I noticed it’s not unusual for premiere league teams to play in stadiums that are 80-100 years old. Here in the US a stadium that is 40 years old is very old, most NFL stadiums are 30 years old or less.
(I realize that many of these old stadiums have been renovated more than once. )
I suppose that UK teams don’t want to spend the money on a brand new stadium? Here in the US local cities/counties can build the stadiums or at least pay for part of the cost.
I am guessing the stadiums are now largely surrounded by other stuff. To build a new stadium they would either have to find a huge area of land in the city to build the new one (not easy without going far out of the city) or tear down the old stadium and build a new one in its place leaving that team unable to play for years while that took place.
As long as the structure is sound likely they can just keep upgrading the facilities to modern standards and keep it going.
Soldier Field in Chicago was torn down and rebuilt a few years back. For that year the Bears had to play at Univ. of Illinois which is 2 hours south of Chicago.
In college Stanford tore down and rebuilt their stadium in 9 months. They did it by working 16 hour days so they did not have to play in another stadium.
Britain is a much more crowded place than the US. That means urban land values are typically much higher, so the cost of building a entirely new stadium is prohibitive (since you need to buy a whole new parcel of land to build it on). You could knock the old one down first, but that takes twice as long.
Much, much cheaper just to keep refurbishing old stadia.
Also, the 1990 Taylor Report (which followed from the Hillsborough distaster) meant that just about every major stadium underwent a huge refurbishment around 1990, because all standing-room terraces had to be replaced with seats. That means at least a few stadiums which would otherwise have been demolished got an extra 10, 20 or 30 years.
Public funding of stadia in the UK is pretty rare, to the best of my knowledge, unless it’s for things like the World Cup or Olympics.
ETA: I see some of this has already been addressed.
Maybe there are fewer wealthy/corporate customers for luxury boxes who have the political pull, as well as the money, to get local governments to pay for replacements with all the accoutrements they desire.
Most pre-luxury-box-era American facilities get replaced because they’re therefore “economically obsolete” in those terms:rolleyes:, not because they’re actually deteriorated beyond ready repair.
Teams in the UK also don’t have strong threats to move if they don’t get a new stadium.
As someone who lived near Oxford United’s old ground when they were preparing to break ground for the Kessam Stadium–I’d say also there’s a greater sense of nostalgia for the old grounds. At least in Headington there never seemed to be much of a groundswell for a new stadium. Even if it had been built next door to the old one, there still would have been complaints…“Yeah, the place is old, falling apart, smells like urine and has racist graffiti on it…but it’s where the U’s play damnit!”
Yeah, lots of stuff is older in Britain. My Uncle’s house is from 1776.
To me there are 2 kinds of old buildings - old and nice and old and a dump. I don’t mind going to old places that are maintained/upgraded but I don’t want to go to a dump that is falling apart.