Design Ideas for new Perth Stadium
- Thread starter Admiral Byng
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
Funny thing is we get more rain, just less rain days.
I hate the roof at Docklands. Footy is a game that should be played in the elements.... just doesn't look like AFL whenever I see a game from Docklands where the roof is closed.
No roof for the new Perth stadium.
No roof for the new Perth stadium.
- Thread starter
- #130
Courtesy of Pessimistic in the Ready Made Oval Stadiums thread, I like this one:
Maybe a bit steeper and wider in the guts, and more a horseshoe shape over the far end so nobody is staring into the sun on a late Sunday afternoon.
Maybe a bit steeper and wider in the guts, and more a horseshoe shape over the far end so nobody is staring into the sun on a late Sunday afternoon.
Why not something halfway between Docklands and the MCG? 3 tiers, good viewing for all, and maybe even movable seats like in Stade de France, just for the odd world cup qualifier, Wallabies game or maybe a Super Rugby or A-League GF. You opt for a Subiaco or MCG size field, I would prefer the Subiaco size, mainly for variety, and you would have something unique and even a little historical.
The closing roof is a waste of money.
The closing roof is a waste of money.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
As a footy fan who takes in 3-5 games each season 'just for the hell of it' that dont involve my club, its usually Docklands that gets my money.
Will a 60k stadium be sold out by the WA clubs?
- Jul 9, 2010
- 24,163
- 26,537
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
In 2012? There would be some sell outs. Definitely. You'd sell out both derby games, a couple of the West Coast blockbusters. Considering both clubs are decent chances to play finals footy, you could sell out those as well.
I see 60,000 as an absolute minimum. Look at the population growth in Perth. It is a growing city. And, sport will always be popular in this town. To only have 60,000 is extremely short sighted. It's going to result in stagnation.
The AFL is adamant on growing the game. The recent location of franchise expansion shows this. Kids in Perth need to be able to go to the footy. It's difficult getting two seats together in a decent area at Subi. A teenage kid should be able to go with a few mates. That's only going to result in more interest, more income, and more results for this game. The AFL should support this. I honestly believe 75,000 is appropriate. So what if you don't sell out every game?
As for design, it has to be both tasteful and iconic.
Internally, I like the look of England's Etihad Stadium (or, the City of Manchester Stadium).
From the exterior, I really like AAMI Park in Melbourne.
I favour a combination of the MCG's dauntingly classic (yet perhaps a little concrete jungle-like) and something modern, like Allianz Arena. Having the bottom part (ie, the gates) more 'traditional', and the tops modern, would be a decent compromise.
- Thread starter
- #136
The big problem with AAMI Park is that the roof locks in the stadium seating capacity. It wont fit any additional tiers of seating underneath the current roof line, and it it too expensive and too complicated to rebuild it.
The foundations for the stadium were reportedly built for a 50,000 seater. The stadium was built initially with about 30,000 with the option to upgrade later. However the roof issue pretty much rules it out now.
If are building a 60,000 seater with the capacity to go to 70,000-75,000 later on we need to be very careful we don't make the same mistake. Even though it looks fantastic.
The foundations for the stadium were reportedly built for a 50,000 seater. The stadium was built initially with about 30,000 with the option to upgrade later. However the roof issue pretty much rules it out now.
If are building a 60,000 seater with the capacity to go to 70,000-75,000 later on we need to be very careful we don't make the same mistake. Even though it looks fantastic.
- Jul 9, 2010
- 24,163
- 26,537
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Yeah, I know what you mean.
But again, why stop 10,000 short if a redevelopment is inevitable?
But again, why stop 10,000 short if a redevelopment is inevitable?
- Banned
- #138
For viewing a scaled up Docklands with larger field would probably be perfect.
No, that adds up to $300 million to one design and they're currently finishing
a rectangular Perth stadium.
Being long it encourages open play.
Being narrow it has good viewing (from the few seats it has)
With the amount of Perth rainy days days it would be a waste.
The government isn't serious about this stadium and c edrtainly would use a roof as yet another delaying tactic.
As for the capacity, the government has to get it right once and build say a 75k capacity stadium. Something that will endure into the future and allow for future events. It's not going to be sold out any more than the MCG with current pricing levels but the spare capacity should be used to offer cheap tickets to families so they can attend for the first time.
Luigi742
Team Captain
I'm a rugby and soccer man myself and I completely agree. nib Stadium should be great next year and they can easily grow it if need be.
There will be at most 3 games a year that require a rectangular field (a wallabies test, maybe 2, maybe an origin game, socceroos?)
And none of these will bring in 75,000 people, it isn't worth it. Save the $300m and we'll sit 15m further from the action the few times a year we'll actually be going there.
- Thread starter
- #140
I agree. Besides, if there was a really big Wallabies or Socceroos match which meant something, it would probably be played in Sydney by default. They'd never play in Perth.
I doubt it would actually cost $300m (probably not even $100m) but it is an expense that will rarely, if ever, be used. That's why retractable seating is unlikely to be a feature of the new stadium, especially given only a minority of seats would actually be closer to the field.
maelcoluim
All Australian
It's a bit of an urban myth that its so wet in Melbourne and dry over here. Perth is much wetter over the winter period (May-September) than Melbourne.
That said I don't support a retractable roof for the new stadium as it limits the potential for further expansion. Its a nice luxury but as a smaller city the design of the stadium should be more flexible to change and accommodating to other sports.
Fine to have a roof at Docklands though as its a 'relief' ground for the much larger MCG. Consequently expansion doesn't really need to be in the equation there.
MasonCarr96
Rookie
perth isnt wetter than melbourne lol, perth can get wet but you have probably been to melbourne, it rains all the time. it aint a myth its fact haha
Luigi742
Team Captain
He was probably just looking at the rainfall per year. I think we get more total rainfall in perth, but it rains more in melbourne.
We get all our rain during the winter though whilst Melbourne gets it throughout the year.
So we actually do get a fair amount of rain during the football season.
Still don't want a roof for the players though, I actually enjoy watching games played in the wet.
Of those I have to say these 2 strike me as the best:
the top one looks like a very large... Vagina...
^^ Yes it does. A couple of years ago some WA Business man proposed having that Vagina Stadium built in parts in China, shipped to Perth and assembled at either Karrakatta Army Barracks or the Claremont Showgrounds. Don't think too many took him too seriously, especially when he believed he could get it done for under $200 million.
From the exterior, I really like AAMI Park in Melbourne.
Then you may have liked Cox Architects failed proposal for the Durban 2010 World Cup Stadium. Cox designed AAMI Park and this one looks like a scaled up design of it.
http://www.coxarchitecture.com.au/#/project/11533
Luigi742
Team Captain
eh, a little bit. I'm only 15 so I haven't seen any that loose
you're still young, give it time...
