New Everton Stadium

[Tom Hughes]

Yes and it would have looked *sihte* and we would then have decided to move in any case. We are moving. It will be great and I can't wait.

The interior would not have changed, consources and the like neither. And it deffo wouldnt have lasted another 100 plus years. The time is right.

Yes, BMD is shiny new and appears to tick all boxes and is a very exciting prospect.... but it is also coming at a very high cost, that as yet we have no idea how we're paying for, nor what that will mean financially going forward. Hopefully, it may well be the launchpad to greater things on thd pitch, especially if the benevolence of our owner(s) matches that (growing) price-tag.... but I'm not sure that that is a given. It may also merely be a method of packaging the club for the most lucrative sale or to generate a foothold in the hopefully burgeoning Liverpool waterfront development scheme.... who knows?

Redevelopment needn't necessarily look sh*te or not be long-lasting. Real Madrid are currently transforming the Bernabeu, to bring it up to the highest modern standards. Barcelona have similar plans. These famous stadia have been continually evolving over decades and the results will probably be the greatest football stadiums in the world. This hasn't been done out of pure sentimentalism alone, it has been done based on the basic economics. Adding capacity or facilities to an existing stadium can often be far cheaper than acquiring and preparing a new site and building a whole new stadia afresh. They are also avoiding several unknowns and risks associated with relocation, such as whether transport, infrastructure and local amenities work as well, or if changes of perception or dilution of history in a new location might be damaging etc (a la Destination Kirkby).

Many famous stadia worldwide have followed a similar redevelopment process very successfully. Most large German stadia for instance have evolved similarly and were completely transformed incrementally over a longer periods and would be considered at least a match for BMD on most criteria.

Yes, there are some poor examples of piece-meal addlibs too, but that is often more a case of lack of ambition, poor foresight, short termism or financial constraints (real or self-imposed), which shouldn't be the case for a club talking about spending £500m+.

 

[Bluerover]

Maybe so but I’m looking forward to getting in there for a pint and a nosey across the road.

Are they charging 1973 prices??

 

[allen]

….I’d prefer it if he kept the discussion to the ground development & didn’t talk about the games.

I think he said all there was to say about what he knew was going on with construction. I’m pleased the video ran on a bit beyond that, and I’d rather hear a bit of Everton chat over it than a royalty-free music track.

I think he’s just trying to build his channel to be more than drone videos. Fair play to him. I appreciate that he does them at all.

 

[Bluerover]

I know they aren't everybody's cup of tea for various reasons but I would be amazed if The Spoons didn't open a branch somewhere handy.

Until critical mass reaches a point where there us significant footfall 6 days per week rather than once a fortnight, that will he some time away.

If other developments follow BMD, with greater permanent residential and employment numbers, then it would make sense.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Are they charging 1973 prices??

I was in there on Monday.... reasonably priced but deffo not 1973 prices haha.

Seems a bit brighter than last time there. Pool table might have to go. Think upstairs is getting refurbished next.

 

[Jacko93]

Yes, BMD is shiny new and appears to tick all boxes and is a very exciting prospect.... but it is also coming at a very high cost, that as yet we have no idea how we're paying for, nor what that will mean financially going forward. Hopefully, it may well be the launchpad to greater things on thd pitch, especially if the benevolence of our owner(s) matches that (growing) price-tag.... but I'm not sure that that is a given. It may also merely be a method of packaging the club for the most lucrative sale or to generate a foothold in the hopefully burgeoning Liverpool waterfront development scheme.... who knows?

Redevelopment needn't necessarily look sh*te or not be long-lasting. Real Madrid are currently transforming the Bernabeu, to bring it up to the highest modern standards. Barcelona have similar plans. These famous stadia have been continually evolving over decades and the results will probably be the greatest football stadiums in the world. This hasn't been done out of pure sentimentalism alone, it has been done based on the basic economics. Adding capacity or facilities to an existing stadium can often be far cheaper than acquiring and preparing a new site and building a whole new stadia afresh. They are also avoiding several unknowns and risks associated with relocation, such as whether transport, infrastructure and local amenities work as well, or if changes of perception or dilution of history in a new location might be damaging etc (a la Destination Kirkby).

Many famous stadia worldwide have followed a similar redevelopment process very successfully. Most large German stadia for instance have evolved similarly and were completely transformed incrementally over a longer periods and would be considered at least a match for BMD on most criteria.

Yes, there are some poor examples of piece-meal addlibs too, but that is often more a case of lack of ambition, poor foresight, short termism or financial constraints (real or self-imposed), which shouldn't be the case for a club talking about spending £500m+.

Evertons move helps the city as well as opening us up to the as yet unseen benefits of being located there.

Its a risk, as everything is. Redevelopment is a risk.

Personally, with having an idea of what is coming next, the absolute best choice for us, and for the city is to be moving to BMD.

