New Everton Stadium

So basically the new stadium is not going to generate the atmosphere which everyone was told was one of the biggest and most important aspects of the new build. The home stand is barely any bigger than the one at Goodison too.

With this in mind I think I would just prefer to stay at Goodison. Its hardly much to look forward to now if it's just going to be an average soulless new stadium. I was expecting something like the new Spurs stadium but with everything focused on atmosphere.

Tbh, everything is relative, I'm sure the atmosphere will be good, especially when the fans are up for it like recent games. The new home stand will be like adding 20 rows to the back of the Park end and cranking around the corners to offer just over double the total capacity. The addition of safe standing in the front will hopefully add to that capacity further (but not going for larger tread depths there might limit that potential uplift). Whether the raised arch roof adds greatly to that is yet to be seen.... but at 60 rows it is smaller than say Spurs South stand (82 rows) and less depth than our friendly neighbours over the park.

The documents I read on the acoustics of the stadium weren't really that in depth. There was the usual stuff you get with many stadium designs about having a large traditional home end, and having no overhanging tiers to promote greater acoustic unity. There was a fare amount of emphasis put on this and of course there is some accuracy in those claims, but as ever there has to be context. Then again, some of the statements promoting the idea of designing for a good atmosphere could also be to distract from the rather basic internal configuration chosen, or for not adopting a more complex multi tiered format, more inkeeping with our traditions. That said.... sometimes less is more and perhaps that relative simplicity works better (and is almost always more cost-effective.

There is a subtle difference between overall noise retention in a whole stadium and say designing a home end that is great for generating chants and creating a big atmosphere. That has far more to do with proportions, capacity-density, roof geometry/proximity and how all those factors inter-relate. When Wembley was designed, a lot of talk was about getting rid of the track and how the architects were improving the acoustics for atmosphere. The American designers completely misunderstood the workings of a football home-end. While the noise is retained well, the end stands are nowhere near as good at generating atmosphere af cup finals as the end curves at the old Wembley which were brilliant at creating deafening chants. Even with a multi-tiered format, the smaller Millenium stadium is far superior to Wembley in this and most other respects too because they have better proportions and roof design (even before closing it, which takes it to a whole different level).
 
Tbh, everything is relative, I'm sure the atmosphere will be good, especially when the fans are up for it like recent games. The new home stand will be like adding 20 rows to the back of the Park end and cranking around the corners to offer just over double the total capacity. The addition of safe standing in the front will hopefully add to that capacity further (but not going for larger tread depths there might limit that potential uplift). Whether the raised arch roof adds greatly to that is yet to be seen.... but at 60 rows it is smaller than say Spurs South stand (82 rows) and less depth than our friendly neighbours over the park.

The documents I read on the acoustics of the stadium weren't really that in depth. There was the usual stuff you get with many stadium designs about having a large traditional home end, and having no overhanging tiers to promote greater acoustic unity. There was a fare amount of emphasis put on this and of course there is some accuracy in those claims, but as ever there has to be context. Then again, some of the statements promoting the idea of designing for a good atmosphere could also be to distract from the rather basic internal configuration chosen, or for not adopting a more complex multi tiered format, more inkeeping with our traditions. That said.... sometimes less is more and perhaps that relative simplicity works better (and is almost always more cost-effective.

There is a subtle difference between overall noise retention in a whole stadium and say designing a home end that is great for generating chants and creating a big atmosphere. That has far more to do with proportions, capacity-density, roof geometry/proximity and how all those factors inter-relate. When Wembley was designed, a lot of talk was about getting rid of the track and how the architects were improving the acoustics for atmosphere. The American designers completely misunderstood the workings of a football home-end. While the noise is retained well, the end stands are nowhere near as good at generating atmosphere af cup finals as the end curves at the old Wembley which were brilliant at creating deafening chants. Even with a multi-tiered format, the smaller Millenium stadium is far superior to Wembley in this and most other respects too because they have better proportions and roof design (even before closing it, which takes it to a whole different level).
So you seem to have a good idea of the potential of this new stadium, or at least more so than most of us. Would you say your overwhelmed by it, underwhelmed or somewhere in between?
 
The current licensing laws may not differentiate between different sports in a stadium - unless the fix is in...allegedly
they do, football games are 'designated' sporting events so some restrictions apply, stuff like cricket isn't a designated event so booze can be consumed in cheap plastic pots throughout the game within sight of the pitch
 

I think it's going to look like Juventus Stadium, but obviously bigger. Which I am happy about.

Yes, I would agree with that comparison. Quite similar proportions and layout (except for the single tier home end) and as you stated BMD is approx 25% larger. Similar profiled roof too. The major differences being that the Juventus stadium only cost €155m and has 64 sky boxes compared to our cost of £500-550m with approx 22 corporate boxes (I think).
 

Yes, I would agree with that comparison. Quite similar proportions and layout (except for the single tier home end) and as you stated BMD is approx 25% larger. Similar profiled roof too. The major differences being that the Juventus stadium only cost €155m and has 64 sky boxes compared to our cost of £500-550m with approx 22 corporate boxes (I think).

Isn't our lack of boxes due to it now being more popular to have "open area lounges"?

I believe Arsenal scrapped every lower tier box to do this.
 
All in all I do wish we'd stuck with the 'St Lukes' version in 2018 60,000. The stadium side on comparisons and footprint comparisons were so much better than the current version. When they showed the comparison of the south stand to the Klop it was almost twice in height. Dwarfed it. It was very comparible to NWHL if only a different shape. The shape
looked unique which set it apart from "bowl" stadiums. I find the current design a bit scaled down and undistiguished.
It's not that I don't like it I bet when it's built it will be great. Does it have the wow factor?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top