• 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

free schools are definately not going to go badly wrong LOL

?ú10 we get a david beckham free school which only teaches about hair
 
Below I have tried to summarise the main points from the new planning proposal that can be found on Harringey's website here:

http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25189

Some of this will duplicate what is already stated in this thread but it might save some of you trawling through the document(s) on Harringey's website and also across several pages of this thread. Anyway the salient points are below:

1. Dates are now being proposed:

Supermarket start in Autumn 2012, complete in 2014
Stadium start in summer 2013, complete in 2016
Southern development start in 2016 following the demolition of the existing stadium (no date for completion).

2. Confirmation that the club are no longer having to pay the ?ú16 million from the agreed section 106 agreement (now being met by council/mayors fund).

3. 85 new flats, all 1 and 2 bed units, zero allocated to social housing

4. Shuttle buses to operate between the new stadium and Tottenham Hale/7 sisters and a Piccadilly Line station (Turnpike Lane perhaps?)

5. An obligation to allocate up to 2,500 extra season tickets to Harringey residents and 2,500 Enfield residents for the first year in the new stadium. Additionally THFC will not charge any Harringey or Enfield residents to be on a season ticket waiting list

6. The permission to hold 'a number' of non football events (doesn't say how many).

7. The council is to work with Network Rail, the mayor and TfL to build a new ticket hall at the southern end of the existing WHL platforms with a 'transformed public realm linking to the new stadium' (down Whitehall Road - i.e. the Wembley way type thing) that would approach the stadium smack bang in the middle of the new West Stand.

8. The council are to re-name WHL station to a name agreed by THFC (I guess "Tottenham Hotspur Station"?)

9. The council are to seek Network Rail's agreement to fund selective door opening at Northumberland Park station to facilitate stopping for trains longer than the existing platform length.

10. The council are to use reasonable endevours to secure the renaming of the section of White Hart Lane (the road) between the existing station and the high road to a name agreed by THFC. (I am guessing to try to have as little as possible around the stadium referring to White Hart Lane - to maximise impact of 'naming rights').

11. THFC now owns all the land required for the stadium other than some land owned by the council (terms for sale already agreed) and one piece of land owned by a third party interest (which may require CPO to purchase).

12. The club have committed to 77% of the main part of the journey to WHL to be by 'non car' mode. If that is not achieved by the end of the first season then we have to agree and fund additional transport measures (this is to be agreed with the council). It is THFCs responsibility to carry out the surveys for this. This has to happen until 5 consecutive seasons pass with us achieving the 77% benchmark

13. The new section 106 has increased obligations for construction jobs and apprentiships being first made available to local residents (target is 50 apprentiships for Harringey and Enfield residents).

14. The old section 106 had a provision for THFC to pay ?ú1.1 million for improvements to the school located next to the southern part of the development and a further ?ú100k to be allocated to schools in London borough of Enfield. This has all been removed (and justified by fact that the housing units will be 1 and 2 bed units and not social housing - so unlikely to house families with children).

15. The planning officer is recommending our revised plans (but obviously it has to go before the council and also the mayors office funding be ratified by national government).

16. The council commissioned Grant Thornton to carry out a study of our original and revised plans. The original plan showed a large gap between build costs and level of debt we would be able to raise/sustain. The new plans show no funding gap after the removal of the section 106 costs and increased scope of enabling development.

17. THFC are to provide electric charging points for a portion of the car parking spaces created on the site (number and location to be approved by council).

18. THFC are to pay the council's and TfL's legal costs.

19. If we do not end up building a new stadium then we have to reimburse the council ?ú1.4 million to pay for the highway and CPZ works incurred by the council to help facilitate the development of the Supermarket site.

20. THFC have to implement 'temporary land uses' including 'publically accessible open space, leisure uses and landscaping' on the cleared land that is not required for the Supermarket site.

21. THFC to run a minimum of 12 community events a year on the podium and public access space. The space is also to be available to public access at a minimum of between 8am and 8pm, on 364 days a year.

22. THFC to procure the operation of a 'Car Club' for 3 years from first occupation of the residential development (I'm guessing some sort of 'Street Car' type franchise?) and for THFC to pay the cost of membership for 1 year for all first residential occupiers living in the development who elect to join this club.

23. THFC to offer to lease the local care trust at least 1,000 square metres of floorspace in the Southern development for at least 25 years on market terms minus the initial 6 months free.


Seems that we really are now on the verge of getting this done!
 
8. The council are to re-name WHL station to a name agreed by THFC (I guess "Tottenham Hotspur Station"?)
Click to expand...

Selling point for naming rights me thinks.
 
