New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Bulletspur]

Chris Cowlin update.

If you look at the new shop between 8.20 and 8.50, you can already see rust seeping through the paint at the joints towards the roof

 

[JollyHappy]

I see the club want us to make sure details are upto date for ticket announcements for the New Stadium. I could get exciting soon! I wonder how they will allocate first choice to season ticket holders?

 

[Saoirse]

I see the club want us to make sure details are upto date for ticket announcements for the New Stadium. I could get exciting soon! I wonder how they will allocate first choice to season ticket holders?

Hopefully loyalty points - make sure those who travel away (generally the noisiest) get their seats nearish the front in the single-tier end.

 

[Hoopspur]

The stadium, to my knowledge, hadn't been designed with a significant capacity increase in mind.

There is the possibility of changing the seating configuration and using smaller seats to increase capacity (at the cost of comfort) and an area of the south stand will be able to have rail seating for safe standing, which could add a few thousand.

However, the stadium already uses the maximum available footprint and is surrounded by homes Lilywhite House and roads. The nature of the roof means that there cannot be one side higher than another (like, say, Liverpool) as it is a tension ring and frankly I don't think the club envisage a scenario where we can reasonably expect 70k people to the bar majority of home games.

The realistic expectation is, unless there is some kind of major fundamental design rethink in the future, this configuration is fairly permanent and we'll need to move if we ever truly need something substantially bigger.

The term 'future proof' was used in the selling process?

 

[Phischy]

The term 'future proof' was used in the selling process?

Indeed, but that was in relation to things like safe standing. Significant future capacity increases (the type that require building works) are virtually impossible on this site with this stadium which is reflected in some of the design choices that have been made. For example, they simply wouldn't have gone for this roof of they had future single tier expansions in mind.

 

[Hoopspur]

Indeed, but that was in relation to things like safe standing. Significant future capacity increases (the type that require building works) are virtually impossible on this site with this stadium which is reflected in some of the design choices that have been made. For example, they simply wouldn't have gone for this roof of they had future single tier expansions in mind.

Maybe, maybe not. We do seem to have incorporated the sweeping curved design favoured by many (most) new stadia which meens we could potentially fill in these spaces? In my opinion though it would appear very negligent to not be able to expand the new stadium somehow, and especially considering that particular phrase used in the marketing. Granted it's totally unlikely, but who actually knows?

 

[spursfan77]

I see the club want us to make sure details are upto date for ticket announcements for the New Stadium. I could get exciting soon! I wonder how they will allocate first choice to season ticket holders?

I've a feeling it will be to do with multi year season ticket packages. They've gone quiet on that recently.

 

[Achap]

Maybe, maybe not. We do seem to have incorporated the sweeping curved design favoured by many (most) new stadia which meens we could potentially fill in these spaces? In my opinion though it would appear very negligent to not be able to expand the new stadium somehow, and especially considering that particular phrase used in the marketing. Granted it's totally unlikely, but who actually knows?

I am not sure that I understand what is “very negligent” about assessing the real-estate available, designing a stadium with the maximum possible number of seats to fit that real-estate, and then building it.

 

[Hoopspur]

I am not sure that I understand what is “very negligent” about assessing the real-estate available, designing a stadium with the maximum possible number of seats to fit that real-estate, and then building it.

My understanding of the building constraints are obviously as bad as my English. This was in relation to that phrase 'future proof'. Yes it would be negligent if the conversation had not at least been had then? I'm not an engineer also so therefore don't know if a bigger stadium could have been built if needed within that footprint. I suspect the conversation has at least been had though.

 

[sherbornespurs]

Maybe, maybe not. We do seem to have incorporated the sweeping curved design favoured by many (most) new stadia which meens we could potentially fill in these spaces? In my opinion though it would appear very negligent to not be able to expand the new stadium somehow, and especially considering that particular phrase used in the marketing. Granted it's totally unlikely, but who actually knows?

I've been struggling for some time to quite understand this predilection for the 'wavy' curve in current(ish) stadium design.

I can't work out whether it's merely a design 'feature', or to let more natural light in to counter the height of new stadiums or if it's something to do with supporting the overall structure.

Being old-school 'Archibald-Leitch', if it's just a design 'feature' (**) then I'm afraid I'd prefer (extra) seats up to the roof in all 4 stands - or certainly the capability to do so in the future. Happy to be enlightened, however.

**
I understand Archibald Leitch incorporated design features into his stadiums, but not, to my knowledge, to the effect of reducing overall capacity (apart from at Craven Cottage).

 

[SpunkyBackpack]

Maybe, maybe not. We do seem to have incorporated the sweeping curved design favoured by many (most) new stadia which meens we could potentially fill in these spaces? In my opinion though it would appear very negligent to not be able to expand the new stadium somehow, and especially considering that particular phrase used in the marketing. Granted it's totally unlikely, but who actually knows?

