New stadium thread

[rocket_scientist]

The article wasn't really against new stadiums, just that it should have some character that makes it feel like home. They were saying the Emirates has it (rocket seems to have mid-read the article) but West Ham clearly doesn't, and neither does Wembley.

 

I could ask you why you thought I'd misread the article but that would be cruel, as you would just dig yourself deeper.

 

The architect who built the Emirates waxed lyrical about his own work but the article itself noted that it has its detractors, putting forward a pathetic argument that the football itself was a reason for dissatisfaction.

 

Have you been to the Emirates? I have and it's soulless. A spectacular amphitheatre for sure and convenient for accessing with its total concourse but it's impossible to generate any decent atmosphere within it.

 

Had you been to Highbury? I did, twice and it was superb. I can't remember the reasons they felt they had to move - probably financial - and I'm not therefore in a position to comment on how necessary or otherwise the relocation was. All I do know is that their new home has lost something compared to the old one so I'm not inclined to agree with the architect and his self-aggrandisement.

 

It's best to experience something for yourself rather than taking the word of a vested interest and failing to note the acknowledgment that there were counterviews. When you're on solid ground like that, only then can you imply that a fellow Dons fan is a fucking retard who can't read nor think properly.

[RicoS321]

A lot of people say it'll be another McDiarmid Park. The thing is, turn up at St Johnstone at 2pm on a Tuesday, and there's nothing except concrete and some seats. Maybe a small ticket office and a club shop. That's not what Aberdeen's vision is. They want the whole club on this one campus, almost a community. So you turn up at 2pm on a Tuesday and the first team are training, there's events on at the AFCCT, kids are training on the community pitches, you've got the car, cafe, museum and memorial garden. It's Aberdeen's home, and it's buzzing Monday to Sunday with the focal point the match day.

 

"AFC, buzzing Monday to Sunday". Come on min, that's manufactured pish. It isn't Aberdeen's home and it won't be if those are the plans. That's not sustainable in the slightest, nobody has any reason to go to the middle of nowhere in their car for a coffee and memorial garden in memory of something that existed somewhere else. If that was viable, they'd have had a dons coffee shop and museum where the broadhill is 15 years ago. They'll add a coffee shop when building the stadium because it's easy to do but it's not going to be raking it in due to lack of footfall. The reason St Johnstone, and Pittodrie, have just a shop and ticket office is because that's what people go to those places to use during the midweek (less and less so with online purchasing).

 

I'd like to see them go further, which is what you've alluded to in your post. If you look at Roma's stadium plans, they're actually building shops, restaurants, music venues, basically a "Roma village" - I'll post the video below. Would be good if Aberdeen could link up the council and either prime four or other developers wanting to build near the stadium, and like you say rather than just build houses and offices build something that actually makes that area a bit more interesting and gives it a bit of character. It shouldn't be all the club's job though - this is where the council should be showing a bit of vision and thinking "okay, how do we reap the benefits of this £50m private investment?"

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not? That will be nothing like AFC's proposal; the exact opposite. Throwing in the "£50m" as if we should ultimately bow to the mention of money. The amount of money is completely irrelevant (also, it's fuck all), it's being used to purchase/build an asset for AFC, nothing else. The council do not owe AFC anything. If they've built the ground in a place that's unsuitable for surrounding development and that doesn't tie in with future development of the city then it's entirely AFC's fault. They didn't involve the council, they acted independently and they put it in a shite location as they're entitled to do. The council's "vision" shouldn't incorporate AFC's lack of vision. They've built in green belt fucking land, at the opposite side of the city bypass (the clue is in the fucking name) from the actual city itself. Do you genuinely believe that there will be further useful development between Westhill and the AWPR that will positively affect the stadium? Do you think AFC think that? I understand your enthusiasm, but I genuinely think it's misplaced. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The stadium, coffee shop etc is it. That's the development.

[Dunty]

I could ask you why you thought I'd misread the article but that would be cruel, as you would just dig yourself deeper.

 

The architect who built the Emirates waxed lyrical about his own work but the article itself noted that it has its detractors, putting forward a pathetic argument that the football itself was a reason for dissatisfaction.

