Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

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.

 

New Everton Stadium

Toffefc said:
Let's say the dock is about 30 feet deep, I do not understand why they did not get the most out of this space by using it for vehicle parking? It would have been hell of a lot cheaper to do this, they could have engineered it so the stadium could have gone on top. Just seems like a waste of a space that could have solved parking problems and worked out cheaper. They could still have protected the walls? Filling it in to me is just one great expense.
Click to expand...
more trouble than its worth, if you have an underground parking under a stadium such as this you'd have ventilation and fire mitigation measures to accommodate, for not all that many cars. There'll be enough parking for the directors and other worthies elsewhere on site, us plebs can get on the omnibus or shanksy's pony.
 
Toffefc said:
Let's say the dock is about 30 feet deep, I do not understand why they did not get the most out of this space by using it for vehicle parking? It would have been hell of a lot cheaper to do this, they could have engineered it so the stadium could have gone on top. Just seems like a waste of a space that could have solved parking problems and worked out cheaper. They could still have protected the walls? Filling it in to me is just one great expense.
Click to expand...
I think the Monaco stadium is above a car park. They always have problems with the pitch, but I guess that could

Anyway, building a stadium on a car park will make the lower structure much more massive and the whole thing much slower to build.

I’m sure they would have looked at it, but a stadium sized car park would be expensive on its own.
 

They could've put a car park underneath at possibly not that much greater expense of filling it, in relation to the total project cost. The structure will still have to pass through the infill of sand to piled foundations in the bottom of the dock floor in anycase. There may have been vehicle access concerns given the limited number of openings in the dock wall. After all the other car park never made it to planning, and one of the original reasons for relocation was to substantially reduce the amount of car usage via better public transport access. If that is a viable ambition at BMD is yet to be seen.

Stadium planners often utilise site topography to reduce structural/construction costs by having a portion of the stadium (a lower tier) below ground level. This then helps with vertical transport in the stadium, by knocking at least one or two floors off its height...(a planning issue at this site). so it is in some ways a missed opportunity when a large cavity by way of the dock-basin already exists. An inner cofferdam could've also allowed the dock walls to remain exposed with water surrounding in a narrow moat to add a further historic feature and also alleviate planning concerns regarding quayside preservation etc. Perhaps the concerns about flooding and having to raise the quaysides has proven too costly.... but this has been utilised elsewhere too.
 
Tom Hughes said:
They could've put a car park underneath at possibly not that much greater expense of filling it, in relation to the total project cost. The structure will still have to pass through the infill of sand to piled foundations in the bottom of the dock floor in anycase. There may have been vehicle access concerns given the limited number of openings in the dock wall. After all the other car park never made it to planning, and one of the original reasons for relocation was to substantially reduce the amount of car usage via better public transport access. If that is a viable ambition at BMD is yet to be seen.

Stadium planners often utilise site topography to reduce structural/construction costs by having a portion of the stadium (a lower tier) below ground level. This then helps with vertical transport in the stadium, by knocking at least one or two floors off its height...(a planning issue at this site). so it is in some ways a missed opportunity when a large cavity by way of the dock-basin already exists. An inner cofferdam could've also allowed the dock walls to remain exposed with water surrounding in a narrow moat to add a further historic feature and also alleviate planning concerns regarding quayside preservation etc. Perhaps the concerns about flooding and having to raise the quaysides has proven too costly.... but this has been utilised elsewhere too.
Click to expand...
And who said it would have passed planning permission in terms of highways, the roads navigating into the site are not suitable for hundreds of cars especially when you have thousands of people on the street. Plus, LCC are very big on pushing for reduced emissions in and around the city centre and this would negate it massively.

So, while it looks great in theory there’s also a chance that highways may have rejected the application by raising multiple concerns
 
nsno-chris said:
And who said it would have passed planning permission in terms of highways, the roads navigating into the site are not suitable for hundreds of cars especially when you have thousands of people on the street. Plus, LCC are very big on pushing for reduced emissions in and around the city centre and this would negate it massively.

So, while it looks great in theory there’s also a chance that highways may have rejected the application by raising multiple concerns
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much what I inferred when mentioning access limitations of site and increased public transport ambitions.
 

Tom Hughes said:
They could've put a car park underneath at possibly not that much greater expense of filling it, in relation to the total project cost. The structure will still have to pass through the infill of sand to piled foundations in the bottom of the dock floor in anycase. There may have been vehicle access concerns given the limited number of openings in the dock wall. After all the other car park never made it to planning, and one of the original reasons for relocation was to substantially reduce the amount of car usage via better public transport access. If that is a viable ambition at BMD is yet to be seen.

Stadium planners often utilise site topography to reduce structural/construction costs by having a portion of the stadium (a lower tier) below ground level. This then helps with vertical transport in the stadium, by knocking at least one or two floors off its height...(a planning issue at this site). so it is in some ways a missed opportunity when a large cavity by way of the dock-basin already exists. An inner cofferdam could've also allowed the dock walls to remain exposed with water surrounding in a narrow moat to add a further historic feature and also alleviate planning concerns regarding quayside preservation etc. Perhaps the concerns about flooding and having to raise the quaysides has proven too costly.... but this has been utilised elsewhere too.
Click to expand...

You are right in that it wouldn't of been that much extra, structurally, as the majority of the stadiums mass will be through the stands and therefore in piles through the ground external to what would be the underground CP. It would have a huge impact on services though, as all that toxic, fume filled air has to get out somewhere. A space of that size will need a much bigger path to escape than what can be afforded through a single entrance/exit. That would mean one of two things:

A) External exhaust/flues within the fan plaza space.

B) Vertical exhaust ducts throughout the structure to escape on the roof.


For A, it would have to be on the fan plaza, as N/S flues would have to puncture the existing dock structure to get there and any point of escape will likely cause congestion at those areas. The flues cant be low level as they're pumping out noxious fumes a their highest concentration at the very time people will be expected to be passing any external flue, so would be very visible.

For B, the exhaust flues will be highly concentrated, due to volume of fumes to be removed (everybody, all at once calls for a much higher air change rate than normal) and with passing though the structure, service risers will have to be created which would reduce internal space and therefore potentially capacity.
 
Jacko93 said:
You are right in that it wouldn't of been that much extra, structurally, as the majority of the stadiums mass will be through the stands and therefore in piles through the ground external to what would be the underground CP. It would have a huge impact on services though, as all that toxic, fume filled air has to get out somewhere. A space of that size will need a much bigger path to escape than what can be afforded through a single entrance/exit. That would mean one of two things:

A) External exhaust/flues within the fan plaza space.

B) Vertical exhaust ducts throughout the structure to escape on the roof.


For A, it would have to be on the fan plaza, as N/S flues would have to puncture the existing dock structure to get there and any point of escape will likely cause congestion at those areas. The flues cant be low level as they're pumping out noxious fumes a their highest concentration at the very time people will be expected to be passing any external flue, so would be very visible.

For B, the exhaust flues will be highly concentrated, due to volume of fumes to be removed (everybody, all at once calls for a much higher air change rate than normal) and with passing though the structure, service risers will have to be created which would reduce internal space and therefore potentially capacity.
Click to expand...

There are lots of examples of stadia with underground parking, I assume they use a combination of natural and forced draft ventilation similar to roll on roll off ferries for instance. I haven't checked all of the latest revision drawings of BMD but would assume that at least one stand will have an element of this for directors/team/staff/corporates to use. These may be still at (or near) ground level on the western stand where the new stairs seem to project over the parking area so I don't think it's a massive issue.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top