This was posted on teh Metrostars board, but i thought it should be posted here. http://www.sitonthis.com/index.html This company makes grandstands with fold down seats and bleachers to help make stadiums cheaper. This could be the answer to the stadium problem in MLS. Existing stadiums (with pressboxes) could be expanded for relatively cheap, or an entire stadium could be built for $20-30 million, including boxes and concessions.
It's hard for me to have an opinion on this thing since I don't know what to compare it to. Do you know any stadiums that have been completely built with this thing? Also, Pizza Hut Park and PAETEC Park each cost about $45 million without roofs, while HDC, Bridgeview, and Commerce City cost anywhere from $65-80 million with roofs. The big question I have is, can a 20,000 seater stadium, that is at least 3/4th enclosed and have at least 15,000 individual seats, at least 20 luxury boxes, decent room for concessions, with a roof over at least 1/2 the seats, be built for $30 million with this thing? If so, awesome.
1. I am more of an advocate for expanding existing stadiums with this thing (Titan, Mitchel, Nickerson) than for new stadiums. 2. What would be wrong with a league full of Crew Stadiums? 3. Why does everyone want a roof?
I think the REAL question here is why are you so against roofs!? Huh? HUH? I think there is a wide range of reasons why roofs are desirable. 1) They hold in noise and therefore increase atmosphere 2) They can hold out bad weather, which for a team like Columbus or New England might mean 5K a game early in the season. 3) They can look really cool if done right. 4) If you are a fan of the EPL, and want some of that flavor here, roofs are tres cool. There's nothing wrong with Columbus, just like there was nothing wrong with Three Rivers or Veterans to begin with. It's just that they might lack a little of that character that can make a stadium a central part of a community.
I'm not against a roof, just was kinda wondering why everyone wants them. They add extra cost, and i really don't think they do a whole lot; however, I guess I understand the point for them in some instances. FYI, I like the EPL, but I don't see why we would want to replicate everything they do, especially since, quite frankly, the money isn't there. Sometimes the almighty dollar prevails over what we really want.
Calexico77 explained the reasons why. And does this company produce stadium products MUCH cheaper than other companies? Because looking at their products, only the "Ultimate Stadium 2" set looks decent for MLS but I can't imagine it being much cheaper than others.
I'm not sure it is much cheaper than other companies. I'm sure there are others that could get the job done, but I think the larger point is that MLS needs to get out of large football stadiums, and into places where they can control revenue better. If this company - http://www.dantclayton.com/index.asp - is more up your alley that's fine. I think that MLS needs to realize that not every team is going to get a sweetheart deal like the Rapids, Galaxy, Fire and FCD all recieved, these things will most likely have to be privately financed, and if that leads to no roofs, and a league full of Crew Stadiums, then so be it.
Caveat: I didn't look at the website you posted, but here's some background for you. MLS stadiums have cost between about $27M (Crew Stadium) and $85M (HDC). When the Fire got kicked out of Soldier Field for the "renovation," it looked at building on a parking lot in Arlington Heights next to the race track. The "building" essentially was a modular stadium, similar to what it sounds like is at this website. A bunch of fold out stands would have been used, similar to venues at the Salt Lake City Olympics. If they had decided to stay there, then the stadium could have been built in stages--just replacing a module by building a permanent stand every year. It wasn't a bad idea, and I would have been interested to see it shape over time. I'm pretty sure this sort of thing has been done overseas, too.
if it makes building stadiums cheaper, i'd go for it, some of these things just need to be placed around a field, like Chicago did for naperville and it'll do just fine but the total stadium cost doesn't just include building the stadium itself, the $27 million went around for crew stadium, only about $18mil went to stadium construction, and the rest went to labor costs, permit to build, buying the land etc. also, HDC, PHP, are all huge projects, HDC comes witha soccer complex, a soccer stadium, a track feild, tennis courts velodrome, and i think an indoor track, PHP is part of a business development, thus increasing the cost of the stadium, but making it more affordable for the public, since having 2 separate projects, a city revitalization, and a stadium would cost more, than a stadium+city revitalization, which is what dc united is trying to do with poplar point
If Harrison ever got approved, this kind of plan might get them playing there in 2007 vs. 08/09. It's probably worth considering given how terrible the lease is at Giants Stadium.