I've been struggling for some time to quite understand this predilection for the 'wavy' curve in current(ish) stadium design.

I can't work out whether it's merely a design 'feature', or to let more natural light in to counter the height of new stadiums or if it's something to do with supporting the overall structure.

Being old-school 'Archibald-Leitch', if it's just a design 'feature' (**) then I'm afraid I'd prefer (extra) seats up to the roof in all 4 stands - or certainly the capability to do so in the future. Happy to be enlightened, however.

**
I understand Archibald Leitch incorporated design features into his stadiums, but not, to my knowledge, to the effect of reducing overall capacity (apart from at Craven Cottage).

We cant fill in those spaces, the spaces are there because they have to be because of maths, or physics i don't know, its just not possible to fill those spaces with seats. If it were possible every modern stadium would do so, its not an aesthetic choice.

Think of it like we built the seats all-around uniformly but were able to put in extras in the middle of the stands because of the curve and angle, its not a gap in the corners, its the other way around, extra in the middles.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

The reason for the lower corners is twofold.

1) The outer circumference of the building would be bigger to fit the additional seats in.
2) To get Fifa/UEFA top class recognition the average distance to the pitch has to be below a certain amount. Most upper corners would fall foul of this if it was the same height all around.

 

[sherbornespurs]

The reason for the lower corners is twofold.

1) The outer circumference of the building would be bigger to fit the additional seats in.
2) To get Fifa/UEFA top class recognition the average distance to the pitch has to be below a certain amount. Most upper corners would fall foul of this if it was the same height all around.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this then, it's basically the effect of the curvature at each of the corners that accounts for the dip, the wave effect and, ergo, no seats?

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

Just to make sure I'm clear on this then, it's basically the effect of the curvature at each of the corners that accounts for the dip, the wave effect and, ergo, no seats?

Think about the diagonal angle of the tiers. The further up they go the further out they go. The further out they go the further out the outside goes.
To have it equal height all the way around you end up with a more rectangular shaped outer stadium.
Space at the site is pretty sparse so it was never going to do that.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I've been struggling for some time to quite understand this predilection for the 'wavy' curve in current(ish) stadium design.

I can't work out whether it's merely a design 'feature', or to let more natural light in to counter the height of new stadiums or if it's something to do with supporting the overall structure.

Being old-school 'Archibald-Leitch', if it's just a design 'feature' (**) then I'm afraid I'd prefer (extra) seats up to the roof in all 4 stands - or certainly the capability to do so in the future. Happy to be enlightened, however.

**
I understand Archibald Leitch incorporated design features into his stadiums, but not, to my knowledge, to the effect of reducing overall capacity (apart from at Craven Cottage).

We cant fill in those spaces, the spaces are there because they have to be because of maths, or physics i don't know, its just not possible to fill those spaces with seats. If it were possible every modern stadium would do so, its not an aesthetic choice.

Think of it like we built the seats all-around uniformly but were able to put in extras in the middle of the stands because of the curve and angle, its not a gap in the corners, its the other way around, extra in the middles.

The maximum capacity of the stadium has never been dictated by the available space for seats, despite the restricted site area. The club owns a lot of land.

The maximum capacity has been dictated by the number of people that can safely be evacuated from the neighbourhood after the match: by transport considerations.

The club refused for years to pursue a new stadium in earnest, because the transport and planning authorities insisted that it would require a new underground station, which was prohibitively expensive and made the project (in those days) non-viable. The new stadium properly took off, as a realistic idea, after Mayor Livingstone revived and expanded London's bus service, which has doubled or even trebled the number and capacity of buses on the roads, increased the speed at which they can fill and empty and provided bus lanes for them to circumvent the traffic jams.

I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but not much: when the club's transport consultants worked out that we could build a 56k stadium whilst relying on the buses and the existing tube stations, we applied for planning consent for a 56k stadium. When the bus service improved even further and the club agreed to pay for local bus improvements as part of the S.106 Agreement, the transport consultants came up with a justification for accommodating 61k. And like magic, Populous found space for an extra 5k spectators. It has little to do with where they can put the seats.

On the more general point of future-proofing, no one seems to have mentioned (in the last page or two) the most obvious way we can increase capacity (if we can fulfil the transport requirements), which is to turn the kop into a safe standing area.

 

[Speedy]

The maximum capacity of the stadium has never been dictated by the available space for seats, despite the restricted site area. The club owns a lot of land.

The maximum capacity has been dictated by the number of people that can safely be evacuated from the neighbourhood after the match: by transport considerations.

