Well, from what we know, the increase in capacity from 56,250 to 63,000 would entail not so much an upward adjustment (minor modifications here and there) as a major redesign. Is that what the club indicated in the Trust meeting and hinted at in the latest planning communication? Not really. I'm sceptical.
There hasn't been any indication from the club yet as to how big or small the changes are likely to be. The Haringey document which refers to a further planning submission from Spurs only specifies "material" changes to the stadium - and that could mean any number of things.
I don't, however, think that a more substantial redesign is so very unlikely. A large proportion of major construction projects, be they stadiums or otherwise, pass through a series of iterations before arriving at the final design.
The most recent design that we have all seen was published in October 2009. That's a fair while ago. In the intervening two and a half years, quite a lot has happened - most pertinently, IMO:
1. The failed Olympic stadium bid - important because it took the architects back to the drawing board anyway.
2. Spurs' return to elite status (however much we appear to be fucking that up currently!) - important because it might have made the club more acutely aware of potential demand.
3. The introduction of FFP rules - important because it might have brought the need to maximize every revenue stream more sharply into focus.
For me, the crucial consideration in this whole matter is the limited available footprint and the fact that, once built, it simply won't be practical or economical to increase the capacity of the new stadium. Far cheaper to make any necessary changes now - at the drawing board stage.
So while I have no idea whether this mooted 63K figure is accurate, I see no reason why it couldn't be.
Not convinced, Jim.
It's odd that the 63k figure should emerge as so-called ITK just as we are in our worst run of form for quite some period. You'd have thought our current travails would give those who want an increased capacity some pause for thought. As I've said before, the FFP regs do not make a material difference to decision-making in this regard. The imperative has
always been to maximise every possible revenue stream. The FFP regs have not changed that aim in any way.
As for the failed Stratford bid, the club and the architects would have considered a bigger (60k) capacity because of corporate business (proximity of the City and Canary Wharf), the more 'touristic' nature of the location, its ostensibly better transport connections, and the bigger room to breathe on the Olympic site. The site-specific mock-up render we saw was a back-of-the-envelope thing if ever there was one. I can't imagine much thought went into it, especially as the club were becoming rapidly aware that the Stratford bid would fail. Hence I don't believe something mocked-up for the particular nature of the Olympic site would have had any influence on any rethink of the NDP design.
A more likely reason for the club considering capacity change is the effect of the riots in mobilising governmental interest in N17. This has brought promises of money and a more flexible approach to the planning regulations and transport issues.
But, hey, in the vacuum of information there's nothing wrong with a bit of idle speculation!
If there is to be a
significant redesign, the club must give serious consideration to measures that would further increase atmosphere and crowd noise. Somehow we should be aiming for seats closer to the action, a steeper rake in the lower tier and higher stands. They musn't abandon the single tier South Stand: that's a major attraction in 'brand', aesthetics and in the mobilisation of atmosphere. If there are to be more corporate or 'premium' seats, a creative solution must be found
without losing the single tier stand. I'd also agree with the poster who would like to see the club give consideration to a section (the lower part of the South Stand, I suppose) with convertible seating should standing areas ever be allowed again in English football. There are minor indications of a softening attitude and we should be at the forefront of such developments.
There is a case, as I've argued before, for a more
flexible overall design that allows a capacity increase from the 56,250 design should demand increase at a later stage.