New stadium thread

[WeegieRed]

Have you got any evidence to back that up?

 

All new stadium builds, the concourse has to be able to hold 30-50% of "the viewing area that the concourse serves".. The south stand falls well short of that just now, so the stand would have to be wider.

 

Then, the area outside the stand needs to be wider than it currently is.

 

Only way to do it would be to make the capacity of the stand much smaller than it is now, therefore reducing capacity.

[tom_widdows]

Have you got any evidence to back that up?

 

You can build a  new stand on the current footprint of the South stand. The problem is it will not hold the 8104 the current one does.

 

Reasons I can think of for this are as follows

The south stand is a former terrace with seats bolted to it. This was done in the 1970s before Heysel, Hillsbrough, the Bradford City Fire etc which brought in new rules about stadium design. Too many folk think the Taylor report was just 'get rid of standing and everything is solved'. Stadium evacuation, circulation for fans/ security/ emergency service personnel, crowd control were all revised having been neglected for decades.

Primary evacuation routes should always be through the actual stands with fans escaping onto the pitch being seen as a secondary/ last alternative. In large stands/ stadiums evacuations will be staged so large amounts of fans will need to be held in 'places of safety' whilst other sections are let out to prevent crushes

Emergency service vehicles must be able to access all the way around the stadium at the same time as a mass evacuation of supporters is taking place..

Yes you can drive a fire engines along the back of the South stand at the moment but try doing that when faced with 8000 panicking people. Said fire engines would also have to get down Merkland Road/ Golf Road, Pittodrie street all of which could be packed with up to 20000 fans plus other road users.

 

Hibs two largest stands have capacities of 6,407 & 6400 respectively.

Hearts Wheatfield stand holds 5,902. FYI their old main stand actually holds 5,100.

 

Tynecastle is a unique redevelopment in that the concourses under the seats for all 3 new stands are actually linked. They are also raised above ground level so you enter the stands halfway up which allows for emergency access underneath the escaping fans. I am presuming there is significant fire proofing throughout so any fire on the actual seating area would take at least 1hr to reach the concourse.

This is a clever layout but I do wonder if it would be possible in the current regulations (All 3 stands were built in the late 90s). It reminds me of the Westpac stadium in Wellington which has one massive 'wembley way' style access.

 

Easter Road has a carpark and a private road behind their two biggest stands. The away stand has a fairly large concourse and a wide road with what appears to be primarily commercial use therefore quieter on weekends and evenings.

Their biggest issue is the back of the famous 5 which exits right onto Albion place, however the road network allows for diversions so the section directly in front of the turnstiles can be shut on match days.

 

Pittodrie being surrounded by so much residential property effectively rules out buying Merkland Lane and Pittodrie street as it would reduce emergency access for the existing properties.

Building over the top of public roads (Athletico Madrid style) is not easy and very expensive. If yer gonna do it the best time is when the road is being constructed before houses are built nearby.

 

I personally would prefer the club stayed at pittodrie and actually reduced the capacity (Much rather a 80-90% full 14-15k stadium rather than a 50% full 20k one.)

However the consensus is AFC must have at least 20000 seats and thanks to Aberdeen's obsession with building flats over the last 30 years there is non longer the space available to do this.

[scotfree]

Excellent post, Tom. A lot in there that I didn't know.

[RicoS321]

All new stadium builds, the concourse has to be able to hold 30-50% of "the viewing area that the concourse serves".. The south stand falls well short of that just now, so the stand would have to be wider.

 

Then, the area outside the stand needs to be wider than it currently is.

 

Only way to do it would be to make the capacity of the stand much smaller than it is now, therefore reducing capacity.

 

So you have no evidence then? So we wouldn't have to buy the flats? We'd just have to design the current stand differently? The current stand that is almost flat and provides a terrible view for those that aren't directly on the half way line or standing in an uncovered part. Even if you lost 30-50% in depth, you'd gain another 10-15% in height. Lets say you'd lose 3,000 seats in the South Stand (I'm sure there could be an increase in the Main and Merkie), so what? How does that get us to a capacity of 12,500?