 

Have you been to the Emirates? I have and it's soulless. A spectacular amphitheatre for sure and convenient for accessing with its total concourse but it's impossible to generate any decent atmosphere within it.

 

Had you been to Highbury? I did, twice and it was superb. I can't remember the reasons they felt they had to move - probably financial - and I'm not therefore in a position to comment on how necessary or otherwise the relocation was. All I do know is that their new home has lost something compared to the old one so I'm not inclined to agree with the architect and his self-aggrandisement.

 

It's best to experience something for yourself rather than taking the word of a vested interest and failing to note the acknowledgment that there were counterviews. When you're on solid ground like that, only then can you imply that a fellow Dons fan is a fucking retard who can't read nor think properly.

 

Yes I've been to the emirates. Toilets too small but apart from that a very good stadium.

 

Fans of other clubs voted it the best stadium in England recently and their favourite away day, for what it's worth.

[rocket_scientist]

Yes I've been to the emirates. Toilets too small but apart from that a very good stadium.

 

Fans of other clubs voted it the best stadium in England recently and their favourite away day, for what it's worth.

 

I also said it was a very good stadium. "Spectacular amphitheatre" were my words.

 

For what it's worth? You mean, like people have opinions, and some of them are different from other opinions? Yes I knew that. The article knew that too, which is why it acknowledged that the architect's blowing of his own trumpet was countered by others who do NOT like it.

 

Even if a majority think it's brilliant, that doesn't mean that we can't discuss the exact theme that the article was talking about. What did I misread? That you, the architect and a bunch of people like the stadium? I like it too but IN MY OPINION it is 1. soulless (but efficient) and 2. not nearly as good as Highbury was.

[tamzarian]

 

 

A lot of people say it'll be another McDiarmid Park.

 

Nah.  I once hoofed it from McDiarmid Park to Perth train station.  Not that bad a walk actually.  I was pished, obviously. 

[Dunty]

I also said it was a very good stadium. "Spectacular amphitheatre" were my words.

 

For what it's worth? You mean, like people have opinions, and some of them are different from other opinions? Yes I knew that. The article knew that too, which is why it acknowledged that the architect's blowing of his own trumpet was countered by others who do NOT like it.

 

Even if a majority think it's brilliant, that doesn't mean that we can't discuss the exact theme that the article was talking about. What did I misread? That you, the architect and a bunch of people like the stadium? I like it too but IN MY OPINION it is 1. soulless (but efficient) and 2. not nearly as good as Highbury was.

 

There's nothing soulless about it. Just Arsenal fans are shite.

 

The stadium itself is absolutely fine.

[rocket_scientist]

There's nothing soulless about it. Just Arsenal fans are shite.

 

The stadium itself is absolutely fine.

 

In your opinion, my use of the word "soulless" is invalid.

 

I agree that Arsenal fans in the new stadium are "shite".

 

You're obviously trying to agree that there is an atmosphere problem.

 

So how would you try to articulate it?

 

Don't you agree that they were NOT "shite" at Highbury?

 

Wasn't it a brilliant atmosphere there, not just on the North bank but the whole stadium?

[Dunty]

In your opinion, my use of the word "soulless" is invalid.

 

I agree that Arsenal fans in the new stadium are "shite".

 

You're obviously trying to agree that there is an atmosphere problem.

 

So how would you try to articulate it?

 

Don't you agree that they were NOT "shite" at Highbury?

 

Wasn't it a brilliant atmosphere there, not just on the North bank but the whole stadium?

 

What, on your opinion, made Highbury capable of creating such a great atmosphere that they can't seem to do in the Emirates?

[Dunty]

"AFC, buzzing Monday to Sunday". Come on min, that's manufactured pish. It isn't Aberdeen's home and it won't be if those are the plans. That's not sustainable in the slightest, nobody has any reason to go to the middle of nowhere in their car for a coffee and memorial garden in memory of something that existed somewhere else. If that was viable, they'd have had a dons coffee shop and museum where the broadhill is 15 years ago. They'll add a coffee shop when building the stadium because it's easy to do but it's not going to be raking it in due to lack of footfall. The reason St Johnstone, and Pittodrie, have just a shop and ticket office is because that's what people go to those places to use during the midweek (less and less so with online purchasing).

