Bertie’s Bowl….Sports Campus Ireland
February 26, 2001 at 12:49 pm #705152
Should B..B..Bertie’s Bowl or Sports Campus Ireland be built. I reckon that it should….most definitely. Ignore the poor mouths who are knocking it and who always seem to surface when something like this comes about.It will be of great benefit to the whole of the country especially in the long term future. It’s an opportunity not to be missed for sport here.
February 26, 2001 at 4:50 pm #717584
Greg- stop knocking the Taoiseach’s Stutter (which no-one has heard since the early 90’s anyway). Not that I am being pc or anything – its not really a valid point (Just as much as Ruari Quinn’s and Michael Noonans Baldness isn’t either).
I agree with the stuff about the Stadium though – but I think that going out to Blanchardstown for an international will reduce some of the fun and air of tradition around a rugby match.
February 26, 2001 at 6:18 pm #717585
Have to say GregF, I donâ€™t agree with you on this one for a number of reasons.
The price tag of this â€˜facilityâ€™ is already tagged at Â£350 million pounds MINIUMUM to the exchequer (So Far), NOT including Â£100 million to re-locate govt. agricultural labs!
The development includes among others, a â€˜Velodromeâ€™ (one of those circular cycling tracks). Do we really need this??? Iâ€™m sure it will cost a fortune – for something that seems entirely surplus to our needs in a county as small as Ireland and, I feel would have very limited recreational value. People will stay close to home to cycle, and will probably not want to drive for miles down the motorway to cycle in circles.
The â€˜Olympic sized poolâ€™ â€“ Lots of people of all ages can enjoy swimming. If there is not one already (a 50-meter version) and lots of national (and international) swimming competitions could be held in it, then yes, build it. Lots of people could enjoy the facility and if competitions were held there, lots of people would be interested in watching, on T.V. or as spectators. I do not think the same could be said about a Velodrome.
The stadium â€“ 80,000 seater & a 15,000 person capacity area for something else. Why do we need this when we already have Croke Park and Landsdowne Rd.??? not to mention the other smaller venues of Dublin. There is still ONLY a (widely dispersed) population in Ireland of 3.6-7 million. Not exactly the â€˜critical massâ€™ for 3 -plus large stadia in Dublin alone.
Why plonk a huge traffic generator like the government is proposing out of the city and on the junction of a national motorway route (M50) and the N3, when people will be forced to drive there?
Iâ€™ve seen two of these types of stadia in New York â€“ huge stadiums sitting in an ugly sea of an even bigger car park bounded by an ugly highway. Everybody arrives by car and then post match the crowds dissipate by car. No excitement or business present that would be associated with post-match games in a city. But why bother learning from othersâ€™ mistakes?
If a large and substantial rail and bus station was an element of the proposal I mightnâ€™t object so strenuously.
Is the whole development some kind of slow, insidious march towards an â€˜Olympic Bidâ€™ for the country? If so, whyâ€¦ we wouldnâ€™t be gaining any kind of worldwide recognition that we donâ€™t really already have. It doesnâ€™t look as if, weâ€™d get any kind of useful infrastructure/facility (besides a 50m. pool and some other smaller stuff) been built – using the Olympics as an excuse – e.g. something that could be used by all, was really useful, didnâ€™t have already, and is generally expensive – like a 50m. pool, a light rail line, high speed rail line or some kinds of specialist facilities.
It might be an idea to build â€˜Sports Campus Irelandâ€™ (minus the stadium?) somewhere besides Dublin and use the surplus money from not paying Dublin prices to add value. E.g. put it in/ beside Galway or Limerick etc. and build (a proper c.100-125MPH/ 160-200 Km/h) high -speed rail line to Dublin.
Everybody usually has to travel to Dublin by rail and bus to Landsdowne Rd. or Croke Park â€“ so why not turn the tables and give some of the benefits of development to another city? This will also help take some of the pressure off Dublin. Simultaneously, it could strengthen the economic potential of the west or midlands region.
Dublin already has many developmental problems, so have the West and MidLands cities/ regions for different reasons, why compound them? I hope Bertie uses his brain and makes the best of this opportunity.
P.S. See for more details of â€˜Sports Campus Irelandâ€™ â€“ http://www.thestadiaofireland.com/ & in the Irish Times â€“ Ireland section â€“ Jan. 24 & Feb. 23 + Opinion Section â€“ Jan. 29.
February 26, 2001 at 7:57 pm #717586JasParticipant
lets be honest, bertie is not doing this for the good of the country – this is self-grandisement in the style of Monsieur President Mitterand of France
February 27, 2001 at 10:40 am #717587
Well I think it would be of enormous benefit for the whole of the island. The cost is only a fraction of the budget. It will be magnificent for Irish sport …a Mecca…a Temple…and maybe it wiil encourage the couch potatoes to get up off their arses and actually participate in sport instead of watching it on the telly or more typically in the pub.
I watched the last part of the Late Late Show on Friday and the Minister of Sport McDaid was on and of course he was singing it’s praises. (I don’t support Fianna Fail…never have ..never will) However the show degenerated into one of those typical shows that we have seen down through the years. Remember all those debates over the years about the legalization of contraceptives, divorce, the Lotto,The Last Temptation of Christ etc…and how the audience would comment that ‘we dont want it here’ as it would have a detrimental effect on sacred little insular frugal Irish society. Well the same occured on Friday……florid faces ranting…it’s a waste of money…what about the homeless,what about the drugs problem, what about the hospital waiting lists, what about me mother inlaw…blah blah. Again, it was embarassing. McDaid replied that capital is been spent all round and in certain cases hospitals often return surplus funding. Another point he made too was that when ever the likes of a drug rehabilitation centre or a travellers halting site or anything for the unfoutunates of society is to be built in an area such so called ‘bleeding heart’ locals refuse point blank.
Anyway, why not spend, spend, spend and build it, there is enormous potential….All sorts of events could be staged bringing in masses ammounts of revenue for the economy. The European Championships, European Cup Finals, Rugby World Cups…even the Olympics ….and why not? Look at the recent Odyssey Centre too that has recently been built up north. Full attendences at the ice hockey events. It is an enormous success.
The thing with us Irish is when we finally get anything it is only then that we realize how did we ever do without it. We are happy to make do with anything for the time, fear of change and the sense of the new, living miserable lives with only the drink as our entertainment dimming the brain to numb the pain.
When the stadium et al is complete I bet the public will then say ‘ah sure is’nt it wonderful’.
To add Landsdowne Road is a ramshackle kip, it is an embarassing eyesore.I am fed up making excuses to any foreign guests who pay a visit for a game. To redevelop it no doubt would meet objections from the locals hence the Abbotstown green field site proposal. Croke Park is out of bounds due to the GAA’s archaic gombeen ethos. Why build it in Dublin? …well it is the capital, has better infrastructure and almost half the population of the country live here.
