the ugly ones) need to be removed if the bowl is completed
4. The high enclosing roof at the open end will reflect noise and create a better athmosphere than croker.

Don't get me wrong, the open end looks very odd, but perhaps in the not too distant future the bowl might be finished without having to reconstruct the entire stadium.

p.s. the developers have purchased a number of properties on havelock square since the development started......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Again, have you a reference for any of that. I could just say the GAA have it in there books to finish Croke Park off and remove the Hill. Doesnt make it anyway true.

Bluetonic

Son of Stupido wrote: »

Political reasons (PDs) capped the capacity. Hence 50,000 is boundied about. Actual capacity is 54,000.

As per my earlier post above can you show us the planning documents which you say clearly indicate this? I've already checked and there is no reference to 54,000 capacity, which you say it there.

It'll make your posts stand up.

Son of Stupido

1 - The brief was for 50,000
2 - The planning ap states " 50,000 + 1,000 non paying spectators (stewards)". Final design figure was 53,000 + 1,000 which would have been finalised after planning was achived. You can't just design a huge bowl for exactly 50,000 seats. There is always a spill-over, and if that requires an extra step you will get more, not less.
3 - Check out the latest plainning apps (DCC) for the project and some have landowner maps (link) showing the property owned by the developers.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00274872.pdf

Bluetonic

Son of Stupido wrote: »

1 - The brief was for 50,000
2 - The planning ap states " 50,000 + 1,000 non paying spectators (stewards)". Final design figure was 53,000 + 1,000 which would have been finalised after planning was achived. You can't just design a huge bowl for exactly 50,000 seats. There is always a spill-over, and if that requires an extra step you will get more, not less.

Sorry to ask for further clarification on this but you've clearly said the planning documents and the EIS say the capacity is 54,000. I've looked and I can't find any reference to it anywhere, planning documents or elsewhere.

They either say it as per your original comment or it's not true. It's an emotive issue therefore I think it's only right to be right.

Stewards, workers, teams etc.., aren't considered part of the capacity.

Kristian_

I think the stadium looks completely out of balance..it's shocking to think that in this day and age a design as bad as this could go ahead..the emirates with one end missing - what a joke! Only in Ireland! Really surprised the IRFU agreed to this, I thought their standards were higher than this.

Irish and Proud

Kristian_ wrote: »

I think the stadium looks completely out of balance..it's shocking to think that in this day and age a design as bad as this could go ahead..the emirates with one end missing - what a joke! Only in Ireland! Really surprised the IRFU agreed to this, I thought their standards were higher than this.

...remember the stadium in Orlando, USA for the World Cup 94 - on end was completely omitted - no seating, no roof!!! Also, the San Siro in Milan has 3 tiers along three sides, but only 2 on the remaining (long) side - it also looks wrong - AFAIK, when the stadium was being extended for the World Cup 90, engineers could not construct the new third tier around the entire perimeter - this was due to the proximity of a racecourse building. I think it is a major pity.

You see, these things don't happen only in Ireland! Getting very sick of this "only in Ireland" business!!! :mad:

Regards!

Koloman

From this.

Kristian_ wrote: »

With all the doom and gloom surrounding the issues with the new stadium, and I do agree with many of the points being made here. I for one am still looking forward to seeing the stadium when complete. Also I am pleased that finally our national teams will have a home to be proud of

To this!

Kristian_ wrote: »

I think the stadium looks completely out of balance..it's shocking to think that in this day and age a design as bad as this could go ahead..the emirates with one end missing - what a joke! Only in Ireland! Really surprised the IRFU agreed to this, I thought their standards were higher than this.

Why the sudden contradictions?

Clanket

Thats some good detective work. You a cop?

Kristian_

Koloman wrote: »

From this.


To this!


Why the sudden contradictions?

When I made my earliest post I was giving an opinion judging on the shots from the lrsdc website, I thought the north end of the ground looked ok and I was relatively impressed.

My latest post is based on an opinion having visited the ground, walking around inside and out, taking in the various viewpoints high and low etc..

When I said only in Ireland, I said this more so in anger at the powers that be. I am proud to be Irish and I am passionate about our national teams. I just feel we are just making do instead of geting a grip and moving the stadium to a site where it can be built properly this is our national stadium after all. I believe we are becoming a great sporting country and I thought as a nation this needed to be 100% spot on. Please dont give me the words recession and be grateful, thats just a cop out.

Dont go to town on me guys its just an opinion!

Setanta_og

Asking for mercy from your peers at this stage for your ott and way out of order comment is an attempt to shut the barn door etc.
Only for Koloman excellent piece of detective work you would have kept on with your negativity.
I was passing the Stadium at the weekend and unlike you I wasn’t inside outside on the roof or in the basement car park nor did I need to be I was looking at the stadium from the relative close proximity of Londonbridge Rd and Shelbourne Rd.
I looked at the structure for what it is not for what it is not. Quite simply it a unique magnificent stadium maybe not as imposing as Croke Park but never the less a wonderful innovative design built on what was after all a very tight footprint.
The stadium is a great testimony to the progress of the country in every aspect. I know we are going through the deepest recession since the foundation of the state (let me remind you that, that is a mere 80 years) but to come on this blog and do down the positives to be taken from the project is bold to say the least. Your submission strikes me as coming from one that has had the luxury of been reared in the era of continuous economic prosperity knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
In relation to the stadium let me remind you of the basics.

1 The stadium was designed with a heavy emphasis on minimising its impact on the surround properties particularly the north end.
2 With this in mind the design went for assessment before both DCC's planning department and ABP before it got approval including the submission of an incredibly detailed EIS.
3 Approval was granted.
4 The project is progressing to conclusion in accordance with the permission as granted.

