Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The New Lansdowne Road

Options
1141517192022

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭deiseman21


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Unlikely as the whole of the roof would need to be taken down on all stands.

    What you see now is what will be there for good.
    not necessarily true, the southern end could be held up by temporary scaffolding (structure) as far as the half way line while the rest is redeveloped.
    although, this would be quiet costly and lenghty, anyone for croker again:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Koloman wrote: »
    If Bertie hadn't of given the GAA a big cheque the day before the opening of Croke Park was due to be discussed (on a permanent basis don't forget) at central council then in all likely hood there would be no Aviva stadium at all now. The IRFU and FAI would then be permanent tenants of the GAA.

    Would this scenario be more to your liking?

    No. Croker is a half arsed joke as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Koloman wrote: »
    There is nothing "average" about the Aviva.rolleyes.gif If anything it is over engineered.

    It is average.


  • Registered Users Posts: 742 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    People are clearly going to disagree on the merits/demerits of the stadium but the fact is that for a new stadium to be built in this location there were always going to be compromises.

    At the time of planning the IRFU were quite happy with the 50K capacity of the old Lansdowne Road and the main problem for the FAI was that they had to reduce the capacity to 36K to comply with FIFA seating restrictions so they were always going to get an increase in capacity. Bear in mind that the FAI had planned Eircom Park in Citywest with a smaller capacity than currently exists in Aviva and the IRFU plans for Newlands weren't for a much bigger stadium either (to the best of my knowledge). Neither organisation were particularly keen on those options. Both would have been saddled with huge debt.

    For the IRFU there was also a huge nostalgia factor in remaining at Lansdowne. They might have adapted to Croke Park but they were always going to want to have their own home.

    For the FAI Croke Park was never a long term suitable solution because of the size of the pitch. I was at three international matches at the Hill 16 end and they were terrible to watch because the action was so far away from you. I'd have been better staying at home and watching on the TV.

    Given the compromises that had to be made to remain in this location I think the designers have done in general a great job. Now I agree that it is frustrating that there are some seats with poor viewing because that should have been avoided. But I'm still happier with what we now have that what was there before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Yes compromises had to be made, but it would've been a fine looking stadium if they had just completed the other end. I understand local concerns, but the interests of a few people should not weigh over the collective benefit brought to many. Surely alternative concessions could've been made that didn't hamper the capacity and aesthetic appeal. To be quite frank, I think the view is even worse from a resident's point-of-view than if they'd completed it.

    I have realised the design is one that only looks good and works well in theory, in practice it looks clunky and proves that sometimes it's best to leave tried-and-tested convention alone. I'm trying my best to like it, but I can't. It's just not a good design. I'm thrilled the team have top-class facilities, I'm thrilled there are top-class media facilities, I'm thrilled that disabled access is significantly better than the old lansdowne, but these are givens with any major new stadium these days.

    It's better than what was there before alright, but we missed an opportunity to build a piece of infrastructure to be truly proud of, and instead built one whose insufficiencies will more likely be a source of embarrassment. I think Croker actually looks better. At least it gives the vague impression that "hey, we might actually finish this one day".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    deiseman21 wrote: »
    not necessarily true, the southern end could be held up by temporary scaffolding (structure) as far as the half way line while the rest is redeveloped.
    although, this would be quiet costly and lenghty, anyone for croker again:D
    Or they could just tie a load of helium balloons to the existing structure I suppose. There are lots of options.


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Poster King


    50,000 is the max number of spectators for which they could get planning. Nothing to do with the size of the stadium. It is to do with how crowded the approaching roads would be and the level of disruption to local resident and not the number they could fit into a stadium. They could probably have built a bigger stadium if they had rotated the pitch 90 degrees, but the fact remains that 50,000 people is the max number they would be allowed on match day.

    I would love if they had opted for some terracing (which could be swiftly altered to seating for the FAI) that would give a better atmosphere and allow more spectators, but the fact remains that the max number allowed in 50,000.

