New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Hoopspur]

Mines bigger than yours, nah, nah nan nah nah. I'm sure we're doing this for all the right reasons eh?

It needs to be the right stadium and appropriate for Spurs, whatever the capacity ends up at - infrastructure, fan base etc. There was talk a year ago about the gooners increasing their capacity by 10k. What will we do then? Whatever, it needs to be correct for Spurs.

This I found earlier also which could (but probably won't? have any baring.

Again concerning the Emirates and increasing that capacity - "The timing of the move might raise eyebrows too, when empty seats are par for the course these days, but the increased capacity would make the Emirates eligible to host premier events like the Champions League final which require a minimum of 63,500 seats".

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Given the history of the stadium development so far I'm going to wager that the drilling will be more difficult. Much more difficult.

You never know for sure, but the ground conditions in most of North London, except where there are old riverbeds or fill from earlier demolition, are pretty predictable: very, very deep deposits of shrinkable clay.

As @Ionman34 implied a few pages ago, you don't really drill piles in London to bear directly on bedrock, because it's too far down. You calculate the pile bearing capacity mainly based on the friction between the sides of the pile and the surrounding clay. That and London's pervasive subsidence problem are why even a modest 2-storey timber house like mine has to be founded on 27 piles that are 8m deep, but it does make the sizing and spacing of piles relatively predictable, unless you hit clay-stone or some unexpected obstruction - even that is not a huge surprise and there are work-arounds.

 

[berranet]

Why don't THST have a secretary/webmaster to put out The news straight away..! In the next few days we get the notes hmmm

 

[davidmatzdorf]

There's a massive stitch up between developers and planning officers in this country - they are all golf pals.

That is so wrong that it's hilarious. It's open war between developers and planners, all over England. They absolutely detest each other.

There's often a 'stitch-up' between developers and councillors. In some cases, I would guess that money illicitly changes hands. But developers and planners? Totally incorrect in every imaginable way.

And councils won't challenge planner officers decisions because of the financial consequences of being taken to court

You're on the right track, but have used the wrong words. In practice, what often happens is that local councillors want to vote against officers' recommendations, usually in order to indulge outraged NIMBY constituents, but are advised by the planning committee's legal adviser - not by the planning officer - that there is no valid policy basis for refusing the application and thus that they would be likely to have to pay costs if the developer lodges an appeal - which goes to the Planning Inspectorate, not to court.

I have experienced plenty of examples where councillors refuse an application anyway. Usually shortly before an election, when sucking up to potential voters is deemed more important than the council's potential exposure to costs.

Basically we (as developers) can effectively do whatever we want now. It's how this country ends up with so many terrible and inappropriate buildings

No, developers do crap buildings because they are greedy and lazy. The totally ineffective, politicised planning system doesn't help - indeed, if a developer wants to do a really exciting development, the planners, the councillors and the NIMBYs often conspire to reject it. But I'm not letting the developers off the hook. They do crap because most of them don't give a fuck about quality, only about money.

 

[Ionman34]

This is my last foray into this debate, 1, Depending on what size of pile, the concrete mixer is connected to the top of the borer and as the borer is pulled out, the concrete is sent down via the hollow section in the borer. 2, Then they push the reinforcing steel mesh down into the pile all the way to the bottom. 3, The concrete sets and 7-10 days later the send an electronic signal down the pile to check the integrity of the pile.
The calculations for the point load of each pile are done by the structural engineer, he then multiplies that calculation by 10!!
So the the total weight that each pile is eventually going to carry is one tenth of the total that the pile could carry.
There is no need to do a "test pile" as the piles have been calculated to carry much more than required.
The geotechnical report on the analysis of the soil will be used to determine the size, depth and steel that will be required.
Lastly, lets say for instance that there were "test piles", how would we put a point load on the pile using say 150 tonnes and how long do we leave them on test to see if they move, a week, a month or a year?? just does not make any sense.
Please let us know when you have found out more.

Without sounding too condescending, you couldn't be more wrong ackie.
Test piles are ALWAYS done on any piled structure.

Calculations are just that, calculations. They all need to be verified. The test piles are bored with anchor pile surrounds. The loading set up is tied into the anchor piles then loaded to determine maximum loading capacity. This has absolutely nothing to do with the boreholes, which are carried out by geotechs, not pilers.