 

Pittodrie, in match days, is concrete, seats and a club shop. So you're right, people don't visit it for any other reason than to buy tickets or something from the club shop.

 

I'm not saying people from all over the city will be travelling to Kingsford Monday-Friday. But I'm saying there will be people there every day using various services - AFCCT, the community pitches, the bar, etc. People will go and watch Aberdeen train. There will be people visiting the museum.

 

I don't buy all this soulless stuff. Souless means lacking character and individuality. Kingsford won't be that because it'll be more than just concrete and seats.

 

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not? That will be nothing like AFC's proposal; the exact opposite. Throwing in the "£50m" as if we should ultimately bow to the mention of money. The amount of money is completely irrelevant (also, it's fuck all), it's being used to purchase/build an asset for AFC, nothing else. The council do not owe AFC anything. If they've built the ground in a place that's unsuitable for surrounding development and that doesn't tie in with future development of the city then it's entirely AFC's fault. They didn't involve the council, they acted independently and they put it in a shite location as they're entitled to do. The council's "vision" shouldn't incorporate AFC's lack of vision. They've built in green belt fucking land, at the opposite side of the city bypass (the clue is in the fucking name) from the actual city itself. Do you genuinely believe that there will be further useful development between Westhill and the AWPR that will positively affect the stadium? Do you think AFC think that? I understand your enthusiasm, but I genuinely think it's misplaced. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The stadium, coffee shop etc is it. That's the development.

 

That's just incorrect. You say they didn't involve the council - they did. The council suggested Loirston, then built a school there. They said Kings Links then said they couldn't do anything about the land still being on a lease. They accepted when making the Kingsford decision the club had no-where else to go.

 

That's besides the point anyway. They've given planning permission, there's a £50m project now going ahead, next to a Prime Four development wishing to expand. Both of which are bringing money into the city and creating jobs. A council with any sort of vision would be sitting down and saying "Okay, how do we maximise this", which is exactly what the city of Rome is doing.

 

[rocket_scientist]

What, on your opinion, made Highbury capable of creating such a great atmosphere that they can't seem to do in the Emirates?

 

My opinion on the difference between Highbury and the Emirates derives from exactly the same place as the author of the article you posted - "Grounds grow to match the identity of their team. Character is more important than capacity or a technologically advanced concourse. It can be an ineffable element, but you know it when you see it (or feel it): this sense of where you are, tied not only to geography but to a history".

 

What specifically did I "mid-read"?

[rocket_scientist]

On the subject of the new Roma stadium, the pathos and irony couldn't be more pronounced.

 

Rome is one of my favourite cities in Europe, an architectural masterpiece. The original "stadium for the people" was such a monumental design that it still makes shedloads of cash, many centuries after it was last used. I'm pretty sure that the new one won't outlive one century, concrete, steel and glass not having the properties to endure millennia.

 

Sharing the Olympic Stadium with Lazio was always a temporary accommodation. There is always going to be a need for new stadia as old ones outlive their usefulness and economic, cultural and city-planning requirements change. But isn't it sad that they're only planning for 52,500 seats? And the shopping district attached? This agenda of exclusivity - they're even planning a fanzone outside for the plebs who can't afford it (a demand that won't happen) - and of retail is what developers do, seeking to maximise and squeeze every dollar. But it misses the point and the history of football which was always about the people and the community.

 

Arsenal is a great precedent. The "working man" can't afford the season tickets. In the Platinum Club where we were, it was £6,500 per seat, complete with bevvy at HT (all you could drink, I managed 3 pints) and shit food. The demographic changed overnight with the move to the Emirates. We were surrounded by City types wearing suits and ties (many with pink hues in their shirts and/or ties) that knew fuck all about fitba. These cunts enjoyed their only outlets in their lives to shout and scream but it was embarrassing what came out of their ignorant mouths. They aren't the lifeblood of football. They are unsustainable. They'll get bored of not being the best. They'll not stick with their team through thick and thin.

