|
Post by bluestone on Aug 10, 2017 7:40:21 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me:
1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner.
2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement.
3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is.
What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term.
Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course).
Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who has ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and around the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up and down Glos Rd and Muller Rd.
The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will of course come at a cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective.
Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this.
UTG!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 10, 2017 7:47:54 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me: 1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner. 2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement. 3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is. What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term. Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course). Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who has ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and around the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up and down Glos Rd and Muller Rd. The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will only come at at cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective. Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this. UTG! I have always said with the original mem development and Sainsbury's there, and even the case as it currently stands that the section of Filton Avenue by the stadium needs to be ONE WAY traffic.. no left turn into the road. continue up Muller Road and go round the loop.
At the end of a game now it is bad enough with parked cars and buses and two directions of traffic trying to squeeze through as well as thousands of people
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Aug 10, 2017 7:49:31 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me: 1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner. 2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement. 3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is. What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term. Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course). Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who had ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and and the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up Glos Rd and Muller Rd. The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will only come at at cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective. Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this. UTG! I would like to think there would be more seating and less accommodation in a new design. Like someone else has posted the sitesize is similar to Chelseas, Stamford Bridge is a 41,000 seater stadium, not saying that we need 41,000 but im sure they can come up with something more ambitious than the original 18K.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Aug 10, 2017 7:54:00 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me: 1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner. 2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement. 3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is. What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term. Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course). Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who has ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and around the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up and down Glos Rd and Muller Rd. The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will of course come at a cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective. Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this. UTG! Great analysis, it is a massive building. Assuming that student accompdation would no longer be needed, there's much more room then I thought before I compered with other stadium sites.
A lot of creativity will be needed to minimise costs, especially in terms of reduction in capacity. What Spurs have done is interesting, wrapping a new stand around one end of the old stadium. Lets hope Buckingham can provide that kind of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by drasim on Aug 10, 2017 7:57:59 GMT
For me the issue with parking is a valid one. If there was a park & ride, or other easily accessible mode of transport from areas a bit further out without having to take 2 or 3 busses it could tempt more people in on matchday. I'm not the only fan I know that finds the traffic situation off-putting.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 10, 2017 7:58:06 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me: 1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner. 2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement. 3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is. What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term. Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course). Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who has ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and around the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up and down Glos Rd and Muller Rd. The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will of course come at a cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective. Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this. UTG! Coventry's Ricoh Arena only has limited onsite parking, it makes it a pain to get to but shows it's possible to get planning, the big one for the previous owners was the costs of meeting the car parking arrangements plus if we are going to build a fantastic stadium at the Mem can it be financed? Also Wael has been clever to say regeneration which is not the same as redevelopment, does the fact he's just spent £100K on the pitch suggest that's not being moved anywhere soon? Although I'd take a rebuild of the Mem stand by stand if we just get on and start it this decade, as we may just keep DC if we do.
|
|
|
Post by Iliveinbidefordgas on Aug 10, 2017 8:04:33 GMT
For me the issue with parking is a valid one. If there was a park & ride, or other easily accessible mode of transport from areas a bit further out without having to take 2 or 3 busses it could tempt more people in on matchday. I'm not the only fan I know that finds the traffic situation off-putting. agree with you only problem first group would probably run it who let's be honest could not organise water up in brewery!!!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone on Aug 10, 2017 8:07:05 GMT
For me the issue with parking is a valid one. If there was a park & ride, or other easily accessible mode of transport from areas a bit further out without having to take 2 or 3 busses it could tempt more people in on matchday. I'm not the only fan I know that finds the traffic situation off-putting. I live about 3-4 miles from the mem with no direct buses available so I drive to the end of Filton Av, park up by the King George (on street for free) and then catch the bus along Filton Av, adds some time but no real hassle.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 10, 2017 8:09:46 GMT
On almost every other thread people bemoan the lack of matchday parking as a deal breaker. I don't know of many other grounds that have allocated matchday parking. People will have to use the bus, or walk. Like they do everywhere else. That isn't a viable option for all of us you know but obviously is for you so f**k the rest of us hey!!! Pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 10, 2017 8:10:29 GMT
On almost every other thread people bemoan the lack of matchday parking as a deal breaker. I don't know of many other grounds that have allocated matchday parking. People will have to use the bus, or walk. Like they do everywhere else. I agree. The oddity is many assumed that UWE would be easily better for this. 1) the traffic around Frenchay is woeful when it gets busy. 2) the parking would cost. 3) more would have to drive, being out of town. I think overall the 'parking and traffic' would be a marginal improvement at best. Having been to reading many times and seen the congestion on matchday (doesn't get bad at other times) it's not true that the UWE would be a car owners dream. 100% need facilities for driving. Some require it, But people who can should walk. Applies to the Mem. i will have to get my long distance Zimmer out then
|
|
|
Post by bluestone on Aug 10, 2017 8:10:42 GMT
[/quote]I would like to think there would be more seating and less accommodation in a new design. Like someone else has posted the sitesize is similar to Chelseas, Stamford Bridge is a 41,000 seater stadium, not saying that we need 41,000 but im sure they can come up with something more ambitious than the original 18K.
