Lucas Oil is a retractable roof stadium, and Ford Field is built with a solid steel and aluminum roof, not the traditional dome style of the 70s. Please know what you're talking about before talking out of your ass. And while you may not agree with the aesthetics of Soldier Field, the place has some of the best sight lines in the world, that combined with the best stadium location in the country... again, how old are you?
Did I say America is crumbling? No, I said our infrastructure is 2nd rate and in many places it's falling apart. Don't twist my words. FIFA are putting World Cup in South Africa and Brazil for 3 reasons: 1. Sepp Blatter thinks he's a humanitarian by giving the games to Africa, even if they're far from ready. 2. FIFA is giving it to Brazil because it's S. America's turn and 3. Brazil needs the money. If they had their way, they would have the World Cup in Europe 75% of the time with spats in other regions. I happen to live in the Midwest, and I've driven through many other places in the country, and I can tell you our roads are bad in comparison to other places. Our Interstates and Highways around major cities are OK but outside of that it's not great. Infrastructure just doesn't include highways. Around major cities, highways will be fine. That, however, is just a small part of the greater picture. Get off the major highways around major cities to see the true American infrastructure. The Elite (big cities) will always be better dressed than the Commoner (medium-sized cities), but that doesn't mean everything is fine. Our country is growing because people south of the border keep flooding here illegally to take advantage of us, and we do nothing about it. People from other parts of the world are not flooding here like they were in the early 1900's. That all stopped a long time ago.
MY mistake. I thought I read that Lucas Oil wasn't going to have a retractable roof. I don't care if Ford Field was built with alien metal alloys, it's still a dome. I don't care about sightlines. I don't go to stadiums to stare out at a city skyline, to view of a body of water, or to see the magnificence of a sunset over a mountain range. I'm there to watch the event I paid to see, hopefully in a stadium that is close to the action, has few to no "bad"seats, has a great atmosphere, and all the modern comforts and amenities possible in a stadium in a country such as this. Why does my age matter?
can someone tell me who the designers are for the new meadowlands and what are the new changes for it??? 1.4 billion for a stadium that looks horrible compared to the new cowboys stadium(around a billion or so in cost) is pretty disheartening...and no i dont care that the outside can change 3 different colors...
The London Olympics are taking a lot of criticism for this very thing, so its not something that is unique to the U.S. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article2824547.ece
Well, then I'm using the wrong word. If there's a term used to define the views of objects outside of the stadium, I would like to know it. Yes, I have been to multiple matches. I don't really see what that has to do with anything, though.
The bottom line is this: If people want to come here from Europe or Africa or Asia or South America they will FIND A WAY to watch their team play. Infrastructure is the last thing we have to worry about with trying to get a World Cup here. We can give FIFA a BIG pay day and in the end, that's all that matters.
Gotta high-5 ya on that - lived here all my life, and I've thought exactly that since the dumass renovations. Embarrassment to drive by on LSD from a Chicago historical perspective, but a really cool soccer venue inside. GC07 final and Brazil were wonderful, well-populated matches. Can't wait for Honduras 6/6 and GC09 semis.
Lt. Walters: This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him. -Ruthless People
not to nitpick, but ford fields roof is not spherical, so, not a dome. more of a barrel vault. your above criteria for a stadium is likely what most fans are looking for. i like aesthetically pleasing and interesting architecture, including stadia, as much as anyone, but in the end, i just want to be able to see the field and action well (maybe some huge screens for replays too). and to be able to get to my seats, the bathroom, and food/beer easily and quickly (even during the halftime rush when the house is full). getting in and out of the place without much fuss would be cool too. again, i love great architecture, but i find i'm only concerned about a stadiums aesthetics when i'm not watching a game there. i'd take a butt ugly, boring stadia that works well over a beautiful stadium that doesn't any day. incidently, of the dozen or so wc games i've been to, i have to admit, i barely remember aesthetics. i really, really remember gameday logistical nightmares when they occured though.
