Lansdowne Road Stadium

[Paul Clerkin]

closeness to the pitch will engender a good atmosphere nomatter how many 000 seats

[Tuborg]

Tuborg,

An original study for 65,000 seats at Lansdowne Road concluded that there would be unacceptable impacts on adjacent residential amenity - primarily arising from the required height and scale of the Stadium.

To address this, while staying on the same site (judged the most appropriate site in most other aspects), a decision was taken to reduce capacity from 65,000 to 51,000.

Even at 51,000 the north end has to be so close to O'Connell Gardens/Havelock Square that anything higher than the current dropped tiers would have been very undesirable in terms of residential amenity (due to very negative sunlight/daylight impacts) and absolutely impossible to deliver (in planning terms). Alternative designs on site could not address this.

The 65,000 seater might have been built elsewhere - but this really would have been a pity IMHO.

I'm not sure if a more enclosed stadium would look/feel better. Maybe it would - but I find the current shape is very interesting and distinctive - (a good thing in terms of international recognition) - and the view of the city during nightime events should be rather special.

I was on a tour a couple of weeks ago and the internal layout and finish is exceptional with a great sense of closeness to the pitch. I think its going to be a great stadium - better with 65,000 of course - but the very best obtainable in the circumstances.

I'm well aware that 50,000 is the optimum capacity given the constraints of the current site. It's just that it's simply too small and if the site can't take a stadium that adequately caters for demand, then you should look at alternative options!

Now the only options available were to try and buy up the properties that were impeding the full completion or the stadium or sell up and move to a new site! Clearly the IRFU were never likely to leave Lansdowne Road behind and I also can't really see a situation in the near future where the ground will be fully completed either! So effectively we've had to settle for a compromised solution!

I know theres no point crying over spilled milk. But the unfortunate reality now is that it's going to be even more difficult for fans to go see their international teams playing and I don't think that's fair!

[publicrealm]

Now the only options available were to try and buy up the properties that were impeding the full completion or the stadium or sell up and move to a new site! Clearly the IRFU were never likely to leave Lansdowne Road behind and I also can't really see a situation in the near future where the ground will be fully completed either! So effectively we've had to settle for a compromised solution!

Buying up (and demolishing) protected properties and properties in a residential conservation area is a non-runner. And rightly so.

The IRFU was willing to move to a new site (it bought a site specifically to provide for this eventuality) but the site options report conclusively pointed to Lansdowne Road.

The ground will be fully completed this Summer. A compromise certainly but, as I said earlier, the best available outcome (in the real world).

[Global Citizen]

I'm not sure if a more enclosed stadium would look/feel better. Maybe it would - but I find the current shape is very interesting and distinctive - (a good thing in terms of international recognition) - and the view of the city during nightime events should be rather special.

Yes views over the city are obviously an integral part of any stadium design.
Although I prefer to concentrate on whats happening on the field of play myself.
But maybe thats just me.

As for international recognition....
I have no doubt the new Lansdowne Road stadium will attract plenty when it opens.
But will it all be for the right reasons?

[Tuborg]

The IRFU was willing to move to a new site (it bought a site specifically to provide for this eventuality) but the site options report conclusively pointed to Lansdowne Road.

The ground will be fully completed this Summer. A compromise certainly but, as I said earlier, the best available outcome (in the real world).

Well the ABP inspector recommended that planning be refused as if I recall correctly the site was deemed to be unsuitable for a modern International stadium. It only got off the ground after the board over-ruled the planning report!

Below is an extract from the report.

The results of the site selection process do not, as suggested in the EIS and other documentation, clearly indicate that the Lansdowne Road site was the best site. There is a considerable weight of evidence to suggest that the Ardagh site would be more suitable for a modern international stadium.

[publicrealm]

Well the ABP inspector recommended that planning be refused as if I recall correctly the site was deemed to be unsuitable for a modern International stadium. It only got off the ground after the board over-ruled the planning report!

Below is an extract from the report.

That is the case. It changes nothing of the above.

