Lansdowne Road Stadium
- This topic has 572 replies, 134 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I agree ofjames, looks like folk on the top tier will be watching games through the roof supports.
True too, Old Traffords big roof stand is bloody awful, when looking down the only view of a tiny subbuteo pitch below dominated by the big sloping roof overhead is really bad design.@jimg wrote:
The Abbotstown idea was daft. Nobody thinks green-field, car accessible, out-of-town stadia are a good idea these days; even the Americans realised this 10 years or more ago. Except Bertie of course, who I guess being a socialist wanted to leave a 70s Eastern block style monument to himself.
What about the Metro West going by there. Sorry but Abbotstown is a better site than Lansdowne. But better than either was the Irish Glass site, and god only knows why they didn’t choose there.
I hate the Abbotstown question – its over get used to it.
The simple question is can you walk to Abbotstown from the city centre?
The answer is no
Debate snipped…
jaysus abbotstown better than Lansdowne? Where the fuck do you start on that statement… fucking hell., A field in nowheresville vs a stadium within walking distance of town surrounded by ancillary uses and on a DART station…hmmm where should we put it
But yes IGB may have been better than either
I think the Landsdowne site was perfect – apart from the insistence of the rugby club to keep their training pitch beside it. Its removal would have allowed the reorientation of the stadium to the optimum and given some wriggling room with reagard the residents on Havelock sqaure.
There’s a lot of history there.
this is starting to come together eh? though I’m still not convinced by the roof structure…..it’s looks like it will indeed not offer a complete unobstructed view of play http://www.lrsdc.ie/gallery/singlecategory.asp?PCID=116
Yeah thats the best illustration of the roof problems yet. It looks pretty poor now to be honest. Very bad mistake.
The external cladding looks good however.
Cladding really looking great, only hoping its not a sleek exterior at the expense of the interior … some nice contrasts in the shots below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/turgidson/sets/72157600540378750/
@Starch wrote:
though I’m still not convinced by the roof structure…..it’s looks like it will indeed not offer a complete unobstructed view of play
I think you may be right Starch, those nosebleed seats will just about have a full view of the pitch judging by those photos, it would be like watching a match with your hood pulled down just above your eyes, only you can’t push this one back up out of the way!
In general though the stadium is starting to look really exciting. The structure and cladding system are intriguing, especially the semi-open cladding around the back of the stands.
The earlier renders from inside the stadium show a much more subtle, flowing roof structure, than more recent renders/the built reality. Shame they felt they had to gloss over that aspect.
Yep –
This
to this 😮
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Yep –
This
to this 😮
Unfortunately it’s going to be ugly as sin internally. The roof structure just looks so over-engineered…
Plus the ten or so rows of seats Havelock Square end just looks ridiculous… I still don’t know what the designers were thinking. Within the height of the roof structure thats going at this end they could surely have fit a more impressive terrace or bank of seating…
@BTH wrote:
The roof structure just looks so over-engineered…
I think if you compare the two renders the problem appears to be that the first version wasn’t engineered at all! :p
The whole steel frame just floats under the roof canopy.
The new structural solution is similar to the one employed at Thomond Park (sorry), with the two large steel spans tied onto bell-like support pillars at either end.
Perhaps someone could find out if the the same company won the steel frame contract for both stadia?And why did they remove the tricolor from the second render? Is that not going to happen now? 🙁
Maybe it is to appease our Northern brethren.yeh and yer one on the left in the 1st pic is wearin a Gah jersey at a Rugby game… I mean like WTF were they thinkin. I woulda refused it for that alone 😉
new pics of the outside…looks great…inside maybe meh….
@foremanjoe wrote:
I think if you compare the two renders the problem appears to be that the first version wasn’t engineered at all! :p
I think they just chickened out on engineering something amazing. It can be done. (I’m sure it was money related but still…)
Looks so inelegant now. 😡
The gigantic trusses really do seem to dominate the space internally (or at least, they seem like a very obvious piece of functional engineering that the designers would prefer was invisible, as opposed to the Thomond Park ones which are elegantly included as part of the expression of the roof). The fact that they weren’t in the initial renders means you can’t help but think that the engineering aspect of it is more just retroactively solving the problem of how to keep that roof up as opposed to something that was considered aesthetically at the outset. I know the ‘scooping down’ at the Havelock Square end looks a bit silly internally but I like the effect it gives to the overall shape of the stadium, makes it more distinctive than a pure ‘bowl’ would have been.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
