Lansdowne Road Stadium

@Cliff Barnes wrote:

When you look at how fantastic the Cusack, Hogan & Davin stands are for spectators I have to disagree – remember TV pictures are being shown across the world and when the Hill 16 end is shown it looks awful ( remember Twickenham before they fisished it ?). It does need to be full “wrapped around” even if it is a terrace of reduced size and capacity.

Remember the Romans managed to fully enclosed stadiums thousands of years ago and the fudge at Landsdown Road and Croke Park is what we will be stuck with for a long long time.

Personally I think Hill 16 already looks fantastic on TV pictures – the sheer density of the crowd and the height of the terrace (meaning that rarely does the cameras field of view stray above the highest rows of spectators) make it a far more impressive sight to my eyes than any modern seated stand. Having stood on it on many occasions I can confirm that it’s a great facility, comfortable, safe and with excellent sightlines. One slight problem I have is the “gap” that resulted between the Cusack Stand and Hill 16 visible in the above photo which I find looks somewhat messy and unfinished. Perhaps the lower deck of the Cusack Stand could have been extended northwards to meet the hill so as to finish it off in a tidier manner.

The issue of Hill 16 was debated long before the Croke Park redevelopment got underway. It was accepted that a complete bowl could never be achieved due to the railway line and the issues with overshadowing properties to the north. These limitations were accepted as it was clear that a stadium of sufficient capacity could be achieved regardless and also because the inner city location was deemed more favourable than a greenfield solution. It was exactly the same reasoning as was applied in the case of Lansdowne Road.

Back on topic, does anyone have any idea why the seating at the Havelock Square end wasn’t built up to the same height as the terracing that was there prior to redevelopment?

@BTH wrote:

Back on topic, does anyone have any idea why the seating at the Havelock Square end wasn’t built up to the same height as the terracing that was there prior to redevelopment?

I think because the footprint of the other end is now larger than it used to be – so the pitch has been pushed towards Havelock Square. I used to go to that end myself and it was never large either.

@Global Citizen wrote:

Would it be physically possible to continue the upper tiers of Croke Park above the existing Hill 16 and railway line ?

I believe the original plans were for a ‘token’ stand here, barely as big as the new north ‘stand’ in Lansdowne. Basically a sheet wall was to be put in place, and a few rows of seats, but the terrace was retained due to a certain amount of nostalgic pressure.

The Hill has it’s charm, but Croker isn’t the issue here really. The IRFU/FAI had a chance to develop an atmospheric bowl, but chose the cheaper option by not spinning the stadium and paying off the Rugby club (or offering Donnybrook). It’s still gonna be a good stadium, but it isn’t going to be great… But at least it’s consitent with Irish stadium building and destruction.. Just look at Dalymount, a badly chopped up relic of the past, Tolka, a hotch-potch of spur-of-the-moment building, Thomand, a badly designed, over-ambitous muddle of the old and new and Tallaght, a stadium built obviously to harness the full power of the unending wind from the Dublin/Wicklow mountains..

@foremanjoe wrote:

The stadium holds 82,500 people in its present condition, what more do you want?

put seats on the terrace permanently perhaps – lower capacity but a lot more comfort?

@wearnicehats wrote:

put seats on the terrace permanently perhaps – lower capacity but a lot more comfort?

Seats are regularly put in and taken out as required!

@Punchbowl wrote:

But at least it’s consitent with Irish stadium building and destruction.. Just look at Dalymount, a badly chopped up relic of the past, Tolka, a hotch-potch of spur-of-the-moment building, Thomand, a badly designed, over-ambitous muddle of the old and new and Tallaght, a stadium built obviously to harness the full power of the unending wind from the Dublin/Wicklow mountains..

Where is this Thomand you speak of Punchbowl?
Because you’re surely not referring to the exceptional new facility that is Thomond Park?
This is the first negative remark I’ve heard in relation to the redevelopment of that particular iconic ground so I’d be grateful if you could expand on your assessment that it is poorly designed and over-ambitious?

@Punchbowl wrote:

Ok, as a stadium re-development with two new premiership style stands, it’s fine. What lets it down is the preservation of the two end terraces.. I mean, the aging concrete terrace slabs, totally out of proportion with the slick new stands, just don’t look good. Thomond is a great stadium, but it’s not the finished article, like all that I mentioned..

Over-ambitious it is not – 40 million was pretty good value for money especially going on 2007 prices and that included the purchasing of the 10 or 12 houses they demolished to make space for the east stand. Agreed it isnt the finished article – but there is plenty of scope for future development of the terraces. Those end terraces you mention are only 12 years old – built for the 1999 world cup games. Lansdowne is to be our showcase stadium which is why the bus-shelter end and the rather dodgy steelwork is not what you expect for a stadium costing 365 million +

Is there the room to extend out on both ends at Thomond – there is one very busy road to contend with.

the cameraman was probably standing up as far back as possible – it appears that the pitch will be visible ok but there’s going to be an issue with seeing goal kicks

the comparison with the photo of croker in post #478 is pretty stark though

That video is actually pretty damning in my opinion – these sight lines might be ok for soccer but are poor for rugby. Even for soccer, it won’t be as good as in the best stadiums, where you can have uninterrupted sight of the other spectators. A pity. For me function is more important than form with stadiums and while I like the exterior form, it should be secondary; for example, who knows or cares what the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff looks like from the outside? And yet it is one of the most highly regarded in Europe for the quality of the view from practically everywhere and its incredible atmosphere.
[ATTACH]10224[/ATTACH]