fazza
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2004
- 17,285
- 490
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Achap
Well-Known Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 501
- 810
Well, we always knew that transport would be something of a problem, and I am disappointed that our consultants appear not to have done a very thorough job of tackling the obvious objections. From Tfl's statements it appears to be a potential show-stopper - especially as they don't seem to want to contribute much in the way of solutions to the debate.
Having just finished reading the document, I am also concerned that visually-impaired wheelchair users may have difficulty in ski-jumping from the roofs of the tower-blocks.
Having just finished reading the document, I am also concerned that visually-impaired wheelchair users may have difficulty in ski-jumping from the roofs of the tower-blocks.
C0YS
Just another member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 12,780
- 13,817
its no way near rejected.
the full report:
http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/tottenham-hotspur-football-stadium
this means very little for it is mostly based on architectural grounds which are no big deal. however it does raise some objections and ultimately supports the stadium but not the whole development....it shouldn't stop the development, it may delay it a little bit...Do not worry
thfc1989
Well-Known Member
- May 8, 2008
- 2,604
- 3,455
You are the biggest drama queen on here by a mile
MattyP
Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
- May 14, 2007
- 14,041
- 2,980
I apologise for doing this, but to provide a bit of context here is cabe's response to the Death Star.
http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/new-stadium-for-arsenal-fc
Not the most ringing endorsement, yet it still went ahead.
Besides, I'd rather they raised objections to the supermarket and the housing than the stadium.
http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/new-stadium-for-arsenal-fc
Not the most ringing endorsement, yet it still went ahead.
Besides, I'd rather they raised objections to the supermarket and the housing than the stadium.
Achap
Well-Known Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 501
- 810
Thanks for that Matt, very interesting.
So CABE's view on both projects is/was essentially the same - nice stadiums, shame about the surroundings. That seems entirely understandable in that the main focus of each project is the stadium, with the setting as a secondary consideration. If it were necessary, it doesn't seem impossible that the design of the flats, supermarket, and open spaces could be slightly modified in shape to better reflect the oval of the stadium, as they suggest - and the toning down of the colour-scheme for the flats doesn't seem particularly difficult.
Of more interest is their suggestion that flats could have been built on top of the supermarket whilst retaining the same number of new homes in the project, and thus reducing the mass of the buildings on the South side. It seems obvious, and our planners would have surely considered it, so it may be that Haringey had some problems with that in pre-design discussions.
At the end of the day, it means not a jot to us as fans, as the design of the stadium is considered fine, and it is only the setting that is being discussed. Even that is not a show-stopper, because, as CABE itself says, their pronouncements are simply advisory and not statutorily binding.
Achap
Well-Known Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 501
- 810
I don't think it's set yet, but a slightly odd statement in the GLA document says that "The application may be considered by Haringey Council in March 2009". As the Planning Application was only submitted in late October, 2009, and the GLA document is dated December 2009, it is very possible that the 2009 is a typo, and the application could be considered in March, 2010. According to the GLA document, Haringey Council's draft decision must then be referred back to the Mayor who will decide whether to allow the Council's decision to stand; whether to direct the Council to refuse the application; or whether his office will act as the planning authority and make the final decision.
Assuming that there is a statutory time-limit for the Mayor to make a decision on what his office is going to do, and providing that the Club has met all the conditions required of it, we can perhaps think of June this year as the earliest time at which planning permission would be granted.
This is just my interpretation, and I am more than happy for someone more knowledgeable than I to come up with a closer estimate of the time-scale involved.
camaj
Posting too much
- Aug 10, 2004
- 8,195
- 883
Sounds like a poor guess.
Arsenal's bowl of wankery is, like they say, on a podium. In other words it,s built on top of a platform. Ours is on ground level
BorisTM
Well-Known Member
- Dec 30, 2007
- 1,434
- 310
Alright just read the Cabe suggestions and have these people lost their common sense? The main objective when working on this kind of a project is functionality, not some style nonsense.
"The reconciliation of the stadium’s curved form with the existing, orthogonal streets has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. We find the geometries, particularly of the supermarket block to the north, unsatisfactory. The layout of the whole site should acknowledge, although not necessarily follow, both the rectilinear street context and the oval form of the stadium."
"We have reservations about whether the series of projecting gable ends will generate a pleasant streetscape or relate well to the existing houses on Park Lane"
"We consider that the basic box form of the supermarket is not sufficiently ambitious for this site. It does nothing to reconcile the oval and rectilinear geometries or respond to its street context. Parking at ground level on the street frontage will not generate an active, attractive streetscape. The roof will be highly visible and its design should be more carefully considered."
and so on. WTF???
