New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Lilbaz]

It might be easier with the 3 tiers. Hope that levy does look into it, the american sports have a lot more of it don't they?

 

[SpurSince57]

Think I read something about this. As far as I remember I think WHL isn't made to make it bigger. So I don't know if there is enough space to do it and I think it would be more expensive than building a new stadium.

But this would be the solution I prefer...

Because when I were a lad, most of us stood and you could cram in 65,000. It would, as you say, be more expensive than building a new stadium. Remember the 'improvements' of the 80s were what got us in the financial doo-doo in the first place.

Been done to death years ago: impracticable and hideously expensive. Not happening.

Yup. It's the sentimental solution, but a total non-starter.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

I don't know about adding another tier - it sounds like an impossible engineering task. But it would be possible to increase capacity of the current stadium because, in a period over a decade ago, the club drew up plans to increase the capacity of the East Stand and/or to rebuild the West Stand. I think the maximum capacity spoken about at the time was just short of 50,000. None of these plans were discussed seriously after initial blueprints.

The main objections relate to management of the crowds, health and safety issues around evacuation, the size of the concourses, public areas, and so on: it means that there has to be a significant rebuild of other parts of the stadium to allow even a relatively modest capacity increase. In other words, if we want to get up to 55,000 - 60,000, it's already involving an expensive rebuild. I haven't seen any figures but it may well be the case that the cost of expanding the current stadium (in one go) could be just as much as demolition and starting over.

Our beloved stadium is, frankly, ugly on the outside, a higgledy-piggledy mess. Naming rights sponsors prefer the publicity of a new build. A brand new stadium will not only increase naming rights income, it will be associated with the 'enabling' Southern Development, attract more corporate hospitality income, and be the centre of a wider development of the area, which has attracted local authority and mayoral funds and may attract more funds.
.
.
.

 

[bigturnip]

I don't know about adding another tier - it sounds like an impossible engineering task. But it would be possible to increase capacity of the current stadium because, in a period over a decade ago, the club drew up plans to increase the capacity of the East Stand and/or to rebuild the West Stand. I think the maximum capacity spoken about at the time was just short of 50,000. None of these plans were discussed seriously after initial blueprints.

The main objections relate to management of the crowds, health and safety issues around evacuation, the size of the concourses, public areas, and so on: it means that there has to be a significant rebuild of other parts of the stadium to allow even a relatively modest capacity increase. In other words, if we want to get up to 55,000 - 60,000, it's already involving an expensive rebuild. I haven't seen any figures but it may well be the case that the cost of expanding the current stadium (in one go) could be just as much as demolition and starting over.

Our beloved stadium is, frankly, ugly on the outside, a higgledy-piggledy mess. Naming rights sponsors prefer the publicity of a new build. A brand new stadium will not only increase naming rights income, it will be associated with the 'enabling' Southern Development, attract more corporate hospitality income, and be the centre of a wider development of the area, which has attracted local authority and mayoral funds and may attract more funds.
.
.
.

We had planning permission to build a new East Stand bringing the capacity to 44,000, I believe it expired a couple of years ago, it would have involved closing the East stand for a season, meaning we'd have only had a 25,000 capacity while it was being built and there were issues involving the primary school on the other side of Worcester Avenue. It would have been a lot cheaper than a new stadium, but as you say due to naming rights, probably not as viable long-term.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I don't know about adding another tier - it sounds like an impossible engineering task. But it would be possible to increase capacity of the current stadium because, in a period over a decade ago, the club drew up plans to increase the capacity of the East Stand and/or to rebuild the West Stand. I think the maximum capacity spoken about at the time was just short of 50,000. None of these plans were discussed seriously after initial blueprints.

No it wouldn't. The matter has been discussed to death on multiple occasions over the 397 pages of this thread and I have posted several times in detail the reasons why extending the stadium is an impossibility, so I'll just summarise here. Use the search facility if you want details.

There is a whole list of reasons. It's economically un-viable and it would not attract investment to fund it, unlike a new stadium. It would be impossible to comply with modern regulations re health and safety, disabled access requirements, crowd management and emergency escape. Modern stadia have hospitality and corporate sponsorship facilities that are impossible to provide in an extended existing WHL. Most importantly, it would not be possible to develop the supermarket and housing parts of the scheme, which are basically there to subsidise the new stadium. The existing stadium is out of date and inefficient in a number of ways and it is not possible to address these deficiencies using the existing structure.

The reason why the plans for the stadium extension never went anywhere and were not 'discussed seriously' was because the exercise itself revealed that the stadium extension idea was a non-starter. The club abandoned it and started looking for ways to build a new stadium, which is how we got to where we are today: about to build a new stadium.