 

My point isn't that we should be moving from Pittodrie (that's just my opinion), it's that we're being lied to and not being given all the options. Because if you offered folks an 18,000 seater at Pittodrie or a circa 20,000 seater at Kingsford, I'm absolutely certain the former would get the support. So we're being told 12,500 seats so that only an idiot would think we'd stay put. I want to see the evidence to back up the 12,500 seats and no-one is able to give it. I want to be able to make an informed choice based on evidence rather than some happy-clappy shite about "needing to move on". You haven't provided any evidence, despite a pretty confident statement.

[RicoS321]

Excellent post Tom, some great stuff in there. Interesting. Have you ever compared the depth of Hearts/Hibs versus oor Soother? It's be interesting to see the required space and what we're missing.

 

Also, I've never thought we'd actually have to build over roads and so on. Pittodrie street is very wide, there's a lot of space to move a stand back, I'd reckon about 4 metres at least just by removing parking on that stretch of road. That may cause issue on non-match day, but you could just open the DD concourse for parking for shop-visitors (or the mainer car park). That road isn't used for traffic parking on match day, opposition bus, drop-offs aside.

 

Finally, as you mention, our stands are just bolted on terraces, meaning they're really shallow. We could easily gain a few extra rows by making them steeper. Each row adds a few hundred seats.

 

But, again, because we can't see the breakdown of the 12,500 seater suggestion, it's impossible to put it to bed, or to see if it would be possible to eek out an extra few thousand seats with better design. With your architectural experience, do you genuinely believe that we'd lose the entire capacity of the South Stand by re-building the South, Mainer and Merkland? It seems insane. Or a lie. I'm going for the latter.

 

And to the rest of you reading my solo attempts to remain, what sort of capacity would make your decision difficult? Hypothetically, if we were offered a 17-18K stadium at Pittodrie or a 20K one at Westhill, which would you choose? Or, more importantly, which do you think would be best for the club? It's interesting that Tom says that the 20K was a red-line for supporters. My opinion was that the 20K was a red-line for moving stadium in order to make it worthwhile building a new one rather than an actual requirement. I actually think it'll get knocked down to 19K by the time its actually built anyway, but that's just an entirely un-backed suspicion.

 

 

[KingswellsRed]

Excellent post Tom, some great stuff in there. Interesting. Have you ever compared the depth of Hearts/Hibs versus oor Soother? It's be interesting to see the required space and what we're missing.

 

Also, I've never thought we'd actually have to build over roads and so on. Pittodrie street is very wide, there's a lot of space to move a stand back, I'd reckon about 4 metres at least just by removing parking on that stretch of road. That may cause issue on non-match day, but you could just open the DD concourse for parking for shop-visitors (or the mainer car park). That road isn't used for traffic parking on match day, opposition bus, drop-offs aside.

 

Finally, as you mention, our stands are just bolted on terraces, meaning they're really shallow. We could easily gain a few extra rows by making them steeper. Each row adds a few hundred seats.

 

But, again, because we can't see the breakdown of the 12,500 seater suggestion, it's impossible to put it to bed, or to see if it would be possible to eek out an extra few thousand seats with better design. With your architectural experience, do you genuinely believe that we'd lose the entire capacity of the South Stand by re-building the South, Mainer and Merkland? It seems insane. Or a lie. I'm going for the latter.

 

And to the rest of you reading my solo attempts to remain, what sort of capacity would make your decision difficult? Hypothetically, if we were offered a 17-18K stadium at Pittodrie or a 20K one at Westhill, which would you choose? Or, more importantly, which do you think would be best for the club? It's interesting that Tom says that the 20K was a red-line for supporters. My opinion was that the 20K was a red-line for moving stadium in order to make it worthwhile building a new one rather than an actual requirement. I actually think it'll get knocked down to 19K by the time its actually built anyway, but that's just an entirely un-backed suspicion.

 

My understanding is also that the new stadium will generate a lot more revenue for the club, leading to a better team on the pitch hopefully. I saw mention of an extra £150k per home game being generated compared to the current Pittodrie but that may not be accurate so don't quote me! A redeveloped Pittodrie would likely struggle to generate income in the same way which Tynecastle currently struggles and that is why Hearts have a much lower turnover than us. For me it would be a new stadium over an 18k capacity Pittodrie. (which I don't even think is realistic anyway)

 

I am not saying the above just because it would be convenient for me. I don't really mind so much where the stadium gets built.