I happen to believe that the Ardagh (Irish Glass bottle ) site, considered more suitable by the inspector, was quite inappropriate. Subsequent events appear to have confirmed this -(but the inspector was entitled to his view which I believe was honestly expressed). As it happens, if the IRFU had purchased the glass bottle site they would now be hundreds of millions down and, in my view, could never have obtained planning there. .

But this is not relevant - the IRFU relied on the expert report - so we are going around in circles here.

[Peter Fitz]

Even at 51,000 the north end has to be so close to O'Connell Gardens/Havelock Square that anything higher than the current dropped tiers would have been very undesirable in terms of residential amenity (due to very negative sunlight/daylight impacts) and absolutely impossible to deliver (in planning terms). Alternative designs on site could not address this.

The 65,000 seater might have been built elsewhere - but this really would have been a pity IMHO.

Anyone looking at an aerial view of the site however will inevitably question why the stadium wasn't turned to utilise the entire site - I take your point about the adverse impact on O'Connell Gardens / Havelock Square, but were designs covering the entire site even drafted or considered? Surely some creative solution was possible, site excavation, increased capacity behind goals etc.

Even on its current layout, there was significant scope to incorporate addtional capacity to the east and west 'stands'. With 10,000 corporate seats leaving only 40k available to the average punter, its not going to be easy to get a seat in this place.

[Tuborg]

Of course it's all irrelevant now. But it dosen't change the fact that we have had to settle for a stadium with a totally inadequate capacity, which is quite annoying!

[publicrealm]

Anyone looking at an aerial view of the site however will inevitably question why the stadium wasn't turned to utilise the entire site - I take your point about the adverse impact on O'Connell Gardens / Havelock Square, but were designs covering the entire site even drafted or considered? Surely some creative solution was possible, site excavation, increased capacity behind goals etc.

Even on its current layout, there was significant scope to incorporate addtional capacity to the east and west 'stands'. With 10,000 corporate seats leaving only 40k available to the average punter, its not going to be easy to get a seat in this place.

Peter,

All options were set out in the EIS.

Reorienting the pitch east west would result in the sides of the stadium beside the pitch to being north and south (rather than the goal ends). The sides have the greatest accommodation capacity. The north side would still have to dip to take account of Havelock Square/O'Connell Gardens - with much greater impact in terms of seat losses.

Goin to t'pub now.

[tommyt]

Of course it's all irrelevant now. But it dosen't change the fact that we have had to settle for a stadium with a totally inadequate capacity, which is quite annoying!

I personally don't buy this argument. A fair and proper Ticket allocation system (yeah I know, I know..) you would hope would insure a partisan, passionate and vocal home support in a relatively intimate stadium built for competitive international field sports.

The GAA can have their bumper crowds of amiable day trippers- occasionally vocally engaging with a game in an enoromode rarely filled more than four times a year that appears to have a pretty non descript atmosphere to this outsider...

The stadium is more than fit for purpose in one of the finest locations any stadium in Europe occupies (e.g. Wembley and the Camp Nou are in anonymous uburbs, Old Trafford is in an industrial estate for all intents and purposes).

Either way I'll be watching on the telly so I won't be getting too worked up whether the ground can cater for presumed demand.

[kinsella]

[IMG]
Anyone looking at an aerial view of the site however will inevitably question why the stadium wasn't turned to utilise the entire site - I take your point about the adverse impact on O'Connell Gardens / Havelock Square, but were designs covering the entire site even drafted or considered? Surely some creative solution was possible, site excavation, increased capacity behind goals etc.

Even on its current layout, there was significant scope to incorporate addtional capacity to the east and west 'stands'. With 10,000 corporate seats leaving only 40k available to the average punter, its not going to be easy to get a seat in this place.

The reason for this is that Lansdowne Rugby club had to have their own pitch retained on the site.

[reddy]

Yeah I think the solution achieved for the location is magnificent - Dublin's very lucky to have two stadia in near city centre locations.

I do think however that Lansdowne Rugby club could have been accommodated elsewhere and this would have allowed for more excavation of the site and a greater capacity. 50,000 would be fine if not for the proportion of corporate seats.

Overall it'll be a great addition to the city and another achievement to add to the list from the boom years but if (as is only rumoured at the moment) they have messed up on sightlines its a complete mess.

