The New Lansdowne Road

df1985

"Yes some seats are restricted but we were never going to sell them anyway"

im sorry but thats such a bad cop-out! trying to cover for a design flaw.

a good point-I was up near total fitness in Sandyford last week on a sunny day. a view of the entire city from up there and i noticed this big shiny blob with the sun bouncing off it-from up there it looked very cool.

Kristian_

How many seats were actually installed then including the restricted ones?

Bluetonic

Steviemak wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7107294.ece

@ Bluetonic - Seems there are restricted view seats.

There are 50,000 unrestricted seats, there are then some extra over 50,000 which are restricted.

Steviemak

How many seats were put into the stadium? What did the planning permission allow?

Bluetonic - I previously stated that it seemed that some seats would have restricted views. But i said i hold judgement until seats were installed. This has now been confirmed.

Bluetonic wrote: »

NONE are obscured by the roof.

- I cant really agree with that.

A modern stadium with restricted views is disappointing. In saying that I think the stadium looks great.

tallaghtoutlaws

Steviemak wrote: »

A modern stadium with restricted views is disappointing. In saying that I think the stadium looks great.

Check out the Dallas Cowboys new 80,000 Seater stadium. 2 so called restricted view seats 2 of them you stare at nothing but wall.:D:D

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-great-seats-at-Cowboys-Stadium-if-you-happe?urn=nfl,184733

Bluetonic

Steviemak wrote: »

I cant really agree with that.

Why are you quoting me out of context with part of my statement?

Koloman

The stadium has now been handed over to the FAI and IRFU. Nearly there!

http://www.lrsdc.ie/news/default.asp?NCID=50&NID=749

Small clip here to wet the appetite!

http://www.twitvid.com/88QSO

Daysha

DWCommuter

Ever notice how the photos posted rarely show the crappy end!

BluntGuy

I really want to like this stadium.

The initial renders look so nice.

The exterior cladding is great.

I'm sure I'll get used to it, but even in those pictures hiding the rubbish-looking end, the whole affair just looks kinda clunky.

Jayuu

Well personally I think it looks spectacular up close. I've driven it by it and close to it a number of times and it really is eye-catching. You just can't help being drawn to look at it. Its a stunning piece of architecture and I think if its kept properly it will still look modern for years to come.

I also like the curve to the lower end. That's actually what adds to the freshness of the design. If it had been a simple bowl shape it wouldn't have looked half as interesting.

I also dispute the fact that they hide the "crappy" end in their photographs. The last set I looked at had a perfect view to the lower end. Just because they haven't done one in this set doesn't mean anything.

BTW, does anybody know what's happened to the LRSDC website. It seems to be completely gone. Maybe now the development is finished they've taken it down. A pity really because the galleries were always very good.

Kristian_

Looks very impressive, any more pics available?

irishdub14

Jayuu wrote: »

Well personally I think it looks spectacular up close. I've driven it by it and close to it a number of times and it really is eye-catching. You just can't help being drawn to look at it. Its a stunning piece of architecture and I think if its kept properly it will still look modern for years to come.

I also like the curve to the lower end. That's actually what adds to the freshness of the design. If it had been a simple bowl shape it wouldn't have looked half as interesting.

I also dispute the fact that they hide the "crappy" end in their photographs. The last set I looked at had a perfect view to the lower end. Just because they haven't done one in this set doesn't mean anything.

BTW, does anybody know what's happened to the LRSDC website. It seems to be completely gone. Maybe now the development is finished they've taken it down. A pity really because the galleries were always very good.

Yeah I think thats what happened. There is some pictures on the Aviva Stadium site, from April, but I don't think they'll update them as much as the LRSDC site once did...

Kristian_

Check out this piece in the tribune last sunday.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/may/09/the-aviva-has-landed/?q=aviva

Daysha

AVIVAStadium are currently tweeting pictures from the ceremony. Check them out.

markfla

some great pics on www.inpho.ie

Flukey

Forgetting completely about Croke Park, it still seems ridiculous to have built such a small stadium. At an absolute minimum it should have been 60,000. The new stadium has not much more capacity than what it replaced. It looks nice, but it needs another 15,000 - 20,000 seats. What a missed opportunity.

BluntGuy

Flukey wrote: »

Forgetting completely about Croke Park, it still seems ridiculous to have built such a small stadium. At an absolute minimum it should have been 60,000. The new stadium has not much more capacity than what it replaced. It looks nice, but it needs another 15,000 - 20,000 seats. What a missed opportunity.

I'll agree as far as to say if we'd filled in the missing end we could've had 60,000-65,000 capacity. I think that would've been more than ample. I still think 50,000 is sufficient, but in the context of what we could've had for only a relatively modest amount more money (not to mention far better aesthetics), it is a bit of a dissappointment.

dowlingm

Realistically, how many events a year take place with attendance above 50k, and how many times is CP used for events which are really too small for it. We have large stadiums around the country in Limerick, Cork, Thurles, Killarney filled maybe four times a year each.

