• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan

billyiddo said:
KSS are the project managers i believe ? edit : architects - anyone know if they have a history of working with specific building companies ?

couple of sketches from their website i don't think have been posted before

Tottenham_Hotspur_Stadium_04.jpg


Tottenham _Hotspur_Stadium_05.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice.

I think I see the kop stand in the bottom right corner.
 
billyiddo said:
interesting, I've worked on a few Sir Robert McAlpine jobs - Crystal Palace swimming Pool refurb and some stossy private members club in Mayfair - might have to put in a call see if i can get on there if they get it :D

MJL - an Mechanical & Engineering firm get a lot of the McAlpine contracts, think they also have a box at White Hart Lane, i did hear a while a go they were going to be tendering for a section of the works




looking at their website they have designed several stadiums - Stamford Bridge, City of Manchester and several abroad - don't think they are on the same scale as this though and no idea how much of a role they played in the selection process as to who gets the contract - wouldnt on a job like this the client (Spurs) leave it up to the architects to decide ?
Click to expand...

COMS was designed by Arup, I think. KSS might have done some minor job on it. At Chelsea, the build was stand by stand - so not as big an undertaking as a whole stadium. KSS have designed some smaller, new stadiums - Brighton's Falmer stadium and one in Haifa, Israel - and they also redeveloped the stadium at Coimbra in Portugal.

From what I know of large scale construction projects such as this (you can probably correct me if you're in the business!), one of the the main determining criteria for choosing a particular construction company is its financial stability and security. I don't know whether the companies that KSS have worked with before qualify in that respect. Obviously, Sir Robert McAlpine do.
 
I've been looking at the stadium plans, in particular the 'wall' end. Although I love the idea of a single steep stand I feel that if the upper tier carried on the bowl effect and the lower tier went high underneath the upper, with no corporate facility at all, this would mean increased capacity and increased volume from the new end. Just a thought, I don't expect the architects will change their minds.
 
jpp said:
I've been looking at the stadium plans, in particular the 'wall' end. Although I love the idea of a single steep stand I feel that if the upper tier carried on the bowl effect and the lower tier went high underneath the upper, with no corporate facility at all, this would mean increased capacity and increased volume from the new end. Just a thought, I don't expect the architects will change their minds.
Click to expand...

Not a bad shout at all.

It had occurred to me that that might be exactly how Spurs will effect this rumoured "modest" increase to the proposed capacity.
 
Isn't that the essentially the reduction they made in going from the original submission to the second one that was approved?

I like the idea of a Kop end, but it also meant a reduction in capacity and corporate facilities. Although on reflection, I can see why losing part of the corporate tier has the claimed effect, I'm less clear why a Kop section would reduce capacity overall. Was there a lot of overlap on the tiers?

As a PR move, removal of the Kop end would be bad. Its a feature that seems to have near universal appeal to fans. And if they ever overcome the Hillsborough hex, it would be ideal for expansion into a modern standing area.
 
jts1882 said:
Isn't that the essentially the reduction they made in going from the original submission to the second one that was approved?

I like the idea of a Kop end, but it also meant a reduction in capacity and corporate facilities. Although on reflection, I can see why losing part of the corporate tier has the claimed effect, I'm less clear why a Kop section would reduce capacity overall. Was there a lot of overlap on the tiers?

As a PR move, removal of the Kop end would be bad. Its a feature that seems to have near universal appeal to fans. And if they ever overcome the Hillsborough hex, it would be ideal for expansion into a modern standing area.
Click to expand...

I think jpp was suggesting that the upper tier at that end should be somehow reincorporated into the design but that the middle tier and box tier at that end should still be omitted.

As to why incorporating the single tier end led to a reduction in capacity, it's because it "reaches" the outer boundary of the stadium perimeter at a much lower height than the top tier in a three tiered design. So there are fewer rows. Fewer seats.

And just to repeat, there are no plans, as far as I'm aware, to do away with the single tier end. If the architects have found room for extra capacity, they have done so in other ways. Just as well, IMO. The single tier end is this stadium's saving grace.
 
jimmyb said:
As to why incorporating the single tier end led to a reduction in capacity, it's because it "reaches" the outer boundary of the stadium perimeter at a much lower height than the top tier in a three tiered design. So there are fewer rows. Fewer seats.
Click to expand...

It doesn't reach the height of the last row of the upper tier because it is less steep. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are fewer rows though. I would think that the Kop end covers exactly the same area that the upper and lower tier from the first draft did. Which means it would provides pretty much the same number of plastic seats. I think the reduction in capacity results from omitting the corporate tier at that end.
 
jimmyb said:
I think jpp was suggesting that the upper tier at that end should be somehow reincorporated into the design but that the middle tier and box tier at that end should still be omitted.

As to why incorporating the single tier end led to a reduction in capacity, it's because it "reaches" the outer boundary of the stadium perimeter at a much lower height than the top tier in a three tiered design. So there are fewer rows. Fewer seats.
Click to expand...

Reincorporating the upper tier would remove a third of the Kop area and it wouldn't be a Kop any more. I think it only works if the whole stand is as one.

Surely the number of rows is due to the depth each row and nothing to do with the height (unless the seats are tilted). Presumably the extra capacity with tiers is due to overlap.
 
Kinda thinking that extra seats are put on the kop end raising the roof that end, this is incorporated into a connection with the flats with walkways thus enabling direct access, this connection would help with selling flats IMO and mean every bit of space used (gap between flats and stadium) to enable those extra rows at the top.
 
Levy and the club have done great with the training ground, so not to be too harsh - but not having it ready for today is a bit of a balls-up.
 
Hopefully it carried some penalties for the contractor. Not finished on time, you start paying us money.
 
Jordinho said:
Hopefully it carried some penalties for the contractor. Not finished on time, you start paying us money.
Click to expand...

Depends what caused the delay; if we changed the specification, then there's no recourse.

I heard about 12mths ago that we'd decided to change elements which were different to that which was tendered against, owing to a 'soft' saving which had been made against material costs.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
Depends what caused the delay; if we changed the specification, then there's no recourse.

I heard about 12mths ago that we'd decided to change elements which were different to that which was tendered against, owing to a 'soft' saving which had been made against material costs.
Click to expand...

post of the year right there, someone who actually understand construction. I worked in construction and if something on the specs gets changed it really does have a domino effect and puts you well out. Not sure if that is what happened here or someone just plain fudged up but it is not always the builders fault, actually i would say in my experience it comes from the customer changing there mind but expecting the same price and same time frame.

Sorry for the rant but it used to really get my goat.
 
japenesegardenlover said:
post of the year right there, someone who actually understand construction. I worked in construction and if something on the specs gets changed it really does have a domino effect and puts you well out. Not sure if that is what happened here or someone just plain fudged up but it is not always the builders fault, actually i would say in my experience it comes from the customer changing there mind but expecting the same price and same time frame.

Sorry for the rant but it used to really get my goat.
Click to expand...

Also you have to remember it be the wettest on record, so some of the works could not be done, when sceduled
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back