Also the late president of France did wonders for the city of Paris continuing their tradition of grandiose urban design….and Parc de France is a magnificent arena.
No harm either if Bertie tries in some way to emulate him.
[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 27 February 2001).]
February 27, 2001 at 5:18 pm #717588
Yes, Dublin is the Capital, and is and should remain the most important city of the country. It does have plenty of problems however associated with development e.g. the huge increase in car use â€“ Iâ€™d hate to see yet more moves towards car dependency.
One of my key objections to the proposal is on a national strategic level. All development seems to be far too heavily weighed towards the East Coast i.e. the greater Dublin area. Many people seem to claim that â€˜the westâ€™ is dying and has not seen the benefits the â€˜Celtic Tigerâ€™. If Bertie was thinking strategically, he might find heâ€™d gain lots of votes for say, the entire west coast region by making a big deal out of putting some of the larger parts if the proposal in the west (Galway City) and saying it represented his commitment to people in the country outside the Dublin region. I would have thought heâ€™d gain more political gain and credo by doing that then from a relatively few extra local votes from local constituents (who see plenty of development left, right, and centre anyway).
In population terms Dublin does represent the greatest catchment area of the country by far so, it might make sense to place most of the proposed facilities that would be in generally continuos use for ordinary purposes and also for special events somewhere in Dublin.
The stadium, and maybe some associated developments, perhaps the velodrome, science and medical centre and the athletes’ village could be located somewhere besides Dublin.
1. The stadium would probably not be in continuos use and would only be used for special events e.g. matches – so the needs for a catchement area would be less.
2. Irish athletes are not flush with money as far as I know so they might welcome the chance of living somewhere cheaper and, to a certain extent mightnâ€™t care where the facilities are once they are provided. Also, if a running track were to be provided in the stadium the runners would benefit as well by having the stadium outside Dublin.
I am still very dubious about the need for another full sized stadium in any case, but in general I donâ€™t have any objections to money been spent on the other proposals which would be longâ€“term and tangible assets for the country.
I do not have any special affinity for the west or the midlands either â€“ so thatâ€™s not why I suggested them, as I said, Iâ€™m trying to think strategically.
February 27, 2001 at 7:36 pm #717589AnonymousParticipant
One reason why croker wouldn’t do as national stadium is the lack of an athletics track and as the minister said the fact that the locals just would not tolerate the massive increase in visitors that a national stadium would draw (and i don’t blame them)
There was talk of lowering the pitch and removing some of the perimiter seating to try and fit a track in but if the locals are going to object then thats that out the window.
I think Stadium Ireland is a great project, its location is just right and if were to believe the minister there will be either a light rail or metro link to the city centre. There would have to be some kind of rail link anyway as the M50 is chocked with traffic already.
Its success though hinges on the FAI joining in , and i really hope they will ditch eircom park for the national stadium – this would leave them to put all the capital that would be spent on eircom park in to the “grass routes”.
Apparently the campus will have two thirds of the facilities necessary to host the olympics, i don’t know maybe hosting the olympics is just some pie in the sky dream that some of us harbour but we’re such an odd little country we just might be able to pull it off.
February 28, 2001 at 10:41 am #717590
Why shouldnt it be built in Dublin – putting it in Galway would not make any economic sense – and would overload the 1 rail link to the city so that would be a non starter. Also if they want to have concerts there who is going to put up all the people who want to go theire from Dublin.
And its not in Berties constituency either.
Another reason why Croker is not suitable is the fact that its owned by a bunch of Bigots who wont allow soccer to be played there.
February 28, 2001 at 12:29 pm #717591
The Abbottstown site would have to have either a Metro or other heavy rail link â€“ a light rail line would not really have sufficient capacity.
I know the M50 is already badly congested, that is my concern about adding another significant â€˜traffic generatorâ€™ to it.
If an Olympic bid was used as an excuse for the stimulus of more development of community facilities â€“ that would be good â€“ but, I donâ€™t see any other particular reason for hosting it in the immediate future. That is, considering the significant cost risks associated with it â€“ Calgary was still paying for theirs well over a decade later.
The stadium doesnâ€™t necessarily have to be located in Galway, it could be Limerick? Either way, more rail links could be provided as the government spends precious little on rail outside Dublin anyway.
If some of the proposals e.g. the stadium/track, athletes village etc. were built in a regional city, hotels etc. would spring up to accommodate them. If very good rail and bus facilities were provided, then a lot of the need for accommodation would be negated â€“ otherwise more jobs and investment could be created on foot of the development in a place that needs it more than Dublin.
If Abbottstown is not Berties constituency, well it would still make him and his party â€˜look goodâ€™ to Dublinites in that region of Dublin.
Is there any particular reason why anybody would object to a regional city getting the stadium and some associated developments (donâ€™t just mention â€“â€˜â€™cos Dublin is the capitalâ€™)?
I still think some of the proposals i.e. the pool and some of the more frequently used types of facilities could be located in Dublin to make use of the catchment area.
February 28, 2001 at 2:32 pm #717592
Who’s designing it? I can’t get that website link to work.
February 28, 2001 at 2:54 pm #717593
It was also confirmed that award-winning German Architects, Behnisch, Behnisch and Partners have won their bid to develop the 500 acre site.
The first www address below (to an Irish Times article) contains an artistâ€™s impression of the stadium.
An architects panel is to be appointed by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd. (CSID), to “ensure that each individual elements of the Campus were of the highest design standards, while still fitting in to the overall coherence of the framework plan.”
The unveiling of these plans coincides with the granting of planning permission by Fingal County Council, for the â€˜Pool at Abbottstownâ€™ which is the Governmentâ€™s highest priority in lieu of the fast approaching Special Olympic World Games, 2003.
[This message has been edited by DARA H (edited 28 February 2001).]
March 1, 2001 at 9:25 am #717594
Frank McDonald has an article in the Irish Times today about the Luas project and says that if it were been done in France there would be fanfare and celebration as the work proceeds…the same could be said if a similar project to Sports Campus Ireland were being built in France. But alas a substantial aspect of our beligerant moany ignorant Irish public cannot see the the wonderful benefits of such ‘grand projets’.
With the greenfield out of the way site let’s hope the architects run riot and come up with something dazzling.
