LONDON - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium / New White Hart Lane (62,214) - Page 101 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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


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 81 16.23%
The Populous design 418 83.77%
Voters: 499. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 30th, 2011, 11:31 PM   #2001
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
You don't want to move to Stratford but Dalston is still Tottenham enough? Even though you lose the North London postcode the moment you cross Crossways at the top of my old estate?
Its not about postcodes. Geo-cultural aspects have to be taken
into account.
Allow me to choose a simple example that might help you understand the concept. For instance, half of Vilniusí population consider
themselves to be ethnically Polish although the territory where they live is officially recognized as belonging to the neighbouring state of Lithuania.

To give you another example closer to home, why do you think the nutty Milton Keynes-Wimbledon FC 'Frakensteiní experiment went so wrong? A classic example of socio-geographic disfunction Iím sure youíd agree.

In any case, Iím sure most Londoners would not feel dismay at the thought of Dalston being recognized as a north eastern area of London, regardless of what the post office and its postcode suggests.

I was just toying with the idea of THFC being located in Dalston and became seduced by the prospect. However, I am aware this will never happen for reasons of affordability.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 30th, 2011, 11:38 PM   #2002
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Here's an interesting point though: we weren't even the first major club in North London. Tottenham was actually part of Middlesex until the boundaries were re-drawn in 1965. The 'Surrendering North London' argument therefore falls away to large extent.

Anyway, the excitement is palpable so let me begin posting snippets of my Socratic rejoinder to Buckle and friends...
It's a mere technicality that sometimes pleases Arsenal fans but which can safely be ignored in any serious discussion, I think.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2011, 11:44 PM   #2003
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
While we further await Mr. Malark's much anticipated public relations post
in installments, allow me to share an idea I have concerning location.

It is plainly evident that a move to Stratford would alienate the
majority of Tottenham supporters and the board are not acting
in the interest of fans but overriding financial concerns based
on short-term potential profit.

My suggestion would be to move to Dalston which would be an ideal location for a new Spurs stadium. Why?

1. Dalston is situated in North London half way between Arsenal and West Ham in a superbly located central place in the Spurs' 'catchment' area.
Just as importantly, the 'North London derby' fixture would live on.

2 Enjoys excellent transport links (tube and rail) and is significantly closer to central London than at present.

3. Could just about 'get away with' being called 'Tottenham' in the area of Dalston so fan base 'club identity' would not be effected.

I know of some large brown field sites in the area but am not aware of their legal land ownership status.

Would land purchase in Dalton for the purpose of stadium-build be a completely unrealistic prospect?
I think of Dalston as being gooner territory. It's only a hop, skip and a jump (or two) from Highbury.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 30th, 2011, 11:56 PM   #2004
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Why would an alternative site be more expensive? Tottenham may be one of the cheapest spots to buy property in the Capital but itís still not cheaper than buying empty plots of land. And therein lies the problem. The current stadiumís land-locked so we have to pay for land at its developed price rather than its footprint. This increases costs exponentially.
There is very little of the NDP site that Spurs don't already own. Haringey have already promised assistance, in the form of CPO's, with buying the remaining properties.

If Spurs move, we will henceforward and forever have to pay an annual rent (which, presumably, will be subject to regular reviews). The Olympic stadium site isn't for sale. However, if it was, it would be far more expensive than the land at Tottenham.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:08 AM   #2005
REVUpminster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 640
Likes (Received): 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
There is very little of the NDP site that Spurs don't already own. Haringey have already promised assistance, in the form of CPO's, with buying the remaining properties.

If Spurs move, we will henceforward and forever have to pay an annual rent (which, presumably, will be subject to regular reviews). The Olympic stadium site isn't for sale. However, if it was, it would be far more expensive than the land at Tottenham.
Local authorities cannot use CPO's for the benefit of private individuals or companies, only for the provision of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads etc. Arsenal tried this route and in the end had to pay the market rate which for the current freeholders puts them in a very advantageous position. When Spurs were buying the land covertly they got it cheap.
REVUpminster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:13 AM   #2006
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Can you seriously argue that Stratford isn't better connected than White Hart Lane? And then, in the same breath, render those advantages moot because itíll only make it easier for a small number of tourists and corporate types to pitch up to matches? That's patently absurd and, actually, a contradiction in terms. Why would more tourists be able to go to Stratford over White Hart Lane? Because itís better connected?

