daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Proposed



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 23rd, 2012, 04:12 PM   #3941
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by superted4 View Post
No it's not from him, it's from another poster who said he was talking to someone involved in the design process at the QPR match
Do you know whether he is a regular and reliable poster on COYS, rather than just another bullshitter (there are, after all, plenty of those on COYS!)? If he is kosher, is he confident of the reliability of this "someone" he was talking to at the QPR game?

Finally (sorry to be so demanding!), did he post any detail as to how Spurs are proposing to increase the capacity?
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old April 23rd, 2012, 05:53 PM   #3942
superted4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Do you know whether he is a regular and reliable poster on COYS, rather than just another bullshitter (there are, after all, plenty of those on COYS!)? If he is kosher, is he confident of the reliability of this "someone" he was talking to at the QPR game?

Finally (sorry to be so demanding!), did he post any detail as to how Spurs are proposing to increase the capacity?
No info on how the increase would take place. Can't say anything about the validity of the info. The guy who posts it regularly posts pictures of the demolition in and around whl. He also said in another post about the training ground and how this said person has seen it. I'll try and find the posts and cut and copy them
superted4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2012, 06:00 PM   #3943
superted4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 4

First post,

'One of my very few highlights from yesterday's game, was talking to someone who is working on the stadium and training centre projects.

Latest spec for the stadium is 63,000'

Second post


'The guy I was speaking to was out at the new training last week (I saw a couple of pics) and said it will be ready in three months. It has cost roughly around £25 - 30 million, which included us importing trees from Italy.
He was saying how impressive the whole thing is - the outside pitches are the same quality as WHL, and the 3/4 size pitch got a special mention.

I asked about the work being done to White Hart Lane station and the new walk way, but this is being done by a different company completely so he had no knowledge about this.'
superted4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2012, 06:45 PM   #3944
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498



Cheers for that.

If, as you say, he's a regular poster, regularly posting pics of the ongoing demolition works adjacent to the current stadium, then it sounds as though he, at least, is trustworthy.

Hopefully, the guy he spoke to at Loftus Road (presumably someone who works for KSS, since they designed both the stadium and the training ground?) is equally trustworthy.

63K would be the nuts.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2012, 10:15 PM   #3945
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 32

If I've counted the list on Wikipedia correctly, that would give us the 13th biggest stadium in Europe for a football club stadium, and the 21st biggest of all stadiums (including national stadiums, rugby, athletics, etc).
EJG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2012, 10:58 PM   #3946
fatspur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 67
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJG View Post
If I've counted the list on Wikipedia correctly, that would give us the 13th biggest stadium in Europe for a football club stadium, and the 21st biggest of all stadiums (including national stadiums, rugby, athletics, etc).
and I thought I was anally retentive! Good work
fatspur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 02:19 AM   #3947
Buckle & pals
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le cittá invisibili
Posts: 355
Likes (Received): 54

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.
Buckle & pals no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 10:32 AM   #3948
topalex
Registered User
 
topalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 375
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckle & pals View Post
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.
Off the top of my head (in other words I haven't really thought this through!) they could add a few more rows to the single kop. Maybe one or two rows to the top tier taking it to around 40 at its max. Maybe reduce the number of corporate seats (probably not gonna happen = £££). All this maybe possible without increasing the footprint. However I doubt that would give us circa 7k extra seats...maybe 3-4k?
topalex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 10:55 AM   #3949
Vikspur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 0

I wonder whether Spurs are planning to use the Olympic site design (which was 60k)? Making small amendments to this design could possibly see it increase to 63?

To be fair this is a complete guess...I wish Spurs would release some news. Do you think Levy will wait to see who wins the Mayoral race before releasing more information? Maybe the league position will impact the stadium sponsorship package? Could a sponsor be worried about the uncertainty with the manager situation?

I get the feeling Spurs have a lot more information but are purposely holding back information...
Vikspur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 11:40 AM   #3950
topalex
Registered User
 
topalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 375
Likes (Received): 15

''I get the feeling Spurs have a lot more information but are purposely holding back information... ''

That's a 'nailed on' given for me! Hence us poor buggers having to speculate and fantasise in here for the last couple of weeks/months/years

To be honest I'd be happy to give up on all this scraping around for whispers from ITK's and 'scraps' from Levy and just settle for the original 56,250 design.
Yeah Im enjoying the idea of a bigger more spectacular stadium than originally thought but not at the expense of a spade going in the ground to get this bast*rd up and running.
What with our recent form in the PL we could really do with something to lift us all.
topalex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #3951
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by topalex View Post
To be honest I'd be happy to give up on all this scraping around for whispers from ITK's and 'scraps' from Levy and just settle for the original 56,250 design.
Yeah Im enjoying the idea of a bigger more spectacular stadium than originally thought but not at the expense of a spade going in the ground to get this bast*rd up and running.
What with our recent form in the PL we could really do with something to lift us all.
If I had to put money on it I would probably bet on it staying at 56,250 when it's all done and dusted. If the capacity goes up, lovely, but the 56K plans were really good so no problems if it stays at that capacity.