[BTH]

Given all the constraints and issues with overshadowing the properties at the Northern end I still don't see why it wasn't designed to provide more rows of seats. Surely a solid structure up to the height of the previously existing terrace could have been allowed which would at least have created a respectable looking crowd at this end of the pitch. As it stands the solid element of the structure is about a quarter the height (if even that) of the old terrace with the ridiculous looking "bus shelter" (great nickname by the way) soaring high above... The current arrangement is terrible looking and will undoubtedly adversely affect the atmosphere in the stadium.

[Griff]

Will wait until its 100% finished but so far I think its poor. The trusses and the low end are awful and ruin what could have been really nice. Wasted opportunity imo and overall looks a bit shiiiite. Don't care if i'm moaning..its true.

Im inclined to agree with you... you just expect to see clean lines with steelwork when it is exposed and part of the 'look' of the building...I presume the messy looking arrangement of the bottom and top chords of the trusses are to give the roof its external form. Probably looked a lot sweeter on the modelling software..

[Peter Fitz]

I do think however that Lansdowne Rugby club could have been accommodated elsewhere and this would have allowed for more excavation of the site and a greater capacity. 50,000 would be fine if not for the proportion of corporate seats.

That is my point
I'm aware of the situation with Lansdowne rugby club, but Donnybrook is sitting there now, with Leinster playing more often than not in the RDS - I'm sure the IRFU could have sorted it, its not like you get a second go at this once its done.

[Tuborg]

I personally don't buy this argument. A fair and proper Ticket allocation system (yeah I know, I know..) you would hope would insure a partisan, passionate and vocal home support in a relatively intimate stadium built for competitive international field sports.

Either way I'll be watching on the telly so I won't be getting too worked up whether the ground can cater for presumed demand.

Ah but you see, it's a different story entirely if you actually want to go to a game!

Less than 39,000 tickets for the real fans and that dosen't include the away supporters allocation!

[BTH]

Im inclined to agree with you... you just expect to see clean lines with steelwork when it is exposed and part of the 'look' of the building...I presume the messy looking arrangement of the bottom and top chords of the trusses are to give the roof its external form. Probably looked a lot sweeter on the modelling software..

That photo is an absolute shocker... This just gets worse and worse. It's a stadium designed to look nice on the outside with the interior left to the engineers...

[AMDM]

The arrangement of the trusses at the lower end are hideous- look bent and broken!!!!- disaster

Amazing exterior- rediculous interior.........such a waste

[rofbp]

I like the look of it externally - but for me, the primary purpose of a stadium is to allow people to watch the game - if there is obstructed view, then it is a fail by the designers.

+1
i agree completely. i attend a lot of games, in all codes. the comfort of the fan, their sight-lines, safety and the atmosphere at the game should be the main priorities on the design brief. any design that doesn't meet those basic requirements, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is on the outside, must be considered as not achieving its goal. although i suppose we have to hold judgement until it opens, the pictures certainly seem to indicate that sightlines are affected from the upper tiers.
no doubt the defence will be that the whole pitch is visible, but this would be a wholly unacceptable logic, particularly for rugby, where so much of the action takes place around the margins of the playing area, and where following the flight of a kicked ball is vital to your enjoyment of the game

Hundreds of millions spent on both Croke Park and Landsdown Road and both are really only 75% finished with the Havelock Square end almost useless for accommodation.
50,000 seats i stoo few and compared to the superb Millennium Stadium in Cardiff not a great result really.

i disagree.
to call croke park 75% finished, considering the importance of retaining a terrace for atmosphere and historic reasons, is wrong. Croke park was always intended to have a terrace at the hill 16 end, therefore it is 100% finished as intended. you may dislike the appearance of a terrace, but i think a properly designed terrace is a positive attribute in a stadium.
hill 16 is a clear example of how a terrace should be designed, and shows the british authorities overreacted in banning terraces at larger grounds.

the design of hill 16 from the outside is not pretty, but it doesn't have to be: it is masked by the railway line and rows of terraced houses.
the continuity of the croke park roof is broken when viewed from above, but does that really matter either? who is looking at that? the pilot of the garda helicopter, and a few aerial shots on tv?
from inside, it does appear a bank of concrete, but why look at concrete when the pitch is where the action is?

