We have done similar and before them too...... if you didn't call that reprehensible at the time of the Park end, you really can't do it now. Truth is, no-one batted an eye lid, and everyone accepted that Everton should be allowed to expand GP at their historic home.
I seem to remember that it was over 12m to the end terraces on Muriel/Diana streets..... but it was over 20yrs ago that I surveyed the whole site so I could be mistaken. I still have the clubs oen drawings somewhere, if i find them I'll check. However, the point is these are just a few end terraces and not a whole row of houses.... and sufficient space would be readily released for only a few of them. The school is set further back, is up for a rebuild anyway and doesn't have quite the same right to light issues as residential.
Put it this way, if the club were following that course, this would be a formality and a miniscule loss of houses compared to multiple large scale clearances around the city. When my familyvwere scattered from Everton literally thousands of houses were flattened... I'm not suggesting that is necessarily right, just providing some perspective.
LFC had to clear more space because of the nature of their build and the surrounding road layout. They were building onto the back of an already quite substantial stand to create a stand as big as those at Wembley..... we would be building at the back and above a much smaller and shallower lower tier to a subsequently lower scale.... using a more spacially efficient over-lapping format to save space. They couldn't do that because the existing stands were already quite steep and c-value led sightline geometry wouldn't allow it.
They bought most.of the houses, and used legal CPO processes to acquire the rest. Reprehensible? Perhaps, but they argue that they bring millions into the city and add prestige etc.... and therefore just like any business or infrastructure expansion they say that they merit such consideration for the greater good etc...... just as we did when building and expanding GP throughout its history (to ultimately host a world cup semi-final).... as did Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle and multiple others who have expanded their footprints.
There are always consequences..... the people of Vauxhall and the Eldonians could equally argue that they bought their homes and built their own award winning estate without having a football stadium on their doorstep. Similarly the well-healed residents of Waterloo dock who have also complained..... do you consider this a reprehensible infringement on their rights too?
Honestly, I'm not well versed on how we went about owning the properties on Goodison Avenue and those on Walton Lane itself. Any details would be appreciated.
If, like that lot, we did it slowly to diminish the value of owners and ultimately forcing them out at a depreciated value then yes I'd call it reprehensible now.
Again I may be incorrect (I will check), however from recollection from the corner of No 6 to the Bullens it was measured as slightly less than 10m wall to wall.
No 3. of Diana was similar distance as this was part of a job I was involved in years ago. A standard UK road is slightly over 7m and then add the pavements.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was perhaps misconstrued as I was not suggesting I wouldn't want a redevelopemtn or criticising plans or ideals.
Personally, I would have (and still would) support any redevelopment of Goodison as I love the place, yet (a big yet) only if it was practical for the club and the area.
In my humble opinion, it wasn't and still isn't hence why I'm more than content with the move to BMD. As I said, while possible we have to consider practicality.
Look at Gwlayds Street School for example. How would that be impacted by a large scale construction project taking a significant period of time?
Would we be content to slowly buy the properties around the ground at a fair price or, like most large companies, would we manipulate to our own ends?
Again, I would find the latter avenue somewhat disagreeable when you consider our portrayal as a club with better ethics.
