glory-glory.co.uk

I reckon they've missed out a trick there with the buildings to the South of the new stadium.  They could easily be converted to spell THFC.  And then hey presto, the link between the stadium and other aspects of the scheme is achieved.

Unknown:

I have hated the look of the hotel and housing from day 1, infact it looks ghastly and somewhat like something from the costa del sol

Maybe if they made the outside more feminine and less concrete maisonette it might look better, saying that the only thing I have liked recently is the gherkin.

I don't also like the square patterns everywhere, from the windows above the club shop to the walk areas

Spot on - and I agree with the few posts above from spurofthemoment and jimmyb - that article isn't saying "don't build it" - it's saying "the shops and hotel should be redesigned" - I totally agree with this - the rounded stadium jars horribly with the hotel - I don''t think I've ever seen an uglier new building than the proposed new hotel - I can't stand it's design from any angle, and when put against the stadium it looks horribly out of place.  All IMO as ever.

I think the plans can be improved and should be improved. Naturally the area can and should benefit from a new stadium design but in reality how exactly will it benefit directly from what was already outlined ? They gain a supermarket, they lose a supermarket. They gain a public space..meh. They gain housing...great for those who can afford it. They gain a hotel ? Apart from those wanting an overnighter to watch a match and it improving our ability to capture events in the future how does that really benefit the local community ? I suppose it will generate a few jobs and a bigger stadium with do the same but does it really reach out into the wider community which is, I think , what the criticism is about ?

I would have like the council/Government/European regeneration folk to get on board and see if the plans cound be extended but if other parties were too involved then no doubt agreeing plans would never happen. I guess you have to ask the local community what they need and then think how a Stadium design can offer this to the local for 95% of the year when the area largely comes to a standstill on matchdays.

You have to see some people's point because there is little promise to really drastically improve the transport links, you can't get in half the retail establishments, more than half the pubs are closed down, the ones open will be evern more wedged. I don't know what they need but I do sense there isn't all that much on offer.

ISRAEL FOR SPURS:

http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/premiership/tottenham/tottenham-stadium-model-leaked?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TransferTavern+%28The+Transfer+Tavern+Home+Page%29

I know that the article says that that photo is new. But it's not.

It's at least four months old. First appeared on various message boards just before Spurs published renders of the redesigned, single tier stand back in October.

Chancer:

Model looks like a mini Azteca....

Clarky:

I think the plans can be improved and should be improved. Naturally the area can and should benefit from a new stadium design but in reality how exactly will it benefit directly from what was already outlined ? They gain a supermarket, they lose a supermarket. They gain a public space..meh. They gain housing...great for those who can afford it. They gain a hotel ? Apart from those wanting an overnighter to watch a match and it improving our ability to capture events in the future how does that really benefit the local community ? I suppose it will generate a few jobs and a bigger stadium with do the same but does it really reach out into the wider community which is, I think , what the criticism is about ?

I would have like the council/Government/European regeneration folk to get on board and see if the plans cound be extended but if other parties were too involved then no doubt agreeing plans would never happen. I guess you have to ask the local community what they need and then think how a Stadium design can offer this to the local for 95% of the year when the area largely comes to a standstill on matchdays.

You have to see some people's point because there is little promise to really drastically improve the transport links, you can't get in half the retail establishments, more than half the pubs are closed down, the ones open will be evern more wedged. I don't know what they need but I do sense there isn't all that much on offer.

Clarky, i can offer some of the theoretical thinkings of regeneration and how it will help improve an area.... how relative they are to the area around Tottenham im not sure.

Development led regeneration has always been popular and has been a growing trend since the early 90's but as yet, there is no real social economic benefits associated, none that are provable and can be backed up with figures.

The main thing to remember, generally, development led regeneration provides the infrastructure for future development to go ahead, this may be in the way of better transport, units ready to be let, contaminated land cleared up, demolition work, utility systems such as gas and water. This type of regeneration also puts Tottenham on the map and gives good advertisement for the area. The inward investment increases and the money filters into the local economy.

The problem comes when you have a stadium that is used around 40 mines a season/ calender year at most. Therefore traditional regeneration policy and thinking goes out of the window. You dont get the knock on effects as its not keeping people in the area.

Because of this the council, not necessarily the planners, want to see other developments that might invigorate the area such as a supermarket etc etc but this generally doesnt work either... the main issue being the cycle of deprivation.

This is there is a cycle consisting of...  Unemployment leads to low income leads to poor housing to low educational attainment to poor health with the cycle going on an on. Regeneration experts agree that it is this cycle that has to be broken for an area to be improved not the tangible assets such as supermarkets and football stadia. This is why in 1997 Blair said "Education, Education, Education" would be the concentration of the labour party, to break that cycle. 

On the housing, its bull shit. If you give new housing gentrification sets in, the prices go up, the indigenous cant afford the housing, new people move in who can... where do the indigenous go? its just shifting the problem, not addressing it.  

