New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Hotspur1978]

From GPRD81 on glory-glory:

Did anyone listen to Rule the Roost this week? Kat from the Supporters Trust was in and said that they had met the club (Levy included) last week and said that Archway have until 11th Sept to lodge an appeal and they don't know whether they will or not.

 

[whitesocks]

It might be just me, but I wouldn't mind that variation at all.
The south stand doesn't look to have any boxes, and the 2 decks look like they would hold more fans than a single tier.

It could still be called a kop - kops after all can have tiers like the old Filbert Street double decker kop.
But I don't know what the fascination is with this word anyway - it has nothing to do with our history.

Looking at that 'middle' tier, it looks a little bit like a shelf.....
Depending how far back it went, that could generate some noise.

[I really do not see why this post could upset anyone, but I'm bracing myself for abuse all the same,
now I am officially the whipping boy for the thread. Bring it on! ]

 

[RichieS]

It might be just me, but I wouldn't mind that variation at all.
The south stand doesn't look to have any boxes, and the 2 decks look like they would hold more fans than a single tier.

It could still be called a kop - kops after all can have tiers like the old Filbert Street double decker kop.
But I don't know what the fascination is with this word anyway - it has nothing to do with our history.

Looking at that 'middle' tier, it looks a little bit like a shelf.....
Depending how far back it went, that could generate some noise.

[I really do not see why this post could upset anyone, but I'm bracing myself for abuse all the same,
now I am officially the whipping boy for the thread. Bring it on! ]

I think many, many people would be well behind the return of the Shelf.

 

[Hoopspur]

It might be just me, but I wouldn't mind that variation at all.
The south stand doesn't look to have any boxes, and the 2 decks look like they would hold more fans than a single tier.

It could still be called a kop - kops after all can have tiers like the old Filbert Street double decker kop.
But I don't know what the fascination is with this word anyway - it has nothing to do with our history.

Looking at that 'middle' tier, it looks a little bit like a shelf.....
Depending how far back it went, that could generate some noise.

[I really do not see why this post could upset anyone, but I'm bracing myself for abuse all the same,
now I am officially the whipping boy for the thread. Bring it on! ]

Don't get me wrong because this is of course important, but much earlier in this thread I had the chance to poor through the more detailed versions of the plans/drawings that were available as pdfs etc. It clearly stated/showed that there will be facilities/viewing areas for our disabled supporters etc through the middle of the so called 'Kop'.

I kind of expect this therefore to create some sort of natural break in the design in any case - would it be a much better/bigger version of the stand at Charlton for example? As it happens I think the design of that stand is not the best and the facilities for these supporters would need to be much better as I'm sure they would be in a completely new build, but it does still introduce the thought that it may not be one single continuous bank. Maybe things have moved on though.

 

[michaelden]

You seem to have a lot of faith in the stadium project. I respect your views. But tell me, why do you think Levy actively pursued the move to stratford. In fact, he publicly stated it was his prefered option. I`m genuinely interested to here your take on it. none of this ruse to get harringey off there backsides nonsense. We all know thats utter bollocks. So, why actively seek a move to stratford AFTER publicly submitting plans to redevelop WHL on the official website. 6 years ago.

Because: -

1. It was ready built
2. Has much better transport links
3. is closer to the wealthy financial districts
4. is a much larger venue
5. can hold upwards of 100k people
6. would be funded partly by the govt.
7. is already a more widely recognised stadium

 

[Lilbaz]

Because: -

1. It was ready built
2. Has much better transport links
3. is closer to the wealthy financial districts
4. is a much larger venue
5. can hold upwards of 100k people
6. would be funded partly by the govt.
7. is already a more widely recognised stadium

£500m worth of land going for basically nothing.

 

[michaelden]

£500m worth of land going for basically nothing.

Yeah, I forgot cost. D'oh!

 

[Blake Griffin]

It might be just me, but I wouldn't mind that variation at all.
The south stand doesn't look to have any boxes, and the 2 decks look like they would hold more fans than a single tier.

It could still be called a kop - kops after all can have tiers like the old Filbert Street double decker kop.
But I don't know what the fascination is with this word anyway - it has nothing to do with our history.

Looking at that 'middle' tier, it looks a little bit like a shelf.....
Depending how far back it went, that could generate some noise.

[I really do not see why this post could upset anyone, but I'm bracing myself for abuse all the same,
now I am officially the whipping boy for the thread. Bring it on! ]

blue emirates. no thanks.

 

[Mister Jez]

Because: -

1. It was ready built
2. Has much better transport links
3. is closer to the wealthy financial districts
4. is a much larger venue
5. can hold upwards of 100k people
6. would be funded partly by the govt.
7. is already a more widely recognised stadium

Understand all your points above, which I agree with. Apart from the first one.
I was under the impression that we had decided the OS was not suitable as it stood, we were planning to demolish the whole thing and replace it with our own stadium plans. We would have recycled the majority of the demolished OS for a purpose built athletic stadium.

That's when Seb Coe and the brilliant minds, finally blew there collective stacks into the stratosphere.
I may be entirely wrong in my assumptions, if I am, my apologies.

 

[michaelden]

Understand all your points above, which I agree with. Apart from the first one.
I was under the impression that we had decided the OS was not suitable as it stood, we were planning to demolish the whole thing and replace it with our own stadium plans. We would have recycled the majority of the demolished OS for a purpose built athletic stadium.

That's when Seb Coe and the brilliant minds, finally blew there collective stacks into the stratosphere.
I may be entirely wrong in my assumptions, if I am, my apologies.

Yip, but I meant the basic infrastructure like external utilities, civil works like roads etc... 90% of it would not need to be changed. I believe we are undertaking a significant amount of civil works as part of the scheme, roadworks, pavements, drainage etc...

