New Everton Stadium

[Jacko93]

Not really

The report was about the potential of Unesco withdrawing the heritage status of the waterfront, as they will also be doing with Palmyra and Aleppo

Hmm, feels like a potential spanner doesn't it?

Nope. The loss of WHS is something that has been accepted as a potential downside of inviting in £bn's in investment, for now and well into the future. People are saying it would be an embarrassment if we lost it. I disagree and feel it would be an embarrassment, and detrimental, to the city to lose out on the amount of investment that Liverpool Waters is bringing in.

 

[kithnou]

Isn't number 4 the design with an alarmingly large amount of red splashed on it? The designers must be kopites. Swerve.

The outside.
The inside is superb.

 

[davek]

Good man. That's a proper 4 sided effort. It's 'only' around 54k seats, so imagine that design with an added 6k or so.
@davek you agree mate?
Not a fan of the outside though. Inside is superb.

All fantasy island stuff.

When is the real consultation? Kicked into the long grass no doubt.

Next we'll hear of any stadium business is the end of autumn I'd suspect...and then it'll be to state that talks are ongoing about designs and capacity and consultation will 'hope to begin' next year.

An utter (and typical) farce.

 

[The binman chronicles]

This is not true.

I imagine are using Hampden as an example. It worked there because the stadium is already way back from the pitch with massive curved stands at either end. It was probably designed to accommodate greyhound racing like the old Wembley. It is not just a matter of putting a platform over the first few rows of seats in a purpose built football ground.

As someone else pointed out, it will also impact on the gradient of the upper tiers, their suitability to 'overhang' and their proximity to the pitch. If you ever sit on the upper tier of a stadium with steep stands, it is designed in a way that you only see the pitch but not the lower tier beneath. Putting a track over the lower tiers would be useless, as you wouldn't see it from the adjacent upper tier.

As Dan Meis says, it can be done. Unfortunately, despite the PR lines that have been released, there is no way it can be done without making compromises to the design and keeping costs from escalating to a degree where it wouldn't be cheaper to build a 40,000 athletics stadium somewhere like Stonebridge Cross. I'm sure behind closed doors, allowing Everton to build on the docks site was conditional on it being 'useable' for the CG.

Agreed, the only way it will work in a 'squared' stadium (without leaving it half built or expensive moveable solutions) is to have the lower tier beneath ground level and only have single tier ends. The track can then be laid over the end stands (or at least one side, we may have a larger single tier one end that it will butt up to) giving the length needed.

The track floor would have to be a serious work of engineering in itself as it will be pretty high off the floor. It may be possible to have a lattice like structure bridging over gap though, saving the need for thousands of tall props.

 

[MickA]

For anyone who doesn't yet know- converting a stadium to have a running track is relatively simple.
There is no moving of seats, it's a false floor that sits on top of the first few rows to seats thus extending the distance to accommodate a running track.
A bit like a scaffolding rig but more high tech.

It is, but you won't have a 'close to the action' stadium or steep stands. The mayor mentions a 40k set-up for athletics, that suggests the upper tiers behind the goals will be at least 177m away from each other.

 

[MickA]

Agreed, the only way it will work in a 'squared' stadium (without leaving it half built or expensive moveable solutions) is to have the lower tier beneath ground level and only have single tier ends. The track can then be laid over the end stands (or at least one side, we may have a larger single tier one end that it will butt up to) giving the length needed.

The track floor would have to be a serious work of engineering in itself as it will be pretty high off the floor. It may be possible to have a lattice like structure bridging over gap though, saving the need for thousands of tall props.

I keep hearing from people it can be done or is 'easy' yet nobody has ever come up with an example of a track in a traditional, tight stadium.

 

[Yarrgh]

Here are some world heritage sites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/unusual-world-heritage-sites/

They may well have some historical worth but would you visit them if you were in the area? A fantastic stadium and redevelopment of the area will give more benefit to the appearance of the skyline than a dilapidated dockland. It will give way more to the city than will be lost.

Especially if there is an overhead railway!

 

[YellowSweat]

Isn't number 4 the design with an alarmingly large amount of red splashed on it? The designers must be kopites. Swerve.

The multi colours in the plans are to demonstrate an area that would be lit up with lighting I believe, think Alianz etc

 

[Magus]

This is not true.

I imagine are using Hampden as an example. It worked there because the stadium is already way back from the pitch with massive curved stands at either end. It was probably designed to accommodate greyhound racing like the old Wembley. It is not just a matter of putting a platform over the first few rows of seats in a purpose built football ground.

As someone else pointed out, it will also impact on the gradient of the upper tiers, their suitability to 'overhang' and their proximity to the pitch. If you ever sit on the upper tier of a stadium with steep stands, it is designed in a way that you only see the pitch but not the lower tier beneath. Putting a track over the lower tiers would be useless, as you wouldn't see it from the adjacent upper tier.

As Dan Meis says, it can be done. Unfortunately, despite the PR lines that have been released, there is no way it can be done without making compromises to the design and keeping costs from escalating to a degree where it wouldn't be cheaper to build a 40,000 athletics stadium somewhere like Stonebridge Cross. I'm sure behind closed doors, allowing Everton to build on the docks site was conditional on it being 'useable' for the CG.

Everton haven't been allowed to build on the docks as yet and the city hasn't secured the games yet. I don't buy any of these conspiracy theories.