 

AS Roma are similarly going for the rich buck. They might fill 52,500 for the first 10-15 years but where will they be in 20-25 years time when the steel isn't shiny and their "mall" looks tired? Football has been lost to the moneymen. They never understood the people, the game nor the soul. Stewrat Milne however, he's our saviour.

 

 

[RicoS321]

I don't buy all this soulless stuff. Souless means lacking character and individuality. Kingsford won't be that because it'll be more than just concrete and seats.

 

But it isn't more than that. In the same way as B&Q isn't more than a shop just because there's a burger van next door, or the Stirling services aren't still shite because they've got a Starbucks. Soulless doesn't mean lacking character and individuality, those are architectural qualities of which Kingsford may or may not possess (I have no idea). Soulless is about meaning and lacking of human qualities. That's the entire point. Driving somewhere, getting out, doing your activity, driving home again - that's where the soullessness comes from. No matter who busy Portlethen Asda is, it's entirely soulless and Kingsford is Portlethen Asda in all but the signage.

 

 

That's just incorrect. You say they didn't involve the council - they did. The council suggested Loirston, then built a school there. They said Kings Links then said they couldn't do anything about the land still being on a lease. They accepted when making the Kingsford decision the club had no-where else to go.

 

That's a very partisan view of the process, the club had years to get Loirston sorted if they'd wanted to. The council offered several other sites which were discounted because we "needed" a 25hectare/acre (can't remember which - shitey unit of measure anyway) site. Kings Links fell into that category. The club deliberately stipulated a size that they knew would be too big in order to back up their planning application - they had already decided on Kingsford. There is zero requirement for training and stadium together, with only marginal benefit that could easily be discounted. But you're right, it's beside the point, they gave the planning because that was what was put forward, which is all the council are required to do.

 

They've given planning permission, there's a £50m project now going ahead, next to a Prime Four development wishing to expand. Both of which are bringing money into the city and creating jobs. A council with any sort of vision would be sitting down and saying "Okay, how do we maximise this", which is exactly what the city of Rome is doing.

 

Prime four does not bring money into the city. Have you been there or worked there? Nearly every single company that's there could have located in the city centre. It's a commuter unit dressed as an industrial estate. You drive there, and drive home, bringing your sandwiches (or use the village or Entier's "Fresh" cafe (it's not bad actually)). It's exactly what Kingsford is, the perfect example. It's a self-contained unit designed not to integrate with anything else, built in conjunction with no-one for the benefit of only itself. It's like a Stewart Milne housing development. A self-contained pre-designed entity plonked in whichever location would have them. To compare it the city of Rome thing is, you would surely admit, ridiculous? First, the club are behind the entire Rome development (like AFC are) not the council. It's the equivalent of Trump's Balmedie "resort". It has three rail links. Let's not be stupid here, the two aren't remotely comparable and if that's what you're hoping for then lift your head for a second and look at the Kingsford location. The council have their hands tied here even if they wanted to "maximise" the development. They have no room to develop on the Westhill side, outside the city boundary. It's on green belt land, with privately owned green belt land either side. Not far off, there's a massive road. The stretch of road Kingsford is on is already overwhelmed at peak times, adding more housing or anything else would require completely new infrastructure (and would face years of planning). They can't bring the city out to the ground over time, because it's on the wrong side of the road that is being built to go round the city. Any development that could occur would be tiny due to lack of space. It would be utterly unserved by the city and nobody from the city would ever consider going there. By any logical viewpoint, anything beyond the bypass isn't really Aberdeen and it wouldn't surprise me if boundaries were re-drawn in the future. It's absurd that we've only just built a bypass after 30 years and already AFC have tried to shift the city outwith it.

