New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Blake Griffin]

I'm convinced we won't see a material change to the visual of the stadium, outside or in, and the changes mentioned are the changes that we are already seeing put forward for planning. I am desperate to see a change, in my view the planned stadium, visually, is entirely dull, you could add the badge of any team and it would fit just as well, there is very little about it that makes it 'spurs'. It is anonymous. I want to see a stadium which is more modern looking and more innovative. I'd like a stadium where the new single tier 'kop' and the remainder of the stadium are better integrated. I'd like to see something which really symbolises Spurs. I don't think that's a simple thing to achieve, but we haven't got it and sadly I don't think we will. I am also concerned that there may be a day where 56k, or 60k, (whatever we end up with) isn't actually enough. But how/where do we expand it? In 20 or 30 years are we going to have to move again? The housing and other buildings really seem to limit the potential. I appreciate they are necessary financially, but I am terrified that we will look back on this decade in 40 years time and see it as a decade where those in control of the club consistently and persistently have misled the fans and saddled the club with a home with no long term potential.

Harsh assessment, maybe, but I think that hopes of a real change in the plans are nothing more than that, hope. I'd love to be wrong, but I just can't see it.

i feel the same way as you about the original plans but i'm confident they're history now. i know we have experts like @davidmatzdorf who insist that nothing could possibly have changed despite seven years passing by and a change of designers(kss to populous) since then but with the club being so hush hush about it all and the little snippets of info/rumours we've heard recently i'm now expecting it to be pretty much nothing like the plans we saw in 2008.

 

[Achap]

I'm convinced we won't see a material change to the visual of the stadium, outside or in, and the changes mentioned are the changes that we are already seeing put forward for planning. I am desperate to see a change, in my view the planned stadium, visually, is entirely dull, you could add the badge of any team and it would fit just as well, there is very little about it that makes it 'spurs'. It is anonymous. I want to see a stadium which is more modern looking and more innovative. I'd like a stadium where the new single tier 'kop' and the remainder of the stadium are better integrated. I'd like to see something which really symbolises Spurs. I don't think that's a simple thing to achieve, but we haven't got it and sadly I don't think we will. I am also concerned that there may be a day where 56k, or 60k, (whatever we end up with) isn't actually enough. But how/where do we expand it? In 20 or 30 years are we going to have to move again? The housing and other buildings really seem to limit the potential. I appreciate they are necessary financially, but I am terrified that we will look back on this decade in 40 years time and see it as a decade where those in control of the club consistently and persistently have misled the fans and saddled the club with a home with no long term potential.

Harsh assessment, maybe, but I think that hopes of a real change in the plans are nothing more than that, hope. I'd love to be wrong, but I just can't see it.

What leads you to the highlighted conclusion, out of interest?

 

[sweetness]

Does anyone know approximately how much the basement level would cost?

Yes, someone knows

 

[sweetness]

They also have all their legal costs to pay.

Nope. Paid for by the other side.

Edit:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/20/tottenham-hotspur-new-stadium-high-court-archway-sheet-metal-works
The Josif family have been ordered to pay the community secretary’s legal costs. Spurs and Haringey council applied for part of their costs to be paid by Archway but the judge dismissed their applications.

So that was incorrect.

 

[Lilbaz]

Nope. Paid for by the other side.

Archway paid for their legal costs as well as the councils. We paid for our own as did the secretary of state.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

...experts like @davidmatzdorf who insist that nothing could possibly have changed despite seven years passing by and a change of designers(kss to populous) since then...

Didn't say that, don't think that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Incidentally, are you talking about the internal configuration of the stadium building, the external appearance of the stadium building or the entire NDP master plan?

The internal configuration of the stadium building could be changed. It would require a fresh planning application, especially if a substantial change in the stadium's capacity for spectators were to be made.

The external appearance of the stadium could be changed (and that might be a good thing, depending upon the motivation (aesthetics v. £££) for doing so. Whether it would require a fresh planning application would depend on the extent of the changes and the political stance of the council.

Changing the overall NDP plan is not going to happen. One third of it has been built. They've only just submitted a planning application that broadly confirms the approach for the final third, adding 80+ flats and substituting a college for a hotel, but keeping the basic configuration and the plaza.

With the Northern Development built and the Southern Development firmed up, there's physically no space to move or enlarge the stadium. It has to be the size it was originally planned to be and in the location where the sheet-piling has already been installed, because there's nowhere else it can go - the Northern and Southern Developments are right up against the stadium and its plaza - there's no wiggle-room.

