Boss_Rarkley
Player Valuation: £8m
Just watching this game now, the Krestovsky Stadium is fantastic, lots of nice reflections across the docks and Mersey be nice
Too fancy for the arl arses in the fanbase.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just watching this game now, the Krestovsky Stadium is fantastic, lots of nice reflections across the docks and Mersey be nice
If Fabergé made stadia.Just watching this game now, the Krestovsky Stadium is fantastic, lots of nice reflections across the docks and Mersey be nice
The BMD footprint is restrictive on the N-S axis and it will significantly shape both the exterior and interior design. The £ we have to spend on a difficult site (foundations, land fill, projecting/preserving protected dock walls etc.) will also limit the money available for cosmetic design, fit & finish. Function will have to trump form to optimise use of space and create the optimal sight-lines and audio characteristics to make the ground the promised “cauldron”. I think Meis is more likely aiming for elegant simplicity and design cues that tie the stadium into the historic landscape rather than the (admittedly impressive) C21 feel of St. Petersburg.
Yep, looks good internally. Externally, for me it's the ugliest new stadium in the world (and by some distance)...
Amazing what fancy blue lighting and a bit of distance does. In reality, the outside of the Zenit stadium is a giant monstrosity...I'd hope whatever ends up being built at BMD has more class...
The dock sits east/west, the stadium is going to be north south "side on" to the river. The restrictions being the space behind each goal.What are the North/South restrictions mate?
Getting back to the Stadium.....
Something has been bothering me from the images taken at the workshops. I'm intrigued by the two large gaps each side of the "Blue Wall" home end.
View attachment 45581 View attachment 45582
They are too big to be just disabled access as the other side of the ground would be the same. Also they reach right up to the roof line, no other access points do this. It's more likely they have some structural reason for being there. So what could their purpose be?
* Air Circulation? I don't think so. Other large stadiums don't have or need this feature.
* Glass Windows? Possibly. But we already know there is going to be a concourse behind the stand facing back to the city.
It looks like to me that these are gaps to enable the fitting of some sort of giant mast structures that will rise high above the roof line and have tension cables supporting some of the roof structure. Meis has a history of this, these are all his designs.
View attachment 45583 View attachment 45585 View attachment 45584
You can see from the picture above that the towers are outside the stadium, but because of the constraints of Nelson Dock I think Meis designed them to start from inside the stadium.
I may be totally wrong but I can't think of any other logical reason for those gaps to be there. If anyone else can I would be interested to hear it.
View attachment 45586
You can see the gaps here and how (if they are masts or towers) they would angle out over Nelson Dock at 45 degree angles
I think @devo85 is onto something here. Was watching last nights game at SP and noticed that stadium has mast structures that are partly inside the seating bowl. Viewed from above this would leave a gap in the stand in exactly the same way the BMD images do. Could it be that the roof supports will form a major part of the stadium aesthetics?
I do like their stadium (and roof). An Everton/Meis version would suit me. But (up to now) the size of BMD is still below these sort of stadium circa 50-55,000 and Meis isn't a believer in the retractable roof to boot. What will we end up with?! With keeping UNESCO and the WHS on side the BMD site becomes less suitable. IE it's not going to use the dock it'self in any way build the stadium below ground level or build underground parking etc. Going to be a complete infill. Why didn't the club invest in all or part of the Nelson Dock as well?
Cost? Or perhaps Peel were unwilling to release any more of their real estate for stadia purposes?I do like their stadium (and roof). An Everton/Meis version would suit me. But (up to now) the size of BMD is still below these sort of stadium circa 50-55,000 and Meis isn't a believer in the retractable roof to boot. What will we end up with?! With keeping UNESCO and the WHS on side the BMD site becomes less suitable. IE it's not going to use the dock it'self in any way build the stadium below ground level or build underground parking etc. Going to be a complete infill. Why didn't the club invest in all or part of the Nelson Dock as well?
Up there with your new place in the ugly stakes, that.
We all have different tastes when it comes to new stadium builds and I was one of the very few who loved the now shelved plans of the outside of Chelsea's new stadium but let's be honest, to most people it's the inside of a stadium that matters most and I think a large majority of you who visit Totnam's new build next season will be very impressed (and going by the renders of your new stadium I think it has many similarities.)
I think @devo85 is onto something here. Was watching last nights game at SP and noticed that stadium has mast structures that are partly inside the seating bowl. Viewed from above this would leave a gap in the stand in exactly the same way the BMD images do. Could it be that the roof supports will form a major part of the stadium aesthetics?
looks like a hub cap that you see lying on the side the roadOh aye. The inside of your place will look great but the outside just looks horrendous, to me anyway.
View attachment 47129