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...
Been done to death years ago: impracticable and hideously expensive. Not happening.
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.
.
.
.
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.
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. 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'.
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.
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.
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 thingNow 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.
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?
tender process a key next step which we will be looking to progress over the next 12 months.
....
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.
3 years still seems a long time especially as the next tallest building in the world is expected to take 90 days!