I just hope that, if it ends up with glass, all the materials are strong enough to survive in Tottenham
The thing I don't like about transparent materials is how quickly they turn yellow and start looking grubby. The roof at Twickenham for example.
I just hope that, if it ends up with glass, all the materials are strong enough to survive in Tottenham
If this is true surely it will need to go back to Haringey for planning permission?
How long could that set things back? A year perhaps? Seems also to be a bit risky in that it affords pressure groups the opportunity to submit more objections to the scheme.
That said, given how long ago the original plans were drawn up, I can see why they would want to update the design.
i'm the same Andy, and i asked what was involved in the test pile, they drill, take test samples away, they then drill out, insert a pile, this pile is done in an area where no piles will ever be they then exert a load on top of it and test it to destruction.What you are referring to is not a test pile but a bore hole, whereby they drill down using a 3/4 inch hollow drill and they then save the soil within the hollow drill in plastic tubes and send them off for analysis.
What I saw were piling drills, I have been on building sites for years and have never heard or seen a test pile. The analysis of the soil will determine the depth and breadth of the pile and how much point load each one can take, so there would be no reason to waste time and money doing a pile not to use it, as the structural engineer will calculate what the pile can take to a factor of 10.
So not to disregard what you are saying, but Edmonton on COYS have said that the piles in that area have been done, and I would tend to agree with him
The thing I don't like about transparent materials is how quickly they turn yellow and start looking grubby. The roof at Twickenham for example.
This is my last foray into this debate, 1, Depending on what size of pile, the concrete mixer is connected to the top of the borer and as the borer is pulled out, the concrete is sent down via the hollow section in the borer. 2, Then they push the reinforcing steel mesh down into the pile all the way to the bottom. 3, The concrete sets and 7-10 days later the send an electronic signal down the pile to check the integrity of the pile.i'm the same Andy, and i asked what was involved in the test pile, they drill, take test samples away, they then drill out, insert a pile, this pile is done in an area where no piles will ever be they then exert a load on top of it and test it to destruction.
i tagged edmonton in the post too, the test pile was done, and soil samples were sent to the geotechnical department. i'll see when i can find out more.
Don't want to put a damper on it but I wouldn't get to excited about the meeting tonight, the agenda would be put together by people attending, no doubt the development would be high on the Supporters trust list of wants but I don't suppose any new information will be forthcoming from the club, Hopefully we'll get something of interest but I doubt anything commercially sensitive, which is to say anything worth knowing.
I think we'll need to be patient a little bit longer yet.
Don't want to put a damper on it but I wouldn't get to excited about the meeting tonight, the agenda would be put together by people attending, no doubt the development would be high on the Supporters trust list of wants but I don't suppose any new information will be forthcoming from the club, Hopefully we'll get something of interest but I doubt anything commercially sensitive, which is to say anything worth knowing.
I think we'll need to be patient a little bit longer yet.
I haven't checked today, but I'm pretty sure the figure of 56,250 was mentioned in the title and main description of the original planning application - and then in the planning decision notice.
Whether or not a change in cladding would represent a 'minor amendment' to the existing planning consent, which could be decided on officers' delegated authority in a few weeks, would be a matter of judgment - and politics. In my experience, anything that meaningfully/materially changed the exterior appearance of a building of this size would be required to be the subject of a revised formal application.
If the capacity is to be changed, I would also expect that council to require an amended/updated transport study, health and safety report, perhaps acoustical report, etc.
To build a brand new stadium slightly smaller than your main rival would send out all the wrong messages IMO. Even though its potentially 3k smaller. It gives the impression that we are happy to be slightly worse...always. If I were in charge of the club I would make sure we get headline capacity that is bigger than Arsenal however small the margin. 61k at least IMO.
Don't want to put a damper on it but I wouldn't get to excited about the meeting tonight, the agenda would be put together by people attending, no doubt the development would be high on the Supporters trust list of wants but I don't suppose any new information will be forthcoming from the club, Hopefully we'll get something of interest but I doubt anything commercially sensitive, which is to say anything worth knowing.
I think we'll need to be patient a little bit longer yet.
The thing I don't like about transparent materials is how quickly they turn yellow and start looking grubby. The roof at Twickenham for example.
You are most probably right David (I have no idea really, so take pity). But wasn't the original design over 58k that was reduced to fit the kop?
The actual layout of the stadium design may not have to change to fit another few thousand seats (especially if they designed it from the beginning). Plans for a 56-58k stadium put in. But leave enough space between seats that if later they wanted to fit a few thousand extra it wouldn't be a problem?
I showed the rail seat design video before, where you can just move them along and fit in an extra 12% of seats in.
Yes police/transport/h&s may object. But it would it require new planning permission?
1. Stadium/ Northumberland Development Project
· Disabled access/ facilities
Alot of the stuff we already either know or can gather using info from other sources -You're probably right but at least the Trust get to ask some questions. If it was up to the club I suspect they'd be happy to keep us completely in the dark. We've got to take whatever answers they get out of the club. It's better than nothing.
I used to think that, but from memory there were a couple of interesting revelations (at that point in time) at the last one.
Looking at the agenda:
- We now know the timings for the CPO completion - early June
- The stadium build has always been 3 years - so June 15-summer 18
- We know from the court case that loans are readily available
- We might get a rough timescale for designs to be released, or information on the revised planning permission application
- They won't publically touch safe standing (though we may covertly be building the ground with functionality to convert)
- Disabled access I'm sure they will proudly champion their commitment to
- Transport won't change much from existing plans - the biggy now is waiting for Crossrail 2
- Ground sharing they will fudge, but realistically we all know it will be Milton Keynes for 16/17 and 17/18 seasons.
So IMO designs/revised planning timescales might be the one we'll get new info on
If this is true surely it will need to go back to Haringey for planning permission?
How long could that set things back? A year perhaps? Seems also to be a bit risky in that it affords pressure groups the opportunity to submit more objections to the scheme.
That said, given how long ago the original plans were drawn up, I can see why they would want to update the design.
3 year build was based on us not moving out. If we move out that should be speeded up
Timescales for stadium build - cpo case delayed things. i'd guess move-in is now the 19/20 season.