Jump to content

New Wembley Stadium


mr.x
 Share

Recommended Posts

They both will be ready. Otherwise it's Crystal Palace for the athletics and Arsenal for the football finals.

Please,not even in jest..!! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As long as Multiplex are kept away from the Stratford stadium, we should be fine. We've actually seen plenty of wonderful new stadia go up in the UK over the last 15 years - the Reebok, the McAlpine (now the Galpharm), the KC Stadium, the City of Manchester, the Riverside, the Stadium of Light, (cough splutter) St Mary's, and of course the magnificent Millennium Stadium and the sensational new Emirates Stadium.

All we need is a builder with a proven track record. I'm keeping a close eye on the White City development to see how well that keeps to schedule. Yes, Multiplex are doing that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<font color='#000000'>Read what I wrote again. You will notice I didn't actually say I didn't care, even though the truth is I don't.

The truth of the matter is that, on a global scale, that venue is not in the same league of fame as Wembley. That is why Wembley is one of the most famous and well loved stadia in the world.</font>

You mean Wembley was the most loved stadium in the world... but without the towers it just becomes another stupid piece of modern junk architecture... there is nothing to remind me to remeber the new stadium, not even that arch thingy! What sticks in my mind are those four famous towers that have been stupidly knocked down.

Very impressing picture. Although it'll look very much different of the stadium we used to know -- Wembley will still be a true football cathedral. Well done!

But there's something I don't understand: Why have they already laid the turf when the opening is still 10 months away? Isn't it quite unusual to endanger the turf by the ongoing construction works?

This stadium picture doesnt look special at all... what a disaster we lost our famous stadium to be replaced with junk like this!

Ohhhh...I feel sick.

On the MonoMetro website they have a map showing it reaching Wembly! that would be cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was a shame about the twin towers, but this stadium is twice the size of the old one and there was no way they could be integrated. I think the chosen design is great and does have character. It isn't classical architecture like the old Stadium but, unlike other modern stadiums such as St Mary's, Riverside, Pride Park etc. it is instantly recognisable and unique.

Anyway, Wembley needed to be rebuilt, it was falling apart. For a footballing country like England, Wembley was inadequate. Most people I know are very positive about the new design and imho, amongst most, Wembley will still be the jewel in the crown of English, and indeed world football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It had been inadequate for probably 20 years.

My Grandad went to see the seminal England V Hungary match back in 1953. Not only did he tell me that Frenric Puskas was the greatest player on the greatest team to have ever played the game, but he also told me that Wembley was falling to bits even then.

Edited by Sweetwater-Texas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much the arch alone cost, firstly to design and construct, then to repair because it got damaged during botched construction. If this feature had never been included, I'm sure the extra money could have been used to save the twin towers. Use them as a grand entrance hall, or a football museum. We have some of the world's foremost experts on building salvage, yet nothing could be done to save the one part of the old Wembley which truly was worth saving? There's a museum in Sussex, the Weald and Downland, which takes historically significant but crumbling buildings from across the south east of England, and reconstructs them brick by brick or stone by stone in the museum grounds. Wembley would have been just like this, only slightly larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MZ, three points in response to your last post.

1. The original design for the stadium didn't include the arch and looked like this:

_41359218_firstwembleydesign416pa.jpg

I think it would have been a tragedy if this were built as it's just plain ugly! I'm happier with the arch.

2. Even if the above design was cheaper (no certainty) could you imagine how out of place the twin towers would look as a "Grand entrance" with all the metal and steel of the new stadium? It would look ghastly.

3. Size is also an issue. The towers would be dwarfed by a modern stadium. To illustrate:

wembley_oldnewcrossection.gif

Edited by Rob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Rob's nailed it, the Arch was incorporated into the design of the new stadium to play a very important and practical part of supporting the huge roof that covers what is a huge stadium. It also looks sensational when lit up at night.

I did spend a few emotional moments when they dismantled the old towers, but that was evaporated when I learnt about the arch, which I feel will be even more inconic that the twin towers, which let's face it, is now a phrase which has taken on much more serious issues in recent times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
What's true of the rumor that Wembley now will open in 2010 due to big delays after a conflict between the constructor (Multiplex) and the Wembley National Stadium Ltd -group. It't an article in The Daily Telegraph.

Sadly,it wouldn't surprise me.Wembley seems to have become a text book case for "How not to plan and build a national sports stadium"! :angry:

I just hope London 2012 have been taking careful notes!!! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...