Hi I was wondering whether underground stadiums built in high density cities with very limited land, such as Singapore with a population density of 7953 people per square kilometer, be feasible or would make sense? There are not many examples of underground stadiums except for the Gjøvik Hall in Russia. It being underground would also make it "colder" which could save on energy costs. I would also assume that it would have less of an environmental impact then if it were built on land.Let me know what you think.
only makes sense if cost doesn't matter. excavation is very expensive. building a long span roof structure across a stadium which could support a park and roads (definitely not other buildings) is very expensive.
for life safety, a hole in the ground is bad for exiting. 10,000+ people walking UP stairs in a fire, from a building with no openings to outside for rescue and limited ways to exhaust smoke...
in a city like singapore, drainage and flood prevention would also be major challenges.
Apr 9, 20 8:47 am ·
·
Akira
I see thanks for your reply, I was thinking of doing a semi submerged stadium that would still be open roof
Probably one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Sports are meant to be played OUTSIDE whenever possible. The grim Mercedes Stadium in Atlanta might as well be underground. It has all the attractiveness of a crypt. Look at the few major league baseball stadiums with roofs. I can't even watch the games on tv from those sites with balls bouncing off the rafters and the pathetic plastic grass. Here is the Rose Bowl, opened in 1922 and not really improved on since.
Apr 9, 20 9:40 am ·
·
midlander
hockey and basketball excepted, i agree. also places like fenway park and wrigley field are widely loved because they're right in the city with wonderful views and connect into the life of the city. events are part of the life of a city and not some utilitarian function to bury away.
It's a nice concept, however as other have said the issues with egress, ventilation, water tables, and stadium use are probably why no one has pursued this.
On a side note I think baseball and American football would not be the right venue for a stadium with a roof. Basketball, soccer, hockey, could work well in an indoor stadium.
Apr 9, 20 11:17 am ·
·
Akira
thanks for the reply, I was thinking of a semi submerged stadium that would still have an open roof
Apr 9, 20 12:21 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Ah, kind of like a earth bermed structure. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of building it below grade? With an open roof you wouldn't be able to build anything atop it. Although with the correct topography it could be a nice fit into a landscape without impacting the skyline.
Still, a lot of technical aspects to figure out and a great deal of impact to the site.
What makes you think it would have less of an environmental impact? What are you going to do with all the soil you excavate?
Egress, smoke exhaust, etc. are problematic as stated previously. If you choose to make the stadium open air you are going to have drainage issues. Normally gravity does the work for you and you drain from the roof to grade. Are you pumping storm water up to grade?
All that being said I disagree with those that are flat out shooting it down. I doubt there are many case studies because it isn't practical and stadiums are already absurdly expensive without creating new problems to solve. As an academic/design project I think it's worth investigating.
It is for a project I had in mind where I have to design a skyscraper that solves urban issues. Without giving my total idea away, I was thinking of doing somewhat of a semi-submerged stadium in the ground,which would be still open air, think of it like as a hole in the ground. I thought building it somewhat underground would be good for high dense cities like Singapore as they already have limited land resources. I agree that there would be a problem with all the soil you would have to excavate but when building a tower you have to excavate a lot of soil already right? I was not thinking of building a roof as there would be a tower over it since, it is hard for me to explain without giving away my whole idea.
Apr 9, 20 12:20 pm ·
·
midlander
as a student project it's good to consider unusual solutions. the reality is that there are many practical reasons not to do this - but if you want to explore some special way of using urban space go for it. as long as you show how you've thought about the problems mentioned, it's all possible.
Apr 9, 20 6:30 pm ·
·
Akira
Thanks for your advice, I will take it into consideration.If you care, my idea for the project I was to design a structure that could possibly hold all or as many Olympic events as possible in a 6 acre square of land. I thought it would be a good idea because as reports have shown hosting the Olympics is no longer an economically smart idea as it is too expensive, which usually burdens the country’s economy and many facilities are left wasted. So I thought if there was a way to build the Olympic venues vertically it would save money on land in an already dense environment, so instead of 40 different venues, just making it one building which wouldmake it easier for patrons to visit other events as well and also bring a lot of attention to one area which could help neighbouring commercial businesses. The tower would also include the Olympic village and also residential apartments as well, but the number of people would be a problem as there would be too much human traffic.
Apr 9, 20 7:14 pm ·
·
midlander
one thought is maybe you could build them to repurpose as infrastructure like reservoirs and waste processing facilities. the image virus posted below definitely looks like a potential water reservoir.
Apr 10, 20 12:03 am ·
·
Witty Banter
As a student project it's an interesting idea but keep in mind you are going to have incredible structural and circulation challenges. Most vertical buildings are going to utilize a fairly regular column grid. That isn't an option when you have each floor needing an immense volume for the sport itself as well as spectators. Just putting a roof over a stadium that carries no additional load is a challenge. Try to dig into this as a diagram before getting to invested.
Apr 10, 20 9:44 am ·
·
Akira
thanks for the reply, yea it was a just thought, I am still currently brainstorming ideas. I usually just start with my most stupid ideas which helps me to progress on to less stupid ideas which actually make sense. I can see that it would have alot of challenges, but I was wondering how it would be possible for small dense countries like Singapore where they have immense amount of money for them to hold the olympics as I have heard of them trying to bid for it. Usually olympics need around 40 seperate venues, which I think would be hard for singapore to do. Thanks for your input, but I am not going to go through with this idea anymore and have found another one. Thanks
Then open top you refer to totally defeats the original stated purpose. You'd be better off building a tall stadium with lease spaces built into the exterior, under the sloped seating.