 

I know you're trying to be positive about it, and I fully understand that, but take a good serious look at the Kingsford location. Look at what surrounds it, look at what doesn't surround it and look at it's position in relation to the city and how it integrates. Point out to me where you think development could occur at a scale that would really make a difference, and really bring Kingsford into the city and make it a part of the city. The sort of development that will make Kingsford more than just a decade long succesful stadium. One that can suffer the Paterson years and the McGhee years and still garner a full house 115 years later. By any objective measure, there is nothing else there and there never will be. By any objective measure, it's not in Aberdeen; the bypass boundary has been drawn. Take a good hard look at that location. It's so short-termist it's unreal. Tell me what I'm missing about Kingsford that makes it a hidden gem. There's more to a ground than the ground itself - that's what we should take from that article that you posted. Kingsford is 100% the ground itself - there is nothing else. I must be missing something? Surely to fuck we're not moving because "oh well, it's handy for the bypass"? I think I need enlightened, there can't be this much support for it if it is as fucking stupid as I think it is (it seems to get worse everytime I look at it). 

[wee toon red]

Arsenal is a great precedent. The "working man" can't afford the season tickets. In the Platinum Club where we were, it was £6,500 per seat, complete with bevvy at HT (all you could drink, I managed 3 pints) and shit food. The demographic changed overnight with the move to the Emirates. We were surrounded by City types wearing suits and ties (many with pink hues in their shirts and/or ties) that knew fuck all about fitba. These cunts enjoyed their only outlets in their lives to shout and scream but it was embarrassing what came out of their ignorant mouths. They aren't the lifeblood of football. They are unsustainable. They'll get bored of not being the best. They'll not stick with their team through thick and thin.

 

Would you agree with that being as much, if not more, of a contributory factor to the shite atmosphere at the Emirates than the actual stadium itself?

[rocket_scientist]

I'm trying to think of new stadia that work, as there are so many that clearly don't, soullessness being a common reason for their failure.

 

Not having any expertise in architecture let alone how to build a stadium, these are merely opinions and observations (before the pedantic posters with Tamson surnames wade in).

 

The Allianz is class but is that just an impression because the club that plays within it (and the region, city and country) is class? I don't think so. It's an innovation of architecture, something that looks and feels good, possibly due to the fact they spent big bucks picking the right architect. On concerts rather than fitba, The Hydro reminds me of the Allianz, probably because of its curvature and exterior lighting but it also looks and feels good, both inside and out and is the best venue I've ever been to for a concert, the O2 Arena in London being shit.

 

What possessed Falkirk and Hamilton to build such ugly shit? And why is the AECC going to be such an underwhelming anti-climax when it opens? It's a tough gig, designing big buildings. Even when they get it right (architecturally, like the Emirates), it doesn't guarantee that it will work. There's more to it than bricks and mortar. Can't think of any great new stadia other than Bayern Munich. Even Stade de France when it was new and I was there for the 1998 first game of the WC had a feeling that it wouldn't last, despite being a great amphitheatre.

[rocket_scientist]

Would you agree with that being as much, if not more, of a contributory factor to the shite atmosphere at the Emirates than the actual stadium itself?

 

Absolutely.

[donsdaft]

Folk are going to go the Westhill United Stadium during the week to "go to the bar"?

 

Sorry I think you've lost it there.

 

Mind you, you have more chance of getting in on a Thursday denner time than an actual match day I suppose.

 

 

I've just about given up being angry about this total abortion of an idea, I just get sad now.

 

Odds on that when / if Pittodrie goes I'll stop going too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course It'll take another 10 years for that to happen.

[Kowalski]

We’re not building the Emirates so why the comparison I don’t know.

 

I went to the Madjeski a few years ago. Cracking stadium, with a brilliant atmosphere. Hoping for something like that.

[donsdaft]

Had to look it up (expected it to be in Poland)

 

No doubt that's the sort of thing they have in mind.

Be a better idea if they built it in Aberdeen though.

[RicoS321]

We’re not building the Emirates so why the comparison I don’t know.

 

There was no comparison, people were simply discussing it, there's a difference. I see this a lot in political discussion these days, people mistaking comparison with conflation, it's frustrating. Like you can't use examples to illustrate any point without being accused of invalid argument or, worse, having offending someone.

 

It's completely valid to compare Arsenal's experience in moving from an old historic ground to us moving from an old historic ground. It is not valid to discuss the problems of building a 90,000 seater stadium. There are possibly valid comparisons with Arsenal building a ground designed for the corporate fan and what we're doing (I've no idea). Basically anything that doesn't talk as if we have an endless pot of cash and a massive support that requires a giant stadium is valid for comparison. There are very valid comparisons to be made and certainly lessons to be learned.