The pile you referred to is a CFA, just one type of pile used. The test you refer to is called a Schmidt hammer and is used to test the pile integrity, i.e. to ensure there are no voids through it. This is done a minimum of 28 days after pouring, as Concrete generally reaches maximum strength after 28 days. 7 days is preliminary with strength at approximately 70%.

As for the soil analysis. You are correct in that this helps to determine the pile size, but that is only part of it. There will be a variety of strata shown in the logs, including water table level, that help to determine the design. However, the designers still need to know how the pile performs within those strata. Making assumptions is a surefire way of putting the structure at risk, regardless of the factor of safety used, which I would be very surprised if it is 10! When I was designing structures, admittedly over 25 years ago, the maximum FoS was 3.

As I said previously, this is standard practice. I've built every kind of structure over the last 28 years and always had test piles installed.

 

[Lilbaz]

Mines bigger than yours, nah, nah nan nah nah. I'm sure we're doing this for all the right reasons eh?

It needs to be the right stadium and appropriate for Spurs, whatever the capacity ends up at - infrastructure, fan base etc. There was talk a year ago about the gooners increasing their capacity by 10k. What will we do then? Whatever, it needs to be correct for Spurs.

This I found earlier also which could (but probably won't? have any baring.

Again concerning the Emirates and increasing that capacity - "The timing of the move might raise eyebrows too, when empty seats are par for the course these days, but the increased capacity would make the Emirates eligible to host premier events like the Champions League final which require a minimum of 63,500 seats".

60k is the minimum for category 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_stadium_categories

 

[SHaRD]

Why don't THST have a secretary/webmaster to put out The news straight away..! In the next few days we get the notes hmmm

Minutes constitute a legal record, so they need to be accurate.

I expect part of the arrangement is that Cullen has to sign them off too.

 

[jambreck]

Minutes constitute a legal record, so they need to be accurate.

I expect part of the arrangement is that Cullen has to sign them off too.

In the early days of THST, they did indeed have to get the minutes signed off by the club before publishing them. That was because the meetings were, to an extent, no holds barred but there were things discussed which the club wasn't ready to make public.

However, there were complaints from many THST members (and among the wider fan base), that the THST board were merely being elitist (and going along for a cosy chat and tea and biscuits) by withholding information to which they had been privy. So, in order to counter those accusations, the THST board took the decision to ask the club not to say anything at the meetings that they couldn't subsequently pass on to other Spurs fans.

I don't know if that policy is still in place (I haven't heard anything to the contrary) but, if it is, then the minutes should be available as soon as the relevant THST board member has written them up.

 

[Blake Griffin]

bit more from the guy on skyscrapercity -

Just a small update on what I mentioned before. Nothing much but I got this comment today passed on from the person at Tottenham..

"Those pictures you see on the boards along the High Road... apparently nothing like the new look at all"

My impression was not inside but the exterior look and I was also thinking it's the side of stadium not the roof. So I guess that glass look could be what they meant. Just passing along

 

[worcestersauce]

How about the High Road facade being multi screen to show open air screenings of the latest blockbusters to an audience sitting in Moselle square, or just an interactive backdrop for festivals or live screening of world cup games on warm summer evenings!
Come on lets get imaginative here.

 

[HotspurSam]

The very first plans back in 2007/8 had plans for the match scores to be displayed on screens at either end of the stadium facing High Rd, and for coloured lighting to reflect the noise of the crowd inside during a game. This was rejected by Council plannerson Health and Safety as it would distract drivers on the high road, so never even got off first base.

 

[CockOnBall]

The very first plans back in 2007/8 had plans for the match scores to be displayed on screens at either end of the stadium facing High Rd, and for coloured lighting to reflect the noise of the crowd inside during a game. This was rejected by Council plannerson Health and Safety as it would distract drivers on the high road, so never even got off first base.

I think a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the ground is in the middle of a very busy and congested urban landscape. Any design would need to be sympathetic to that.

Not only do we have a Sainbury's and a High Road to contend with at West and North ends, we will soon have a block of flats on the South side which will need to be set against a back drop that makes it desirable to live in. A massive digital display outside your window is not going to appeal.

That leaves only the East side which currently has a school so again, no real point in dressing that too much.

I am not saying the wrap around the stadium shouldn't be nice, especially the part leading up to a Wembley way style walkway but we are restrained by the surrounding environment, more so than the Allianz for example. Therefore, lets put most of the efforts on the inside.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the ground is in the middle of a very busy and congested urban landscape. Any design would need to be sympathetic to that.

