New Stadium Details And Discussions

[acky99]

The club might not get anything out of it, depends on the contract and whether the contractor took on the risk on the earthworks.

I'd be surprised though. The geotechnical data should have told them the ballast was there, so they'd have accounted for it in their risks and opportunities.

The 30m test borehole they would have done would have given them the geotechnical data, but the video later in the thread confirms what I was told on site. Its all well and good having the materials on site, but it restricts the works.

 

[Ionman34]

The 30m test borehole they would have done would have given them the geotechnical data, but the video later in the thread confirms what I was told on site. Its all well and good having the materials on site, but it restricts the works.

Agreed, but at tender the contractor would, or should, have weighed the time risk against the material gain.

It's a sellers market at the moment, so I'm sure the contractor won't be losing out.

 

[worcestersauce]

Thought that since our rake was more steep and we had seats closer to the pitch our footprint would be smaller than the emirates. I understand that the kop would lose a few but still.

Bazza tried to explian it to me over on ssc but still not sure i get it.

Anyway, since the roof is one piece can it be removed later on to add more tiers? I know the architects or levy said it wasn't future proofed for increase capacity, but niether was city's.

Perhaps some of our footprint covers the covered area at the south end which although is part of the stadium isn't part of the stands and other facilities around the pitch.

 

[newbie]

Perhaps some of our footprint covers the covered area at the south end which although is part of the stadium isn't part of the stands and other facilities around the pitch.

The foot print my be bigger due to corporate facilities / facilities in the stadium.

No way we have not thought about a design which we can add more seats

 

[acky99]

Agreed, but at tender the contractor would, or should, have weighed the time risk against the material gain.

It's a sellers market at the moment, so I'm sure the contractor won't be losing out.

Again agreed, but as the guy told me on site"the club are HOPING to be in the stadium for 2019 that is a full year on from what the club have indicated thus far. So it does look like 2 years away from WHL with us kicking off in 2019/2020 season in new stadium.

 

[acky99]

Agreed, but at tender the contractor would, or should, have weighed the time risk against the material gain.

It's a sellers market at the moment, so I'm sure the contractor won't be losing out.

Again agreed, but as the guy told me on site"the club are HOPING to be in the stadium for 2019 that is a full year on from what the club have indicated thus far. So it does look like 2 years away from WHL with us kicking off in 2019/2020 season in new stadium.

 

[brisbanespur]

Its hard to imagine it taking another 4 years to finish it. even a 2 step process,

 

[Lilbaz]

Its hard to imagine it taking another 4 years to finish it. even a 2 step process,

Maybe all the work finished (including the flats)?

 

[Phischy]

The foot print my be bigger due to corporate facilities / facilities in the stadium.

No way we have not thought about a design which we can add more seats

We haven't future-proofed, I know this for sure. Of course, on the face of it, it is logical to do so. However, there are a few reasons we haven't:

1. The most obvious is the stadium footprint. Like most stadiums in London we have a limited amount of space to work with. There is a parcel of land which we have managed to buy up, but around that there isn't much room, we've got a school, a main road and a set of brand new buildings at each end which are absolutely necessary to make this development possible financially. It simply can't fit more people.

2. Future-proofing isn't necessarily more expensive in itself, it's just about making some design decisions, however, in reality it normally is. This it for two reasons, the first is you immediately place restrictions on yourself. If you are future-proofing a building, you're effectively ruling out elements which either aren't easily modified, expensive to modify in future or restrictive to future development. This means the enabling buildings wouldn't have been possible at the highest level, but other cost effective elements like the roof would have to be totally changed to something more 'traditional'. The kop stand might not have been possible as it's a lightweight structure and therefore the retractable pitch might then have to go. All of these things are likely to have needed a much more expensive design and much more complex engineering to achieve if you think about the future ahead of the now.

3. Design restrictions visually. The stadium may have needed a more simple or less elegant design if one is thinking about how we might add another tier in future.

4. Is it necessary in the short or even medium term? Football has probably reached critical mass in this country. Supporters can't pay a huge amount more, not many more people could be interested and it's very hard to break the status quo in terms of the size of a team with the structure and money in the game now. With the number of clubs in London are we ever likely to challenge the likes of Manchester United for attendance?

5. Most things are cyclical. Football has gone through spells of being unpopular and if we think now it is close to peaking that could happen in the next 20-40 years. Do we really want an enormous half empty stadium?

6. If football does become an even bigger money maker and in 20 years time we need to expand again, we will move. No doubt about it, if we get even richer and need even more room, we'll have the money to either deal with what we've got and expand it, or we'll move.

