There's a few in Germany that have closeable roofs, but to use soccer or NFL stadiums as examples is just wrong. All they have to do is cover an area 100m x 50m, an AFL oval is 150m+ long and near 100m wide, to cover that you end up with a retarded design like docklands that leads to a crap surface.Pants wrote:And for those people still asking for a roof, f*cking hell, last time I checked, footy was an outdoor sport. If you want a roof over your head when you're watching it, stay at home. If Docklands didn't have a roof this would be a non-issue. How many existing or proposed English Premier League stadiums have a roof? I can't think of any European soccer stadiums for that matter and it's about a billion times colder over there in their football seasons than it is here.
It's a ridiculous argument and for people to still be holding it up as a reason to vote down this proposal, especially at the same time as complaining about the cost of the AO redevelopment, is just stupid and typical of this city where everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it.
people who think Docklands is world class are fools, the place has had a shocking playing surface wine the day it opened. imo it's a failure, as having a top class playing surface is paramount to plannig and building a new stadium. AO will avoid this with it's current plan by leaving the North end open and allowing large amounts of sunlight onto the pitch.