And to argue that people are queuing up to see the stadium rather than the team simply doesn't bear witness. To evidence this, the stadium tours are currently booked up for the next three weekends. That's less than 1% of your purported 35k figure. It's less than 0.5%.
The point that Buckle was making was that, despite the comparatively poor transport infrastructure and the less than salubrious area, 35,000 Spurs fans are still on the so called "waiting list" for season tickets. In other words, these people want a season ticket regardless of the fact that Tottenham isn't perfect in every respect. Therefore, it is pointless for David Keirle and others to make outrageously false claims about Stratford being easier to get to for the "vast majority of Spurs fans" since the Spurs fans who most matter (season ticket holders and those on the waiting list) don't sufficiently care and will still go to games regardless.

By the way, it really is outrageous and false to claim that the "vast Majority of Spurs fans" will find it easier to get to Stratford than to Tottenham.

Tottenham is and has always been a north London club (yes, yes...and Middlesex). They may have fans all over the world; all over the UK; all over the south east of England and in all parts of London. But their heartland is still north London and those counties immediately north of London (Hertfordshire, north Essex, south Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire). In my experience, the majority of match going Spurs fans live in these areas. And for the majority of them, it is just as easy or easier to get to Tottenham than it will be to get to Stratford.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:17 AM   #2007
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by REVUpminster View Post
Local authorities cannot use CPO's for the benefit of private individuals or companies, only for the provision of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads etc. Arsenal tried this route and in the end had to pay the market rate which for the current freeholders puts them in a very advantageous position. When Spurs were buying the land covertly they got it cheap.
CPO's aren't there to enforce cheap sales.

They're there to enforce sales, full stop. In other words, if one or two property owners are standing in the way of a development that will benefit the whole community, unless they can make a compelling case, they will be forced to sell at market rate. Spurs wouldn't expect to pay any less.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:22 AM   #2008
REVUpminster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 640
Likes (Received): 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
CPO's aren't there to enforce cheap sales.

They're there to enforce sales, full stop. In other words, if one or two property owners are standing in the way of a development that will benefit the whole community, unless they can make a compelling case, they will be forced to sell at market rate. Spurs wouldn't expect to pay any less.
But what is the market rate. If you are the last freeholder your land is priceless. Councils cannot determine the value. A number of councilers when dealing with Arsenal buying Ashburton Grove got into trouble trying to help Arsenal.
Something has happened in the last two months to make Levy say it is unviable. Harry Redknapp being England manager?? Harry's tax bill??? Bale secretly injured??? We will find out one day.

Last edited by REVUpminster; January 31st, 2011 at 12:26 AM. Reason: added a puzzle
REVUpminster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:25 AM   #2009
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Confusion? Whatís confusing you? Iíll tell you whatís confusing me: your effort to predicate an argument on a wealthy club's refusal to be profligate with its money. Your angle seems to be that because we can offer greater returns to the OPLC, we can afford to proceed with the NPD. As if anyone would see a house for £250k in a well-connected part of London and then go away to buy an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £450k. Or even the same price. It just wouldnít happen, unless you were, you know, confused or something...
This is one of the fallacies that most needs to be exposed in the press.

The new stadium at Tottenham would cost £250 million. The remaining £200 million is mostly earmarked for the enabling development.

So your analogy would more accurately describe reality if you said, "....an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £250K plus a number of other properties to the tune of £200K."
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:28 AM   #2010
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Unfortunately, location does matter. There's even a tv series named after it, thrice.

I mean, this claim absolutely doesn't hold water. Does anyone genuinely believe a company would pay the same amount to name a new stadium as it would a stadium built in the same location as an existing ground thatís universally known by a particular name? And has been for the past century?
That's a fair point.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:29 AM   #2011
Mr_Malark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
This is one of the fallacies that most needs to be exposed in the press.

The new stadium at Tottenham would cost £250 million. The remaining £200 million is mostly earmarked for the enabling development.

So your analogy would more accurately describe reality if you said, "....an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £250K plus a number of other properties to the tune of £200K."
Hence, 'even the same price'.

However, the CPO argument, the Section 106 requirements, and the TfL and English Heritage issues all fall away. They're all intrinsic to the NPD project. It therefore wouldn't be the same price.

