New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Spursidol]

Seeing as the extension from Surrey Quays to Clapham junction cost just £80m, because most of the track was already there, and that involved tarting up 7 stations, I don't see why the northumberland park extension couldn't be done for £27m. However, I thought that the land on which the station would be built was owned by Network Rail and they won't sell it because they want to double up the track on the West Anglia Main Line.

Agreed this is the fly in the ointment - otherwise its above ground, track is there (currrently used as sidings/rail yard) so cost to build a station platform and buildings should not be huge.

The station in the area was included in the LB Harringay Tottenham regeneration plan as a 'maybe' in 2016/17 onward but looked like a 'blue sky' idea as no detail provided (unlike the other projects to be implemented covered by the plan). Maybe LB Harringay/Boris still hope to twist Network Rail's arm into giving up their ideas on the site so that a stion can be built there - but very much doubt if the £27m is intended for that at this time, its just too early

 

[sherbornespurs]

Ten years ago the cost of developing a new underground station at Northumberland Park, including line extension, new signals and a footbridge was quoted to be between £40m - £50m. The link below refers;

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/spurs-plan-down-the-tube-6985469.html

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

There are several tube stations already that serve Tottenham. It's just that none of them is near the stadium. Aside from Seven Ssters, Tottenham Hale and Blackhorse Rd are on the Victoria Line and South Tottenham is on the Overground.

There's nothing about these announcements that would suggest 'tube station' to me. If they were going to create a new station, a fuss would be made and we would be hearing about discussions with the various rail and transport bodies. There would be leaks and rumours. Instead, there isn't even speculation.

The main issue with Tottenham isn't getting people in and out, it's providing jobs - and good quality affordable housing - in Tottenham, so people can live and work there. In the absence of new, modern affordable housing, higher property values would just make matters more difficult for local people. Rents and property prices are already unaffordable. The neighbourhood needs decently-paid employment in locally-based businesses and affordable housing that isn't located in isolated, badly-maintained estates with minimal services and few shops.

There are several tube stations already that serve Tottenham

Really? If they do the coverage is pretty damned poor!! Perhaps it's more apt to say they serve south Tottenham.

The main issue with Tottenham isn't getting people in and out, it's providing jobs - and good quality affordable housing - in Tottenham, so people can live and work there

Is providing jobs in Tottenham the real reason or providing a community people want to live in, irrespective of their job location? Being born and bred in Hammersmith I never once worked there in my 28 years living there. I worked in the City/Covent Garden for most of my working life. Hammersmith certainly wasn't the poorer for it (some would say it benefited ).

Providing jobs in Tottenham is of course a main aim of the regeneration scheme. Enticing people that are higher earners commuting from Central London, who in turn invest in the community just by living there, surely has to be a main aim too? A huge catalyst for that would be better transportation links in the area. The station at NP should be a no brainer for Boris, especially if he wants to be seen investing in the area after last years riots.

As a contrast look at the transport links the filth enjoy. I never knew the Piccadilly Line actually went under the Cameldome....

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I agree with everyone that enticing people with a bit of money to live in Tottenham is an important aim in the medium term, but the main reason why there is such unrest in the area not the absence of the bourgeoisie, it is because of social exclusion: large numbers of poor people with long-term unemployment and no prospects, living on poorly-served housing estates that amount to multi-ethnic ghettos of the very poor. The highest priority for Tottenham has to be to provide some life opportunities for these presently-alienated parts of the community: local jobs and local homes. Until that starts happening, I won't expect many well-heeled urban-pioneers from elsewhere deciding to acquire a property and settle in Tottenham. There are still other areas of London where young professionals can feel hip and edgy, without expecting a riot to break out.

Similarly, the main difference between Holloway in Islington and Tottenham in Haringey isn't the transport connections, it's the presence of a thriving and varied community that includes all social classes, together with busy shopping streets that serve wealthy people (Upper St) and also working class people (Holloway Rd). I live 500m from the Emirates (I'm on that map). My neighbourhood is equally as ethnically diverse as Tottenham, but it has nothing like the same level of social exclusion, despite Islington having (along with Hackney and Tower Hamlets) a similar level of borough-wide poverty to that in Haringey. That's because there is a functioning local economy and because the affordable housing is generally better-located, better-built and better-managed. It's also because it was easy to attract those urban-pioneers to a neighbourhood that is within easy walking, cycling or bus-ride distance of Islington Green, Camden Town and Hampstead. Tottenham isn't in central London and there's not a great deal that can be done about that.