59,000 capacity?

Hey guys, I have been posted on this forum for years, but for some reason I couldn't log in so I re-registered.

Just for the record I WAS in favour of a move to stratford IF we couldn't get what we wanted and put our club in financial risk in order to stay in Tottenham. Specifically I am talking about capacity and help with the funding of the project. Well it looks like we got one of those things and I am still hoping the second one comes true. In regards to the capacity I specifically wanted at least 60K, 61K would have been perfect on 2 fronts i) bigger then the scum's ii) honour our double winning side of 1961.

Capacity Facts:
June 2006 or 2007, spurs commission KSS to come up with 3 different stadium designs, each design would have 2 capacities, 50K & 60K, so 6 different designs in total.

2008: Club releases plans for 60K stadium
Alterered to plan stand closer to the pitch. This reduces capacity to 58K

Club forced to reduce capcity to 56K. Quickest and easiest way for the club to do this is to remove the exec boxes in the south-stand and make a single-tiered stand.

Now there is talk (By Loughton) that the capacity will be altered again. I am really hoping and praying that they go with 60 or just over. AND I an hoping that they get rid of that stupid single tiered kop stand. Friends, make no mistake, this was simple done as a quick way to reduce the capcity by 2K. The stadium was never designed with the intention of a single-tiered stand. The shape of the stadium is simply WRONG for a single tiered stand and looks odd. It is not tall or deep enough for this type of stand and simple destroys the whole feel of the stadium. Also the capacity of this stand was only about 9,000 and reduces the amount of coporate facilities that we could have had.

SO IF the club does inclrease the capacity, then I cannot see how they do this without putting back the exec boxes to make the same design as the 58K, then simply add a few more seats, by maby filling in the corners to get to tht magic 60K figure.

Also saw this today, 59K link:
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9514655.Spurs_in_talks_to_open_free_school_in_new_stadium/

Better the 56, but still not 60.

Loughton, please confirm if you are ITK and can give us an exact capacity?

Thanks
 
1980's 3-tier north stand pic?

I remember seeing an artist's impression somebody scanned in from a match day programe from the 80's. I think it was Ginola99 who originally posted it about 4 or 5 years ago, but I could be wrong.
Anybody else have that pic? Please share, I woould love to see it again.

Thanks.
 
Thanks Finney :)

Naming rights almost certainly will be the case for WHL station, I think the new cable car over the Thames is going to see the sponsors appearing three times on the tube map.
 
chicken_badge said:
Thanks Finney :)

Naming rights almost certainly will be the case for WHL station, I think the new cable car over the Thames is going to see the sponsors appearing three times on the tube map.
Click to expand...

Whats the cable car over the thames going to be called? i love cable cars, i prefer monorails but i love cable cars the one in barcelona is cool. Apparently the is one in new york but i never saw it.
 
chichester said:
Whats the cable car over the thames going to be called? i love cable cars, i prefer monorails but i love cable cars the one in barcelona is cool. Apparently the is one in new york but i never saw it.
Click to expand...

Sponsored by Emirates, I think.
 
videotech said:
Hey guys, I have been posted on this forum for years, but for some reason I couldn't log in so I re-registered.

Just for the record I WAS in favour of a move to stratford IF we couldn't get what we wanted and put our club in financial risk in order to stay in Tottenham. Specifically I am talking about capacity and help with the funding of the project. Well it looks like we got one of those things and I am still hoping the second one comes true. In regards to the capacity I specifically wanted at least 60K, 61K would have been perfect on 2 fronts i) bigger then the scum's ii) honour our double winning side of 1961.

Capacity Facts:
June 2006 or 2007, spurs commission KSS to come up with 3 different stadium designs, each design would have 2 capacities, 50K & 60K, so 6 different designs in total.

2008: Club releases plans for 60K stadium
Alterered to plan stand closer to the pitch. This reduces capacity to 58K

Club forced to reduce capcity to 56K. Quickest and easiest way for the club to do this is to remove the exec boxes in the south-stand and make a single-tiered stand.

Now there is talk (By Loughton) that the capacity will be altered again. I am really hoping and praying that they go with 60 or just over. AND I an hoping that they get rid of that stupid single tiered kop stand. Friends, make no mistake, this was simple done as a quick way to reduce the capcity by 2K. The stadium was never designed with the intention of a single-tiered stand. The shape of the stadium is simply WRONG for a single tiered stand and looks odd. It is not tall or deep enough for this type of stand and simple destroys the whole feel of the stadium. Also the capacity of this stand was only about 9,000 and reduces the amount of coporate facilities that we could have had.