    I cannot understand people here who think the stadium is a poor design. I think it is the most beautiful building in Dublin and the most beautiful stadium that I have seen. Severl visitors to the city that I have spoke with recently have commented on how impressed they are with how it looks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    50,000 is the max number of spectators for which they could get planning. Nothing to do with the size of the stadium. It is to do with how crowded the approaching roads would be and the level of disruption to local resident and not the number they could fit into a stadium. They could probably have built a bigger stadium if they had rotated the pitch 90 degrees, but the fact remains that 50,000 people is the max number they would be allowed on match day.

    I would love if they had opted for some terracing (which could be swiftly altered to seating for the FAI) that would give a better atmosphere and allow more spectators, but the fact remains that the max number allowed in 50,000.
    Would love to see where this is documented as I think your wrong.

    As it stands the capacity is nearer 51,000 than it is 50,000.


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Poster King


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Would love to see where this is documented as I think your wrong.

    As it stands the capacity is nearer 51,000 than it is 50,000.

    I've been meaning to pull the planning piles on this for some time. But at the time of the planning application I was closely involved with it and know that the main concern of the residents was not the physical size of the stadium but the number of people in and out. Challenge me again about this and I may be moved to spend some time finding the relavent documents. Better still, why doesn't someone else with more time on their hands find them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    I've been meaning to pull the planning piles on this for some time. But at the time of the planning application I was closely involved with it and know that the main concern of the residents was not the physical size of the stadium but the number of people in and out. Challenge me again about this and I may be moved to spend some time finding the relavent documents. Better still, why doesn't someone else with more time on their hands find them.
    All joking aside I'd love to see it as I've had a look and have not seen anything on the planning files.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Poster King


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/irish/3564315.stm

    Plans for a new 50,000-seater stadium at Lansdowne Road were unveiled in January and it is expected to be finished sometime in 2008.


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Poster King


    Some other interesting articles from BBS website

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/irish/3303345.stm

    Browne will deliver the findings from their consultants Ove Arup, who recommended a scaled-down version of the previous design which was for a 65,000 all-seater stadium.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/northern_ireland/2951161.stm

    Mr O'Donoghue did not hold out much hope of GAA stadium Croke Park being made available for soccer and rugby international in the near future.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/irish/3417359.stm


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Planning files?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    I understand how excited and positive some people feel about this stadium. It is far superiour to what was there before.

    But the reality is that it is not "world class" or "state of the art". I'm sick and tired of how these phrases are bandied about Irish society in relation to very ordinary pieces of infrastructure. I have been to a hell of a lot of stadiums around Europe over the years and Aviva will not rate very highly in terms of a spectator arena.

    The insistance on building a new stadium on this site was a mistake and is the sole reason that it is a poor example of what a new stadium should have been. After all the years of talking and planning and proposing, we got a funny shaped bowl, with a glass house at one end (bring the sunfactor for the back of your neck:D), monkey bars for those in the cheap seats and a capacity that isn't future proofed.

    As usual we Irish settle for average.:rolleyes:

    I hate the use of the phrase state of the art. Anything that has been commercially released is not state of the art. That said some very advanced engineering techniques went into the design of the roof. I believe there were only something like 12 drawings for the entire roof structure (normally thousands for a structure like this), it was actually built using a 3D model. It is quite likely Buro Happold will win steel design awards for the structure. The M&E is quite good too, with fast flow taps at the bars. Other than that there is nothing really "innovative" per se. It has unique features yes, like hydrotherapy pools for players, but they aren't a challenge to build or install.

    As for the sightlines, thats the Architects domain, originally HOK/SVE now Populous. What looks like has happened is a redesign of the roof structure interfered with the original sightline survey. From early renders it appears the architects did not expect the roof truss to be so deep. I understand the architects will purchase all the seats for 10 years that are obstructed, though that might just be a rumour.