March 1, 2001 at 3:05 pm #717595
Thats because we Irish are great at begrudging and badmouthing everything. I think that we cant believe in something until it happens, Frank McDonald is quite correct about the lack of fanfare. But look at what happens about infrastructure being built in this country –
1) Proposal stage – comments of “it’ll never happen”
2) Vested interests stage – nobody does anything for the good of their town or country and tries to screw as much compensation out of the infrastructural development, or the AA (selfish bastard in a car society) moan about roads being dug up for the Luas and they cant drive everywhere anymore.
3) Huge delay due to selfish interests stage (I think that speaks for itself) by which time costs rise 10 fold, dodgy rezoning decisions etc
4) Scaled down version is built – starts off well but rapidly becomes overloaded due to the fact that it wasnt built right in the first place (cf M50 Motorway)
5) People moan about it the – “I knew it would be a disaster stage”
Hence people do not want to build anything in this country.
Sometimes you just want to give up.
March 1, 2001 at 4:11 pm #717596
Hmmm, expected something a bit more radical from Behnisch – but they probably have their hands tied by stadium “specialists” who say that things have to be done in a particular way.
Of course we’re going through all this with the English National Stadium at Wembley (N. Foster with a team of aforesaid stadium specialists). Same story: ever-rising costs, huge controversy, problem of incorporating athletics, worries over location etc etc.
The French, of course, know what to do: they took a wrecked post-industrial suburb, built a superb stadium there and two metro stations to serve it, all in double-quick time. Voila: the Stade de France. It all seems so easy when you have a dirigiste regime.
March 3, 2001 at 8:43 am #717597Shane OTooleParticipant
Behnisch is not designing the stadium – or any other buildings at Abbotstown for that matter. He has been appointed as overall architectural and environmental framework planner for the 500-acre campus.
The previous image (it was never intended to be anything more than that) of the proposed stadium, prepared by Scott Tallon Walker last year, is no longer valid.
A design, build, finance, operate and maintain competition among seven bidders is currently underway to procure the stadium and other buildings. Architects competing include Auer und Weber, Gerkan Marg, Dominique Perrault, Jean Nouvel, Hopkins, Rogers, Grimshaw, as well as STW, Murray O’Laoire, BDP, etc. The first phase of the competition, when the competing consortia are whittled down to three, will terminate in April. The overall winner of the second-stage competition will be announced by June.
Only at that stage will we know what the stadium is likely to look like.
March 3, 2001 at 5:31 pm #717598
Thanks Shane: that’s a relief. Or at least,I hope it’s a relief: is this bidding process being conducted according to architectural merit, I wonder, or according to the size of the bank balances of the consortia involved?
It reminds me of all those shopping-centre competitions where architects are yoked with developers, with the consequence that design quality comes a poor second to size of financial inducement being offered. Anyone know how the process works for this project?
Transparently or otherwise?
March 5, 2001 at 4:14 pm #717599DrawingboardParticipant
Who are the overseas firms selected for the shortlist?
March 7, 2001 at 3:58 pm #717600shadowParticipant
The list for panel 2 (the usual suspects) Sport what sport?
1 Benson & Forsyth
2 Bucholz McEvoy
3 Caruso St. John
4 De Blacam & Meagher
5 De Paor Architects
6 Derek Tynan
7 Fagan Kelly Lysaght
8 Future Systems
9 Grafton Architects
10 Gordon Murray & Alan Dunlop
11 Hassett Ducatez
12 Henchion Und Reuter
13 McCullough Mulvin
14 McGarry Ni Eanaigh
15 MV Cullinan
16 O’Donnell & Tuomey
17 Paul Keogh
18 Sauerbach Hutton
19 Shay Cleary
March 8, 2001 at 9:59 am #717601DrawingboardParticipant
Not exactly inspiring is it? Not much in the way of international names.
March 8, 2001 at 10:13 am #717602
I liked Frank McDonald’s comment today – my italics:
“However, Irish architects do feature strongly on a subsidiary panel for smaller projects on the 500-acre Abbotstown site. It is, of course, entirely coincidental that they include all the member firms of Group 91, the consortium involved in Temple Bar, as well as newer talents such as Tom dePaor, Hassett Ducatez and Bucholz McEvoy.”
March 14, 2001 at 10:54 am #717603Sean CitizenParticipant
Panel 1, Group 1 – Stadium
1 Auer & Weber
2 Chaix & Morel
3 Dominique Perrault
4 Jean Nouvel
5 Paul Andreu / Murray O’Laoire
6 Richard Rogers
Panel 1, Group 2 – Arena / Multipurpose Halls
1 Burke-Kennedy Doyle
2 Bligh Voller Nield / BDP
3 Ellerbe Beckett
4 Von Gerkan Marg + Partners
5 HOK Sport
6 Michael Hopkins
7 Nicholas Grimshaw
8 Scott Tallon Walker
9 Valode & Pistre
10 Wilkinson Eyre
Panel 2, Group 3 – Tennis / Offices
1 Benson & Forsyth
2 Bucholz McEvoy
3 Derek Tynan
4 Grafton Architects
5 M V Cullinan
6 O’Donnell & Tuomey
7 Shay Cleary
Panel 2, Group 4 – Velodrome
1 Caruso St John
2 de Paor Architects
3 Fagan Kelly Lysaght
4 Future Systems
5 Gordon Murray & Alan Dunlop
6 Sauerbruch Hutton
Panel 2, Group 5 – Sports Science / Golf
1 de Blacam & Meagher
2 Hassett Ducatez
3 Henchion & Reuter
4 McCullough Mulvin
5 McGarry NiEanaigh
6 Paul Keogh
March 27, 2001 at 4:40 pm #717604
Sports Campus Ireland is…in the words of B..B..Bertie (Bull island) Ahern….’Deadly’!So there!
March 27, 2001 at 6:35 pm #717605fergusParticipant
since architecture should be the catalist to positive change and with the social problems that we have that the opposers to this development are using as their main argument against believing that certain other issues should be the politicans priority why could this not be that catilist to social change and urban/suburban regenerationby by placing the ammenaties in the more underprivliged areas of DUBLIN (the capital and lets face it Iarnrod Eirean are nothing to shout about either)
March 29, 2001 at 9:46 am #717606
Interesting article in todays IT where Frank McDonald tallks about how some architects think there is cronyism involved in the panel selection. His article carefully picks around saying this outright for legal reasons.
March 29, 2001 at 12:22 pm #717607kefuParticipant
It should be noted that there is limited planning permission for matches at Croke Park. Even if the GAA wanted, all matches couldn’t be played there. That was one of the agreements struck with locals over the redevelopment. And it’s also non-negotiable. Also, Lansdowne is a pitiable stadium – it clearly doesn’t have the capacity for really big games. Even the IRFU know this and have agreed to switch to Stadium Ireland. What might make more sense would be to redevelop Lansdowne Road into something of note. The IRFU will eventually dispose of it and the government should be the buyer. Stadium Ireland is an absolute necessity. The suggestion that it should move from Dublin is beyond laughable.
