The New Lansdowne Road

Idbatterim

the benefits of croker, purely financially over Lansdowne are huge! for hotels, pubs, resteraunts, taxi's etc etc etc, not too mention all the money that could have went into the development of rugby and soccer and back into the grassroots! 50,000k is actually laughable, 60k would have been good! and I dont for a second believe it couldnt have been achieved!

pinkfloyd34

well i hope the residents who complained and got the height lower don't start complaining when the rugby and soccer balls are kicked into there gardens, they will only have themselves to blame

DWCommuter

pinkfloyd34 wrote: »

well i hope the residents who complained and got the height lower don't start complaining when the rugby and soccer balls are kicked into there gardens, they will only have themselves to blame

They're used to it.:D

Ive no gripe with the residents in general except those who objected in totality to the rebuild. That was just bull**** behaviour. However the lowering of the havelock sq end was a reasonable request when viewed from their perspective. Unfortunetly the nimbyism has prevented a fine staduim from being built as the realignment of the ground was also shot down. In these circumstances we should have made the following decisions.

Ignore the residents.

or

Relocate the stadium and build it to a decent unconstrained spec.

I don't subscribe to all this traditional baloney about the "home" of rugby. A decent team will play decent anywhere and traditions serve no purpose in the long term development of sporting facilities. The Irish Rugby team won a grand slam in Wales, while based out of Croke Park FFS.

rainbowdash

spank_inferno wrote: »

I respect that the wishes of locals have to be respected.

But the stadium was there first and it will be there after the residents are dead. Respect the residents to a point but if they were selling their houses they would be using proximity to LR as a positive, not a negative. I lived near the two main stadia in Limerick for a good few years and proximity far outweighed the hassle on match days.

Having said that there is a small number of houses down the road from the DART station with big gardens and a river behind that. These should have been bought out and the road buried under the stadium or closed. This would have enabled them to pull the stadium 50 odds metres towards the south terrace and build a decent stadium. 65K min. should have been the brief.

Bluetonic

DWCommuter wrote: »

Unfortunetly the nimbyism has prevented a fine staduim from being built as the realignment of the ground was also shot down.

What realignment?

L1011

Bluetonic wrote: »

What realignment?

Turning it a full 90 degrees was proposed.

Bluetonic

MYOB wrote: »

Turning it a full 90 degrees was proposed.

Yes but that wasn't really rejected due to NIMBY'isim was it?

Turning it 90 degrees would have resulted on the loss of the back pitch, coupled with the north stand most likely being subject to the same height restrictions due to the shadow it would create - with or without objections.

rainbowdash

Bluetonic wrote: »

Yes but that wasn't really rejected due to NIMBY'isim was it?

Turning it 90 degrees would have resulted on the loss of the back pitch, coupled with the north stand most likely being subject to the same height restrictions due to the shadow it would create - with or without objections.

Which is likely to generate the most revenue - the back pitch or an extra 15-20K seats?

Like I said above, if they bought the few houses down from the station (it looks like about 10 houses from google images) then they could have pulled the whole thing across a bit.

Also they could have looked at sinking the whole thing 10 or 20 feet lower to avoid height restrictions.

Bluetonic

rainbowdash wrote: »

Which is likely to generate the most revenue - the back pitch or an extra 15-20K seats?

Like I said above, if they bought the few houses down from the station (it looks like about 10 houses from google images) then they could have pulled the whole thing across a bit.

Also they could have looked at sinking the whole thing 10 or 20 feet lower to avoid height restrictions.

They would have fit less capacity in it by rotating it 90 degrees as the new north side full height long stand wouldn't have gotten planning permission, regardless of complaints or not. The capacity of a rotated stadium with the low north side was less than they are building. The study of this is well published. It's not just NIMBYisim - it wouldn't have gotten planning.

They would need to buy 30-40 houses minimum at 2006/7 levels adding another €110m minimum to the stadium cost. Probably much more than that though when everything is taken into consideration.

They couldn't have sunk the stadium due to the grounds conditions and water table.

rainbowdash

Bluetonic wrote: »

They would have fit less capacity in it by rotating it 90 degrees as the new north side full height long stand wouldn't have gotten planning permission, regardless of complaints or not. The capacity of a rotated stadium with the low north side was less than they are building. The study of this is well published. It's not just NIMBYisim - it wouldn't have gotten planning.

They would need to buy 30-40 houses minimum at 2006/7 levels adding another €110m minimum to the stadium cost. Probably much more than that though when everything is taken into consideration.

