New Everton Stadium

matty1878 said:
if we wanted to expand from 52 at some point is it being built with that in mind?
Click to expand...
No
Bigger capacity will require building on a restricted site which still would need to meet many heritage hurdles. Not beyond realms of possibility but now cost prohibitive IMO against the financial benefit it would garner.

The likelihood of a change in safe standing ratios being permitted at large stadiums in England is remote in my humble opinion.
 
James Patrick said:
No
Bigger capacity will require building on a restricted site which still would need to meet many heritage hurdles. Not beyond realms of possibility but now cost prohibitive IMO against the financial benefit it would garner.

The likelihood of a change in safe standing ratios being permitted at large stadiums in England is remote in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

Are there heritage hurdles? UNESCO dropped Liverpool.
 
matty1878 said:
if we wanted to expand from 52 at some point is it being built with that in mind?
Click to expand...

It's possible, if we buy some land off of UU we could extend the north to full height but it would be expensive just for a few thousand seats.

Say in some alternate reality where money was really no object the East stand could have a large third tier added, so along with the North you could have around 11-15k added. Probably cost the best part of 200-250m if we were to start now. In 20 years when we might have paid off enough to even think about it you might be getting towards double that cost. It would ruin the pleasing symmetry of having a roof all at the same level too.
 
The binman chronicles said:
It's possible, if we buy some land off of UU we could extend the north to full height but it would be expensive just for a few thousand seats.

Say in some alternate reality where money was really no object the East stand could have a large third tier added, so along with the North you could have around 11-15k added. Probably cost the best part of 200-250m if we were to start now. In 20 years when we might have paid off enough to even think about it you might be getting towards double that cost. It would ruin the pleasing symmetry of having a roof all at the same level too.
Click to expand...
I think the only way to extend capacity is to continue the north stand out over the UU site. that could maybe bring it up to 60k without messing with the roof line.
Otherwise you're getting in to the area of messing with the barrel sections and then it all begins to look a bit silly.
It's beautiful as it is. I wouldnt want the roofline changed.
 
Paulie said:
Are there heritage hurdles? UNESCO dropped Liverpool.
Click to expand...
Different things. UNESCO may have dropped us as a world heritage site but there is still an awful lot of listed land and/or buildings in that area. The boundary wall for example. If it was as simple as UNESCO dropping the city as a heritage site, we could have knocked it down. But as you know, we’ve had to painstakingly rebuild the wall using original bricks around the new gates. They don’t get a say in what is listed as Grade I or II, that is the duty of the English Heritage.
 

SLAVEN BILIC said:
Different things. UNESCO may have dropped us as a world heritage site but there is still an awful lot of listed land and/or buildings in that area. The boundary wall for example. If it was as simple as UNESCO dropping the city as a heritage site, we could have knocked it down. But as you know, we’ve had to painstakingly rebuild the wall using original bricks around the new gates. They don’t get a say in what is listed as Grade I or II, that is the duty of the English Heritage.
Click to expand...
It is also within a conservation area. UNESCO has dropped the site which does remove some "heritage hurdles" from a planning perspective, but not all.
 
James Patrick said:
No
Bigger capacity will require building on a restricted site which still would need to meet many heritage hurdles. Not beyond realms of possibility but now cost prohibitive IMO against the financial benefit it would garner.

The likelihood of a change in safe standing ratios being permitted at large stadiums in England is remote in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Liverpool and United are never going to allow something that would give us an instant benefit of 8000 seats. Just can't see it.
 
Capacity: Anfield is 61,000. I was reading somewhere that any further redevelopment on that stadium will likely reduce the capacity to the 50-odd thousand.

The Kenny Dalglish stand has little leg-room for fans and they'd reconfigure that - and probably put more corporate customers in there. So there could be a convergence between us and them in the near future on capacity.
 

James Patrick said:
No
Bigger capacity will require building on a restricted site which still would need to meet many heritage hurdles. Not beyond realms of possibility but now cost prohibitive IMO against the financial benefit it would garner.

The likelihood of a change in safe standing ratios being permitted at large stadiums in England is remote in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I have the opposite view. I think its only a matter of time. These changes are incremental. Once its demonstrated that safe standing is safe there's no reason to stop it happening. It wasn't long ago that people were saying safe standing/rail seating wouldn't be allowed in England due to the legacy of Hillsborough.

I also don't think there are many people who are actually opposed to it. I think that's more of a general narrative.
 
muckers said:
No.

The tread depths are 750mm so a ratio of 1.1:5 is very realistic should the legislation change.

The stadium has been built with concourse sizes/vomitories able to handle a higher capacity so the club can increase capacity if the legislation changes.
Click to expand...

750mm tread depth is the absolute minimum for a 2 step safe-standing arrangement, ie 2 × 350mm steps + 50mm allowance for fold-away rail-seat = 750mm. Even then, at best that would only yield 1.3 - 1.5:1 ratio capacity uplift according to the safe-standing people themselves. The German stadia we often look to for comparison, usually have treads of 800-900mm+ in these areas. A future return to terraces (as still seen at Rugby league stadia) can free up more space, but I think the South stand exceeds the maximum rake for traditional terraces.

Unfortunately, we haven't adopted those narrow straight-backed rail seats. The seat and rail are separate and much deeper units, taking up signficantly more depth, reducing clearway and essentially stopping a second step. Without that, there is no potential for increased ratios. Someone posted a good photo of a worker standing in a row in the lower south stand. It was clear that the chosen seat/rail arrangement leaves little room for circulation and/or capacity uplift.

Colin Chong said a while ago that he felt the only route to capacity-expansion was via adding or extending tiers to the east and west stands. He was submissive of increased ratios. I've no idea if that was his guesswork or based on the latest studies of the on-going safe-standing experiment that he may be privy to.
 
I know there's been some to and fro on this forum about the stepped terracing on the West and whether they would be left as a concrete finish or paved. I was looking through the planning docs and looked at a drawing showing the hard finishes. There may have been some non material amendment applications (this drawing still has the light portals that seem to have been dropped) but this drawing appears to show that the steps will indeed remain as a concrete finish. A bit disappointing but possibly something that could be changed in the future I suppose. Pics below showing the finish and key...

20240702_121514.webp
20240702_121536.webp
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top