March 29, 2001 at 6:21 pm #717608
I fail to see why the suggestion of locating the stadium in a regional city is â€˜beyond laughableâ€™. Plenty of people (the rest of the country) travel to Dublin for matches.
There is no particularly compelling reason why Dubliners cannot travel to the 2nd or 3rd cities of the nation to do the same.
There are however, compelling reasons to locate some facilities of national importance in cities other than the capital.
Developing strong second or third cities can help take developmental pressure off the capital and strengthen the economy etc. of the smaller cities.
Equally important, NOT putting EVERY national facility in the capital is far more equitable for the majority of the country – i.e. itâ€™s a bit fairer.
Plonking the stadium on the M50 is just going to add more traffic to an already very busy road and will just encourage more people to travel everywhere by car. Besides, national roads like the M50 are meant to be used as routes from A â€“ D (i.e. not commuter traffic) and are not really meant to have actual destinations attached to them. Thatâ€™s why there is always such a fuss about placing out-of-town centres like the â€˜Liffey Valleyâ€™ adjacent to them.
March 30, 2001 at 12:05 pm #717609
How about putting Croke Park down the country – they have the parocial attitude already.
March 30, 2001 at 2:58 pm #717610
The entire process of Sports Campus Ireland has not been a straightforward and logical procedure. Government want a design competition (amongst famous design stars and local design stars none of whom know the building types involved), but wants international consortia to compete to design, build, finance and operate. Word is leaked that 7 consortia are competing, but this is not really true. Since this is under EU procurement as a negotiated procedure anything goes as long as it is plausibly construable as fair. In other words, in the best Irish tradition of doing it our way, but explaining it to them as their way. No different than the architect panels – which were advertised as two panels, big and small, but named as five panels (2 big, 3 small) later changed to 3 panels (2 big, 1 small) when it was pointed out that some of the people listed for certain projects had never done anything at all that big and couldn’t now. In a small hilly country don’t go looking for a level playing field. Leave a comma or period out of your qualifications and you can be eliminated if need be. The consortia still don’t have their brief and terms of tender. No one involved seems to understand the magnitude of the projects they are putting forward.
March 31, 2001 at 6:56 pm #717611
My thoughts have nothing to do with having a ‘parocial attitude’.
I have always lived in ‘the Greater Dublin Area’ – (to use the D.T.O.’s (Dublin Transport Office) term). That is, when i’m not living abroad.
I have nothing against Dublin.
Still, if everyone agreed with each other – this would be a pretty boring discussion forum!
April 2, 2001 at 2:21 pm #717612
The big stadium must be in Dublin, the capitol city if the IRFU will host 6 nations matches in it. Rome is not the center of rugby in Italy, but when Italian rugby wanted to build a national rugby stadium in Bologna, they were told such matches must be played in the capitol. For the stadium to be viable it should have as many events as possible – FAI, IRFU, and others. Of course it will work best for very big events and not very well for smaller crowds just like Stade de France.
April 2, 2001 at 3:03 pm #717613Sean CParticipant
Yes fantastic, just what Ireland needs and I emphasise the word “Ireland”, not Dublin. How can it be justifed locating this development in Dublin yet again. It already has Croke Park, Home of Irish Gaelic Games, which is been redeveloped at much cost into a 80,000 all seater stadium, Landsdowne Road, Home of Irish Rugby, a large capacity stadium which will without doubt be redeveloped in the near future, Dalymount Park which I believe is been redeveloped and Tolka Park a small yet reasonably well seated stadium, the latter two been average sports stadia but still much better than any stadium you will find anywhere else throughout Ireland. And now in the same city “another” 80,000 all seater stadium to be home to Irish Athletics and Irish Soccer, a 50 metre pool, home to Irish Swimming and also a “smaller” 15,000 all seater arena, much more than any other part of Ireland has, oh and I almost forgot, a Veladrome?, easy to get confused as there cannot be another city of this size in the world, Capital or not, with this amount of venues. People in Ireland really need to realise that Dublin by world standards is a “small” city. Here in Wales when they decided to redevelop the Arms Park into a 72,500 all seater stadium which would be home to both the Welsh Rugby and Soccer Associations they had to knock down the much loved Olympic sized swimming pool. They decided that the peplacement should be built in Swansea, Wales second city along with the announcement that the new Welsh Rugby Academy would be developed in Newport, Wales third city. They stated the reason for these different locations was “It would be unfair to locate all of these within one city espically Cardiff as it already had the newly redeveloped Arms Park and was the home to the Welsh Assembly”. This is nothing special or different it is called “common sense”, looking after the Country of Wales not just its capital, been fair, not forcing people outside of Cardiff to have to commute whenever they want to attend eg; a sporting events, people from Cardiff also have to commute to other parts of Wales. It makes for a much more interesting and diverse country when you have a few “Modern and well developed” cities. Remember people in Cork, Limerick, Galway and everywhere else throughout Ireland “all” pay the same taxes, thus they should get treated equally. How would the people of Dublin feel if they saw all there taxes been spent on new developments in let’s say Limerick City, and Dublin was left crumbling, I should expect they would not be very happy at all. Well this is excatley what is happening to the rest if Ireland. How can anyone justify this espically when the economy is doing so well. The word Capital does not mean “the right to have everything”. It would also be of benefit to Dublin, not just the rest of Ireland if a programme of Decentralisation was begun. Take a look at New Zealand for example. Population is just under three and a half million, smaller than the Republics, it’s largest city is Auckland with a population of approx one million. It’s second city is Wellington also the capital which has a population of approx 800,000 and Christchurch it’s third city which has a population of approx 500,000. When the national sport of Rugby is played they travel throughout the country bringing the sport “to the people”. They are able to do this by developing modern stadia in all the main population centres. Ireland really neesds to wake up to this problem quick for the benefit of the country as a whole. Let’s begin with the construction of a new capital and a new form of Federal Government.
April 2, 2001 at 5:41 pm #717614
I think Jackie Healy Rae TD may have a say in having it all or some of it moved down to the Bog of Allen or somewhere thus aiding ‘de Wests awake’. You’re right we have far too much in Dublin….which is why they are considering moving the Dail down there too. That way the politicians will not have to travel very far to their place of work.
April 2, 2001 at 10:58 pm #717615
One thing you can be certain of: the Irish politicians will do what they want. What goes on behind the scenes is the bigger part of the action – and much more interesting than what hits the papers.
During the early part of the peace process successes a few years back there was talk of an Irish Olympic training centre spanning the border. Now there is the national coaching & training centre in Cork. Why does Bertie want all of the other goodies in Dublin?
