daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Under Construction

Under Construction Found urban images from all around the world not taken by you



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which design do you prefer?
The KSS design 38 21.23%
The Populous design 141 78.77%
Voters: 179. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 24th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #3941
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

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 ******* 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 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old April 24th, 2012, 02:42 PM   #3942
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

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 02:47 PM.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 04:32 PM   #3943
Buckle & pals
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le cittá invisibili
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 73

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 ******* 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, 04:48 PM   #3944
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 894
Likes (Received): 681

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, 05:19 PM   #3945
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 9,950
Likes (Received): 1473

don't you think that financial crisis could delay the project?
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 07:06 PM   #3946
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

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 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 08:09 PM   #3947
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

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 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 08:21 PM   #3948
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

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 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 09:54 PM   #3949
EJG
Registered User
 
EJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 894
Likes (Received): 681

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
Old April 25th, 2012, 01:52 AM   #3950
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJG View Post
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


Yeah, I know.

In this current information blackout, devising wild theories is what we're all reduced to!
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 03:34 AM   #3951
Harry1990
Registered User
 
Harry1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 681
Likes (Received): 38

knowing our luck we will end up coming 4th this year and the Bluescum will probably win the Champions League
__________________
Audere est Facere
Harry1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 03:34 AM   #3952
Harry1990
Registered User
 
Harry1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 681
Likes (Received): 38

can anyone remember a few years back they made up some graph with the average yearly wage of all 20 premier league clubs, i remember Arsenal and Spurs were 1 and 2, just remebered it cause i think it will be very important to tap into that in regards to corporate seating etc although obviously you dont want too much of it otherwise you end up like the new wembley with a terrible atmosphere, it all about weighing up the extra money of more seats getting better players or keeping world class players but on the other hand if you ground doesnt generate atmosphere it takes away the "12th Man " so to speak


and some of the older spurs supporters i assume it doesnt get any easier being a Spurs supporter in later life does it, im 21 now so i assume i will have a heart attack mid 40's due to supporting us
__________________
Audere est Facere
Harry1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 10:48 AM   #3953
Sea Toby
Registered User
 
Sea Toby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry1990 View Post
can anyone remember a few years back they made up some graph with the average yearly wage of all 20 premier league clubs, i remember Arsenal and Spurs were 1 and 2, just remebered it cause i think it will be very important to tap into that in regards to corporate seating etc although obviously you dont want too much of it otherwise you end up like the new wembley with a terrible atmosphere, it all about weighing up the extra money of more seats getting better players or keeping world class players but on the other hand if you ground doesnt generate atmosphere it takes away the "12th Man " so to speak


and some of the older spurs supporters i assume it doesnt get any easier being a Spurs supporter in later life does it, im 21 now so i assume i will have a heart attack mid 40's due to supporting us
The 12th man hasn't done much for Liverpool FC at Anfield recently. Stadiums don't create the atmosphere, fans do...
Sea Toby no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #3954
imagod
Registered User
 
imagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 241
Likes (Received): 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
The 12th man hasn't done much for Liverpool FC at Anfield recently. Stadiums don't create the atmosphere, fans do...
But fans are encouraged by the accoustic feedback (atmosphere) they generate into singing more and for longer.
imagod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 04:49 PM   #3955
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry1990 View Post
can anyone remember a few years back they made up some graph with the average yearly wage of all 20 premier league clubs, i remember Arsenal and Spurs were 1 and 2, just remebered it cause i think it will be very important to tap into that in regards to corporate seating etc although obviously you dont want too much of it otherwise you end up like the new wembley with a terrible atmosphere, it all about weighing up the extra money of more seats getting better players or keeping world class players but on the other hand if you ground doesnt generate atmosphere it takes away the "12th Man " so to speak


and some of the older spurs supporters i assume it doesnt get any easier being a Spurs supporter in later life does it, im 21 now so i assume i will have a heart attack mid 40's due to supporting us
When you say the "average yearly wage of all 20 premier league clubs", I assume that you mean the average yearly wage of the supporters? If so, then yes, Spurs are certainly up there in the top two or three, along with Arsenal and Chelsea. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that Spurs fans have more disposable income to spend on season tickets than fans of, say, northern clubs.

