BlueInNZ
Player Valuation: £10m
Oh, I’ve been there. I saw My one and only game of baseball - I thought the stadium was very impressive I have to say
Call me a philistine but I find it hard to get excited looking at cranes and lumps of steel .
Don't get me wrong I am not knocking people who are genuinely interested in this and I would watch a condenced version of this when the build is over but in the mean time just give me a nudge when you start smelling the hotdogs.
Don't get me wrong I am not knocking people who are genuinely interested in this and I would watch a condenced version of this when the build is over but in the mean time just give me a nudge when you start smelling the hotdogs.
Mrtallywacker
GOT spiritual advisor
Anyone know how bug the concourses will be? I have been to the Spurs Stadium, I cant tell from plans compared to that how big our will be? Sitting in MS1 its a mare to get any drinks etc at halftime! So just wondering
MickA
Player Valuation: £10m
For the first time we can see the maximum height of the seating bowl in the north corners. Looks like the drop down to the lower north stand taking shape in the ne corner too.Some great angles there mate
McKindrick Blue
Player Valuation: £500k
Just picking up on some of the comments regarding compromises to appease consultees. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we'd known the the UNESCO World Heritage Site status would be removed anyway, despite bending over backwards to appease them, then we perhaps could've taken a more stoic position and saved some effort. However, even without the WHS status, I believe the site still sits in a conservation area, so there would still be some major hoops to jump through and a need to appease the frustrating Historic England and town planners in this regard.
I'm certainly no expert and there appears to be some knowledgeable posters on here, but I have read quite a bit of the planning app docs and it strikes me that most of the compromise is part of an ongoing negotiation process that gave the planning application the best chance of success. It's easy to say "why didn't we stand our ground" or "tell them to do one" but if we hadn't got the planning consent then we wouldn't be building anything for people to discuss or pick holes in.
There's some interesting stuff in the Design & Access Statement addenda that covers some of the stuff around the roof and the disappearance of the adjoined car park. The Places Matter panel seem to have been instrumental in asking for some amendments and I'm sure many of us would've liked to tell them where to go also, but some of the changes in my view are positive, such as making the structure more symmetrical, and simplifying the facade.
It's all subjective Of course and people will differ in opinion, but ultimately they got the Planning consent they were after. Who knows what would've happened if they'd stood their ground on a number of compromises.
Ultimately it looks like the planning process for a development this large, in an area with numerous planning constraints, is a complex process with a lot of negotiation and ultimately some compromise. Some of which you may think was a compromise to far?
I'm certainly no expert and there appears to be some knowledgeable posters on here, but I have read quite a bit of the planning app docs and it strikes me that most of the compromise is part of an ongoing negotiation process that gave the planning application the best chance of success. It's easy to say "why didn't we stand our ground" or "tell them to do one" but if we hadn't got the planning consent then we wouldn't be building anything for people to discuss or pick holes in.
There's some interesting stuff in the Design & Access Statement addenda that covers some of the stuff around the roof and the disappearance of the adjoined car park. The Places Matter panel seem to have been instrumental in asking for some amendments and I'm sure many of us would've liked to tell them where to go also, but some of the changes in my view are positive, such as making the structure more symmetrical, and simplifying the facade.
It's all subjective Of course and people will differ in opinion, but ultimately they got the Planning consent they were after. Who knows what would've happened if they'd stood their ground on a number of compromises.
Ultimately it looks like the planning process for a development this large, in an area with numerous planning constraints, is a complex process with a lot of negotiation and ultimately some compromise. Some of which you may think was a compromise to far?
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Ultimately not a great deal was changed in the end, the multi storey car park by the river would have been a bit of a waste having a stadium on the waterfront, I don't see why an underground car park couldn't have been built instead. When that was moved into the West stand like you say it made the whole stadium lopsided so it being removed to help with symmetry was a good move imho.
After we went down from the 60k proposed designs to what it is now I think the roof was slightly lowered more out of value engineering than anything else. It was only 2 metres and that is only at the very end, it would have been roughly 1 metre at the middle and so on. It's easier to manufacture and install say 20 trusses that are exactly the same size than it is to have each one progressively taller than the last. It's then easier to go back to the original architect to inform them that we've messed with their design due to objections from the green cardigan brigade, hence the narrative.
PKwalnuts
Player Valuation: £10m
Superb that mate
I enjoy watching these, but only watch every once in a while otherwise the progress feels likes it goes too slow.
I know some like watching every week, but for me it is better seeing every month or so and it is always a big surprise then how much progress is made and how it is taking shape.
Thank God it us and not them building this here. They would make such a big deal of it, and I just love the understated nature of it's progress.
Its going to be magnificent
Gardocki
Player Valuation: £8m
I think it was about four feet. If the club didn’t identify I doubt anyone would have noticed.
All in all, the current design is the best looking on the three IMO.
Noggsy blue
Player Valuation: £5m
If you haven't seen it yet, here's my latest drone footage taken yesterday evening
Stan Lee Park
Player Valuation: £20m
I can confidently state that the concourses at BMD will be bigger than those in the main stand at Goodison.
In fact, they will even be bigger than those in the Park End.
Last edited:
Stan Lee Park
Player Valuation: £20m
Great post.
The planning process was tedious and time-consuming, but ultimately successful. Any misgivings we have had little to do with either UNESCO or Historic England and everything to do with negotiating our way through Liverpool City Council's planning procedures.
By all means dream, but we can now see a stadium emerging rather than the previous pipe dreams.
D
Deleted member 41045
Guest
That's the difference in height 7 feet, if we hadn't been told I doubt we would have notice.
not hard to get bigger than MS1 mate. Its shocking there.
Magus
Player Valuation: £8m
I totally agree on the overall design changes, but the upwards rake on the roof just gave it a little bit more quirkiness and individuality for me, especially when viewed from the site entrance. As others have pointed out the overall drop in height is minimal, which is why I think they should have kept it.