New Everton Stadium

[JamesEFC]

Ashamed to say on field matters have made me avoid new stadium discussion and updates , infact that’s the first video I’ve watched.

Can’t help but be excited watching that

 

[allen]

I remember hearing when the stadium was under construction that the dock walls essentially prevent the compacted sand from moving anywhere, making it a far more stable base than it would otherwise be.

Just realised that the opening phrase there is weird and confusing - by “when the stadium was under construction,” I think I meant “while the dock infilling was in progress.”

Pretty sure it’s very much still “under construction.”

 

[tommye]

meh

i want a decent team not a shiny seat

players first.

then stadium

thanx

regards matt

*reported

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I am not just excited for our next chapter, I am chuffed for what this development will bring to town. It is going to be boss.

 

[Tom Hughes]

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.

I would appreciate it if you didn't keep misquoting or misrepresenting me.

Also, in planning, space requirement is Vertical aswell as Horizontal. BMD has already had its height limited by the city planning office... if I remember rightly, it was because of the cluster of listed heritage buildings nearby. Those buildings aren't moving. That may or may not be negotiable in the future, hopefully it will be..... However, if it isn't, then any talk of "easy" expansion is entirely moot.

The waterway reinstatement isn't only aesthetic. Its reinstatement for continuous water access between adjacent docks along the network was a planning stipulation. It is also additional site flood protection for seasonal and future high tides in conjunction with the proposed raising of the inner quaysides.

Presumably the early studies you mention were superceded... hence why Colin Chong and Mo told shareholders 2 yrs ago that people-movement/circulation modelling for full compliance had been fairly tight at the current capacity. Maybe they just made it up to appease those of us questioning the 52k capacity.

Nowhere, have I said Anfield would be easy. I merely said in reference to the question of who will have the best stadium in the prem, that future-proofing was also a factor, since various others either are already or will almost certainly expand/modify further in the future including: Etihad, St James' and Anfield.... (and no doubt several others too).

However seeing as you've mentioned it.... why do you think LFC would be overly troubled by the prospect of acquiring 30-60 houses to expand the the Kemlyn, especially when they previously managed to clear over 300, including listed buildings? Even at a generous £250k each, 30-60 houses is just £7.5m - £15m. Less if LFC are still the leaseholders for Skerries Rd after they refurbished the properties. As has been shown, this hasn't been a great barrier thus far.

When I was saying that there was no capacity contraints in my last post, I was obviously referring to accessibility around St James's Park which can get to 60k+ with the of expansion at the Gallowgate end. The only capacity planning constraints at Anfield at present are with respect to transport and that has already been partially revised. As far as I'm aware, there are no specific capacity limitations with respect to the immediate site access/egress/evacuation by foot, with people able to leave in multiple directions.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

52k is fine, not sure why some keep going on about expansion, we’re hardly going to win anything in the next couple of years and with our ageing fan base, demand isn’t going to increase that much

 

[Daytripper]

52k is fine, not sure why some keep going on about expansion, we’re hardly going to win anything in the next couple of years and with our ageing fan base, demand isn’t going to increase that much

Winning things should be a long term goal, which elevates the status of the club which then potentially expands its customer base. The thinking should be beyond a couple of years.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

Winning things should be a long term goal, which elevates the status of the club which then potentially expands its customer base. The thinking should be beyond a couple of years.

I agree, but it’s 28 and counting, I’m sure that in the future, planning and roof height limits will change, but with this board I’m more certain that global warming and sea level rises will have an impact before us winning a trophy will

 

[Daytripper]

I agree, but it’s 28 and counting, I’m sure that in the future, planning and roof height limits will change, but with this board I’m more certain that global warming and sea level rises will have an impact before us winning a trophy will

That’s up to the club and fans to see change for the better. A board of directors that are significantly better then the previous. Things won’t change with people stuffing their gob with over cooked chips and snarling at people who walk with a few banners.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

That’s up to the club and fans to see change for the better. A board of directors that are significantly better then the previous. Things won’t change with people stuffing their gob with over cooked chips and snarling at people who walk with a few banners.

Yes agree but a high percentage of match going fans see it very short term - applaud the team on the pitch today rather than strike a protest and look at the long term.
An empty stadium against Fulham might cost us 3 points but longer term it might remove BK and bring in a more professional, business orientated board like all other clubs.
But then again the happy clappers will disagree and believe in the final day magic that we seem to have every season

 

[WA Toffee]

Whatever happened to this thread? It used to be a place of joyful anticipation. Suddenly it's full of would be architects and structural engineers.

The usual suspects had to make things up in order to keep feeling depressed about everything, but people that seem to know what they are talking about have corrected them.

Just another day on GOT

 

[Tom Hughes]

The usual suspects had to make things up in order to keep feeling depressed about everything, but people that seem to know what they are talking about have corrected them.

Just another day on GOT

You appear to be making things up.

 

[Walken]

You don't have to go in it Matty until we get a decent team, it's a personal choice and no one is forcing you to go.

That would almost make all these struggles worthwhile

 

[Tom Hughes]

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.

Apologies Binman, I missed your post.
To add 6 or 8k to the west stand without disturbing both end stand king trusses, would require an approx 30+ or 40+ row new tier respectively. Firstly, that would represent a height increase of the seating bowl, by at least 16-21m+. Which is substantially higher than the existing planning height restriction (although a different roof profile might help reduce the actual resultant overall height increase). Secondly, I would have to check the drawings and run those additional rows through a sightline modelling calculation..... however, I think the upper tier may already be at or near maximum rake (34-35°). If the last row is already at minimum C-value, then each subsequent row will only have a decreasing C-value, which would limit the number of new rows that could be added (if minimum c-value compliance was to be adhered to). However, If the last row of the upper tier (currently being constructed) is comfortably above C60, and/or if the rake angle can be increased for a new tier, then perhaps 40+ sightline rows is achievable. Looking at the overlay of 52k and 62k cross sections shows some leeway.

Of course that is all subject to other structural and cost/benefit constraints too.

 

[Dr Baxter]

52k is fine, not sure why some keep going on about expansion, we’re hardly going to win anything in the next couple of years and with our ageing fan base, demand isn’t going to increase that much

I'm not so sure we have such a huge problem with an aging fan base. I am always amazed how many young people you see at GP. That's purely my own observation, obviously. Does anybody have stats relating to this? Do we know how we compare to other teams in this regard?