Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

The New Lansdowne Road

1246722

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,002 ✭✭✭✭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 :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,561 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭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....


  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭Rodgeb


    It looks fantastic.

    Cant wait till it opens!


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭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:


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    For me the Havelock square end of the ground is a big disappointment. Its another Croke Park. We just never get it right. Bertie Bowl was the only thing that gob****e was right about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭parkerpen


    Can't wait to attend my first match in the new Landsdowne Road. Mind you Croker has been pretty impressive too though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    DDigital wrote: »
    For me the Havelock square end of the ground is a big disappointment. Its another Croke Park. We just never get it right. Bertie Bowl was the only thing that gob****e was right about.

    The fact Dublin's two large stadia are close to residential areas necessitates the allowing of light to these residential areas. building a full height out of city stadium would compromise atmosphere a whole lot more than having a low northern end - traffic, and lack of atmosphere being the two main ones.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Koloman


    DDigital wrote: »
    For me the Havelock square end of the ground is a big disappointment. Its another Croke Park. We just never get it right. Bertie Bowl was the only thing that gob****e was right about.

    If we had the Bertie Bowl then people like you would be complaining about the stupidity of having an out of town stadium with the bad traffic and the lack of pubs/hotels around the ground!

    You would be whinging about the good old days of Lansdowne Road when you could walk to the ground and enjoy a pint before the game. The grass is always greener with some people.

    Just be thankful we have a modern world class stadium near completion. If it had been delayed for even one more year then it would not of been built given the current recession. At least the design gives it a bit of character.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    Koloman wrote: »
    If we had the Bertie Bowl then people like you would be complaining about the stupidity of having an out of town stadium with the bad traffic and the lack of pubs/hotels around the ground!

    You would be whinging about the good old days of Lansdowne Road when you could walk to the ground and enjoy a pint before the game. The grass is always greener with some people.

    Just be thankful we have a modern world class stadium near completion. If it had been delayed for even one more year then it would not of been built given the current recession. At least the design gives it a bit of character.

    Wrong

    Wrong

    Im allowed have an opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Koloman


    DDigital wrote: »
    Wrong

    Wrong

    Im allowed have an opinion.

    Who said you could not have an opinion? That is what this forum is all about!rolleyes.gif Although your "wrong, wrong" sentiments will hardly be in the running for post of the day.biggrin.gif

    As for the design and location, well I'm a glass half full kind of person so we should be thankful that we are getting a world class stadium with a unique design in a city centre location after all the wasted years of the Bertie Bowl. Roll on next year!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    I expressed disappointment at the Havelock square end of the ground. I know why it had to be done that way. So thats not the issue. Croke park is another example with the hill end killing the full potential. I have been in many grounds around the world and neither Croker of Landsdowne are "world class". They are grounds that are compromised by local geography and incomplete in terms of arenas.

    I referenced "Bertie Bowl" as an example of a stadium design that would not have been compromised by residential areas or (in the case of croker) a railway and housing. Personally I think that we have been so starved of modern stadiums in this country that we readily accept design limitations and then embrace newly refurbished stadiums (as is the case with croker and landsdowne) as being breathtakingly wonderful examples of "world class" stadiums. They're not. Im sure Landsdowne will be a lovely modern stadium, far superior and light years ahead of what used to be there, but its just not the finished article in my opinion.

    Finally koloman, please try and stop acting like an over enthusiastic mystic meg when making comments about me as you have no idea whatsoever how I think. After many years of sitting in kips like Milltown, Dalymount, Richmond Park and the old landsdowne before the new east stand was built, I know damn well how to be thankful that the place is being rebuilt. But its still an inescapable fact that one end of the ground is not what it should be. If you havent been down to take a look, then do so.


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


    I know I cant wait for the new stadium. Anything would be better than the old Lansdowne (toilets, food etc etc).

    Hopefully they haven't made too much of a bags about the view from certain areas :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Koloman



    Hopefully they haven't made too much of a bags about the view from certain areas :mad:

    They haven't. There will be 50,000 people in that stadium with perfect views.


  • Registered Users Posts: 785 ✭✭✭ALH-06


    DDigital wrote: »
    I expressed disappointment at the Havelock square end of the ground. I know why it had to be done that way. So thats not the issue. Croke park is another example with the hill end killing the full potential. I have been in many grounds around the world and neither Croker of Landsdowne are "world class". They are grounds that are compromised by local geography and incomplete in terms of arenas.

    I referenced "Bertie Bowl" as an example of a stadium design that would not have been compromised by residential areas or (in the case of croker) a railway and housing. Personally I think that we have been so starved of modern stadiums in this country that we readily accept design limitations and then embrace newly refurbished stadiums (as is the case with croker and landsdowne) as being breathtakingly wonderful examples of "world class" stadiums. They're not. Im sure Landsdowne will be a lovely modern stadium, far superior and light years ahead of what used to be there, but its just not the finished article in my opinion.