The IRFU and FAI are starting to get this by making Thomond a sort of Dalymount in the west for smaller fixtures. As the recession bites harder and harder can the IRFU and FAI really count on >50,000 seats into the future, especially at the prices they will want for those seats?

Ireland is a geographically small country - if the GAA finally saw sense and opened its doors to other games outside of CP, those regional stadiums could see the investment in comfort and facilities that those who go to CP are privileged with.

Bluetonic

dowlingm wrote: »

As the recession bites harder and harder can the IRFU and FAI really count on >50,000 seats into the future, especially at the prices they will want for those seats?

Talk about short sightedness. We're aren't going to be in recession for 50-100 years (the lifespan of the stadium). So your saying lets build for current demand (which is still not catered for in the new stadium), rather than future proof it?

The IRFU have already demand > 80k.
The FAI have 35k on block booking (the max they can cater for in new stadium) with a further 10k on waiting list which has been suspended since 2007.

Jayuu

The capacity was never going to be above 50K if they wanted to stay in Lansdowne Road which was the preferred option. Now they could have gone to Newlands, or Abbotstown and built an 80K out in the middle of nowhere but I'm glad they didn't.

I drove and walked around by the stadium yesterday and I think its an absolutely stunning piece of work. And I think the way the roof swoops down towards the Havelock Square end gives it a really interesting shape as opposed to being just another run-of-the-mill bowl shaped stadium.

murpho999

Well I think the new stadium is stunning and I love the shape.
I don't understand all the complaining about the Havelock end. Can people realise that the designers had to do this because of planning restrictions that are enforced by the law of the land.

Can I remind people what was there before. Please see picture of old dump that preceded the Aviva. Surely we are better off now?

Bluetonic

murpho999 wrote: »

Can I remind people what was there before. Please see picture of old dump that preceded the Aviva. Surely we are better off now?

Not one person is doubting we are not better off now. Fact remains a better job could have been done or the money may have been spent more wisely elsewhere.

Clanket

Bluetonic wrote: »

Fact remains a better job could have been done or the money may have been spent more wisely elsewhere.

Fact remains a better job could not have been done on the site.

Only alternative was to build elsewhere which I for one did not want.

A great new stadium that will have a super atmposphere.

Judgement Day

murpho999 wrote: »

Well I think the new stadium is stunning and I love the shape.
I don't understand all the complaining about the Havelock end. Can people realise that the designers had to do this because of planning restrictions that are enforced by the law of the land.

Can I remind people what was there before. Please see picture of old dump that preceded the Aviva. Surely we are better off now?

The old dump - that makes me laugh! I haven't been in Lansdowne Road since about 1979 - before the East Stand was rebuilt - now there was an old dump but plenty of atmosphere. Standing only in the lower deck, crash barriers that threatened to crush you when the crowd surged forward, concrete pillars to obscure your view and a wall to piss on at half time. God be with the good old days - and you tell young people today and they don't believe you.

Bluetonic

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Fact remains a better job could not have been done on the site.

Leaving aside the restrictions on the north side, the roof/roof trusses could have been better engineered so as to not be apparently restrictive to sight lines, or do you think they are the best that could be done? Surely not.

There are many alternative designs on the same footprint and orientation which could have been applied. For instance, the width on the rows is more than average (source news article). Do we really need the extra width? Why not the average or less than average and fit more seats in?

Why not a bigger gradient on the banking in the north stand?

I could go on.

Bluetonic

Let me just say that I believe the stadium is lovely and a good job has been done. Thats all it is though, a good job.

There was a chance for an excellent job. To produce something which sets us apart from the the norm.

Nothing worse than people patting themselves on the back for a good job done, when they could have excelled.

What we see here is a missed opportunity unfortunately, and unfortunately too many people are going to miss the opportunity to see a game in it.

Cool Mo D

Bluetonic wrote: »

Leaving aside the restrictions on the north side, the roof/roof trusses could have been better engineered so as to not be apparently restrictive to sight lines, or do you think they are the best that could be done? Surely not.

Is there any evidence that they are restricting site lines? A picture taken from someone sitting in a top row seat?

Bluetonic

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Is there any evidence that they are restricting site lines? A picture taken from someone sitting in a top row seat?

Not really sure what more evidence would be needed? For rugby I imagine this is a wee bit of a problem? Don't follow the game myself so can only hazard a guess at it. Isn't there a lot of high balls at either end of the ground for penalties, conversions and drop kicks?

edited to say it also seems that these seats are not considered restricted seats, these seats are within the 50,000 capacity which is disappointing as this was always denied by the powers that be, and more fool me I believed it true.

spank_inferno

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Is there any evidence that they are restricting site lines? A picture taken from someone sitting in a top row seat?

This one is courtesy of the guys in the Rugby forum
As well as the vast girders on show there is a remarkable steepness to the tier also. Honestly if a 'not so sober' gent was to stumble down he may end up on the pitch.