Telstra Dome and it's surface problem

Remove this Banner Ad

deck

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 7, 2004
5,051
3,103
Melburn
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Liverpool, SF 49ers, FSU
With Telstra Dome having it's problem with growing grass in shaded area's. I have seen that Liverpool are using grow lights on the surface at Anfield to help the grass grow in shaded areas during winter.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N154058061112-0009.htm

Makes you wonder why the Telstra Dome managment haven't come up with something like this.
 
They recently moved in all the seating at Telstra dome for a rugby game, so it was covering all the grass. They had to move it back quickly though so the grass didn't die, and for that reason the Melbourne Victory have never been able to use the dome with it's seats slid in. What they could do instead is move the outer sections of the grass outside the stadium, so it could grow in the sunlight, and then bring the stands in and have them permanently in over the summer.

Removable turf is something that is done a lot in some places.
 
Arsenal also use this at their new Emirates Stadium.

No doubt costs would be excessive, but I still don't understand why TD don't use it. Surely they have enough $$$ to do so.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Having worked at Telstra Dome a fair bit over the last 2 years on and off, I can say they have used grow lights occassionly.

On on very troubled areas, doesn't really seem to have helped much.

They replace huge chunks of turf on a fairly regular basis as well. Basically they've built a stadium that won't allow them to produce a decent surface, someone dropped the ball bigtime. Too busy concentrating on making it great for supporters and in particular the CORPORATES, and forgot about figuring out how to build the stadium so it would allow them to get a decent playing surface.

For example, half the ground gets absolutely no direct sunlight at anytime. The turf is laid straight on to a predominately sand based soil. There is rougly a foot of sand, and then you've got the concrete roof of the underground car park.

Given that is anyone really surprised they can't get the ********ing grass to grow. Bloody white elephant of a stadium that we are stuck with for a long time given how much money the state govenrment sunking into helping fund it, they aren't going to cough up any other funds anytime soon for another stadium.
 
Having worked at Telstra Dome a fair bit over the last 2 years on and off, I can say they have used grow lights occassionly.
Ealesy, is the lack of natural light the major problem? If so, there are some dome stadiums in the US who have a plastic style-sheeting as the roof panels which allows natural light in, as opposed to the metal roof at TD.
 
Ealesy, is the lack of natural light the major problem? If so, there are some dome stadiums in the US who have a plastic style-sheeting as the roof panels which allows natural light in, as opposed to the metal roof at TD.
The stands would be the main problem. They wouldn't be stupid enough to close the roof while there is no game going on.
 
The same architects and engineers that built the World Trade Centres must have built TD as well (and their forefathers probably built the Titanic as well). What a joke of a modern stadium:thumbsdown:
What does the WTC have to do with any of this.

A new people on BigFooty didn't know their history, but this takes the cake.
 
What does the WTC have to do with any of this.

A new people on BigFooty didn't know their history, but this takes the cake.
Based upon the idea of someone designing and building something which on the outside looks very good, but which generally has some sort of flaw in it that really makes you wonder what they were thinking. The WTC is a perfect example of that. The analogy was of a general nature only. Comphrende?
 
Based upon the idea of someone designing and building something which on the outside looks very good, but which generally has some sort of flaw in it that really makes you wonder what they were thinking. The WTC is a perfect example of that. The analogy was of a general nature only. Comphrende?

the WTC was doing perfectly fine until someone doused it in few buckets of burning aviation fuel. It wasnt designed for that. The Dome, however, WAS designed to be a stadium with grass in it for football. Which it really doesn't do very well. It may as well have been designed by knee surgeons looking to drum a bit of extra business.
 
Based upon the idea of someone designing and building something which on the outside looks very good, but which generally has some sort of flaw in it that really makes you wonder what they were thinking. The WTC is a perfect example of that. The analogy was of a general nature only. Comphrende?

Who would have designed it in 1965 (approx) to withstand an attack from an aircraft full of fuel? :thumbsdown:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I know, why not make it like the Queenstown (TAS) ground? They have similiar problems with getting the grass to go (albeit for different reasons) solution: Make the f'ing thing compacted gravel - complete with bits of landfill like half bricks.

I've played on it and it is hard on your body (cuts, grazes, gashes all par for the course and it's gravel so think being tackled in a car park), especially in a contact sport - there's an unwritten law down there - if you're being taken down, take the dirty mongrel down with you to cushion your fall.

Sand would have similiar problems - as would artificial turf (have you ever taken a sliding catch at an indoor cricket venue or slid on an artificial turf hockey field?)

They've got to do something but surely some of these other suggestions may switch one problem for another?
 
My fear of the surface is not the fact that the grass wont grow evenly as grass will only soften the fall slightly, but more to the hardnest of the complete surface and what happens to teams that call it their homeground. Essendon have faulted since going there and the Bulldogs have injuries all the time and StKilda always run out of legs. Blow up the underground carpark and fill it in with soil and then get these kids that are doing degrees in Agriculture to come up with a system that works. Maybe mirrors to get to the shaded parts or get a grass from the northern hemispere that doesnt need much light and shade the sunny end. It can't be that hard.
 
Who would have designed it in 1965 (approx) to withstand an attack from an aircraft full of fuel? :thumbsdown:
FFS two thing:
1) The plane was NOT the only reason the WTC went down - the inadequacy of the design contributed.

and

2) It was (read carefully here) a GENERAL ANALOGY. A WTC is NOT the same as TD - FFS, learn not to take everything so seriously. If you ********wits cant realise that, you need a ********ing psych exam.
 
FFS two thing:
1) The plane was NOT the only reason the WTC went down - the inadequacy of the design contributed.

and

2) It was (read carefully here) a GENERAL ANALOGY. A WTC is NOT the same as TD - FFS, learn not to take everything so seriously. If you ********wits cant realise that, you need a ********ing psych exam.

'FFS', two things for you:

1) The WTC has nothing to do with TD. We dont need a general analogy to explain grass not growing. :rolleyes:

2) Calm the hell down.
 
its more about temperature than light. The soil temperature is too low for grass to grow, so more light would not help much.

The soil temperature is too low because of the concrete car park underneath.

Also, the WTC collapse was a controlled detonation. How could you watch the footage and believe otherwise?
 
I can say what I like - if you people dont get the very general link, in a post that was quite obviously facetious, thats up to you.

general link eh? how general do you want to go? we are talking about something not doing what it was designed to do, not something that was not proof against things that did not exist when it was designed. facetious or not, it deserved being shredded.

either way, is it too late to fill in the carpark?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top