They couldn't have sunk the stadium due to the grounds conditions and water table.

I am referring to the approx. 10 houses across the road from the old south terrace. Behind that there is a river and a road, so no houses to worry about.

Bluetonic

rainbowdash wrote: »

I am referring to the approx. 10 houses across the road from the old south terrace. Behind that there is a river and a road, so no houses to worry about.

I don't see how buying those houses (of which they already own all but four) would lead to a bigger capacity on the north side of the stadium.

Can you explain this?

Even closing a public road would not lead to the addition of enough space due to the layout.

rainbowdash

Bluetonic wrote: »

I don't see how buying those houses (of which they already own all but four) would lead to a bigger capacity on the north side of the stadium.

Can you explain this?

Even closing a public road would not lead to the addition of enough space due to the layout.

The whole structure would be pulled away from the existing bounds on the north side allowing them to go higher.

They could also make the east and west stands higher as they are further away from houses.

I didn't know they already owned 4 of them houses. It wouldn't have taken much to buy the rest of them and finish the job properly.

No point getting too excited about it at this stage.

Bluetonic

rainbowdash wrote: »

The whole structure would be pulled away from the existing bounds on the north side allowing them to go higher.

They could also make the east and west stands higher as they are further away from houses.

I didn't know they already owned 4 of them houses. It wouldn't have taken much to buy the rest of them and finish the job properly.

No point getting too excited about it at this stage.

It's only 4 they don't own.

What would you do about the public road?

The space gained is minimal, and then you have Wanders clubhouse to deal with again.

The winter sun (shadow cast) would still be a massive issue.

Anyhow your right, no point in getting excited about it. Should have been build down the road on the Irish Glass site!

rainbowdash

Bluetonic wrote: »

It's only 4 they don't own.

What would you do about the public road?

The space gained is minimal, and then you have Wanders clubhouse to deal with again.

The winter sun (shadow cast) would still be a massive issue.

Anyhow your right, no point in getting excited about it. Should have been build down the road on the Irish Glass site!

Not sure how important the road is but maybe they could close it completely, or route it under the stand or make it one way etc.

The point is there was surely scope to make it approx. 65K if they put their minds to it properly.

50K is just too small for all the (much of it taxpayers) investment.

big mce

Took these today.

big mce

More here:

http://pix.ie/bigmce/album/361544

sdanseo

Those houses should have been bought and knocked and if the residents wouldn't play ball then the stadium moved. No excuse for the utter shambles that has been crammed in.

I've visited the site and both the stadium and the pricing//ticketing structure surrounding it are complete and utter bull****.

REFLINE1

sdonn wrote: »

Those houses should have been bought and knocked and if the residents wouldn't play ball then the stadium moved. No excuse for the utter shambles that has been crammed in.

I've visited the site and both the stadium and the pricing//ticketing structure surrounding it are complete and utter bull****.

How..in your expert opinion is the stadium utter bull****??

Is that comment solely based on the North stand..?

Koloman

sdonn wrote: »

No excuse for the utter shambles that has been crammed in.

I've visited the site and both the stadium and the pricing//ticketing structure surrounding it are complete and utter bull****.

A shambles? You need your eyes testing if that stadium is a shambles! A little less anger and a bit more realism is called for here.

We had years of debate on the location and capacity of the stadium but that's all in the past now so we are just going to have to live with it.

I for one think it will be a fine stadium and it will be a fitting platform for our players.

Judgement Day

Koloman wrote: »

A shambles? You need your eyes testing if that stadium is a shambles! A little less anger and a bit more realism is called for here.

We had years of debate on the location and capacity of the stadium but that's all in the past now so we are just going to have to live with it.

I for one think it will be a fine stadium and it will be a fitting platform for our players.

There is absolutely no question that the new Lansdowne Road is a complete farce - too large for the FAI and way too small for the IRFU. The capacity of the new ground is a paltry 50,000 - Croke Park can hold 82,300. The attendance at the the Heineken Cup semi-final last May between Leinster and Munster was 82,208! Need anything more be said on the subject?

sdanseo

REFLINE1 wrote: »

How..in your expert opinion is the stadium utter bull****??

Is that comment solely based on the North stand..?

Koloman wrote: »

A shambles? You need your eyes testing if that stadium is a shambles! A little less anger and a bit more realism is called for here.

We had years of debate on the location and capacity of the stadium but that's all in the past now so we are just going to have to live with it.

