HDC and Toyota are really the only ones that I would say look similar from above, and even then HDC has more of a second deck and the berm. They might look more alike when just seeing the pitch on TV, but seriously there is only some much uniqueness that you can implement into a ~20,000 seat soccer stadium.
I believe the disaster itself played a part in the decision. Seriously! Let's get some athletic tracks between the field and the stands just so we can get some variety...
If they redo the whole lot in 2012, it forces the fans to buy all the new merchandise if they want to stay current.
The problem is they make every pitch rectangular in soccer, so every stadium will be more or less rectangular in shape. If they would just make the pitches have uneven dimensions, maybe we could get stadiums with a little more personality like they have in baseball.
Oh look. Critics of pro men's soccer moving forward. On new freakin' stadiums no less! Jeez, I need a drink.
Saputo looks a little frugal, but damn, you can't beat those prices.. It will look very good for a 40M stadium
Most MLS stadiums have similar styling DNA if you really look at it, for example I'll give you a rundown of a couple. 1. BMO Field and Crew stadium: These stadiums are similar in that they are both among MLS original soccer specifics which constructed the stands at ground level, but Toronto has better seating than Crew stadium and it has a center field entrances like other MLS stadiums. BMO Field is basically Crew stadium with the luxury package option, where as Crew stadium is more standard and stripped down... to add, they both have no roof! 2. DSG Park, Pizza Hut Park and Home Depot Center: Those stadiums are built below ground level and all have similar main stands with 2 or more stories of luxury suites and corner entrances. HDC is the only one of mentioned stadiums in this group that has a second level spectator stand and a near complete roof, while Pizza Hut Park has no roof. 3. Rio Tinto Stadium, Toyota Park and LIVESTRONG Sporting Park: Those stadiums are all similar because they are stadiums that are partially at ground level and partially below ground level with Toyota Park being most at ground level. All have a 2 story of more luxury suite high rise in the main stand of each stadium. All of the mentioned stadiums have roofs with Sporting Kansas City's roof being more spectacular sporting a roofing system similar to that of Red Bull Arena. Also all of the mentioned stadiums have center field entrances. 4. PPL Park: This stadium has found a clever way to incorporate 3 stadiums, PPL Park is an above ground stadium like BMO Field, it incorporates Towers for luxury suites like the one tower at DSG Park, The roofing is similar to that of Toyota Park and lastly the inside bowl is very similar to that of HDC in Carson California. Now PPL Park has some unique features that could be found in newer stadiums now in MLS, such as a dedicated section especially for the players with more European styled seats for the players and a dedicated section tailored especially for their supporters a special entrance. These mentioned features are also available in LIVESTRONG Sporting Park now also. 5. Red Bull Arena & Dynamo Stadium: Those stadiums are similar because they both are closed in stadiums that are built above the ground and has a complete enclosed second seating level, unique to Red Bull Arena though this new stadium design does not have one main stand that houses luxury suites like what is found in Red Bull Arena and most other MLS stadiums. But this stadium has a stage cover by seats while the stadium is being used for sporting events, such as in PPL Park and Rio Tinto Stadium's. 6. PGE Park: I would say as far as originality goes, this stadium is an MLS original, there is nothing else out there like this stadium. If you could find something similar to other MLS stadiums then add it, but PGE is original as it gets in MLS.
Very cool stadium. I also find it confusing how this could possibly be even remotely confused or similar to any other MLS stadium. One question I have - does the roof seem a bit small? It doesn't look like it covers that many spectators...
It doesn't cover very many, somewhere like 1/3 of people covered even though the roof reaches all the way from end to end of each seating bank. I'm not really sure what the thinking was there but it still looks good and is MLS size and is cheap while not looking like Crew Stadium which is now showing its age.
I agree with your groupings for the most part, but I'm just snipping them for length here. The point I think is lacking though is this: When you consider that all these stadiums are in the 15-30k, all designed for soccer and a similar set of other events, all under somewhat similar building codes and all except for PGE being built on a clean plat of land...there's only so many ways to solve the design question posed. This is not to say that I don't embrace more creative/unique architectural solutions - I do. But unless we start drastically increasing stadium capacities, or start developing in very urban areas with strange plat shapes or contexts that affect the design of the stadium, I think the BigSoccer architectural critics have to live with the fact that these stadiums are going to fit pretty neatly into those groups you've set up.
There wasn't supposed to be an actual roof initially, more like a few tarps, but they realized that with the roof, on top of improving the atmosphere (the covered stand is much louder despite a small capacity), would mean they could charge premium prices for "worse" tickets. While the best seats are usually higher up, the typical mentality is to be lower down, so it compensates. It also keeps the fans "inside" the stadium, and means that you won't see the mass exodus during storms that you've seen in the past. Plus, you know, cost. Some people like to hate on SS's barebone look (and I agree that's currently the case), but I'll be very curious to see how it compares to other new MLS stadiums once completed, at a fraction of their price (1/3 the cost of PPL Park).
I'd like for a MLS team to try this idea out from RW Essen in Germany for future expansion.... Phase 1 = 20,000 seats If needed Phase 2 = 25000 seats And if even more expansion is needed Phase 3 is taking off the roof adding another tier and putting the roof back on for a 35,000 seat stadium. Phase 1 costs 32 million euros.
I have noticed that on these boards as well. To me, I could care less about the amenities. I don't sit in the luxury boxes, I stand in the supporter sections. Simple to me is better, because the fans make the stadium not the number of hot high class drinking fountains.
I wonder how much of the 40m for the upgrade is taken up by the roof? One would think that if Crew Stadium had such a roof, they would attract more fans, particularly in rough weather. Not everyone that goes to MLS games are die-hard fans. I think that many put off going to a game with the prospect of sitting in the rain for a couple of hours.
I think the fact that Crew Stadium is erector-set makes it impossible to attach a roof to the stadium itself. Crew would have to build a roof as a separate structure with its own foundations, supports, etc. Not impossible but VERY expensive.
The 2 currently non-covered stands at SS are the same erector set way. What they're basically doing is building a structure behind the last rows of those stands which includes a few rows of seats, an access hallway, and the roof structure supports.
Thanks, I did not know that. I was just impressed with the improvements Montreal has come up with for their 40m, and was wondering if any such ideas had been discussed or whether it was even feasible in Columbus.