National stadium is a strange concept that exists only in a few places. Most countries don’t have national stadia, they have important stadia in population centers (markets). You have to be a fairly socialist society (the way Ireland was just a few years ago?) to think of a national stadium in the first place – like France. Centralized control and all of that. It would be reasonable to see market based stadia in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Belfast.
Besides, the Irish are such good Europeans that someday Ireland will be a state and not a State anyway right? What happens to the national stadium then? The US doesn’t have a national stadium and neither do any of the states. Markets have stadia.
Croke is designed to accommodate a running track with removeable seating in one end. The problem with Croke is planning permission limits the number of events. Also transport access is awful. It could handle all of the major events which will ever happen in Ireland…if the GAA want to change.
Then all that is needed is a good 40,000 seat football stadium for that Premier League team that the FAI won’t let into the country. This is what the Dublin market wants. This has to be in the biggest city.
April 7, 2001 at 10:40 pm #717616
Letâ€™s try to not let this discussion descend into an inane argument of Dublin vs. â€˜The Countryâ€™.
I have just come back from a weeklong study tour in The Netherlands. That country was a very good example, among other things, of NOT – â€œputting all your eggs in one basketâ€.
All the cities had obviously received a lot of development in the past and all of them were still busily building away, it seemed as if the whole country was having its own boom time.
Each city pretty much had their own focus: Amsterdam â€“ Finance, culture & tourism. Rotterdam â€“ Shipping and Business. The Hague â€“ Seat of Government. Utrecht â€“ Bit of history, lots of Shopping?! (It did include the countries important EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
Each city was vibrant and included many attractive and/or interesting parts with great transport facilities. You could also be forgiven for been unsure which city was meant to be the actual capital – if you had to choose between Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam.
The point being, giving each city some special functions seemed to work well and, indicates that decentralisation can result in having more than just one interesting and busy city.
Two other comments. I was almost brought to tears when a senior civil servant working for public transport in Amsterdam said they were unhappy with public transport provision in their city. This was because â€œ We only have three boring, grey products to offer people â€“ buses, the trams and the metroâ€!!!
He never mentioned the fact that Amsterdam has also made fantastic provisions for the bicycle, there are good roads accessing just about everywhere, and never minding the fact that both suburban electric rail and high speed rail services frequently enter the city. They also have largish â€˜tramsâ€™ that can run on suburban lines like a metro or, on-street like a tram â€“ the â€˜Sneltramâ€™! They also wanted to have specialised bus services for elderly people, hotel/shopping/airport shuttle buses etc.
I also visited the AJAX STADUIM and the area around it. It was highly impressive in terms of architecture, transport access, urban design, and â€˜mixed usesâ€™. Iâ€™ll say in what ways tomorrow.
The only flaw â€“ apparently they have had to replace the pitch 25 TIMES since about 1997 because of the problems of not enough natural light access to the pitch (the stadium has a roof that can be slid open or shut). Interestingly, the new â€˜Millennium Stadiumâ€™ in Cardiff City also has a retractable roof and has had problems with light getting to the pitch and, as far as I know has already had to replace it once.
The whole Ajax stadium site & situation seemed very commendable.
April 9, 2001 at 8:59 am #717617
Proposed architect panels for stadium criticised
By Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
The procedures being used to select architects for the national stadium and sports campus at Abbotstown, Co Dublin, have been described as “very incongruous” by the chief executive of the Dublin International Sports Council.
Mr Jonathan Irwin was particularly critical of the decision by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd (CSID) to select panels of architects for the elements of the Â£500 million project when most of the prospective bidders for the contract already had their own.
“Each and every one of the consortiums who have progressed to outline bid stage have retained their own architects, all of whom have international reputations and have designed international sports stadiums around the world”, Mr Irwin told The Irish Times.
“Why on earth would any of these bidders now want to employ a second firm of architects, many of whom have no experience of stadium design and, indeed, how are they expected to even assess the merits of these firms, many of whom they will be totally unfamiliar with?”
Altogether, 13 firms of architects, mainly international, were selected for two sub-panels to design the stadium and multipurpose arena, while a further 19, mainly Irish, were chosen for another panel to design the remaining facilities on the 500acre site.
The selections, made by a jury assembled by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, led to a row within the architectural profession after it was revealed that 34 Irish firms had been excluded. Several of them have sought explanations from CSID.
“The whole process is degenerating into a shambles, which is of particular concern given the level of investment involved,” said one of these architects, who did not wish to be identified.
The Office of Public Works, which recently resigned as project manager after differences with CSID, said it had also pointed out that the six consortiums in the contest “would themselves, of necessity, already have architectural expertise as part of their bid”.
As a result, the OPW advised that there was “potential for confusion and conflict” in selecting panels of architects. However, after CSID decided to proceed with the selection, “in the interest of ensuring architectural excellence” the OPW agreed to be represented on the jury.
“We emphasised that CSID should make it clear to bidders that there would be no obligation whatsoever on any bidder to commission any of the architectural practices selected on the three panels and that bidders were free to contract whomever they wished.”
The OPW said it should also be made clear to the six consortiums bidding to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the stadium and other facilities that they “would not be discriminated against if they used practices other than those on the CSID panels”.
It is understood that this was made clear in the bid documentation issued last week by CSID to the rival groups, which include several major British and European consortiums. The bids are due to be submitted by May 31st, after which a final decision will be made.
A spokesperson for CSID yesterday defended its decision to set up the panels even though none of the prospective developers could be compelled to choose architects from the approved lists.
Some weeks ago, CSID wrote to the various consortiums urging them to consider selecting architects from its panels. “More than half of the bidders have chosen from the panels and it’s working extremely well.”
April 9, 2001 at 2:54 pm #717618
Is is clear to everyone now that the CSID are either experiencially or logically challenged? Same old favorites running the show – and will in the Liberties too. Is Templebar such a huge success? Will it be in 10 years? Knowing what you’re doing is different than doing what Bertie tells ya.
April 16, 2001 at 1:58 pm #717619
The consortia have had their bid documents for a week. Now we will see if anyone wants to play with these rules.
April 19, 2001 at 8:46 am #717620JasParticipant
So the GAA and Croke Park are in financial trouble?
Why not give them 300 million, take the stadium and be finished with the whole thing! And open a railway station beside it.
April 25, 2001 at 10:43 am #717621SiobhParticipant
Just a quick note re. use of Croke Park as an athletics stadium. Can’t be done – a running track won’t fit around a GAA pitch (137m x 82m). Has to be a soccer stadium.
April 29, 2001 at 3:16 pm #717622
Croke was designed with removeable seating in one end so a running track can be accomodated. Would Gilroy McMahon care to clarify?