[rocket_scientist]

My understanding is also that the new stadium will generate a lot more revenue for the club, leading to a better team on the pitch hopefully. I saw mention of an extra £150k per home game being generated compared to the current Pittodrie but that may not be accurate so don't quote me!

 

The thing that generates additional revenue is additional customers, more fans.

 

What attracts more fans is a good product.

 

Over 20 years ago, as 2IC to then chairman Ian Donald, Stewrat Milne promised that the product should always be the priority.

 

This is how you get a good product: -

 

1. Recruit a good manager

 

2. He recruits good players

 

3. Players and manager work towards success

 

Milne has never recruited a good manager and football was never his priority. So it's no surprise that we've never been close to realising potential let alone being successful for over two whole decades now.

 

It's like his long term agenda for relocation means he can put the product on hold and this is a lie. Delayed gratification and deferring anything resembling success on the field is not dependent primarily on the stadium. It comes with focusing on the football.

 

We have been sold lies for a very long time and whilst it's always been the case that more people watch what's going on rather than make something happen (without having the ability to see), the most unforgivable portion are those who trust anyone and anything in authority, by virtue of them having authority.

 

The day after POTUS and the global protests that went with it, some of those placards held sentiments that can also be applied to Milne and AFC.

 

Einstein said "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything".

 

Martin Luther King said "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people".

 

3 kinds of people; those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, those who go - shit, what happened? The reason there are fewer bosses than workers is that most workers don't have the imagination to see opportunities or the bigger picture. They can't operate beyond doing what they're told to do.

 

It was ever thus and I don't blame them for that. But those evil worker spineless bastards who add zero value and at the same time endorse and support authority, they're blind pigs. In the middle of the last century, the generation before mine were taught to respect lawyers, teachers and bank managers. Politicians were invisible in their communities but known to exist in Westminster so they read their papers and voted the way they were conditioned to.

 

Fast forward 50 or 60 years and we have Blair, Cameron (and irrelevantly, May) running the country. And talk of the next "rising star", Boris Johnson running it in the future. These ingrained ruling classes are so evil, and so detached on a huminatarian level, it takes a special kind of fuckwit not to see it. The Bullingdon club members - of which Cameron and Johnson took part - found it funny to light cigars in front of beggars using £50 notes. Think about that. They could light a cigar from the lighter directly but chose to light the note first, therefore deliberately ridiculing one less fortunate in material wealth terms, as if money was the only thing that mattered.

 

And we voted these sick cunts in. Collectively. Not Scotland. But we are so weak, so silent, so stupid, we continue to trust cunts in suits with posh accents or almost anyone in charge. Milne's in charge of AFC and he's getting off with murder. We weren't consulted on the options. We have been fed lies. We have seen him wreck the balance sheet and preside over a shite football team which doesn't attract anything like the potential fan base it should attract. His murder was AFC and most of you fucking muppets can't see it.

 

 

[tom_widdows]

The current stand that is almost flat and provides a terrible view for those that aren't directly on the half way line or standing in an uncovered part. Even if you lost 30-50% in depth, you'd gain another 10-15% in height. Lets say you'd lose 3,000 seats in the South Stand (I'm sure there could be an increase in the Main and Merkie), so what?

 

Increase the height of the South stand and you are making an existing situation worse for neighbouring properties. The flats behind the south immediately have a valid objection which the planners would need to consider very carefully.

 

Making the stands taller unfortunately does not necessarily offset the loss of seats. New Regs about widths of aisles and amount of space in-front of each seat both when folded up and when people are sitting/ standing will apply (part of of this will come under the DDA act and accessibility regs. These are not just for wheelchair users, they cover anyone who has impaired mobility). At the moment the South stand concourses are at the back of the stand. The 'external' one is narrow but as an escape route just for fans is just about passable (existing situation) although I fear in a few seasons the club will be forced to restrict the capacity to obtain a safety certificate.

