Future stadia in pictures, including Tottenham

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,956
#21
looks really good - the concept is very good which will create an amazing price of architecture and an iconic design, something unfortunately our stadium lacks. Difference when good architects are involved.
Give it a year and the Chelsea fans will hate it. Familiarity brings contempt.
Also we haven't seen the full renders, nor have we seen our final design.
 

NickHSpurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
11,041
#22
I don't care all that much what it looks like to be honest, I'd take it looking the worst out of the bunch if it retained a decent atmosphere and acoustics.
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
4,526
#23
My natural inclination would be to dismiss Chelsea's new plans just by their very nature - but I'm rather jealous they've got Herzog and de Meuron, they are very good at what they do, and have retained a 'good eye' for an office that is now doing such large pieces of work.

However, they've also planned a number of stadia which haven't come to fruition - and I suspect that Levy simply would not pay out for a design by them because the numbers would not stack up for such a use-limited building in his eyes. Interestingly Chelsea were also going with Populous, but have seemingly ditched them after a feasibility study, presumably for someone more design-led.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,956
#24
My natural inclination would be to dismiss Chelsea's new plans just by their very nature - but I'm rather jealous they've got Herzog and de Meuron, they are very good at what they do, and have retained a 'good eye' for an office that is now doing such large pieces of work.

However, they've also planned a number of stadia which haven't come to fruition - and I suspect that Levy simply would not pay out for a design by them because the numbers would not stack up for such a use-limited building in his eyes. Interestingly Chelsea were also going with Populous, but have seemingly ditched them after a feasibility study, presumably for someone more design-led.
Chelsea have strong restrictions to the size and shape they can build due to their surrounds. They cannot get a normal 60k stadium into the space. It is interesting to see the solution. Whether it will work is anyones guess.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#26
My natural inclination would be to dismiss Chelsea's new plans just by their very nature - but I'm rather jealous they've got Herzog and de Meuron, they are very good at what they do, and have retained a 'good eye' for an office that is now doing such large pieces of work.

However, they've also planned a number of stadia which haven't come to fruition - and I suspect that Levy simply would not pay out for a design by them because the numbers would not stack up for such a use-limited building in his eyes. Interestingly Chelsea were also going with Populous, but have seemingly ditched them after a feasibility study, presumably for someone more design-led.
I would imagine their fees are significantly higher than Populous.
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
4,526
#27
I would imagine their fees are significantly higher than Populous.
Indeed - and its clear why that might not be an option for us. Probably also the fact they would work with someone else for the stadium guts while Populous would do the whole thing from one office. Still a bit of a shame seeing as so much of the club's immediate future is tied to the stadium.

Would be nice to have a stadium that monumentalises our illustrious legacy through its architecture ;) - same way as the Emirates is rather bland and corporate symbolising modern Arsenal, rather than Highbury's marble halls which were the right level of ostentation for a club that bought its way into the league...
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,665
#29
If the shit photos are any indication of the aesthetics at work at CFC, it will be as horrible as everything else associated with that vile club.
 

Mr.D

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
2,534
#30
Can we have either white or navy blue seats rather than the bloody royal blue that we have currently.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
55
#34
Perhaps I misunderstood the mirrors caption about our new stadium, "no concrete plans to break ground yet" What exactly is going on around White Hart Lane then?
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
5,369
#38
The Budapest one for me. Looks almost majestic. Not some gimmicky crap that will age badly.
Looks like a water tank to me mate. :)

For me, the Hangzou and Monterrey stadiums really stand out, but it is the World Cup stadia in Russia and Qatar that really jump out.

I voted yes in the poll as I really do think that it will be the best in the Prem. That Chelsea design is a monstrosity, regardless of what inspired it.

Really ugly, it looks like a backdrop from the film 1984!

And Valencia's looks like one of those spaceships from Independence Day after it had crashed.

The Spurs Stadium has elegant flowing lines, whatever angle you view it from, with lots of glass, giving it a lighter more open feel. The lines of the stadium remind me of an Ocean Liner, smooth and graceful. I also think that the design will age extremely well. There's no "fad" accompaniments as far as I can see, just an emphasis on, for want of a better word, grace.

I realise that this is a view held by few on here and fully expect quite a few disagrees, but I'm just saying what I see. I see a stadium that is pleasing to the eye, enhancing the area and the skyline.

I, for one, would be very happy to have that as our home for the next 100 or so years.
 

dk-yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
3,513
#39
Al Wakrah looks like a giant vagina.

I'd vote for Casablanca. Love it. And not all spaceship futuristic and glass which I find dull ..-
 
Top