New Stadium Details And Discussions

[jambreck]

If they can do works without disturbing Archway, then why didn't they start ages ago?

Because there was no guarantee that Spurs (Haringey) would win the case.

And had we lost, the more that we had already spent on developing the land that we already owned, the more leverage that Archway would have had when it came to negotiating a price for their land.

 

[worcestersauce]

Personally I just don't see why we would make any deal with Archway to let them stay any longer than necessary, for a start it's not us that will move them off it's the Council and I don't see why they would not want them out of the way immediately, whilst they are still there they can be a bloody nuisance.
I don't see the PR exercise argument either, what PR benefit is there to gain and who would we be trying to impress?

 

[jambreck]

Personally I just don't see why we would make any deal with Archway to let them stay any longer than necessary, for a start it's not us that will move them off it's the Council and I don't see why they would not want them out of the way immediately, whilst they are still there they can be a bloody nuisance.
I don't see the PR exercise argument either, what PR benefit is there to gain and who would we be trying to impress?

We've won the case. Archway's land will become ours. There's nothing wrong with being perceived to be magnanimous winners - especially since, in reality, the cost to us (in time, money and inconvenience) would be nonexistent or trifling. By contrast, there's plenty wrong with being perceived to be vindictive bullies.

It wouldn't look good for us if we forced Archway out at the earliest opportunity (before a suitable, functioning alternative site was ready for their occupation) and they consequently went out of business. And since we are unlikely to need vacant possession of their current site for quite some time yet, it would be far better to be cooperative.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

While the pictures may be useful, apparently this guy's descriptions are inaccurate. A guy on Twitter called @L.A. Yiddo - (I assume you are the same guy ) said he's "talking out of his arse".

Mike Collett Reuters‏@footballmc
Work started on Spurs new ground weeks ago but much more done last couple of weeks foundations being laid

Mike Collett Reuters‏@footballmc
Another view of the #Spurs work That thin brown lower curve are the huge steel pylons Outline of new ground

Mike Collett Reuters‏@footballmc
That is. ... They are the tops of huge steel pylons sunk deep into the ground

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Aren't they more likely to be a containing wall to allow the below-ground build to go on within them, rather than being the pilings themselves? They don't look big enough to be foundation pilings, to my hugely inexpert eyes.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Aren't they more likely to be a containing wall to allow the below-ground build to go on within them, rather than being the pilings themselves? They don't look big enough to be foundation pilings, to my hugely inexpert eyes.

Yes, you're right. This bit is nonsense:

Another view of the #Spurs work That thin brown lower curve are the huge steel pylons Outline of new ground

He has confused 'pilings' with 'pylons'. That curve of exposed corrugated steel sheets is sheet-piling - it's probably temporary work, to retain earth when they excavate for the foundations.

First, the main piles will be augered (drilled, rather than driven) individually and will be huge reinforced concrete columns cast directly into the hole that has been drilled out of the soil. They'll go down many metres, depending on the soil conditions (most of North London is founded on extremely deep clay deposits).

Then they will cast reinforced concrete ground-beams to connect up and restrain the tops of the piles and I think the sheet-piling is there to enable them to do that, without having the excavations collapse.

The main perimeter of the superstructure is then built off those ground-beams.

@Ionman34 might be able to shed some more light on this or even correct anything I have wrong.

 

[jambreck]

Aren't they more likely to be a containing wall to allow the below-ground build to go on within them, rather than being the pilings themselves? They don't look big enough to be foundation pilings, to my hugely inexpert eyes.

Those tweets are a classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing (though, in this case, the danger is only to the journo himself and only then in the form of making a bit of a mug of himself).

Steel pylons?

Close. But nope.

It's sheet pilings.

 

[worcestersauce]

We've won the case. Archway's land will become ours. There's nothing wrong with being perceived to be magnanimous winners - especially since, in reality, the cost to us (in time, money and inconvenience) would be nonexistent or trifling. By contrast, there's plenty wrong with being perceived to be vindictive bullies.

It wouldn't look good for us if we forced Archway out at the earliest opportunity (before a suitable, functioning alternative site was ready for their occupation) and they consequently went out of business. And since we are unlikely to need vacant possession of their current site for quite some time yet, it would be far better to be cooperative.