I can't work out why this red herring has been brought up yet again.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

We had planning permission to build a new East Stand bringing the capacity to 44,000, I believe it expired a couple of years ago, it would have involved closing the East stand for a season, meaning we'd have only had a 25,000 capacity while it was being built and there were issues involving the primary school on the other side of Worcester Avenue. It would have been a lot cheaper than a new stadium, but as you say due to naming rights, probably not as viable long-term.

No, there's no evidence that we ever got planning consent for a stadium extension. This has arisen several times, so I searched the Haringey online records and there is nothing there.

The stadium extension plans were prepared, I think, in 2001. If we had obtained planning consent then, it would have expired after 5 years, so nothing expired 'a couple of years ago'.

 

[bigturnip]

No, there's no evidence that we ever got planning consent. This has arisen several times, so I searched the Haringey online records and there is nothing there.

The stadium extension plans were prepared, I think, in 2001. If we had obtained planning consent then, it would have expired after 5 years, so nothing expired 'a couple of years ago'.

There is a link to the planning application on Haringey's website earlier in this thread, permission was granted in 2001, extended in 2006 and expired in 2011. Not sure whether Haringey remove expired applications, maybe that's why you can't find it.

EDIT: It appears it is still on Haringey's website: http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=16525

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

*Sigh*

Another unnecessary vomit...
.
.
.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

It appears it is still on Haringey's website: http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=16525

Cheers, I'll have a look at that later.

Local authorities don't generally remove old decisions, but some of them didn't really have their online systems set up until a few years ago and they have made varying levels of effort to load old decisions onto their websites. I've been doing a job for a housing association this year that has involved me hunting on multiple council websites for old planning decisions and it can take ages to work out whether anything is actually there. It may be that Haringey is still gradually adding the old stuff.

 

[bigturnip]

Cheers, I'll have a look at that later.

Local authorities don't generally remove old decisions, but some of them didn't really have their online systems set up until a few years ago and they have made varying levels of effort to load old decisions onto their websites. I've been doing a job for a housing association this year that has involved me hunting on multiple council websites for old planning decisions and it can take ages to work out whether anything is actually there. It may be that Haringey is still gradually adding the old stuff.

It is there, planning was granted and was just awaiting the section 106 agreements, so you could argue that planning wasn't in place because we never finalised the section 106, but we basically got to the point where the development had been agreed, but we hadn't agreed on how big the 'bribe' would be to commence building.

 

[Spursidol]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/council-backs-old-firm-plans-1114129

Glasgow City council have given approval for SPL matches to have standing terraces (but not for international matches). Anyone know whether Spurs are looking at this option and whether it might affect the overall stadium design ?

For example could the stadium design be as an all seater (to suit current legislation) but have the seats removable in the future ?

Of course it might not be completely clear cut if Premier League matches were permittted to be standing but UEFA followed FIFA rules and refused to have standing - but not sure if temporary seating would be tooo expensive to install, dismantle and re-install for european matches.

 

[Hoopspur]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/council-backs-old-firm-plans-1114129

Glasgow City council have given approval for SPL matches to have standing terraces (but not for international matches). Anyone know whether Spurs are looking at this option and whether it might affect the overall stadium design ?

For example could the stadium design be as an all seater (to suit current legislation) but have the seats removable in the future ?

Of course it might not be completely clear cut if Premier League matches were permittted to be standing but UEFA followed FIFA rules and refused to have standing - but not sure if temporary seating would be tooo expensive to install, dismantle and re-install for european matches.

I believe it's to do with the definition of what is seating and what is standing. Most of the proposals I've seen have always featured these small fold down seats, which are permanent...

http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-proposal

It is these that the new German grounds have and the ones that are I believe UEFA approved. Any standing areas are also heavily designed with very specific 'standing/seating areas' and are numbered and ticketed. It's a kind of half way house.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sa...BLOT0QWKi4HQCw&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1567&bih=1063

 

[knowlespurs]

Now why don't we all push the Club towards having a standing area say at the lower or upper "kop" end.

That would lift the capacity to a headline 60k, accommodate those who stand anyway and lift the atmosphere.

Atmosphere has suffered since all seating because among other reasons more women and kids attend these days because all seating gives them comfort and safety.

It is excellent that women and children go along in more numbers but they are naturally not so loud as male adult voices.

Singing and chanting usually begins and emanates from one section of a football ground then the rest follow.

The standing section would most likely be that section a la some German football grounds.

no way it will happen imo, neither the club or Prem would sanction, and knowing levy it would mean he would delay the build for another 10 years, would rather they just got on with building the bloody thing

 

[Lilbaz]

Next month we are going to be swamped with itks who know which players that will be coming in and who will be sold off. Is there not a single itk that knows whats happening with the stadium? Are we starting the build next summer? Have we got a sponsor? Are all the finances in place? Whats the final capacity going to be?

The clock is ticking, it would be nice if levy could give us an update.