Just a few odds and ends.. To be fair, Germany's probably the best place you could have a World Cup outside the USA in terms of crowds - centrally located for European fans, huge stadiums by European standards - and they still didn't come within a quarter million, and that's with 12 more matches. Our record is safe until we host our next tournament. By the way I'm a little bewildered Candlestick Park isn't on the list, if only because Memorial Stadium in Berkeley is. Candlestick's no palace, but Memorial Stadium is an epic dump that's literally falling apart. Even South American fans would be disgusted by that place. The guy was born in Germany after all, and he's still a member of his local club. Henry's a serious fan who's done a lot of good work for US soccer, even if I'm not a huge fan of his political views. I'm surprised you don't know this. I'm a dual national (my mum is from Wales and I lived there for a while as a kid and I now live in London) and I'd say you're a ways off the mark. San Francisco has a very high profile abroad, probably more so than in America, when you consider that most of Europe isn't stupid enough to believe their pastor that San Francisco will burn in hell. SF has always been swamped with Europeans in the summer, and the economy is quite dependent on European tourism. I've met a number of people here who haven't personally been recruited by me that have been to SF, probably more than anywhere else except NY and Florida. I checked out the numbers and basically..you're off. http://tourismtobe.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/top-10-the-most-visited-us-cities-in-2007/ Boston and DC make sense, since they're on the East Coast and I think you're severely underrating the number of Europeans who are seriously interested in American history. History buffs are universal and if you're going to go to America once DC might be even more important than NY if you're a history buff (plus it's damn more proximate to civil war sites). The same goes for Boston, plus Boston obviously has a very strong connection to the Italian and Irish communities.
New York, Boston and Philly have deep connections with the Revolutionary War. You may not know but there are small thriving Irish and Italian communities in the New York area. These enclaves are called 'everywhere.'
Perhaps the assumption is that the stadium won't be around in 2018/2022. Assuming that these two bids turn into one bid for 2022, how do we account for the stadiums that will be built in the 12 years between when the host is chosen and the actual World Cup. The Vikings are looking at building a 70,000-seat stadium, Oakland and San Francisco have the 2nd and 3rd oldest stadiums in the NFL, and the Superdome would be 47 years old if it is not replaced. If we are chosen, how much would our bid be allowed to change after the fact? I could see stadiums changing, but cities seem like they would need to be set from the beginning.
By 2018/2022 I think there will be new Am. Football stadiums in New Orleans, LA, Minnesota, San Diego, DC (How long will Snyder allow Dallas to have a better stadium?)and possibly San Francisco and Oakland. A lot can change in 13 years.
Unless the political climate around here changes very dramatically (and after living here for 23 years, I highly doubt it) or the Vikings up their portion of the ante considerably, that 70,000 seat Fantasyland will never be built in Minneapolis... ...and the Vikings will be in LA-LA Land long before the 2022 World Cup...
I didn't realize that we get to submit "25-35 stadiums" at the May 2010 deadline for the full submission of bid details. That gives the USSF a fair amount of room to list places like the Superdome in hopes of it being a new stadium in 2022.
I think they're just waiting for Ralph to die.Although Ted Rogers died first,so some other Toronto megalomaiac may have to step forward.
Indiana/Ohio Ohio Stadium 102,000 Browns Stadium 73,000 Paul Brown Stadium 65,000 Notre Dame Stadium 81,000 Lucas Oil Stadium 70,000 Ross Ade Stadium 66,000 Memorial Stadium 53,000 Florida has 7 stadiums that holds over 45,000(6 over 60,000) California 7 over 50,000
Yep, but good luck getting to a WC match via Rt. 322 from Harrisburg... Or you could expand that a bit and go with Big Ten country...quite a few biggies.
ask me what could be done in 13 years time? Also Big TEN Country. Which is PA,OH,MI,IN,IL,WI,MN,IA. There are plenty of large stadiums in those states. Lincoln,Heinz,Paul Brown, Browns Stadium, Lucas Oil, Ford Field, Solider Field, Lambeau, The Big House, Ohio Stadium, Happy Valley, Notre Dame Stadium, Ross Ade, Memorial(IN), Memorial(IL), Camp Randall, Spartan Stadium, Minn. has a new one in the works. Keep in mind, this is just an illustration on the number of stadiums we have in this country. Please don't believe anybody is trying to say this is a possibility.