Olympic Stadium : Our best weapon to remain in North London.

Frenchalex25

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
582
Thread starter #1
Dear All,


This has been quite a long time i haven't posted but this gonna be quite of a long post on the most spoken subject at the moment amongst Spurs Fan.
I wanna give you my opinion as a foreign Spurs fan (french but member of the swiss spurs fan club).

For the last few weeks, this Stadium problem has turned very much into a “only London geographical problem” and everything was only about we are “North London and should remain it”.

I do not say location of our future stadium isn’t the (main) part of the problem but this is not the only point to focus on in my opinion.

To be fair, I am not a “pro-Straford” or a pro “Remain at WHL” but from the many lectures I did on the subject (on sc, on the internet and papers); It appears that the are good and bad points for each option and they have been explained many times on this forum.


I ‘d like to start my analysis by taking the example of one of us ( Spurs fan) who wrote an email to one of the member of the Haringey Council ( a woman but I do not remember her name ) and post his first email and her answer to him a few days ago on SC…
He asked her, her opinions about our Club and his views about the future of our Club in the Borough.

She told that Spurs remaining in the Borough was very important and full part of North London and blah blah blah…
That answer from her was in complete opposition to what has been done so far by the Haringey Council to show the Club that remaining in Haringey was really important.
Any time, the Club wants to do something, (especially planning permission) the Haringey council seems to be against it.
Accept it and remain in tiny WHL………..and accept the fact not be given the right to grow as a football club is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Contrary to Newham Council (and already given proofs of which help will be given to West Ham ) if the get the OS.

As for the Haringey council, they didn’t do anything and told anything trying to convince Dani Levy that the best option would be to choose the NDP over the O.S Option.
Haringey Council doesn't even seem to be scared the Club to leave the area whereas this area from North London seems not to be the richest part of London......

Do not get me wrong but what did they do (or tell) to retain us from trying to get to the Olympic Stadium ???????????????????


Here is the main thing and main argument of my reflection.

THE OLYMPIC STADIUM IS OUR BEST WEAPON TO HELP US TO REMAIN IN NORTH LONDON IN A BIGGER STADIUM.

Here is my way of thinking.

The club THFC has already submitted several planning permissions to Haringey Council
(that matched very much the demands of the Haringey Council) and have all been rejected so far.
Furthermore, it seems that we have to make a global planning permission (the Northumberland Dvlpt Project with Hotels ; private homes , and improve public transport facilities to our costs) to have a chance to see one day a still too small 56000 seater Football stadium?
Maybe we have to pay for all major work to be made in London to get a new stadium once…..????
You would be impressed by the the numerous clubs that already have a + 55000 stadium.But I’ll develop the point that a 55000 seater stadium would still be too small to allow each spur fan who want to see his team play in an other post.

It seems very very difficult for the Club to deal with Haringey council despite the fact the Club has done much effort to fulfill Haringey ‘s demands-

I fully understand Dani Levy now wants things to move on and his will to try to get a B solution( which now seems to have turned into a A solution ) because it doesn’t seem at all to get anything from Haringey Council until THE TIME THERE ARE REAL PRESSURE ON IT.


AND THE OLYMPIC STADIUM IS THE BEST PRESSURE WEAPON WE CAN PUT ON THEIR HEAD.
I FULLY BACK D.LEVY TO PUSH ON THE WIN FOR THE USE OF THE OLYMPIC STADIUM.THIS MIGHT BE VERY USEFUL TO ADD SOME POWER IN THE NEGOCIATIONS WITH HARINGEY COUNCIL TRYING TO REMAIN IN NORTH LONDON.

So let’s ‘ go to win the Bid for the OS and then Levy to meet The Haringey Council and him to tell Them (the Haringey members).
“It’s all about you now”.
“ Do you really want Spurs to remain in North London”.
“This is now time to prove it”.
We want to remain in North London but you haven’t done much for the Club so far, did you”.
Seriously think about it , speak together about it and give me a call very soon to speak again about the way we'll build our new big stadium".

I know this is pure fantasy but I’d like Levy to say something like that if we win the Bid for the OS.
I have the conviction that we have to go for the win for the WIN FOR THE O.S as this will be our best weapon to put pressure on Haringey council to get some (financial) help form us.

WINNING THE BID FOR THE OS IS THE ONLY VIABLE SOLUTION IN ORDER TO SEE THE NDP & OUR BIGGER WHL TO GO ON.

This will be a perfect way to put the Haringey Council to take the right decisions…………….
And starting to see them shitting their pants………….
The other thing that worried me is the huge cost gap before The OS and the NDP.
Haringey will also have to pay for it, as Spurs seems to be a major economical force in this part of London with several hundreds (thousands) of jobs that will stay (or be created) in this area.

And it would be crazy and SUICIDAL to ask the Club to pay for everything.
AND THERE PUTTING THEM THE GUN ON THE HEAD (WITH THE O.S IN LEVY’S POCKET) WOULD FOR SURE “HELP” THEM TO UNDERSTAND OUR ARGUMENTS …..

