New Stadium Details And Discussions

davidmatzdorf said:

The additional revenue from the new stadium is only slightly about the capacity. More so, it is about increasing the number of corporate boxes and 'luxury' type services. Then it is about selling more upmarket/expensive food, drink, merchandise and entertainment to those corporate box types once they are in the stadium. That's where the revenue is: selling 'hospitality' to people with too much money and then getting them to spend it once they are through the door.

As I suggested in an earlier post, I don't think the optimum size for a stadium is the size that is 100% full for every match, not financially, anyway. It wants to be bigger than that, so it's full for major matches and not-quite-full for other matches. The marginal cost (both capital cost and running cost) of an extra 3k to 5k seats, once you've actually bought the land, dug the hole, put up the shell of the stadium and fitted it out, is minor in scale. If we make it big enough so we don't fill it against Burnley, we'll still fill it against Arsenal or Man United.

I'd suggest that if we find in 10 years' time that we're still selling out every match, then we've made it too small, if only because of externally imposed limits.

Click to expand...

absolute bobbins said:

This is the only reason I think the Stratford site would have been perfect for Spurs (with our own stadium, not the O/S). White Hart Lane is a bit of a transportation black hole, we simply can't move the people into and out of the ground quickly enough.

Click to expand...

whitesocks said:

My thoughts are that the kop stand was more a consequence of the 2 stage build:
ie make the final stand as simple as possible, without boxes or any complex facilities,
so it could be quickly added without causing too much disruption to the rest of the new ground.

Now it seems likely that for health and safety/costs that this will be a 1 phase build,
I suspect that the kop idea will be quietly forgotten and all the off the shelf, pre-cast emirate bowl options will be revisited.

Oh well. It is not so important.
In 30 years it will start to look shabby/unsuited to our needs, yet will be impossible to upgrade - we'll be looking for a new stadium again.
That's the modern way - quick to build and quick to dismantle.

Click to expand...

Lilbaz said:

This will be Levy's legacy. I'm sure he'll want it to be the best stadium possible.

Click to expand...

nidge said:

Anyone think he will name a stand after himself?

Click to expand...

nidge said:

Anyone think he will name a stand after himself?

Click to expand...

whitesocks said:

My thoughts are that the kop stand was more a consequence of the 2 stage build:
ie make the final stand as simple as possible, without boxes or any complex facilities,
so it could be quickly added without causing too much disruption to the rest of the new ground.

Now it seems likely that for health and safety/costs that this will be a 1 phase build,
I suspect that the kop idea will be quietly forgotten and all the off the shelf, pre-cast emirate bowl options will be revisited.

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

No, that isn't so. The kop stand has nothing to do with speed or simplicity of erection, in fact I suspect (but don't know) that it presented some difficulties with emergency exit arrangements. It may even have prevented a two stage build, as the schematic plan showing which part of the stadium would be constructed in the second phase cut directly through the kop stand, with part of the kop in phase one and part of it in phase two. That would certainly have presented a structural challenge, although I suppose so would trying to construct half of the south stand in tiers as well.

The kop stand, as the club said very loudly in its press material at the time, was part of the overall design strategy to preserve the intensity of atmosphere in the stadium, an objective that (they said at the time) informed the entire design approach. Judging by the various 'soulless bowl' clichés that have accumulated in this thread over the past year or two, many people here seem to have forgotten that, but I haven't: KSS' instructions from the club were to maximise the rake of the seating and the proximity of the fans to the pitch, to try to increase the noise level and general intensity and make the stadium different from the typical shallow-rake, open-to-the-sky bowl stadium.

If Populous are now instructed to increase the capacity, it's hard to see how they can do this by making the rake shallower or by introducing extra separation, in the form of runways, into the kop, as both of those measures would tend to reduce the capacity.