The internal one is also narrow (too narrow for the capacity) and made worse by having the snack kiosks and toilets all along the back. The queues for both restrict circulation.

 

In a new stand all the services, toilets, snack bars etc would need to be moved under the seating area and all circulation routes would need to be designed so that you must purposefully deviate from to reach them eg go through a set of doors. That way should you suddenly have to evacuate the escape routes (vomitories) would not be blocked by people waiting for their Bovril.

The internal routes must then lead to a controllable external muster point with escape routes in multiple directions and wide enough for people to escape at the same time as the emergency services are arriving. Ideally this would be a carpark or private road. Unfortunately the south stand is enclosed with a boundary wall forcing people to go in max 2 directions.

The minimum emergency vehicle lane width is 3.7m between kerbs. You must then add the width of the pedestrian escape route to that which is calculated based on the number of fans who may be forced to use it. The standard calc for a non domestic building  is 5.3 x the occupancy capacity = aggregate width in mm. Very rough calculation and I'd look for someone with stadium design experience to correct me if necessary (I have only worked on medium sized conference facilities), but say an escape route is designed to take 4000 people (worst case scenario ie other escape routes are blocked) then it would need to be 21.2m wide. For 8000 fans this increases to 42.4m. Think about this next time you are leaving the South stand.

 

 

Also, I've never thought we'd actually have to build over roads and so on. Pittodrie street is very wide, there's a lot of space to move a stand back, I'd reckon about 4 metres at least just by removing parking on that stretch of road. That may cause issue on non-match day, but you could just open the DD concourse for parking for shop-visitors (or the mainer car park). That road isn't used for traffic parking on match day, opposition bus, drop-offs aside.

 

I could be wrong but I don't think the club have any ownership of Pittodrie Street. Its in a predominantly residential area and residents will accept they live next to a stadium so cant park in certain areas on match days. However suddenly telling them they cant park on the street at all is a serious can of worms and the planners would need to have some serious balls to even consider letting that one through. One of the first rules of redevelopment is you cannot make an existing situation worse. Narrowing that road does just that. You also have to look at the effect of changing one section of a long street with no breaks (all side streets give way to Pittodrie street). To ease the effect of narrowing it along the back of the Main stand I think you would need to start the narrowing process at Ardarroch Road

 

For the club to offer up the DD concourse and their own car-park for residential or visitor parking on non-match days is another legal minefield. The main stand car-park would need to be renovated to a certain standard for a start. The club could then potentially be held liable for any damage to the owners vehicles increasing their own insurance costs. Same would apply for the RDS concourse and would probably be even worse given one of its functions is to allow access for emergency vehicles so the club would then need to have someone patrol the area to make sure your average selfish moron doesn't abandon their car in a stupid place just because 'they will only be 5mins'.

 

Thinking about it now, that 12500 figure is probably reasonably accurate. If all 3 stands ended up with capacities reduced by 50% it would equate to total capacity of 13,922. Add in the now 'necessary' corporate facilities to them and the seating capacity is cut again.

Some clever designing and help from the planners could possibly push that up a tiny bit but not much.

 

There is at least one person who used to post on here who has worked on a stadium redevelopment. They will certainly have a better idea of what could be achieved and hopefully will pop their head above the ramparts again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OxfordDon]

Hemmin Tom, all these rational, well articulated posts and you've nae even a single Simmie to yer name?  Cannae be having that.

[tom_widdows]

Hemmin Tom, all these rational, well articulated posts and you've nae even a single Simmie to yer name?  Cannae be having that.

 

24hrs ago it was 60 Durrants. Not sure what happened but I'm sure it wont be long till a similar situation returns

[Elgindon]

Looks like someone doesnt like what you said

[OxfordDon]

Well, i gave you one and now you're back to 0.  Maybe you're being stealth-durranted by an obsessive stalker 

[Edinburghdon]

Well, i gave you one and now you're back to 0.  Maybe you're being stealth-durranted by an obsessive stalker 

 

I'm not sure if we would have an obsessive type character on this board... nobody springs to mind anyway 

 

Really well thought out and informative post though, sure people will still refuse to accept it if it hasn't been looked at officially (probably pissing away money needlessly) and they may have a case but at least it gives some credit to the theory that redeveloping the existing site isn't an option any more.

