Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'The New Stadium' started by brett.spurs, May 20, 2011.
Look how far away the pitch is ffs!
It's a wide angle lens.
34 metres is 34 metres in any lens. Yeah it looks worse, but that doesn't make it close.
Crazy! How can you get excited watching a match sitting miles away.
The view wont be as bad as that. But they will be a lot worse than WHL or the Boleyn. Advertising hoardings will make it a nightmare for the first couple of rows.
If they do put in temporary seating they will then have to extend the roof even further costing a fortune which they can't afford.
This video gives you a better idea. Still shocking in my opinion and can see a lot of regular WH fans giving up their season tickets. Whether these will be made up by new fans or corporate we'll have to wait and see.
Add the view to the reasons why I'm so glad I'm not a hammers fan!
To be fair their football will look better from back there.
Ah shit, I bet I'm going to get one of those shit seats for 100 quid for the Men's 100m final.
Its far from the pitch and the seating angle is all wrong for football.
Bear in mind that (a) all the images on this thread are 'wide angle' and do not even represent the actual viewing experience at the Olympics, and (b) the Olympic Stadium will be converted.
No it's not ideal to have a running track, but many clubs have played in athletics stadia and it's not the end of the world.
To make up for this West Ham are likely to price their tickets accordingly.
They're already charging £1 for kids. Are they going to start paying them to come?
The difference is on most other mixed use stadia, the front seats are above pitch level. At the OS the seats are low, far fromm the pitch and rise at a low angle.
The camera lens always fore shortens the image so that i not accurate to be fair.
But I have been to the scumriates when it newly opened. Long story I hadnt seen a cl game and I like architecture and the missus's dad is a big gooner with connections so he got us tickets for scum against hamburg. Well his connections wern't so great cos we were in the upper tier on the side behind the goal. Not that far from the front of the tier but you couldnt tell if it was walcott or henry for one half.
They tolerate it now but as soon as peado goes they will have a husk of a stadium. Why would you pay a grand to see scumants run around for 45 mins.
Not sure why that should be the case.
(1) Seating may begin at ground level, or it could begin higher up. West Ham have that choice.
(2) An athletics track is fairly standardised, and the seating is not going to be any further away from the track than most big athletics stadia. Presumably the same would therefore apply to previous athletics stadia converted to mixed use.
(3) What is the angle? How does it compare to most recent football stadia, e.g. Wembley or Emirates?
On the camera lens, it depends on what kind of lens. As I say, a wide angle lens will take more in and make things seem further away. A 'long' lens will bring things closer, take in less and be associated with foreshortening. All the images on this thread, including the Dizzy video, are taken with a wide angle lens, making the pitch appear much further from the eye than it really is.
But I agree with you on the rest. I've paid loads for a seat in the gods at Wembley, and I'm not convinced that all but the most far away seats at the converted Olympic Stadium will be much worse, and many will be better.
Anyone else notice - the insistance of keeping the running track actually meant, keep the running track plus the same width again for warm up areas, apparently.
What a seriously disappointing place to walk into for a game of football. There'll be literally no atmosphere, the sound will be soaked up by that rubber crap they use for tracks, everyone will be squinting or elbowing their neighbour in the head trying to use binoculars... just looks like it'd be a really un-fun experience generally.
Separate names with a comma.