My pleasure Pete.
New Everton Stadium
- Thread starter D410
- Start date
My pleasure Pete.
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £10m
It’s the internal stuff being ‘basic’ I’m interested in.
Retractable roof - meh…… whats the economics that make it worth the investment. Besides, there’s a lot of ‘basic’ stadiums in the Prem if that the benchmark.
70 boxes - private boxes aren’t what bigger spenders want now really so again, just a number that nowdays would likely be unnecessary.
Retractable pitch….. The one at WHL is serving them well isn’t it
What I’ve seen of the BMD plans is far from basic.
Well you'd have to explain how you believe BMD is complex internally. I explained why it is fairly basic. Straight stands, straight cranked corners. No real structural complexity of over-hanging tiers to bring people closer to the action. The format is structurally the most basic it can be apart from the ultimate in simplicity: a single tiered bowl or 4 stands with open corners. If you want to see more complexity for comparison, you could perhaps start with Dan Meis other proposals for Roma which have been shelved. Same capacity but more complex multi-tiered, curved stands, more corporate etc. It was roughly half the total construction cost. Or you could perhaps also look at Feyenoord's scheme which has recently been shelved for a year due to current material costs being too high: a triple tier stadium with 2 layers of corporate boxes and a closing roof.... again costing less than BMD despite having 10k more capacity and higher c-values maintained throughout. Not necessarily my preference either, but demonstrably more complex and more flexible.
As regards a closing roof is concerned we were making the direct comparison with Kings Dock, after all we're spending £500m+ for 53k capacity and Lille achieved all that for a little over half that cost (again for 4 sided triple decker). We were originally told that additional events to maximise income streams was part of the design brief..... a closing roof and moving pitch would be a pre-requisite for much of that and many high-end new generation stadia either have or will will have these in the coming years. Also, all modern stadia with high roof lines are notorious for drenching their front sections. A closing roof would counter that and at the same time greatly enhance the atmosphere. Again, all part of what Kings dock was offering.
Yes, some clubs have reduced their box numbers to better control prices or to offer larger high-end suites..... but none of the new builds have just 22.... and most have a higher proportion of corporate offer too. They are often in their own dedicated tier with the obviously highest value views to maximise their attraction to corporate buyers. Spurs have something like 80 boxes and a whole corporate tier.... some clubs have well over 100. So I think it's fair to say that 22 sharing the same tier as everyone else is pretty basic by comparison.
As I said previously, that's not necessarily a massive criticism. Simplicity is ok and the relatively steep stands will ensure that we all have good views. It's just a direct comparison with Kings Dock stemming from the previous posts about that.
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £10m
Here's an outline of the Kings Dock proposals:
New Stadium | Kings Dock
Wyness said that the Loop site was not viable because the original HOK concept was too small at 55k. So, as you say, the current capacity is slightly bemusing (although safe-standing could eleviate some of that).
The original scheme for BMD was for over 60k (and I think it was images of this that featured on the original road trip presentations). However, this was for a stadium that would host the commonwealth games, with a lot of additional funding from that. As soon as this was lost, that capacity was cut. BMD includes very substantial site acquisition and preparation costs.... with a large and expensive heritage element to raise and reinstate quaysides and all historic content. We can only assume that this cost, as well the requirement for high quality external design for a sensitive location has affected both capacity and internal configuration. I agree that a closing roof appears to be a glaring omission for a site with all the potential to become the largest multi-purpose UK arena outside of London or Cardiff.
Last edited:
I'm disappointed we don't have overhanging stands, they just make a stadium feel 'proper' and as you say, it keeps everyone more or less on top of the pitch. I know for sure no seat at BM will match my current view in the Top Balcony.
As for the boxes, I wonder how many of the 'loge' boxes and club memberships they will have? I'd imagine that's where they see the easier gains as opposed to the big corporate spenders.
