I was thinking, if these are just grass tiles, with real grass and soil that may shift because it's not connected, are there not potential rifts between the tiles that a foot could get stuck in?
America spends a lot of taxpayer money on sports stadiums and gives up the right to most of the profits. But also I was being more than a little facetious.
But of course! All the most advanced technologies are focused on... (checks notes) helping billionaires like the average professional sports team owner maximize profits!
Wife and I talked about this one, and we did realize one thing: this is very likely cheaper, and more energy efficient, than having four different venues (soccer, basketball, tennis, and concerts).
This thing is used 4x more often than 4 separate buildings, so it's not sitting empty and just sucking up energy most of the time. Less land used too. So, while it definitely makes the rich richer, it's a better idea than what's in the USA, with major cities having 4, 5, or even 6 MASSIVE venues.
The Romans were doing shit like this in the colliseum. Not to this level of mechanization but pretty impressive without modern engines and materials. They could flood it to perform fight to the death naval battles. They had giant retractable canopies that could be unfurled to shade the arena from the direct sun. There was a massive tunnel system beneath and elevators and doors everywhere.
There's a stadium in Japan that does this, but the mechanism literally slides out the entire field at once. As far as I know, they only use that feature occasionally, and the "stored" field just becomes an outdoor venue most of the time.
I think it's ok to build impressive things for the sake of peoples enjoyment without inventing a zero sum false equivalency. Why not have impressive fears of engineering and also feed people and have healthcare? Why do you feel we should only have one or the other?
Same principle applies to all sports and entertainment though - does it not? Right down to the local soccer field that kids play in, where they pay a groundskeeper (that could otherwise be providing food or healthcare) - does it not? Where do you draw the line? Do we cancel all sports and all entertainment just because they are luxuries and there are people that exist with little healthcare or food? There is tons of money spent on stadiums without these mechanics.
I hear you, but just as a thought, who do you think populates these sporting venues? If we didn’t buy into it so much the rich wouldn’t do this. environmental recklessness apart, hard to do but for one second, I don’t think this is the core of the problem. This is creating jobs, it’s boosting the economy. I wish it was in the name of a worthier cause, but this isn’t the sick part IMO. But billionaires hoarding cash, through nefarious means, which damage the world and society, that’s the problem
The problem is 'create jobs boost the economy' could be justification for basically any spending. Government decides to erect a giant gold plated statue of president strokeface? Well, that's jobs for the construction...
This seems insanely expensive to do compared to building separate venues for the different events unless it's somewhere where the space to have separate venues just doesn't exist. I see Madrid so I assume central Spain which is somewhere I've never visited so I don't know how precious space actually is in that region.
Outside north America, stadiums are built with transportation in mind, that isn't a car - in most major cities they'll have dedicated underground or tram stops in and around them. It's also a venue only used for at most 80 games in a season, which means it's mostly not used, so these sort of mechanisms allow the stadium to be used more frequently, and without needing a second building with more infrastructure for the public.
Football stadiums can be underused in the off season. Ifnyouve got a hard court sport that runs a different season (eg aummer vs winterl, its probably worth it.
That stadium is in the centre of the capital city well connected to public transport. There are about 30 games of football per year, de club that owned it also has a top basketball team, because the stadium is so central it is also popular for concerts. I think it makes sense to have a multi purpose stadium. The owner is Real Madrid Club de Fútbol.
This is a MUCH better use of land regardless of location, when you consider no stadium is used every single day or night. This allows higher use of one stadium. If you can use the stadium to host 5 different types of events, and if it costs 3 stadiums worth of funds to build...then this is the better idea.
Also, the land saved could be used for affordable housing, farming or manufacturing...in a proper timeline. Not this one. lol
Stadiums are mostly in cities where the real estate cost of the land is REALLY FUCKING HIGH, so even if it costs a lot of money to have these robotic mutli-function stadiums, it's FAR cheaper to do that than buy the land for 2 or 3 additional stadiums.
Remember also, it’s not just the stadium. It’s the stadium, parking, public transit, utility infrastructure, and a ton of nearby local businesses that all would end up needing to be duplicated, then only used a few times a week.
The cost of a robotic lawn-moving system is trivial compared to the income it brings in by letting the stadium have more utilization.
Real madrid is a private company. The stadium is in the city center, walkable distance for droves of people. New vennue outside the city, and they should drive there. They know what they are doing.