The club refused for years to pursue a new stadium in earnest, because the transport and planning authorities insisted that it would require a new underground station, which was prohibitively expensive and made the project (in those days) non-viable. The new stadium properly took off, as a realistic idea, after Mayor Livingstone revived and expanded London's bus service, which has doubled or even trebled the number and capacity of buses on the roads, increased the speed at which they can fill and empty and provided bus lanes for them to circumvent the traffic jams.

I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but not much: when the club's transport consultants worked out that we could build a 56k stadium whilst relying on the buses and the existing tube stations, we applied for planning consent for a 56k stadium. When the bus service improved even further and the club agreed to pay for local bus improvements as part of the S.106 Agreement, the transport consultants came up with a justification for accommodating 61k. And like magic, Populous found space for an extra 5k spectators. It has little to do with where they can put the seats.

On the more general point of future-proofing, no one seems to have mentioned (in the last page or two) the most obvious way we can increase capacity (if we can fulfil the transport requirements), which is to turn the kop into a safe standing area.

I agree the capacity may be limited by transport considerations but the shape itself?

 

[Lilbaz]

The maximum capacity of the stadium has never been dictated by the available space for seats, despite the restricted site area. The club owns a lot of land.

The maximum capacity has been dictated by the number of people that can safely be evacuated from the neighbourhood after the match: by transport considerations.

The club refused for years to pursue a new stadium in earnest, because the transport and planning authorities insisted that it would require a new underground station, which was prohibitively expensive and made the project (in those days) non-viable. The new stadium properly took off, as a realistic idea, after Mayor Livingstone revived and expanded London's bus service, which has doubled or even trebled the number and capacity of buses on the roads, increased the speed at which they can fill and empty and provided bus lanes for them to circumvent the traffic jams.

I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but not much: when the club's transport consultants worked out that we could build a 56k stadium whilst relying on the buses and the existing tube stations, we applied for planning consent for a 56k stadium. When the bus service improved even further and the club agreed to pay for local bus improvements as part of the S.106 Agreement, the transport consultants came up with a justification for accommodating 61k. And like magic, Populous found space for an extra 5k spectators. It has little to do with where they can put the seats.

On the more general point of future-proofing, no one seems to have mentioned (in the last page or two) the most obvious way we can increase capacity (if we can fulfil the transport requirements), which is to turn the kop into a safe standing area.

Safe standing could bring us up to 67k i think.
Tottenham hale becoming a transport hub and cross rail 2 stopping at northumberland park might help.

At the end of the day i don't think we need any more seats.

 

[Goldman]

Safe standing could bring us up to 67k i think.
Tottenham hale becoming a transport hub and cross rail 2 stopping at northumberland park might help.

At the end of the day i don't think we need any more seats.

Yep ^

Bar united, teams with a capacity over 60k (scum & City) have consistently failed to fill it apart from the big games. I don't think an increase in capacity would be required.

 

[Buggsy61]

Edward's weekly time lapse update.
Looks like they have done a lot on the new East Stand last week, so we can probably expect them to bring it up to the new South Stand pretty soon.
I am going to feel like a 4 year old kid on Christmas day when we finally get in there. Really not enjoying the Wembley experience, but needs must!.

 

[Buggsy61]

The maximum capacity of the stadium has never been dictated by the available space for seats, despite the restricted site area. The club owns a lot of land.

The maximum capacity has been dictated by the number of people that can safely be evacuated from the neighbourhood after the match: by transport considerations.

The club refused for years to pursue a new stadium in earnest, because the transport and planning authorities insisted that it would require a new underground station, which was prohibitively expensive and made the project (in those days) non-viable. The new stadium properly took off, as a realistic idea, after Mayor Livingstone revived and expanded London's bus service, which has doubled or even trebled the number and capacity of buses on the roads, increased the speed at which they can fill and empty and provided bus lanes for them to circumvent the traffic jams.

I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but not much: when the club's transport consultants worked out that we could build a 56k stadium whilst relying on the buses and the existing tube stations, we applied for planning consent for a 56k stadium. When the bus service improved even further and the club agreed to pay for local bus improvements as part of the S.106 Agreement, the transport consultants came up with a justification for accommodating 61k. And like magic, Populous found space for an extra 5k spectators. It has little to do with where they can put the seats.

On the more general point of future-proofing, no one seems to have mentioned (in the last page or two) the most obvious way we can increase capacity (if we can fulfil the transport requirements), which is to turn the kop into a safe standing area.

Someone told me (vague I know!) that the Victoria Line actually runs under Northumberland Park on the way to Tottenham Hale. Any idea if this is true?.
If we do experience congestion problems with the new stadium it might put pressure on the authorities to put an new tube station in there, but I guess that's not an easy project and would cause a lot of disruption i.e not the same as just extending a line out.