Sheikh_Ma_Nuggets:

Billyiddo:

good article that, never really took into account how the stadium would 'fit in' to the local area.

It doesn't 'fit in' because that area of Tottenham is an utter shit hole.

I wouldn't mind so much about these pompous clowns frothing at the mouth were Tottenham quite the gentrified bastion of architectural genius, which these fools would seemingly have you believe.  But it's not - it's a fucking dump which has been neglected for faaaar too long now.  You go and ask the people who live around there what they would rather prefer: a more modern, vibrant, clean Tottenham - or, the same old dirty, old-fashioned, squalor which - not by choice mind - they are used to.  It's a no-brainer.

These people need to remove their head from their arses.  They don't live in Tottenham; no, they wouldn't fucking dream of lowering themselves to being within even 100 miles of such poverty and crime: oh no, that'd faaaar too dangerous - and yet, they feel the need to voice objections to the area being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?  Pisses me off how areas which are in desperate - and I mean REALLY desperate - need of investment and regeneration are held back by tossers like this who only wish to use the project as a means to verbally jack-off about architecture.  Prattling on about lines and mood?  For fúck sake, as opposed to what: the beautiful graffiti-ridden street scene, delightfully accentuated by the broken bus shelter and the warmth which only the smell of fresh urine can bring?  Fucking mugs.

We do not live in the Victorian era anymore.  We - thankfully - now live in an era where standards are far, far higher and people now come to expect it.  Areas such as Lower Tottenham have been crying out for this sort of regeneration and rejuvenation for fucking years, and it's what the people need so that perhaps they will take more pride in their environment, and bring some new money into the area.  Tottenham has been held back for far too long now, and this is the chance - the main catalyst - it needs to get going again.  These people need to open their minds up to new, modern forms of architecture - and stop with their boring, predictable haughty view against anything which is remotely shiny.  Of course, they're too thick to realise that - in 100 years time - this will be the architecture which generations ahead of us will be admiring and applauding just as much as anything Georgian or Victorian.

Outstanding post my good man

FlashSpur:

Sheikh_Ma_Nuggets:

Billyiddo:

good article that, never really took into account how the stadium would 'fit in' to the local area.

It doesn't 'fit in' because that area of Tottenham is an utter shit hole.

I wouldn't mind so much about these pompous clowns frothing at the mouth were Tottenham quite the gentrified bastion of architectural genius, which these fools would seemingly have you believe.  But it's not - it's a fucking dump which has been neglected for faaaar too long now.  You go and ask the people who live around there what they would rather prefer: a more modern, vibrant, clean Tottenham - or, the same old dirty, old-fashioned, squalor which - not by choice mind - they are used to.  It's a no-brainer.

These people need to remove their head from their arses.  They don't live in Tottenham; no, they wouldn't fucking dream of lowering themselves to being within even 100 miles of such poverty and crime: oh no, that'd faaaar too dangerous - and yet, they feel the need to voice objections to the area being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?  Pisses me off how areas which are in desperate - and I mean REALLY desperate - need of investment and regeneration are held back by tossers like this who only wish to use the project as a means to verbally jack-off about architecture.  Prattling on about lines and mood?  For fúck sake, as opposed to what: the beautiful graffiti-ridden street scene, delightfully accentuated by the broken bus shelter and the warmth which only the smell of fresh urine can bring?  Fucking mugs.

We do not live in the Victorian era anymore.  We - thankfully - now live in an era where standards are far, far higher and people now come to expect it.  Areas such as Lower Tottenham have been crying out for this sort of regeneration and rejuvenation for fucking years, and it's what the people need so that perhaps they will take more pride in their environment, and bring some new money into the area.  Tottenham has been held back for far too long now, and this is the chance - the main catalyst - it needs to get going again.  These people need to open their minds up to new, modern forms of architecture - and stop with their boring, predictable haughty view against anything which is remotely shiny.  Of course, they're too thick to realise that - in 100 years time - this will be the architecture which generations ahead of us will be admiring and applauding just as much as anything Georgian or Victorian.

Outstanding post my good man

Not entirely. It was, to a large extent, a straw man post. This was my response to Sheikh's post:

I don't entirely disagree.......if you're talking about the English Heritage types who want to preserve all the Victorian and Edwardian buildings in the area - regardless that the area, as things stand, is a dump.

But the author of that article - Rowan Moore - and CABE aren't saying that the Northumberland Development Project must preserve all the current buildings or that all the new buildings must be built in a specific style. Nor are they saying that the project shouldn't go ahead at all.

They are only saying that the current plans could be better. They're saying that the design of the housing and the supermarket, in particular, is mediocre and unsympathetic and won't, therefore, efficiently deliver all the potential benefits of development that the architects are promising. In essence, they very much approve of the idea of the development. They just want the architects - MAKE more so than KSS - to come up with new, better designs for the buildings themselves and for the overall masterplan.

Whether or not you agree with their opinion about the quality of the designs (and I do, to a degree), I don't think they can be accused of being critical of this development merely for the sake being against development in principle.