Rob2012 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Indeed, and so will Tokyo's new stadium. But as Athensfan says, it's an expensive option especially if you're trying to retrofit it. Like all these things, as long as the city is going in with its eyes open, good luck to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Indeed, and so will Tokyo's new stadium. But as Athensfan says, it's an expensive option especially if you're trying to retrofit it. Like all these things, as long as the city is going in with its eyes open, good luck to them! Exactly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is a big deal and it will be very expensive. Whether one retrofits the lower stands or opts for movable stands to get closer to the FOP, keep in mind that Boston would still be eliminating at least 50,000 seats of their 80,000 seat stadium post-Games. Logic would suggest those are the upper seats. Basically, they would remove the 50,000 upper seats altogether and then either retrofit the lower 30,000 seats or design them to be movable. Either way, the amount of labor, construction and expense means they would ostensibly be REPLACING a large stadium with a second smaller one -- not just making a few minor modifications. It's a huge undertaking. I only see it happening one of two ways: A.) somebody ponies up a huge sum of cash. B.) Boston is so starstruck by the Olympic Games that they ignore the reality of the situation, move forward and end up paying the piper later amid a great deal of hew and cry. Otherwise they need to accept that such major changes may not be practical post-Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisValentine Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 My understanding is that theBeacon Yard site extends to the far side of Cambridge Street as well. The plan to re-do this transportation hub is independent of an Olympic bid and entails moving the rail yard and straightening the Mass Pike (I-90) and eliminate the tangle of on/off ramps. That entire region is under development by Harvard (housing, academic buildings, etc.) Just to the north and outside the frame of the map is Harvard's athletic complex. Harvard Business School is due north of the site and just beyond that across the river is Harvard's main campus. To the south and south east (within walking distance) is Boston University and its housing/athletic complex. There is subway service on both sides of the river near this site and the potential for water taxis to run up and down the river from both Boston and Cambridge. I think Cabot Yard is a stronger location for an Olympic park and has been all over the media, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cabot Yard was a diversion and that Beacon Yard was the true plan. But what do I know. More or less correct about the dimensions. Pretty much, the simplest boundaries would be Cambridge St., Soldiers Field Road, and the rail line. There is some empty space north of Cambridge St, for what its worth. The rail yard has already been moved. Other than the main line itself, the tracks have already been removed, so thats good. Plus, while this is all right up against Harvard, Harvard was intimately involved the last time Boston looked at bidding, so they might be a good neighbor to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Exactly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is a big deal and it will be very expensive. Whether one retrofits the lower stands or opts for movable stands to get closer to the FOP, keep in mind that Boston would still be eliminating at least 50,000 seats of their 80,000 seat stadium post-Games. Logic would suggest those are the upper seats. Basically, they would remove the 50,000 upper seats altogether and then either retrofit the lower 30,000 seats or design them to be movable. Either way, the amount of labor, construction and expense means they would ostensibly be REPLACING a large stadium with a second smaller one -- not just making a few minor modifications. It's a huge undertaking. I only see it happening one of two ways: A.) somebody ponies up a huge sum of cash. B.) Boston is so starstruck by the Olympic Games that they ignore the reality of the situation, move forward and end up paying the piper later amid a great deal of hew and cry. Otherwise they need to accept that such major changes may not be practical post-Games. I feel like everyone’s just trying to be negative for no reason... I can name 30 stadiums around the world large and small that accomplish all these concerns...We also have colleges that have this technology and if a college can have a football stadium with its entire field that rolls outside so the grass can grow in the sun and not get ruined inside then they can do something as little as move seats! Which they also do in that stadium... There are stadiums that can be ovals and then move into a circle lol.. Like the Saitama Super Arena: https://www.saitama-arena.co.jp/e/facility.html Sydney’s ANZ Stadium was “designed with the digital revolution in mind. The stadium was FUTURE proofed with the necessary infrastructure and cabling so it could respond to ongoing future advances in technology. The moveable seating tiers were a FURTHER innovation to allow for maximum flexibility. The stadium can be easily transformed from athletics to rugby, cricket, soccer and AFL, as well as used for concerts and trade shows.” This is BOSTON the most INNOVATIVE city in the world, this is literally the smallest of our worries, just ask any MIT student (even though this is old technology) and you will have a way to do it. The main issue is getting the rest of Boston to be open minded and go as far as we can without losing our shirts there is no reason to not at least TRY... we already know its not going to cost millions to bid You also forget that part of the bid is putting away money for all these retrofits afterwards like London has, they made money and have steadily been re-outfitting each arena for public use the way they planned from the beginning obviously it costs money that’s why you figure that out BEFORE the Olympics and put the money away