New Everton Stadium

[Tom Hughes]

I've seen it in plenty. Usually a shallower gradient to fit in corporate boxes along the side stands. In Minnesota, the seats next to this wall will have a similar issue in that the wall will block their natural view of the stand behind the goal, but you can see the pitch.

That dividing wall clearly runs at, or near parallel with the goal line, not at a negative angle to it as at BMD. You could've referenced similar parallel walls at many UK stadia, without the need to reference any in the US.

 

[maccavennie]

Be honest.... you voted for Kirkby and happy-clapped Kenwright on the big screen, didn't you?

Where have I said that the wall obscures the playing surface? I haven't! I said that "I can only assume (like you) that they will remove enough seats to ensure it doesn't". I repeat, I have said that the wall is running across the natural line of view of those seats and it could therefore be obtrusive....and for some will obscure the view of the "blue wall" which is supposed to be a signature feature of the stadium design. I said that their were obvious solutions as used everywhere else were different raked stands joined at corners (that would've also allowed that space to be filled with seats). I also asked if you had seen a similar arrangement to this used anywhere else. You still haven't answered.

I'm not sure that the consultants you quoted had anything to do with the sightline modelling or design of the bowl, that isn't normally their remit..... but again, where have I said there will be any obstructions? Others on here have said that there are in the away section and if I remember rightly, they were close enough to see a KAG or similar sticker placed on or near it.

I stated my reservations about the likes of the financial model (or complete lack thereof) from the start. That wasn't moaning. That was a concern based on basic common sense, which I think has been more than fully vindicated since.

That was me who mentioned the KAG sticker Tom. There was either an image or a video posted on here months and months ago and it was a worker who was in the away section. Where the corporate section finished in the East Stand it looked quite obstructed in the corner. But they've currently removed all those back row seats in the away end for some reason.

Me and @The binman chronicles have discussed this and thought they may have been changing the layout for some reason.

I wouldn't know how to go back and find the image/video of it though (where the workman shows the sticker) but I'm certain it was posted on here.

 

[welshtoffee]

My lad was sitting in Row Q in the lower Gwladys Street last night and the roof was leaking directly above his seat, yes I did laugh , his response sooner the better we move from this sh**hole. I love Goodison and have brilliant memories of the place and being 60 have seen us win things, but all good things have to come to an end.

 

[Gardocki]

That dividing wall clearly runs at, or near parallel with the goal line, not at a negative angle to it as at BMD. You could've referenced similar parallel walls at many UK stadia, without the need to reference any in the US.

I could have, but you didn't ask for a UK stadium. You just said a modern stadium. It makes absolutely no difference to the point if its in the US or UK.

You on the other hand could have acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, somebody else made a valid point that conflicts with your statement.

If the entire pitch is visible from the seats, but the wall interrupts the view of an adjacent stand it follows the same principle.

 

[PhilM]

It wouldn’t be surprising if 0.1% of the seats in the stadium had some sort of “lesser view” even if it meant a wall or disabled area was blocking your view of the other stands rather than the pitch. Obviously everyone would still call the project fully unobstructed views.

As you say, as long as you can see the pitch with its goals in its entirety, it's an unobstructed view. I couldn't care less if I can't see every seat from my own.

 

[BullensRoad]

Reckon we will have those self service bars in BMD, think Aramark might even have alluded to them in their statement the other week.

We already have him in park end and gwladus.

The on a Aramark will have will be different / better.

Think it’s a case of using a screen like at McDonald’s and collecting your drink or food too

 

[PhilM]

We already have him in park end and gwladus.

The on a Aramark will have will be different / better.

Think it’s a case of using a screen like at McDonald’s and collecting your drink or food too

Please don't take this as gospel, however the snippets I've heard include a stadium app (or a subsection part of the Everton app) that you can access with the WiFi.

You'll be able to order pre-order food and whatnot before or during the game for collection, and in some seats even delivery to you. There'll be screens like this, too.

 

[davek]

Please don't take this as gospel, however the snippets I've heard include a stadium app (or a subsection part of the Everton app) that you can access with the WiFi.

You'll be able to order pre-order food and whatnot before or during the game for collection, and in some seats even delivery to you. There'll be screens like this, too.

There's no escape from the football on the pitch?

FFS.

 

[The binman chronicles]

That was me who mentioned the KAG sticker Tom. There was either an image or a video posted on here months and months ago and it was a worker who was in the away section. Where the corporate section finished in the East Stand it looked quite obstructed in the corner. But they've currently removed all those back row seats in the away end for some reason.

Me and @The binman chronicles have discussed this and thought they may have been changing the layout for some reason.

I wouldn't know how to go back and find the image/video of it though (where the workman shows the sticker) but I'm certain it was posted on here.

Definitely posted in here somewhere. Probably would have been late-ish 2023.