HDC's complex cost $150 million. $85 was just the stadium (admittedly, with the restaurant, offices, et al. included).
When ever the subject of cheap stadiums come up I always have to go back to this old BBC article about the Euro 2004 stadiums in Portugal. Its quite amazing how they built all of them for half the price that the new Wembley. This Stadium in Algarve being the most impressive value I have ever seen.
When you look at a stadium...just don't view the number of seats or the quality/type of pitch. You must look at corporate suites, large-high definition video screen, the variety and quality of concessions. Is there a sports bar/restaurant, soccer store, child play area ...etc. To succeed in America, I think you need a fairly "high level of quality" in presenting the complete entertainment package. The highly sought after market is suburban families and corporate America. If you go towards a cheap stadium, you will fail to achieve this lucrative demographic. Soccer will not grow if you just placate the soccer fanatics. You can get away with this strategy in the rest of the world where soccer is so popular. A cheap stadium complex will only succeed in the short term. Soccer in America needs quality stadiums to create a successful long-term investment....and it looks like soccer is going in that direction.
I still think that MLS teams could renovate existing stadiums into SSS using these modular systems and spending money on boxes, parking, and a scoreboard. If they want to put in a roof, that's fine. Expansion is a more cost-effective solution to the stadium problems, especially if MLS partners with colleges to get that done. Chivas - Titan Stadium (CSU-Fullerton) San Jose - Buck Shaw Stadium (Santa Clara Univ.) or New Kezar in San Fransisco New England - Nickerson Field (Boston Univ.) Metrostars - Mitchel Field or Belson Stadium (St. John's) Mitchel and Kezar would require a new track facility nearby. Those would be for public use only, so that shouldn't be too expensive. Belson and Kezar wouldn't have quite enough parking but are both on or near Public Transit stations. I think all of these stadiums could be refurbished for close to 20 million as opposed to the 70-100 million of completely new stadiums. http://www.pakar-seating.com/grandstand.htm (another company)
The difficulty with the stadiums you have listed is that MLS teams would have to share with another team. This compromises revenue streams, playing surfaces, and scheduling. While I understand that you are thinking of ways to get into better situations on the cheap, these three factors are of very high importance. While I wouldn't disagree with any solution to getting out of the Meadowlands, I'm not sure that going on the cheap is really better for any of the other teams. For example: Carson is really close to many of the large Hispanic communities in the LA area. It's already a SSS, and I would assume that they would get most of the parking and concessions revenues. At Titan, do they play American Football? If so, then you've got the bad turf and lines during the last half of the season. I don't know much about Buck Shaw Stadium or New Kezar. But then, I really like Spartan for a game. At New England, the Krafts own Gillette, so they don't really have a good reason to move the team out unless it's to another stadium that they control. But Nickerson was a lot of fun to see the Breakers. From what I hear, anything would be better than the Meadowlands.
Cal State Fullerton discontinued their football team in the early 1990s. The only sport currently played at Titan is soccer.
It'd be another Spartan Stadium because of the field size. Plus, I doubt the college would give an MLS team favorable terms.
Field is 120x75, and if the team offered to pay for the renovations, I think the colleges would give them some pretty good deals.
If its rooves you want, there is always this option... http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/sports/index.html
Wow, if they can really build a 24,000 seat soccer stadium for $10 million dollars, it might be worth looking into. Although that would lead to artificial turf, which is not so good. I've played on both field turf and astroturf, and while field turf plays pretty naturally, they never got rid of the rug burn phenomenon.
From that site *Cost is for the Crenosphere shell only. Does not include interior finish So that $10 million is only for the roof I guess. My guess is the price would at least triple for the whole stadium. Plus with those domes, you are right that real turf is not an option. I personally rather be somewhat outside. We have the worlds largest world's largest air-supported domed stadium here where I live in Vancouver. I can tell you that its not twenty years old, and on the inside it looks really ugly.