The 'bowl' shape has nothing to do with intensity of atmosphere. The reason nearly all modern stadia are bowls is because they fully utilise the corners of the pitch for seating, whereas the traditional four-stands shape wastes all that space. When building a stadium in a cramped urban location, the bowl-shape maximises the number of spectators in any given envelope. Most bowl stadia are pretty atmosphere-free, but that isn't because they are bowls, it's because the rake of the stands is shallow, because they are un-roofed and because the fans are too far from the pitch. If the architects can solve those problems, then we can have a bowl-shaped stadium with an intense atmosphere.

Click to expand...

Deeyal said:

Sold!

Click to expand...

nidge said:

Anyone think he will name a stand after himself?

Click to expand...

Spursidol said:

Not after he's got the ground named after himself and DHL as sponsor to pay for it in a stadium naming deal - Daniel Horatio Levy we salute you !






.......at least he wishes

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

No, that isn't so. The kop stand has nothing to do with speed or simplicity of erection, in fact I suspect (but don't know) that it presented some difficulties with emergency exit arrangements. It may even have prevented a two stage build, as the schematic plan showing which part of the stadium would be constructed in the second phase cut directly through the kop stand, with part of the kop in phase one and part of it in phase two. That would certainly have presented a structural challenge, although I suppose so would trying to construct half of the south stand in tiers as well.

The kop stand, as the club said very loudly in its press material at the time, was part of the overall design strategy to preserve the intensity of atmosphere in the stadium, an objective that (they said at the time) informed the entire design approach. Judging by the various 'soulless bowl' clichés that have accumulated in this thread over the past year or two, many people here seem to have forgotten that, but I haven't: KSS' instructions from the club were to maximise the rake of the seating and the proximity of the fans to the pitch, to try to increase the noise level and general intensity and make the stadium different from the typical shallow-rake, open-to-the-sky bowl stadium.

If Populous are now instructed to increase the capacity, it's hard to see how they can do this by making the rake shallower or by introducing extra separation, in the form of runways, into the kop, as both of those measures would tend to reduce the capacity.

The 'bowl' shape has nothing to do with intensity of atmosphere. The reason nearly all modern stadia are bowls is because they fully utilise the corners of the pitch for seating, whereas the traditional four-stands shape wastes all that space. When building a stadium in a cramped urban location, the bowl-shape maximises the number of spectators in any given envelope. Most bowl stadia are pretty atmosphere-free, but that isn't because they are bowls, it's because the rake of the stands is shallow, because they are un-roofed and because the fans are too far from the pitch. If the architects can solve those problems, then we can have a bowl-shaped stadium with an intense atmosphere.

Click to expand...

dazzle said:

Stumbled across this on my Youtube feed:


This might be alright in the states, but this would be horrendous for atmosphere. If this technology bullshit infects our stadium, then the wifi should only be available 15 mins before or after the game and maybe at half-time.

However, I can just imagine all the cringe-worthy marketing opportunities - "tweet your seize glory selfie" during the game" etc etc

Click to expand...

thinktank said:

Some great ideas there tbf. Interested to find out how they funded that wedge for the stadium though. Kinell.

Click to expand...

thinktank said:

Some great ideas there tbf. Interested to find out how they funded that wedge for the stadium though. Kinell.

Click to expand...

whitesocks said:

Thanks for your reassurances.
I still think the lower implementation costs in a 2 stage build was the driving force for a simple kop, rather than the potentially improved atmosphere. If you start doing unusual things, costs can rocket. It is a significant risk.

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

Why are you thanking me? You haven't read my post. You have no evidence for your contention. I have given you the evidence against it. You have ignored it.

To repeat and reword what I wrote: a kop is not 'simple' or cheap. It is a difficult option. There is no reasonable building-technology reason why a kop should be more conducive to a two stage build than a tiered stadium. There is no reason at all why the inclusion of a kop stand should have anything to do with the idea to build the stadium in two phases.

It's absolute bollocks. Fantasy-land. You are talking crap.

I was polite the first time. It didn't work. Is it clear now?

Click to expand...