Lansdowne Road Stadium

[Peter Fitz]

I'd be pretty pissed if my view was obstructed to that extent, ok you can see the full pitch, but the supports are such a distration, dreadful for rugby ... with so many garryowens throughout a match, those consigned to the gods will not be happy.

I was in croker again today, and ok people might have their issues with the aesthetics of hill, but the view from pretty much every seat is excellent.

[Global Citizen]

10224[/ATTACH]

Go compare....

[Global Citizen]

I can't seem to attach the image from post 500 to go with the one above, which is a bummer. But it is clear that those trusses in Lansdowne Road will hinder the enjoyment of the game for those sitting in the seats behind them. I would also be pissed off if I paid a full ticket price for a seat up there. As you can see from the image of Croke Park above, every seat is a good seat. The issue over seats in the lower tiers being exposed to the elements is largly irrelevent. Most spectators will tolerate inclement weather for a seat near the pitch. Although anyone using an umbrella in these seats should be shot.

[Bluetonic]

The issue over seats in the lower tiers being exposed to the elements is largly irrelevent. Most spectators will tolerate inclement weather for a seat near the pitch.

You have obviously never experienced rain during a game in Croke Park when many fans decide to run for cover from seats in the lower Hogan, Cusack and Canal. If fact I can think of games where the majority of spectators moved to the upper tiers for shelter.

Going on that analysis most spectators will not tolerate inclement weather, therefore this point is totally relevant.

[Global Citizen]

You have obviously never experienced rain during a game in Croke Park when many fans decide to run for cover from seats in the lower Hogan, Cusack and Canal. If fact I can think of games where the majority of spectators moved to the upper tiers for shelter.

Going on that analysis most spectators will not tolerate inclement weather, therefore this point is totally relevant.

Moving to the upper tiers is all very well if the stadium is not full. But for capacity crowds this is not possible. I've often been there when it was raining and it doesn't bother me. It's hard enough to get tickets for big games so I'll put up with a drop of rain if it means being at able to attend an All Ireland final etc. If I wanted to stay dry I'd watch the match at home.

[Bluetonic]

I've often been there when it was raining and it doesn't bother me.

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.

[jimg]

The discussion regarding protection from the elements is a red herring. The Croke Park design is 20 years old and just because it is arguably flawed in this regard does not mean that stadium designs have to compromise between sight-lines and providing cover for spectators. Nearly all the large stadia designed/built in the last 10 years and many built previously have uninterrupted sight-lines from everywhere and offer almost complete protection from the elements.

When CP was redeveloped - the motivation primarily was to increase capacity. LR was redeveloped primarily to improve facilities for spectators. While the upper tier of the old West stand had pillars (I seem to recall), the effect on sight-lines was minor compared to that of the roof-trusses in the new LR if that picture is accurate. This is disappointing given that the per-seat cost of the LR redevelopment must be one of the highest in the world.

I'm hoping the view I posted above is only typical for a very small minority of the seats but even if this is the case, it is a design flaw in my opinion. And a nice shiney curvey exterior does not fully redeem the design for me.

[reddy]

It has to be remembered that Croke Park was also built for a summer season of games (I know its an Irish summer - but still) - the lower tiers being exposed isn't as much of an issue during the summer months as it has been during their use for Rugby and Soccer's winter fixtures.

Back on topic - I certainly wouldn't be too pleased with that view.

[Peter Fitz]

Recent Shots ...







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.

[rofbp]

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!

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

[Paul Clerkin]

Agreed - looks fantasic til you look at the steelwork. Still cannot wait to attend a game there. Such an improvement on the old one.

I can remember being at games where it poured and poured and being drenched through on the terrace,,, and 0-0 draws to make it even worse... but then in those days I worked next door to the FAI and it was so easy to run down of a game morning and buy handfuls of tickets

[tomtdowling]

Good to a point shame it only accommodates 50k when most Rugby international need 80K. The steel beams blocking the view from the upper stands major design flaw. Exterior look great.

