New Everton Stadium

[Chimpy Glassman]

Last season we came up for the Wolfsburg game and spent the day in Liverpool ahead of the game. Wondered around the dock area and you could see that the gift shops there had a lot of red and blue in the window, but much more red than blue. Upon closer inspection, most of the blue turned out to be Chelsea stuff. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but in the end I chose cry. The small amount of Everton stuff in the window had the old crest on it as well.

This lack of profile in the club's own city is pretty shocking. From now, the possible ground move, the future retail, marketing, commercial and corporate hospitality decisions have to be one huge exercise in joined up thinking.

If it doesn't sell - shops won't stock it. I would hazard a guess that we're not a huge tourist draw.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

If it doesn't sell - shops won't stock it. I would hazard a guess that we're not a huge tourist draw.

Of course it is circular, but if the profile is low to begin with....

 

[Coffee and TV]

Again far from an expert here, but where is the room!?

Isn't the city fairly built up around that area? Wouldn't we have to buy out shops for their space?

It wouldn't be in the Albert Dock (the area opposite Liverpool One) it would be in unused dockland. In the 80s the Albert Dock was derelict, now it's full of museum/galleries/restaurants etc. We'd be looking at a similar project further along the river.

 

[JJK]

Would be disappointed if we choose croxteth. It's basically destination Kirkby all over again. The long term benefits of having a waterfront stadium are absolutely massive. Can see Moshiri doing everything he can to sort something out with peel.

 

[TheSpaniard]

Assuming there was no additional engineering challenges by building on the waterfront e.g. increased piling etc. Then I'd imagine the incremental costs would be the ground works - drainage etc (as we'd be the first in) together with access roads. I'd also suggest that any negotiations with Peel would involve us trying to leverage the fact that our presence there could kick start the entire project, and thus we'd be seeking to offset some of this cost.

In addition, I'd imagine that there'd be both external pressure and internal expectation, that any waterfront stadium was of a more iconic nature in terms of it's design, than a brownfield alternative.

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

 

[The Cowboy]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

Poetic.

 

[Chimpy Glassman]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

Love the engineering perspective. From a transport link/city centre location/general ascetic point of view the dock site is light years ahead.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

Doffs cap to that level of research mate lol

 

[ToffeeDoug]

This is the true level of devotion required of Evertonians.

 

[royalbalou]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

My new name for kopite

 

[atrottel]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

I mentioned this earlier on in the thread, but I think I read that one of the docks to the north was landfill, which I assume would have some relevance? Or is this what you meant by 'made ground'?

 

[Kev50]

Peel no doubt have big plans for the waterfront, currently mothballed for whatever reason. I'd be surprised if a stadium could be slotted into such plans without necessitating them starting from scratch again, something they may very well be loath to do.

 

[TheSpaniard]

I mentioned this earlier on in the thread, but I think I read that one of the docks to the north was landfill, which I assume would have some relevance? Or is this what you meant by 'made ground'?

Yeah exactly. It's all been put there by humans when the docks were originally built.

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

Peel no doubt have big plans for the waterfront, currently mothballed for whatever reason. I'd be surprised if a stadium could be slotted into such plans without necessitating them starting from scratch again, something they may very well be loath to do.

Peels plans for Liverpool Waters are only solid plans for a couple of areas within Princes Dock, everything else is just an illustration.

 

[D410]

In a boring moment last night I had a look at some borehole records for the two sites (available through the British geological survey). Not going to lie, the docks would be a much more challenging build from a geptechnical point of view. The ground is all made ground, and full of bricks and cobbles to a reasonable depth, which makes piling difficult (not impossible, but difficult = slower = more expensive). In contrast sbc is pretty much ideal to build on. If the designs were the same for the main structure, I think we'd be talking about difference of 10's of millions rather than 100's. So it'd be slower and more expensive, but not prohibitively so in my opinion. Get it done Farhad!

Ha, brilliant