The New Lansdowne Road

sdanseo

spank_inferno wrote: »

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.

Will almost certainly be a dry stadium though, like Croker I'd say. No drink past the turnstiles for many games and what you can buy in there you can't bring to your seat.

Bluetonic

sdonn wrote: »

Will almost certainly be a dry stadium though, like Croker I'd say. No drink past the turnstiles for many games and what you can buy in there you can't bring to your seat.

Dry for UEFA international anyhow, such are the regulations these days.

ScrubsfanChris

spank_inferno wrote: »

Honestly if a 'not so sober' gent was to stumble down he may end up on the pitch.

Can't be much worse than the top tier of the Millenium stadium in Cardiff

BluntGuy

spank_inferno wrote: »

This photo looks bloody awful.

I know some find the low end "charming", "quirky", "unique" etc. but I think the stadium would've looked far better if it had adhered to the conventional practice of have some sort of basic symmetry in its design. :mad:

Anyway, what's the first match gonna be played here?

Judgement Day

The first rugby match to be played in the new stadium will be between a combined Munster/Connacht v Leinster/Ulster see here: http://www.irishrugby.ie/283_18707.php
I heard reports on the radio about parts of the stadium being unsuitable for people who suffer from vertigo due to the steep nature of some of the seating. Will they demolish the new stadium and rebuild a replica of the old one if things don't work out?

Bluetonic

Judgement Day wrote: »

I heard reports on the radio about parts of the stadium being unsuitable for people who suffer from vertigo due to the steep nature of some of the seating.

In fairness nothing new there. There are seats reserved in lower stands in Croker for those who have difficulties with the upper levels (vertigo being one of the difficulties).

Cool Mo D

That picture makes it pretty clear that the roof does not obstruct the pitch though.

Joey Joe-Joe Jr

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That picture makes it pretty clear that the roof does not obstruct the pitch though.

Could obstruct a ball kicked high enough in the air though!

NewApproach

Does anyone else not really care about the fact it looks so nice, and instead can't help thinking they spent all that money on basically a few thousand extra seats? It's an absolute joke in my opinion.

Clanket

Joey Joe-Joe Jr wrote: »

Could obstruct a ball kicked high enough in the air though!

For a second or two.

NewApproach wrote: »

Does anyone else not really care about the fact it looks so nice, and instead can't help thinking they spent all that money on basically a few thousand extra seats? It's an absolute joke in my opinion.

Yes it's only a few extra thousand seats. However, they now have premium level seats which is a big income stream for the FAI and IRFU. And the fans get a lovely modern stadium.

The difference when Lansdowne was closed and we moved to far superior facilities in Croker. I was delighted. The toilets alone will be worth the whole redevelopment.

Bluetonic

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That picture makes it pretty clear that the roof does not obstruct the pitch though.

Should be perfect sightliness for bowls.

murphaph

The pic was also taken from a standing position, by the looks of it. Given the line of sight from these seats to the girders,to the pitch, the difference would be significant enough IMO. I bet if the photographer had been seated it would feel less claustrophobic.

The old jax were disgusting though, agree about that.

crucamim

Is there a possibility that the new stadium will be made bigger at a later date when the IRFU has bought additional land adjacent to the stadium?

Bluetonic

crucamim wrote: »

Is there a possibility that the new stadium will be made bigger at a later date when the IRFU has bought additional land adjacent to the stadium?

Unlikely as the whole of the roof would need to be taken down on all stands.

What you see now is what will be there for good.

spank_inferno

Bluetonic is correct.
The support columns for those roof girders are on the 2 corners of the North (baby) stand.
These columes combined with the size & design of the beams support the whole roof.

To expand the stadium one would have to remove the roof.
The sides of the stadium are also clad in a similar glass outer structure which I'd imagine would have to be removed also.

Hypothetically if all the people living in Havlock square and adjacent streets moved out and the land was just handed to the IRFU, the cost of expansion would be very considerable.

Its a handsome stadium for sure especially from the outside, but in he desire for the right look they have boxed themselves into a near impossible situation vis-a vie expansion.

rubino

these pics are taken sitting down,

1st pic far corner of pitch is blocked by roof structure in some sections

2nd pic centre section of stand, roof is very overbearing

3rd pic, rough mockup if north end was extended, approx 10 houses would need to go with a far greater number in permanent shadow of stadium.....

Don't have a pic, but what should be prime seating area of center section of west stand, you can't see the near touchline, view is block by TV commentary tables

crucamim

spank_inferno wrote: »

Bluetonic is correct.
The support columns for those roof girders are on the 2 corners of the North (baby) stand.
These columes combined with the size & design of the beams support the whole roof.

To expand the stadium one would have to remove the roof.
The sides of the stadium are also clad in a similar glass outer structure which I'd imagine would have to be removed also.

Hypothetically if all the people living in Havlock square and adjacent streets moved out and the land was just handed to the IRFU, the cost of expansion would be very considerable.

Thank you for your information - even though it is very disappointing. I had considered the criticism of the IRFU and the FAI to be unfair. Their stadium may be too small for their expected market but they had not enought land to build a larger stadium. So why criticise them for it? Rather like disliking a man because he is bald.

But now it appears that the IRFU and IFA have not left scope for convenient expansion in the event of additional land becoming available sometime during the next 20 years. How could they have been so short sighted?

DWCommuter

I understand how excited and positive some people feel about this stadium. It is far superiour to what was there before.

