New Everton Stadium

[Tom Hughes]

Hi Tom, met you once before many years ago in town, after a KEOIC meeting (the one that Big Nev attended). IMHO you are as plausible now in your discussion as you were that evening - I think I'd told you I worked for one of the companies involved in Kings Waterfront Development - if the battles that we'd had with the City Council at that time were known.... It was the Bluenoses amongst the companies working for the club that turned that around - from 7tj (out of 6) bids to preferred. The rest is history.

I was never sold on the redevelop option - the economics just didn't work for me. But I'll park that here and hopefully we can discuss again if I'm back in UK anytime soon and can get a ticket!

But KW wore me out, and Kirkby - I was no longer working for the former company (who were retained) - was the final straw.

BMD for me is the consolation prize for KW. But given the bullshit and poor stewardship we've had to put up with over the last couple of decades, it's better than a speedboat on Bullseye (one for the teenagers).

Alright Singblue,

I remember Nev speaking at one of our meetings (was it at the CASA in hope street?), he's always good value. I can remember meeting a few people who had been involved with the Kings dock project around that KEIOC time too, including a couple at the council. A few wanted to tell us about some of the issues involved. A sorry tale indeed, and something we've never really gotten over IMO.

I'm not always in the UK myself but usually have or can get spares if given some notice.

 

[maccavennie]

I know Dan Mei's referenced the fact that the 4 stands are all different which indeed they are. Does anybody know if the upper west and upper east stands have the same number of rows? Thanks.

I'm 99.9% sure they have the same amount of rows mate. The East Stand Upper seats more only because there's more corporate stuff and TV/radio coms stuff on the West Stand.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Jesus wept!!!!!!

Physically. Not financially. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No serious person can twist this to make it seem like Anfield and St. James are easier to expand physically.

It's not even remotely obtuse to suggest that having some space is not the only prerequisite for easy expansion.... it's barely even a prerequisite at all, as shown by BMD.... built on water.

It probably requires some twisting to show how adding 2 new tiers to 2 separate stands, one adjacent to water, while redesigning the signature design feature to rebuild 2 new side roofs on a capacity-height-restrained site is easier than building one new tier on an already designed scheme on a fully accessible site with essentially no capacity constraints.

 

[The binman chronicles]

To be perfectly honest, BMD would have to have been designed to allow for expansion, with piles set to take account of any shifting weight distribution caused by any sort of meaningful expansion, so in that regard, both the stadia you mentioned would be easier to remodel. That's before taking into account any other restrictions. Much of BMD's concourse areas are free standing rather than being created by the bowl structure, a feature of them being so deep, that also means that much of the bowls weight distribution doesn't pass though the concourses on the East and West stand as in most traditional stadia. That means that for each of these to add a tier or so, there would have to be significant remodel of all the concourse areas that would add significant cost with a large addition of supports passing through existing spaces.

It's not as simple as just adding a bit on, we're literally building on sand, something that the vast majority of world stadia don't have to worry about.

Wouldn't any East stand extension be away from the dock infill? Edit: No I can see from old pictures it still would be. But could be pilled in the same way and the steel structure (presumably it would be that instead of the concrete structure that has been built) would rise from the back as a standalone construction and not require anything to be modified within the east stand itself other than the roof to be ripped off - much like the Anfield and Cardiff City extensions.

Say that gained somewhere between 6 and 8k, the North stand could yield another 3k if it were brought up to the size of the rest of the bowl without a great deal of fuss if next door would do a deal for the small channel of land. That would bring the capacity to 64k with whatever safe standing adds to the total. We would never need anything beyond those kind of figures so we would never need to worry about the more difficult South and West stands.

@Tom Hughes the above would be no harder to achieve than the other stadia you mention, the area behind the East Stand is ours and it's not like we have to demolish anything behind the North. The biggest point here is why we would spend 100+ million after the stadium had been built for at best 11k more seats when we could have baked that into the original build for half the cost. We would need to achieve City sort of success and/or be taken over by a money no object owner to even consider it. We just have to be happy with what we've got.

 

[The binman chronicles]

The West stand had a piece lifted today so we will see the full size of the roof in a video tomorrow.