I for one think it will be a fine stadium and it will be a fitting platform for our players.

Judgement Day wrote: »

There is absolutely no question that the new Lansdowne Road is a complete farce - too large for the FAI and way too small for the IRFU. The capacity of the new ground is a paltry 50,000 - Croke Park can hold 82,300. The attendance at the the Heineken Cup semi-final last May between Leinster and Munster was 82,208! Need anything more be said on the subject?

Addressing all three of these in one go;

The stadium was built with the usual lack of foresight (and by that I mean ANY foresight whatsoever, not just a small oversight) by people who wanted it rushed through after the Bertie Bowl fiasco.

The reality is that Ireland could fill a 100,000 seater stadium for most matches involving the international teams that are any way important. The stadium was a compromise and I'm sorry but to me, contributing €150m+ of taxpayers money to a compromise is just not ****ing good enough. It's by no means too large for the FAI - the playoff in croker was a sellout or as near as makes no difference and most of the games in the qualification series appeared to me to have 40,000-70,000 attendances - most of them certainly over the capacity of the new stadium.

The stadium is a ridiculous shape and size - you may very well say that all in all it will serve its purpose, and yes, it will. But first impressions are what count and people will, whether we like it or not, come to the stadium and think "oh, they made a right mess of this didn't they".

The excuse of Croke Park is not here in this case, there is **** all historical significance left and the railway line is not a significant obstruction. The wanderers pavilion is the only thing in the way short of the shadow that would have been cast over about 8 houses. Sorry, but the ergonomics of 8 houses should not impede the development of a national landmark with the potential to earn us billions over the years. In any event, it should have been moved out of the cramped city centre to somewhere like Abbotstown (Bertie was damn right on this at the time) and, ideally, a small stadium built at the site along the lines of the RDS for matches with a lesser capacity, or else the site sold altogether, or turned into a park, ANYTHING but what they've actually gone and done.

I stand by my assertions that the stadium is an absolute farce. I was in Giants' stadium in NJ recently and that is a fine example of how such a complex should be built; at a motorway intersection with large car parks, regular bus shuttles and since this autumn, a dedicated rail station which had trains idling at both platforms almost constantly during the night. They've actually had space to build a second, larger stadium on the site without any disruption and could probably fit two more before they ran out, all because the place was PLANNED well.

And on top of all of this, the name is changed to Aviva stadium because they sold the rights. Bull****.

Common sense and planning are things which this country just does not do, and through no fault of most of its taxpayers. This stadium is just another massive example of the policy of "ah we'll be grand" and the people responsible for it should be stripped of their jobs and pensions for gross misconduct. Delaney first.

Koloman

sdonn wrote: »

the people responsible for it should be stripped of their jobs and pensions for gross misconduct. Delaney first.

Why Delaney first? Unless you are Bernard O'Byrne then Delaney should be way down the list of people (according to you) who should loose their jobs.

Fran Rooney was in charge of the FAI when they got together with the IRFU for the Lansdowne Road redevelopment.

sdanseo

Koloman wrote: »

Why Delaney first?

Many reasons but manily just because he's a dick.

Daysha

sdonn wrote: »

The reality is that Ireland could fill a 100,000 seater stadium for most matches involving the international teams that are any way important.

I'm sorry but what cloud cookoo land are you living in? Dealing with soccer first, the Irish soccer team would never fill a 100,000 seater stadium. Ever. Regardless of what you may think about the France match two weeks ago, tickets were still easily available to purchase only up to a few hours before kick off. When Ireland leave Croker that match, along with the first match against Wales, will remain as the only games that were sold out for an Irish international.

Ireland vs Wales was historically a very important game so it's no surprise that it was sold out. Ireland/France meanwhile was the most important soccer game to be played in Ireland since the days of the Jack Charlton era, and still it's not as if tickets were like goldust or anything.

The stadium is a ridiculous shape and size - you may very well say that all in all it will serve its purpose, and yes, it will. But first impressions are what count and people will, whether we like it or not, come to the stadium and think "oh, they made a right mess of this didn't they".

Actually the majority of people I've spoken to, both home and abroad, were in agreement that it's actually a fantastic looking stadium. It's not your generic souless bowl you'd find in the Emirates or elsewhere, and how the roof swoops down on the north side doesn't make it look unfinished, it makes it look classy and unique.