 

I went to the Madjeski a few years ago. Cracking stadium, with a brilliant atmosphere. Hoping for something like that.

 

We're not building the Madjeski, so why the comparison I don't know.

[rocket_scientist]

Well said Rico. Cunts that can't read or think properly are a drag.

[donsdaft]

Just looked it up again, it was built in 1998 ( I don't keep up to date on Reading obviously)

 

Must be showing it's age by now.

 

10 years from a total rebuild.

[Dunty]

On the subject of the new Roma stadium, the pathos and irony couldn't be more pronounced.

 

Rome is one of my favourite cities in Europe, an architectural masterpiece. The original "stadium for the people" was such a monumental design that it still makes shedloads of cash, many centuries after it was last used. I'm pretty sure that the new one won't outlive one century, concrete, steel and glass not having the properties to endure millennia.

 

Sharing the Olympic Stadium with Lazio was always a temporary accommodation. There is always going to be a need for new stadia as old ones outlive their usefulness and economic, cultural and city-planning requirements change. But isn't it sad that they're only planning for 52,500 seats? And the shopping district attached? This agenda of exclusivity - they're even planning a fanzone outside for the plebs who can't afford it (a demand that won't happen) - and of retail is what developers do, seeking to maximise and squeeze every dollar. But it misses the point and the history of football which was always about the people and the community.

 

Arsenal is a great precedent. The "working man" can't afford the season tickets. In the Platinum Club where we were, it was £6,500 per seat, complete with bevvy at HT (all you could drink, I managed 3 pints) and shit food. The demographic changed overnight with the move to the Emirates. We were surrounded by City types wearing suits and ties (many with pink hues in their shirts and/or ties) that knew fuck all about fitba. These cunts enjoyed their only outlets in their lives to shout and scream but it was embarrassing what came out of their ignorant mouths. They aren't the lifeblood of football. They are unsustainable. They'll get bored of not being the best. They'll not stick with their team through thick and thin.

 

AS Roma are similarly going for the rich buck. They might fill 52,500 for the first 10-15 years but where will they be in 20-25 years time when the steel isn't shiny and their "mall" looks tired? Football has been lost to the moneymen. They never understood the people, the game nor the soul. Stewrat Milne however, he's our saviour.

 

All of that has little to do with having a new stadium though. If Roma wish to price their fans out of going they could do it now, they don't need a new stadium to do it. They've a 14,000 capacity stand specifically for the ultras so not sure where you get all that from anyway.

 

As for the capacity - Juventus are the biggest club in Italy with a smaller capacity than that, so don't agree 52,000 is too small.

[rocket_scientist]

All of that has little to do with having a new stadium though. If Roma wish to price their fans out of going they could do it now, they don't need a new stadium to do it. They've a 14,000 capacity stand specifically for the ultras so not sure where you get all that from anyway.

 

As for the capacity - Juventus are the biggest club in Italy with a smaller capacity than that, so don't agree 52,000 is too small.

 

Listen up. Listen carefully.

 

If we have a disagreement, can we at least crystallise it?

 

What's your problem? What's my problem? What are we arguing over?

 

And stop ignoring key crucial questions. You've still never bothered to say what Anderson lacks that May & Cosgrove have got. And I have no idea what we are meant to be discussing on this stadium thread?

[manc_don]

Good read, thanks for posting the link! A lot that I can resonate with.  Found it amusing they got Populous to speak given they are exactly what is wrong with Stadium architecture. There are many parallels with arsenal fans and dons fans though.  Always told to sit down because you're blocking a view, generally shite at home and love a moan.

[tom_widdows]

Stage 1 (foundations, drainage and superstructure (excluding timber kit)) Building warrant approved last week

 

and if anyone is bothered this is the proposed layout for the restuarant development between the stadium and kingswells

 

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D5E49BFCA627CF7A06987B391E9B350C/pdf/181336_DPP-Proposed_Site_Layout-1705312.pdf