 

[Jacko93]

Wouldn't any East stand extension be away from the dock infill? Edit: No I can see from old pictures it still would be. But could be pilled in the same way and the steel structure (presumably it would be that instead of the concrete structure that has been built) would rise from the back as a standalone construction and not require anything to be modified within the east stand itself other than the roof to be ripped off - much like the Anfield and Cardiff City extensions.

Say that gained somewhere between 6 and 8k, the North stand could yield another 3k if it were brought up to the size of the rest of the bowl without a great deal of fuss if next door would do a deal for the small channel of land. That would bring the capacity to 64k with whatever safe standing adds to the total. We would never need anything beyond those kind of figures so we would never need to worry about the more difficult South and West stands.

@Tom Hughes the above would be no harder to achieve than the other stadia you mention, the area behind the East Stand is ours and it's not like we have to demolish anything behind the North. The biggest point here is why we would spend 100+ million after the stadium had been built for at best 11k more seats when we could have baked that into the original build for half the cost. We would need to achieve City sort of success and/or be taken over by a money no object owner to even consider it. We just have to be happy with what we've got.

The piling would be the issue. You'd have to pile where the concourse exists. Your not getting a piling rig in that area to do it without removing fairly extensive sections of the concourse .

 

[chippy1722]

There won’t be a need for an extension in the next 10 years and could be a lot longer than that. It took them over the park a long long time to think of getting one and they’ve had a bigger need for a longer length of time.

The ground isn’t built yet never mind filled.

 

[Bluerover]

Wouldn't any East stand extension be away from the dock infill? Edit: No I can see from old pictures it still would be. But could be pilled in the same way and the steel structure (presumably it would be that instead of the concrete structure that has been built) would rise from the back as a standalone construction and not require anything to be modified within the east stand itself other than the roof to be ripped off - much like the Anfield and Cardiff City extensions.

Say that gained somewhere between 6 and 8k, the North stand could yield another 3k if it were brought up to the size of the rest of the bowl without a great deal of fuss if next door would do a deal for the small channel of land. That would bring the capacity to 64k with whatever safe standing adds to the total. We would never need anything beyond those kind of figures so we would never need to worry about the more difficult South and West stands.

@Tom Hughes the above would be no harder to achieve than the other stadia you mention, the area behind the East Stand is ours and it's not like we have to demolish anything behind the North. The biggest point here is why we would spend 100+ million after the stadium had been built for at best 11k more seats when we could have baked that into the original build for half the cost. We would need to achieve City sort of success and/or be taken over by a money no object owner to even consider it. We just have to be happy with what we've got.

Let's solidify the team, its performances, and see what kind of regular attendances we are getting once the initial novelty enthusiasm has declined after a couple of seasons.

If somehow we start to become successful on the pitch and the place is regularly sold out, then, and only then, might we even consider expansion in my view.

 

[The binman chronicles]

 

[Gardocki]

It's not even remotely obtuse to suggest that having some space is not the only prerequisite for easy expansion.... it's barely even a prerequisite at all, as shown by BMD.... built on water.

It probably requires some twisting to show how adding 2 new tiers to 2 separate stands, one adjacent to water, while redesigning the signature design feature to rebuild 2 new side roofs on a capacity-height-restrained site is easier than building one new tier on an already designed scheme on a fully accessible site with essentially no capacity constraints.

It is more than space, but space is probably the biggest consideration when considering how feasible it would be. To say it is barely a pre-requisite is some serious denial of reality. Lets consider the situation:

• The existing building has been designed to accommodate an increase to 62,000. An extension would also provide more amenities rather than just seats
• There is plenty of space to the east and west if required (probably 100 m to the river. The canal is aesthetics)
• The east and west stand roofs have been build independently of the main roof trusses supporting the north and south
• Early studies have shown that the increasing capacity to 60+ wont be an issue from an access/egress POV
• There are no/few local residents to object to any planning permissions
• We already own the land (long leasehold)

Yet given all of these positive points to a theoretical expansion, your instinct is to say how difficult it would be.

Now take Anfield

• They are landlocked with no room for expansion as it stands
• It would realistically require forcibly removing 50-60 families from their homes to develop the SKD stand. That would be a lengthy process and a massive headache
• To increase the capacity of the kop, it would require a rebuild on a much larger footprint. This would require a major re-alignment of a road and all the associated headaches with third party owners along that route. A few meters shift wouldn't be enough to deliver a major increase in capacity given modern design requirements
• According to those in the know on the SSC website, there would need to be major investment in the rail line/station to the west of Anfield to accommodate an increase in capacity. Yet you say there is capacity constraints at BMD (according to who?) and contradict others by saying there is no capacity constraints at Anfield.