before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I feel like everyones just trying to be negative for no reason... I can name 30 stadiums around the world large and small that accomplish all these concerns...We also have colleges that have this technology and if a college can have a football stadium with its entire field that rolls outside so the grass can grow in the sun and not get ruined inside then they can do something as little as move seats! Which they also do in that stadium... There are stadiums that can be ovals and then move into a circle lol.. Like the Saitama Super Arena: https://www.saitama-arena.co.jp/e/facility.html Sydneys ANZ Stadium was designed with the digital revolution in mind. The stadium was FUTURE proofed with the necessary infrastructure and cabling so it could respond to ongoing future advances in technology. The moveable seating tiers were a FURTHER innovation to allow for maximum flexibility. The stadium can be easily transformed from athletics to rugby, cricket, soccer and AFL, as well as used for concerts and trade shows. This is BOSTON the most INNOVATIVE city in the world, this is literally the smallest of our worries, just ask any MIT student (even though this is old technology) and you will have a way to do it. The main issue is getting the rest of Boston to be open minded and go as far as we can without losing our shirts there is no reason to not at least TRY... we already know its not going to cost millions to bid You also forget that part of the bid is putting away money for all these retrofits afterwards like London has, they made money and have steadily been re-outfitting each arena for public use the way they planned from the beginning obviously it costs money thats why you figure that out BEFORE the Olympics and put the money away before hand. I'm not being negative. I'm being factual. Please name for me one other stadium anywhere in the world that has been downsized from 80,000 seats with an athletics track to 30,000 or less AND has either movable seating or retrofitted seating that brings the spectators close to the FOP of a soccer pitch. That is what aquaman said was "no big deal." I said it wasn't impossible, but it is a huge challenge. To my knowledge, it has never been attempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think the whole notion of a "future- proof" anything reeks of hubris, but that's neither here not there. Turning an 80,000 seat Olympuc stadium with a track into a 30,000 soccer stadium with seats close to the FOP is not easy. Boston is "setting money aside" for retrofitting a stadium even though they don't know if they're the USOC's candidate? That sounds curious. Whose money and how much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I think the whole notion of a "future- proof" anything reeks of hubris, but that's neither here not there. Turning an 80,000 seat Olympuc stadium with a track into a 30,000 soccer stadium with seats close to the FOP is not easy. Boston is "setting money aside" for retrofitting a stadium even though they don't know if they're the USOC's candidate? That sounds curious. Whose money and how much? LOL I never said anything about Boston I love how you always change peoples statements... I said ALL OLYMPICS... if there is retrofit planned during the bid and building of new stadiums than money is put aside before hand assuming they keep ownership.. London has not happened yet because more than 30 other companies were bidding to take over the stadium, which has now been settled. And London was truly the first Stadium that really really even considered doing that so how do you know how hard it is really? They had it all worked out until others wanted to take it over.. LOL I never said anything about Boston I love how you always change peoples statements... I said ALL OLYMPICS... if there is retrofit planned during the bid and building of new stadiums than money is put aside before hand assuming they keep ownership.. London has not happened yet because more than 30 other companies were bidding to take over the stadium, which has now been settled. And London was truly the first Stadium that really really even considered doing that so how do you know how hard it is really? They had it all worked out until others wanted to take it over.. I think the whole notion of a "future- proof" anything reeks of hubris, but that's neither here not there. Turning an 80,000 seat Olympuc stadium with a track into a 30,000 soccer stadium with seats close to the FOP is not easy. Boston is "setting money aside" for retrofitting a stadium even though they don't know if they're the USOC's candidate? That sounds curious. Whose money and how much? Not to mentian Londons Plan was ONLY made public in March 2013 ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I feel like everyone’s just trying to be negative for no reason... I can name 30 stadiums around the world large and small that accomplish all these concerns...We also have colleges that have this technology and if a college can have a football stadium with its entire field that rolls outside so the grass can grow in the sun and not get ruined inside then they can do something as little as move seats! Which they also do in that stadium... There are stadiums that can be ovals and then move into a circle lol.. Like the Saitama Super Arena: https://www.saitama-arena.co.jp/e/facility.html Sydney’s ANZ Stadium was “designed with the digital revolution in mind. The stadium was FUTURE proofed with the necessary infrastructure and cabling so it could respond to ongoing future advances in technology. The moveable seating tiers were a FURTHER innovation to allow for maximum flexibility. The stadium can be easily transformed from athletics to rugby, cricket, soccer and AFL, as well as used for concerts and trade shows.” This is BOSTON the most INNOVATIVE city in the world, this is literally the smallest of our worries, just ask any MIT student (even though this is old technology) and you will have a way to do it. The main issue is getting the rest of Boston to be open minded and go as far as we can without losing our shirts there is no reason to not at least