Soccer Stadiums have no character :(

Atlanta does not have a stadium, they have not evn begun on the proposed stadium, which was supposed to open in 2006.

 

My opinion is that you can't buy or construct character. The fans will give it character. RFK has tons of character.

 

Obviously you haven't been to the HDC I think out all the SSS now standing it has the most character. It is a full circular stadium with a second deck and a general admission grass area, but it's all in the eye of the beholder. We should be happy that we have SSS in this country.


http://www.homedepotcenter.com/home/default.sps

 

Agreed. You have to crawl before you can walk. And right now there are three S.S.S. stadiums in MLS with Chicago's on the way. Rochester is almost ready, Atlanta is gonna have one. Soon to be one in Harrison, NJ for the MetroStars. Character will come later, but right now I'm just happy that MLS is moving out of the NFL & College Football Stadiums to have their own stadiums to call them home and be financially stable.

 

Are you trying to tell me that the HDC, PHP and Crew Stadium arent different from each other? Becuase there all quite different from each other. Colorado is also bringing in a different take on its stadium, as it would seem are Toronto and Real eventually.

 

but those stadiums are all expandable, when the clubs got rich, they will probably add some new chairs and style & caracter too ....

 

Good call. In a few years time when eg. Chicago build higer around the stage, Dallas build a second deck opposite the stage, Rochester build exec boxes or a hotel at the open end. Little projects like that will change the look of the stadiums, depending on what the owners think will bring in more cash in that particular city.

 

Colorado's stadium will have character. the roof will have different slanted pieces to symbolize the Rockies. should be pretty cool.

here's a link

http://www.coloradorapids.com/community/stadiumpics.asp?ID=1#

at least we're starting to get SSS. if at least half of the teams get them, it will be really hard for this league to die.

 

Exactly. The Fire could play in a plastic tent and everyone could sit on metal chairs for all I care. So long as everyone is supporting their asses off the place will take on a life of its own.

 

I agree with what you're saying about the style/layout of the new soccer stadia in the U.S.. They all tend to be a "U" shaped lower bowl with a stage
or 'future stage area' at the open end. Some sites have upper tiers on the sidelines, but the general idea is the same. With that being said, there's not much you can do at this early stage of development. Money is definitely an issue now, and it's quite possible (don't know for sure) that MLS or AEG has contracted with a firm to produce 7 or 8 new stadia over the next 5-10 years in order to get a better deal on the price tag. Makes sense. The hope is that MLS becomes profitable across the league sooner rather than later, and this is just the best we can do right now... which isn't too bad by the way.

 

I read that the builder or something from DC United is looking at the plans from different European stadiums , like Boltons The Reebok , to bring character to the stadium they are planning on building . It's a little fuzzy , but I remeber reading that. As for Real Salt Lakes stadium , I think it will be great . I have a lot of family up in SLC , and I go to games when i get up there , and the fans are great , and this will be a quality stadium that will be full , with the mountains behind it . Thats character to me.

 

I think I'm one of the few who actually have noticed that one, adidas uses cookie cutter jerseys just as much as Nike, and two, that MLS is using cookie cutter designs for all these stadiums. "Whoa...one side his higher than the other. So unique!" People, they all look the same. Seriously. Crew Stadium is the ONLY unique stadium, and that's because MLS could only afford bleachers at the time. How does the Colorado stadium look any different than what will be sitting in Harrison in a couple of years?

It's all the same thing. Stands on both sides, with a stage at the top. That's all it the designing MLS does for these things. MILLIONS of dollars are being put on the table. I wouldn't be suprised if they by accident designed the initial stadium design with a Sharpie on a stack of line paper, and took advantage of the markers ability to mark the pages underneath the top one. Since not all of the ink was able to bleed to the next page, that's where they became "creative." They "filled in the blank."

I think MLS becomes less and less creative as the years go by. Pretty soon there will be people in Philly rooting for Philadelphia FC because they plain and simple can't come up with a catchy nickname for the team.

 

i'm still just really happy that we're getting stadia. period.

i've always had the dream of a closed square stadium though. i mean four sides, all with two tiers. that would be classy, even if it would only hold 25-30k. talk about amazing atmosphere.

part of the reason for the designs for stadia today is so they can possibly be expanded. if soccer ever actually truly takes off like everyone has been planning on, stadia will need to be at least 40k. expanding is a lot cheaper than building new stadia.

 

God I hope so. Has America become such a dullard nation that whilst countries all over the world build stunningly creative and innovative stadiums, we build places like Columbus that look like they put an effing jamboree tent behind one of the goals? FFS. What happened to the effing roof? It rains, and the sun sometimes gets oppressive in the summer, in Columbus, and pretty much everywhere else, ffs.

Indeed as the thread starter said, it's been a crying shame so far. As expected, the braindead MLS has so far brought minimal flair and vision to this aspect.

They have a chance to make an "ooh aah" impact with their new stadiums, and yet, sadly, it's another opportunity, so far, largely squandered.

