The New Lansdowne Road

Koloman

Idbatterim wrote: »

would they not continue to use croker for the bigger rugby and soccer matches? it would be ideal to eventually complete the full ring around lansdowne.

When you sign a deal for 10 years worth 40 million Euro's for a company to put their name on the stadium they are not going to be happy if you move the bigger games to another stadium.

It will be 10 years a least (if ever) before we might see the possibility of some games going back to Croke Park.

Bluetonic

Idbatterim wrote: »

it would be ideal to eventually complete the full ring around lansdowne.

They need to do a bit of buying up of houses.

Stupido

they have already!

Bluetonic

Stupido wrote: »

they have already!

Eh....that was my point - the attachment above shows the outline of what is under the ownership of the LRSDC, it shows the footprint of their ownership.

Stupido by name....

Stupido

your image is out of date. They own more.

Bluetonic

Stupido wrote: »

your image is out of date. They own more.

My image is from a planning permission document from April 2009.

What have they bought since?

gcdwebmaster

After seeing, Wimbledons new roof, it reminds me that landsdowne road (I refuse to call it anything else) stadium should have a roof on it, making it more usable for concerts etc., and when it buckets down for matches to save the turf and fans.
If they did it in cardiff(millenium stadium), amsterdam(arena) and now wimbledon (Centre Court) surely they could have done it.

Heck even if we win the eurovision in the future, rte wouldn't have far to go to broadcast it from there like the russians did on saturday

Koloman

gcdwebmaster wrote: »

After seeing, Wimbledons new roof, it reminds me that landsdowne road (I refuse to call it anything else) stadium

I am sure the FAI and IRFU won't mind what you call it with 40 million Euro secured for the name safely in their pockets!

I bet you will be calling it the Aviva Stadium after a while, sure look what happened with O2 and the Point. No one calls it the Point anymore.

paulm17781

Koloman wrote: »

I bet you will be calling it the Aviva Stadium after a while, sure look what happened with O2 and the Point. No one calls it the Point anymore.

I do. :P

gcdwebmaster

Thee Owhat? I like The Point and its makeover...
And I still call it the point....

Koloman

gcdwebmaster wrote: »

Thee Owhat? I like The Point and its makeover...
And I still call it the point....

We are such a stubborn race of people aren't we?! It's only a name after all!

gcdwebmaster

Whats in a name? As i have a Marathon bar with my Coffee.

Still they should put a roof on the stadium, the roof could contain the noise for concerts and such I would imagine, and please the residents...maybe

Koloman

If they put a roof on the stadium then it could cause some problems.

Like Croke Park they are only allowed 3 concerts per year. Why put a roof on for just 3 concerts a year?

Also, the residents would of objected if the new stadium was going to turn into a second much bigger Point Theatre with concerts going on every week.

No way would the IRFU of got planning permission for this as the ground is in such a residential area.

gcdwebmaster

Commercial reasons, the Insruance Company formerly know as Hibernian, will want their name in lights, for as many events as possible will encourage, the IRFU to use it as much as possible

Stupido

to finish the bowl the roof will have to come down, so perhaps they could build a new one then...


won't be anytime soon though

Bluetonic

gcdwebmaster wrote: »

Commercial reasons, the Insruance Company formerly know as Hibernian, will want their name in lights, for as many events as possible will encourage, the IRFU to use it as much as possible

Stop talking rubbish.

Aside from the fact that the stadium does not need a roof, it's design would not allow for a functional roof to put on it without the height of the north stand being raised which will not happen.

All spectators will be kept dry by the stand roofs and for the few concerts which will be held there each year it's a non issue.

Lansdowne will never be something which will be allowed to be used with any regularity.

Koloman

What ever happened to JP McManus's €60m donation towards a new stadium? Did he ever cough up? I don't think so!

mallet head

Koloman wrote: »

What ever happened to JP McManus's €60m donation towards a new stadium? Did he ever cough up? I don't think so!

That pledge was for a national stadium.
Lansdowne is not a national stadium.

Koloman

mallet head wrote: »

That pledge was for a national stadium.
Lansdowne is not a national stadium.

Well maybe he can hand over half of it considering it dosen't have a running track or can accommodate a GAA pitch!

ofjames

that pledge from JP was also conditional on the naming rights for the stadium not being sold.

that would remove him from the lansdowne rd equation even if it was 100% govt owned

Bluetonic

New aerial and ground shots from last week.

pajoguy

looks a bit on the small side though should create an intimidating atmosphere if only people could afford to go to games now.

murphaph

good point-wonder will the FAI accept lower gates or reduce the cost to get full houses. The IRFU will be under less pressure in this regard.

Is the ground the property of Lansdowne and the stadium the property of the IRFU or what way does it work?

