New Everton Stadium

[mahermi1]

I don't overly disagree with your assessment on Anfield, but they'll equally argue that they're preserving their history, not overstretching themselves financially and have still been able to compete on the pitch throughout the process.

By comparison, we're fighting our third relegation battle on the trot, not had a sniff at a trophy, watching abysmal footy and if we're not very careful, might go out of business, largely because of this......?

I'm also a bit anti the comments about Walton. I like the way our stadium grows out of its densely packed community, next to a listed Victorian park, part of one of the world's greatest stadium face-offs. Yes, it's a tired area with deprivation, but I'm not entirely sure how our move necessarily helps that. Let's face it, we're currently building next door to the city's sewage plant, surrounded by acres of semi-dereliction that isn't served by a single bus route. Without the northern line (which only serves 20% of the connurbation) it would be a transport blackhole. Of course relative proximity to the city centre is the real saving grace, but let's not kid ourselves that this is the Kings dock, nor ever will be.

They have not overstretched themselves Tom because they are one of the richest clubs in the World, with guaranteed huge commercial deals/ sponsorships and European football on tap. We will never be able to compete with any of that, but we have a chance to survive if we finish this stadium, we have no choice and it's too late to stop now.

 

[The binman chronicles]

If proper overlapping tiers are used, you do not need all of that footprint or anything close. Approx 75% of the depth you've identified on the Bullens Rd and Park end sides could readily yield 55-60k on its own. I and at least 3 other architects have shown how in the past, using site plans and sightline modelling software.

Would it have the same symmetry in plan view as BMD? Certainly not during those phases. However, inside it would be tall stands on 3 sides. The money saved could allow for far more boxes and high-end corporate and simultaneously create far less financial pressure to raise General Admission ticket prices too that BMD has. Which could be really telling factor for our fanbase.

LFC have added to a 1906 mainstand (expanded in 1973).... no-one is saying it is outdated.

Goodison Rd would not be a priority, but again if future demands merited further expansion.... to 60-70k. That will be less problematic than on the dock, which the club has already said was tight to model the current capacity in terms of access/egress.

Those plans you created relate to almost a different era of stadium builds. It was also not built with comfort in mind, that was pack them in to make the overall capacity look great. Might have been fine at the time but not any more.

Even if you said we'll take the BR stand and leave it exactly how it is but modernise the facilities, the concourses should be three times the size it is now, bigger toilets, wider exits. That means with an enlarged access way/road tacked on we are already into the school building just with that.

Zero point using any of it like they did as the terracing would massively need re-profiling. The tread depths would need to be widened so immediately the stand would need to be bigger to accommodate that. The current shallow rake mean anyone who is short can't see anything when sat behind a tall person, so the angle would need to be changed significantly. Be like Trigger's broom if we say we've kept it.

The financials of the rebuild stop making sense as soon as we finish the easiest part that could give us the maximum amount of seats increased (PE by something like 8-10k).

If instead of building an argument talking about fractions of cost of BMD and mountains of corporate that no one would ever use at Goodison and say something like we could have a 60k stadium that's a bit more cramped, has less facilities, not going to make us a lot more money on non match days, look a bit of a pigs ear still with a stand that has a road cut into it with one huge stand compared to the rest BUT we might be able to do it at half the price of BMD*. Then you have a credible argument.

The only issue here is it's hard to say what the final price would be when the last stand could be built 30 years after the first. Do we use current prices over the inflated price it may cost that far down the line. As I've said before without BMD Goodison would be empty right about now so very hard to justify building larger capacity stands anyhow.

 

[The binman chronicles]

 

[Look to the future]

If proper overlapping tiers are used, you do not need all of that footprint or anything close. Approx 75% of the depth you've identified on the Bullens Rd and Park end sides could readily yield 55-60k on its own. I and at least 3 other architects have shown how in the past, using site plans and sightline modelling software.

Would it have the same symmetry in plan view as BMD? Certainly not during those phases. However, inside it would be tall stands on 3 sides. The money saved could allow for far more boxes and high-end corporate and simultaneously create far less financial pressure to raise General Admission ticket prices too that BMD has. Which could be really telling factor for our fanbase.