I could have, but you didn't ask for a UK stadium. You just said a modern stadium. It makes absolutely no difference to the point if its in the US or UK.

You on the other hand could have acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, somebody else made a valid point that conflicts with your statement.

If the entire pitch is visible from the seats, but the wall interrupts the view of an adjacent stand it follows the same principle.

You're right whether it's the UK or US doesn't matter, but Tom's point is that is a straight up and down wall to the goal line, not swept back. It's that that creates the issue.

I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it. Uninterrupted views means no pillars in the way. We'd all agree the Principality has uninterrupted views, but I've sat in a seat where the handrail blocked a small part of the pitch from my view. Likewise if you are a child and there is a 6'6" person standing in front of your line of sight, you are not going to see through them. The way that is designed, people right in those corners are looking over a higher wall, where people are standing. It is probably going to lead to a small section of that corner of the pitch being blocked from view, especially as per the example of above, short person sitting looking over a group of tall people.

There are things that can be done to help, like move the seats away from the wall, which they have with the steps closest and it depends how far the pitch is from the stand. Imho it still looks such an angle that you are still going to be looking over the stand and that makes it marginal. We will see when it is built though what the view is like in that area. As I've tried to stress though, even if it is, we are talking about a small percentage of the bottom left or right hand corner depending which side stand you are sat.

 

[Tom Hughes]

I could have, but you didn't ask for a UK stadium. You just said a modern stadium. It makes absolutely no difference to the point if its in the US or UK.

You on the other hand could have acknowledged that maybe, just maybe, somebody else made a valid point that conflicts with your statement.

If the entire pitch is visible from the seats, but the wall interrupts the view of an adjacent stand it follows the same principle.

I asked if he'd seen a similar arrangement, you chose one (from the US) that isn't the same as BMD, and only reinforced my point. That is: if you go from higher to lower rake you always turn the corner fully (as at Minnesota). That way the wall cannot ever block your view or be overly obtrusive by cutting across the natural line of sight of those seats. Minnesota's end stand isn't the blue wall. Alternatively you can continue the higher raked tier at the cranked angle till it blends into the lower raked side stand, partitioned by a low dividing wall that obscures no seats at all.

 

[AndyRJ]

Be honest.... you voted for Kirkby and happy-clapped Kenwright on the big screen, didn't you?

Where have I said that the wall obscures the playing surface? I haven't! I said that "I can only assume (like you) that they will remove enough seats to ensure it doesn't". I repeat, I have said that the wall is running across the natural line of view of those seats and it could therefore be obtrusive....and for some will obscure the view of the "blue wall" which is supposed to be a signature feature of the stadium design. I said that their were obvious solutions as used everywhere else were different raked stands joined at corners (that would've also allowed that space to be filled with seats). I also asked if you had seen a similar arrangement to this used anywhere else. You still haven't answered.

I'm not sure that the consultants you quoted had anything to do with the sightline modelling or design of the bowl, that isn't normally their remit..... but again, where have I said there will be any obstructions? Others on here have said that there are in the away section and if I remember rightly, they were close enough to see a KAG or similar sticker placed on or near it.

I stated my reservations about the likes of the financial model (or complete lack thereof) from the start. That wasn't moaning. That was a concern based on basic common sense, which I think has been more than fully vindicated since.

No, I didn't because I could see it for it was. I hated Kenwright and couldn't wait to see the back of him.

Well, I've asked you numerous times to nail your colours to the mast and you keep skirting around the issue. If the wall doesn't obscure the view of the pitch then what is the problem!? There are plenty of seats in the stadium where you won't be able to see other parts, the same in every other stadium around the world. Regardless of how they dealt with the transition in that corner you would still have the same issue, a small minority of supporters would be able to see the pitch but not a section of the South stand.

So because this arrangement hasn't (allegedly) been introduced in another stadium then that makes it wrong? I don't know the reasons for taking this approach (and neither do you) but it is clear that a a number of alternatives have been considered and for whatever reason this is what has been taken forward.

Does it matter whether they were involved in the sight line modelling or not? They wouldn't state it for the world to see, and neither woudl the club, if it was untrue. Regardless, you appear to be agreeing with me that there won't be any obstructed views of the pitch, so again, what are you complaining for?

The image you are talking about, which I have tried to find, was a picture someone had taken from the very rear of the away section earlier on in the construction process; something similar to the below.

As i recall, there was a bulk head or similar above (with a sticker on) which restricted the view slightly, similar to sitting in the Bullens and looking through a letter box. However, there was no context to this in terms of whether that actually formed an area where the seats would be; looked like it was taken from the concourse IMO. So, yet again no concrete evidence that there are any restricted views in the stadium.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, I didn't because I could see it for it was. I hated Kenwright and couldn't wait to see the back of him.