But the reality is that it is not "world class" or "state of the art". I'm sick and tired of how these phrases are bandied about Irish society in relation to very ordinary pieces of infrastructure. I have been to a hell of a lot of stadiums around Europe over the years and Aviva will not rate very highly in terms of a spectator arena.

The insistance on building a new stadium on this site was a mistake and is the sole reason that it is a poor example of what a new stadium should have been. After all the years of talking and planning and proposing, we got a funny shaped bowl, with a glass house at one end (bring the sunfactor for the back of your neck:D), monkey bars for those in the cheap seats and a capacity that isn't future proofed.

As usual we Irish settle for average.:rolleyes:

DWCommuter

crucamim wrote: »

But now it appears that the IRFU and IFA have not left scope for convenient expansion in the event of additional land becoming available sometime during the next 20 years. How could they have been so short sighted?

Shortsighted? No. It was a Government decision that left them in this situation. The "no longer in existance" PD party are responsible for it.

ergo

not read this entire thread but at least the last 5 pages

I want to love this stadium - I have been down around it a few times (outside) during the building, just to have a look, build the excitement

seriously, could they not have made a half decent attempt at some capacity in the north stand?

are there any similar stadiums in the world, with one "crappy" end? :mad: and smart arses , don't say Croke Park - at least proper atmosphere comes from the Hill end

like most here I've been to many stadiums, San Siro, Berlin olympic, Stade de france etc, most of the ones in UK, Australia

surely this can't rank among any of those - we've ended up with an ultra expensive, half-arsed stadium, the envy of nobody, looks good on the skyline but big deal, gonna be stuck with it for the rest of my lifetime - :mad: and restricted views in a brand new stadium..FFS

Koloman

DWCommuter wrote: »

Shortsighted? No. It was a Government decision that left them in this situation. The "no longer in existance" PD party are responsible for it.

If Bertie hadn't of given the GAA a big cheque the day before the opening of Croke Park was due to be discussed (on a permanent basis don't forget) at central council then in all likely hood there would be no Aviva stadium at all now. The IRFU and FAI would then be permanent tenants of the GAA.

Would this scenario be more to your liking?

Koloman

ergo wrote: »

not read this entire thread but at least the last 5 pages


are there any similar stadiums in the world, with one "crappy" end? :mad: and smart arses , don't say Croke Park - at least proper atmosphere comes from the Hill end

That "end" is far from "crappy". Given the constraint they had, they have engineered a beautifully designed solution which when you compare it with the Hill in CP is better integrated into the overall design of the ground.

The atmosphere on the hill during soccer games is non existent and in rugby games it is only slightly better. The people are (obviously) too far from the action. This scenario wont happen at Lansdowne as the crowd will be on top of the players. The stands are quite steep. Well three quarters of them are!

crucamim

Koloman wrote: »

If Bertie hadn't of given the GAA a big cheque the day before the opening of Croke Park was due to be discussed (on a permanent basis don't forget) at central council then in all likely hood there would be no Aviva stadium at all now. The IRFU and FAI would then be permanent tenants of the GAA.

There is no guarantee that the decision of the GAA Congress would have been different.

As for the IRFU and the FAI being permanent tenants of the GAA, no doubt, those in charge of GAA finances would have loved it but I suspect that many followers of rugby and soccer would not. Croke Park is excellent for those who watch their rugby and soccer on TV. But for the real supporters who turn up at the venue, the playing area of Croke Park is too long and too wide. Excellent sight lines are not much advantage when one is too far from the action.

Koloman

DWCommuter wrote: »

As usual we Irish settle for average.:rolleyes:

There is nothing "average" about the Aviva. If anything it is over engineered.

ergo

Koloman wrote: »

That "end" is far from "crappy". Given the constraint they had, they have engineered a beautifully designed solution which when you compare it with the Hill in CP is better integrated into the overall design of the ground.

The atmosphere on the hill during soccer games is non existent and in rugby games it is only slightly better. The people are (obviously) too far from the action. This scenario wont happen at Lansdowne as the crowd will be on top of the players. The stands are quite steep. Well three quarters of them are!

I don't want to turn this into a Croke Park/Hill vs Aviva thing

but I was on the Hill for the soccer vs Italy and good atmosphere there

my main gripe is with the tiny number of seats, what is it, 2,000 at that end..? Why should we accept less than before? - I don't care how nice or quirky it looks - not good enough

Koloman

ergo wrote: »

Why should we accept less than before? - I don't care how nice or quirky it looks - not good enough

You forget that the stadium was moved to the east away from the railway line so it is not exactly a like for like situation as before.

ergo

Koloman wrote: »

You forget that the stadium was moved to the east away from the railway line so it is not exactly a like for like situation as before.

fair enough, it was moved 15 degrees (that right?)- I don't feel too comfortable as it is posting on the Infrastructure forum but as a mad sports fan who will be trying to get tickets and attending this place for the next 40 years (hopefully) for both codes my question is "could they not have bumped it up to 5,000 or 8,000 at the low end?"

JohnC.

They were restricted at that end. I'm sure they would have loved to have that end the same as the rest of the stadium too. But they couldn't.

ergo

fair enough - just a tiny bit more than 2,000 I would have liked

although am just realising that there are many baseball stadiums around the US with big walls at one side - doesn't seem to affect them - sure we'll see how it goes

deiseman21

not necessarily true, the southern end could be held up by temporary scaffolding (structure) as far as the half way line while the rest is redeveloped.
although, this would be quiet costly and lenghty, anyone for croker again:D