Trafalgar would have been absolutely 100% perfect, but was never seriously on the cards

 

[peteblue]

Yes, BMD is shiny new and appears to tick all boxes and is a very exciting prospect.... but it is also coming at a very high cost, that as yet we have no idea how we're paying for, nor what that will mean financially going forward. Hopefully, it may well be the launchpad to greater things on thd pitch, especially if the benevolence of our owner(s) matches that (growing) price-tag.... but I'm not sure that that is a given. It may also merely be a method of packaging the club for the most lucrative sale or to generate a foothold in the hopefully burgeoning Liverpool waterfront development scheme.... who knows?

Redevelopment needn't necessarily look sh*te or not be long-lasting. Real Madrid are currently transforming the Bernabeu, to bring it up to the highest modern standards. Barcelona have similar plans. These famous stadia have been continually evolving over decades and the results will probably be the greatest football stadiums in the world. This hasn't been done out of pure sentimentalism alone, it has been done based on the basic economics. Adding capacity or facilities to an existing stadium can often be far cheaper than acquiring and preparing a new site and building a whole new stadia afresh. They are also avoiding several unknowns and risks associated with relocation, such as whether transport, infrastructure and local amenities work as well, or if changes of perception or dilution of history in a new location might be damaging etc (a la Destination Kirkby).

Many famous stadia worldwide have followed a similar redevelopment process very successfully. Most large German stadia for instance have evolved similarly and were completely transformed incrementally over a longer periods and would be considered at least a match for BMD on most criteria.

Yes, there are some poor examples of piece-meal addlibs too, but that is often more a case of lack of ambition, poor foresight, short termism or financial constraints (real or self-imposed), which shouldn't be the case for a club talking about spending £500m+.

There is a little bit of difference between the footprints of RM and Barca stadia and GP…..

 

[Dr Baxter]

Yes, BMD is shiny new and appears to tick all boxes and is a very exciting prospect.... but it is also coming at a very high cost, that as yet we have no idea how we're paying for, nor what that will mean financially going forward. Hopefully, it may well be the launchpad to greater things on thd pitch, especially if the benevolence of our owner(s) matches that (growing) price-tag.... but I'm not sure that that is a given. It may also merely be a method of packaging the club for the most lucrative sale or to generate a foothold in the hopefully burgeoning Liverpool waterfront development scheme.... who knows?

Redevelopment needn't necessarily look sh*te or not be long-lasting. Real Madrid are currently transforming the Bernabeu, to bring it up to the highest modern standards. Barcelona have similar plans. These famous stadia have been continually evolving over decades and the results will probably be the greatest football stadiums in the world. This hasn't been done out of pure sentimentalism alone, it has been done based on the basic economics. Adding capacity or facilities to an existing stadium can often be far cheaper than acquiring and preparing a new site and building a whole new stadia afresh. They are also avoiding several unknowns and risks associated with relocation, such as whether transport, infrastructure and local amenities work as well, or if changes of perception or dilution of history in a new location might be damaging etc (a la Destination Kirkby).

Many famous stadia worldwide have followed a similar redevelopment process very successfully. Most large German stadia for instance have evolved similarly and were completely transformed incrementally over a longer periods and would be considered at least a match for BMD on most criteria.

Yes, there are some poor examples of piece-meal addlibs too, but that is often more a case of lack of ambition, poor foresight, short termism or financial constraints (real or self-imposed), which shouldn't be the case for a club talking about spending £500m+.

2 of the stadiums you refer to, namely the Bernabéu and the Nou Camp were both built during the life time of some people reading this thread. Bernabéu in the late 40's and Nou Camp in the late 50's. Both were built deliberately on sites which were on the edge of town and future proofed for future expansion. There is a great aerial photo of the Bernabéu when it was first built and it was virtually in the middle of fields. Goodison was built in the middle of housing. The situations are not remotely similar. German stadiums tend to be on the edge of towns and often in the middle of parks.

Tom, I appreciate your knowledge and passion but can we please stick to the topic. True, Goodison could have been developed in some shape or form but that ship has sailed. I'm glad we are moving but sad to see GP go. Let's talk about the reality of a new stadium and not about what might have beens over GP. Up The Toffees!

 

[Dublin blue 75]

Back to the BMD work itself and the latest video, great to see the infill visually progressing.. as the presenter points out, we are 1/3 of the way through that stage. The water now visually has a sandy hue to it. Weather permitting, the dock itself could be drained and filled with sand by year-end. Very large number of folks on site right now too, rubber hitting the road.

 

[tommye]

So bored of the GP redevelopment waffle.
It ain't happening.
Put it to bed and focus on what we are doing rather than would of, could of, should of.

Absolute yawnfest

 

[Tom Hughes]

Evertons move helps the city as well as opening us up to the as yet unseen benefits of being located there.

Its a risk, as everything is. Redevelopment is a risk.

Personally, with having an idea of what is coming next, the absolute best choice for us, and for the city is to be moving to BMD.