I stand by my assertions that the stadium is an absolute farce. I was in Giants' stadium in NJ recently and that is a fine example of how such a complex should be built; at a motorway intersection with large car parks, regular bus shuttles and since this autumn, a dedicated rail station which had trains idling at both platforms almost constantly during the night. They've actually had space to build a second, larger stadium on the site without any disruption and could probably fit two more before they ran out, all because the place was PLANNED well.

Do you realise the kind of money that was spent on the Giants stadium? If not I'll give you some figures. When the original Giants stadium was built in the mid 70's it cost $78 million, which was an INSANE amount of money to spend at the time. The new Giants stadium currently being built is costing around $1.4 billion! How, in all honesty, can you reasonably compare that to Lansdowne Road?

Ireland does not have the right to expect to have an 80,000 seater stadium for soccer and rugby, never mind two stadiums of that size in the same city. Holland has double the population of Ireland and is one of the best soccer countries in the world yet the Amsterdam ArenA can hold 50,000.

We will have a top-class, 50,000 seater stadium that has already been awarded Elite status by UEFA, automatically making it one of the best stadiums in the world. The design of the structure would seem to suggest a fantastic atmosphere will be created there, and it goes without saying in comparison to the old Lansdowne it is lightyears ahead. And while the GAA won't admit it, the door will never be fully shut on soccer and rugby returning to Croke Park intermittently, so the option of using the bigger capacity if we need it will always be there.

We are by all means a small country. Yet this time next year we will have two brilliant stadiums with a combined capacity of 132,000! One has the sheer size and capacity, the other will have the atmosphere and smart design, and we really should be happy with that.

bk

Daysha wrote: »

And while the GAA won't admit it, the door will never be fully shut on soccer and rugby returning to Croke Park intermittently, so the option of using the bigger capacity if we need it will always be there.

Unfortunately Croker will never be used again for Rugby or Soccer, even for the biggest games. More money for the IRFU to make on corporate boxes and not paying the GAA in Lansdowne Road then filling Croker.

Which will be an awful pity for all the extra fans who have been filling Croker, who probably won't be able to get tickets for Lansdowne Road.

spank_inferno

Thanks for the pictures Big_MCE, its quite interesting.

Because when you see the pictures from inside the stadium, the north end looks tiny, however from the outside the roof structure must be nearly 4 stories tall.

so having a full sized tier if it could have fit would have been dwarfed those houses to an enormous extent.

However, would if have cost a lot to buy that street?
Is there may houses on it and behind the camera's perspective?

If it would have cost 5 million more surely it would have been worth it?

sdanseo

Daysha wrote: »

Do you realise the kind of money that was spent on the Giants stadium? If not I'll give you some figures. When the original Giants stadium was built in the mid 70's it cost $78 million, which was an INSANE amount of money to spend at the time. The new Giants stadium currently being built is costing around $1.4 billion! How, in all honesty, can you reasonably compare that to Lansdowne Road?

I wasn't comparing the stadium as much as I was comparing the space and facilities around it. To do the same with perhaps 70,000 seats in Abbotstown, or maybe out near Citywest with the LUAS and rail nearby, would have been by far the most sensible option and I don't think anyone can argue with that tbh.

Koloman

sdonn wrote: »

To do the same with perhaps 70,000 seats in Abbotstown, or maybe out near Citywest with the LUAS and rail nearby, would have been by far the most sensible option and I don't think anyone can argue with that tbh.

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

Bluetonic

Daysha wrote: »

One has the sheer size and capacity, the other will have the atmosphere and smart design, and we really should be happy with that.

Do you really think the 30,000+ rugby fans and 10,000+ football fans who want to go to the games but can't because of short sightedness should be happy with that?

The way you put it you'd think the 'capacity' and 'atmosphere and smart design' were mutually exclusive. They are not.

Your comments about the football games never being able to sell out a 100k capacity stadium is crazy. If sometime in the next 60 years to 70 years (stadium life approx) Ireland were to win one of the two major International trophies it is more than likely demand would exceed 100k. I'm not saying a 100k capacity stadium is needed but your claims that they would never fill it are dismissive rubbish. Significantly more than 100k people turned out after world cup 1990 and 1994. If pricing was right the 100k capacity would be easily achieved if available.

Bluetonic

Koloman wrote: »

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.

Demand for both rugby and football tickets (20% of capacity on waiting list which is closed two years) far exceeds supply (for the new stadium, as it did old stadium).

I think your own judgement is clouded.

Tell me what good is it building a facility that doesn't cater for the demand?