I am sure i gonna have a lot of stick for this one but i thought this was important..to give a slighly different view...

Thanks for reading (even partially).

Alex
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
13,946
#2
Thanks for the post Alex - the more the merrier in the debate and I hope what I about to write doesn't stop you from commenting again on this - it's not meant as a criticism, but as a response to some of the points you raise.

We have been given planning permission by Haringey, which has been approved by the Mayor and the Secretary of State.

Haringey pushed this through in about two years, compared to about five for the Emirates / Islington.

Haringey has agreed for s106 contributions at £16m (basically funding all develops have to pay to local services in order to gain permission). That isn't the deal breaker in the funding of the stadium and we would in any case have to agree s106 funding with Newham if we took the Olympic Site.

Haringey have approved in principal to grant us Compulsory Purchase Orders on the property we do not currently own.

Therefore, to pin any of the blame on Haringey is, I feel, a little on the harsh side. They have a budget of about £400m to spend, in an age of cuts I cannot see how it is justifiable to expect them to contribute to a private company's development.

If you want to apportion blame on anyone, apportion it on CABE.

They are the ones who objected to us building 434 flats on the development and as a result the second application was reduced to 200.

This is one of the largest, if not the largest, causes of the project costs going up £50m compared to the first application.

But otherwise, good post.
 

mattdefoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,419
#3
we will not grow as a club or gain success without a new stadium, lets just make the move we will still be tottenham by name location otherwise, we havent won shit all in my lifetime and have won our national league TWICE,
 

BigRed

lost somewhere
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
7,323
#4
If you want to apportion blame on anyone, apportion it on CABE.

They are the ones who objected to us building 434 flats on the development and as a result the second application was reduced to 200.
CABE are one of those quangos that have to put up opposition to everything that comes their way in order to justify their existence.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#7
Thanks for the post Alex - the more the merrier in the debate and I hope what I about to write doesn't stop you from commenting again on this - it's not meant as a criticism, but as a response to some of the points you raise.

We have been given planning permission by Haringey, which has been approved by the Mayor and the Secretary of State.

Haringey pushed this through in about two years, compared to about five for the Emirates / Islington.

Haringey has agreed for s106 contributions at £16m (basically funding all develops have to pay to local services in order to gain permission). That isn't the deal breaker in the funding of the stadium and we would in any case have to agree s106 funding with Newham if we took the Olympic Site.

Haringey have approved in principal to grant us Compulsory Purchase Orders on the property we do not currently own.

Therefore, to pin any of the blame on Haringey is, I feel, a little on the harsh side. They have a budget of about £400m to spend, in an age of cuts I cannot see how it is justifiable to expect them to contribute to a private company's development.

If you want to apportion blame on anyone, apportion it on CABE.

They are the ones who objected to us building 434 flats on the development and as a result the second application was reduced to 200.

This is one of the largest, if not the largest, causes of the project costs going up £50m compared to the first application.

But otherwise, good post.
Has anyone found CABE's reasoning for reducing the number of flats? The other modifications they suggested to the original design were all pretty sensible, and certainly improved it. Isn't that why the plc consulted them over the design?

And, whilst CABE's support for the application was desirable, it wasn't essential; they criticised certain aspects of the Immigrants' design, but Arsenal and Islington Council simply ignored them and went ahead.
 

Donki

Has a Massive Member Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,255
#8
If public opinion is anything to go by we wont get the OS and when you look at it logically you have to say what we plan to do does seem daft. The stadium was built for the Olympics, running track, facilities etc as part of a legacy project. Publicly funded to be a landmark in history in what ever form it was to be in after the Olympics there is no way we will get it IMO.

I dont mind what we do but we need a new stadium no matter how much I luv the Lane.
 

EmperorKabir

SC's resident legend.
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
5,134
#9
This has been obvious all along. The only thing is that at first, it looked like an obvious ploy, but now it looks like a serious ploy.
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
13,946
#10
Has anyone found CABE's reasoning for reducing the number of flats? The other modifications they suggested to the original design were all pretty sensible, and certainly improved it. Isn't that why the plc consulted them over the design?

And, whilst CABE's support for the application was desirable, it wasn't essential; they criticised certain aspects of the Immigrants' design, but Arsenal and Islington Council simply ignored them and went ahead.
CABE's response to the first application

To the south of the stadium, the residential use seems an entirely appropriate way to stitch the development into the existing neighbourhood. We also welcome the addition of the hotel which provides activity and scale at the south-west corner of the development. However, we do not support the quantity of housing proposed, which we believe is overdevelopment of this site. Building some of the housing over the supermarket could relieve pressure on the south of the site and we are not convinced that overshadowing by the stadium makes this impossible. We worry that the proposed mix of mostly small 1 and 2-bed flats would seem designed for the buy-to-let market, 75% of the flats are single aspect and the quality of the amenity space and community provision for such a sizable population is questionable.

