ENGLAND - Stadium and Arena Development News

[West12Rangers]

i'd like to think QPR were not spending money for the hell of it like some drunken yuppie...Fernandes has committed to spending £6m for a new training ground,this was badly needed,plus part of it will be a community facility...we badly need a new ground,there is no way Loftus Rd can be expanded,and the new stadium,is,if you can believe it,going to be a multi-use facility than can host indoor events...TF has stated he wants QPP to become more self sufficient...but when you have fallen behind so badly,it takes some spending to catch up,a lot of the payers that have come in are free tansfers...ok,the wages are an issue,and you can argue that 45k is far too big,but there does seem to be some sort of business plan in place

[MS20]

Originally Posted by West12Rangers

i'd like to think QPR were not spending money for the hell of it like some drunken yuppie...Fernandes has committed to spending £6m for a new training ground,this was badly needed,plus part of it will be a community facility...we badly need a new ground,there is no way Loftus Rd can be expanded,and the new stadium,is,if you can believe it,going to be a multi-use facility than can host indoor events...TF has stated he wants QPP to become more self sufficient...but when you have fallen behind so badly,it takes some spending to catch up,a lot of the payers that have come in are free tansfers...ok,the wages are an issue,and you can argue that 45k is far too big,but there does seem to be some sort of business plan in place

You're right, it does seem to be a sensible approach to progress. An advantage is that QPR has generally had low expectations as a football club, which gives you some leeway.

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

White Hart Lane had a capacity approaching 60000 up until 1981.

Similar comments were made when Arsenal moved, ignoring the fact that Highbury also held almost 60,000 before going all-seater.

What's the point of being stuck in the 70s?
Progress must be made relating to issues such as crowd congestion after a match.

You mention Arsenal but the Emirates stadium is more centrally located causing less crowd dispersal problems.
Transport links are also much better there with a wider choice of nearby stations and achievable walking distances.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by oxo

What's the point of being stuck in the 70s?
Progress must be made relating to issues such as crowd congestion after a match.

You mention Arsenal but the Emirates stadium is more centrally located causing less crowd dispersal problems.
Transport links are also much better there with a wider choice of nearby stations and achievable walking distances.

Eh?

If the transport infrastructure could cope 20-30 years ago, it can cope now.

People moaned about Arsenal because they claimed the area couldn't cope with a 20,000 rise in crowds, even though crowds were at that 20,000 higher level just a few years earlier.

I'm not saying it coped well, but the implication was that 38,000 crowds were all the stations near Highbury ever had to deal with.

[RMB2007]

Maidstone United

At long last, they're finally back home.

From Andy the Photographer on Flickr:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/andythe...er/7576278830/

Rotherham United

New stadium is nearly completed now.

From @AndyWillert:





https://twitter.com/#!/AndyWillert/media/grid

AFC Wimbledon

New (it will have 940 seats) stand being erected.

From @AFCWimbledon:



http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/-/feat...road-end-stand

[matthemod]

Happy for Maidstone to finally get back home, can't say many Gills fans of a certain age will agree with me though! I'm sure the "Squatters" nickname will prevail!

As for Rotherham, after everything they've been through with their old ground, former owners, Administration I'm really happy that they've got a fantastic new stadium, looking forward to going there next season. Even though essentially it's just another "boring bowl" I think it's got enough variation to show a bit of individuality, and the location is great.

[The Sloth]

Those disabled sections (Like at the new stand at Molineux) ruin what would be a nice ground. 5 bloody rows of seats cut out to accommodate 1 row of wheelchairs? On every section of the ground? What on Earth?

How come the grounds being thrown up everywhere else on this planet aren't being ruined by such an aesthetic nightmare? Why can't disabled supporters sit alongside the pitch, etc. It looks awful to keep the PC Brigade happy!

[matthemod]

My father is disabled, and we have to use a wheelchair whenever we go to away games as he has huge trouble with his movement. The instances when we go to Modern grounds with these "aesthetic nightmares" it is a huge relief as they have very functional and easy access from the concourses to the stand. The reasons why these disabled areas are raised up are not because of some "PC" brigade's desire to ruin the aesthetics of the ground, it's because they are on ground level, and can be easily rolled in and out without having to go up or down any stairs, something older grounds that did not take this into account do not possess. In addition to how easier it is to having a designated disabled area in terms of access, it also prevents any intrusion onto other fans that would happen if they were placed alongside the pitch. My dad's wheelchair takes up the place of a seat, which would make the walkways along the pitch side even smaller and would take up more space from fellow supporters, causing congestion before/after kick off and at half time.