Maybe at another time the design can be revisited with a view of redeveloping the north end of the stadium to accommodate more spectators etc. but that’s for another day and of course it will be subject to the due process of planning
In a nutshell that’s good enough for me and I don’t believe there is much more mileage to be flogged from this one.

citycentre

Setanta_og wrote: »

Asking for mercy from your peers at this stage for your ott and way out of order comment is an attempt to shut the barn door etc.
Only for Koloman excellent piece of detective work you would have kept on with your negativity.
I was passing the Stadium at the weekend and unlike you I wasn’t inside outside on the roof or in the basement car park nor did I need to be I was looking at the stadium from the relative close proximity of Londonbridge Rd and Shelbourne Rd.
I looked at the structure for what it is not for what it is not. Quite simply it a unique magnificent stadium maybe not as imposing as Croke Park but never the less a wonderful innovative design built on what was after all a very tight footprint.
The stadium is a great testimony to the progress of the country in every aspect. I know we are going through the deepest recession since the foundation of the state (let me remind you that, that is a mere 80 years) but to come on this blog and do down the positives to be taken from the project is bold to say the least. Your submission strikes me as coming from one that has had the luxury of been reared in the era of continuous economic prosperity knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
In relation to the stadium let me remind you of the basics.

1 The stadium was designed with a heavy emphasis on minimising its impact on the surround properties particularly the north end.
2 With this in mind the design went for assessment before both DCC's planning department and ABP before it got approval including the submission of an incredibly detailed EIS.
3 Approval was granted.
4 The project is progressing to conclusion in accordance with the permission as granted.

Maybe at another time the design can be revisited with a view of redeveloping the north end of the stadium to accommodate more spectators etc. but that’s for another day and of course it will be subject to the due process of planning
In a nutshell that’s good enough for me and I don’t believe there is much more mileage to be flogged from this one.

Sorry but I find this post somewhat patronizing... Someone changes their mind about something having obtained more insight and information about the issues and having seen the stadium interior for themselves. What's the problem? You have seen the stadium from outside. Does that make you better qualified to judge the end result than Kristian? I doubt it.

So, we are stuck with the compromize that is the new Lansdowne Road but that doesn't mean that we all have to bow down and worship it just because it's new and shiny and looks oh so lovely from the outside. The fact remains that it is, in my own opinion and that of others, abysmal internally for all the reasons already clearly and sensibly outlined. Feel free to disagree but rubbishing the considered opinion of others is not helpful.

There is NO potential for redeveloping any part of the stadium in future without the complete removal of the entire trussed roof structure and external cladding. The entire roof relies on the two (ugly) concrete posts at the Havelock Square end which completely curtail any expansion of this stand outwards or upwards.

I believe there are many good features to the new Lansdowne Road. The three "proper" sides appear to be elegant and logical, the exterior is indeed fantastic looking and it works brilliantly as a piece of architectural sculpture. However I'm almost certain (though I sincerely hope I am wrong) that it will not work as an atmospheric, intense venue for watching Soccer and Rugby. Never mind the ugly misshapen trusses and the other purely aesthetic misgivings about the interior - The fact is the designers and the IRFU and FAI agreed to only allowing for ten or so rows of seats behind the posts at the northern end of the pitch? What the hell were they thinking?

Kristian_

Setanta_og wrote: »

Asking for mercy from your peers at this stage for your ott and way out of order comment is an attempt to shut the barn door etc.
Only for Koloman excellent piece of detective work you would have kept on with your negativity.
I was passing the Stadium at the weekend and unlike you I wasn’t inside outside on the roof or in the basement car park nor did I need to be I was looking at the stadium from the relative close proximity of Londonbridge Rd and Shelbourne Rd.
I looked at the structure for what it is not for what it is not. Quite simply it a unique magnificent stadium maybe not as imposing as Croke Park but never the less a wonderful innovative design built on what was after all a very tight footprint.
The stadium is a great testimony to the progress of the country in every aspect. I know we are going through the deepest recession since the foundation of the state (let me remind you that, that is a mere 80 years) but to come on this blog and do down the positives to be taken from the project is bold to say the least. Your submission strikes me as coming from one that has had the luxury of been reared in the era of continuous economic prosperity knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
In relation to the stadium let me remind you of the basics.

1 The stadium was designed with a heavy emphasis on minimising its impact on the surround properties particularly the north end.
2 With this in mind the design went for assessment before both DCC's planning department and ABP before it got approval including the submission of an incredibly detailed EIS.
3 Approval was granted.
4 The project is progressing to conclusion in accordance with the permission as granted.

Maybe at another time the design can be revisited with a view of redeveloping the north end of the stadium to accommodate more spectators etc. but that’s for another day and of course it will be subject to the due process of planning
In a nutshell that’s good enough for me and I don’t believe there is much more mileage to be flogged from this one.

I'm out of order!? I'd look a little closer to home old hand!
It's an opinion take it or leave it! But as citycentre outlined dont rubbish the opinion of another because you dont agree with it - get a grip!
Thats why were here after all! :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see the next shots that will shortly be updated on the lsdrc website, How many rows of seats will actual be at the north end?

Koloman

Kristian_ wrote: »

How many rows of seats will actual be at the north end?

OK, since you have a bee in your bonnet at the moment about the north end it might be appropriate for you to watch the video below and count for yourself! Pause it at around the 46 second or 1:03 minute mark and have a count!

If this video doesn't impress you then you must be without any emotions. I can't wait to go to a game at what will be a fantastic stadium!

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Matt-Cooper/Matt-Cooper-Blog.aspx