Not only do we have a Sainbury's and a High Road to contend with at West and North ends, we will soon have a block of flats on the South side which will need to be set against a back drop that makes it desirable to live in. A massive digital display outside your window is not going to appeal.

That leaves only the East side which currently has a school and the opposite of the "Wembley Way" style walkway so again, no real point in dressing that too much.

I am not saying the wrap around the stadium shouldn't be nice but we are restrained by the surrounding environment, more so than the Allianz for example. Therefore, lets put most of the efforts on the inside.

They might do it for Tottenham Way. The new walkthrough once the station is revamped (when does work on that start?).

 

[acky99]

Without sounding too condescending, you couldn't be more wrong ackie.
Test piles are ALWAYS done on any piled structure.

Calculations are just that, calculations. They all need to be verified. The test piles are bored with anchor pile surrounds. The loading set up is tied into the anchor piles then loaded to determine maximum loading capacity. This has absolutely nothing to do with the boreholes, which are carried out by geotechs, not pilers.

The pile you referred to is a CFA, just one type of pile used. The test you refer to is called a Schmidt hammer and is used to test the pile integrity, i.e. to ensure there are no voids through it. This is done a minimum of 28 days after pouring, as Concrete generally reaches maximum strength after 28 days. 7 days is preliminary with strength at approximately 70%.

As for the soil analysis. You are correct in that this helps to determine the pile size, but that is only part of it. There will be a variety of strata shown in the logs, including water table level, that help to determine the design. However, the designers still need to know how the pile performs within those strata. Making assumptions is a surefire way of putting the structure at risk, regardless of the factor of safety used, which I would be very surprised if it is 10! When I was designing structures, admittedly over 25 years ago, the maximum FoS was 3.

As I said previously, this is standard practice. I've built every kind of structure over the last 28 years and always had test piles installed.

I have been in construction since 1978, and in all the piling I have ever done, I have never put a test pile in, in my last post I do not think that I implied that the bore holes were done by the pilers. You say that 25 years ago the FoS was 3,that was a very long time ago and things have changed. Let me tell you that I have architects and structural engineers that are making them selves bullet proof by taking the FoS to 10. I use 2 piling companies to do my piling and once I have the Geotech report, I pass this on to the structural engineer, he calculates what size and depth he wants the piles to be, I then pass this on to the piling company. The work is completed and certs issued, I have yet to go back on any works whereby the piling has failed.
That being said none of my works have been to the magnitude of the new stadium and maybe more precautions are taken when you are talking in the 100's millions. So lets take a step further, lets just say for arguments sake that I am 100% wrong and we have to do test pile to establish the maximum loading capacity, we load the pile( still trying to visualise point loading) and wait for how long to see how it performs.
How long do we wait??? a day, a week ,a month??? in the mean while absolutely no foundation work can take place. which means that no work can start. Unless the rigs that were onsite from Sep/Oct for 3 months were doing test piles, hell of a long time for a test piles don't you think? It also seem weird that the shape of the stadium is there, the fact the the corrugated sheets are in place in readiness for the excavation for the RC beam........TBH the club has not been forthcoming with any proper information for the fans, which I think is not good enough, considering we have been waiting for 8 years.
I suppose we will know by the end of June when we take possession of the remaining parcel of land.

 

[Lilbaz]

This thread has gone weird.

 

[Spurger King]

Test piling must be a boring job.

 

[robbiedee]

I did some test piling recently...I found the Germaloid Ointment produced the best results by far

 

["sir"billynic]

Is this the New Stadium thread or a Passion for Piles thread?

 

[ohwhenthespurs]

How long does it take to type up a set of sodding minutes?!

 

[Hoopspur]

60k is the minimum for category 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_stadium_categories

I wouldn't be so 'churlish' as to mark down your post with a disagree also, but that article you point me to states no stadium with a capacity of less than 60k has been chosen since 2006. As it happens the stadium in Turin qualifies for the criteria with a capacity of 30k, and the Wiki you've just shown me says just 8K for a cat 4.

I've also just read that Platini now wants every stadium that hosts a final to now have a minimum of 70k.

Obviously my secondhand 'found' info was also incorrect when I posted it and for which I offer the humblest apologies

So what do you disagree with then, the amount of spectators as your info is also incorrect, the fact we may get into a 'stadium war' or that we should build a stadium that's appropriate and considered for Spurs? Just curious.