COOP project Stadiums
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

COOP project Stadiums

on

  • 440 views

A state of the field in Belgium

A state of the field in Belgium

Statistics

Views

Total Views
440
Views on SlideShare
440
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

COOP project Stadiums Presentation Transcript

  • 1. A state of the field in Belgium
  • 2. 1. Difficulties in Belgium2. Importance and opportunities3. Comparison4. Cases  Difficulties in Belgium  Antwerp  RSC Anderlecht  How things should be done  Stade de France  Lille OSC
  • 3. 1. Difficulties in Belgium2. Importance and opportunities3. Comparison4. Cases  Difficulties in Belgium  Antwerp  RSC Anderlecht  How things should be done  Stade de France  Lille OSC
  • 4. Bicycles were needed to impress the FIFA, because our stadiums failed to do it.
  • 5.  Lack of government finances The “nimby” syndrome Strict regulation for environmental planning Huge budgets
  • 6.  Lack of government finances • Sports infrastructures plan  Artificial grass  Simple halls for multifaceted sports  Simple swimming pools  Polyvalent sports centres
  • 7.  The “nimby” syndrome • Not in my backyard • Arguments:  Increased traffic  Harm to local, small businesses  Loss of residential property value  Environmental, light and noise pollution  Increase in crime • Example in Belgium: “De Witte Pion”
  • 8.  Strict regulation for environmental planning • Little place left • A lot of rules for construction Huge budgets • PPP solution?  Public authority  Private company
  • 9. 1. Difficulties in Belgium2. Importance and opportunities3. Comparison4. Cases  Difficulties in Belgium  Antwerp  RSC Anderlecht  How things should be done  Stade de France  Lille OSC
  • 10.  Economic vitality New jobs Tourists Compete with other big clubs Youth academy Sponsors
  • 11. 1. Difficulties in Belgium2. Importance and opportunities3. Comparison4. Cases  Difficulties in Belgium  Antwerp  RSC Anderlecht  How things should be done  Stade de France  Lille OSC
  • 12.  Capacity • Belgium: Koning Boudewijnstadium - 50.093 places • France: Stade de France - 81.338 places • The Netherlands: Amsterdam ArenA - 52.960 places • England: Wembley - 90.000 places • Germany: Signal Iduna Park - 80.552 places
  • 13.  Year of openingMost recent new stadium • Belgium: Jan Breydelstadium - 1975 • France: Stade de France - 1998 • The Netherlands: Gelredome - 1998 • England: Wembley - 2007 • Germany: Allianz Arena - 2006
  • 14. 2010200019901980197019601950 Jan Breydelstadium Stade de France Gelredome Wembley Allianz Arena
  • 15.  Top 60 greatest stadiums • Belgium: 1 stadium(53) • France: 3 stadiums (5, 26, 58) • The Netherlands: 2 stadiums (45, 48) • England: 6 stadiums (2, 10, 24, 41, 57, 60) • Germany: 12 stadiums (7, 13, 16, 22, 30, 33, 39, 42, 47, 52, 56, 59)
  • 16.  Some big stadiums • May Day stadium (North-Corea) 150.000 places • Salt Lake stadium (India) 120.000 places • Salt Lake stadium (India) 120.000 places • Azteca stadium (Mexico) 105.000 places • Bukit Jalil stadium (Malaysia) 100.200 places • Camp Nou (Spain) 99.354 places
  • 17. 1. Difficulties in Belgium2. Importance and opportunities3. Comparison4. Cases  Difficulties in Belgium  Antwerp  RSC Anderlecht  How things should be done  Stade de France  Lille OSC
  • 18.  Demands of Patrick Vannoppen No sharing No investment
  • 19.  Demands of the city  Only for two clubs  Private investors
  • 20.  Solution • Play together • Admission Why construction of new stadium? • Good for football in Antwerp • Charisma • Landmark • Economics
  • 21.  Ideas new stadium • New stadium 40.000 places  No agreement • New stadium on other location  Not an option anymore • Renovate and extend the existing stadium  Agreement
  • 22.  The project • Renovation of the stadium • Extension of the stadium to 31.000 seats • Construction of a car park • Construction of new multifunctional sportshall • Other surrounding works in the areas
  • 23.  District committee against project • Disproportion • 43 meters high • Capacity 31.000 places  Increase of 20%  More problems
  • 24.  Disadvantages • More vandalism • Parking problems for the inhabitants • Problems to go home • Merchants lose money • More sounds and visual nuisance • A parking with 8 floors
  • 25.  FIFA World Cup 1998 Why Saint-Denis? • Close to capital • Accessibility  A86 & A1  RER, bus & underground • Develop northern Paris • Spread sport infrastructures
  • 26. • Needed: € 364 million• 48% Consortium  Bouygues  GTM Entrepose  SGE (now Vinci)• 52% Gouvernment  Each civilian: € 3
  • 27. • All-seater• 80 000• Mobile stands• Hanging roof (13 000 ton)• 2 giant LED-screens
  • 28.  Lille OSC EURO 2016 “New Stade de France” Under construction Public Private Partnership Leverage-effect Main objective: Gain more incomes
  • 29.  Foundation stone laid 27th of September 2010 Opening planned for 4th of July 2012 Capacity: 50. 186 spectators Total costs: € 324 million (+ hotel and restaurant) Less expensive than foreseen Key role for sustainability