Folks - we have a chance to build brand new stadiums here. To make a statement. Make our hearts soar with pride. Where are the great American architects that can make the shivers go down our spine, instead of stifling a yawn?

HDC is okay. But when you drive past, do you say to your fellow auto passengers with a dramatic wave of the hand: "This is a new soccer stadium!" They look at it nonplussed. It's just another cookie cutter construct in the middle of a bland parking lot inside an uninspiring local college campus. Big effing deal. "It says it's a Home Depot, Wilbur. We've got one of those in Downey. No clerks at the checkout. Enough already. It's a college campus, they all have a football field, honey."

Reebok. The Valley. White Hart Lane. The proposed new Brighton home. Wembley. Portugal. Germany. Get those MLS suits out there and discover the big world beyond their lame asses. Make our hearts soar. Failing that, try to stir someone out of their coma.

Give us a reason to say "wow" not "blech".

By the way, I agree, a closed square ground would be cool. Tens of thousands of soccer crazed Americans, well aware of the character of many Euro stadiums, would flock to their own homespun soccer cathedrals if only someone bloody well built them.

Kiss the frog


Ladies, fish, and gentlemen..... the San Francisco Seeeeelz!


The Quakes forever. Before the MLS, during the MLS, and long after the MLS is gone.

 

Californiaspurs, It would be great for the U.S. to have the stadiums you talk about. Sadly, soccer in the U.S. doesn't yet have the money for this type of project, but it does have a pressing need for new, soccer owned stadiums. So, at the moment it's a case of having to build to a budget. It's also necessary to have as many sources of income as possible, hence the stages, which I hate or at least, wish were built to be quickly de and re assembled.
I agree about the tent at Columbus, WTF ?

 

Its funny that you ramble on about the need for more creative architecture in stadia across America and bash the way that they have been constructed to date. I find it funny because you make it sound like the MLS is made of money. Although the owners of MLS teams are extremely wealthy these stadiums are not completely funded by the owners (with one exception coming soon if i remember correctly), but instead mostly funded by public tax dollars. Why is this? This is because MLS is cheap, and rightly so. Opperating in the red for a number of years is no reason to start spending on lavish stadiums, and it also doesnt help convince owners that privately funding a stadium is a smart choice...no matter how wealthy they are.

Stadiums are a necessity to have the league become independant and finicially successful, but it is hard to get a stadium proposal passed with extra "character" because extra "character" means extra money, and when the city gov. asks what the extra cost is for and the owners and MLS say "character" the city government is going to laugh in their faces and send the proposal back to the drawing board.

To tell you the truth I find it insulting that you find it such a horrible disaster that America is finally creating some permanent infrastructure for the sport. These stadiums are the best possible thing for the sport right now, and let me just say that there are no negatives to these stadiums at this point in time. Maybe in a few years when MLS has truly taken off...then we can start complaining, but as for now there are no negatives. NOT ONE. And if somone goes to the game just because a new, full of "character" stadium took them out of their "coma' and they all the sudden want to call themselves a fan of the game...they can go ************ themselves, MLS shouldnt build stadiums for those people when they will probably get bored of the stadium in a few months to a year anyway.

Extra character would be great, but currently the money should first be spent on actually getting the stadium. And those that are true fans of the game in America wont just be happy that they have a stadium, they will be extremely grateful and actually realize how fortunate they are to live at a time when they can watch a soccer game in the United States in a stadium that is dubbed soccer specific. We are lucky to have any SSS, and i never once damn Lamar Hunt or the city of Columbus for Crew Stadiums "lack of character"...I wouldn't be that naive.

 

I guess it depends on how you define character but I would say it's nonsense that character means extra money. Most clubs would kill for $100m to build a stadium, so to say that you don't have the money is also nonsense.

 

Two problems:

1. No money
2. No fans

Not that it would make a difference, NFL stadiums all look exactly the same: a big concrete bowl that looks like a ten-story carpark collapsed and they put some grass in the middle.

 

having a closed square ground would be nice but the open end of the stadium is used for concerts to create extra revenue for the owners and or clubs.

 

I'm very happy w/ Chicago's stadium. I think a lot of Fire fans are.

If you're familiar with Chicago architechture, you instantly recognize the red brick, the low-set prairie-style architecture as an homage to the best works - outside of those of Mies van der Rohe - in the city.

To me, the stadium screams Chicago and is already the second-best stadium in town after Wrigley.

And I guarantee you I can tell it apart from Crew Stadium, PHP, and HDC in arial photos.

 

The OP seems to have missed the concept that most of the English stadiums with "character" were constructed one grandstand at a time over a long period of time. Of course they look different. They are a patchwork. Maybe he should be sentenced to spend eternity up in the nosebleeds of a poorly designed piece-of-crap warhorse like Stamford Bridge with a full bladder. Then maybe he'd appreciate the reasoning behind modern stadium design.

 

Been a fortunate winter for the workers there, so far at least.