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 26,999
- 45,306
Easily sorted, keep the supermarket oblong as is but add a triangle to the rear of each gable end with a curved long side to match the arc of the stadium and hey presto you have symetry.
C0YS
Just another member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 12,780
- 13,817
Cabe advises councils on architecture that is their job, less on the practical side of things. If new buildings are constructed they have to be of a good quality, this is obv.
danielneeds
Kick-Ass
- May 5, 2004
- 24,183
- 48,814
Good article on the CABE criticisms by the Evening Standard architectual critic Rowan Moore:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...enham-need-to-think-again-over-new-stadium.do
Tottenham need to think again over new stadium
by Rowan Moore
Tottenham Hotspur are the 14th richest football club in the world, a £113 million-a-year business, whose most valuable players each cost the same as a Francis Bacon painting, or a middle-sized cultural centre, or a block or two of affordable housing, or a few schools.
Yet its ground stands in the most deprived ward in London.
Tottenham High Road is a thoroughfare that goes back to Roman times, somewhat battered now but still lined with ornate fragments of Victoriana and handsome Georgian houses from the days when this was a prosperous rural satellite of London.
Modern football stadia, by contrast, are vast relentless machines for processing tens of thousands of people, objects at an utterly different scale from an ordinary high street.
So when Tottenham Hotspur propose a new 58,000-seat stadium, rising to 42 metres high, as well as 450 flats, a hotel and a supermarket to help pay for it, worlds collide.
Power meets poverty, and the silvery disc of the arena descends like a UFO, whooshing pubs and shops and the odd listed building into oblivion. It is as pure a symbol of the relative might of club and borough as you could wish for.
Except Spurs are not having it all their own way. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has pronounced itself “disappointed” with the project and “does not support it”.
It finds it “incoherent” and “awkward”. English Heritage, while still finalising its position, says that the plan threatens “a serious and significant level of harm to the historic environment”.
Objections like these can prompt a public planning inquiry, or derail the whole project, whose cost will be £400 million. And, as things stand, it's hard to disagree with CABE.
It's not that the stadium shouldn't be there. Spurs considered other options from Milton Keynes to Wembley to taking on the Olympic site and opted to stay where they are now, relocating just to the north of their current ground.
It wouldn't do Haringey any good if this local icon, major employer and earner of revenue went somewhere else. Spurs, like other self-respecting modern football clubs, also make much of their outreach to the local community.
The new development would remove the current stadium, no thing of beauty, and would brighten up its dingy surroundings.
It would greatly enhance the space outside a neighbouring school that currently resembles the death zone along the Berlin Wall.
A supermarket, hotel, conference centre, and housing — affordable and otherwise — are all good things for Tottenham.
The club have hired the famous American landscape architect Martha Schwartz to create a “vibrant” and “exceptional” public square and an ice rink is promised in winter.
The ground itself, designed by the stadium specialist KSS, aims to create a rare intimacy between fans and players, even as it increases the current capacity of 35,000 by two-thirds.
At one end, a vast bank of spectators, uninterrupted by corporate boxes, is proposed, with the intention of creating an array of passionate humanity unlike any other English football ground.
It is meant to be the opposite of the chilly cathedral, the Emirates Stadium, that Arsenal have built for themselves.
Externally, the proposed stadium is a silvery, swooping thing, none too subtle and a bit blingy.
There are awkward crunches where the right-angled geometry of its floors and columns meets the curving arch shapes the architects have applied to the exterior.
It is not, in other words, a sophisticated work of architecture, although it is sleeker than most British football grounds and has a certain oomph to it.
But the real issue is how all these elements add up. In the present plans the stadium looks as though it were designed to sit in an open plain, with little recognition of the bits of street and town around it.
At one end the supermarket is a standard blind box; at the other the hotel and housing, designed by Make Architecture, are noisy, jagged objects with juddering rhythms, rising up to 20 storeys above three-storey surroundings. Taken together, it makes for an inchoate whole.
What's needed is architecture that can walk and chew gum at the same time. The stadium should be splendid — and there's no point trying to disguise the fact that it's enormous — but it should also respond to the fact that it's shaping a public place in everyday use on the 340 days a year when there's not a match on.
The hotel and housing present an opportunity to create a transition between the scale of the existing streets and that of the stadium, but instead aim to be expressive icons in their own right.
