While I certainly recognize that there are architecturally superior stadiums, my favorite is the one in my backyard: Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa, AL Capacity: 92,138 Opened in 1929 Most recent expansion in 2006 (The second one was taken before the most recent expansion though.)
Not that I'm an architectural stalker or anything, but the same guys who built the de Young museum in SF (which I posted in "your town's best building" thread) are building one of China's main stadia for the 2008 Olympics. Nicknamed "the birds' nest" (which is a very positive nickname in Chinese) it's pretty great: and almost finished: And here's a highly recommended link to a great, great page with other designs that lost out to this final design for 2008 games.
These guys also designed an aquatic center --- "the glass cube" -- for the Olympics: Which I think is also actually being built:
And of course they also designed Munich's Allianz Arena, which hosted several WC 06 matches and is home to Bayern Munich and 1860 I think: Do a google image search for that arena for many other great shots -- it has quite a few color variations depending what team is playing.
Are we judging it architecturally- by the look of it, by the fans- best atmosphere? or practically- best sight lines, disabled access, facilities etc?
Anything but atmosphere. La Bombadera is a shithole but it has great atmosphere. Sight lines are cool but only if they go along with the aesthetic. Wrigley Field has crap sitelines and awful amenitites but it is quite aestheically pleasing (or in otherwords, fly)
Amsterdam ArenA I watched Euro 2000 semi-final Netherland vs Italy from the same angle as the first picture.With the full capacity crowd and roofs hanging over our heads,it still had an airy feel to it.
Just my opinion, but that looks like the 1980s threw up a bunch of Legos and Super Mario built a stadium out them.
I love that nearly all the stadiums in America include parking lots and in everywhere else they don't. It just shows you how we as Americans value cars more than people in the way we design things. Its a real shame.
It's a new trend though. There have only been four American stadiums posted in this thread, two have huge parking lots next to them, two don't. The two that do are drawings.
I don't understand how having allowances for cars means you don't value people. I bought a house with a driveway. I must not value my wife. Value cars more than green space in those situations? Sure. Value value of land more than proximity to the people? Sure. Value giving the fans what they want more than creating the outside atmostphere of the stadium? Sure. But valuing cars more than people just doesn't make sense to me when looking at why there are parking lots around stadiums.
I dont agree with by catering for cars you are not valuing people. I think the main point is between 'allowing' for cars or 'catering' for cars. You are always going to have to allow for some cars, which would be nicer in a multi storey number, and have the majority of people go via public transport, than have the vast expanses of carparking around a stadium, such as below. This allows better forecourts to stadiums, or allowing fan areas with big screens to be set up adjoining the stadium to create a bigger atmosphere!
Here's my fav. stadium, home of the glorious World Cup qualifier two years ago- Telstra Stadium in Sydney. Here's a great example of a stadium designed to change. During the Olympics- it had extra seating added to allow maximum patronage. Then they took out the temporary seating at both ends and the athletics track, and made it into a multi functional ground. Telstra Stadium's roof is a hyperbolic paraboloid, offering protection to twice the number of spectators as compared to cantilevered roof stadiums. This roof shape also allows rainwater to be siphoned off into tanks to irrigate the pitch. It can be a rectangular stadium for soccer, rugby league & rugby union as seen below........ Note that in rugby league & rugby union the end zones of the ground are fuller for the in goal areas. By having adjustable seats, the ground can also be re-configured into a round shaped tadium for cricket or AFL games. This re-configuration can occur overnight, as we've had a AFL game followed the next day by a rugby league game, with the stadium in both configurations.
It means you value only people than can drive or have the fortune to own a car. True, no one is forcing you to buy a car but because of economics and other externalities you pretty much have to own a car to live in 75%, if not more, of the United States. Even the most mundane tasks in "urban areas" like Tampa, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, Columbus, they require you to drive because everything is built to accommodate automobiles much more so than pedestrians, ie. bigger parking lots, wider roads, set back requirements, obscene one use zoning laws. Sure they can ride the bus but they have to walk through environments that are very unfriendly to pedestrians. The fact that our entire country's infrastructure revolves around the automobile is very unsustainable and wasteful. It contributes to several problems like: lung disease, asthma, obesity, our insecure and dangerous dependence on foreign oil supplies, cookie cutter cartoon architecture, just to name a few. The car is the best and worst thing to ever happen to America. It powered our economy to new heights and revolutionized the way things are done here, while at the same time destroying the landscape of much of our great country.