New Stadium Details And Discussions

[SHaRD]

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.

 

[SHaRD]

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.

There's a massive stitch up between developers and planning officers in this country - they are all golf pals.

And councils won't challenge planner officers decisions because of the financial consequences of being taken to court.

Basically we (as developers) can effectively do whatever we want now. It's how this country ends up with so many terrible and inappropriate buildings

 

[Andy]

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

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.

 

[jambreck]

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.

The roof at Twickenham isn't made of glass. It's some kind of polycarbonate, I think.

A glass facade would be fine. Certainly no more grubby than most other cladding materials - transparent or otherwise - and probably easier to clean.

 

[acky99]

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.

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.
The calculations for the point load of each pile are done by the structural engineer, he then multiplies that calculation by 10!!
So the the total weight that each pile is eventually going to carry is one tenth of the total that the pile could carry.
There is no need to do a "test pile" as the piles have been calculated to carry much more than required.
The geotechnical report on the analysis of the soil will be used to determine the size, depth and steel that will be required.
Lastly, lets say for instance that there were "test piles", how would we put a point load on the pile using say 150 tonnes and how long do we leave them on test to see if they move, a week, a month or a year?? just does not make any sense.
Please let us know when you have found out more.

 

[worcestersauce]

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.

 

[jambreck]

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.

Right now, I'd settle for the club just telling us when they're going to tell us anything.

 

[SHaRD]

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 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

 

[Lilbaz]

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.

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?

 

[Hoops]

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.

 

[pook]

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.

It's all about perceptions, though, innit? I would say taking the capacity of their stadium into account for any purpose is greater evidence of a latent inferiority complex than the relative capacities. But maybe that's just me.

 

[spursfan77]

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.

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.

 

[Monkey boy]

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 love the irony of your username in relation to this post

 

[Spursidol]

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?

Yup you are correct the original design was 58,000 which was then reduced for 2 or 3 reasons (including the Kop I think) down to 56,250 - and its that one which has ben approved by Harrigey http://www.haringey.gov.uk/housing-...ration/northumberland-development-project#ndp .

However you may recall that after KSS were changed out that one of the posters on Skyscrapercity had an email dialogue with David Kearle (MD of KSS) who confirmed that they had altered the design to accomodate a 61,000 capacity - and to do that I'd expect them to have included consultancy on transport and all the other studies necessary to gain planning consent.

Now whilst KSS are no longer the architects, either that design is ready to go to planning or alternatively I'd have thought that Populous have been in situ for long enough to have worked up a design for an increased capacity - if that is on DL's agenda.

And it comes back to whether Populous' brief is purely to work on the interior (including perhaps increasing capacity) as was said at the time, or whether its a complete redesign as to how much time it might take to go through planning.

Given the betterment of transport links planned (including Moselle Way/High Street West) since the original 56,250 design was approved in 2010/2011, it seems to me that an increased capacity of 61, 000 but within the original design could go through quite quickly - providing all the consultancy stuff on transport etc has already been complete.

However for a complete redesign, it depends on how extensive the redesign is (the footprint sems much the same from the works we can see being carried out), how much Harringey want to help, and how widespread any public consultancy has to be as to how long it might take.

 

[Lighty64]

1. Stadium/ Northumberland Development Project

· Disabled access/ facilities

looking forwards to seeing the answers to this. by time it is complete and the way my old pins are heading i'm hoping they have plenty of parking space so I can visit at least once (and god it will be weird not seeing the old stadium)

 

[yankspurs]

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.

Alot of the stuff we already either know or can gather using info from other sources -

1. Stadium/ Northumberland Development Project
· Timings for CPO completion - Early June. Released as part of the financial report release
· Timescales for stadium build - cpo case delayed things. i'd guess move-in is now the 19/20 season
· Funding and finances - loans are readily available. found that out during court case. doubt they'd give up any sponsorship stuff yet
· Stadium design – what’s being built? probably going to say its all on the website as per the club line. doubtful they'll give up the 61k thing yet.
· Safe Standing areas - saw something on twitter about this from each PL club. cullen said something along the lines of they support it but have to wait for rulings from the fa
· Disabled access/ facilities - nothing yet that i've heard. maybe we'll hear something from the meeting
· Transport infrastructure including White Hart Lane station - Didnt one of the stations get planning approved recently or am i wrong?
· Ground share options and timings - Likely will say the same thing they did last time. Looking at all options. They'll wait a bit before dropping the bomb that we're moving to stadiumMK for a year.

You're right that at least the trust is able to ask questions, but its going to be the same old stuff from the club. They dont typically give up any substance in these meetings. Levy probably walks out of the room holding in laughter after every meeting.

If it was an open meeting where other supporters were actually allowed to attend, yes it would probably be out of order and pure craziness, but at least then Levy might actually answer to things that he otherwise gets a free pass on.

 

[philip]

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

3 year build was based on us not moving out. If we move out that should be speeded up

 

[jambreck]

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 think it quite likely that Spurs will seek new planning permission. The club only has one chance to get this right. Far better to incur another delay now than to regret building a stadium that we always knew could have been better and then being stuck with it for fifty years.

With a cooperative council and without too many drastic, material changes, could new planning consent not be gained within a matter of months rather than a year or more? If so, we could keep to whatever completion date the club has already targeted.

 

[spursfan77]

3 year build was based on us not moving out. If we move out that should be speeded up

I'm really in two minds about moving out. Obviously it all depends where, but if we can build it quicker then I'm 60:40 in favour of going somewhere else for a year, as long as it's in london.

 

[jambreck]

Timescales for stadium build - cpo case delayed things. i'd guess move-in is now the 19/20 season.

Won't take that long.

Completion will either be summer 2017 or summer 2018 - the latter being more likely now.