People may agree with some, but not all of the above. But the simple fact is, why spend extra money now allowing the stadium to be expanded in future when there's no room to expand into and no guarantee we will ever need to do it.

What we have built into the plan is the ability to convert part of the south stand into safe standing, but I believe that only has the potential to add about 4,000 people to the headline capacity.

 

[Lilbaz]

We haven't future-proofed, I know this for sure. Of course, on the face of it, it is logical to do so. However, there are a few reasons we haven't:

1. The most obvious is the stadium footprint. Like most stadiums in London we have a limited amount of space to work with. There is a parcel of land which we have managed to buy up, but around that there isn't much room, we've got a school, a main road and a set of brand new buildings at each end which are absolutely necessary to make this development possible financially. It simply can't fit more people.

2. Future-proofing isn't necessarily more expensive in itself, it's just about making some design decisions, however, in reality it normally is. This it for two reasons, the first is you immediately place restrictions on yourself. If you are future-proofing a building, you're effectively ruling out elements which either aren't easily modified, expensive to modify in future or restrictive to future development. This means the enabling buildings wouldn't have been possible at the highest level, but other cost effective elements like the roof would have to be totally changed to something more 'traditional'. The kop stand might not have been possible as it's a lightweight structure and therefore the retractable pitch might then have to go. All of these things are likely to have needed a much more expensive design and much more complex engineering to achieve if you think about the future ahead of the now.

3. Design restrictions visually. The stadium may have needed a more simple or less elegant design if one is thinking about how we might add another tier in future.

4. Is it necessary in the short or even medium term? Football has probably reached critical mass in this country. Supporters can't pay a huge amount more, not many more people could be interested and it's very hard to break the status quo in terms of the size of a team with the structure and money in the game now. With the number of clubs in London are we ever likely to challenge the likes of Manchester United for attendance?

5. Most things are cyclical. Football has gone through spells of being unpopular and if we think now it is close to peaking that could happen in the next 20-40 years. Do we really want an enormous half empty stadium?

6. If football does become an even bigger money maker and in 20 years time we need to expand again, we will move. No doubt about it, if we get even richer and need even more room, we'll have the money to either deal with what we've got and expand it, or we'll move.

People may agree with some, but not all of the above. But the simple fact is, why spend extra money now allowing the stadium to be expanded in future when there's no room to expand into and no guarantee we will ever need to do it.

What we have built into the plan is the ability to convert part of the south stand into safe standing, but I believe that only has the potential to add about 4,000 people to the headline capacity.

I agree with most of that. But was just thinking that the bernabau has a similar footprint to the emirates or our new one.

 

[longtimespur]

I can't remember what the design is called but are we not using the seating that can be moved/removed ( for the future, possible, standing areas) and therefore be able to squeeze more seats into the new frameworks if required?

 

[Phischy]

I agree with most of that. But was just thinking that the bernabau has a similar footprint to the emirates or our new one.

I think that's true, however, there are considerations like transport and things that are difficult for us. Also, the age of a stadium matters. If it existed before UEFA rules about things like distance to pitch or sightlines, you have more options. For us, we are building within the current framework and we have UK health and safety to abide by, which really means we have more constraints. We are also trying to build a stadium that no one will leave disappointed, because they were sat too far from the action or had something in the way. I totally agree with your point, but I just don't think anyone, particularly in this country, could build a Bernabeu now, because it just wouldn't pass muster on so many rules and regs.

 

[Phischy]

I can't remember what the design is called but are we not using the seating that can be moved/removed ( for the future, possible, standing areas) and therefore be able to squeeze more seats into the new frameworks if required?

We are, but it is only one section of the south stand that is being built with this in mind.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think that's true, however, there are considerations like transport and things that are difficult for us. Also, the age of a stadium matters. If it existed before UEFA rules about things like distance to pitch or sightlines, you have more options. For us, we are building within the current framework and we have UK health and safety to abide by, which really means we have more constraints. We are also trying to build a stadium that no one will leave disappointed, because they were sat too far from the action or had something in the way. I totally agree with your point, but I just don't think anyone, particularly in this country, could build a Bernabeu now, because it just wouldn't pass muster on so many rules and regs.

Agree.

Just a sidenote, transport will be eased when cross rail 2 puts a station at northumberland park in the next decade or so.

 

[longtimespur]

We are, but it is only one section of the south stand that is being built with this in mind.

Why can't we put this same seating system all round the ground to cater for bigger crowds when we return to the top table. Is the cost of this type of seating prohibitive?
Seems to me that this is a good way of future proofing, by having seats that can be moved closer together to allow for additional seating when bigger crowds are the norm again.

