New Everton Stadium

davek said:
Making a relevant point about the wall that will hide the stadium away - a decision imposed on the club by conservation bodies we need not have listened to in the end?

Ok.
Click to expand...

The wall only "hides the stadium away" when you are stood right next to it. Simply take a few steps back and cross the road, or move to an area where there is a cut-through. You can easily see it then.
One of the aesthetics that Meis was going for was to have the stadium "rise out of the docks" and, doing it like this, as though the roof section hovers above the wall is one way of doing it.
The wall does not get in eth way of you seeing the stadium, it could almost be considered as forming a part of the aesthetic and experiential features. Making use of the surroundings, rather than simply removing them.
It could be likened to walking through tight terraced streets for the stadium to be revealed in its entirety only as you get right up to it.
The design of the area surrounding the stadium is, I believe, quite an industrial feel, in keeping with the history. As you walk through the main entrances, the mood of the stadium changes, from the 'wave', to being anchored to its location by brick and steel.
This reveal will of course change in some areas, once the access has been sorted through the other docks as they are developed.
 
mahermi1 said:
surely it would make more financial sense to just go for safe standing as Everton originally promised.
Click to expand...

There will be safe standing, the whole lower part of the home end will be equipped to do so but until regulations are relaxed, if you have (for ease of maths) 6000 seats there it will be 6000 standing. If you are allowed 1.3 in future then you've added close to 2k more in that same space. 1.7 and you are over 4k more taking the total in the stand to approx 16k.

It is doubtful we would get the German ratios here though so it will be closer to the first figure imho.
 

Tom Hughes said:
That concern was pretty much the same response of all those present. He intimated that in the future (when the stadium was established) the planning would be less of an issue.... but that doesn't get around the short sightedness and cost effectiveness of that.
Click to expand...
That's what struck me about the design too. As much as I like the stadium the roof doesn't allow for expansion - when it it was clearly something that was potentially needed in the future.

Did he say whether the design allows for the existing roof to be removed easily, extra rows to be added and a larger roof to be re-assembled.
 
Jacko93 said:
The wall only "hides the stadium away" when you are stood right next to it. Simply take a few steps back and cross the road, or move to an area where there is a cut-through. You can easily see it then. One of the aesthetics that Meis was going for was to have the stadium "rise out of the docks" and, doing it like this, as though the roof section hovers above the wall is one way of doing it. The wall does not get in eth way of you seeing the stadium, it could almost be considered as forming a part of the aesthetic and experiential features. Making use of the surroundings, rather than simply removing them.
It could be likened to walking through tight terraced streets for the stadium to be revealed in its entirety only as you get right up to it.
The design of the area surrounding the stadium is, I believe, quite an industrial feel, in keeping with the history. As you walk through the main entrances, the mood of the stadium changes, from the 'wave', to being anchored to its location by brick and steel.
This reveal will of course change in some areas, once the access has been sorted through the other docks as they are developed.
Click to expand...
You can retain that by keeping both dock entrances with those three granite turrets.

Tell me, is there any comparable modern build of a stadium that has a massive wall in front of it?

It's not something that you'd ideally want, and what you're advocating (and what Meis conceptualised) is merely making the best of a poor situation. It looks to me from the early documents that it's an insistence of conservation bodies to keep it in place - yes it's Grade II listed, but they can be ungraded too.
 
toffee66 said:
Davek and the wall gets in the way would be GOT’s small/far away moment if he hadn’t already repeatedly tried other variants of small/too small/won’t fit/too big (turbine). He has a real size hang-up.
Click to expand...
The wall is the first thing about the stadium that people will notice. It just *might* deserve a lot more coverage than it's had thus far.

I can honestly see this being addresed in time; Peel chopped off a whole section of the Princes Dock wall for access about 4 years ago.

They are not the Elgin Marbles.
 

Gardocki said:
That's what struck me about the design too. As much as I like the stadium the roof doesn't allow for expansion - when it it was clearly something that was potentially needed in the future.

Did he say whether the design allows for the existing roof to be removed easily, extra rows to be added and a larger roof to be re-assembled.
Click to expand...
It's a very tight wrap from what I've seen so any expansion of the stands upward just doesn't look feasible at all. Only buying air rights over the water works looks possible.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2022-07-05-10-20-37-52_df56a3ffc6db60f44573cf443c6da4d0.webp
    Screenshot_2022-07-05-10-20-37-52_df56a3ffc6db60f44573cf443c6da4d0.webp
    213.9 KB · Views: 134
I think this option does look a lot better but for whatever reason they haven't gone with it.

wall 4.png




Here's a few images of what we are getting instead:

wall 2.png



Openings here are offset from the ajoining main road to stop a vehicle:

wall 1.png
 
Tom Hughes said:
Colin Chong was recently asked about this. He said that in his opinion he felt that higher ratios were probably unlikely and that any future increases would need expansions of the side stands.
Click to expand...

Tom Hughes said:
That concern was pretty much the same response of all those present. He intimated that in the future (when the stadium was established) the planning would be less of an issue.... but that doesn't get around the short sightedness and cost effectiveness of that.
Click to expand...

What's this all about then?

Isn't Colin Chong the stadium build director or something? So he's effectively rubbished any notion that from here on in we might get more seats than 52,888?

That's a shame. When it's built and we're in, we're going to be in my opinion too small to meet demand. We will want to add more seats. We will want to do what the RS are doing or what Man City have done. Our new stadium will be smaller than half the rest of the league. It seems ludicrous to me to build a new stadium and still not quite being enough. It's like getting some new clothes because you've put on weight, only they're still tight around the waist when you start wearing them!
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top