    Finally koloman, please try and stop acting like an over enthusiastic mystic meg when making comments about me as you have no idea whatsoever how I think. After many years of sitting in kips like Milltown, Dalymount, Richmond Park and the old landsdowne before the new east stand was built, I know damn well how to be thankful that the place is being rebuilt. But its still an inescapable fact that one end of the ground is not what it should be. If you havent been down to take a look, then do so.

    Some good points made here. I was a staunch supporter of the redevelopment of Lansdowne (as opposed to green site Bertie Bowl option), but I was also a bit disappointed with the final result... The principle problem is the capacity. It will simply not be enough to meet the requirements of the Six Nations (the only major international sports tournament that takes place on an annual basis in this country). How is the sport supposed to grow and reach new audiences if the newly-built national stadium, the sporting body's primary source of income, is already too small for demand? And I agree - the Havlock Square arrangement, while necessary, will compromise the finished product.

    At least with the new Lansdowne, the surrounding roof will give it some cohesion that Croke Park lacks as a finished article (due to undevelopable Hill 16 end).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    Yes it will have the cohesion that Croke park lacks, but after all the debate and objections from a political party that no longer exists and all that money thrown here there and everywhere, we got a 50k seater in a residential area that is no better than an english premiere league ground. I could stomach it, if the capacity was at least 60k and the Havelock square end wasn't a mickey mouse terrace with seats and a fancy roof.


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭biffoman


    ìts all about the money


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Koloman


    DDigital wrote: »
    no better than an english premiere league ground.

    The Premier League have the best stadiums in Europe do they not? I don't know what you where expecting DDigital, maybe some sort of stadium version of the Taj Mahal!biggrin.gif


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,783 ✭✭✭handsomecake


    ive been to a shed load of stadia in my time and this "new lansdowne" is a major let down. croker sells out 82000 for 6 nations etc and they only build a 50000 seater...genius.
    one end is smaller then the other. its pathetic.typical irish.....world leaders at under achieving and fu**ing up.

    it isnt easy on the eye,will be harder to get tickets for now again due to the reduced capacity from what weve been used to with croker. this will put the tickets back in corporate hands again and hamstring rugby and football to reaching youth and the less well off.
    the stadium has no cool innovations either,like the allianz arena in munich which changes colour,the commerzbank arena with the suspended screens in the middle of the pitch or the stadium in dortmund(i think) with the revolving pitch.


    whoever decided 50,000 seats was enough should be ****ed from a height though. bonehead decision of the year.simple maths


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



    whoever decided 50,000 seats was enough should be ****ed from a height though. bonehead decision of the year.simple maths

    Surely they had no choice on the matter. As per posts earlier in the thread there was constraints on the size they could build because of the surrounding houses etc.

    So the choice was stay in their spiritual home but be limited to a 50,000 seater or move to a greenfield site to build a bigger stadium. After the uproar about the 'Bertie Bowl' I doubt there was any desire for a greenfield stadium.


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


    Of course the Irish Glass site 500 meters away would have been an ideal unrestricted site with the same excellent transport links and would have been iconic on Dublins sea front....but whats done is done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Of course the Irish Glass site 500 meters away would have been an ideal unrestricted site with the same excellent transport links and would have been iconic on Dublins sea front....but whats done is done.

    Spot on, but some developer was probably eyeing it up for 100,000 apartments priced at 10 million apiece with 100% mortgages from Anglo Irish Bank.:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭DDigital


    Koloman wrote: »
    The Premier League have the best stadiums in Europe do they not? I don't know what you where expecting DDigital, maybe some sort of stadium version of the Taj Mahal!biggrin.gif

    Ah Koloman me ould buddy. The Premier League have some great grounds alright, but they're not National Stadiums. They are not built to showcase a National Team.

    What was I expecting? Its simple really. A stadium that didn't have to be compromised in order to fit into a housing estate. Why oh why do so many Irish people settle for mediocrity.:rolleyes: As a matter of interest Koloman, what other stadiums have you actually sat in abroad?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,480 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Wales' national stadium is compromised due to another stadium, having three sides and a fourth "sort of" isn't uncommon.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Koloman


    DDigital wrote: »
    Ah Koloman me ould buddy. The Premier League have some great grounds alright, but they're not National Stadiums. They are not built to showcase a National Team.

    What was I expecting? Its simple really. A stadium that didn't have to be compromised in order to fit into a housing estate. Why oh why do so many Irish people settle for mediocrity.:rolleyes: As a matter of interest Koloman, what other stadiums have you actually sat in abroad?

    Get your facts right DDigital. The so called "Bertie Bowl" was supposed to be a national stadium capable of hosting the Gaa, soccer, rugby and athletics. When that went by the wall the FAI and IRFU came up with the Lansdowne road redevelopment.

    The new Aviva stadium is not a "National Stadium". Even Bertie Ahern (sorry to mention his name) said last year that he hoped that a national stadium would be built in his lifetime. Lansdowne road ain't it!


Advertisement