Bluetonic wrote:It may not bother you, but it quite obviously bothers others therefore I believe it's relevant. If it wasn't why would stadias bother with roof over the stands at all? Surely it would be cheaper and easier to build without.
i was on a stadium tour of wembley last month, where the guide placed great emphasis on the roof covering every seat, while leaving the pitch open to natural light and rain.
we walked down to the pitch, where approximately the first 20 rows of the lower tier were wet!The argument about the roof covering seats is made irrelevant by the wind,
unless you cover the whole stadium, though in that case, the quality of the grass surface will suffer.
I think most people are reasonable enough to understand that attending an outside sporting event means that occasionally get wet!
Peter Fitz wrote:Looks great until you clap your eyes on that botched steel work, it really is distracting and manages to destroy the flow of the place, which would have otherwise been its defining feature.
That steel work is atrocious, and the view from the top of the stand, with the steel jutting right down is a terrible design flaw.
the top 3 priorities building a stadium must surely be unobstructed views for all spectators, safety of spectators and quality of atmosphere. you cannot compromise on any of those, and clearly lansdowne has failed on the most important one
architects memo to declan kidney on future home tactics: all home games must use ball in hand only. no kicking allowed, (including penalties). all lineouts must be thrown to the front of the lineout. all tries must be scored under the posts