You don't set out foundations and start digging unless you already know how big your building is going to be, not unless you like throwing money away. Which, as we all know, is Levy's favourite pastime.

It may well look very different and there may be internal alterations to increase the capacity, although the latter would surely cause delays and complications, but they can't redesign the whole scheme at this stage unless they start demolishing completed work.

 

[Blake Griffin]

Incidentally, are you talking about the internal configuration of the stadium building, the external appearance of the stadium building or the entire NDP master plan?

a and b, i don't know what part of my post made you think i could possibly be referring to the ndp as a whole. the wavy blue and grey spaceship from 2008 is what i think will change, if/when the club finally get around to updating the fans on what they're intending to build, i'd be amazed(and disappointed) if the thing we're going to be playing football in is the same design as what we saw seven years ago. i very much doubt we'd sack off kss and hire populous simply for a few minor adjustments.

 

[Hoopspur]

Didn't say that, don't think that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Incidentally, are you talking about the internal configuration of the stadium building, the external appearance of the stadium building or the entire NDP master plan?

The internal configuration of the stadium building could be changed. It would require a fresh planning application, especially if a substantial change in the stadium's capacity for spectators were to be made.

The external appearance of the stadium could be changed (and that might be a good thing, depending upon the motivation (aesthetics v. £££) for doing so. Whether it would require a fresh planning application would depend on the extent of the changes and the political stance of the council.

Changing the overall NDP plan is not going to happen. One third of it has been built. They've only just submitted a planning application that broadly confirms the approach for the final third, adding 80+ flats and substituting a college for a hotel, but keeping the basic configuration and the plaza.

With the Northern Development built and the Southern Development firmed up, there's physically no space to move or enlarge the stadium. It has to be the size it was originally planned to be and in the location where the sheet-piling has already been installed, because there's nowhere else it can go - the Northern and Southern Developments are right up against the stadium and its plaza - there's no wiggle-room.

You don't set out foundations and start digging unless you already know how big your building is going to be, not unless you like throwing money away. Which, as we all know, is Levy's favourite pastime.

It may well look very different and there may be internal alterations to increase the capacity, although the latter would surely cause delays and complications, but they can't redesign the whole scheme at this stage unless they start demolishing completed work.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, just adding my own thoughts. From all accounts the gooners will be able to increase the capacity of their ground 'relatively easily' within reason of course. This must need to be built in as a contingency surely with any responsible bit of design. I think there is talk of smoothing out / filling in the roller coaster curves at the emptycrates. City have also or will increase the capacity of their stadium within their existing framework.

And in real terms I'm not sure that an increase of say 10k supporters spread around the bowl would substantially add to the requirements for the ground work? I'm pretty sure the foundations would require to be designed to accommodate 10 times that if needed - probably including earthquakes! ; ) The strength, structure and integrity of the design of the building itself would require much more.

I'm though also in agreement of the opinion with Blake and others that with some relatively minor structural/aesthetic work that the stadium should look wholly unique to Spurs. I've said so before in this thread - some care and some don't, but I would like home fans to be truly proud and visiting ones to go "Wow, look at that" - 'leaders'. It's an arrogance and positioning that we should display. We shouldn't be afraid to do that and just be a me too (but a bit better).

Incidentally for those who were never aware, the whole 'there's only one Hotspur campaign' was very, very similar to one produced previously by Manchester United. That kind of always rankled with me in the fact that we had, shall we say, copied (sorry I meant we were influenced) by something else rather than create something unique for Spurs. Now that's on a small and transient scale of course and will be soon forgotten over time. A major piece of design will not be.

I believe that the campaign and stadium should be 'F*** you, we're Spurs!'. Don't take this last bit literally folks, but it's the philosophy and thinking. I'd love people I tell I'm a Spurs fan to, to say 'The **** Stadium - stunning, now that's a place I'd really like to visit'.

 

[Lilbaz]

City are doing serious work to increase capacity. Not sure what you mean by in the existing framework.

 

[Hoopspur]

City are doing serious work to increase capacity. Not sure what you mean by in the existing framework.

The point I was trying to make is that I'm not sure they will be knocking down the ground or rebuilding foundations/ground work. I think they are sure what they wish to achieve can be done within the existing major works. Maybe the term framework was the wrong word and understood by some as the above ground work whilst I intended it in an all encompassing way.

 

[Lilbaz]

The point I was trying to make is that I'm not sure they will be knocking down the ground or rebuilding foundations/ground work. I think they are sure what they wish to achieve can be done within the existing major works. Maybe the term framework was the wrong word and understood by some as the above ground work whilst I intended it in an all encompassing way.