TRY... we already know its not going to cost millions to bid You also forget that part of the bid is putting away money for all these retrofits afterwards like London has, they made money and have steadily been re-outfitting each arena for public use the way they planned from the beginning obviously it costs money that’s why you figure that out BEFORE the Olympics and put the money away before hand. Rik, don't confuse negativity with being realistic. You keep talking about "keeping an open mind" but it takes more than happy thoughts for a city to pull off an Olympics. Okay, so some of the cities and stadiums you mentioned provide a template for how it could work. The question you need to ask is can Boston make that work, and if so, is it a worthwhile endeavour for them? It does Boston and the folks working on this no good to minimize these issues as if they're no big deal. You're right that it's not going to cost millions of dollars to bid, but that's easy for you to say when it's not your time and effort going into making this work. We get that you have high hopes for this and think Boston can pull it off, but forgive the rest of us for not being as positive as you are about the prospect of a Boston Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 This is BOSTON the most INNOVATIVE city in the world, this is literally the smallest of our worries, just ask any MIT student (even though this is old technology) and you will have a way to do it. Do you read what you write? You absolutely made this Boston-specific. The whole THREAD is Boston-specific. I can see you're quite enthusiastic, but there are a lot of concrete, practical hurdles Boston must address. You can't just gloss over them and say "We'll figure it out somehow. We're the most innovative city in the world!" -- a dubious claim at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Rik, don't confuse negativity with being realistic. You keep talking about "keeping an open mind" but it takes more than happy thoughts for a city to pull off an Olympics. Okay, so some of the cities and stadiums you mentioned provide a template for how it could work. The question you need to ask is can Boston make that work, and if so, is it a worthwhile endeavour for them? It does Boston and the folks working on this no good to minimize these issues as if they're no big deal. You're right that it's not going to cost millions of dollars to bid, but that's easy for you to say when it's not your time and effort going into making this work. We get that you have high hopes for this and think Boston can pull it off, but forgive the rest of us for not being as positive as you are about the prospect of a Boston Olympics. It's not my time or effort? hummm I wasn't minimizing anything I was stating that its FAR from Impossible and anything in this city is possible we have the most innovative minds in the world... Instead of saying its not possible when you have no clue why not say think of ways that it could be... and if you don't want a Boston olympics why post in here at all? Do you read what you write? You absolutely made this Boston-specific. The whole THREAD is Boston-specific. I can see you're quite enthusiastic, but there are a lot of concrete, practical hurdles Boston must address. You can't just gloss over them and say "We'll figure it out somehow. We're the most innovative city in the world!" -- a dubious claim at best. Did you miss the fact that there are separate paragraphs? There is NOTHING Boston specific about saying part of bidding is putting away money for retrofitting if that is the legacy plan.. WE ARENT BIDDING YET, NO ONE IS! lol ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 It's not my time or effort? hummm I wasn't minimizing anything I was stating that its FAR from Impossible and anything in this city is possible we have the most innovative minds in the world... Instead of saying its not possible when you have no clue why not say think of ways that it could be... and if you don't want a Boston olympics why post in here at all? Emotion isn't persuasive. Facts are. NO ONE on these boards has said Boston Olympics are impossible. We have said there are a ton of serious challenges that must not be minimized out of sheer exuberance. "Innovation" seems to be your answer for everything. Forgive me, but that's not a persuasive, concrete argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Did you miss the fact that there are separate paragraphs? There is NOTHING Boston specific about saying part of bidding is putting away money for retrofitting if that is the legacy plan.. WE ARENT BIDDING YET, NO ONE IS! lol ... Sorry, Rik, but what little credibility you might have had is eroding by the second. Everything you write is "rah, rah Boston." That whole post and this whole conversation is about Boston -- not to mention the entire thread. You're saying that because London planned for a remodeled legacy stadium, Boston is sure to do the same and therefore all the points we've raised about the complexity of engineering, construction and finance are overblown. For starters, London's project is not progressing according to the original plan, so it can't be held up as an example of an easy solution for Biston to imitate. Second, where is all this money for Boston's stadium coming from? How do you know there will be enough? There may be answers to those questions someday, but as of today, there are not. Until those questions are answered, this whole project is in serious doubt. As of now, it's a pipe dream. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 It's not my time or effort? hummm I wasn't minimizing anything I was stating that its FAR from Impossible and anything in this city is possible we have the most innovative minds in the world... Instead of saying its not possible when you have no clue why not say think of ways that it could be... and if you don't want a Boston olympics why post in here at all? Rik, I have to admit, you fit right in here when you completely mis-represent a person's point like that. When did I say it's not possible? When did I say I don't want a Boston Olympics? Enough of this rhetoric that Boston is the most innovative city out there and anything is possible. Be realistic for a change. A lot of people here are offering up potential sites and other ideas for a Boston Olympics. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas. I still don't think you're fully comprehending what it takes to host an Olympics because you need to keep asking the question "is this worthwhile?" Even if you find a place to put a stadium and innovative way to design it and a legacy plan for after the Games, is it worth the time, effort and money as opposed to another project that might use those resources? That's the question we're asking. No one is trying to stop you from dreaming big and imagining what could be, but again, not everyone is as gung ho for a Boston Olympics as you are, and if you're looking for a place with people who all think that way, this isn't that place. We're all more than happy to continue to ask the questions and come up with ideas. There wouldn't be a 70+ page thread otherwise. But again, like Athens said, you have consistent been pumping up Boston as if it's the greatest city in the world and the perfect Olympic host. Just because you think that does not mean the rest of us who disagree with you are being negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Rik, I have to admit, you fit right in here when you completely mis-represent a person's point like that. When did I say it's not possible? When did I say I don't want a Boston Olympics? Enough of this rhetoric that Boston is the most innovative city out there and anything is possible. Be realistic for a change. A lot of people here are offering up potential sites and other ideas for a Boston Olympics. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas. I still don't think you're fully comprehending what it takes to host an Olympics because you need to keep asking the question "is this worthwhile?" Even if you find a place to put a stadium and innovative way to design it and a legacy plan for after the Games, is it worth the time, effort and money as opposed to another project that might use those resources? That's the question we're asking. No one is trying to stop you from dreaming big and imagining what could be, but again, not everyone is as gung ho for a Boston Olympics as you are, and if you're looking for a place with people who all think that way, this isn't that place. We're all more than happy to continue to ask the questions and come up with ideas. There wouldn't be a 70+ page thread otherwise. But again, like Athens said, you have consistent been pumping up Boston as if it's the greatest city in the world and the perfect Olympic host. Just because you think that does not mean the rest of us who disagree with you are being negative. Keep dissecting my posts into your own meanings. I like how you have no clue who I am but you keep making statements about my knowledge or what I do. The plans for London were not released until March of last year and they are under way and paid for. And I haven't commented on the people talking about different areas because they're being PROACTIVE! Which is what I was saying, instead of saying NO say well maybe if we did this or if you tried this. I wasnt saying just be positive at all and I never said we were the best City or the best possible host. by far I think Paris should win.. . I have also said a million times that we should be the first US city to bid for a YOUTH Olympics... I'll go back to my actual work on this instead of a thread that has no affect on any of this process its a pure waste of time but when you get ignorant emails it's hard to not respond ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Keep dissecting my posts into your own meanings. I like how you have no clue who I am but you keep making statements about my knowledge or what I do. The plans for London were not released until March of last year and they are under way and paid for. And I haven't commented on the people talking about different areas because they're being PROACTIVE! Which is what I was saying, instead of saying NO say well maybe if we did this or if you tried this. I wasnt saying just be positive at all and I never said we were the best City or the best possible host. by far I think Paris should win.. . I have also said a million times that we should be the first US city to bid for a YOUTH Olympics... I'll go back to my actual work on this instead of a thread that has no affect on any of this process its a pure waste of time but when you get ignorant emails it's hard to not respond ;-) Ok. That post convinces me there's a serious lack of maturity at work here. You've gotten several well-reasoned responses and rather than engaging in adult conversation you fire off highly emotional retorts that are irrationally dismissive. It's a shame. Would've been nice to have a real exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Ok. That post convinces me there's a serious lack of maturity at work here. You've gotten several well-reasoned responses and rather than engaging in adult conversation you fire off highly emotional retorts that are irrationally dismissive. It's a shame. Would've been nice to have a real exchange. Someone should be saying that to you as well since YOU are and always have been the only ones in here to dissect my posts into whatever the hell you want it to sound like. And yet you accuse me of doing it to you when I havent misquoted any of you. The only response you ever have to me is by misquoting me you never come up with facts to go against my point. Have a great day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Keep dissecting my posts into your own meanings. I like how you have no clue who I am but you keep making statements about my knowledge or what I do. The plans for London were not released until March of last year and they are under way and paid for. And I haven't commented on the people talking about different areas because they're being PROACTIVE! Which is what I was saying, instead of saying NO say well maybe if we did this or if you tried this. I wasnt saying just be positive at all and I never said we were the best City