Well, I've asked you numerous times to nail your colours to the mast and you keep skirting around the issue. If the wall doesn't obscure the view of the pitch then what is the problem!? There are plenty of seats in the stadium where you won't be able to see other parts, the same in every other stadium around the world. Regardless of how they dealt with the transition in that corner you would still have the same issue, a small minority of supporters would be able to see the pitch but not a section of the South stand.

So because this arrangement hasn't (allegedly) been introduced in another stadium then that makes it wrong? I don't know the reasons for taking this approach (and neither do you) but it is clear that a a number of alternatives have been considered and for whatever reason this is what has been taken forward.

Does it matter whether they were involved in the sight line modelling or not? They wouldn't state it for the world to see, and neither woudl the club, if it was untrue. Regardless, you appear to be agreeing with me that there won't be any obstructed views of the pitch, so again, what are you complaining for?

The image you are talking about, which I have tried to find, was a picture someone had taken from the very rear of the away section earlier on in the construction process; something similar to the below.

View attachment 270894

As i recall, there was a bulk head or similar above (with a sticker on) which restricted the view slightly, similar to sitting in the Bullens and looking through a letter box. However, there was no context to this in terms of whether that actually formed an area where the seats would be; looked like it was taken from the concourse IMO. So, yet again no concrete evidence that there are any restricted views in the stadium.

Apologies, those first lines weren't meant for you at all.

 

[The binman chronicles]

No, I didn't because I could see it for it was. I hated Kenwright and couldn't wait to see the back of him.

Well, I've asked you numerous times to nail your colours to the mast and you keep skirting around the issue. If the wall doesn't obscure the view of the pitch then what is the problem!? There are plenty of seats in the stadium where you won't be able to see other parts, the same in every other stadium around the world. Regardless of how they dealt with the transition in that corner you would still have the same issue, a small minority of supporters would be able to see the pitch but not a section of the South stand.

So because this arrangement hasn't (allegedly) been introduced in another stadium then that makes it wrong? I don't know the reasons for taking this approach (and neither do you) but it is clear that a a number of alternatives have been considered and for whatever reason this is what has been taken forward.

Does it matter whether they were involved in the sight line modelling or not? They wouldn't state it for the world to see, and neither woudl the club, if it was untrue. Regardless, you appear to be agreeing with me that there won't be any obstructed views of the pitch, so again, what are you complaining for?

The image you are talking about, which I have tried to find, was a picture someone had taken from the very rear of the away section earlier on in the construction process; something similar to the below.

View attachment 270894

As i recall, there was a bulk head or similar above (with a sticker on) which restricted the view slightly, similar to sitting in the Bullens and looking through a letter box. However, there was no context to this in terms of whether that actually formed an area where the seats would be; looked like it was taken from the concourse IMO. So, yet again no concrete evidence that there are any restricted views in the stadium.

It's not the letterbox element that is a problem. It's the view for the people closest up against the disabled platform at the back of the North being able to see the North West corner of the pitch, due to having to look across it (there are 3 or so rows, but we can only see the first below):

And a similar story on the East where the hospitality platform starts, which could block views of the South East corner for those right up against it. There is no concrete evidence this will restrict anyone's view as the seating isn't in its final configuration yet. All we are doing is identifying areas of concern that could be an issue.

 

[maccavennie]

It's not the letterbox element that is a problem. It's the view for the people closest up against the disabled platform at the back of the North being able to see the North West corner of the pitch, due to having to look across it (there are 3 or so rows, but we can only see the first below):

View attachment 270901

And a similar story on the East where the hospitality platform starts, which could block views of the South East corner for those right up against it. There is no concrete evidence this will restrict anyone's view as the seating isn't in its final configuration yet. All we are doing is identifying areas of concern that could be an issue.

I'm gonna go through all 7,400 pages mate and see if I can find that pic/video

I'll report my findings in about 3 months time!

 

[AndyRJ]

It's not the letterbox element that is a problem. It's the view for the people closest up against the disabled platform at the back of the North being able to see the North West corner of the pitch, due to having to look across it (there are 3 or so rows, but we can only see the first below):

View attachment 270901

And a similar story on the East where the hospitality platform starts, which could block views of the South East corner for those right up against it. There is no concrete evidence this will restrict anyone's view as the seating isn't in its final configuration yet. All we are doing is identifying areas of concern that could be an issue.

No problem with you or anyone voicing a concern. However, no-on can state it as fact as there isn't any concrete evidence. I've given my view/ reasons why I believe there won't be any obstructed views of the pitch which includes direct quotes from the club and one of the main consultants confirming as such.

That's not to say that mistakes can't be made, they happen all the time in construction, particularly where there have been design changes. That being said, i find it extremely difficult to believe that on a project like this, where the entire stadium is modelled in a 3D environment down to the last nut and bolt, the club and it's professional design team have made a basic mistake such as this.