I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it jambreck, I don't know who we need to convince that we are nice cuddly bunnies and who, that matters to us, would care that we wanted them off so that we can get on with the project? I believe everyone knows the truth of this case.
Also it would not be us that forced them off, it would be the council and they can't sell it on to us without vacant possession, nobody would expect that if it was even legal with a CPO, plus they would, of course, want our payment to cover their costs as soon as possible, as council tax payers would expect, so we could just say it is out of our hands as the timescales are being driven by the council who want their money from us.
In all honesty it beggers belief that any company trying to develop a site of this importance would even consider leaving an obstrution in the middle of it and nobody would blame them.
What, I wonder are the directors of Archway doing at the moment to prepare for their move to a new premises? They should be going full steam ahead finalizing contracts on the new premises that they must have, or should have been obtaining for the last year or two, either way, win or lose, they knew they were going to move so there really shouldn't be any delay at all.
If they haven't been preparing then they obviously have no intention of carrying on their business in which case why do they need six to nine months delay?

 

[jambreck]

I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it jambreck, I don't know who we need to convince that we are nice cuddly bunnies and who, that matters to us, would care that we wanted them off so that we can get on with the project? I believe everyone knows the truth of this case.

Sadly, I don't think that that's true at all. Most people don't see past the headlines. My guess is that the majority of those who are aware (even vaguely) of this case are under the impression that Archway are victims of bullying, coercion or even outright robbery. And that Spurs are the baddies.

Also it would not be us that forced them off, it would be the council and they can't sell it on to us without vacant possession, nobody would expect that if it was even legal with a CPO, plus they would, of course, want our payment to cover their costs as soon as possible, as council tax payers would expect, so we could just say it is out of our hands as the timescales are being driven by the council who want their money from us.

This is true. But it is a technicality. And it isn't how it will be reported. Or read. If Archway were to go out of business as a consequence of being evicted before they had a replacement site, Spurs would be the media baddies. Not Haringey.

As I said, Spurs are unlikely to need Archway's site for quite some months. It's not merely a matter of being able to build around them. It's also the fact there are other things to do before work can be seriously ramped up. It is likely that the club will have to seek some sort of new planning consent - depending upon the extent of Populous' changes to the KSS design. Especially so if the proposed capacity is to be increased to 61K. The club will also have to complete the tendering process.

So it will cost us nothing to accommodate Archway sufficiently to allow them to move into new premises. And it will save us from further poor publicity (however unfair it might have been).

 

[Lilbaz]

Sadly, I don't think that that's true at all. Most people don't see past the headlines. My guess is that the majority of those who are aware (even vaguely) of this case are under the impression that Archway are victims of bullying, coercion or even outright robbery. And that Spurs are the baddies.



This is true. But it is a technicality. And it isn't how it will be reported. Or read. If Archway were to go out of business as a consequence of being evicted before they had a replacement site, Spurs would be the media baddies. Not Haringey.

As I said, Spurs are unlikely to need Archway's site for quite some months. It's not merely a matter of being able to build around them. It's also the fact there are other things to do before work can be seriously ramped up. It is likely that the club will have to seek some sort of new planning consent - depending upon the extent of Populous' changes to the KSS design. Especially so if the proposed capacity is to be increased to 61K. The club will also have to complete the tendering process.

So it will cost us nothing to accommodate Archway sufficiently to allow them to move into new premises. And it will save us from further poor publicity (however unfair it might have been).

Do you remember how long Arsenal gave the businesses to move off the land required for the Emirates? No? Neither do I. That's because no-one cares.

 

[jambreck]

Do you remember how long Arsenal gave the businesses to move off the land required for the Emirates? No? Neither do I. That's because no-one cares.

The Emirates was built on the site of Islington's former waste and recycling plant - with the club having paid for a new one elsewhere in the borough. So, iirc, there was no controversy attached to their stadium build. There were quite a few businesses that were subsequently served with CPO's so that Arsenal could further their property development plans (mostly for affordable housing) but, probably because that didn't affect the stadium itself, the story didn't attract anything like the media attention that Spurs' (Haringey's) case against Archway has attracted.

Nevertheless, even if the vast majority of people won't remember what happened to Archway in ten or twenty years, it still won't hurt for Spurs to stay on the right side of stories in the media relating to the stadium. Most stories are ephemeral. But that doesn't mean that they don't matter. If they didn't, then PR companies wouldn't exist.

 

[Lilbaz]

The Emirates was built on the site of Islington's former waste and recycling plant - with the club having paid for a new one elsewhere in the borough. So, iirc, there was no controversy attached to their stadium build. There were quite a few businesses that were subsequently served with CPO's so that Arsenal could further their property development plans (mostly for affordable housing) but, probably because that didn't affect the stadium itself, the story didn't attract anything like the media attention that Spurs' (Haringey's) case against Archway has attracted.

Nevertheless, even if the vast majority of people won't remember what happened to Archway in ten or twenty years, it still won't hurt for Spurs to stay on the right side of stories in the media relating to the stadium. Most stories are ephemeral. But that doesn't mean that they don't matter. If they didn't, then PR companies wouldn't exist.