Two things:

1. Cost of living in London is so much higher - especially housing.

2. Figures for Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal are warped somewhat by the number of very high net worth and high earning individuals among their season ticket holders. Obviously other clubs have such supporters too - but not as many of them and, generally, not as wealthy. For the average Spurs fan, weighed down as they are by massive mortgage payments or rents (among other London costs), the high price of a season ticket borders on the prohibitive.

Oh, and you're right.......the older you are, it doesn't get any easier following Spurs. It still hurts most of the time, even if you'll find that you are able to be slightly more philosophical about our inevitable calamities.

So keep your ticker in good nick!

Last edited by JimB; April 25th, 2012 at 09:44 PM.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 09:16 PM   #3956
SteveAWOL
Registered User
 
SteveAWOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry1990 View Post
knowing our luck we will end up coming 4th this year and the Bluescum will probably win the Champions League
It's bad enough allowing the ARSEnal to overhaul a 13pt deficit, the thought of now missing out on CL football next season because of Chavski would truly make this the most embarrassing capitulation I've witnessed in over 25 years of following Spurs, topping the Lasagne-gate season and the 3-5 game against ManU!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry1990 View Post
can anyone remember a few years back they made up some graph with the average yearly wage of all 20 premier league clubs, i remember Arsenal and Spurs were 1 and 2, just remebered it cause i think it will be very important to tap into that in regards to corporate seating etc although obviously you dont want too much of it otherwise you end up like the new wembley with a terrible atmosphere, it all about weighing up the extra money of more seats getting better players or keeping world class players but on the other hand if you ground doesnt generate atmosphere it takes away the "12th Man " so to speak


and some of the older spurs supporters i assume it doesnt get any easier being a Spurs supporter in later life does it, im 21 now so i assume i will have a heart attack mid 40's due to supporting us
I was at Wembley for the FA Cup semi-final and was surprised quite how good the atmosphere was, well for the first hour or so anyway. If we could somehow afford a stadium of that scale but with the stands as close to the pitch as WHL then I'd be happy!

Nope, supporting the perennial underachievers that are Spurs doesn't get any easier. You just gradually become inured to the end of season collapses... ...
SteveAWOL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 01:06 AM   #3957
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,620
Likes (Received): 1681

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveAWOL View Post
missing out on CL football next season because of Chavski would truly make this the most embarrassing capitulation I've witnessed in over 25 years of following Spurs, topping the Lasagne-gate season
If we were to finish fourth and Chelsea were then to win the Champions League, it would cement our position as the unluckiest club, IMO.

First Lasagne-gate.

Then factor in the fact that, but for Chelsea's and Man City's sudden and unearned elevation to the super rich, Spurs would have qualified for the Champions League in four of the past six seasons (and would be a shoo in for this season).

Then, should it happen, becoming the first club since UEFA changed the rules, to have qualified for the Champions League but to be denied the chance to compete in it.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 01:29 AM   #3958
Harry1990
Registered User
 
Harry1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 681
Likes (Received): 38

You cant help but think that what ever compensation we end up getting from the fa when redknapp takes the england job wont be worth the 40 million of lost revenue we would have got for just playing in the group stages next year, no problem with redknapp who to his credit has been totally proffesional, for some reason the players just folded with the pressure. Just.got to pray that newcastle lose to city and chelsea
__________________
Audere est Facere
Harry1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 01:30 AM   #3959
Harry1990
Registered User
 
Harry1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 681
Likes (Received): 38

Does anyone know how much income playing at the lane gives us each year? And the new ground will probably double what we make
__________________
Audere est Facere
Harry1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 02:05 AM   #3960
SteveAWOL
Registered User
 
SteveAWOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry1990 View Post
Does anyone know how much income playing at the lane gives us each year? And the new ground will probably double what we make
According to Tottenham Hotspur - Football Money League 2011 | Deloitte UK

Our average matchday revenue is £1.5million and we earned £36.8m over the course of last season from that revenue stream.

For comparison, ARSEnal's average is £3.5m and their total was £93.9m last season.
SteveAWOL no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
england, football, 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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 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