Yet given all of these major obstacles to a theoretical expansion of Anfield, your instinct is to say how easy it would be.

I think that many might forgive me for thinking you might have an anti-BMD agenda rather than a balanced, objective opinion on this matter.

 

[Mrbluenose]

It would realistically require forcibly removing 50-60 families from their homes to develop the SKD stand. That would be a lengthy process and a massive headache

They wouldn't bat an eyelid.

 

[Gardocki]

They wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Cynicism of Big Red apart, it would be a very long, expensive, and arduous task.

 

[PrekisCrossBarlow!]

Once the seats go in and we have the reference visuals to see how massive this stadium is, all the premature honking about extending the stadium will hopefully stop.

It's massive. Extending the East or West stand would ruin the amazing roof. And reduce that Juve style intimacy. Let's be happy for what we are about to receive.

 

[Jacko93]

It is more than space, but space is probably the biggest consideration when considering how feasible it would be. To say it is barely a pre-requisite is some serious denial of reality. Lets consider the situation:

• The existing building has been designed to accommodate an increase to 62,000. An extension would also provide more amenities rather than just seats
• There is plenty of space to the east and west if required (probably 100 m to the river. The canal is aesthetics)
• The east and west stand roofs have been build independently of the main roof trusses supporting the north and south
• Early studies have shown that the increasing capacity to 60+ wont be an issue from an access/egress POV
• There are no/few local residents to object to any planning permissions
• We already own the land (long leasehold)

Yet given all of these positive points to a theoretical expansion, your instinct is to say how difficult it would be.

Now take Anfield

• They are landlocked with no room for expansion as it stands
• It would realistically require forcibly removing 50-60 families from their homes to develop the SKD stand. That would be a lengthy process and a massive headache
• To increase the capacity of the kop, it would require a rebuild on a much larger footprint. This would require a major re-alignment of a road and all the associated headaches with third party owners along that route. A few meters shift wouldn't be enough to deliver a major increase in capacity given modern design requirements
• According to those in the know on the SSC website, there would need to be major investment in the rail line/station to the west of Anfield to accommodate an increase in capacity. Yet you say there is capacity constraints at BMD (according to who?) and contradict others by saying there is no capacity constraints at Anfield.

Yet given all of these major obstacles to a theoretical expansion of Anfield, your instinct is to say how easy it would be.

I think that many might forgive me for thinking you might have an anti-BMD agenda rather than a balanced, objective opinion on this matter.

An extension wouldn't provide more amenities, unless you are proposing a full stand rebuild, adding seats, with the design of BMD doesn't necessarily mean adding provision of amenities as the two structures are for all intents and purposes separate from each other from where the upper bowl rises above the brickwork. 'Simply' adding seats would require a partial destruction of all existing (or what would be existing) concourse areas, addition of another concourse level to provide these additional amenities you mention, leading to full roof structure remodel. Not to mention the piling that would be needed for the additional bowl structure.

Also, the canal isn't 'aesthetics' there is avital need for the waterway connection to be maintained in order to maintain teh living nature of the docks, and its inclusion in any design was a fundamental part of any agreement on both lease and planning. It may be be maintained as an underground connection if aesthetics aren't important, but the physical link must be maintained.

Even though we lease the land, we are still under the restrictions of the regional SRF (Strategic Regeneration Framework) that we were subject to as part of the planning.

As much as we might hate to admit it, from the moment that BMD is opened, Anfield would be easier, and less disruptive/destructive to expand further.

 

[The binman chronicles]

The piling would be the issue. You'd have to pile where the concourse exists. Your not getting a piling rig in that area to do it without removing fairly extensive sections of the concourse .

In my head it would be built much like the middle tier of the millennium stadium that would overhang the existing structure. (see below) The piling would therefore sit outside of the East stand in the fan plaza with walkways underneath to go to the lower two tiers. The third tier concourse would sit in the new build.

We know the east stand has columns that support the barrel roof and these could be utilised to add some extra support to the terracing if required (green dotted line) but i'd imagine it could handle it without.