    As for possible expansion, I'm sure it has been designed for, however looking at the structure in place a good chunk of the roof over the main stands would have to be taken down and the remainder propped at the halfway line on temporary supports. That would be major redevelopment work which would close the stadium for at least a year, if not longer. Its not going to be happening in the near future so. It will be a minimum of 25-30 years before this happens (25-30 years being the usual major refit for maintenance of such structures).

    This is unlike Croke Park, where only Hill 16 would have to be closed should the GAA decide to build up the stands on those ends. For Croke Park, this is a distinct possibility in about 20 years time. However the major obstacle for CP would be the realignment of the elevated Sligo-Dublin railway line at the back of the terrace. It can't be built around, it would have to be moved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    I hate the use of the phrase state of the art. Anything that has been commercially released is not state of the art. That said some very advanced engineering techniques went into the design of the roof. I believe there were only something like 12 drawings for the entire roof structure (normally thousands for a structure like this), it was actually built using a 3D model. It is quite likely Buro Happold will win steel design awards for the structure. The M&E is quite good too, with fast flow taps at the bars. Other than that there is nothing really "innovative" per se. It has unique features yes, like hydrotherapy pools for players, but they aren't a challenge to build or install.

    As for the sightlines, thats the Architects domain, originally HOK/SVE now Populous. What looks like has happened is a redesign of the roof structure interfered with the original sightline survey. From early renders it appears the architects did not expect the roof truss to be so deep. I understand the architects will purchase all the seats for 10 years that are obstructed, though that might just be a rumour.

    As for possible expansion, I'm sure it has been designed for, however looking at the structure in place a good chunk of the roof over the main stands would have to be taken down and the remainder propped at the halfway line on temporary supports. That would be major redevelopment work which would close the stadium for at least a year, if not longer. Its not going to be happening in the near future so. It will be a minimum of 25-30 years before this happens (25-30 years being the usual major refit for maintenance of such structures).

    This is unlike Croke Park, where only Hill 16 would have to be closed should the GAA decide to build up the stands on those ends. For Croke Park, this is a distinct possibility in about 20 years time. However the major obstacle for CP would be the realignment of the elevated Sligo-Dublin railway line at the back of the terrace. It can't be built around, it would have to be moved.

    An informed and fair assesment.

    Thanks,


  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭REFLINE1


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    An informed and fair assesment.

    Thanks,


    Speaking as someone who has worked on the project for over 3 years,a lot of what was said there is anything but informed.
    I lol'd hard at the 12 drawings of the roof statement-more like 1200!!! :rolleyes:

    Actually this whole thread tilts the life out of me,the usual bullsh*t merchants talking crap about stuff they dont know anything about or understand! remind me of the know it alls and begrudgers that youll find in pubs up and down the country,armchair experts.

    For the record i have no problems with the comments/criticisms aimed at the North end because in fairness its a tragedy that this isnt full height.
    That said considering the planning restrictions the Design team have done a super job to make it look as good as it does and on match days i think a lot of the non-believers will come round to the idea.

    Anyway thats my rant over...good luck lads


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    REFLINE1 wrote: »
    That said considering the planning restrictions the Design team have done a super job to make it look as good as it does and on match days i think a lot of the non-believers will come round to the idea.

    I can sympathise with the design team, they had to work within unnecessarily restrictive parameters and of course this hindered their efforts. It still doesn't mean I won't continue to point out what I feel is wrong with it and what I feel could've been done with it.

    The problem with saying "on match days" people will come round to it is that when you're hanging out with people, a lot of things that are substandard appear better. I might own very average film, but if I watch it with a couple of mates, the banter (and beer!) will make it seem better than it actually is. Take them away and the film is revealed for what it is... not very good.