May 2, 2001 at 8:47 am #717623
Interesting watching the situation in the UK where the government has refused to bail out the FA to allow them to build Wembly. Their inital cost projections have gone through the roof as well.
They also would be in a position to hold more world class events, something that will not happen at Abbotstown.
May 4, 2001 at 9:41 am #717624
Is’nt it turning out to be a wonderful stadium now however,and we really need it but it would never get the planning permission today if it was starting from scratch, such is the air of pessimism.
May 14, 2001 at 4:52 pm #717625SiobhParticipant
deepnote – it’s not a matter of the seating. The point is that a 400m running track won’t fit around a GAA pitch at all.
May 16, 2001 at 6:17 pm #717626
That’s right it won’t fit around a GAA field, but it will fit in the stadium and could replace the GAA field on a temporary basis for an Olympic Games (3 weeks actual events, 2 for Olympics, 1 for Paralympics plus set up and take down)or world championships. Obviously this has to work within the GAA event schedule. Other than such major events you will never need a very large capacity athletics stadium and others around the country (including Santry)would do on a normal basis. The good thing about Croke is that the sight lines will work for athletics and not be compromised the way they were for the Foster/HOK Wembley scheme. The end result is messier than Stade de France where you can do a change over in about a week by moving the lower tier seating in or out, but it is also significantly cheaper.
May 30, 2001 at 1:38 pm #717627
now then…who landed the project management assignment for Campus Ireland? Interviews were last week.
How many bidders will there be? Bouygue has dropped out (MOLA on their team). Two serious bidders? Only one? Trouble?
May 31, 2001 at 11:38 am #717628PoParticipant
First Images of Swimming pool i’ve seen apart from physical model.
May 31, 2001 at 1:21 pm #717629
Iâ€™m quite impressed, it looks pretty cool so as not like your average leisure facility. I hope it will look a little more colourful when it is built – it looks a little â€˜dullâ€™ i.e. predominance of grey. Is it the pictures or, is it just my computer screen?
Still, looks good, hope they plonk in a few trees and (contemporary/stylish) seating around it as well.
May 31, 2001 at 2:26 pm #717630
yes all stylish grey, sliver
only black swimming gear will be allowed
May 31, 2001 at 2:45 pm #717631
Is grey/silver the ‘new black’ in irish architecture???
May 31, 2001 at 3:08 pm #717632
oh yes, black and white are so yesterday in buildings everywhere and Ireland must keep up
black is still the right thing for serious desingers to wear, grey hair of course is an excellent accessory, silly old male designers must have slicked back gray hair in a pony tail unless they are too bald in which case they have to be very close cropped or shaved
so who won the PM job for the B-Bowl?
hear there are two serious bidders: Multiplex and Bovis Lend Lease with Ellerbe Becket and HOK Sport respectively as the main players with Dublin architects in support – anyone know who is teamed with the giants?
June 1, 2001 at 4:55 pm #717633AnonymousInactive
After six weeks of work, our consortia have pulled out. So perhaps it was a blessing not to have been shortlisted. No complaint though and the letters to the Irish Times have been worth reading.
Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop Architects
June 1, 2001 at 9:22 pm #717634JackParticipant
In fairness Jas,with regards to Croke Park, for GAA fans money really isn’t an issue, why else would people turn down the money they could be making if they opened their doors to other sports, there’s a broader picture here.
June 1, 2001 at 9:26 pm #717635JackParticipant
Oooops……..didn’t know there was 2 pages to this topic!
June 3, 2001 at 1:39 pm #717636
From the London Sunday Times Irish edition some insight on activities at CSID:
June 4, 2001 at 12:12 pm #717637AnonymousInactive
For your interest, The consortia briefing my own practice: Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop Architects has just backed out leaving us with about six to eight weeks work done at risk. No complaints though really, it’s an interesting project and would have helped us strengthen links with Architects in Ireland and we wish it good luck. However, the charge of Cronyism makes no sense to us, for although I think we were the only Scots practice on the list, Ireland looks, as an outsider, to be well represented
June 4, 2001 at 6:07 pm #717638
Laura Magahy take cover, now the Irish Times is after you
June 7, 2001 at 2:12 pm #717639
only 2 weeks to go until the consortia turn in their bids
no public word yet on selection of the project manager for CSID, one hears DLE and a Dublin team are still in the running
June 8, 2001 at 9:34 pm #717640
auditors tenders were due today
June 11, 2001 at 1:11 am #717641
so with the statement to Europe and our own concerns about prosperity am I the only one that cares about this crazy project? which is only perhaps the best project in the world at the moment for architects – or do you disagree? heard BKD were with Bovis Lend Lease – is this true? who else? heard de blacam, bucholz, and mcgarry are with Multiplex – is this true? help me here arch friends, we need fax, or perhaps even opinion, well at least from 37 pc of you
June 11, 2001 at 11:56 am #717642AnonymousInactive
I imagine the architects still involved will have agreed confidentiality and exclusivity clauses with their respective consortia. The teams form a significant part of the bid. I would expect therefor that you are unlikely to find out until submission. And you’re right, it is the most interesting project around.
June 14, 2001 at 1:10 am #717643
for such a major project there is almost no information published – and with the public purse involved, one has to wonder if this is acceptable
no word on project managment shortlist or final selection
no word on the audit tenders
no official response to architect panel debacle
no complete listing of consortia bidding for all or part of the project, no listing of those who have dropped out
no information at all – the web site is never updated and the public is not informed
doesn’t this lack of information cause politicians more problems? open communication suggests a logical process and looks like there is nothing to hide; conversely no communication looks like secrets or incompetence
June 14, 2001 at 10:24 am #717644AnonymousInactive
It is my view Deepnote, that the lack of general information available forms part of a strategic plan and for such a sensitive development is unfortunatly understandable. Political ( Bertie Himself ) and management careers could be at stake if things go wrong. This project seems similar in some ways to the competition and design of the Scottish Parliament, where problems were/are looked for and political points are scored if the project runs off course, in any way. People become hostages to fortune and no one yet knows what consortia are going to come up with. and
June 14, 2001 at 1:19 pm #717645
Careers have already been staked on the project for both politicians (Bertie)and others (Teahon & Magahy)- Bertie has aready damaged himself by doing things alone and in secret rather than by managing information; Teahon and Magahy seem to get plum assignments without competition which should make them more sensitive to the need for information management rather than operating completely outside the public eye. The chance to have the press as an ally has passed, the mistakes that have been made – the lack of competence shown in the initial tender package to the consortia – show the real danger of going it alone and not taking proper advice. The more secret it is the more Bertie should worry because it hasn’t been accomplished in a manner that can build support. Bertie has already been involved in this project in some respects since 1988 so he obviously won’t give up, but as one of the most astute politicians anywhere he has made mistake on mistake this time around.
