New Everton Stadium

[everton2004]

Aren't these images doing the rounds jarg?

 

[Duncan Disordely]

Aren't these images doing the rounds jarg?

I believe it depends on which ones you're talking about. There's some from a design forum's competition to try to design a stadium to the expected BMD brief, but there's also images from a booklet that is believed to be genuine. So genuine they put in a copyright request for them to be taken down.

 

[Wizard]

I think the figures are how many fans will walk through there after the game, not stand capacities.

Think they are probably capacities. They make up nearly 27,000. If we are going for 60,000 then it's just under half in the two smaller stands

 

[Jacko93]

That a guess, suggestion or something you know?

I am very confident there will be a single tier stand behind at least on goal.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Think they are probably capacities. They make up nearly 27,000. If we are going for 60,000 then it's just under half in the two smaller stands

In my humble opinion I think the other chap is right. That diagram just shows the movement of people at particular points, if you look at the yellow dotted circles I believe it is how many people are expected to be passing through those areas to be able to work out how wide the exit/entry concourses should be. So the 2 end figures include half of the stand that runs the length of the pitch. (Minus 2 odd thousand that exit via the riverside car park) However they only include half the capacity of each end. (Basically all the areas shaded in red/blue)

Although that would mean if that document has any truth to it the large goal end would be around 14k bigger than the other end. From the picture that could not be the case but the actual layout may differ to that as it could just be a template stadium.

Everyone is forced to come out onto the fanzone plaza (bar the premium seated people who leave by car) meaning the best part of 58k making their way out at that point marked with a yellow circle. Then everyone moves either north or south when out into Regent Road as indicated by the 60K N/S & A & B circles.

That's how I interpret it anyhow.

 

[IllinoisBlue]

Interesting that diagram has MEIS in bottom left corner.

 

[LABlue2]

I'm ready for a big honkin south tier so that helicopter cameras can show the stadium from above facing the giant south tier with the 3 graces in the background behind

 

[jonnyboy316]

The North Stand capacity seems to be restricted by the site dimensions. There is only an 11m walkway outside it to the site boundary which is at the narrow end by modern standards which demand vehicle entry & broad fan concourses for safety.To increase capacity you need to increase stand depth, losing paving.

As there is only a 20m gap at the South end and this has to house the car park access road effectively taking half the space (cannot tunnel in a dock) you cannot do much about it.

So the site effectively only allows one deep end in North/South configuration and that layout is needed for a riverside car park and then roadside fan plaza designed to ease rapid entry/exit for fans. Apparently an East-West layout, that better aligns to the site shape, does not easily create car access or a wide fan plaza for pedestrian circulation. These are both key practical design needs.

Explained to me by an architect mate at HOK who works on stadia/arenas. Every design decision creates trade-offs if the site dimensions are a limiting factor as they are at BMD (bigger than Goodison site, smaller than e.g. Emirates space). He thinks what he saw in that document was probably close to optimal space use for the site.

He also thought the elevated 'floating' roof design that seemed to be levered off the mid tier in the side drawings suggests that one or more tiers may be retractable underneath the roof of West & South stands if needed but says cost for that would blow the budget up nearer £500m (thinks it will be £400m not £300m anyway!).

No issue with 1 end being small as long as it is not freakishly small like the Aviva stadium

 

[Gardocki]

Something doesn't stack up with this. Based on this plan, the stadium will only use BM and not Nelson Dock. The site is long and narrow, going west to east, but they have put the site facing north south, and left the bare minimum space outside the stands for evacuation.

Based on the measurement tool on google earth, the site is about 210m in total, from north to south. That would be shorter that other stadia of similar size, without even considering the evacuation routes.

One thing is certain - it'll play havoc with a running track thank god.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

I am very confident there will be a single tier stand behind at least on goal.

Hopefully, though it's crossed my mind that it may two tiered with a small power and a large upper, I'm sure there was a stand like that in Euro 2000. Thing is it may sound good but you don't get standing in upper tiers especially steep ones a as its unsafe.

Regardless, whatever he deems as the best type of End Stand, why is he not doing that design for both Ends?? It's admitting there and then that one End is inferior? So the stadium is not the best it can be is it? Its for life this stadium and my kids lives.

Is the Inferior End the CWG compromise? Getting the Ends right is the most important thing for the atmosphere, not the track, steepness, or whether or not its an an extra metre or two closer to the pitch, the End Stands generate the atmosphere. Our fans should be fuming over this.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Something doesn't stack up with this. Based on this plan, the stadium will only use BM and not Nelson Dock. The site is long and narrow, going west to east, but they have put the site facing north south, and left the bare minimum space outside the stands for evacuation.

Based on the measurement tool on google earth, the site is about 210m in total, from north to south. That would be shorter that other stadia of similar size, without even considering the evacuation routes.

One thing is certain - it'll play havoc with a running track thank god.

I agree, I don't think that layout makes best use of the site. For starters it would prevent any further expansion on what would presumably be the easiest part to build up if it wasn't rammed up against the boundary.

Any expansion of the riverside stand would be presumably difficult too as you would then be increasing the amount of people that could have to be evacuated under the end stands. So unless they build the paths to be far larger tham required in the first place that may rule that out on saftey grounds, unless another route becomes available that is. (Maybe across Nelson Dock once that has been filled in)

 

[Big Neville Southall]

I agree, I don't think that layout makes best use of the site. For starters it would prevent any further expansion on what would presumably be the easiest part to build up if it wasn't rammed up against the boundary.

Any expansion of the riverside stand would be presumably difficult too as you would then be increasing the amount of people that could have to be evacuated under the end stands. So unless they build the paths to be far larger tham required in the first place that may rule that out on saftey grounds, unless another route becomes available that is. (Maybe across Nelson Dock once that has been filled in)

Another disappointment if it can't expand, even if it was just two sides that could expand that would do.

 

[Sainsbur McManus]

If both ends were the same, there wouldn't be a discernible "end"

Surely we don't want a stadium that looks exactly the same all the way round?

 

[Big Neville Southall]

If both ends were the same, there wouldn't be a discernible "end"

Surely we don't want a stadium that looks exactly the same all the way round?

It's about designing the best, optimising intimidation.

It also wouldn't be the same all the way around as you want your sides different, as they generally join in with atmosphere rather than create it, so you have a tiered design for them. Either way surely we can't put people's personal aesthetic preferences over quality.

 

[Gardocki]

Hopefully, though it's crossed my mind that it may two tiered with a small power and a large upper, I'm sure there was a stand like that in Euro 2000. Thing is it may sound good but you don't get standing in upper tiers especially steep ones a as its unsafe.

Regardless, whatever he deems as the best type of End Stand, why is he not doing that design for both Ends?? It's admitting there and then that one End is inferior? So the stadium is not the best it can be is it? Its for life this stadium and my kids lives.

Is the Inferior End the CWG compromise? Getting the Ends right is the most important thing for the atmosphere, not the track, steepness, or whether or not its an an extra metre or two closer to the pitch, the End Stands generate the atmosphere. Our fans should be fuming over this.

I couldn't disagree more. I think it's important to have one big home end, rather than two identical ends.

People reference Dortmund's stadium a lot. That's their model. One big home end and a second two-tiered end with a lower capacity. A steep 2 tier end of 10,500 would not look small.