LFC have added to a 1906 mainstand (expanded in 1973).... no-one is saying it is outdated.

Goodison Rd would not be a priority, but again if future demands merited further expansion.... to 60-70k. That will be less problematic than on the dock, which the club has already said was tight to model the current capacity in terms of access/egress.

Overlapping tiers are only good if you’re on the upper tier or at the front of the lower tier. There would be thousands of sub standard seats with claustrophobic views, this has to be a bad idea for any new build stand / stadium.

 

[mickefc]

Should've been separate negative and positive stadium threads.

 

[Tom Hughes]

They have not overstretched themselves Tom because they are one of the richest clubs in the World, with guaranteed huge commercial deals/ sponsorships and European football on tap. We will never be able to compete with any of that, but we have a chance to survive if we finish this stadium, we have no choice and it's too late to stop now.

Yes they are far wealthier, and yet, they still chose redevelopment over new build!

 

[Tom Hughes]

Overlapping tiers are only good if you’re on the upper tier or at the front of the lower tier. There would be thousands of sub standard seats with claustrophobic views, this has to be a bad idea for any new build stand / stadium.

Overlapping views start becoming almost essential as you go over 50k as viewing distances become excessive. They needn't be excessively claustrophobic if vertical sughtlines are maintained at modern standard. There are over lapping tiers at most of the world's greatest large stadia. The flip side ofcourse is that upper tiers are brought closer for a given capacity.... meaning on average everyone is closer to the action. So, it's a bit swings and roundabouts.

 

[Look to the future]

Overlapping views start becoming almost essential as you go over 50k as viewing distances become excessive. They needn't be excessively claustrophobic if vertical sughtlines are maintained at modern standard. There are over lapping tiers at most of the world's greatest large stadia. The flip side ofcourse is that upper tiers are brought closer for a given capacity.... meaning on average everyone is closer to the action. So, it's a bit swings and roundabouts.

I’d have thought that for the vast majority of brand new purpose built stadiums if there is an overlap between tiers designed in, it would be small. Maybe 2/3 rows, Similar to Wembley, Spurs and Arsenal.
The exception to this would be if the footprint of the site is too small, making a larger overlap a necessity.
But we can agree to disagree on this one

 

[Tom Hughes]

I’d have thought that for the vast majority of brand new purpose built stadiums if there is an overlap between tiers designed in, it would be small. Maybe 2/3 rows, Similar to Wembley, Spurs and Arsenal.
The exception to this would be if the footprint of the site is too small, making a larger overlap a necessity.
But we can agree to disagree on this one

The Emirates has a 8-9 row over lap between lower and 2nd tier and 2-3 row overlap above the 2 corporate tiers.
I think Chelsea's North stand has a 14 row overlap.

 

[allen]

On the ferry just now, looks like more roof cladding going on today.

 

[AndyRJ]

I can point to any number of examples to show how it could be a fraction of the cost (and have done several times).

We really don't have to look too far for an obvious one (a few hundred metres across the park), which was only approx £200m construction cost to get from 45k to almost 62k capacity (it would've been less if they'd done both at the same time). I stood in the upper tier of another on Tuesday night, that cost far less again to go from 36k to 52k. There ard many more besides. So it's hardly a great mystery.

The simple maths is, it is almost always far cheeper to add say 20k or 30k capacity to an existing stadium, than to build a whole new 50k+ stadium from scratch. Which is why the majority of larger clubs have chosen the former approach. That theory even applies to the mega-rich clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona who have both chosen redevelopment over new-build..... to prove that they need not be cheap and nasty addlibs. Obviously, for smaller clubs, the sale of their existing site would often cover the bulk or even all the costs of a new build. That rarely applies to those seeking stadia over 35k, since cost per seat rises almost exponentially with capacity.

Depending on the format chosen, 27k (or as high as 35k) of GP is entirely recyclable capacity. If 1, 2 or even 3 of the existing upper tiers were replaced with whole new tiers, and Park end expanded too to reach BMDs capacity... Then, even at Anfield's cost per seat for construction, it would only be £150-270m. The actual cost per seat would be less, because the starting construction height would be considerably lower on both the Gwladys St and Bullens Rd stands, because both lower tiers are much lower than those built over at Anfield. Therefore, there would be significantly less construction volume in total too, which is the greatest cost determining factor. So you could probably trim those figures by 30%+.