There was far more controversy than ours.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-330852/Arsenal-lose-court-battle-new-stadium.html

 

[davidmatzdorf]

The Emirates was built on the site of Islington's former waste and recycling plant - with the club having paid for a new one elsewhere in the borough. So, iirc, there was no controversy attached to their stadium build. There were quite a few businesses that were subsequently served with CPO's so that Arsenal could further their property development plans (mostly for affordable housing) but, probably because that didn't affect the stadium itself, the story didn't attract anything like the media attention that Spurs' (Haringey's) case against Archway has attracted...

Not all of that, I'm afraid, is accurate. The waste disposal and recycling plant in Caledonian Rd was a huge new project, nothing similar in scale to what was previously accommodated at Ashburton Grove, which itself was only a small proportion of the land needed for the stadium. Arsenal had to pay scores of businesses to relocate, just as we did, and, unlike us, they encountered bitter opposition from a number of them, not just one. it delayed their build for a year or more and caused a lot of friction.

In addition, the new waste disposal plant itself was furiously controversial, situated as it is right in the main road and surrounded by new-build housing (the shared ownership part of the S.106 housing attached to the stadium). Many local residents erroneously assumed that waste lorries would use the surrounding residential streets, which was always going to be banned. However, they do use Hornsey St, which is a high-rise-residential-over-retail part of the Arsenal residential development.

@Lilbaz, it's also not so that "no one cares". The Arsenal development was a source of great controversy locally (I live 500m away), amongst residents as well as businesses, and Arsenal have exacerbated and perpetuated the resentment by failing to fulfil some of the agreed planning conditions and obligations (mainly to do with parking), omissions which Islington Council have unsurprisingly avoided enforcing.

 

[jambreck]

There was far more controversy than ours.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-330852/Arsenal-lose-court-battle-new-stadium.html

There wasn't anything like the same degree of publicity of their case.

And besides, as I said, it doesn't really matter whether or not the vast majority of people will remember about Archway in ten or twenty years. It won't hurt for us to avoid further unfavourable headlines now by allowing Archway to stay where they are until we need their site.

 

[jambreck]

None of that, I'm afraid, is accurate. The waste disposal and recycling plant in Caledonian Rd was a huge new project, nothing similar in scale to what was previously accommodated at Ashburton Grove, which itself was only a small proportion of the land needed for the stadium. Arsenal had to pay scores of businesses to relocate, just as we did, and, unlike us, they encountered bitter opposition from a number of them, not just one. it delayed their build for a year or more and caused a lot of friction.

In addition, the new waste disposal plant itself was furiously controversial, situated as it is right in the main road and surrounded by new-build housing (the shared ownership part of the S.106 housing attached to the stadium). Many local residents erroneously assumed that waste lorries would use the surrounding residential streets, which was always going to be banned. However, they do use Hornsey St, which is a high-rise-residential-over-retail part of the Arsenal residential development.

A bit harsh to say that none of it was accurate! The Emirates WAS built on the site of Islington's former waste and recycling plant. And Arsenal DID pay more than £60m towards the site purchase and construction of its replacement. And I DID say that a number of businesses were served with CPO's as part of the wider scheme.

I accept, however, that the siting of the new plant caused controversy of which I was not aware. The reason for that being, I think, that the story attracted little to no publicity outside of Islington. Nothing like the attention focused on the Archway story, anyway. And that's the context in which we are discussing this.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

A bit harsh to say that none of it was accurate!

True. Sorry. Fixed.

I accept, however, that the siting of the new plant caused controversy of which I was not aware. The reason for that being, I think, that the story attracted little to no publicity outside of Islington. Nothing like the attention focused on the Archway story, anyway. And that's the context in which we are discussing this.

I'd attribute a lot of that to the change in how we consume news over the past 10 years, specifically the proliferation of news and pseudo-news websites and the influence of social media. Stories get a life of their own in a way that didn't happen when the Emirates was under development.

 

[jambreck]

I'd attribute a lot of that to the change in how we consume news over the past 10 years, specifically the proliferation of news and pseudo-news websites and the influence of social media. Stories get a life of their own in a way that didn't happen when rthe Emirates was under development.

Yep. Fully agreed about that.

If Arsenal did now what they did then, they would receive a lot more by way of adverse publicity.

 

[chrissivad]

Edmonton on COYS

I did hear that the piling is all done.

 

[Lilbaz]

Edmonton on COYS

How can it all be done? We have a road and a stadium in the way.

 

[chrissivad]

How can it all be done? We have a road and a stadium in the way.

would guess he means in the space over the road from Paxton, but dont know