[murfee]

Was i the stadium on Friday last and cannot understand the negative views being expressed on the forum. The stadium is amazing. Aesthetically, it is really full of great features. The sight lines are great even from the upper level and I think most fans will be shocked at the level of comfort all round. The argument that we need 80,000 seats to me is defeated by the fact that at Croke Park, over 10,000 of the capacity is not seated or covered and that so many of the seats are too far from the action on the smaller rugby/football pitch. At the new Landsdowne, it really feels like you are very close to the pitch from every seat.

[BTH]

Was i the stadium on Friday last and cannot understand the negative views being expressed on the forum. The stadium is amazing.

The above pictures show that the new stadium is far from amazing. In fact internally it is depressingly badly designed. The northern end gets worse every time I look at it as do the ridiculously mis-shapen trusses. And the picture taken from the southern end towards the north proves how badly the sense of enclosure (and thus the overall atmosphere) will suffer as a result of the compromized and badly thought out design.

[gunter]

agree with BTH

Open ended stadiums are not all that bad, Croke Park being the obvious example, and there were other great ones two, included the old Cardiff Arms Park/National Stadium which seemd to open directly off a street with a bank of tall redbrick buildings looking in at the open end. The stadium as an urban colosseum - perfect.

It's the whole distortion of the structure, particularly the roof, in a hopeless attempt to make the stadium look somehow 'complete', that comes across as jarring and stupid. You'd also have to suspect that the decision not to equalize both ends [somewhere between the two extremes] had more to do with creating a concert venue than a ball park, which also diminishes it's value in my eyes.

I totally agreed with the decision to run with the Lansdowne Road site, but it's not good enough to say that restrictions meant that this is the best they could have done.

[Peter Fitz]

More pics on the indo.

http://www.independent.ie/photo-galleries/aviva-stadium-2116086.html

I've no issue with the lower tier, overall i think its handled quite well. Steel work is pretty much the only issue for me. Any idea how flood lights are going to be handled? Mounted to the bloody steel work perhaps !?

[dermot_trellis]

They didn't have any choice as regards the dipping down at Havelock Square, it was an imposed planning restriction, and I'd imagine it'll look better when fully completed, but I still can't get over the clunky steelwork. I'd be very interested to know if any alternative less-obtrusive structural solutions were discussed and tried and if the end result is some sort of money-saving compromise or 'safe option' or something.

[Tuborg]

More pics on the indo.

http://www.independent.ie/photo-galleries/aviva-stadium-2116086.html

This view in particular is pretty disappointing!

Overscaled, bent steelwork and the clumsy fashion in which the roof slopes down to that miserable northern end. All terribly incongruous!

[dermot_trellis]

Look at that lovely new lawn:






(Not my photos, reposted from another forum I look at)

[reddy]

Its lookin good. (I've just come to accept that bloody structure.)

[Peter Fitz]

Seat colour much better with the plastic removed too...

[kinsella]

I'd rather the seats were a darker shade of green.

Seat colour much better with the plastic removed too...

Corrected!

[Pete]

It's the whole distortion of the structure, particularly the roof, in a hopeless attempt to make the stadium look somehow 'complete', that comes across as jarring and stupid. You'd also have to suspect that the decision not to equalize both ends [somewhere between the two extremes] had more to do with creating a concert venue than a ball park, which also diminishes it's value in my eyes.

I still can't get over the clunky steelwork. I'd be very interested to know if any alternative less-obtrusive structural solutions were discussed and tried and if the end result is some sort of money-saving compromise or 'safe option' or something.

Whats wrong with money-saving compromises and optimising the stadiums use by designing it to accomodating concerts? The stadium has cost €410 million, but you are right, thats not enough and the only income should be from rugby and soccer matchs!

The stadium looks amazing, regardless of the steel or the low end. Its great to see the Europa League final will be played there next year so we can show it off to the rest of Europe.

[PaulC]

It looks fantastic. I love the blend of green, steel and glass effect. It works really well asthetically.

[PaulC]

According to avivastadium.ie the official opening of the stadium is this coming Friday May 14th.