Crew Stadium gets alot of flak, particularly on this website, but it's also a 23,000 seat stadium (far bigger than any Texas high school stadium). And more importantly it was the trailblazer. It was the first true soccer stadium in MLS and only the second in the US, and it was built completely out of Lamar Hunt's pocket. Sure it's very basic, but without Crew stadium there would be no Rio Tinto or RBA and hell there might not even been an MLS.
It's nice, but you guys should have kept the original roof design. It was far nicer. This roof looks more like your average US SSS than the original design.
Real Salt Lake stadium are very similar to many other MLS stadiums such as Chicago Fire, LA Galaxy, Colorado Rapids, etc... In fact they are almost the same design.
Well even looks Crew Stadium doesn't necessarily look like a high school stadium either since most high school stadiums don't have sky boxes or multiple decks. But I'll admit it's closer than any other MLS stadium.
i think you are giving to much credit to such shitty architecture and design its a terrible looking stadium man...that thing could hold 50K (not that it would cause theyd never fill it up) and it still wouldnt change my opinion...
well actually no..some of those stadiums u mention have freaking benches all around...new stadiums shouldnt have benches and the design is actually quite nicer than the basic looks of chicago's, home depot which i think is very basic, and the rapids stadium... Tinto is enclosed all around and have individual seats all around..
I'm not saying it is great, but you can't deny the importance of it. No Crew Stadium, none of the rest of them. It was the stadium that proved a SSS could be built and more importantly could be profitable for an MLS team. And again while it is fairly spartan, it also offers decent sightlines and a good experience for the Crew fans. That said it is also the ugliest MLS SSS venue.
Bud, the more you talk the more wrong you are. I am tire of looking up all the info for you but none of the stadiums have benches all around, all of those stadiums have individual seats. Also, they all have luxury boxes as well and all cost well over $100 million dollars. Only Crew stadium have benches all around.
I obviously wont and dont see that from the outside...i dont know/care/or want to know about the history of the league or whatnot..I amhere to judge stadia and the looks of it...and the architecture. --- on a lighter note.. any guys know exactly when the chivas stadium opens its doors? have they built the viaducto? how bout the Monterrey stadium..have they started building? i posted the project but i dont if the article mentioned anything about dates they would start
No, Qwest field is a soccer stadium that doubles as a football venue. But seriously, the Seattle Sounders is not going anywhere. That is their permanent stadium. When it was built, it was built with both soccer and football in mind. If that is not a soccer stadium, then all the stadium in the world that has a running track or share fields with other sports like rugby, etc... wouldn't be a soccer stadium neither. Seattle Sounder so far has already sold all of their 32,000 season ticket with 5,000 more in the waiting list. If they ever open up the whole stadium, I have no doubt that their season attendance would be around 45,000 - 50,000. If all the MLS teams have the support like the Sounders, they would all play in the NFL stadiums instead of building their own smaller soccer specific stadiums. All of the modern NFL stadiums are designed to be soccer specific as well. They all want a piece of the ever growing soccer, and future World Cup financial pie.
Since when? The only ones that were even designed with soccer as a consideration were Seattle and Cowboy's Stadium. And Dallas' and both's execution were not spot on with the fake grass. That said I understand Qwest is Seattle's permanent home. And a good home it is for them. I was impressed when I visited last season, however don't delude yourself into thinking it was designed as a soccer stadium first. It's first and foremost an NFL stadium which is why it has 67,000 seats that even the Sounders couldn't fill.