We support the principle of “fingers” of residential development with a north-south orientation but we find the massing, which is generally higher on the Park Lane frontage than next to the stadium, eccentric and counterintuitive. The form does not integrate successfully with the rest of the development by creating memorable, well proportioned public space to its north. We suggest that overshadowing between the blocks might compromise the new flats and that the scale of the proposal would also have an impact on the quality of the public open space. 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.
And on the second

We support the proposal for a crescent-shaped residential block of up to 200 flats and separate hotel at the southern end of the site. The urban form and scale of the blocks hint at the scale of the stadium behind. The raised concourse space created between the residential block and the southern edge of the stadium feels comfortable in scale and well defined. This is a great improvement on the previous application proposal.

The illustrative layouts for the residential block showing multiple vertical cores and a combination of single and dual aspect flats, arranged so that none of the single aspect flats face north towards the stadium, is an intelligent solution. However, overheating of the south-facing, single-aspect flats caused by mid-season, low-angle sun is a potential problem. The overhang of balconies above is not deep enough to mitigate this and therefore this aspect of the design should be tested before the application is determined to ensure that it does not have a significant impact on the massing of the block.
 

Sanj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
1,656
#11
If we were to win the vote for the OS would we not be committed to the stadium - both financially and ethically after all the hullabaloo over who gets the stadium?
For spurs to then turn around and not go-ahead with the stadium would be a HUGE publicity own goal and i wonder how the contract to take over the OS would be financially structured if we were to renege from the deal?
 

mattdefoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,419
#12
im really not sure , my first part was indicating how I have seen no spurs success and now we are close to some It would be amazing to see it, and this stadium would force success.

However I was going to add having not seen much success its all I know and either way im tottenham whether bad or good.

I think a stadium would turn us from good to the elite, but why cant we just keep it in NL, im confused . surely the revenue would pay for the price of the stadium.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#13
CABE's response to the first application

To the south of the stadium, the residential use seems an entirely appropriate way to stitch the development into the existing neighbourhood. We also welcome the addition of the hotel which provides activity and scale at the south-west corner of the development. However, we do not support the quantity of housing proposed, which we believe is overdevelopment of this site. Building some of the housing over the supermarket could relieve pressure on the south of the site and we are not convinced that overshadowing by the stadium makes this impossible. We worry that the proposed mix of mostly small 1 and 2-bed flats would seem designed for the buy-to-let market, 75% of the flats are single aspect and the quality of the amenity space and community provision for such a sizable population is questionable.

We support the principle of “fingers” of residential development with a north-south orientation but we find the massing, which is generally higher on the Park Lane frontage than next to the stadium, eccentric and counterintuitive. The form does not integrate successfully with the rest of the development by creating memorable, well proportioned public space to its north. We suggest that overshadowing between the blocks might compromise the new flats and that the scale of the proposal would also have an impact on the quality of the public open space. 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.
So, in layman's terms, the original flats would have been poky little broom-cupboards you couldn't swing a cat in and no-one in their right mind would want to buy, still less actually live in unless they happened to be absolutely desperate. Will the potential selling price of the redesigned 200 be any less than that of the original 424? Individually, you'd expect them to cost more, although they would still qualify as 'affordable' housing.
 

ThorntonSpur

every away game is a home game
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
2,408
#14
One thing is true 56000 is not big enough nor is 60000.

a POINT ON S106 MONIES.

Under new rules due to be implemented money does not have to be spent on the surrounding area. the council fio they wish can have the money used in say wood Green if they wish.

in fact the money could go into a bigger pot and not neccessarily end up being used in haringay at all.

in west yorkshire for example the talk is of a combined fund for all five authorities to pool thier s106 monies to improve transport facilities across the region.
 

mabolsa_ritchey

aka Hugh G Rection
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
1,124
#16
One thing Im confused about is the whole "we wont grow as a club if we dont move to a bigger stadium, lets move to the OS" mentality.
Have the club completely given up on the NDP? If we lose the bid we're not gonna bother with the new Lane?
To me it feels like in some quarters itll be"Oh we lost out on the 60,000 stadium, now we'll only have a 56,000 stadium in the pipeline. We'll never compete!"
 

Misfit

Magnificent bastard.
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
18,251
#17
One thing Im confused about is the whole "we wont grow as a club if we dont move to a bigger stadium, lets move to the OS" mentality.
Have the club completely given up on the NDP? If we lose the bid we're not gonna bother with the new Lane?
To me it feels like in some quarters itll be"Oh we lost out on the 60,000 stadium, now we'll only have a 56,000 stadium in the pipeline. We'll never compete!"
I think the percieved wisdom is that the NDP stadium is going to be plonked direct into Stratford instead of the WHL site. Why some, not all, just some, seem so keen (to my mind anyway) is that this can all happen magically for £200m less (effectively halving the debt - easy peasy this developing stuff isn't it) and therefore all this lovely money will be pumped straight into the first team almost instantly and propel us onto the same plateau currently occupied by Real Madrid, AC Milan and all the other giants of world football. It's an absurd notion, frankly.

We don't have £200m to pump into the first team currently but after we've spent £200m odd on a new stadium in Stratford, we will? I'd love that be explained.

All this does (and this is a good thing no doubt) is lessen the debt. And make us East-Londoners. So, pros and cons.
 
Top