Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'The New Stadium' started by tototoner, May 19, 2015.
One of the main problems is that a fire in a tunnel would reach temperatures that would melt the containers of the nuclear waste.
I know it's only wikipedia, and therefore potentially unreliable, but this article says differently:
I think the most important point that Phischy touched on, was that of access. Safety around nuclear waste is obviously important, but I think a lot of the perceived risks are perhaps overblown. For Network Rail, being able to schedule repairs and upgrades on their track is a very complicated and costly process, with any scheduled, let alone emergency work requiring lots of time and money, disrupting a very important artery into London.
Now you add a third party into the mix, and any scheduled weekend closures for example all have to work around there being a game at Stamford bridge. It's the little things like that, plus engineering decisions (how much access will Chelsea's design allow for equipment and repairs on the rails) that network rail will want to be a part of but the architect won't have really considered.
Oh I know you are right, that sort of organisation involves bringing a lot of different elements togther even for simple jobs and, for what it's worth, I don't think Chelscum will get permission to build over the railway line next to the stadium.
They can withstand 800c temperatures. There was an article that said the temperatures in that tunnel could reach well over 1000c.
How reliable the article was i don't know.
I read a different one which said the temperature in a tunnel fire was less than 800c, but I don't know if it's right either!
I think we are both agreed though that the railway authority should not allow building over the line and that's what counts.
Even in the wiki page it says that the testing is flawed as temperatures go higher than 800c.
"However, critics[who?]consider the testing flawed for various reasons. The heat test is claimed to be considerably below that of theoretical worst-case fires in a tunnel"
We'll have to see what tfl has to say. But can't see residents of chelsea being too happy about it. Hopefully it takes a while for a resolution and we can be happily in our new stadium by then.
When I see the Chelsea stadium I just picture masses of people running into those brick pillars and having massive log jams. So many traffic cones of sorts.
The temperature of the fire would obviously depend on what materials were involved and so could vary considerably. One thing is for sure, if a nuclear flask ruptured it could get to multiples of 800c! That said they haven't managed to break one yet!
reminds me of a potato peeler or cheese grater my mum used to have when i was growing up early 70's (or some sinister KGB premises )
Thats the Alexandra Rd housing estate and is an absolutely iconic piece of architecture. I think it's fabulous.
It's been in loads of movies and TV.
Mate used to live there.
I'm probably in a small minority here but I'd take Chelsea's brutalist volcano over our airport terminal any day.
We had these discussions elsewhere in general football, specifically around some of the french stadiums built recently (Lille, Lyon, Nice, Bordeaux, Marseille etc)
I'm really disappointed we didn't go for something with some architectural interest or integrity. Massive opportunity missed to create something that could be talked about around the world, googled by fans around the world etc.
Love Trellick tower too:
When I was a kid in the seventies we had a family friend that lived really high up in the Barbican, it was like a different world to me, I'd spend hours just fucking about in the elevators and mooching about the whole estate, the interior was super cool as well, she had one of those futuristic tv's built into a white plastic ball and futuristic 70's furniture, it was like being in a Space 1999 pod.
Hehe, well, I used to live there!
Had a nice flat there for a couple of months before moving under it's shadow into St. Ervans Road. Really nice location, bang next to Portobello Road and when carnival came to town I had the best view in town.
Moved away though to Bayswater after having a bit of a run in with some local knife wielding hoodlums one night. All good fun.
I'll give myself a spam rating later.
This Future Stadia thread is stating to look like an afternoon watching Only Fools and Horses on Gold.
I doubt we would have had snythingblikevthst approved. The English Heritage and especially CABE were dead set against the designs of the first two submitted plans as they messed up the historic and architectural line of the High Rd conservation area, and not in keeping with a dense urban area.
The first submission didn't even make it to the planning committee, with its amphitheatre, and interactive lightpoles and no listed buildings. The old consented had its difficulties too from CABE who basically wanted a red brick box.
The present scheme adhered better to the needs of CABE (who are now defunct) with the line of the Hotel and escalator box giving the impression of a continued straight line to the High Rd, but even that caused consternation to the Council planners and so that has changed.
The more modern external designs would never have got thru planning because of the density of residential housing,mane the conservation area restriction. Besides the Allianz Arena with its changing colour wouldn't look good with Warmington House stuck out front - our H&S mob were dead set against the external screen as it would distract drivers and pedestrians crossing the road.
With all this to contend with, I think they have done a great job with the external design and the perforated cladding should look spectacular at night with the light escaping through the various sized perforations.
Look at this from Karren Brady!
She's such a pleb! The grammar and spelling is pretty poor, for official comms especially (can no-one proof read?!) And it's basically making excuses for it looking shit and banging on about how awesome it is for them; clearly hiding some concern that it isn't going to be received well.
Separate names with a comma.