It's not an easy task but it's possible, and achieving difficult things should be the reason why architects are paid their fees. More than that, it's dramatic encounters like this that make architecture interesting — think, for example, of the way medieval cathedrals rise from narrow streets. Done well, this slab of Tottenham could become an astonishing part of London.
I write this as a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur. Having been born in Hastings to a largely football-hating family, I can't claim to be a dyed-in-the-wool fan, but I was drawn to the club by its tradition of finding the most stylish players.
Now, going to matches with my daughter, we have a well-worn joke as the blue struts of the existing stadium come into view. “That's the most beautiful building in London,” we say. It isn't, of course.
The point is that, once inside, the look of a stadium becomes almost irrelevant compared with what's happening on the pitch.
Most football fans would watch their team in stadia built out of plastic drain sections and reused scrap metal, which is what, indeed, many of them look like.
But, given the chance to create a wholly new stadium development, why wouldn't you want it to be as classy and skilful as the best players?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...enham-need-to-think-again-over-new-stadium.do
Tottenham need to think again over new stadium
by Rowan Moore
Tottenham Hotspur are the 14th richest football club in the world, a £113 million-a-year business, whose most valuable players each cost the same as a Francis Bacon painting, or a middle-sized cultural centre, or a block or two of affordable housing, or a few schools.
Yet its ground stands in the most deprived ward in London.
Tottenham High Road is a thoroughfare that goes back to Roman times, somewhat battered now but still lined with ornate fragments of Victoriana and handsome Georgian houses from the days when this was a prosperous rural satellite of London.
Modern football stadia, by contrast, are vast relentless machines for processing tens of thousands of people, objects at an utterly different scale from an ordinary high street.
So when Tottenham Hotspur propose a new 58,000-seat stadium, rising to 42 metres high, as well as 450 flats, a hotel and a supermarket to help pay for it, worlds collide.
Power meets poverty, and the silvery disc of the arena descends like a UFO, whooshing pubs and shops and the odd listed building into oblivion. It is as pure a symbol of the relative might of club and borough as you could wish for.
Except Spurs are not having it all their own way. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has pronounced itself “disappointed” with the project and “does not support it”.
It finds it “incoherent” and “awkward”. English Heritage, while still finalising its position, says that the plan threatens “a serious and significant level of harm to the historic environment”.
Objections like these can prompt a public planning inquiry, or derail the whole project, whose cost will be £400 million. And, as things stand, it's hard to disagree with CABE.
It's not that the stadium shouldn't be there. Spurs considered other options from Milton Keynes to Wembley to taking on the Olympic site and opted to stay where they are now, relocating just to the north of their current ground.
It wouldn't do Haringey any good if this local icon, major employer and earner of revenue went somewhere else. Spurs, like other self-respecting modern football clubs, also make much of their outreach to the local community.
The new development would remove the current stadium, no thing of beauty, and would brighten up its dingy surroundings.
It would greatly enhance the space outside a neighbouring school that currently resembles the death zone along the Berlin Wall.
A supermarket, hotel, conference centre, and housing — affordable and otherwise — are all good things for Tottenham.
The club have hired the famous American landscape architect Martha Schwartz to create a “vibrant” and “exceptional” public square and an ice rink is promised in winter.
The ground itself, designed by the stadium specialist KSS, aims to create a rare intimacy between fans and players, even as it increases the current capacity of 35,000 by two-thirds.
At one end, a vast bank of spectators, uninterrupted by corporate boxes, is proposed, with the intention of creating an array of passionate humanity unlike any other English football ground.
It is meant to be the opposite of the chilly cathedral, the Emirates Stadium, that Arsenal have built for themselves.
Externally, the proposed stadium is a silvery, swooping thing, none too subtle and a bit blingy.
There are awkward crunches where the right-angled geometry of its floors and columns meets the curving arch shapes the architects have applied to the exterior.
It is not, in other words, a sophisticated work of architecture, although it is sleeker than most British football grounds and has a certain oomph to it.
But the real issue is how all these elements add up. In the present plans the stadium looks as though it were designed to sit in an open plain, with little recognition of the bits of street and town around it.
At one end the supermarket is a standard blind box; at the other the hotel and housing, designed by Make Architecture, are noisy, jagged objects with juddering rhythms, rising up to 20 storeys above three-storey surroundings. Taken together, it makes for an inchoate whole.
What's needed is architecture that can walk and chew gum at the same time. The stadium should be splendid — and there's no point trying to disguise the fact that it's enormous — but it should also respond to the fact that it's shaping a public place in everyday use on the 340 days a year when there's not a match on.