Last edited by Mr_Malark; January 31st, 2011 at 12:34 AM.
Mr_Malark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 12:57 AM   #2012
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
What about Leyton Orientís solid, loyal, localised support? You donít seem to have any qualms about the impact West Hamís artificial pricing strategy will have on them. Because at least Spurs will charge market rates. West Ham will kill Orient stone-dead.

Or at least theoretically. Because the Hammers have already begun their 'Kids For A Quid' initiative and theyíre still not getting full gates. They canít even bribe their own fans to come. Add a running track to the equation and it doesnít take a Maths genius to see which way thatís going.
Trying to predict demand for tickets four years from now - either Spurs' or West Ham's - is a matter of guesswork. Sure, the athletics track might have a detrimental effect on the demand for tickets to see West Ham home games. But equally, we have no idea what impact the move to Stratford will have on demand for tickets to see Spurs' home games.

Oh, and let's not forget - West Ham wouldn't have to sell out every game at the Olympic stadium to be able to meet the rent requirement.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:08 AM   #2013
Kebab Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 408
Likes (Received): 71

Interesting that Levy said a couple of days ago that the NDP is definitely a no goer. Up to now his PR tack has always been "I'm keeping all options open" but this is a significant departure to that.

He's now talking about alternative sites if we don't get Stratford but I don't know where they could be. I've got a Collins London Streetfinder which helpfully colours industrial land in shitty brown. I can't find anything in Dalston unfortunately. There is quite a lot of brown land around Tottenham Hale but I think we looked at that and rejected it before. There's some stuff up towards Edmonton and Enfield but the links there are even worse than WHL, and if the idea is to increase THFC's profile, then I can't imagine us going further outside London. The only other brownfield site in the area is to the south of St Anne's Hospital. This is about mid-way between Manor House and Seven Sisters and is easily walkable from both stations. It is indisputably in Tottenham, which will please traditionalists. There are still some enormous tracts of brownfield land in the Willesden/Neasden/Hendon areas but although these are perceived to be "north" London they are actually further from WHL than Stratford is.

I think it is now clear (if it wasn't before) that the real issue with WHL is transport/accessibility and not so much construction costs. As Spurs fans we are probably not the best people to comment on the transport at WHL. We would crawl miles over broken glass to watch Spurs play, but when someone is making a strategic decision about the future of a club, the ability to attract future generations of fans is very important, and accessability is central to that. Even though the matchday services from WHL have improved in the last couple of years, they are still a poor second to a tube service.

I am fairly sure that Levy has spent the last couple of years trying to attract sponsorship/funding for the NDP. I am not sure whether he got anywhere but Stratford straightaway attracted a big-name partner, AEG. I am not sure whether the relationship with AEG will survive if we don't get Stratford, but I can't see any major sponsor or partner wanting to get involved with an area which is perceived as being inaccessible, particularly if part of the business plan is to host non-football (or non-Spurs) events. The reason why Stratford is "cheaper" for the club is not that bricks are more expensive in N17 than in E15, it is that it is easier to get funding/investment for a high-profile, accessible area. Was anyone surprised when Abramovich invested in Chelsea rather than Spurs?
Kebab Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:12 AM   #2014
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Hence, 'even the same price'.

However, the CPO argument, the Section 106 requirements, and the TfL and English Heritage issues all fall away. They're all intrinsic to the NPD project. It therefore wouldn't be the same price.
If Spurs move to Stratford, they would have to build a new 25K stadium for UK Athletics. Spurs might even have to buy a new site for that stadium because the OPLC might well agree that banishing athletics to the poorly connected Crystal Palace backwater that has helped to stifle the sport's growth for many years would be too meagre a consolation prize.

As to the English Heritage issues, investing capital in the refurbishment of good buildings generally leads, if properly costed and managed, to a capital gain. Certainly, Spurs will be able to put the buildings to good work and earn money from them.

And Spurs will have to contribute to planning gain and sign Section 106 agreements with both Newham AND Bromley councils if they are to get planning permission to build a new stadium at Stratford and another at Crystal Palace. So no gain there.

Finally, the big unknown quantity in all these equations is how much it will cost Spurs to rent the stadium. And how much will hey have to agree to pay to UK athletics?

Overall, I don't think that anyone would deny that the NDP will be more expensive than Stratford. But how much more? And at what figure, for you, does the sacrifice of identity, history, community and integrity become a worthwhile price to pay?
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:17 AM   #2015
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Grubby? Money-grabbing? Yet, in the interests of fairness, there's no spotlight turned on the opposing bid made by a Club owned by two porn barons who only bought it with the sole intention of making a killing through the Olympic Stadium. But now it's all candy floss and community, so that's fine. Publicly-funded candy floss too, because they're not even going to put their own money into it.
Yes, they are.

They will be borrowing £40 million from Newham (who will, in turn, have borrowed from the Treasury) and they will repay the full amount with interest.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:20 AM   #2016
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Mercifully, I think most Spurs supporters are finally beginning to wake up to this incredible opportunity and I can only hope we don't drop the baton because one of our runners failed to turn up.
As remarked upon earlier, the anti Stratford songs were belted out by at least 50% of the 6,000 Spurs fans at Craven Cottage today.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:49 AM   #2017
bifdy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 59
Likes (Received): 0

just a thought. there are structures at the olympic site that will be removed after the games and spurs proposed stadium will have a smaller "foot print" than the current olympic stadium!

will there not be enough room to build a football stadium and an athletics stadium at stratfod?

like i said, just a thought!
bifdy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 01:53 AM   #2018
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
Anyway, that's it.

In closing, let me just say I am a lifelong Spurs fan and have been there in the good times and the bad. I would never advocate anything that I thought would hurt our great Club. However, this is a huge deal and if we're successful, it's an event in our history that will only doth its cap to 1882 and Bill Nic.

This is a truly tremendous opportunity and I really hope we get the chance to see our Club's elevation within the Great Pantheon. Cos it's once-in-a-lifetime, folks. Right here, right now.
We can never know for sure but I suspect that Bill Nick would be appalled at the prospect of his beloved Spurs being uprooted. Certainly, his daughter was recently quoted to that effect.

He lived his entire adult life in Tottenham, despite ample opportunity to move to gentler, leafier streets (undoubtedly with better transport infrastructure). He chose to stay. He loved the place. He understood that Tottenham Hotspur and Tottenham were indivisible.

As to "once in a lifetime; you'll never get this opportunity again; the train's leaving without you"......forgive me, for I mean no offence, but that's a favourite pressurizing tactic for all sorts of salespeople who are trying to sell all sorts of products that you don't really need.

Lastly, I too would dearly love to see Spurs within the Pantheon of great clubs. I totally understand where you and the pro Stratford (or even okay-with-Stratford) lobby are coming from. But I don't want to earn inclusion in the Pantheon by any means or at any price. I want Spurs to get there as a club that has remained true to its roots; that retains a strong and unique identity; that has continuity of history and location; that has stood shoulder to shoulder with its community; and which hasn't sacrificed all those things at the altar of Mammon.

I want a club that is whole - and not torn in two. Because that would be the most hurtful thing of all.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 02:11 AM   #2019
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Malark View Post
doth its cap.
Apologies for the pedantry. And rest assured that this is not meant as an attempt to undermine. It's just a point of interest because I've noticed a few people using that spelling.

You "doff" your cap. It's an abbreviation of "do off".
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2011, 02:12 AM   #2020
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,007
Likes (Received): 7548

Quote:
Originally Posted by bifdy View Post
just a thought. there are structures at the olympic site that will be removed after the games and spurs proposed stadium will have a smaller "foot print" than the current olympic stadium!

will there not be enough room to build a football stadium and an athletics stadium at stratfod?

like i said, just a thought!
Only way there would be enough room would be by eating into the parkland. There's not enough room by the stadium itself. It's surrounded on three sides by water.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
england, football, hotspurs, populous, soccer, spurs, stadium, tottenham

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24074 Today 06:01 PM
LONDON - Olympic Stadium (60,000) jerseyboi Completed 18399 Today 12:45 AM
LONDON | New Tottenham Hotspur FC Stadium | 62,214 | Complete 2005 Cultural and Sporting Venues 1076 December 8th, 2019 06:15 PM
LONDON - White Hart Lane (36,284 | 1898 - 2017) LAYiddo Demolished 209 September 5th, 2019 12:18 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us