June 14, 2001 at 2:11 pm #717646AnonymousInactive
Deepnote, I have no political point to make here, or axe to grind. It’s not for a Scot to tell the Irish how to run things, God knows we have enough jokers here. I do know though that a building is a tangible physical thing, that can be either a shiboleth or millstone. Adverse critisism will be soon forgotten if the project is a success and even newspapers are next day’s chip wrappers. I agree that the policy should be to disclose information but as in the Scottish Parliament project the politics cannot be seperated from the architecture.
June 20, 2001 at 5:40 pm #717647
heard DLE were named yesterday as CSID’s project managers, consortia turn in submissions tomorrow 21 June and make presentations late next week
June 21, 2001 at 10:21 am #717648AnonymousInactive
How will the announcement be made, does any one know? Not via the RIAI website, I hope.
Is it likely also there will be an exhibition of proposals, before a winner is chosen?
June 21, 2001 at 1:56 pm #717649
no one knows anything as long as CSID continue to act in secret
June 25, 2001 at 1:21 pm #717650
architectural input to the CSID DLE led project management team will be provided by KSS a london based practice with some sports background – though not really major projects – who happened to have beaten both HOK and ellerbe becket for a small stadium complex in haifa, israel earlier this year
June 27, 2001 at 1:34 pm #717651
the consortia bid presentations set for this week have been cancelled – one assumes that the new project manager needs to get up to speed on the project. whether presentations will happen at all is unclear, but if so not until late july
wouldn’t it be nice to get real information from csid about all of this? since public funds are involved…time to share the excitement
June 27, 2001 at 1:56 pm #717652
wonders…a little information
July 10, 2001 at 11:56 pm #717653
hear the consortia are making presentations this week – mostly about money; anyone know anything else?
July 25, 2001 at 2:14 pm #717654
We don’t need this overblown heap of shite out in Blanchardstown. Wouldn’t it be better if they spent the 1 billion plus money on making Dublin a beautiful city, with beautiful buildings and environments. A billion pounds could make the docklands an amazing place.
Lets face it – whio goes to Paris to look at (and not attend an event in) Stade de France?
July 25, 2001 at 2:23 pm #717655
Rory, you should tell us what you really think.
Actually people tour Stade de France everday just to see the building. It is not in an urban location, but land is a problem in central Paris just like it is in Dublin.
Dublin does need an up to date venue for football and rugby and assuming Croke isn’t available it means a new stadium. A venue for 65,000 or more people is hard to site in the centre of a city the age of Dublin and puts enormous pressure on infrastructure.
July 25, 2001 at 3:08 pm #717656AnonymousInactive
Rory, have you ever considered writing for a national newspaper?
Stade de France is well visited and made Paris a “serious” contender for the Olympics, wherein lies the big regeneration money. Ask Dave Mackay, John Denton and the 2.3 billion Chinese.
Also, Dublin is a beautiful city.
July 26, 2001 at 4:29 pm #717657
No haven’t considered Journalism thanks.
OK we do need a suitable venue for events but do we need to spend a billion on it. We must seriously examine why it costs Â£1 billion when they can build a stadium to host the world cup finals in Korea for $85 million. No doubt it is the “consultancy fees”.
I agree that Dublin is a beautiful city, but it is in dire need of (1) Cleaning (2) Educating people to respect the city environment (3) Traffic calming (4) Improving street funiture (5) Quality control in terms of new buildings – the government could lead by example (6) Better policing especially traffic and littering (8) Public transport (9) New streets and areas opened up. etc etc.
Laissez-faire economics do not work in this country as the developers are allowed to build basically whatever they want so long as it is made of Brick and has a clocktower or some other cheesy gimmick like that – the Government could spend a billion on quality Architectually designed buildings and lead by example. I just think it would produce a better environment for all the people.
We must question the costings on this thing (Â£300 from everyone in the state).
In terms of asking the 2.3 Billion Chinese, if the man on the street there were not to 100% endorse the olympics they would probably be shot. The olympics is only going to be a big party for the Communist Party faithful – if you beleive it will make the place any better for the average joe, good luck to you.
We want a big stadium just like every other Banana republic.
July 27, 2001 at 10:29 am #717658AnonymousInactive
Rory, that’s some list of concerns and opinions.
I know though, through visiting Beijing that the Olympics has already made a difference to the “ordinary joe’s” living in that city and will continue to do so up to and beyond 2008. I am going again in about six weeks so will keep you posted. That China should have been awarded the games in the first place is another matter that has nothing really to do with regeneration or architecture, but could result in a reduction to the total influence on the communist party that you mention.
Ted Turner said that the the power of the soviet union would colapse when Coca Cola and cable T.V was freely available and their ordinary joe’s could see what they were missing.
As for infrastructure, street furniture and cleansing, these problems face every city including my own, Glasgow and much of the crap is caused by my fellow Glaswegians, the same ones probably complaing about cost of the parliament. I also know however that the parliament has kick started other regeneration proposals in Edinburgh which were previously on hold or flagging due to lack of money and interest, including street furniture, infrastucture and cleansing
July 28, 2001 at 11:02 pm #717659
Back to Bertie Bowl…CSID Board met last Thursday and solidified their recommendations which have gone to Government. Some guess word will filter out about the short, short list in two or three weeks, perhaps two consortia, maybe three to go the next step. Laura and Co. made their decision about a week prior, but needed official blessing as you would expect.
July 31, 2001 at 2:04 pm #717660
now hearing that the three consortia that will go through to the next round will be notified today…these are expected to be Bovis Lend Lease, Multiplex Brown & Root, and Walter Bau
July 31, 2001 at 3:27 pm #717661AnonymousInactive
who are the architects involved, do you know?
July 31, 2001 at 6:05 pm #717662
Bovis Lend Lease have HOK with RHWL (Eircom designers)- don’t know who Irish component is, Multiplex have Ellerbe Becket with de Blacam & Meagher, Bucholz, & McGarry, and have no word about the quiet German team of Walter Bau. This is all whispers at this stage. Someone else must surely know something to contribute here. If we wait for official word from Laura and Paddy the scheme will be built.
August 3, 2001 at 2:24 pm #717663
here’s the latest: the consortia will now find out Friday, 10 August if they go through to the next round; CSID have sent their recommendations to the Minister of Sport
[This message has been edited by deepnote (edited 03 August 2001).]