[tom_widdows]

Ladies and Gentleman

 

Aberdeen also seems to have caught student halls fever (Glasgow is being swallowed up by them at the moment)

 

If pittodrie is to be sold I suspect this will be site's future

 

http://www.urbanrealm.com/news/6597/Aberdeen_student_housing_duo_win_planning_consent.html

 

 

[WeegieRed]

So you have no evidence then? So we wouldn't have to buy the flats? We'd just have to design the current stand differently? The current stand that is almost flat and provides a terrible view for those that aren't directly on the half way line or standing in an uncovered part. Even if you lost 30-50% in depth, you'd gain another 10-15% in height. Lets say you'd lose 3,000 seats in the South Stand (I'm sure there could be an increase in the Main and Merkie), so what? How does that get us to a capacity of 12,500?

 

My point isn't that we should be moving from Pittodrie (that's just my opinion), it's that we're being lied to and not being given all the options. Because if you offered folks an 18,000 seater at Pittodrie or a circa 20,000 seater at Kingsford, I'm absolutely certain the former would get the support. So we're being told 12,500 seats so that only an idiot would think we'd stay put. I want to see the evidence to back up the 12,500 seats and no-one is able to give it. I want to be able to make an informed choice based on evidence rather than some happy-clappy shite about "needing to move on". You haven't provided any evidence, despite a pretty confident statement.

 

I wrongly presumed you would have google and the ability to type the words "new stadium building regulations", but I've obviously given you too much credit

 

Here you go, first result, 232 pages. Use the contents page to direct you to the relevant parts.

 

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf

 

As a note, we wouldn't lose depth but gain height. The flats would make that difficult anyway. As Tom says, there simply is not enough space for an 8,000 capacity stand.

[RicoS321]

I wrongly presumed you would have google and the ability to type the words "new stadium building regulations", but I've obviously given you too much credit

 

Here you go, first result, 232 pages. Use the contents page to direct you to the relevant parts.

 

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf

 

As a note, we wouldn't lose depth but gain height. The flats would make that difficult anyway. As Tom says, there simply is not enough space for an 8,000 capacity stand.

 

Aye, very good. None of that is evidence that we'd need to buy the flats, which you entirely made up and presented in a condescending tone. Tom has the decency to answer the question properly, you just come across as a dick.

[RicoS321]

I won't quote it Tom, but fantastic post (the big een). Answers a lot of questions, thanks. The thing I struggle with, though, is that there are huge hurdles for the new stadium too. Why should these be seen as something that can be overcome, but not those at Pittodrie? I'd have thought that those more used to a stadium on their doorstep would be more pliable. Or is it just the fact that there are no specific planning regulations that prevent Kingsford (is it on greenbelt)? Also, would it have been that difficult to outline the 12,500 seater stadium as well as provide the reasoning that you have (otherwise how do you come up with that figure)? They spent £400K on the consultation if I remember correctly. Surely that could buy a set of outline plans? It's just always struck me that the club have not provided the detail, or even attempted to, so that people can see for themselves. The consultation struck me as one of those consultations that governments do to provide "evidence" to back up a plan they've already devised and are going to go ahead with regardless, so I hope folk can see why I'm sceptical.

 

Anyway, no further questions, thanks for your post.

[manc_don]

Aye, very good. None of that is evidence that we'd need to buy the flats, which you entirely made up and presented in a condescending tone. Tom has the decency to answer the question properly, you just come across as a dick.

 

I guess the point he's trying to make is that if we wanted to achieve anywhere near the same levels, wed have to buy the flats out at the back.  As I said earlier in this thread, pages and pages ago, it would appear that you could fit the new afc Wimbledon stadium on the site but you'd have to shift Pittodrie and probably knock the flats down due to light restrictions- as Tom says, making an existing situation worse.

All of which makes makes doing up Pittodrie very expensive. Selling that land was a mistake, although I'm guessing it might have kept us afloat during a time of need?

