SkyscraperCity banner

7321 - 7340 of 7386 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
That tele 2 arena is ugly as anything on the inside and hardly has any seats for the amount of over-engeneering above. jhas it got a retractable roof or somethig because there;s no need for all that metal for teh lack of actual seating.

That only holds 45k for the amount of metal in it? That's not great design. Also, it looks really generic inside. it looks like the Cardiff City ground.

BMD does look unique. There's literally not a stadium in the world that it looks like. The inside looks fine too and has a good home end, which is all you need really. The roof element gives it modernity and the bottom half helps it blend in. It'll look bigger than you think but nowhere near as imposing as Anfield's main stand. But that's one of the design challenges Meis faced. They'd never get planning permission going that high.
Disagree with loads you've said here. The Everton design seating deck is generic as anything, its a bowl, despite Meis saying he would not design such a thing.... The roof structure is too low, and what? The heavy metal design of Stockholm is perfectly suited to the dockside / industrial location of BMD... looks a million times better than the standardised structure scale they've opted for at BMD. Tele2 Arena, holds only 35k, so the seating deck is limited, but, more my point, looks the same scale as BMD. Plus Everton could and should have built a little higher, there's nothing to say it would be 'too high' for what? The area? There's taller buildings being built on the docks now, no right to light issues etc. There's no historical argument to be anti tall either from the heritage lot. Plenty of historical tall buildings along the waterfront. Tele2 or perhaps a San Siro like structure was the perfect template for this stadium, however they've gone cheap on the roof design.
 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
What I think (and hope) will happen, is this version of the ground will get through planning, then the club will keep chipping away with various changes and capacity increases, throwing several amended applications in along the way (like Spurs did) to end up with something like the original 60k vision.

There's a scale comparison between that and the current 53k design on the docs somewhere, and although it only looks around 10 rows deeper ar the top of the bowl, the entire roof structure of the submitted design could fit inside the larger version, which was only 7m taller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,821 Posts
Disagree with loads you've said here. The Everton design seating deck is generic as anything, its a bowl, despite Meis saying he would not design such a thing.... The roof structure is too low, and what? The heavy metal design of Stockholm is perfectly suited to the dockside / industrial location of BMD... looks a million times better than the standardised structure scale they've opted for at BMD. Tele2 Arena, holds only 35k, so the seating deck is limited, but, more my point, looks the same scale as BMD. Plus Everton could and should have built a little higher, there's nothing to say it would be 'too high' for what? The area? There's taller buildings being built on the docks now, no right to light issues etc. There's no historical argument to be anti tall either from the heritage lot. Plenty of historical tall buildings along the waterfront. Tele2 or perhaps a San Siro like structure was the perfect template for this stadium, however they've gone cheap on the roof design.
What he was meaning is that the edges of the stand are not going to be bowl like (curved) at pitch level a la Man City.
 

·
Registered
Blackboard Monitor
Joined
·
15,061 Posts
What I think (and hope) will happen, is this version of the ground will get through planning, then the club will keep chipping away with various changes and capacity increases, throwing several amended applications in along the way (like Spurs did) to end up with something like the original 60k vision.
We added a few hundred seats by refining the seating layout within the existing structure. Those planning app amendments were very minor. The stadium looks no different from the original planning docs. Don't pin your hopes of getting a significantly bigger capacity on anything we did!

There's a scale comparison between that and the current 53k design on the docs somewhere, and although it only looks around 10 rows deeper at the top of the bowl, the entire roof structure of the submitted design could fit inside the larger version, which was only 7m taller.
Really? Could you link to that?

Aren't these the 60k v 52k versions (shown at previous consultations), and the former is a much bigger structure...



v

 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
Didn't you have approval for the 55k version first, Rob?

Yeah, the images are of a similar scale, but it compares the two designs superimposed, including both rooflines and the overall scale of the grounds. There's only 7m difference in roof height, but the volume covered was massively increased in the 60k version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I don't know if you're old enough but the fact that most people were happy with the new Park End sums up how expectations over the years have dropped. My brother and I actually have 2 or 3 bricks as mementos from the old Park end, salvaged when it was being demolished .( sad I know !)
 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
The only people I know who were happy with the removal of the arl Park End were away fans, as they'd be covered by the roof in the Bullens afterwards. The majority have been waiting for another tier to be added since 1995, which was negated by the four proceeding and aborted ground moves. 25 years later and Everton are, to paraphrase M&S ' (N)ever Knowingly Undersold'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
The only people I know who were happy with the removal of the arl Park End were away fans, as they'd be covered by the roof in the Bullens afterwards. The majority have been waiting for another tier to be added since 1995, which was negated by the four proceeding and aborted ground moves. 25 years later and Everton are, to paraphrase M&S ' (N)ever Knowingly Undersold'.
"(N)ever Knowingly Undersold' is John Lewis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I remember very little opposition at the time in fact most fans I knew we're happy with the new facilities and of course the club said it's size was commensurate with the average attendances which I think were around 30000, this was the time that the seeds of low expectations were sown i'm afraid.
 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
It was down to the late 80's 'managed decline' under Phil Carter. Everton blew their wad on the likes of Nevin, McCall, Cottee, Keown etc, and the slide that followed really didn't help.

Did we ever line up with Brett Angell and Stuart Barlow up front together? If so, the mid-20's attendances were well justified!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Spot on, from 1990 onwards we developed a losing mentality for a host of reasons and I'm happy to put that at the feet of that old tory Philip Carter. The irony is Carter was instrumental in forming the Premier League but almost sounded the death knell for Everton but I think Ancelotti may prove to be the best signing apart from Howard Kendall for the last 50 years, he will bring a winning mentality on and off the pitch.
 

·
Registered
Blackboard Monitor
Joined
·
15,061 Posts
Didn't you have approval for the 55k version first, Rob?
Two different stadiums.

A design for a 56k stadium was first shown in 2008. It did gain planning approval but the club scrapped that design and changed architects.

The current stadium, with the new architect (Populous), was submitted as a full planning application in September 2015, capacity 61,461. A few minor amendments later (some during construction, some since it opened) and we're now at 62,303.
 
7321 - 7340 of 7386 Posts
Top