August 6, 2001 at 1:33 pm #717664
only two will go forward…http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0806/hom20.htm
August 9, 2001 at 2:09 pm #717665
The final two teams are Bovis Lend Lease and Multiplex. Detailed negotiations are to begin October 1. No information yet on process between now and then.
It will be interesting to watch what happens with Wembley. The Carter report will be issued August 20. Whispers have it that the offer of Multiplex to build & finance (on the back of suite sales guarantees from IMG who were doing the Eircom Park marketing)will come out on top. Should Multiplex end up with Wembley (where they displaced Bovis) will they be able to overcome the perception that they do not have the capacity to do both major projects simultaneously? Though a huge construction company, Multiplex is relatively new to Europe.
You can bet the knives are out on this one.
August 30, 2001 at 1:58 pm #717666
The oversight report on Stadium Ireland due mid month, see http://www.unison.ie/stories.php3?ca=9&si=502537&issue_id=5166
In London, the Carter report is complete on Wembley and the English National Football Stadium, but will not become public until a workable solution has been put together – this is now in process, something should become obvious soon.
September 3, 2001 at 12:04 pm #717667KatieParticipant
what I don’t understand still is why we need a new Stadium, why not just use what we have. OK so they are not great but they work, perhaps a little bit of money on each would be enough why spend so much money, surely we could hold all we need including athletics at Croke Park – as if we would ever need to…
September 8, 2001 at 9:48 pm #717668
the audit for the project is being conducted by Highpoint Rendell in London who have hired Bob Stubbs as a consultant – Stubbs just recently fired from Wembley where he spent five years “bringing that project to fruition”
one wonders whether Ireland really needs to be audited by those who have performed so flawlessly on the English FA stadium
word is that the audit will be used to reduce project scope and save CSID and political face
look for 65,000 seats, moveable bits to accomodate GAA games, and moveable roof of some kind
September 10, 2001 at 8:28 am #717669
yeah, yesterdays papers had knock 20percent off capacity which would knock about 40 percent off the cost as once stadiums go above 60k seats they have to go up higher…..
September 25, 2001 at 1:20 pm #717670
the audit report has been submitted and now is being politically digested, expect to see this drift some more before a direction is set, especially if the s l o w i n g economy or changing world situation impact opinion
September 29, 2001 at 12:38 pm #717671
cost can be contained, now if economics and politics support it, it should go ahead in a rational form
September 30, 2001 at 2:08 am #717672
battle lines are drawn, could be quite a show
October 1, 2001 at 2:35 pm #717673
October 4, 2001 at 2:31 pm #717674
The FAI met yesterday with government for reassurances on Stadium Ireland – a logical move since it was the invisible hand of government that made their Eircom Park scheme likely to lose planning on appeal. Now that they have signed up for the National Stadium one can see why they would want some reassurances with the political noises being heard in advance of the election. No word yet on the outcome of the meetings which is unusual for this city.
October 4, 2001 at 3:17 pm #717675
That is interesting alright. I wonder was there a PD representative at that meeting.
I think in light of the current downturn the correct way to proceed would be just to build the ‘Stadium Ireland’ element and leave all the other parts of the campus for another day – maybe 3-5 years depending on our financial position then.
However I still dont see why a 60,000 seat statium(maybe even 80,000) cant be built at Landsdowne road (with a retractable roof), this would be a cheaper option and would be very accessible.
[This message has been edited by PaulC (edited 04 October 2001).]
October 6, 2001 at 2:57 pm #717676robParticipant
with all the cost cutting, couldn’t they design the stadium with 80,000 seats and only build 65,000 now and add the remainder in a few years, when money might be more plenty than in a year or two?
October 8, 2001 at 12:23 am #717677
Landsdowne site is too small to redevelop for a stadium that meets current standards. Also putting this many people into this area of the city is not really a very friendly thing to do to the neighbors.
It is possible to build a stadium with 65,000 seats now and more later – even possible to build a 65,000 now and add 15,000 temporary seats for the big events when they are expected – there won’t be that many of them.
October 8, 2001 at 11:47 am #717678
Deepnote – I am not sure if you are correct in saying that there isnt enough room at the Landsdowne site. The IRFU actually had planned to develop it into a 60,000 all seater stadium. However the stadium would have to be turned 90o to make better use of the space available. As at the moment clearly there isnt enough room at each goal end.
Although I do accept your point about disruption to the residence – but then again this can be used against any stadium being built in a city centre location.
[This message has been edited by PaulC (edited 08 October 2001).]
October 8, 2001 at 12:17 pm #717679Sean CitizenParticipant
That’s why they’re normally in working class districts – not Dublin 4!
October 8, 2001 at 3:09 pm #717680
Good Point Sean, except Landsdowne Road is in Dublin 4, isnt it?
October 8, 2001 at 7:49 pm #717681robParticipant
Also: what will happen to Lansdowne road statium once football and rugby move to Abbotstown?
October 15, 2001 at 8:46 am #717682
So what’s the real cost going to be? And will that include the infrastructure?
October 15, 2001 at 8:49 am #717683
Lansdowne is prime development land and probably worth a nice little sum.
October 29, 2001 at 3:33 pm #717684
things have gone very quiet…the rising din of silence
not even sure anyone is working on the bid documents for the final round
still don’t believe Bertie has given up – too many promises hang in the balance
November 6, 2001 at 11:58 am #717685FINParticipant
I HOPE IT DOES GO THROUGH AS WE NEED A STADIUM OF THAT MAGNITUDE IN THIS COUNTRY, I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF ARGUMENT THAT SPORT IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IT, NO DOUBT THAT IS THE CASE BUT WE HAVE BEEN DOING ALRIGHT SO FAR BY USING THE BRITISH SYSTEM BUT THE MONEY GENERATED BY THIS LARGE STADIUM WILL PAY FOR IT…..IMAGINE A CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FINAL, PART OF THE EURO FINAL BID BY SCOTLAND OR EVEN THE OLYMPICS( A FAIR DISTANCE OFF I DO ADD) THE REVENUE GENERATED BY THESE EVENTS IS STAGGERING. IT WILL BY GOOD FOR IRELAND AS A WHOLE THE ONLY PITY IS THAT IT ISN’T SITUATED IN THE CENTRE OF THE ISLAND SO THAT BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACILITIES… IT WILL BASICALLY GENERATE BIG MONEY FOR DUBLIN WITH LITTLE SEEN DOWN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY….I AM NOT COMPLAINING..THAT IS THE WAY IT IS… BUT SOME STADIUMS DOWN THE COUNTRY ( GALWAY IN PARTICULAR ) MIGHT BE A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR URBAN CENTRES AROUND OUR GLORIOUS ISLAND….
December 10, 2001 at 1:23 pm #717686
the view from our other site P45.net reprinted on archeire….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.