Bluetonic
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@thebig C wrote:
It looks like having to taper down so dramatically at the Havelock Sq End is at least partly responsible for the intrustion of the steel-work.
Also, imo, the big screen would be better located directly behind the goal. Firstly, it would enable more to view it, sceondly, I think it would give less of an unfinished look to that end.
C
I doubt the big screen would be allowed in front of the posts.
Also it would create a big shadow on the houses behind which is why the back wall is transparent in the first place.
@EIA340600 wrote:
Fantastic…I wonder how much an extension would actually cost in that case…Couldn’t be much more than a small stretch of motorway plus a bit added on for special drainage and grip requirements..
What would be the cost of disruption, or what would be the actual disruption to flights if an extension was to be constructed I wonder?
@EIA340600 wrote:
Land purchases are required for the 2nd runway anyway.
There is enough land already in ownership for both the new parallel runway and an extension to the current main runway (blue outline indicating land ownership)
@Global Citizen wrote:
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.
@Global Citizen wrote:
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.
@wearnicehats wrote:
the comparison with the photo of croker in post #478 is pretty stark though
The roof in Croke Park of course does not keep half the lower tier protected from the elements.
@Tuborg wrote:
I didn’t want to compare our new national stadium to a piss pot, but you can’t deny theres a resemblance there! 🙂
Of course it’s not our national stadium, our national sports along with a host of others can’t be played there.
@wearnicehats wrote:
buy a ticket and take one yourself? I am quite tall though
You also must be blind and/or a liar. NONE of the pitch is blocked from the lower back row.
@wearnicehats wrote:
there’s a similar view behind the posts on the first tier of croke park
I would love to see a photo to back that ridiculous statement up.
@Goofy wrote:
the support structure for the Polycarbonate skin can be seen in this picture.
5 ribs extend from the roof out around the glass that has already been fitted. These ribs will continue around the whole structure to create the blob shape.Here’s the start of the skin going up (from their own site).