    People are more than entitled to like it. Heck, the exterior looks lovely, and the 3 sides of the pitch that ARE finished properly, minus the clunky trusses, look grand, the pitch looks perfectly fine and I'm sure the facilities are excellent. But as a finished product, it reeks of "could've and should've been better", and unfortunately, as much as I've tried, I can't shake that feeling. I hope Ireland's teams will play many wonderful matches there, maybe the look will grow on me over time. The lack of capacity and ambition won't though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    REFLINE1 wrote: »
    Speaking as someone who has worked on the project for over 3 years,a lot of what was said there is anything but informed.
    I lol'd hard at the 12 drawings of the roof statement-more like 1200!!! :rolleyes:

    Actually this whole thread tilts the life out of me,the usual bullsh*t merchants talking crap about stuff they dont know anything about or understand! remind me of the know it alls and begrudgers that youll find in pubs up and down the country,armchair experts.

    For the record i have no problems with the comments/criticisms aimed at the North end because in fairness its a tragedy that this isnt full height.
    That said considering the planning restrictions the Design team have done a super job to make it look as good as it does and on match days i think a lot of the non-believers will come round to the idea.

    Anyway thats my rant over...good luck lads

    This is what we need - a person with front-line knowledge of the problems. Please clarify the following.

    Is the circa 50K capacity due to (1) planning restrictions (2) lack of space (3) lack of money (4) some other factor?

    If lack of space or money was the problem, why was no provision made for an expansion of the stadium when land, money or planning permission becomes available?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    REFLINE1 wrote: »
    Speaking as someone who has worked on the project for over 3 years,a lot of what was said there is anything but informed.
    I lol'd hard at the 12 drawings of the roof statement-more like 1200!!! :rolleyes:

    Actually this whole thread tilts the life out of me,the usual bullsh*t merchants talking crap about stuff they dont know anything about or understand! remind me of the know it alls and begrudgers that youll find in pubs up and down the country,armchair experts.

    For the record i have no problems with the comments/criticisms aimed at the North end because in fairness its a tragedy that this isnt full height.
    That said considering the planning restrictions the Design team have done a super job to make it look as good as it does and on match days i think a lot of the non-believers will come round to the idea.

    Anyway thats my rant over...good luck lads
    You've no problem with the roof supports blocking part of the pitch?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    You've no problem with the roof supports blocking part of the pitch?

    A tiny part where the ball is only ever going to be for a second or two (and in rugby only - actually with McShane that's not totally true).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    This post over on archiseek summed it up nicely for me:
    There's is nothing unreasonable about most of the criticism.

    It has an obvious functional flaws; the sightlines for spectators in the upper seats are obstructed by the steelwork and the capacity is too low (admittedly a condition imposed by the planning process we assume).

    It has aesthetic flaws - again this bulky "meccano model" internal steelwork and the fact that roof curves are not curvey enough. The northern "dip" looked like an interesting undulation in the sleek computer generated design images but in reality it looks like the design compromise that it is.

    By my calculations it would make it into the top 10 list of most expensive stadiums in the world on a per-seat basis. That top 10 list includes the likes of Wembley, Madison Sq Garden (which admittedly blows the rest out of the water in terms of cost per seat), the Emerates and complete fiascoes like the Olympic Stadium in Montreal. It should be damn near perfect for this sort of money; producing a stadium which is "good but not great" must be considered something of a failure when you've spent 8000 euro per-seat.

    There is nothing wrong with wanting things to be done to their absolute best, especially when a lot of money goes into them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    REFLINE1 wrote: »
    Speaking as someone who has worked on the project for over 3 years,a lot of what was said there is anything but informed.
    I lol'd hard at the 12 drawings of the roof statement-more like 1200!!! :rolleyes:

    Actually this whole thread tilts the life out of me,the usual bullsh*t merchants talking crap about stuff they dont know anything about or understand! remind me of the know it alls and begrudgers that youll find in pubs up and down the country,armchair experts.

    For the record i have no problems with the comments/criticisms aimed at the North end because in fairness its a tragedy that this isnt full height.
    That said considering the planning restrictions the Design team have done a super job to make it look as good as it does and on match days i think a lot of the non-believers will come round to the idea.