A big reveal of some official final plans in a ceremony before the last home game against Fulham would be nice
EJG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #3952
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckle & pals View Post
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.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 01:42 PM   #3953
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by topalex View Post
Off the top of my head (in other words I haven't really thought this through!) they could add a few more rows to the single kop. Maybe one or two rows to the top tier taking it to around 40 at its max. Maybe reduce the number of corporate seats (probably not gonna happen = £££). All this maybe possible without increasing the footprint. However I doubt that would give us circa 7k extra seats...maybe 3-4k?
Quite the opposite, I would have thought.

Spurs already reduced the number of corporate seats from 8K to 6K in the first redesign. Since then, Tottenham Hotspur has once again become a marquee club - which will inevitably increase demand for corporate packages.

So whatever the eventual, overall capacity increase, I would expect to see an increase of at least 1K (and maybe as much as 3K) in the number of corporate seats.

P.S. Filling in the dipping corners could possibly add 3-4K seats. There is also room to add one or, possibly, two rows to the front.

Last edited by JimB; April 24th, 2012 at 01:47 PM.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 03:32 PM   #3954
Buckle & pals
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le cittá invisibili
Posts: 355
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckle & pals View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
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.
Buckle & pals no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 03:48 PM   #3955
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckle & pals View Post
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.
Possibly by doing something similar to stadium MK where they have an upper tier built and ready but no seats installed? Play at full capacity for a few years, prove the demand is there, quickly whip in the seats one summer.

In Spurs case I wouldn't be suggesting a whole tier, but perhaps it's something you could do in relation to filling in the corners in the upper tier.

Of course, finding a way to do something like that which didn't make the stadium look unfinished and that was aesthetically pleasing would be a bit of a challenge.
EJG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 04:19 PM   #3956
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 8,920
Likes (Received): 781

don't you think that financial crisis could delay the project?
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 06:06 PM   #3957
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
don't you think that financial crisis could delay the project?
It already has!

But not for much longer. Most of the obstacles have now been cleared. And staying in the current, inadequate stadium is costing Spurs so much per annum that they can hardly afford NOT to build the new one!
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 07:09 PM   #3958
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckle & pals View Post
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.
I don't think that there's anything odd, per se, about this ITK emerging during a short term loss of form. Whatever capacity is decided upon, the new stadium will have to serve the club's needs for decades to come.

I know that you don't believe that the FFP rules will have had an effect on the club's thinking. But we will have to agree to disagree on that.

And while I doubt that the Olympic stadium bid led directly to the proposed changes to the NDP stadium, it would at least have forced the architects to reexamine the existing design. Who knows what may have come of that? As I said, it is very common for major construction projects to pass through many iterations before the final design is decided upon.

Totally agreed that, whatever else may change, there should still be a single tier end. Latest ITK on that was posted on this thread a while back. Think it came from that poster on COYS who has been pretty reliable on stadium info. Said that, in the new design, the single tier end was altered but still awesome - or something to that effect.

Lastly, with regard to the idea of coming up with a design that easily allows for a capacity increase, I think that unlikely, for two reasons:

1. The site is so confined that any subsequent capacity increase will inevitably be very limited and therefore hardly worth the added cost of not building it during the initial construction.

2. Any such design would necessarily mean some sort of compromise. And that wouldn't help the club since they will need to sell this stadium to corporate types as the best in London.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 07:21 PM   #3959
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,257
Likes (Received): 498

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJG View Post
Possibly by doing something similar to stadium MK where they have an upper tier built and ready but no seats installed? Play at full capacity for a few years, prove the demand is there, quickly whip in the seats one summer.

In Spurs case I wouldn't be suggesting a whole tier, but perhaps it's something you could do in relation to filling in the corners in the upper tier.

Of course, finding a way to do something like that which didn't make the stadium look unfinished and that was aesthetically pleasing would be a bit of a challenge.
As I said above, I doubt that Spurs will plan for a future capacity increase.

But, even if I'm wrong about that, I think it highly unlikely that the solution will be the same as MK Dons'.

I have no idea as to exact figures but I would guess that seats account for a tiny proportion of the overall cost of the proposed new WHL. Foundations; steel; concrete; internal fixtures and fittings (especially corporate areas).......that's where the money will go. The saving on 5,000 or so seats will be trifling.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 08:54 PM   #3960
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
As I said above, I doubt that Spurs will plan for a future capacity increase.

But, even if I'm wrong about that, I think it highly unlikely that the solution will be the same as MK Dons'.

I have no idea as to exact figures but I would guess that seats account for a tiny proportion of the overall cost of the proposed new WHL. Foundations; steel; concrete; internal fixtures and fittings (especially corporate areas).......that's where the money will go. The saving on 5,000 or so seats will be trifling.
I actually agree, I very much doubt it's something we would do, I was just thinking what kind of solutions we could come up with if we did plan for a future capacity increase. I admit though that I didn't think too hard
EJG no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
england, soccer

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu