SkyscraperCity Forum banner

LONDON - Stamford Bridge (40,343)

1467189 Views 3878 Replies 305 Participants Last post by  marvingrapevine
481 - 500 of 3879 Posts
Hi. It's not that I don't want to di a proper full colour photorealistic render for this, but I haven't created a detailed model to do this. This is very much a basic, rough sketch model. I haven't tried at all to make it with surface detail. It's just a kind of proof of concept model and I am reluctant to do a proper realistic render as I would end up creating and imagining so much that it wouldn't be the real thing, rather my imagination. So for that reason I won't created the photo realistic model just yet, but will wit until we have better imagery from the club to work from.
Come on Neilando, pull your finger out. Everyone is contributing top quality content to this forum and I've seen zip all from yourself. :)
Test animation render

Hi. I have attached a link to a test animation render I made of the model. It is a low res, low detailed model guys. So don't judge me on the low quality, its really just to show different angles for those of you who have asked for such.

When more detailed images are released, I will do a proper model, with details and photorealism. But it is really not worth it right now, as beyond what I have been able to model from the images CFC have released, anything more is purely guess work, and that's not what I want to achieve.

** this is a low resolution render **

Finally pulling your weight....good work
  • Like
Reactions: Neilando
Fantastic work again, Neilando. I understand what you are saying about the fact that adding more detail to the scarce sketches released by the club would require guesswork and imagining so much that you would be creating your own version of the stadium, rather than a render based on what has been officially released, but - for me, at least - part of the fun of participating in discussions and speculations on SSC is taking such sparse and incomplete information as may be available and trying to tease out a more perfect understanding of vague concepts by inference and deduction. Personally, speculation is most of what I do on here - but it's an occupational hazard of such conjecture that one's ideas will frequently be wrong - sometimes even asinine; nevertheless, I do enjoy the journey of trudging, reaching and grasping (often two steps forwards followed by one step back) towards a better comprehension of vague concepts in the misty distance. I totally understand the counter philosophy, though, of not wanting to impose one's own concepts and inventions into domains of uncertainty - thus increasing the potential for error, and thereby hindering better understanding.
Ok, well with license to roam free then, I will create a photorealistic version of what I think it should be!! ;)
Fantastic work again, Neilando. I understand what you are saying about the fact that adding more detail to the scarce sketches released by the club would require guesswork and imagining so much that you would be creating your own version of the stadium, rather than a render based on what has been officially released, but - for me, at least - part of the fun of participating in discussions and speculations on SSC is taking such sparse and incomplete information as may be available and trying to tease out a more perfect understanding of vague concepts by inference and deduction. Personally, speculation is most of what I do on here - but it's an occupational hazard of such conjecture that one's ideas will frequently be wrong - sometimes even asinine; nevertheless, I do enjoy the journey of trudging, reaching and grasping (often two steps forwards followed by one step back) towards a better comprehension of vague concepts in the misty distance. I totally understand the counter philosophy, though, of not wanting to impose one's own concepts and inventions into domains of uncertainty - thus increasing the potential for error, and thereby hindering better understanding.
Why not would be nice to see how you imagine the stadium, is it too much asking you if you can add four screens on the corners on this render ?
Regarding the exterior hue of the brickwork texture on your model, Neilando: as previously reported, I think that it should be the standard London stock brick colour:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_stock_brick

The following observation was reported by someone who spoke to a designer at the consultation, in response to a hope that the brick shouldn't be a red colour:

I was told quite clearly that it would be yellow/brownish brick. He even got his phone out to show us the exact colour.
On the same page (page 18 of this thread) RMB2007 posted some pictures of the London HQ of HdM, as well as some nearby offices, which all feature columns clad in London stock brick:

Was curious to see if Herzog & de Meuron had a London office, which they do. They didn't design it, but their official site says their London office is here:





So pillars of London stock bricks, almost like they could've used this as the basis for their Stamford Bridge proposal.
Very near their office is these buildings, too:



Regarding the colour of the seating in the new bridge: I understand that the designers of this project went so far as to research the exact hue of the original Chelsea blue. I'm not sure what that is though, so I don't know how that might inform your coloured model, Neilando. I presume that in the absence of such information perhaps the current seat colour would be the best hue to adopt.
  • Like
Reactions: Neilando
Well done man. That would be quite impressive, as stadia go.
Hi. I have attached a link to a test animation
Colours given for Chelsea's badge:



  • Like
Reactions: AstroBiont
Hey guys. Some of our threads made the evening press! It's fun collaborating with you guys, and having you give me great feedback to improve the renders I've been making. Thanks. There are direct links to these threads so it's good that hopefully more interested people will take part on our discussions.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/spor...expansion-watch-9659038#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Congrats on your animated render making the news, Neilando! Well deserved.
Yes that shows how well done is it with such scarce details, wonder what he can do with free reins.
It's important for everyone to realise that the renders I made reflect the ideas you guys came up with and definitely, the way the renders progressed was a direct result of the collaboration with this forum and it's members.
Any idea what the cost of this proposed rebuild of Stamford Bridge will be?