You could also extrapolate those numbers further to reach 60k or 65k capacity at GP. So, whichever way you want to cook it, the cost is a fraction of BMD everytime, because building 20-35k new capacity is always cheaper than building 53k... even more so when it costs £150m just to prep the new site, and conserve the surroundings.

We've had the discussion before and you pointed to examples in different parts of the world and then tried to suggest that construction costs were comparible in the UK despite me providing you with evidence to the contrary.

If you're involved in the construction industry then you'll know full well that no two construction projects are the same. It's completely pointless trying to take a simplistic approach and comparing it to the regen works going on at Anfield or any other stadium for that matter.

You appear to be trying to suggest re-using parts of GP can save money when in reality the best approach would be to flatten it and start from scratch instead of trying to put lipstick on a pig. It's often far more costly trying to incorporate an existing structure into a new one.

Ultimately, unless you have detailed, fully costed, construction level information for a new stadium at GP then anything you say is your opinion.

Nothing wrong with having an opinion of course as long as you don't try and assert it as fact.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Those plans you created relate to almost a different era of stadium builds. It was also not built with comfort in mind, that was pack them in to make the overall capacity look great. Might have been fine at the time but not any more.

Even if you said we'll take the BR stand and leave it exactly how it is but modernise the facilities, the concourses should be three times the size it is now, bigger toilets, wider exits. That means with an enlarged access way/road tacked on we are already into the school building just with that.

Zero point using any of it like they did as the terracing would massively need re-profiling. The tread depths would need to be widened so immediately the stand would need to be bigger to accommodate that. The current shallow rake mean anyone who is short can't see anything when sat behind a tall person, so the angle would need to be changed significantly. Be like Trigger's broom if we say we've kept it.

The financials of the rebuild stop making sense as soon as we finish the easiest part that could give us the maximum amount of seats increased (PE by something like 8-10k).

If instead of building an argument talking about fractions of cost of BMD and mountains of corporate that no one would ever use at Goodison and say something like we could have a 60k stadium that's a bit more cramped, has less facilities, not going to make us a lot more money on non match days, look a bit of a pigs ear still with a stand that has a road cut into it with one huge stand compared to the rest BUT we might be able to do it at half the price of BMD*. Then you have a credible argument.

The only issue here is it's hard to say what the final price would be when the last stand could be built 30 years after the first. Do we use current prices over the inflated price it may cost that far down the line. As I've said before without BMD Goodison would be empty right about now so very hard to justify building larger capacity stands anyhow.

They are over 25yrs old and were done with a budget of 10s of £millions in mind.... but the treads were at least the equivalent of the Park end, and higher for corporate levels.

 

[mahermi1]

Yes they are far wealthier, and yet, they still chose redevelopment over new build!

Because they had a plan, we had Bill Kenwright, they bought houses a lot compulsory purchase, over the years while we stood still. You always professed hatred for compulsory purchase Tom and that's what we would have to have done, we had a School, a Church and hundreds of houses to dispose of, Liverpool were ready and able. Also Liverpool with their name would find sponsorship for their old, expanded stadium, while we would not, or not very much.

 

[The binman chronicles]

They are over 25yrs old and were done with a budget of 10s of £millions in mind.... but the treads were at least the equivalent of the Park end, and higher for corporate levels.

Which is a long time ago and befitting of that period. Arsenal came along and were at the sharp edge pushing it beyond that and in just 13 years they've been totally outclassed by their near neighbours to what a stadium can be (rooftop walkways, cheese rooms, sliding pitch for the NFL, karting track etc.).

Meis stressed that we would have a more basic, stripped down stadium but even ours has a massive footprint. If you overlapped the tiers a bit to shrink it, it's still a huge structure just to fit the 'basic' amenities and space that is expected in a modern day arena. That's what would need to be overlapped onto Goodison and taking away the cons for a moment, the club needed to buy up all the properties in that area if they ever wanted to stay. *Obviously not leaving them empty like they did..

We didn't and they did and that's why they are still going to be there.

 

[Ruairi77]

quick question.
Will the cameras be in the East stand facing west?