-
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
- Thread starter Gutter Boy
- Start date
I'm not a great fan of stadiums with retractable roofs. I can see why, for non football events, it makes sense but I don't like football matches played indoors, for some reason. Just doesn't feel quite right. It's why we lost the 2002 League Cup final.
I like the look of Bordeaux's stadium from the outside. Absolutely stunning. But it looks rather generic, featureless and characterless on the inside. And in stadium design, for me, the interior is by far the most important thing to get right. So, even though the Bordeaux stadium is more aesthetically pleasing than the new WHL, give me our rather clunky single tier end any day of the week!
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
The Bordeaux one will definitely stand out. The other two were a bit meh, nothing innovative.
Lille's is just a boring version of the Allianz Arena and the Haifa one reminds me of this:
I was more impressed by the fact that it's gold. GOLD, MOTHERfudgeR.
Gold is awesome.
There are new technologies that can compensate for a lack of light and air circulation, surely? And considering the height of the remainder of the stadium, I wouldn't have thought that dips in the corners would make such a big difference.
Lastly, what about stadiums like the Bernabeu? It has much bigger and steeper stands than there will be at the new WHL and I'd imagine that RM would want a perfect playing surface. I've certainly never noticed any particular problems with their pitch. So it must be possible to have a decent pitch even in such a stadium.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I'm not a great fan of stadiums with retractable roofs. I can see why, for non football events, it makes sense but I don't like football matches played indoors, for some reason. Just doesn't feel quite right. It's why we lost the 2002 League Cup final.
I like the look of Bordeaux's stadium from the outside. Absolutely stunning. But it looks rather generic, featureless and characterless on the inside. And in stadium design, for me, the interior is by far the most important thing to get right. So, even though the Bordeaux stadium is more aesthetically pleasing than the new WHL, give me our rather clunky single tier end any day of the week!
Aye, I agree, but there's no reason the architects couldn't put a single-tier end inside a design like that of Bordeaux's new arena. Just think we dropped the ball a teensy bit with the dipping-end, standard bowl shape. But, on second thought, Bordeaux's new stadium looks fantastic because it has a lot of green, open space beside it, giving onlookers plenty of room to fully admire it. The new WHL will be surrounded by buildings, so we wouldn't get to see much of the new stadium from the ground anyway. So perhaps it's better this way.
As for retractable roof, it would improve immeasurably our ability to attract entertainment events to the ground to maximise revenue in the off-season. Even if we lose a couple of carling cup finals.
No technology is a substitute for good natural sunlight and air circulation. It also depends on the orientation that the stadium is facing.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
so the bordeaux one is only going to be 8,000 seats bigger then their current one, seems a bit odd
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
It's based in what appears to be a bunch of open fields, so it can be expanded if necessary. Removing all those pillars will likely be murderously hard though.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
This is my concern with the NDP, how easy will it be in the future if the times comes to expand it further? Will it require a whole new rebuild?
Short of being owned by another Mansour or Abramovich, for whom money is no object, I would have thought that it will be nigh on impossible to increase the capacity of the proposed new stadium to any great degree. It will be hemmed in by a supermarket at one end, new housing at the other and a road on either side. There simply won't be the room to expand without knocking down the other elements of the NDP and / or buying up and building upon new land where Worcester Avenue and the High Road now stand.
That's why, I guess, Spurs are looking to increase the proposed capacity now, while they can. Maybe they can squeeze 65K out of the site? That would be more than adequate, IMO.
I appreciate that, but the amount of extra light and and air circulation to which the pitch would be exposed as a consequence of the dipping corners is minimal. It's not going to make the critical difference. The purpose of the dips has far more to do with optimum viewing distances.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
That's why they were so insistent on the hotel idea at first, I guess. A hotel can be knocked down eventually, if the demand for an expanded stadium is high enough. Knocking down the homes that they're now proposing will be virtually impossible. I hope, like you, that we maximise the capacity to a 65-66k level, because expansion after this won't happen for a long, long time, unless the environment changes radically. With 66k, we'll comfortably overtake both the Emirates and the proposed new stadiums of Chelsea, Liverpool and Everton, plus the proposed expansion of Sports Direct@St.James. We'll own the second-biggest stadium in the country behind Old Trafford, which should financially secure us for the forseeable. Plus, if what I hope comes to pass and standing is re-introduced, we could see that 66k figure rocket up, perhaps 90k plus, which would be impressive. So I'd rather we took a bit of a gamble, risked a few empty seats and increased the capacity to 66k now, so we don't hamstring ourselves in the future, because the alternative (watching our capacity fall behind as the proposed new stadiums of Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and the like go up) would certainly mean that.
