LONDON - New White Hart Lane (56,250)

[berkshire royal]

Doing the double in English football is a huge achievment and also a huge crown, for me the FA Cup is the most revered domesti cup competition in the world. It is also significant because only 10 teams have ever done the double, and Spurs we're the first team to do it in the 20th century as well as being the first in 64 years.

I think it is a set guarentee the stadium will be slightly bigger then the Emirates it would be a nice touch if the capacity was 61,000. Sadly I wouldn't be suprised if it is a carbon copy of the Emirates, especially if HOK are designing it as they are extremely lazy when it comes to their football stadium designs.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

Also, with a world cup bid coming up, it stands to reason that any club already building a super-stadium will want to make sure it's one of the two largest in London.

The difference in capacity will be marginal. If there are two London grounds to be picked for a World Cup then the FA will always choose Woolwichs ground. They favoured them all the time in every possible way. Why should that change? Certainly not because of two more seats.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by berkshire royal

Sadly I wouldn't be suprised if it is a carbon copy of the Emirates, especially if HOK are designing it as they are extremely lazy when it comes to their football stadium designs.

+1. I would hope that we see another attempt to strike out for originality. Perhaps not as boldly as Liverpool, but it would be a shame to see a generation of stadiums so alike. It's bad enough The Grove has one sister in the new La Luz.

[www.sercan.de]

The project at page 1 looked like da Luz or Emirates
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9296/28714225sc5.jpg

[JimB]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Really? I hadn't thought of that and hadn't heard anything about a possibility for selling. Seems surprising to me given that they're such a profitable club.

A profitable club, yes, but the vast majority of those profits are usually ploughed back into new signings and player wages. Only in the last couple of years have Spurs paid a dividend to shareholders.

A new stadium will be a hugely expensive commitment - and one that is not not entirely without risk. If Levy were to sell Spurs for, say, £300-350 million, ENIC will have made something like a 600% return on their overall investment. Levy may decide that that is profit enough and, having delivered planning permission for a new stadium, leave the actual financial risk to a new owner.

This is just one possible scenario, by the way, and no more likely than that ENIC will remain as Spurs' owners.

I can't imagine RA is prepared to add to his existing $1B "losses" in the club, especially given the tenuous nature of their current success.

To be fair, I think Abramovich has done alright out of his investment. Remember, he bought Chelsea for a mere £60 million. Sure, he's since invested a further £500 million (?) but I would guess that Chelsea is now worth north of £700 million.

And if they did decide to move to a new stadium, the sale of the Stamford Bridge site (including the existing hotels etc) would pay for much of the new stadium, I'd guess.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by www.sercan.de

Why not 63 :d
First European title

To be honest, I wasn't being entirely serious!

It just seems likely that, since Spurs have committed to a 60K stadium, they will make sure that the new capacity is a little bigger than Arsenal's. So 61K is a reasonable guess. 63K is rather too far above the quoted 60K figure, I'd have thought - otherwise, I'd have gone for 91K....'91 the last time that Spurs won the FA Cup!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

+1. I would hope that we see another attempt to strike out for originality. Perhaps not as boldly as Liverpool, but it would be a shame to see a generation of stadiums so alike. It's bad enough The Grove has one sister in the new La Luz.

I would love it if Spurs did surprise me and reveal an entirely original design which worked brilliantly both as a football stadium and, in its own right, as iconic architecture.

Sadly, I fear that I will be disappointed. I don't expect Spurs' stadium to copy too much from the Emirates but it will, I am almost certain, be a bowl design with three tiers - the middle of which will cater for corporate "customers".

[plasticterminator]

Just regarding capacity, it is not a question of how big you want it but how big you are allowed to have it. There are a plethora of rules and regulations regarding public safety evacuation and transport infastructure as most people on this forum know already. So capacity is limited and determined by location as has been an argument with new liverpoool and as was an issue with emirates, so as i am unsure of what the capacity limit is for that location i will not add further perhaps someone can tell us? I would guess it will not be much more than the proposed 60k.