As for the impact on design, what is there to stop Everton agreeing to a temporary running track but the adverse impact being a reduced capacity for the athletics events rather than the ground's main role as a football stadium.

I understand that people are trying to make educated guesses, but that is all they are at the moment.

 

[Gardocki]

Everton haven't been allowed to build on the docks as yet and the city hasn't secured the games yet. I don't buy any of these conspiracy theories.

As for the impact on design, what is there to stop Everton agreeing to a temporary running track but the adverse impact being a reduced capacity for the athletics events rather than the ground's main role as a football stadium.

I understand that people are trying to make educated guesses, but that is all they are at the moment.

It's accepted by everybody that the athletics would have a reduced capacity, probably because the lower tier would be under the temporary track.

The upper tier of an 'intimidating stand close to the pitch' would have difficulty in seeing the track directly below it. The only way to avoid this and still maintain is to compromise on the design. These are practical design issues rather than educated guesses. People who think a temporary running track can be put in without compromising the design are kidding themselves. As someone said, the upper tiers behind the goals would need to be at least 180m apart. Upper tiers can't be retractable based on any realistic budget.

The whole premise of this thread is assuming we will be able to build on the site. It's not a massive assumption. The games haven't been awarded, but we have been told that the stadium is being designed in a way that athletics can be accommodated for the games. There's no way the design won't be influenced (compromised) so that a running track can be fitted, no matter what the club or their professional advisers are telling the fans.

 

[beachy]

Idea:
The width of an athletics track plus the long jump pit is not that different to the length of a football pitch.
Why not just build our end stands first (plus corners) and use these as the side stands for the games. Cheap low level temporary stands around the rest of the track could increase capacity during the games.
Then after the games rotate the pitch by 90 degrees and build our side stands.
Job done.

 

[Magus]

It's accepted by everybody that the athletics would have a reduced capacity, probably because the lower tier would be under the temporary track.

The upper tier of an 'intimidating stand close to the pitch' would have difficulty in seeing the track directly below it. The only way to avoid this and still maintain is to compromise on the design. These are practical design issues rather than educated guesses. People who think a temporary running track can be put in without compromising the design are kidding themselves. As someone said, the upper tiers behind the goals would need to be at least 180m apart. Upper tiers can't be retractable based on any realistic budget.

The whole premise of this thread is assuming we will be able to build on the site. It's not a massive assumption. The games haven't been awarded, but we have been told that the stadium is being designed in a way that athletics can be accommodated for the games. There's no way the design won't be influenced (compromised) so that a running track can be fitted, no matter what the club or their professional advisers are telling the fans.

I don't think planning permission will be refused, I have always considered the stadium to be an acceptable use within the overall Liverpool Waters blueprint, but neither do I think the council could enforce a condition that the stadium should be available for the Commonwealth Games. It will be on a mutually agreed basis.

I also agree that these are practical design considerations if you prioritise the athletics track over the football use. However, Dan Meiss seems adamant that the primary football use will not be sacrificed in this way.

I am not an avid athletics fan, so I don't know what the potential capacity would need to be for that element of the games. Having said that, the CG is not the Olympics and I have seldom seen full capacity used even at Olympic events. The main capacity only ever seems to be used for the opening and closing ceremonies, which apparently are being held at the pit.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Idea:
The width of an athletics track plus the long jump pit is not that different to the length of a football pitch.
Why not just build our end stands first (plus corners) and use these as the side stands for the games. Cheap low level temporary stands around the rest of the track could increase capacity during the games.
Then after the games rotate the pitch by 90 degrees and build our side stands.
Job done.

We've been told that we will be in the stadium the season leading up to the games and be back in it after the games. This indicates there will not be a lot of building work afterwards. I think most people would be happier if we had that kind of plan as it would at least mean we were getting something purpose built for football. You could have half the stadium built (one side/one end) and then have temporary seating around the rest, after the games build the other two stands. That may mean we wouldn't move in until 2023/24 though.

Fingers crossed we just don't get the games, makes things far easier.

 

[MickA]

I don't think planning permission will be refused, I have always considered the stadium to be an acceptable use within the overall Liverpool Waters blueprint, but neither do I think the council could enforce a condition that the stadium should be available for the Commonwealth Games. It will be on a mutually agreed basis.

I also agree that these are practical design considerations if you prioritise the athletics track over the football use. However, Dan Meiss seems adamant that the primary football use will not be sacrificed in this way.

I am not an avid athletics fan, so I don't know what the potential capacity would need to be for that element of the games. Having said that, the CG is not the Olympics and I have seldom seen full capacity used even at Olympic events. The main capacity only ever seems to be used for the opening and closing ceremonies, which apparently are being held at the pit.

You can only really go on what's in the public domain at the moment. That is that the track area is a constant but the overall athletics area will not be as wide as there will be no jumping events.

Then you have Joe saying “Everton are looking to build a stadium of 50-55,000 capacity, maybe more, and the dropping in of a running track will reduce that to about 40,000.

So presuming a 60k overall capacity, Joe is alluding that two thirds of the seats will be located outside of the track area. That, to me, seems incompatible with a steep, tight stadium unless you budget for intelligent design which we haven't.

 

[Bilko]

I think this new stadium will be the springboard for the club, we're buying players all about us, but do think the key to getting into the top 4 will be the new stadium and who it attracts re supporters , players & sponsors. btw given the money getting spent and the players coming in, 60,000 stadium would be filled easily IMO.