No idea how this is done in Spain, but often stadiums like these are owned by private companies who take the profit from these buildings built with mostly public money. The justification is that upkeep is expensive, and private companies can raise the prices high enough to keep them pockets lined, I mean keep them barely within legal minimum maintenance, without looking like government is asking too much from the citizens.
htapoicoS
You could turn this into a huge cannabis farm. And when the cops knock on your door - baam, tennis court
Solkanarmy
surely the field is also temporary
Isorikk
God I hate these AI voices so much
Irishtrailrunner
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1bW9nMTRvbG5ueTZlYjh5d3AzdzJhaXFyZm5raGM2anYwYnRscHR6cSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/LxPsfUhFxwRRC/200w.webp
Nusete
So now Real Madrid will be able to pay the 40 million it owes in taxes, right?
Sk3tz0
Here we just repaint the lines to match a Rugby field or soccer field and cover the grass during concerts.
cosonfused
meanwhile powerhouse.mp3 is blasted over the stadium speakers.
friendsofsandwiches
makes me think of Evangellion
MioTaalas
Yes, exactly!
DrKonrad
Players don't like when this happens during a game
Nathanyel
I was thinking, if these are just grass tiles, with real grass and soil that may shift because it's not connected, are there not potential rifts between the tiles that a foot could get stuck in?
AK90
Fick me I hate this dumb voice
thepicklebucket
Do not unmute
cevapi10upola
That's why tickets cost like 200 dolars. Fuck that
gnomedeplume
Ah yes, the Tokyo 3 Stadium
Richels
would make for a great CSI episode.
inimitableSoliton
Imagine if we used our engineering powers for things that really matter, and not just ways to make more money.
TungstenOrbital
Eat the rich
TheVampireDante
lonelyrangerofthedreams
Looks really affordable
GoldTeef4ErrBody
these guys dont know about the COVID lasagne
BubblesTheFish
We could have had healthcare.
nclu
WINNETWO
Explain how a soccer field in spain effects your healthcare please.
BubblesTheFish
America spends a lot of taxpayer money on sports stadiums and gives up the right to most of the profits. But also I was being more than a little facetious.
BostonTony
Spain does have excellent universal healthcare.
landofbob
I've made something similar in Minecraft.
fformulaa
Wow! No wonder they need those billions from all those countries! Amazing how much technology is to build a contraption like this! Yowza!
ShotgunFatality
But don't get anyone started on a local golf course! Imgur don't like them golf courses.
varonicaED
Probably cheaper to build 2 entire stadia!
magewareinc
But of course! All the most advanced technologies are focused on... (checks notes) helping billionaires like the average professional sports team owner maximize profits!
CallMeCourierSix
Wife and I talked about this one, and we did realize one thing: this is very likely cheaper, and more energy efficient, than having four different venues (soccer, basketball, tennis, and concerts).
This thing is used 4x more often than 4 separate buildings, so it's not sitting empty and just sucking up energy most of the time. Less land used too. So, while it definitely makes the rich richer, it's a better idea than what's in the USA, with major cities having 4, 5, or even 6 MASSIVE venues.
Cthulhuonabike
And yet homelessness exists. Wild.
iggylights
The Romans were doing shit like this in the colliseum. Not to this level of mechanization but pretty impressive without modern engines and materials. They could flood it to perform fight to the death naval battles. They had giant retractable canopies that could be unfurled to shade the arena from the direct sun. There was a massive tunnel system beneath and elevators and doors everywhere.
derekjohn
Could we not spend the money on something more worthwhile ? a hospital, a fully-equipped school ?
AutoFox
There's a stadium in Japan that does this, but the mechanism literally slides out the entire field at once. As far as I know, they only use that feature occasionally, and the "stored" field just becomes an outdoor venue most of the time.
cosonfused
i think some exist like that in the US too.
WellAckchually
Ok but can you fill it with water for mock naval battles?
MioTaalas
That mechanism and upkeep is so damn expensive, that what ever other uses the stadium has has to be paying THE BILLS on large scale...
So remember the prices of your concert tickets...
But damn that's neat!
YippeeKayakOB
Soccer 2.0: do this in the middle of the game
EnigmaticEmpress
Meanwhile, people starve and die without healthcare.
Eat the rich.
rossimus
I think it's ok to build impressive things for the sake of peoples enjoyment without inventing a zero sum false equivalency. Why not have impressive fears of engineering and also feed people and have healthcare? Why do you feel we should only have one or the other?
EnigmaticEmpress
Because this is pure opulence. Our impressive feats of engineering are in bridges and dams, high rises and planes. Not this.
rossimus
How is this "pure opulence?" It's objectively an incredible feat of engineering that many many people get to experience and enjoy.