[JimB]

According to curiousgeorge08 on the UK forums, MAKE are the architects.

I don't know whether what he's heard is fact or just rumour but, if true, quite exciting news. Ken Shuttleworth doesn't generally do bland.

[plasticterminator]

It would be great to see something organic in uk a la valencia, beijing rather than what we have seen so far.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by plasticterminator

It would be great to see something organic in uk a la valencia, beijing rather than what we have seen so far.

I don't think we'll see anything as intricate as the bird's nest. The Chinese governement had an almost unlimited budget, cheap labour and a yearning need to impress the watching world. Spurs, on the other hand, don't have any of those things and will be hard pressed enough just to raise sufficient finance to build a new 60K stadium without incorporating such a massively expensive design.

Hopefully, the stadium will be aesthetically pleasing and have a unique identity - but without unnecessarily inflating the cost.

[plasticterminator]

Originally Posted by JimB

I don't think we'll see anything as intricate as the bird's nest. The Chinese governement had an almost unlimited budget, cheap labour and a yearning need to impress the watching world. Spurs, on the other hand, don't have any of those things and will be hard pressed enough just to raise sufficient finance to build a new 60K stadium without incorporating such a massively expensive design.

Hopefully, the stadium will be aesthetically pleasing and have a unique identity - but without unnecessarily inflating the cost.

True what you say but a facade other than the glass frontage we get on a regular basis would be not break the budget providing the steel structure of the roof is not to crazy.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by plasticterminator

True what you say but a facade other than the glass frontage we get on a regular basis would be not break the budget providing the steel structure of the roof is not to crazy.

Indeed...a glass frontage (like Wembley, for instance) would be very disappointing. Hopefully, Shuttleworth and his people will be rather more imaginative.

[Kamaras Hair Gel]

Originally Posted by JimB

Indeed...a glass frontage (like Wembley, for instance) would be very disappointing. Hopefully, Shuttleworth and his people will be rather more imaginative.

100 quid says a snooze bowl, glass facade and 3,000,000 boxes

in fact you wouldnt go far wrong with betting on an emirates with white seats

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Kamaras Hair Gel

100 quid says a snooze bowl, glass facade and 3,000,000 boxes

in fact you wouldnt go far wrong with betting on an emirates with white seats

If an established stadium architecture firm (such as HOK) were responsible for the design, then I'd agree with you. However, this will be MAKE's first stadium and, possibly, their biggest and most high profile project to date. The incentive for them to design something both memorable and unique will therefore be huge. I suspect, however, that you're correct in thinking that Spurs will want to adhere to a basic bowl design with a middle tier for corporate "customers".

[RobH]

Originally Posted by JimB

Indeed...a glass frontage (like Wembley, for instance) would be very disappointing. Hopefully, Shuttleworth and his people will be rather more imaginative.

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest as long as the inside retained atmosphere and was a good football stadium. Liverpool's proposed new ground has a glass frontage but is

Much rather have something similar to that with an uninteresting exterior than a corporate bowl with a fancy bird's nest exterior tbh.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by RobH

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest as long as the inside retained atmosphere and was a good football stadium. Liverpool's proposed new ground has a glass frontage but is

Much rather have something similar to that with an uninteresting exterior than a corporate bowl with a fancy bird's nest exterior tbh.

Completely agree about that. The interior of the stadium is far more important than the exterior.

Nevertheless, I would be very disappointed if the new stadium had an exterior as uninspiring as Wembley's.

[plasticterminator]

Its very interesting to see that generally most people agree the glass frontage has been done to death last few years.

[masterpaul]

Agreed, wembley has a very boring extirior (like a shopping center). Also it looks really bulky and fat.

-----------------------------------------






Actually they all are gonna look like shopping centers.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by JimB

Nevertheless, I would be very disappointed if the new stadium had an exterior as uninspiring as Wembley's.

Wembley's arch is the best thing that ever happened to a football ground. I don't think that a shopping centre ever had a far-ranging landmark like this.