 

I will say this though, our scheme for AFCW had approval for a 7m wide "Street" for use as emergency vehicle access and matches access and egress. Something which I think, when it does get built will be a bit of an operational nightmare but those were the boundary lines fixed by the master plan and developers.

 

To comment on your last post, it would have been included within that figure but probably wouldn't have been made public. It would surprise me if it wasn't looked at one point but probably knocked back because realistically, say a 12.5k would be laughable.

[WeegieRed]

Aye, very good. None of that is evidence that we'd need to buy the flats, which you entirely made up and presented in a condescending tone. Tom has the decency to answer the question properly, you just come across as a dick.

 

Whatever. Whether I'm a dick or not, I'm still correct.

 

Where's your evidence that we could re-build an 18,000 stadium on the current site?

[RicoS321]

Whatever. Whether I'm a dick or not, I'm still correct.

 

Where's your evidence that we could re-build an 18,000 stadium on the current site?

 

Except you're not correct. There is no evidence at all that we'd have to sell flats, and you provided none. Evidence would be a diagram showing the trajectory of light over a proposed development. Anything else is informed or uninformed speculation. But you're probably not a dick. That was uncalled for. Apologies.

 

I have no evidence, nor have I ever suggested I did. The onus has never been on me to provide it. I'm suggesting that there's a drawing out there that shows the 12.5K that I'd like to see. It must exist, or else that figure wouldn't.

[Slim]

Unless my memory is failing me, we paid an external party about 600k to produce a feasibility study into the location of the new stadium, including redeveloping the current site. Presumably there's a big binder sitting somewhere in Pittodrie with all the information inside. Has any shareholder tried requesting a copy, or just even read it?

[KingswellsRed]

 

The thing that generates additional revenue is additional customers, more fans.

 

 

It is not as simple as that these days. You need the facilities in order to make good money from home games. Hearts are selling out most home games but because Tynecastle is basically 3 soon to be 4 sheds or bus shelters with little hospitality facilities their turnover is far less than ours. Even when their new stand goes up, they will still have less facilities than the current Pittodrie and far less than our proposed new stadium. The opportunity to increase our revenue with this new stadium is massive and should put us ahead of the likes of the Edinburgh clubs for years

[rocket_scientist]

It is not as simple as that these days. You need the facilities in order to make good money from home games. Hearts are selling out most home games but because Tynecastle is basically 3 soon to be 4 sheds or bus shelters with little hospitality facilities their turnover is far less than ours. Even when their new stand goes up, they will still have less facilities than the current Pittodrie and far less than our proposed new stadium. The opportunity to increase our revenue with this new stadium is massive and should put us ahead of the likes of the Edinburgh clubs for years

 

I can assure you that it is as simple as more customers = more revenue.

 

You took one line from my post. I also said that it wasn't PRIMARILY stadium-dependent.

 

Of course improved facilities will attract more customers and everything i.e. commercial sponsorship that goes with this.

 

But the product is all important, which was the main thrust of my post.

[rocket_scientist]

On the main topic, I fully concede that continuing at Pittodrie may now be an obsolete prospect. Regulation will have overtaken us but the continuing neglect, not just stadium-maintenance but in failing to have a developmemt plan which would have had us objecting to the proximate residential flats and even competing for the adjacent land (or not selling whatever we had once upon a time or failing to secure options) is systematic of a one-man agenda.

 

What sticks in the craw the most is two things: -

 

1. That we were never consulted.

 

2. That the paint was barely dry on the brand new RDS when he started his shite.

[KingswellsRed]

I can assure you that it is as simple as more customers = more revenue.

 

You took one line from my post. I also said that it wasn't PRIMARILY stadium-dependent.

 

Of course improved facilities will attract more customers and everything i.e. commercial sponsorship that goes with this.

 

But the product is all important, which was the main thrust of my post.

 

I can assure you it is not that simple. 16 thousand fans every couple of weeks with little hospitality would bring in less revenue than 12 thousand fans plus a lot of hospitality, fans bar etc. It is not just match days the facilities can be rented out for money either. The ability to bring in money every day of the week is a big part of running a successful club nowadays.