Camp Nou

[Andresito]

Perhaps it was a strategic mistake to demolish the upper tier. This made the renovation very expensive, and as a result, the new stadium is smaller than the old one. I think it would have been a better solution to only renovate the upper tier and build new VIP-rooms above the main stand.

Old structure wasn't designed to carry a roof so it had to be remade

 

[Tom]

Old structure wasn't designed to carry a roof so it had to be remade

Yes, that's possible. However, separate roof pillars could have been built infront of the stadium. I wouldn't have torn down the fantastic upper tier for all the money in the world. I also don't think the roof design is a good idea. It looks like a 30-year-old roof style, and the inner roof opening is too narrow. In my opinion, stadium roofs should also conform to the stadium's shape and have a wide opening. And I don't think it's good to have a lot of technical equipment like the video wall and roof structure hanging above the pitch. The new stadium will have less individuality and recognizability than the old one. that is tragic

 

[Loki]

Palau and the hotel are TBD. They can be abandoned. It all depends on the final cost of Camp Nou.

Offices and hotel maybe, but Palau is mandatory. They want to use it not only for the other sports Barca has, but also as a modern concert hall for additional income. Spotify as a sponsor will help the club to bring in all the hyped artists. The current Palau is too old and not designed for that.

Perhaps it was a strategic mistake to demolish the upper tier. This made the renovation very expensive, and as a result, the new stadium is smaller than the old one.

First of all, it's not smaller. The compression ring, that will hold the roof will add additional 8m to the hight, so in the end, the new stadium will have the same height as the old.
Secondly, it wasn't possible to keep the 3rd tier for several reasons. One of them Andresito said, it couldn't hold the roof because it was not symmetrical (tribuna had no third tier, but the roof instead) and didn't have a compression ring. The other reason was, that it started to lose safety certificates. That was the reason, why we played half a season with a big hole in the 3rd stand, because they had to demolish that part, as it wasn't safe anymore. Despite the 3rd tier being newer (1982) than the first two tiers (1957), it started to disintegrate faster and had to be replaced anyways, because renovating it would have bought the clubs a couple of years max for a big amount of money, no one considered this.
And another reason is, that the old third tier made a modern new look and experience impossible.

So in the end, there was absolutely no way around it to demolish and rebuild it.

 

[Loki]

The new stadium will have less individuality and recognizability than the old one. that is tragic

I disagree. Our new design is still unique, looking like a modern Colosseum with 3 catwalks and a unique ceramic cover. Show me one stadium, that will look similar to the new look. Only because it's different, it doesn't mean it loses individuality. The interior yes, it will look like most modern arenas with 1-2 VIP rings, but you can't miss out on so much money only because you're too nostalgic about the interior look.
The outside will still be unique.

 

[Tom]

Offices and hotel maybe, but Palau is mandatory. They want to use it not only for the other sports Barca has, but also as a modern concert hall for additional income. Spotify as a sponsor will help the club to bring in all the hyped artists. The current Palau is too old and not designed for that.


First of all, it's not smaller. The compression ring, that will hold the roof will add additional 8m to the hight, so in the end, the new stadium will have the same height as the old.
Secondly, it wasn't possible to keep the 3rd tier for several reasons. One of them Andresito said, it couldn't hold the roof because it was not symmetrical (tribuna had no third tier, but the roof instead) and didn't have a compression ring. The other reason was, that it started to lose safety certificates. That was the reason, why we played half a season with a big hole in the 3rd stand, because they had to demolish that part, as it wasn't safe anymore. Despite the 3rd tier being newer (1982) than the first two tiers (1957), it started to disintegrate faster and had to be replaced anyways, because renovating it would have bought the clubs a couple of years max for a big amount of money, no one considered this.
And another reason is, that the old third tier made a modern new look and experience impossible.

So in the end, there was absolutely no way around it to demolish and rebuild it.

In terms of the number of rows at the highest point of the stadium, the new stadium is significantly smaller. The number of rows is the primary factor in determining the size of a stadium. A high roof is no substitute for this.

It's possible that the steps in the upper tier were dilapidated, but weren't the steps in the middle tier also renovated?

 

[Tom]

I disagree. Our new design is still unique, looking like a modern Colosseum with 3 catwalks and a unique ceramic cover. Show me one stadium, that will look similar to the new look. Only because it's different, it doesn't mean it loses individuality. The interior yes, it will look like most modern arenas with 1-2 VIP rings, but you can't miss out on so much money only because you're too nostalgic about the interior look.
The outside will still be unique.

I meant the interior of the stadium. The sloping shape, with the stands rising ever higher towards the east, which (measured by the number of rows) were higher than any other stadium in the world! I don't really understand why the club management gave that away.

 

[Loki]

The number of rows is the primary factor in determining the size of a stadium.

That's a very odd opinion. The size of the stadium is always based on either it's total hight or the total capacity. I've never met someone who measured the size of the stadium by the highest rows.

 

[Loki]

which (measured by the number of rows) were higher than any other stadium in the world! I don't really understand why the club management gave that away.

Because all the reasons for renovating the stadium into the new look have a far bigger priority than having the highest rows. Again, I've never met anyone who cared about that. On the contrary, reading the experience of people sitting in the highest rows, especially away fans, always complained it was too far away from the pitch to really enjoy the game.

 

[Tom]

That's a very odd opinion. The size of the stadium is always based on either it's total hight or the total capacity. I've never met someone who measured the size of the stadium by the highest rows.

The number of rows is crucial for the visual impression of how large a grandstand appears.

 

[Tom]

Because all the reasons for renovating the stadium into the new look have a far bigger priority than having the highest rows. Again, I've never met anyone who cared about that. On the contrary, reading the experience of people sitting in the highest rows, especially away fans, always complained it was too far away from the pitch to really enjoy the game.

I am aware of the great distance between the top rows and the pitch.
Dismantling the highest stand in Europe (I think also the world) is not an insignificant issue

 

[Loki]

The number of rows is crucial for the visual impression of how large a grandstand appears.

That's only your opinion, don't make it a fact. The impression when the stadium will be completed with the roof will be much more impressive than the old one, guaranteed. The roof will have an significant impact on the overall impression.

Dismantling the highest stand in Europe (I think also the world) is not an insignificant issue

It is from a professional point of view. You talk from a nostalgic point of view. There are absolutely zero downsides about it, aside nostalgia. The stadium will have a bigger capacity in viewers and also the same total hight in the end.

 

[Tom]

That's only your opinion, don't make it a fact. The impression when the stadium will be completed with the roof will be much more impressive than the old one, guaranteed. The roof will have an significant impact on the overall impression.


It is from a professional point of view. You talk from a nostalgic point of view. There are absolutely zero downsides about it, aside nostalgia. The stadium will have a bigger capacity in viewers and also the same total hight in the end.

Yes, but it has lost its highest stand and some of its uniqueness and distinctiveness. I think thats tragic

 

[Andresito]

Yes, but it has lost its highest stand and some of its uniqueness and distinctiveness. I think thats tragic

What you suggest is impossible from a structural pov. It's either the insignificant trophy of having "highest stadium", which I've never heard anyone mention, or a much needed modernization and a roof.

 

[Tom]

What you suggest is impossible from a structural pov. It's either the insignificant trophy of having "highest stadium", which I've never heard anyone mention, or a much needed modernization and a roof.

I don't understand what you mean. In many stadiums, the roof rests on its own separate structure.

 

[Tom]

What you suggest is impossible from a structural pov. It's either the insignificant trophy of having "highest stadium", which I've never heard anyone mention, or a much needed modernization and a roof.

a good architect achieves both