Ofcourse Qwest Field is an NFL stadium first and foremost but it is also a soccer stadium as well. Tons of stadiums around the world are designed even worse with running tracks around it, does that mean it isn't a soccer stadium? Who are the people that makes the rule that NFL stadiums aren't soccer stadiums? You? Also since when a stadium has to be filled to be a soccer stadium, have you seen the attendance for Serie A matches in the last 10 years? Below are the list of 32 stadiums that are chosen for hosting the world cup in the US, which all have been approved by the strict FIFA facility and field dimension requirements (with many more stadiums eligible as well). All these points were discussed Ad nauseam in the past in the US forums. http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Federation-Services/2009/08/27-Cities-Chosen-For-World-Cup-Bid.aspx Atlanta Georgia Dome 71,250 Baltimore M & T Bank Stadium 71,008 Boston Gillette Stadium 71,693 Charlotte Bank of America Stadium 73,778 Chicago Soldier Field 61,000 Cleveland Cleveland Browns Stadium 72,000 Dallas Cotton Bowl 89,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadium 100,000 Denver INVESCO Field 76,125 Detroit Ford Field 67,188 Detroit Michigan Stadium 108,000 Houston Reliant Stadium 71,500 Indianapolis Lucas Oil Stadium 64,200 Jacksonville, Fla. Jacksonville Municipal Stadium 82,000 Kansas City Arrowhead Stadium 77,000 Los Angeles Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 93,607 Los Angeles Rose Bowl 92,000+ Miami Land Shark Stadium 75,540 Nashville LP Field 69,143 New York/N.J. New Meadowlands Stadium 82,000 Oakland Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum 63,026 Orlando Florida Citrus Bowl 65,616 Philadelphia Lincoln Financial Field 67,594 Phoenix/Glendale University of Phoenix Stadium 71,000 San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 70,500 San Francisco Stanford Stadium 50,500 Seattle Qwest Field 67,000 Seattle Husky Stadium 72,500 St. Louis Edward Jones Dome 67,268 Tampa Raymond James Stadium 65,856 Washington, D.C. RFK Stadium 45,600 Washington, D.C. FedExField 91,704 Like I said, if soccer was popular in the US like the rest of the world, none of these tiny soccer specific stadiums would be built here in the US, and all MLS teams would all be play in the giant NFL stadiums like the Seattle Sounders. Are you telling me that if all these stadiums were to be relocated to South America or Europe or any other part of the world and have soccer teams as tenants they still wouldn't be soccer stadiums?
Nice looking stadium! First of its kind in the states. I will withhold my analysis of the stadium until the final phase of construction is actually complete.
I thought the Home Depot center had lots of benches? NFL stadiums are also adequate for soccer use by sheer default. The fact that the dynamics of a soccer field and NFL field are extremely similar make it easy to switch back and forth. Sure, they're designed with soccer in mind, if it makes you feel better. There's still an addittion/final phase in mind?
I believe it features benches at both ends of the pitch, the majority of the seating is single, chairback seats. And while I agree, it would be nice nice if MLS didn't have 4 or 5 stadiums that look almost identical, RBA and the rennovated stadium Portland is putting up do offer a nice break and their own unique style.
They do have benches at each ends but not all around like what Tano09Xsiempre said. As you can see from the above picture of a modern NFL stadium, the Gillette Stadium. The field was built to fit both dimension of a soccer field and football field. The older NFL stadiums only build to fit a football field dimension, which is much slimmer than the soccer field dimension. In order to fit a soccer field dimension, the football field are now much farther away from the sideline seatings (it is similar to having a running track around a new soccer stadium), and the NFL owners are willing to make that huge sacrifice that in order to fit a soccer field as well.
Just because it can fit a soccer pitch doesn't mean it was specifically designed for it. And actually the older football stadiums that were built in the 60's were even wider than a stadium like Gillette because they also had to accommodate the much larger baseball field.
Look at the picture above, if you are a foreigner and see the stadium for the first time or if these stadiums were located in Europe or South America, do you think the stadium is made for football (seats are way too far from the field) or is made for soccer (the seats are right next to the field)? Like I said, the new NFL owners sacrificed a lot just to fit the soccer field dimension in there, it is like putting a running track around a brand new soccer stadium. Do you think any owners in Europe would put seats that far away from the field for a brand new soccer stadium? IMO, these modern NFL stadiums are even more soccer specific than football specific.
Yes it is. The width isn't there to accommodate soccer, it's to accommodate the two football teams standing on the sidelines, their support personnel, the moving TV cameras, the medical staff, etc... There is only one NFL stadium other than Qwest that was built with soccer specifically in mind and that was this year's Super Bowl site, Dolphin Stadium (or whatever it's called this year. And if you look at it, the field of that stadium is much wider than almost any venue in the NFL, actually to the detriment of the football viewing experience.
Wrong, the older NFL stadiums are made much slimmer, that is why a lot of them are not able to fit FIFA soccer field dimension. If you watch the NFL games, there are a lot of space between the football teams standing on the sidelines, their support personnel, the moving TV cameras, the medical staff, etc... and the sideline seats. It has been written many times before these new stadiums are built that the owner made sacrifices just to fit the soccer dimension. And no matter what reason you can come up with to discredit them, these new NFL stadiums are perfectly made for soccer. Alright I am out, got to get back to work.