 

[Hoopspur]

Next month we are going to be swamped with itks who know which players that will be coming in and who will be sold off. Is there not a single itk that knows whats happening with the stadium? Are we starting the build next summer? Have we got a sponsor? Are all the finances in place? Whats the final capacity going to be?

The clock is ticking, it would be nice if levy could give us an update.

official unofficial?

Official Stadium Update

Feature by Hog
Updated Tuesday, 4th December 2012
After receiving numerous requests for an update on the Northumberland Project I have taken it upon myself to get an update from the club direct.
I would like to ask all fans of Tottenham Football Club to remember like any planning and building projects these are complex processes, I would know I have been involved in some large developments through my job!
The official statement from the club reads;
********************************************************************************************
Work on the new supermarket on Northumberland Park, with commercial space above, which will be located to the north of the new stadium, has now commenced and is currently scheduled for completion within the next 18 months.
We continue to move forward with the delivery of the new stadium with the construction tender process a key next step which we will be looking to progress over the next 12 months. As always, the funding for the project remains a key determining factor and it is therefore difficult to set out the exact timing of when construction may be able to commence until the funding is fully in place
We are affording the delivery of this project the time and focus it deserves and are hopeful that the construction of the stadium, which has an estimated build of 3 years, will be able to move forward in due course.
We shall continue to keep everyone connected with the Club updated over the coming months with our progress as we make it.
********************************************************************************************
So any wealthy fan’s, please come forward and lets help get this wheel moving!
It’s as much as we were aware of, but to know that we are no further forward is at least some news. The tender is likely to have been narrowed down and in my personal opinion I feel its already decided, but the club could not state this yet.
3 years still seems a long time especially as the next tallest building in the world is expected to take 90 days! However I realise the difference in structure from a sky scrapper to a stadium.
I really hope that we can get the funding sorted ASAP so we can get this final piece of the puzzle placed.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur-mad.co.uk/feat/ed11/official_stadium__update_771434/index.shtml?


Not my article.....

 

[Lilbaz]

Cheers.

 

[ohwhenthespurs]

official unofficial?
tender process a key next step which we will be looking to progress over the next 12 months.
....

Don't like the sound of that very much. Of course, that doesn't it WILL take 12 months, could be one, could be 12. But if it is going to take as long as a year to complete the tendering process, we're looking at spring/summer 2014 for the build to start, realistically. So, a completion in 2017/18.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

For a scheme of this size, 12 months to get from planning drawings to inviting tenders is rather generous.

On the other hand, 12 months to get from planning drawings through working drawings and tender documents, then the tendering process, then assessing the tenders, then appointing a contractor and mobilising the contractor to start on site is very tight.

So it depends what they mean by 'tender process'. I suspect they mean 'get everything ready to start building it'.

Three years to build the stadium would also sound rather generous, if we were building a stadium on a cleared site with straightforward access, but we aren't. We're building it in a constrained urban area, with one side of the stadium adjacent to a major A road that is also a High Street, with one quarter of the footprint of the new stadium already occupied by an existing stadium that is still in use and with several protected buildings right next to the stadium.

I still think three years is a long programme, but then I don't know anything about the ground conditions and other site-specific factors, other than the obvious ones I listed above. Two years would be impressively swift for a building of this size and complexity, even in the absence of all of the complicating factors. So I don't think three years is excessive. It's also consistent with the last programme we saw, which forecast the stadium to be completed in 2016.

 

[Flashspur]

some great input from all the posters on here...thank you

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

For a scheme of this size, 12 months to get from planning drawings to inviting tenders is rather generous.

On the other hand, 12 months to get from planning drawings through working drawings and tender documents, then the tendering process, then assessing the tenders, then appointing a contractor and mobilising the contractor to start on site is very tight.

So it depends what they mean by 'tender process'. I suspect they mean 'get everything ready to start building it'.

Three years to build the stadium would also sound rather generous, if we were building a stadium on a cleared site with straightforward access, but we aren't. We're building it in a constrained urban area, with one side of the stadium adjacent to a major A road that is also a High Street, with one quarter of the footprint of the new stadium already occupied by an existing stadium that is still in use and with several protected buildings right next to the stadium.

I still think three years is a long programme, but then I don't know anything about the ground conditions and other site-specific factors, other than the obvious ones I listed above. Two years would be impressively swift for a building of this size and complexity, even in the absence of all of the complicating factors. So I don't think three years is excessive. It's also consistent with the last programme we saw, which forecast the stadium to be completed in 2016.

Don't forget the phasing requirements. Working around an existing stadium that is in use presents plenty of challenges.

I had to laugh at this quote in 7949 above:-

3 years still seems a long time especially as the next tallest building in the world is expected to take 90 days!

90 days (under 3 months) to build 'the next tallest building in the world'. Is this idiot on crack?!