 

[Lilbaz]

Why can't we put this same seating system all round the ground to cater for bigger crowds when we return to the top table. Is the cost of this type of seating prohibitive?
Seems to me that this is a good way of future proofing, by having seats that can be moved closer together to allow for additional seating when bigger crowds are the norm again.

Cant remeber what they are called, but they are seats on a rail (not rail seats). I posted a video a while back, they have 6 seats which can slide closer together to fit 7. So increase capacity from 60 to 70k within hours.

 

[Lilbaz]

Perhaps some of our footprint covers the covered area at the south end which although is part of the stadium isn't part of the stands and other facilities around the pitch.

Got to the bottom of it on ssc (can't link phone) but the kop chops out a lot of seats while also being massive. The other 3 stands look to be more intimidating and dense.

 

[Phischy]

Cant remeber what they are called, but they are seats on a rail (not rail seats). I posted a video a while back, they have 6 seats which can slide closer together to fit 7. So increase capacity from 60 to 70k within hours.

I think there was an area which is earmarked for safe standing. With regard to seating type to be used and possibility of changing, I don't know. Sounds like a good plan, but at the same time, that would compromise the increased amount of space each spectator is supposed to be getting in the new stadium. I guess when safe standing comes along those considerations will be less, but only in those areas designated for standing.

At this stage we are getting down to whether it's ok to compromise the spectator experience in order to squeeze more in. No doubt one day that may become a possibility.

 

[Spursidol]

We haven't future-proofed, I know this for sure. Of course, on the face of it, it is logical to do so. However, there are a few reasons we haven't:

1. The most obvious is the stadium footprint. Like most stadiums in London we have a limited amount of space to work with. There is a parcel of land which we have managed to buy up, but around that there isn't much room, we've got a school, a main road and a set of brand new buildings at each end which are absolutely necessary to make this development possible financially. It simply can't fit more people.

2. Future-proofing isn't necessarily more expensive in itself, it's just about making some design decisions, however, in reality it normally is. This it for two reasons, the first is you immediately place restrictions on yourself. If you are future-proofing a building, you're effectively ruling out elements which either aren't easily modified, expensive to modify in future or restrictive to future development. This means the enabling buildings wouldn't have been possible at the highest level, but other cost effective elements like the roof would have to be totally changed to something more 'traditional'. The kop stand might not have been possible as it's a lightweight structure and therefore the retractable pitch might then have to go. All of these things are likely to have needed a much more expensive design and much more complex engineering to achieve if you think about the future ahead of the now.

3. Design restrictions visually. The stadium may have needed a more simple or less elegant design if one is thinking about how we might add another tier in future.

4. Is it necessary in the short or even medium term? Football has probably reached critical mass in this country. Supporters can't pay a huge amount more, not many more people could be interested and it's very hard to break the status quo in terms of the size of a team with the structure and money in the game now. With the number of clubs in London are we ever likely to challenge the likes of Manchester United for attendance?

5. Most things are cyclical. Football has gone through spells of being unpopular and if we think now it is close to peaking that could happen in the next 20-40 years. Do we really want an enormous half empty stadium?

6. If football does become an even bigger money maker and in 20 years time we need to expand again, we will move. No doubt about it, if we get even richer and need even more room, we'll have the money to either deal with what we've got and expand it, or we'll move.

People may agree with some, but not all of the above. But the simple fact is, why spend extra money now allowing the stadium to be expanded in future when there's no room to expand into and no guarantee we will ever need to do it.

What we have built into the plan is the ability to convert part of the south stand into safe standing, but I believe that only has the potential to add about 4,000 people to the headline capacity.

Not sure what you mean by 'future proofing' - if you mean getting a bigger a bigger capacity :

1. The bowl design (which almost all modern stadiums use) is pretty much impossible to expand, so unless we've designed it to add a few extra rows of seats at the top (unlikely) we will only be able to tweak the seats around to slightly increase capacity. The height approved for the stadium was as much as the planners would tolerate - and maybe why we are building a large basement now. The old style 'half barn' stands in older designed stadiums were by contrast (ironically) very easy to expand

Of course going into safe standing increases capacity - but I guess people will expect smaller ticket prices so whilst there is a bigger crown for each game there may not be much extra money going to club to fund the changes, But I'm sure they'll do it if legislation is changed

2. Transport links has been a huge constraint even getting to the original stadium approval in 2010 - all the signs are that even with more recent improvements being put in place (Moselle Square acting as a safe and speedy way to exit the stadium, improvements to rail services etc) its still a constraint on any form of expansion.

 

[worcestersauce]

Perhaps capacity can be expanded if at some time in future any safe standing need not be restricted to one person standing per seat, perhaps 4:3 would suffice.
I'm not saying this has been considered just suggesting that it ought to be.