chancer
Gudni Bergsson
I think the obsession with some arbitrary number - 60k or 61k or 65k or 66k - is a bit misguided to be honest. A few thousand seats more or less versus our immediate rivals isn't a huge deal finance-wise. And if it's just for the prestige, meh. Better to have a great stadium than getting hung up on whether it's a wee bit bigger or smaller than some others. "2nd biggest in the EPL" doesn't really mean very much in the grand scheme of things.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Should FFP actually work, and in the event of it being properly enforced, every extra seat is vital, to push us a little bit further away from our rivals in the funding stakes. Secondly, should our rivals build bigger and better stadiums in the future, with bigger capacities, we'll be left behind again, just as were when the all-seating rule was established. Thirdly, if the NDP were a 65,000 seater, as opposed to a 56, 250 seater, we'd have the advantage of nearly nine thousand extra seats. That's a big number, in terms of revenue. So yeah, I agree that an arbitrary number isn't to be hankered after, but I think we'd all prefer for the stadium to be as big as it possibly can be without compromising on the atmosphere.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
When you're standing on the pitch at the Santiago Bernabeu - and I have on match days past - it's amazing how hot and still the air is. Before the crowds get in, the afternoon tang of the fresh-cut grass is just overpowering. I've seen people reach down to rub the grass and then smell their fingers, like they were standing in a patch of thyme or sage. Once the fans are in, the place becomes a humid cauldron, with tobacco smoke fuming up all over the place, swirling in the light breezes that come up.
Players must be able to really bend or dip the ball given the added bite it gets in such dense air. The place is built like some opera house on steroids, just rising up dramatically, level after level, with completely even rows of seats at the top of the upper stand and a big roof putting a cap right over all the seats.
A greenskeepers nightmare, yet Real play on a billiard table of a pitch. All this nonsense about favourable light and airflow created by dipping corners is just some architectural bafflegab. A good pitch is there for the making in any big ground. All it takes is money, equipment and a skillful staff with a commitment to execute.
Players must be able to really bend or dip the ball given the added bite it gets in such dense air. The place is built like some opera house on steroids, just rising up dramatically, level after level, with completely even rows of seats at the top of the upper stand and a big roof putting a cap right over all the seats.
A greenskeepers nightmare, yet Real play on a billiard table of a pitch. All this nonsense about favourable light and airflow created by dipping corners is just some architectural bafflegab. A good pitch is there for the making in any big ground. All it takes is money, equipment and a skillful staff with a commitment to execute.
Notmegov
Roman Pavlyuchenko
But is that easier to do with the Large increase in sunshine hours in Spain compared to that of a damp dark winter in London? I bet it has a lot to do with it.
London in January has a average of 3 hours a day, Madrid has 6 hours.
Last edited:
FatBloke
Niko Kranjcar
Exactly. A lack of rain can be sorted pretty easily. A lack of sunshine is a lot more difficult.
There's only so much a groundsman can do! IIRC, our last guy won awards before he was nicked by l'Arse.
chancer
Gudni Bergsson
Nice description. Must get myself there one day - for me it trumps the Camp Nou.
Phil Horatio
Gilberto
Agree!
Plus the roof has a central heating system, which is a factor (as well as being awesome!)
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
Our NDP will definitely not win any architectural awards (apart from maybe the Carbuncle Cup), which is a shame 'cos it's an opportunity missed. I was really impressed with the Braga stadium, in terms of looks, feel and viewing experience, and on a limited budget too. We should get their architect, but that's obviously never going to happen with our architect's ties with the board.
Regarding the Bernabeu, I was impressed with how good the view from the gods was, which I presume was because of how steep the stands are, as opposed to the brick views I've had from the gods at the Millenium and San Siro to name a few.
We've been fed the line that the front rows will be closer than Wembley (brick ground designed by an architect more worried by what it looks like), Emirates and Eastlands, but they will still be further away than WHL I think, and too shallow a rake.