Plucking a figure out of the air I can't see Chelsea seeing much change from £1 billion when you include demolition costs and all the alterations required to the environment around the ground.
No chance. Arsenal's and Spurs were/ are £400-500 mil, the Olympic Stadium £700 mil and Wembley £800 mil. Unless Abramovich intends to plate it in gold, It aint going to cost more than Wembley.
I would have to say, having got to know the potential design quite well having modelled it, it is clear to me that this is not a stadium design design even slightly comparable to the emirates, ethihad, the spurs stadium etc, which are all modular, repeating prefab construction that makes it quick and affordable to build. The very asymmetrical nature of both the footprint of the stadium site, and the asymmetrical nature of the stands and the extremely complex roof, constructed with out a single repeating truss or beam in the entire design, I would guess that this will be closer to the billion than 500 million. Nothing in this design is repeated. Every butress, roof truss, stand, every component is one off and unique. Stadiums like arsenal's city's and now spurs all look the same because that is the most efficient design in terms of cost and build time. They're cookie cutting stadiums because those designs are easier to build. They don't copy each other's stadiums because they are interesting archetecture worthy of a pastiche. And yes, one could argue that each stadium has a unique element, spurs will have their 'unique' and 'original' Kop end design feature to distinguish their stadium from the modern blueprint for stadiums, as an example, but the stadium itself is just an imitation of the modern standard design. For example, consider arsenal's stadium, and compare it to the benfica stadium. The are literally twins. Not to copy each other, but because that design is the tesco value brand of stadiums. They are perfectly good, efficient designs. And chelsea would very likely build like that too if space permitted. But whilst very cost effective, they are very dull.

Chelsea's stadium, because of the complexities of the site restrictions, and the art loving nature of the owner (abramovic is a serious art collector, and often commissions very exciting archetural projects) too will have a truly bespoke stadium. Custom made and really the only truly unique new build stadium in England so far. The design is not cost effective. In fact, when the club considered just extending the Mathew Harding stand, just a simple extension was estimated to cost £23,000 per additional seat. So, with all this in mind, i can not see how chelsea could possibly demolish, then build the bridge for 500million, when spurs will spend that amount to build on an already cleared brown field site, and construct a comparatively simple, common design.
No chance. Arsenal's and Spurs were/ are £400-500 mil, the Olympic Stadium £700 mil and Wembley £800 mil. Unless Abramovich intends to plate it in gold, It aint going to cost more than Wembley.
Well I defer to you naturally given your clear skill in this subject, but Christ, what a monument to Russian (should be national asset) money this stadium will be in that case.
I'll challenge this assertion.

Firstly there's no design today that can't find ways to employ precast elements or the most efficient way to accommodate a tight site. (See the Leadenhall Building) And it's not as if the asymmetry is so dynamic that it's some other-worldly collage a la the Beijing Bird's Nest. Aren't the first two levels essentially basic rectangles? So if this does reach the £1B mark there's a good chance it's down to simple excess rather than some decidedly harsh design consideration.

Moreover, just because Abromovich (sic) has money to spend doesn't mean he'll be completely wasteful. If he can achieve 95% of the product at 75% of the price then odds are he'll do that and skip the gold-plated loos and instead save that money for the next Costa.
I would have to say, having got to know the potential design quite well having modelled it, it is clear to me that this is not a stadium design design even slightly comparable to the emirates, ethihad, the spurs stadium etc, which are all modular, repeating prefab construction that makes it quick and affordable to build. The very asymmetrical nature of both the footprint of the stadium site, and the asymmetrical nature of the stands and the extremely complex roof, constructed with out a single repeating truss or beam in the entire design, I would guess that this will be closer to the billion than 500 million... (snipped for brevity)

Chelsea's stadium, because of the complexities of the site restrictions, and the art loving nature of the owner (abramovic is a serious art collector, and often commissions very exciting archetural projects) too will have a truly bespoke stadium. Custom made and really the only truly unique new build stadium in England so far. The design is not cost effective. In fact, when the club considered just extending the Mathew Harding stand, just a simple extension was estimated to cost £23,000 per additional seat. So, with all this in mind, i can not see how chelsea could possibly demolish, then build the bridge for 500million, when spurs will spend that amount to build on an already cleared brown field site, and construct a comparatively simple, common design.
  • Like
Reactions: Neilando
G
Abramovich is exactly that type of guy though.

He's the guy who wrote off 700 million pounds or whatever it was just because.
481 - 500 of 3879 Posts
Top