Trafalgar would have been absolutely 100% perfect, but was never seriously on the cards

I don't disagree about the intended trajectory of BMD in terms of benefits to us and the city and hopefully that is the case. However, in the absence of any info regarding the funding model and the actual levels of debt that will be incurred, it's difficult judge with any certainty. Of course, some will say that they just assume the club have done those sums....and big Uz is covering it
with naming rights etc. Which may well be correct.

I assume you're referring to Trafalgar Dock? Yes, there and Clarence dock combined. That whole area is larger, already filled and I agree would've probably been better on several scores.... but as said before, it is already ear-marked for development, which will happen regardless of our project, in line with the the overall Liverpool waters scheme and the adjacent 10 street developments outside the dock wall.

Yes, we have been mentioned in terms of being the catalyst at the far end of the Liverpool waters project, yet it hasn't appeared to have generated any additional enabling funding for our project. To the extent that if we want a station in Vauxhall in time for the opening..... so far, we've basically been told we'll have to pay for it ourselves? Although, that might well just be Merseytravel chancing their hand for a freeby at our expense, it's hardly indicative of a project attracting external investment thus far.

For a simple comparison, Feyenoord were involved with a similar waterfront scheme to build a new stadium upto only a few days ago. There, the stadium was the actual centrepiece not the book-end. Surrounded by a large new commercial and residential district, with office blocks and skyscraper apartments and lots of that funding already in place. That has now been put on hold, because the current high construction material prices have shifted the cost:benefit balance quite dramatically for the stadium. They are now revisiting the redevelopment der Kuip instead. That might change again as those construction costs come back down.... but it just goes to show that it is often a fine balancing act. Ofcourse, Moshiri might revert to type and keep throwing money at the problem (as he already has, to get it started) till it's built, but without knowing that figures and how much of it will be long term debt, it's very difficult to assess benefits.

 

[Jacko93]

I don't disagree about the intended trajectory of BMD in terms of benefits to us and the city and hopefully that is the case. However, in the absence of any info regarding the funding model and the actual levels of debt that will be incurred, it's difficult judge with any certainty. Of course, some will say that they just assume the club have done those sums....and big Uz is covering it
with naming rights etc. Which may well be correct.

I assume you're referring to Trafalgar Dock? Yes, there and Clarence dock combined. That whole area is larger, already filled and I agree would've probably been better on several scores.... but as said before, it is already ear-marked for development, which will happen regardless of our project, in line with the the overall Liverpool waters scheme and the adjacent 10 street developments outside the dock wall.

Yes, we have been mentioned in terms of being the catalyst at the far end of the Liverpool waters project, yet it hasn't appeared to have generated any additional enabling funding for our project. To the extent that if we want a station in Vauxhall in time for the opening..... so far, we've basically been told we'll have to pay for it ourselves? Although, that might well just be Merseytravel chancing their hand for a freeby at our expense, it's hardly indicative of a project attracting external investment thus far.

For a simple comparison, Feyenoord were involved with a similar waterfront scheme to build a new stadium upto only a few days ago. There, the stadium was the actual centrepiece not the book-end. Surrounded by a large new commercial and residential district, with office blocks and skyscraper apartments and lots of that funding already in place. That has now been put on hold, because the current high construction material prices have shifted the cost:benefit balance quite dramatically for the stadium. They are now revisiting the redevelopment der Kuip instead. That might change again as those construction costs come back down.... but it just goes to show that it is often a fine balancing act. Ofcourse, Moshiri might revert to type and keep throwing money at the problem (as he already has, to get it started) till it's built, but without knowing that figures and how much of it will be long term debt, it's very difficult to assess benefits.

The reason that they won't build a station in Vauxhall for us is that it is not part of their future plans and would be pretty much completely wasted by time their plans come to fruition. Nothing to do with wanting a freebie, or chancing their hand, it's more a case of 'if you want one, build one, but its a complete waste of time and money'.

 

[mickefc]

Anyone know if there's any plans to build on Nelson Dock next door or is it staying water? Can't see anything residential being built on there

 

[Tom Hughes]

There is a little bit of difference between the footprints of RM and Barca stadia and GP…..

I agree, but their footprints haven't always been their current size, and in Barcelona's case that is set to grow again. The point i was making is that redevelopment needn't result in poor design outcomes, and spacial constraints have often prompted more impressive solutions. (As was the case for Goodison Park as it developed into the finest stadium in the country on one of the smallest footprints)

 

[Tom Hughes]

The reason that they won't build a station in Vauxhall for us is that it is not part of their future plans and would be pretty much completely wasted by time their plans come to fruition. Nothing to do with wanting a freebie, or chancing their hand, it's more a case of 'if you want one, build one, but its a complete waste of time and money'.

A station in both Vauxhall and the Baltic triangle areas are very much part of their future plans and have been since long before the BMD proposals.