Sorry just wasn't sure what you meant. City are actually expanding the footprint of their stadium. Have no idea what is possible with the emirates.
We should have (in the the original design) left enough wiggle room to expand. Extra wide staircases that could fit another row of seats. Space between seats, space at the top of each tier. Wouldn't be too difficult to leave enough room to fit in a few thousand seats if required.

 

[JimmyG2]

Sorry just wasn't sure what you meant. City are actually expanding the footprint of their stadium. Have no idea what is possible with the emirates.
We should have (in the the original design) left enough wiggle room to expand. Extra wide staircases that could fit another row of seats. Space between seats, space at the top of each tier. Wouldn't be too difficult to leave enough room to fit in a few thousand seats if required.

I suggested ages ago that we should bung the project manager
and shave an inch of the width of every seat.
We could get an extra 10,000 in that way easy
plus your 10,000 and the jobs a good ún.
Need to bung the people making the seats too of course.

 

[Lilbaz]

I suggested ages ago that we should bung the project manager
and shave an inch of the width of every seat.
We could get an extra 10,000 in that way easy
plus your 10,000 and the jobs a good ún.
Need to bung the people making the seats too of course.

Why not just build it slightly bigger in the first place? Just don't put the extra seats in (yet). I'm sure the footprint of our stadium is no bigger than the Bernabeu.

 

[JimmyG2]

Why not just build it slightly bigger in the first place? Just don't put the extra seats in (yet). I'm sure the footprint of our stadium is no bigger than the Bernabeu.

Yes but with our schemes we could do both.

The Bernabeu is about ten miles high.
If you´re in the top layer you need seat belts and oxygen masks.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

And in real terms I'm not sure that an increase of say 10k supporters spread around the bowl would substantially add to the requirements for the ground work? I'm pretty sure the foundations would require to be designed to accommodate 10 times that if needed - probably including earthquakes! ; ) The strength, structure and integrity of the design of the building itself would require much more.

I agree with that. @Ionman34 may have something to say about this, but I don't reckon the imposed load of an extra 10k seats and bodies would make much difference to the foundation loading, compared to the dead load of the stadium itself.

My concern about a change in capacity (which I also agree might well be achieved without changing the external dimensions) is that it would require the design team to revisit the transport plan, fire escape issues (perhaps including the size of the plaza), the acoustics report and other issues that were crucial to Haringey granting the original planning consent. That would take time, incur risk and cost money.

There are also many internal-design issues that are knock-on effects of a change in capacity, such as the number of WCs, widths of gangways and vomitoria, size of entertainment and hospitality facilities, number of turnstiles ... pretty much everything.

Basically, I think nearly everyone here is underestimating the sheer amount of stuff that would have to be changed in order to raise the capacity, the time it would take, the delay it would cause and the money it would cost.

What I don't know is whether the club's business plan looks sufficiently better with (say) 61k seats to justify the work, delay, and cost. It is does, then the club might well to go for a redesign.

But in that case, I would have expected that we would have seen it already, not that we would still be speculating after they already have a contractor on board for the structure. I recall what I and others posted a few pages back about the cost of making changes after a contractor has won a contract. It's not a good idea.

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes but with our schemes we could do both.

The Bernabeu is about ten miles high.
If you´re in the top layer you need seat belts and oxygen masks.

I've been at the top (our game in the CL). We could always dig down a bit.

I agree with that. @Ionman34 may have something to say about this, but I don't reckon the imposed load of an extra 10k seats and bodies would make much difference to the foundation loading, compared to the dead load of the stadium itself.

My concern about a change in capacity (which I also agree might well be achieved without changing the external dimensions) is that it would require the design team to revisit the transport plan, fire escape issues (perhaps including the size of the plaza), the acoustics report and other issues that were crucial to Haringey granting the original planning consent. That would take time, incur risk and cost money.

There are also many internal-design issues that are knock-on effects of a change in capacity, such as the number of WCs, widths of gangways and vomitoria, size of entertainment and hospitality facilities, number of turnstiles ... pretty much everything.

Basically, I think nearly everyone here is underestimating the sheer amount of stuff that would have to be changed in order to raise the capacity, the time it would take, the delay it would cause and the money it would cost.

What I don't know is whether the club's business plan looks sufficiently better with (say) 61k seats to justify the work, delay, and cost. It is does, then the club might well to go for a redesign.