So yes, I'm sorry my dad's disability and movement limitations "ruins" the aesthetics, maybe my dad should stop going to football altogether, packing in 40 years worth of support just so you can have your precious aesthetics, but then I'm just a member of the "PC Brigade".

[Laurence2011]

I think those areas look fine.. if anything adds a bit of variation to the bowl

[Darloeye]

Well Said Matthemod. Think having them area's for disabled fans is a great way to bring fans up highter to get a better view of the game. Darlington's old ground have them and where used. Also it might be because people don't want disabled fans getting hit in the face by a stray ball if said disabled people is unable to move their hands to block a shot.

[Red85]

Originally Posted by matthemod

My father is disabled, and we have to use a wheelchair whenever we go to away games as he has huge trouble with his movement. The instances when we go to Modern grounds with these "aesthetic nightmares" it is a huge relief as they have very functional and easy access from the concourses to the stand. The reasons why these disabled areas are raised up are not because of some "PC" brigade's desire to ruin the aesthetics of the ground, it's because they are on ground level, and can be easily rolled in and out without having to go up or down any stairs, something older grounds that did not take this into account do not possess. In addition to how easier it is to having a designated disabled area in terms of access, it also prevents any intrusion onto other fans that would happen if they were placed alongside the pitch. My dad's wheelchair takes up the place of a seat, which would make the walkways along the pitch side even smaller and would take up more space from fellow supporters, causing congestion before/after kick off and at half time.

So yes, I'm sorry my dad's disability and movement limitations "ruins" the aesthetics, maybe my dad should stop going to football altogether, packing in 40 years worth of support just so you can have your precious aesthetics, but then I'm just a member of the "PC Brigade".

A little bit politic-incorrectly to say...

In Alkmaar at AZ the wheelchairs are alongside the pitch. Everything is on ground level, easy access to the max.

Look at this. In the middle.


Of course there is a massive gap between stands and the pitch what provides this option. And they are not allways dry, but I can tell, they have the time of their lives.

[RMB2007]

Originally Posted by RobH

Does anyone know whether Forest might rekindle their stadium plans now they've been taken over? There's been talk both of expansion of the City Ground and, during the 2018 bid there was plan for a stadium out of town if I remember correctly.

Some info:

Mr Al-Hasawi said: "[A new stadium] is something we are looking at and studying. Our main focus and concern is to renovate and refurbish the existing stadium, the City Ground."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-18852686

[The Sloth]

I'm sorry, but the wheelchair access should have been along the side of the (ground level) pitch, I guess like that AZ pic above. Perfect views and far more disabled space would have been provided.

In those huge disabled sections, there are 110 seats lost, to provide space for just 9 wheelchairs users & 9 helpers... I know people spit their dummies out nowadays if you dare questions decisions about minorities, the disabled, etc... But it ruins the ground and is a gross waste of space.

Are AZ and all the other clubs which use a similair approach anti-disabled? I don't think so, they're just being sensible.

[matthemod]

I'm not sorry for "spitting my dummy out" at you attacking a minority group which directly affects me because you feel the disabled areas "ruin" the ground. The examples listed by red 85 are not common throughout the UK, a country with stadiums that generally build new stadia with seating located as close to pitch side as possible, seen as trying to bring fans as close to the action as possible.

Yes if we went the European route and had elevated stands, with large gaps between the seating and the field then it would be logical to put the disabled fans there, I don't disagree with you in that, but that is not what is common through England and the rest of the UK in general.

Maybe instead of attacking disabled fans you should attack the stadium architects who didn't follow the european model of stadium design, and stop acting so bigoted to a minority group.

[Darloeye]

Originally Posted by matthemod

I'm not sorry for "spitting my dummy out" at you attacking a minority group which directly affects me because you feel the disabled areas "ruin" the ground. The examples listed by red 85 are not common throughout the UK, a country with stadiums that generally build new stadia with seating located as close to pitch side as possible, seen as trying to bring fans as close to the action as possible.

Yes if we went the European route and had elevated stands, with large gaps between the seating and the field then it would be logical to put the disabled fans there, I don't disagree with you in that, but that is not what is common through England and the rest of the UK in general.