 

[beats1]

It is also worth stating that estimate is for a new track, new signals, a new station and a new bridge.

The project would cost £40m to 50m and would involve new track, new signals, a new station and a new bridge. It is very expensive and we have to think of what is cost effective.​

That says to me the 27million would be mostly be spent on the tottenham train station and footbridge, with perhaps money from other funds or from TFL going toward the track and signal upgrades​

 

[beats1]

It is also worth stating that estimate is for a new track, new signals, a new station and a new bridge.

That says to me the 27million would be mostly be spent on the tottenham train station and footbridge, with perhaps money from other funds or from TFL going toward the track and signal upgrades​

Update it seems in 2009, there were track upgrades and signal upgrades in the depot to accommodate the new type of Bombardier trains this included signal and track upgrades, currently researching to see if it was on the proposed section

 

[EJWTartanSpur]

I seem to remember our club scoffing at a figure of around 20m that we were being asked to pay, simply to widen bus lanes, expand the White Hart Lane station, walkways and general signage. That was about 3-5 years ago. Most likely, the 27m is support from the government to do these things, and I actually remember it being described as such, when it was first announced that we would get help

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

I seem to remember our club scoffing at a figure of around 20m that we were being asked to pay, simply to widen bus lanes, expand the White Hart Lane station, walkways and general signage. That was about 3-5 years ago. Most likely, the 27m is support from the government to do these things, and I actually remember it being described as such, when it was first announced that we would get help

I work in construction, trust me if they are saying it takes 20m to widen bus lanes on Tottenham High Road, expand the White Hart Lane station by building another exit over the British Queen and a few walkways and general signage, that is a steaming pile of shit.

Unless they are talking knocking down buildings to expand the Bus Lanes!!

 

[EJWTartanSpur]

Well that was the whole dilemma. We were being told to pay around that amount for what seemed like a bunch of nonsense. I don't know how much it would in fact cost, but I was under the impression that the funding money would go towards doing those things.

 

[KaribYid]

EVERYONE GO AND SEE @robMDK's tweets on twitter. He's tweeted photos of paperwork regarding the stadium. Construction begins next month!! Capacity will be 56,250

 

[CJMurray]

Some pics (courtesy of @RobMDK)

 

[lippyspur]

I think that's out of date, sure we scrapped the plans for the hotel didn't we?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I think it's just a description of the overall planning consent, taken verbatim from the planning register, and pasted into an announcement that the first stage, i.e., the Sainsbury's supermarket, is starting on site. That's why there is a reference to the hotel, which has not been deleted from the project, but has been postponed and may be abandoned in the future unless it can be made sufficiently viable to attract a hotel operator.

I'm not sure where these images are from, but I suspect they are from a general building-industry online publication or projects-survey that lists all major new projects that are starting construction. The tabs at the top that read 'projects', 'companies', 'regions', and 'sectors' would be consistent with that.

I'm confident that this is not an indication that work is going to start on the actual stadium. It's just a database showing that Phase 1 is starting, with the details of the whole development pasted into it by someone who wasn't paying attention.

So everyone can calm down again.


EDIT: Yes, it's from http://www.glenigan.com/, which is exactly what I thought: a construction-industry survey website that provides information for contractors and subcontractors on what developments are inviting tenders or about to start. Now I'm 100% certain that the actual stadium has only been included in this announcement because some nitwit pasted the entire planning consent summary in, not because the stadium is actually going to start on site.

 

[double0]

Why 56k and not 60k capacity I'm not happy.

 

[Bobbins]

Why 56k and not 60k capacity I'm not happy.

 

[RichieS]

Why 56k and not 60k capacity I'm not happy.

Because we'd rather have a full ground every week than a few thousand empty seats for all but the biggest games I assume.

 

[Spurs1960]

If people want to stand they should be allowed to, nobody sits in a seat during the game anyway, everyone is standing up behind the goal where I was for the Maribor game.

 

[Pringle]

If people want to stand they should be allowed to, nobody sits in a seat during the game anyway, everyone is standing up behind the goal where I was for the Maribor game.

Whilst i agree to a point, its unfair on people who are smaller than those in front of them as well as people who may not be physically able to stand up for long periods. It is also against the law so wont be allowed.

 

[camaj]

When your sitting down almost everyone standing is taller than you

 

[wooderz]

56 thousand capacity?