But in that case, I would have expected that we would have seen it already, not that we would still be speculating after they already have a contractor on board for the structure. I recall what I and others posted a few pages back about the cost of making changes after a contractor has won a contract. It's not a good idea.

Who's to say most of that wasn't already taken into account? That KSS wasn't told, design the stadium with an idea of increasing capacity in mind? The capacity was originally going to be 58k. How much larger does a fire exit have to be to accommodate an extra 3k?

 

[Spursidol]

I agree with that. @Ionman34 may have something to say about this, but I don't reckon the imposed load of an extra 10k seats and bodies would make much difference to the foundation loading, compared to the dead load of the stadium itself.

My concern about a change in capacity (which I also agree might well be achieved without changing the external dimensions) is that it would require the design team to revisit the transport plan, fire escape issues (perhaps including the size of the plaza), the acoustics report and other issues that were crucial to Haringey granting the original planning consent. That would take time, incur risk and cost money.

There are also many internal-design issues that are knock-on effects of a change in capacity, such as the number of WCs, widths of gangways and vomitoria, size of entertainment and hospitality facilities, number of turnstiles ... pretty much everything.

Basically, I think nearly everyone here is underestimating the sheer amount of stuff that would have to be changed in order to raise the capacity, the time it would take, the delay it would cause and the money it would cost.

What I don't know is whether the club's business plan looks sufficiently better with (say) 61k seats to justify the work, delay, and cost. It is does, then the club might well to go for a redesign.

But in that case, I would have expected that we would have seen it already, not that we would still be speculating after they already have a contractor on board for the structure. I recall what I and others posted a few pages back about the cost of making changes after a contractor has won a contract. It's not a good idea.

Levy has said several times that he wants to 'future proof' the stadium, a phrase which can mean lots of things.

One such interpretation would be to build into the stadium ways in which the stadium capacity can be relatively easily expandable - in other words we build it for a 56,250 capacity but ways in which it could be expanded to (say 70,000 capacity. There is obviously a cost to that without an immediate return - but less of a cost to fully build for 70,000 and find we cannot regularly sell the seats.

So we might build the stadium so that we can :
- Add a level of seats over the back 30% of the kop (and indeed extra loos at the back of that extra level).
- Build wider staircases so we could add extra seats
- Etc

The advantage of that is that we do not necessarily need to have the stadium transport plan certified for the increased capacity now - although I'm sure there would be detailed discussions, and even a planning permission granted whilst the core stadium is being built.

Likewise I'm still intrigued by the new basement - the new huge changing room next to a tape room and hydrotherapy area (all of which suggests another sport whether NFL, college football etc) and indeed the 'tunnel club' which is between the changing rooms and the pitch - ie players might be interacting with supporters as they enter the pitch, which is certainly not a traditional way that PL sides interact with fans now. However an NFL franchise doesn't sound far enough forward to build the stadium for it. So maybe (for example) the reason why the basement goes under 3 sides but not the south side of the stadium is that there will be the capability to build a retractable pitch under that stadium if and when NFL comes to London - another way the stadium is being 'future proofed'

All hypothetical of course but doing things this way, there is much less chance of delays whilst giving expansion of both sports and capacity in the future.

I'm assuming the new basement planning permision will be granted in say June/July/August, so if we are going for an increased capacity now or other major changes, that we would expect to see a new major planning permission application no later than early summer - anything beyond that could significantly delay the stadium.

 

[Lilbaz]

Brighton and MK Dons are two stadiums that future proofed for an increase in capacity. We would have been mad not to. Especially when it is likely that Cross Rail 2 could stop at Nothumberland Park and Tottenham Hale being changed into a major International transport hub.

 

[worcestersauce]

How on earth do you make a stadium "Spursy"/ How on earth do you make a stadium so Spurs that, with another badge, can't be just any other teams stadium? Do you make it look like a cockeral or something?
I am as optimistic as the next man but I'm not convinced that we'll be needing to increase our capacity much beyond 60,000 I'm afraid.

 

[Lilbaz]

How on earth do you make a stadium "Spursy"/ How on earth do you make a stadium so Spurs that, with another badge, can't be just any other teams stadium? Do you make it look like a cockeral or something?
I am as optimistic as the next man but I'm not convinced that we'll be needing to increase our capacity much beyond 60,000 I'm afraid.

Not now. But what about in 5/10/15 years? What happens if (god forbid) we start winning stuff?

Who'd have thought 5 years ago that City would want a 60k stadium?

Audere Est Facere.