YouRadicalizedMe
Yup
nefroye
Same principle applies to all sports and entertainment though - does it not? Right down to the local soccer field that kids play in, where they pay a groundskeeper (that could otherwise be providing food or healthcare) - does it not? Where do you draw the line? Do we cancel all sports and all entertainment just because they are luxuries and there are people that exist with little healthcare or food? There is tons of money spent on stadiums without these mechanics.
captainfakeypants
Only in the USA. Every other developed nation on earth has solved this very simple issue.
couchcaster
This is Spain so at least they have healthcare
Goldensands
Less than they would have if not for their sportsball obsession
myloveforyouislikeatruckberserker
I hear you, but just as a thought, who do you think populates these sporting venues? If we didn’t buy into it so much the rich wouldn’t do this. environmental recklessness apart, hard to do but for one second, I don’t think this is the core of the problem. This is creating jobs, it’s boosting the economy. I wish it was in the name of a worthier cause, but this isn’t the sick part IMO. But billionaires hoarding cash, through nefarious means, which damage the world and society, that’s the problem
EnigmaticEmpress
The problem is 'create jobs boost the economy' could be justification for basically any spending. Government decides to erect a giant gold plated statue of president strokeface? Well, that's jobs for the construction...
SayRamrod
and so many of these projects are funded with taxpayer money and profits not going to the taxpayer
Unfortunate500
Bread and circus games, bread and circus games.
TheAnswerWasAlwaysMoreLube
Light on the bread these days...
johnblood616
Those bread and circuses were free back then.
Vebrandsson
This seems insanely expensive to do compared to building separate venues for the different events unless it's somewhere where the space to have separate venues just doesn't exist. I see Madrid so I assume central Spain which is somewhere I've never visited so I don't know how precious space actually is in that region.
IliveIdyeIliveagain
Double decks. The problem solved
Evi1Gav
Outside north America, stadiums are built with transportation in mind, that isn't a car - in most major cities they'll have dedicated underground or tram stops in and around them. It's also a venue only used for at most 80 games in a season, which means it's mostly not used, so these sort of mechanisms allow the stadium to be used more frequently, and without needing a second building with more infrastructure for the public.
Nathanyel
Other than obviously political issues, this is what's holding us back. Sports "associations" being so rich they can throw this kind of money around.
huffnpuff72
Football stadiums can be underused in the off season. Ifnyouve got a hard court sport that runs a different season (eg aummer vs winterl, its probably worth it.
egoAristippos
That stadium is in the centre of the capital city well connected to public transport. There are about 30 games of football per year, de club that owned it also has a top basketball team, because the stadium is so central it is also popular for concerts.
I think it makes sense to have a multi purpose stadium.
The owner is Real Madrid Club de Fútbol.
southflhitnrun
This is a MUCH better use of land regardless of location, when you consider no stadium is used every single day or night. This allows higher use of one stadium. If you can use the stadium to host 5 different types of events, and if it costs 3 stadiums worth of funds to build...then this is the better idea.
Also, the land saved could be used for affordable housing, farming or manufacturing...in a proper timeline. Not this one. lol
jesuisgur
Everything around Madrid is pretty much dusty desert...
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
I think it's about keeping the grass healthy and happy, that the stadium can be used differently then is just a side effect.
captainfakeypants
Stadiums are mostly in cities where the real estate cost of the land is REALLY FUCKING HIGH, so even if it costs a lot of money to have these robotic mutli-function stadiums, it's FAR cheaper to do that than buy the land for 2 or 3 additional stadiums.
Tarmaccian
Remember also, it’s not just the stadium. It’s the stadium, parking, public transit, utility infrastructure, and a ton of nearby local businesses that all would end up needing to be duplicated, then only used a few times a week.
The cost of a robotic lawn-moving system is trivial compared to the income it brings in by letting the stadium have more utilization.
DrasticBastard
Do you really think that is more expensive than building a second venue?
BarryTheCyborg
People who own the stadium can't make as much then
onushka
The state, so our tax money, is paying the most for the ridicules sport stadiums
UserWithoutUsername
Real madrid is a private company. The stadium is in the city center, walkable distance for droves of people. New vennue outside the city, and they should drive there. They know what they are doing.
Felberin
No idea how this is done in Spain, but often stadiums like these are owned by private companies who take the profit from these buildings built with mostly public money. The justification is that upkeep is expensive, and private companies can raise the prices high enough to keep them pockets lined, I mean keep them barely within legal minimum maintenance, without looking like government is asking too much from the citizens.