The GAA can have their bumper crowds of amiable day trippers- occasionally vocally engaging with a game in an enoromode rarely filled more than four times a year that appears to have a pretty non descript atmosphere to this outsider...

"amiable day trippers" is unnecessarily dismissive.
i would say that the nature of gaelic games lends itself to constant vocal engagement, and having attended all 4 codes at croke park, the contrast between soccer and gaa atmospheres there attests to this difference in atmosphere, (though in fairness, the smaller soccer pitch is also a big factor).

Either way I'll be watching on the telly so I won't be getting too worked up whether the ground can cater for presumed demand.

proving the start of your quote was based on opinion rather than experience?

Ah but you see, it's a different story entirely if you actually want to go to a game!

+1

applying the croke park/hill 16 argument to the aviva stadium, i don't think it will matter once a match is on how small the havelock end is: the noise from the other 3 sides will compensate, and our attention should be focused on the pitch rather than the large looming wall and roof over that end.

[GregF]

I originally thought that a 50,000 Lansdowne was too small and I supported the Bertie Bowl idea too. But after some reflection and reasoning, now I think that the 50,000 capacity is quite adequate for this stadium. I mean it's not as if we are very prolific at international field sports in all honesty. We don't play glamourous soccer, nor never did. The current good rugby spell could possibly be flash in the pan. 60 odd years to win the Grand Slam FFS.

Croke Park looked big and empty at most of the soccer W.C. qualifying games against the 'unglamour' teams, which our team even struggled against. Hill 16 looked desolate as it was mostly unused! It was only full against the likes of Italy.

The next time international soccer games are being played look at the attendances/capacities of the games throughout Europe. 30, 40 or 50 thousand is the average attendance even for a prolific soccer national team like Germany who do qualify and win World Cups . For other countries similar to our size but who happen to do better at qualifying than ourselves the attendances are only about 20,000 or less. Remember we are only 4.5 million with a mediocre soccer team when it all boils down.

The 2 stadia of 80,000 Croker and a 50,000 Lansdowne/Aviva are quite adequate for Dublin city and the country. Improving the smaller stadiums throughout the country to bring them up to an acceptable level should be the priorty. Thomand Park is a 100% improvement and looks great.

[PaulC]

I agree entirely with GregF. Rather than bemoaning the (small) size of Lansdowne Road, there should be an atmosphere of cooperation between the GAA and IRFU/FAI where the biggest games (Gaelic/Rugby/Soccer) are played at Croke Park and the smaller ones (including GAA) played at Lansdowne.
In the longer term I would love to see Hill16 demolished and a continuation of the tiered seating to that end, with a fully enclosed roof. Then we would have 2 great stadiums.

[OisinT]

In the longer term I would love to see Hill16 demolished

yeah... no. Firstly, Dubliners would never let that happen. Secondly, isn't there that railroad track directly behind there that the GAA keeps trying to buy but can't? I'm not sure but I think it makes anything more than what Hill 16 is now nearly impossible to do

[mrdarcy]

yeah... no. Firstly, Dubliners would never let that happen. Secondly, isn't there that railroad track directly behind there that the GAA keeps trying to buy but can't? I'm not sure but I think it makes anything more than what Hill 16 is now nearly impossible to do

There is no chance that the GAA would try to buy that railway line. It is extremely busy at present and will only get more so with the extension of DART along that line. I suppose the line could be lowered but that would require level crossings along the route from Connolly to Glasnevin and there is no chance of that happening. Forget it, the hill stays as it is.

[BTH]

...there should be an atmosphere of cooperation between the GAA and IRFU/FAI where the biggest games (Gaelic/Rugby/Soccer) are played at Croke Park and the smaller ones (including GAA) played at Lansdowne.

The pitch at Lansdowne Road is far below the minimum dimensions required for Gaelic Football / Hurling to be played...

[alonso]

Plus the FAI and IRFU have signed huge contracts with stadium service providers and sponsors for matches in Lansdowne so can't move the bigger ones to Croker.

Re the Railway line - is that the main Maynooth Line behind Hill 16? There's a line either side of Croker.