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

Because: -

1. It was ready built
2. Has much better transport links
3. is closer to the wealthy financial districts
4. is a much larger venue
5. can hold upwards of 100k people
6. would be funded partly by the govt.
7. is already a more widely recognised stadium

1. is wrong. The Olympic Stadium was going to be demolished.
4. is wrong. The new stadium would have been comparable with the current plans at White Hart Lane.
5. is wrong. It would have held around 60K. And "upwards of" means "more than", and there is no way there is or would have been any likelihood of anywhere near, let alone more than 100K capacity.
6. is wrong. There would have been no government funding as such. Indeed THFC were going to pay extra to fund the refurbishment of the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace to cope with the athletics legacy requirement. The land lease would have been free, but this is not funding.
7. is wrong because it was going to be a completely new stadium.

 

[worcestersauce]

Guys, whether we should have moved to the Olympic park or stayed where we are is one argument, whether the Olympic park is a better venue for a premier league club or not isn't an argument at all, it is, and there is no doubt about it but that is now West Ham's future.
I just hope we can get our one up and running soon.

 

[Ionman34]

It might be just me, but I wouldn't mind that variation at all.
The south stand doesn't look to have any boxes, and the 2 decks look like they would hold more fans than a single tier.

It could still be called a kop - kops after all can have tiers like the old Filbert Street double decker kop.
But I don't know what the fascination is with this word anyway - it has nothing to do with our history.

Looking at that 'middle' tier, it looks a little bit like a shelf.....
Depending how far back it went, that could generate some noise.

[I really do not see why this post could upset anyone, but I'm bracing myself for abuse all the same,
now I am officially the whipping boy for the thread. Bring it on! ]

I actually agree with you 100%. Creating a 'New Shelf' would go some way to get some continuity and make the place feel more like home, just bigger, shinier and better.

The Shelf is a HUGE part of our history, it's always been synonymous with the 'Home end'.

I'd rather a Shelf than a Kop for certain.

 

[michaelden]

1. is wrong. The Olympic Stadium was going to be demolished.
4. is wrong. The new stadium would have been comparable with the current plans at White Hart Lane.
5. is wrong. It would have held around 60K. And "upwards of" means "more than", and there is no way there is or would have been any likelihood of anywhere near, let alone more than 100K capacity.
6. is wrong. There would have been no government funding as such. Indeed THFC were going to pay extra to fund the refurbishment of the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace to cope with the athletics legacy requirement. The land lease would have been free, but this is not funding.
7. is wrong because it was going to be a completely new stadium.

As explained earlier, 1) I was including infrastructure works

4) the area the stadium sits on is significantly larger than Wembley & Old Trafford. The stadium plans for the NDP would not have just been carried over to the OS site.
5) THe OS did hold more than 100K. The possibility for the new stadium would be that max capacity too. I'm not saying it would be that but it would be far easier to get planning there for 80K than at WHL
6) I believe the govt is paying for the hte renovations to the stadium and would have contributed upto £40m which is the amount they are paying towards making it fir for WHU.
7) location location location & its big fucking OS name! Of course more people watch the Olympics than Spurs.

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

As explained earlier, 1) I was including infrastructure works

4) the area the stadium sits on is significantly larger than Wembley & Old Trafford. The stadium plans for the NDP would not have just been carried over to the OS site.
5) THe OS did hold more than 100K. The possibility for the new stadium would be that max capacity too. I'm not saying it would be that but it would be far easier to get planning there for 80K than at WHL
6) I believe the govt is paying for the hte renovations to the stadium and would have contributed upto £40m which is the amount they are paying towards making it fir for WHU.
7) location location location & its big fucking OS name! Of course more people watch the Olympics than Spurs.

I stated facts.

 

[worcestersauce]

I actually agree with you 100%. Creating a 'New Shelf' would go some way to get some continuity and make the place feel more like home, just bigger, shinier and better.

The Shelf is a HUGE part of our history, it's always been synonymous with the 'Home end'.

I'd rather a Shelf than a Kop for certain.

Except for the Park Lane!
I certainly prefer the idea of a single roof high wall of home support.

 

[Lilbaz]

Can't the other end be the shelf? Park Lane and Shelf seems to work?

 

[dovahkiin]

from a poster called southgate on coys: Was at the Lane today, lots of activity, 2 diggers on the go and a large grabber loading up a grab lorry. Huge hole in the ground and a mountain of rocks that wasn't there last week.

 

[Hoopspur]

As explained earlier, 1) I was including infrastructure works

4) the area the stadium sits on is significantly larger than Wembley & Old Trafford. The stadium plans for the NDP would not have just been carried over to the OS site.
5) THe OS did hold more than 100K. The possibility for the new stadium would be that max capacity too. I'm not saying it would be that but it would be far easier to get planning there for 80K than at WHL
6) I believe the govt is paying for the hte renovations to the stadium and would have contributed upto £40m which is the amount they are paying towards making it fir for WHU.
7) location location location & its big fucking OS name! Of course more people watch the Olympics than Spurs.

I stated facts.

Guys, whatever the argument for and against etc, I do know that the 'below' ground works represents the significant cost on the project - the 'foundations'. It's at least 60/40. All of this will have been done at the OS whereas we have to do this now at WHL (sorry NPD).

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Guys, whatever the argument for and against etc, I do know that the 'below' ground works represents the significant cost on the project - the 'foundations'. It's at least 60/40. All of this will have been done at the OS whereas we have to do this now at WHL (sorry NPD).

Just out of interest how this the foundations the significant cost of the project? The stadium is on a raised podium. Other than piling for the major structural elements above it there's no other great percentage of cost down there. There's no lower levels, no retaining walls, no dewatering. This is unless there has been a significant design change to the lower level of the stadium since the submission to Haringey.