Maybe instead of attacking disabled fans you should attack the stadium architects who didn't follow the european model of stadium design, and stop acting so bigoted to a minority group.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by The Sloth

I'm sorry, but the wheelchair access should have been along the side of the (ground level) pitch, I guess like that AZ pic above. Perfect views and far more disabled space would have been provided.

In those huge disabled sections, there are 110 seats lost, to provide space for just 9 wheelchairs users & 9 helpers... I know people spit their dummies out nowadays if you dare questions decisions about minorities, the disabled, etc... But it ruins the ground and is a gross waste of space.

Are AZ and all the other clubs which use a similair approach anti-disabled? I don't think so, they're just being sensible.

110 seats lost? 110??? One hundred and ten??????

That means, after taking wheelchair users and helpers into account, that a total of 92 people less can watch each game. Yes, 92 people less! Ninety two!!!

OMG!! This is terrible!

...........

...........

....seriously, fella - you need to get a sense of perspective. It is a miniscule figure. Even if there were four such disabled sections within the stadium.

And, let's be honest, how often is the stadium likely to be sold out anyway? Rotherham's highest ever average attendance was 18,770........back in 1951-52. For most of their existence, though, average attendances have been below 10,000 and frequently below 5,000 (including all but three or four seasons over the past 30 odd years). As if that wasn't convincing enough, the last time that Rotherham drew average crowds of 10,000 was back in 1967-68. In fact, over the past 25-30 years, Rotherham have rarely drawn crowds of more than 10,000 even for their biggest games.

So forgive me for thinking that a fantastic, brand new, 12K capacity stadium (with the option to increase easily to 16,000, if necessary) is more than adequate for Rotherham's needs and that the loss of 110 seats (or 220 or 440) to accomommodate disabled fans is a total non issue.

[Cogan]

Originally Posted by The Sloth

Those disabled sections (Like at the new stand at Molineux) ruin what would be a nice ground. 5 bloody rows of seats cut out to accommodate 1 row of wheelchairs? On every section of the ground? What on Earth?

How come the grounds being thrown up everywhere else on this planet aren't being ruined by such an aesthetic nightmare? Why can't disabled supporters sit alongside the pitch, etc. It looks awful to keep the PC Brigade happy!

Interesting you complain about the aesthetics of the disabled seating areas, but not the similar, larger 'cut out' in the centre of the stand (that I assume is club seating?). Plenty of seating space wasted here.

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

Eh?

If the transport infrastructure could cope 20-30 years ago, it can cope now.

People moaned about Arsenal because they claimed the area couldn't cope with a 20,000 rise in crowds, even though crowds were at that 20,000 higher level just a few years earlier.

I'm not saying it coped well, but the implication was that 38,000 crowds were all the stations near Highbury ever had to deal with.

When you use the word ''cope'' what exactly do you mean?
You mean ''cope'' as in managing to make sure nobody gets trampled on by a crowd when leaving a match?

When I use the word cope I have something else in mind - a fairly smooth dispersal of crowds and less congestion. I mean not being stuck in ''pedestrian jams'' on the way to the tube station like I was after the Netherlands match where it took me about 40 minutes to get to the stairs of Wembley Park from the Bobby Moore statue area.

Sure the Metropolitan and Jubilee trains ''coped'' fairly well but that is hardly the point. The tube trains couldn't reach the required frequency which would have had to be about one arriving every 10 or 20 seconds to relieve the crowd congestion leading to the station.

The more central a location for a stadium the better because people will have a wider choice of stations to get to, instead of only relying on just the one or two as will be the case with the New White Hart Lane stadium - a daft location in this respect.
Victoria line branch to Northumberland Park? That's not going to make much difference with 50,000 or more people leaving the new Spurs stadium.

[Rev Stickleback]

You seem to be missing the point that these stations coped before, so they'll cope again. Coping well is a different issue, but it's not as if everyone leaving WHL does so via WHL station.

How many stations did the "perfect" National Stadium in Warsaw have to deal with crowds of 50,000?

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

You seem to be missing the point that these stations coped before, so they'll cope again. Coping well is a different issue, but it's not as if everyone leaving WHL does so via WHL station.

How many stations did the "perfect" National Stadium in Warsaw have to deal with crowds of 50,000?

Just the one station Rev. However because of the Warsaw National Stadium's central location the majority of the crowd could get to their various destinations on foot. Not possible in a deeply suburban setting such as Spurs' where reliance on local tube/rail is far too heavy.

Spurs' is basically as rubbish a location as Crystal Palace's, being next to the middle of nowhere.