The Goldring Centre by Patkau Architects has a small, 2000-seat underground 'stadium.' It's a great project--it undoes a number of basic assumptions to achieve something special on a small site. It features clerestory at the sidewalk so you can look down onto the court.
Apr 10, 20 10:39 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
underground stadiums?
Hi I was wondering whether underground stadiums built in high density cities with very limited land, such as Singapore with a population density of 7953 people per square kilometer, be feasible or would make sense? There are not many examples of underground stadiums except for the Gjøvik Hall in Russia. It being underground would also make it "colder" which could save on energy costs. I would also assume that it would have less of an environmental impact then if it were built on land.Let me know what you think.
only makes sense if cost doesn't matter. excavation is very expensive. building a long span roof structure across a stadium which could support a park and roads (definitely not other buildings) is very expensive.
for life safety, a hole in the ground is bad for exiting. 10,000+ people walking UP stairs in a fire, from a building with no openings to outside for rescue and limited ways to exhaust smoke...
in a city like singapore, drainage and flood prevention would also be major challenges.
I see thanks for your reply, I was thinking of doing a semi submerged stadium that would still be open roof
Probably one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Sports are meant to be played OUTSIDE whenever possible. The grim Mercedes Stadium in Atlanta might as well be underground. It has all the attractiveness of a crypt. Look at the few major league baseball stadiums with roofs. I can't even watch the games on tv from those sites with balls bouncing off the rafters and the pathetic plastic grass. Here is the Rose Bowl, opened in 1922 and not really improved on since.
hockey and basketball excepted, i agree. also places like fenway park and wrigley field are widely loved because they're right in the city with wonderful views and connect into the life of the city. events are part of the life of a city and not some utilitarian function to bury away.
It's a nice concept, however as other have said the issues with egress, ventilation, water tables, and stadium use are probably why no one has pursued this.
On a side note I think baseball and American football would not be the right venue for a stadium with a roof. Basketball, soccer, hockey, could work well in an indoor stadium.
thanks for the reply, I was thinking of a semi submerged stadium that would still have an open roof
Ah, kind of like a earth bermed structure. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of building it below grade? With an open roof you wouldn't be able to build anything atop it. Although with the correct topography it could be a nice fit into a landscape without impacting the skyline.
Still, a lot of technical aspects to figure out and a great deal of impact to the site.
What makes you think it would have less of an environmental impact? What are you going to do with all the soil you excavate?
Egress, smoke exhaust, etc. are problematic as stated previously. If you choose to make the stadium open air you are going to have drainage issues. Normally gravity does the work for you and you drain from the roof to grade. Are you pumping storm water up to grade?
All that being said I disagree with those that are flat out shooting it down. I doubt there are many case studies because it isn't practical and stadiums are already absurdly expensive without creating new problems to solve. As an academic/design project I think it's worth investigating.
https://www.archdaily.com/317267/rock-stadium-proposal-mz-architects
It is for a project I had in mind where I have to design a skyscraper that solves urban issues. Without giving my total idea away, I was thinking of doing somewhat of a semi-submerged stadium in the ground,which would be still open air, think of it like as a hole in the ground. I thought building it somewhat underground would be good for high dense cities like Singapore as they already have limited land resources. I agree that there would be a problem with all the soil you would have to excavate but when building a tower you have to excavate a lot of soil already right? I was not thinking of building a roof as there would be a tower over it since, it is hard for me to explain without giving away my whole idea.
as a student project it's good to consider unusual solutions. the reality is that there are many practical reasons not to do this - but if you want to explore some special way of using urban space go for it. as long as you show how you've thought about the problems mentioned, it's all possible.
Thanks for your advice, I will take it into consideration.If you care, my idea for the project I was to design a structure that could possibly hold all or as many Olympic events as possible in a 6 acre square of land. I thought it would be a good idea because as reports have shown hosting the Olympics is no longer an economically smart idea as it is too expensive, which usually burdens the country’s economy and many facilities are left wasted. So I thought if there was a way to build the Olympic venues vertically it would save money on land in an already dense environment, so instead of 40 different venues, just making it one building which wouldmake it easier for patrons to visit other events as well and also bring a lot of attention to one area which could help neighbouring commercial businesses. The tower would also include the Olympic village and also residential apartments as well, but the number of people would be a problem as there would be too much human traffic.
one thought is maybe you could build them to repurpose as infrastructure like reservoirs and waste processing facilities. the image virus posted below definitely looks like a potential water reservoir.
As a student project it's an interesting idea but keep in mind you are going to have incredible structural and circulation challenges. Most vertical buildings are going to utilize a fairly regular column grid. That isn't an option when you have each floor needing an immense volume for the sport itself as well as spectators. Just putting a roof over a stadium that carries no additional load is a challenge. Try to dig into this as a diagram before getting to invested.
thanks for the reply, yea it was a just thought, I am still currently brainstorming ideas. I usually just start with my most stupid ideas which helps me to progress on to less stupid ideas which actually make sense. I can see that it would have alot of challenges, but I was wondering how it would be possible for small dense countries like Singapore where they have immense amount of money for them to hold the olympics as I have heard of them trying to bid for it. Usually olympics need around 40 seperate venues, which I think would be hard for singapore to do. Thanks for your input, but I am not going to go through with this idea anymore and have found another one. Thanks
Then open top you refer to totally defeats the original stated purpose. You'd be better off building a tall stadium with lease spaces built into the exterior, under the sloped seating.
not entirely underground, but pretty close
building into the land/mountain side was the original way to do it.
just put a top on it.
The Goldring Centre by Patkau Architects has a small, 2000-seat underground 'stadium.' It's a great project--it undoes a number of basic assumptions to achieve something special on a small site. It features clerestory at the sidewalk so you can look down onto the court.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.