6 comments

• 

  tyduffy

  1 year ago

  It is because England is a generation behind the U.S. in stadium building. All of the parks built in the 60s and 70s had that same modern state-of-the-art feel and it took going through that to realize that people didn't like it.
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  I am sorry to hear that English clubs are going this route. Though I was thrilled to see a game at the Emirates last year, the place really had the feel of a modern American stadium and was a bit of a letdown. I wish I had visited Craven Cottage instead. You make a good point about following the example set in baseball. I am surprised that a sport such as English football hasn't made more of an effort to appeal to its fans' love of tradition.
  
  
  Since the owners are driven to cram as many luxury boxes as possible into every stadium, perhaps they could follow's Chicago's example? Soldier Field's distinctive Greek columns now look as if an alien spaceship landed on them. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://z...>
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  great article gaffer.
  
  
  but as tyduffy wrote, England are behind the US in stadium building.
  
  
  
  Its only in the past 10-15 years that new stadiums are incorporating the retro feel to them, because all the multipurpose domes of the 60s and 70s were sterile, lifeless, and did not lend to any fan atmosphere. That is why practically none of the them still exist.
  
  
  
  Its a pity that millions are spent, only to be removed. But it goes to show that stadiums must be done right the first time around.
  
  
  
  That is why (amongst other reasons) I am a Fulham and Red Sox supporter - when I go to their stadiums I am taking part in history. I'm not paying a ticket for an amusement park.
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  Right, but Craven Cottage and Fenway are not "retro" stadiums. They're old. They've earned their character. I'd much rather attend a match at Emirates, that is a product of its times, than a kitsch abomination like Minute Maid Park in Houston. The problem with the Riverside or an identikit 70s baseball stadium isn't that they were "modern," it's that they were poorly designed and constructed. Emirates is a fantastic place to see a match, it has plenty of character, and it doesn't need infantilizing retro gestures to do it.
  Anybody saying Wembley, for example, is a "generation behind" the U.S. doesn't know what they're talking about. It may succeed or fail as a matchgoing experience, but it won't be because it's beholden to outdated ideas (even in the U.S. Soldier Field is a good example) about how you have to make stadia look "old" or have "character." That's fakery, not tradition.
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  Sounds like England's gonna have a bunch of Wal-Mart-style stadiums that look the same and have no personality whatsoever. Art and architecture point to a reality that's beyond, and one thing Wal-Mart-style architecture does is dull the senses. Cookie-cutter buildings are just bad art, anyways. I was wodering what is to come of Fenway Park when I was watching the game tonight. (Go Rockies!) That stadium is old. The field is oddly shaped, the seats are old and small, and the dug outs are wierd. But I don't think any one of those fans would want a cookie-cutter stadium that resembles a Wal-Mart or a grocery store building.
  reply
• 

  Todd

  1 year ago

  Interesting you should point out Rangers Ballpark here in Texas. It was built with a retro feel because the team's history was miserable and only dated to the '70s. The team was begging for some appeal, and thought the vintage look for their park would do it.
  reply