[/quote] I agree, 20k would be great, less accommodation ideal but it needs to be financed by something and short of student accommodation / hotel / conference facilities I am not sure what else would work with our location.
|
|
|
Post by p4perlant3rn on Aug 10, 2017 8:14:37 GMT
When looking at the consented design a few things stood out for me: 1) How much they managed to squeeze on the site, the stadium is much bigger than I expected, this is partly due to the fact that it is wrapped with student accommodation and has a hotel on one corner. 2) The height of the stadium, it is 7 storeys high and with the big trusses on top of each stand it certainly is not a low rise and subtle structure like the UWE design, however this seems to be at least partly by design, i.e. to make an architectural statement. 3) The limited site area around the stadium and how little parking there is. What this tells me is that the club have already established a precedent for building a big stadium on our site in the not too distant past (2008). This is extremely positive as a lot of the neighbourhood issues have been successfully dealt with once before, meaning our chances of success this time around are reasonably high and risk of rejection quite low. I'm struggling to see anything that has really changed in terms of the environment and demographics around the site that would give cause to any sensible objections that the council would have to consider giving them an excuse to refuse consent. Furthermore the ground being a memorial site is surely designated for sports use and our redevelopment would secure that for the long term. Whist I agree with some of the concerns raised over the parking and access, having had some involvement in the dreaded arena, the council are actually pushing for less and less parking on developments to move people away from cars and onto public transport (disabled provisions apart of course). Part of the consent (which will be reinforced through conditions no doubt) will be match day traffic and access management, this is perfectly normal and happens at all large stadia. Anyone who has ever been to the millennium stadium will have experienced it, there are road closures and pedestrian marshalling measures put in place to manage the flow of people and vehicles to, from and around the ground. There is virtually none of this at the moment. For instance it would make sense to make Filton Avenue residents and club only access on match day and let all other traffic divert up and down Glos Rd and Muller Rd. The other thing is that we could decide to build a basement and put car parking under the stadium, this will of course come at a cost but it is certainly feasible from a technical perspective. Whilst the new design will no doubt be completely different to the 2008 version I have shared, I am now feeling very positive about what might be able to be achieved with a mem redevelopment and am excited to see what Wael & Co can come up with. Let's accept the decision that has been made, have some positive thinking about the potential we have on our own site and get fully behind the club on this. UTG! Great post.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Aug 10, 2017 8:18:02 GMT
I would like to think there would be more seating and less accommodation in a new design. Like someone else has posted the sitesize is similar to Chelseas, Stamford Bridge is a 41,000 seater stadium, not saying that we need 41,000 but im sure they can come up with something more ambitious than the original 18K. [/quote] I agree, 20k would be great, less accommodation ideal but it needs to be financed by something and short of student accommodation / hotel / conference facilities I am not sure what else would work with our location.[/quote] At Uwe it could have been expanded to 33,000 if we need it in the future. If this can't be extended in the future. Would people go for more seats and not have it full straight away? Think Spurs new ground is going to hold a few more than the Emirate's stadium. How much does Trashton hold again??
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Aug 10, 2017 8:20:54 GMT
That isn't a viable option for all of us you know but obviously is for you so f**k the rest of us hey!!! Pedantic. That isn't pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pond on Aug 10, 2017 8:23:31 GMT
For me the issue with parking is a valid one. If there was a park & ride, or other easily accessible mode of transport from areas a bit further out without having to take 2 or 3 busses it could tempt more people in on matchday. I'm not the only fan I know that finds the traffic situation off-putting. Is the new Park and Ride at Emersons Green open? could do with buses to the Mem. This could take loads of traffic of the roads from Kingswood and Emerson Green. Update : Service Information This new facility in South Gloucestershire is now open. It is hoped that during the Bromley Heath viaduct works, drivers will park on site and make their onward journey using public transport, car sharing, walking or cycling. Car Parking Parking is free. There will be 102 spaces, 16 disabled bays, 24 cycle spaces and one motorcycle bay open for use initially with a further 144 spaces opening shortly. Only 262 spaces for cars but walking distance for a few GASHEADS in Emersons
|
|
|
Post by p4perlant3rn on Aug 10, 2017 8:26:44 GMT
For me the issue with parking is a valid one. If there was a park & ride, or other easily accessible mode of transport from areas a bit further out without having to take 2 or 3 busses it could tempt more people in on matchday. I'm not the only fan I know that finds the traffic situation off-putting. Is the new Park and Ride at Emersons Green is now open? could do with buses to the Mem. This could take loads of traffic of the roads from Kingswood and Emerson Green. There is also the P&R at Parkway station which could be another option from that side of town.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 10, 2017 8:32:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Aug 10, 2017 8:38:28 GMT
That certainly is pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Aug 10, 2017 8:46:59 GMT
Whilst I don't think the Mem is viable, would we be able to : A) Dig out a suitable size bowl to put in the lower tier for fans in the knowledge that a second tier could be built when required?
B) presumably if we aren't to move out temporarily, presumably a new stand could be built behind the dribuild stand, then when complete, knock down the current stand. Then move the position of the pitch towards the new stand.
C) then knock down the Thatchers end and rebuild it to match the new existing east stand.
D) Then knock down the west stand and rebuild to match the new Thatchers end.
E) Then the tent end. It cannot take a bigger structure without a new huge retaining wall being built. Do we have to buy up a house or two to utilise their gardens for the wall?
Ground would need to hold at least 20,000 to sustain a championship club.
The more I think about it, how on earth is all this viable?
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Aug 10, 2017 8:47:40 GMT
Could a loftus road type stadium be suitable. Went there a few years ago for a top flight game and found the build upwards rather than back made for quite a close to pitch experience. Regarding transport. I did mention on another thread about potential of train station by the old B&Q on muller road. Just been browsing online and residents have been calling for reopening of Ashley Hill station as recently as May 16. I'm useless with links so if you search 'Residents want more local railway stations in Bishopston & Horfield' for a read. Club offer to help & that'll help butter up the NIMBYs
|
|