    Anyway thats my rant over...good luck lads

    Two friends of mine were on the design team, they led me to believe that almost all drawings were generated from the one 3D model, That the drawings themselves were not individually prepaired. They could have been telling me porkies but I doubt it. Of course onsite the information would have been presented on sheets. They brought me on a tour of the site when they were just starting to erect the roof, and I was shown the difficulties and constraints which they had to overcome.

    I'm actually a structural engineer, so I'm more than an armchair expert. Thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    I'm actually a structural engineer

    Interesting.

    So, say they wanted a similar design, except completed properly to its 65,000 capacity. How might you have proposed to achieve the structural soundness needed to hold it together without the chunky trusses?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    A tiny part where the ball is only ever going to be for a second or two (and in rugby only - actually with McShane that's not totally true).
    A tiny part is still some part.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    A tiny part is still some part.

    Do you go to ireland games? Is it really going to bother you that much. I know it won't bother me where in the ground I sit. The view from them seats is fine


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Do you go to ireland games?
    Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the merits of the new stadium, not what I get up to. Obscured views do bother me though, more so in new stadium where they could have been avoided than old stadiums which have been developed in a bygone era.
    The view from them seats is fine
    The view from those seats is not fine, however it's acceptable if the seat is heavily discounted. Overall it's a failure from both the FAI and IRFU to allow a stadium to be built with such a flaw. They have no idea of excellence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the merits of the new stadium, not what I get up to. Obscured views do bother me though, more so in new stadium where they could have been avoided than old stadiums which have been developed in a bygone era.

    It's relevant because it's the people who go to the matches that may have obscured views. It will not affect those that watch games on TV. And why do they bother you if it will not affect you? Stadiums are built for one thing and one thing only i.e to entertain the masses. A few obscured seats is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
    Bluetonic wrote: »
    The view from those seats is not fine, however it's acceptable if the seat is heavily discounted. Overall it's a failure from both the FAI and IRFU to allow a stadium to be built with such a flaw. They have no idea of excellence.

    We now have a superb new stadium, for those that choose to attend events. Everyone else can waffle away till the cows come home. I'm certainly going to enjoy it


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    It's relevant because it's the people who go to the matches that may have obscured views. It will not affect those that watch games on TV. And why do they bother you if it will not affect you?
    So your not allowed have an opinion on something or criticise it unless it affects you first hand? ha ha ha thats just so funny to be honest.

    For your information I go to all the FAI games and maybe one IRFU game a year when tickets can be sourced, for the last ten years anyhow and can't see that changing in the future.
    We now have a superb new stadium, for those that choose to attend events.
    Except those unfortunates who get a restricted view, or are in the massive amount who choose to attend but who can't get a ticket due to the 50,000 capacity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    So your not allowed have an opinion on something or criticise it unless it affects you first hand? ha ha ha thats just so funny to be honest.

    For your information I go to all the FAI games and maybe one IRFU game a year when tickets can be sourced, for the last ten years anyhow and can't see that changing in the future.


    Except those unfortunates who get a restricted view, or are in the massive amount who choose to attend but who can't get a ticket due to the 50,000 capacity.

    No one said you cant have an opinion. I just think you're letting a minor thing bother you so much. Why exactly do you care so much about it?

    And there's always been under supply of Ireland tickets. What's new. They didnt have the room to make a bigger stadium. So why not move on and lets enjoy the new stadium we have. And stop waffling about the one we could have had.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    No one said you cant have an opinion. I just think you're letting a minor thing bother you so much. Why exactly do you care so much about it?
    I care about it as it could have been avoided. Is it wrong to demand excellence? Or wrong to question why it happened?
    And there's always been under supply of Ireland tickets. What's new. They didnt have the room to make a bigger stadium.
    Supply outstripped demand prior to 1990. You couldn't give away tickets for the games.
    And stop waffling about the one we could have had.
    I am not waffling. All my points have been far from waffle and have been well structure and to the point. I resent that comment. Sure enough disagree with my opinion but please don't try and belittle. :mad:


Advertisement