Koloman

pajoguy wrote: »

looks a bit on the small side though should create an intimidating atmosphere if only people could afford to go to games now.

It's the perfect size for soccer. With a capacity of 50,000 it should be full or close to full for most matches. The atmosphere will be much improved.

No more empty windswept spaces like Croke Park! Croke Park kind of worked for rugby but it was rubbish for the soccer games. It was just too big for football.

Bluetonic

murphaph wrote: »

good point-wonder will the FAI accept lower gates or reduce the cost to get full houses. The IRFU will be under less pressure in this regard.

The FAI have been getting 50,000+ attendances in Croke Park so they'll fill it no problem. They already have all the non premium seats allocated to block bookers with a committed waiting list for seats that will become available. Prices will be the same as Croke Park.

murphaph wrote: »

Is the ground the property of Lansdowne and the stadium the property of the IRFU or what way does it work?

Joint ownership between the FAI and IRFU of the stadium, the land remains the property of the IRFU.

Bluetonic

New aerial and ground shots from last week.

ofjames

hope its just the angle of the photo's but the roof seems to be very intrusive on the view from the top tier in those ground photos.

i've heard rumours that this was the case, even that you cant see the full pitch from some parts of the top deck

if that is the case it is a bloody disgrace. we've waited long enough for a proper stadium for rugby and soccer that they really should get this right

speaking from the experience of being stuck in a quadrant of old trafford on many an occasion, it is an absolute pain in the arse when half of what you can see is metal beams and corrugated plastic!!

Steviemak

Looking at those photos the roof definitely seems to be obscuring the views of a large number of seats.

murphaph

I can't see any obscuring of what will be the playing surface?? Which picture?

Koloman

The glass paneling on the outside looks great.

Bluetonic

ofjames wrote: »

i've heard rumours that this was the case, even that you cant see the full pitch from some parts of the top deck

Lets not talk in rumors, only facts.

Steviemak wrote: »

Looking at those photos the roof definitely seems to be obscuring the views of a large number of seats.

As has been asked already, which photo? There is no obstruction from the roof.

Koloman

Some people are always looking for something to moan about! As the poster above says, facts please!

Bluetonic

Koloman wrote: »

The glass paneling on the outside looks great.

I hope it's some sort of self cleaning glass/plastic, but I agree it looks very good. Having lights under it similar to the new stadium in Munich would be nice.

Steviemak

Koloman wrote: »

Some people are always looking for something to moan about! As the poster above says, facts please!

Developers themselves are saying it. Is that enough? Its as good as you'll get until its finished unforntunately.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/10/roof-at-new-lansdowne-road-may-obscure-views/

Bluetonic

Steviemak wrote: »

Developers themselves are saying it. Is that enough? Its as good as you'll get until its finished unforntunately.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/10/roof-at-new-lansdowne-road-may-obscure-views/

The fact is that its a 50,000 seater stadium.

"The one thing I would emphasise is that I can confirm that there will definitely be 50,000 seats, all with unrestricted and superb views of the pitch."

The article indicates that there are spaces in the stadium where extra seating may be placed but it would be restricted. There is no decision on whether this space will be used for seating. In fact adding extra seating would require additional planning permission - something which has not be applied for.

The key here is:

DEVELOPERS behind the new Lansdowne Road stadium have admitted that the view from a number of potential seats could be obscured by a low hanging roof but insist no decision has been made on whether tickets will be sold for these seats.

The fact is that under the current granted planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium, 50,000 unrestricted seats are being provided, NONE are obscured by the roof.

Steviemak

Bluetonic wrote: »

The fact is that its a 50,000 seater stadium.



The article indicates that there are spaces in the stadium where extra seating may be placed but it would be restricted. There is no decision on whether this space will be used for seating. In fact adding extra seating would require additional planning permission - something which has not be applied for.

The key here is:


The fact is that under the current granted planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium, 50,000 unrestricted seats are being provided, NONE are obscured by the roof.

If one is looking at an empty stadium with no seats in place, a stadium that will have restricted views, as admitted by all, its impossible to tell where the seats will eventually be. The seats may not be placed in the restricted view areas.

However, my observation is based on the fact that looking at the latest photos I can see that the stadium will have restricted views. Which I am surprised about. Whether or not they will put seats in these restricted areas in unknown. I believe they should have tried to design a stand that could be covered in its entirety with seats but I guess thats no going to be possible here. Most modern stadiums utilise the full stand area to get in as much punters as possible in the limited space. But not Lansdowne Rd.

The fact is not one seat is in place yet. I'll respond again when all 50,000 seats are in place with the facts. And you can then. Until that time there are no facts.