Davideeyore
Player Valuation: £35m
"However, it will double as an entertainment arena with a varying capacity of between 5,500 to 24,000 thanks to a retractable roof and pitch."
Seems unreliable to me, it was never something I saw reported (about a retractable roof).
Are there any rules or regulations regarding the use of a roof during a PL match? I know in other sports, it has to be agreed by both parties prior to the match.
Once the decision has been made, it can't be reverted. Due to its location, it would have been a brilliant option if legislation and our finances allowed.
However, I think most would acknowledge that we're paying a premium for the location, which will have impacted on price the vs. quality ratio of the stadium.
That's not a criticism but merely an observation.
Once the decision has been made, it can't be reverted. Due to its location, it would have been a brilliant option if legislation and our finances allowed.
However, I think most would acknowledge that we're paying a premium for the location, which will have impacted on price the vs. quality ratio of the stadium.
That's not a criticism but merely an observation.
I don't think we are paying a premium for the location are we? I thought it was £20m for the site and a peppercorn rent for 200 years
I think the stadium is underwhelming compared to Spurs stadium, the capacity is too low, maybe this will be increased slightly at the end to maybe 55k. Looking at the internals compared to the Spurs stadium, it doesn't look nowhere near as complex and spurs have eight to nine floors, compared to our four and that is on the West & East sides, the North & South only have two to three floors. To call the stadium one of the best in the world is a bit over the top compared to a lot of the new builds, location wise that is a yes though.
It’s more to do with the increased costs due to building on a dock a d maintaining and/or restarting the heritage of the site, which is an added premium.
The same design elsewhere (a less complex site) wouldn’t cost the same amount.
possibly but I haven't looked into it. I know the headline for preparatory work was £100m but any site would need some so the net difference my be only in the range of one or two Iwobis
Gardocki
Player Valuation: £8m
IMO Spurs looks more impressive internally, and BMD looks more impressive externally.
I'm also not worried about the overlapping tiers or lack of third tiers. Arsenal's lower tier is nearly horizontal to accommodate boxes and corporate levels, and it looks really rubbish. With football, simplicity is often better for atmosphere. If you look at some of the new American stadia they look incredible, but also look like you'd struggle get a decent atmosphere.
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £10m
Plus well over £100m to fill the dock, prep it, and additional costs for external design features to satisfy heritage/planning issues. All in all that amounts to quite a premium.
It's a fair point and there is a lot to be said for a basic bowl (as long as its basic bowl prices) but this isn't (overall). The Emirate's atmosphere mainly suffers because the additional (quiet) corporate tiers go all the way around, fragmenting the crowd on all sides. The lower tier is quite shallow but they are all high c-value rows. Spurs have addressed most of those issues. The Millenium/principality stadium on the otherhand is one of the most atmospheric venues in the world, mainly because the proportions are better with more people in the upper tier, perched under a contiuous closing roof. They are also much closer to the pitch because of those over-lapping tiers.
I've never been overly bothered about external views of stadia.... they have no effect on the stadium's performance as a viewing platform or in terms of atmosphere enhancement. Infact some of the world's greatest are positively austere and featureless on the outside.
AsiaAsia82
Player Valuation: £35m
Just for info Spurs are located in one of the richest and biggest cities in Europe where millions of people live and there’s a lot of investment
We are based in a north west provincial city that has 2 teams and is famous for a band from 60years ago and a song from a musical. Little investment and much reduced population.
And we haven’t won anything for 27 years.
We are getting a brand new stadium on the docks paid for by a crazy benefactor with great views, cold beer and toilets!
I think we need to get real.
We are based in a north west provincial city that has 2 teams and is famous for a band from 60years ago and a song from a musical. Little investment and much reduced population.
And we haven’t won anything for 27 years.
We are getting a brand new stadium on the docks paid for by a crazy benefactor with great views, cold beer and toilets!
I think we need to get real.
mickefc
Player Valuation: £2.5m
It's not just the band from 60 years ago that makes our City one of the best in the world tbf
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