The hotel and housing present an opportunity to create a transition between the scale of the existing streets and that of the stadium, but instead aim to be expressive icons in their own right.
It's not an easy task but it's possible, and achieving difficult things should be the reason why architects are paid their fees. More than that, it's dramatic encounters like this that make architecture interesting — think, for example, of the way medieval cathedrals rise from narrow streets. Done well, this slab of Tottenham could become an astonishing part of London.
I write this as a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur. Having been born in Hastings to a largely football-hating family, I can't claim to be a dyed-in-the-wool fan, but I was drawn to the club by its tradition of finding the most stylish players.
Now, going to matches with my daughter, we have a well-worn joke as the blue struts of the existing stadium come into view. “That's the most beautiful building in London,” we say. It isn't, of course.
The point is that, once inside, the look of a stadium becomes almost irrelevant compared with what's happening on the pitch.
Most football fans would watch their team in stadia built out of plastic drain sections and reused scrap metal, which is what, indeed, many of them look like.
But, given the chance to create a wholly new stadium development, why wouldn't you want it to be as classy and skilful as the best players?
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 26,999
- 45,306
Everything I'e read on this seems to say ok on the stadium green light for that but can't you do something to improve the look of the periphery buildings?
Can we? I'd have thought we could so can we procede with the stadium whilst dealing with the rest or does it all have to be ok'd before any of it can be started?
I also wonder if any of these CABE people have been to the ground? they mention the incongruity of the new flats with the houses on Park Lane but as we all know the houses only start half way down the Park Lane stand beyond the flats and there are only about ten of them anyway not to mention the fact that nothing can be more incongruous than the juxtaposition of those few houses with the current stand; anything would be an improvement on that surely.
Can we? I'd have thought we could so can we procede with the stadium whilst dealing with the rest or does it all have to be ok'd before any of it can be started?
I also wonder if any of these CABE people have been to the ground? they mention the incongruity of the new flats with the houses on Park Lane but as we all know the houses only start half way down the Park Lane stand beyond the flats and there are only about ten of them anyway not to mention the fact that nothing can be more incongruous than the juxtaposition of those few houses with the current stand; anything would be an improvement on that surely.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
I'm sure they would argue that just because what is currently there is an architectural anomoly, doesn't mean that anything new should also be, even if it is better than what already exists.
I think the flats and hotel need the height to screen the stadium, but there current design already looks dated to me, so I can't imagine how people will see them in 50 years time.
I think the development either has to be bold and work on it's own or it has to be sympathetic to the surrounding area and I think at the moment it's probably a bit in between, the stadium is bold while the surrounding developments have been watered down and don't fit in with either the stadium or the surrounding area.
BorisTM
Well-Known Member
- Dec 30, 2007
- 1,434
- 310
I read the article and I read the comments. And all i can think off is the incompetence of the so called CABE. They talk about design and all but when a project is put on the table that is going to rejuvenate a dying area, they say "it does not fit what is already there", well maybe what is already there needs to be scrapped and re-build around this new project, then all the design flaws are going to be eliminated as everything built after this project is finished is going to be tuned up to it.
It seems to me that the board of CABE and the English heritage is loaded with Gooners who are willing to pull any kind of crap outta there arses so they can slow the project as much as possible.
- May 21, 2004
- 25,468
- 2,409
- Admin
- #1,399
It's comments like this one from people with a similar outlook on culture and heritage that have literally ripped the heart out of districts within cities in order to cram in contemporary solutions that sit well with the masses.
Why should Tottenham lose its identity by having it two hundred year old building levelled for a huge great blemish that doesn't sit well with its surroundings? There has to be some marriage and that it all that the guardians of our heritage within this rapidly deteriorating country is putting the brakes on for.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
The buildings of real architectural value on the High Road (including what is believed to be the oldest pair of semi-detached houses in London) start north of the new ground, at the 'Black House'—the Queen Anne one with the sundial on the wall more or less opposite White Hart Lane. If those were under threat I'd be up in arms, but they're not, and I have to wonder what CABE are on, or if they've actually visited the area.
The parade between Bill Nicholson Way and Paxton Road has been an eyesore since I was a kid, Warmington House and Marsh House are totally undistinguished Victorian piles, as are the Tottenham and Edmonton Dispensary and the 'Red House'. As for English Heritage, they've sanctioned the building of two totally hideous Lego-inspired orange brick monstrosities on the High Road south of the ground, so what they have against something that's actually attractive to the eye (or at least not actively repulsive) I have no idea.
