toffee66
Player Valuation: £8m
The design is a compromise reflecting multiple factors including:
1. Site geometry for N/S pitch
2. Planning constraints
3. Fanbase demographics including wealth distribution
4. Buildability
5. Affordability
Some of the compromises hurt aesthetics (roof height/shape). Some hurt capacity (North Stand footprint, scaled down South) and some limit economics (overall capacity, limited boxes).
IMO some of these compromises have possible silver linings. The smaller North Stand will somewhat echo the Park Stand (current and historic) and create a more distinctive ‘feel’. Boxes are atmosphere destroyers at eg Wembley, Emirates so preferring Loge seats may help overall atmosphere. The club has to get the outside aesthetics right as that will drive interest way beyond football. Inside it has to provide PL standard fan facilities, albeit without the palatial excesses of Spurs.
Goodison has design elements that limit atmospherics (the Park End being particularly risible). Every stadia has compromises. We will do more to determine how good or otherwise it is in this respect, recognising the imperfections are real and need to be overcome but nothing in life is perfect.
I have waited thirty years for us to deliver a new stadium. This location and this design tick far more boxes than they miss for me. Fans of other teams I know here in North London are at best vaguely aware of BMD but when I show them my phone screensaver the reaction is a consistent ‘Wow’. Maybe we are getting too close too it to realise that externally at least it has that impact as rendered?
Finally, I think Tom generally makes terrific, expert points but I disagree with his view that externals are less important than internals. They are equally important. The former in terms of visibility, commercial interest and overall reputation. The latter for the match day fan.
Will BMD deliver on both? Time will tell but hopefully we will still be part of a positive answer on match days, not just passive consumer-age nu-fans.
1. Site geometry for N/S pitch
2. Planning constraints
3. Fanbase demographics including wealth distribution
4. Buildability
5. Affordability
Some of the compromises hurt aesthetics (roof height/shape). Some hurt capacity (North Stand footprint, scaled down South) and some limit economics (overall capacity, limited boxes).
IMO some of these compromises have possible silver linings. The smaller North Stand will somewhat echo the Park Stand (current and historic) and create a more distinctive ‘feel’. Boxes are atmosphere destroyers at eg Wembley, Emirates so preferring Loge seats may help overall atmosphere. The club has to get the outside aesthetics right as that will drive interest way beyond football. Inside it has to provide PL standard fan facilities, albeit without the palatial excesses of Spurs.
Goodison has design elements that limit atmospherics (the Park End being particularly risible). Every stadia has compromises. We will do more to determine how good or otherwise it is in this respect, recognising the imperfections are real and need to be overcome but nothing in life is perfect.
I have waited thirty years for us to deliver a new stadium. This location and this design tick far more boxes than they miss for me. Fans of other teams I know here in North London are at best vaguely aware of BMD but when I show them my phone screensaver the reaction is a consistent ‘Wow’. Maybe we are getting too close too it to realise that externally at least it has that impact as rendered?
Finally, I think Tom generally makes terrific, expert points but I disagree with his view that externals are less important than internals. They are equally important. The former in terms of visibility, commercial interest and overall reputation. The latter for the match day fan.
Will BMD deliver on both? Time will tell but hopefully we will still be part of a positive answer on match days, not just passive consumer-age nu-fans.