or the best possible host. by far I think Paris should win.. . I have also said a million times that we should be the first US city to bid for a YOUTH Olympics... I'll go back to my actual work on this instead of a thread that has no affect on any of this process its a pure waste of time but when you get ignorant emails it's hard to not respond ;-) Rik, here's what we know about you.. you came here awhile ago trying to draw comparisons being the Summer Olympics and the Gay Games. You gave us factually incorrect information about facilities and other statistics about Boston. And you continually try to blow sunshine up our asses about Boston and get upset every time we're not as excited about their Olympic prospects as you are. This is not the first time you have said you don't want to post here because we don't share your passion for Boston. Not the first time you've tried to turn the tables on us that you don't want to discuss Boston with us because we don't see the city in the same light as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 My god, such drama. LOL Yes, I said I didn't think retrofitting a stadium for soccer was a big deal. The conversation has shown me that I was being, perhaps, a bit glib. Rather than "not a big deal" I probably should have said not impossible. Expensive, definitely, especially if the goal is to keep the athletics oval with moveable seats like Stade de France. I'm not a stadium designer - far from it - but I could see a less expensive path being to make a large infield with a track oval and a front row set-back such that the first row seats are perhaps 10 or so feet above the playing field. Once a Games is over and the track is no longer needed, you could in-fill the lower level of the stadium, just guessing here, 50 feet (?) on all sides giving you a gradual slope for the inner-most 12 rows of seats for a soccer layout. I'm sure someone with more knowledge about how these things work will call me naive, and perhaps I am. But what I describe above was what I was thinking when I said "no big deal". The main stadium was always going to be a major challenge for a Boston bid. No question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Look at Manchester's CWG stadium if you don't want the track afterwards and want a football stadium to remain, look at London's initial plans (c.2008) if you want a downsized athletics stadium after the Games, look at Tokyo or Paris if you want a full-fat retractable solution. As for the final option - downsizable AND retractable seating -, i'm not sure it's been done. That's not to say it's impossible, but I'd imagine it's not cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Look at Manchester's CWG stadium if you don't want the track afterwards and want a football stadium to remain, look at London's initial plans (c.2008) if you want a downsized athletics stadium after the Games, look at Tokyo or Paris if you want a full-fat retractable solution. As for the final option - downsizable AND retractable seating -, i'm not sure it's been done. That's not to say it's impossible, but I'd imagine it's not cheap. I wasn't thinking retractable. I was thinking that once a Games is over, the track could be removed and you could just fill in part of the infield with a dozen or sow rows of seats in order to configure it for soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have no proof or evidence, but I bet you are better off building a 100% temporary Olympic stadium, tearing it down, then building a soccer-specific stadium on the spot... than you are in building some sort of downsizable/transformable compromise. But nobody would ever propose such a thing as it sounds wasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have no proof or evidence, but I bet you are better off building a 100% temporary Olympic stadium, tearing it down, then building a soccer-specific stadium on the spot... than you are in building some sort of downsizable/transformable compromise. But nobody would ever propose such a thing as it sounds wasteful. You may be right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I wasn't thinking retractable. I was thinking that once a Games is over, the track could be removed and you could just fill in part of the infield with a dozen or sow rows of seats in order to configure it for soccer. This is sort of what madrid was thinking with their stadium. They buried the first tier of seats and placed a track at the top. However, I believe the largest scale of this kind of thing is hamden park during the 2014 commonwealth games which is only taking away a couple thousand of seats. Madrid's version however took away about 20,000 seats. Not to mention cost of placing it in as well as removing the track; this could be extremely expensive I think rob has a good idea with manchester's cwg stadium where they moved the seats forward, covering up the track, permanently. Im no engineer but it sounds cheaper than the option above, at least to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have no proof or evidence, but I bet you are better off building a 100% temporary Olympic stadium, tearing it down, then building a soccer-specific stadium on the spot... than you are in building some sort of downsizable/transformable compromise. But nobody would ever propose such a thing as it sounds wasteful. Tottenham Hotspur says hi...http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5011971.article?mobilesite=enabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have no proof or evidence, but I bet you are better off building a 100% temporary Olympic stadium, tearing it down, then building a soccer-specific stadium on the spot... than you are in building some sort of downsizable/transformable compromise. But nobody would ever propose such a thing as it sounds wasteful. I bet if there were no safety concerns they could just design two stadiums one large and one small but make interchangeable parts so when you take most of the large one down you could use the same materials to build the smaller one in the same location... that would be pretty amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.