SO IF the club does inclrease the capacity, then I cannot see how they do this without putting back the exec boxes to make the same design as the 58K, then simply add a few more seats, by maby filling in the corners to get to tht magic 60K figure.

Also saw this today, 59K link:
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9514655.Spurs_in_talks_to_open_free_school_in_new_stadium/

Better the 56, but still not 60.

Loughton, please confirm if you are ITK and can give us an exact capacity?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with you more about the single tier end.

It is the saving grace of the new WHL.

Without it, the stadium is just an identikit, uniform, multi-tiered, corporate bowl, devoid of any character or focus. Without it, the stadium is just another temple to Mammon - built first and foremost with the corporate customer in mind, and with the wishes of real fans a mere afterthought.

Sure, the single tier end does look a bit clunky, because it was formed from minimal design changes to a pre-existing template. But give me clunky over dull and featureless every day. New stadia in England are overly homogenized. We should be doing all we can to preserve whatever of identity and character is left.

If the club gets rid of the single tier end for the sake of 2K - or even 4K - seats, it would be a massive retrograde step, IMO. There is already a huge danger that the atmosphere at the new WHL will become as embarrassingly tepid as it is at the Emirates. Getting rid of the single tier end would increase the odds on that eventuality tenfold.

If the atmosphere is tepid, the experience of attending games at the new stadium will be less enjoyable. If the experience is less enjoyable, it will be harder to sell tickets. More importantly, it will be harder to sell corporate packages. So the sacrifice of the single tier end for a few thousand extra seats could backfire badly.

I'm all in favour of a 60K capacity. But not at any price. And, crucially, it doesn't have to come at a price to the stadium's quality and character at all. 4K seats could be added in a number of ways that would improve the stadium rather than making it more bland:

- bring the stands another couple of rows closer to the pitch.
- fill in the overly dipping corners
- add a few rows to the back of the single tier end (might require a slight change to the roof design)
- allow for marginally less legroom (modern stadia often give fans more than they need)

Please, Spurs, do the right thing.
 
I totally understand where you are coming from, but still don't agree with the single tier stand. Rather then having an identical emirates, I think they should have made a proper bowl shape, at the height of the highest stand all the way round - If you know what I mean.
I really do not like the dipping in the corners design at all.
Anyway whatever they do, we MUST have a 60K stadium, anything less is a big disappointment IMO.

Thanks.
 
I totally understand where you are coming from, but still don't agree with the single tier stand. Rather then having an identical emirates, I think they should have made a proper bowl shape, at the height of the highest stand all the way round - If you know what I mean.
I really do not like the dipping in the corners design at all.
Anyway whatever they do, we MUST have a 60K stadium, anything less is a big disappointment IMO.

Thanks.
 
jimmyb said:
I couldn't disagree with you more about the single tier end.

It is the saving grace of the new WHL.

Without it, the stadium is just an identikit, uniform, multi-tiered, corporate bowl, devoid of any character or focus. Without it, the stadium is just another temple to Mammon - built first and foremost with the corporate customer in mind, and with the wishes of real fans a mere afterthought.

Sure, the single tier end does look a bit clunky, because it was formed from minimal design changes to a pre-existing template. But give me clunky over dull and featureless every day. New stadia in England are overly homogenized. We should be doing all we can to preserve whatever of identity and character is left.

If the club gets rid of the single tier end for the sake of 2K - or even 4K - seats, it would be a massive retrograde step, IMO. There is already a huge danger that the atmosphere at the new WHL will become as embarrassingly tepid as it is at the Emirates. Getting rid of the single tier end would increase the odds on that eventuality tenfold.

If the atmosphere is tepid, the experience of attending games at the new stadium will be less enjoyable. If the experience is less enjoyable, it will be harder to sell tickets. More importantly, it will be harder to sell corporate packages. So the sacrifice of the single tier end for a few thousand extra seats could backfire badly.

I'm all in favour of a 60K capacity. But not at any price. And, crucially, it doesn't have to come at a price to the stadium's quality and character at all. 4K seats could be added in a number of ways that would improve the stadium rather than making it more bland:

- bring the stands another couple of rows closer to the pitch.
- fill in the overly dipping corners
- add a few rows to the back of the single tier end (might require a slight change to the roof design)
- allow for marginally less legroom (modern stadia often give fans more than they need)

Please, Spurs, do the right thing.
Click to expand...
I agree on this. This single tier stand (which needs an epic name btw) will distinguish us from the norm. I imagine it as something like this but with....er...less Germans obviously.
1a1a1a12aa85.jpg

Don't tell me that every other club in the country won't be envious of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back