Bluetonic

Steviemak wrote: »

Looking at those photos the roof definitely seems to be obscuring the views of a large number of seats.

Steviemak wrote: »

The fact is not one seat is in place yet. I'll respond again when all 50,000 seats are in place with the facts. And you can then. Until that time there are no facts.

Make up your mind.

Talk to you in 15 months.

ofjames

Bluetonic wrote: »

has been asked already, which photo? There is no obstruction from the roof.

The one's of the top tier (7 and 8 in the ground shots)

I've attached one of them.

Compare that photo to the two I have attached showing the views from the east quadrant and the top tier of the north stand at Old Trafford. I expect these photos will resemble what we can expect of the view from the third tier at the new landsdowne.

You may well have an 'uninterrupted view of the pitch' - in so far as you can just about see the 4 cornerflags and 2 goals, but you'll have to make do with seeing as much roof as you do pitch. If you cant see that then you're just blind

My brother has 2 season tickets in that quadrant at Old Trafford and i've sat there many times for games. The roof is an absolute pain in the arse and spoils the match experience to a large extent, you feel a bit cut off from events and things are quite claustrophobic.

At least Man U have the excuse that they extended/refurbished Old Trafford piecemeal.

For a new build like lansdowne there is no excuse. I find it a big let down, especially when we've waited 20 years for a proper home for soccer and rugby (and given the rest of the stadium looks so good in fairness).

Thats just my opinion tho... if a low hanging roof doesnt bother you guys then I'm delighted for you. Ye can take the seats up there while ill wedge in pitchside

PS
Also a bit of concern over on archiseek regarding the obstructed view. But what would a bunch of architects know i suppose...?
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=1944&page=14

ofjames

two old trafford photo's referred to above attached

Bluetonic

As said you should wait until the seats are in.

murphaph

The photographer was also probably standing up ;-) Given the roof is (compared to the pitch) relatively close to the camera, the difference between standing and sitting could be marked.

Lansdowne was plagued with NIMBY complaints from the get-go. I think they've come up with a pretty darn good solution given the amount of barristers that live around it

loyatemu

@ofjames - in all 3 pictures you've attached you can see the full pitch, the roof is only restricting your view of the opposite stand, hardly a catastrophe.

Carawaystick

Given that a lot of the action will take place about 4m above the pitch between 5 and 15m from the touchlines, a clear unobstructed view of the pitch isn't exactly a bombproof promise....

Rodgeb

It looks fantastic.

Cant wait till it opens!

ofjames

loyatemu wrote: »

@ofjames - in all 3 pictures you've attached you can see the full pitch, the roof is only restricting your view of the opposite stand, hardly a catastrophe.

not a catastrophe, but as i said i think its poor. when building a stadium from scratch the roof shouldnt even come close to interfering with the view as far as i'm concerned and imo the fact this is an issue at all reflects badly on the architects and the fai/irfu.

i appreciate some people dont mind if their view is half roof/ half pitch provided they can see the full pitch, but speaking from my personal experience of being stuck in the nosebleeds of old trafford i found this type of arrangement very annoying. Even if, as you say, all it does is obstruct my view of the rest of the stadium.

also, I think you would find my view would be shared by very many united fans who have watched games from the quadrants or the top tier of the north stand.

it obviously wont bother some people and thats fair enough. too late now to do anything about it anyway.

paulm17781

I'd be surprised if there's any obstruction. A photo is a 2d rendering of 3 dimensions. It doesn't show the depth properly. As above, wait and see.

testicle

I understand the architechs have purchased the 10-year tickets for those restricted-view seats.

pajoguy

They should have built a smaller version of the millenium - 60000 seats and moved out of D4. the only good thing about this stadium is the crowd on top of the pitch so atmosphere should be good and it may become a fortress. Then again......:rolleyes:

Bluetonic

testicle wrote: »

I understand the architechs have purchased the 10-year tickets for those restricted-view seats.

What seats?

There are NO seats with restricted views.

oppenheimer1

testicle wrote: »

I understand the architechs have purchased the 10-year tickets for those restricted-view seats.

I heard that as well.

Two things concern me about the new grounds, the low roof and the façade. Having been on a proper stadium tour with my mate... not an official tour! Its my opinion that the roof will obstruct the view of the far side of the field. While the pitch will be in view at all times, high garryowens will disappear or be viewed through a truss when kicked on the far side of the field. Such a shame, the architects should be hung out to dry if that happens to be the case. Considering so much effort goes into sightlines its a terrible mistake to make if it turns out to be the case.

I also think the facade was an extremely poor choice. When its built it will look alright, it should "sparkle" but give it six months and those plastic louvres will be filthy. They are quite flimsy as well assuming they are the same as the on-site mock up. The facade will require constant cleaning, which I cant see being an easy task.