New stadium thread

[CvB]

and....they object.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459

 

at the end of the day though, does their objection hold any sway over the Aberdeen Councils decision?

 

Would it be like me objecting to a boy three streets away putting up an extension?

[manc_don]

at the end of the day though, does their objection hold any sway over the Aberdeen Councils decision?

 

Would it be like me objecting to a boy three streets away putting up an extension?

 

Legally speaking no it doesn't, however as a consultee it will have some bearing on what they think.  Hopefully the city council aren't so daft (I don't in believe it when i'm writing it).  They will make their decision in June.

 

 

[tom_widdows]

Hopefully the city council aren't so daft

 

Depends if they still have that lady who suggested they scrap the bypass in favour of a tunnel under the City as it would reduce the chances of the road being blocked by snow.

 

[RicoS321]

Is this not a bit like the Trump course though? In that it was a draw 7-a-piece, so the chairman is obliged to vote no until there is a consensus? It's not exactly an overwhelming objection, I can't see it making a difference.

[BigAl]

Is this not a bit like the Trump course though? In that it was a draw 7-a-piece, so the chairman is obliged to vote no until there is a consensus? It's not exactly an overwhelming objection, I can't see it making a difference.

 

Would like to think your summation is correct Rico

[100% Anti Kingsford]

I expect the usual stuff in reply, its fine I have had a lot of abuse through the whole campaign against Kingsford online.

 

I understand that its a highly divisive topic and not all Dons fan agree.

 

Just to enlighten those unclear and requiring 'clarity' about the Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructural Committee held 0n 16.03:

 

- The plans were submitted in January.  Its not a case of a lots of council members meeting on June 20th and saying Yes or No.  Like any legislature or governance board a cross feed of consultant committees, specialists, planners and public opinions contribute to the final decision.  At the moment the crucial stakeholders (and ISC were one) have fed in negative consulting papers.  As did the Road / Transport guys at ACC. 

 

-There was no 7 v 7 'split' amongst councillors on 16.03 at Woodhill House.  7 committee members objected and 7 others did not object or approve.  7 only abstained so they they could get 'clarity' about the transport plans which at the moment are not good.  The presiding officer called the Transport Plan for Kingsford ' A Dogs Breakfast' and formed an objection for the group as a representation voice for all the committee members.

 

Not a single person in the committee 'approved'.  There was no 7 v 7 split.

 

- At the current time there is a lots of consensus amongst lots of council members everywhere that the stadium idea is great.  That is a 'new stadium idea is great' but Kingsford is not 'great' - that is the consensus.  A lot of Dons fans seem to think 'Oh, it looks good it must be approved'.  However at the moment it is a planning submission and planning submissions do not get approved as they 'look good'.  To sum up and BE CLEAR the Transport Assessment related to the stadium plans (which is pivotal to the whole thing) is a total and utter amateurish, dogs breakfast mess which is an insult to the word 'plans'.  At the moment the stadium plans for Kingsford will be declined.  Why?  Poor access, parking issues, crime worries, poor access for fans via road, road problems on the A944 (or whatever its called), can't walk safely, cannot cycle safely on the route etc etc.

 

The club seem to think 5-6000 people will queue up for a bus in the city and get shuttled out.  We'll take a look at a video of Treblinka or Auchwitz on Youtube and you will get the idea.  Hearding people like cattle on buses is not going to work.

 

There is not no-where enough parking space.

 

I would take the opportunity to inform users here Aberdeen City Council have previously stated they want to work with AFC towards identifying land for a stadium WITHIN the city.  The club appear (as with Beach Kings Links) to be declining this possibly.  It would appear Milne / Yule are hellbent on moving to the Shire at any-cost.

 

Someone is able to line pockets from Kingsford land - that is why it's been chosen.

 

Sadly this whole thing has turned into a blinkered NIMBYS v PRO KINGSFORD argument.  Its not. Lots of people in No Kingsford camp are Dons fans who want good facilities for the Dons.

 

The problem is the Club have submitted a plan for a stadium in a place (Westhill/Kingswells) that is totally and utterly unsuitable for a football stadium.  The area, access etc is not fit for matchday purposes. The plans show a complete and utter lack of foresight and are now teetering on the brink of failure.

 

I would remind you all the failings of the club to 'deliver' a new stadium goes back to July 1999.  All the signs are you can add Kingsford to that long line of failings............

 

 

[RicoS321]

Welcome aboard Auntie Kingsford.

 

I also think that the transport plans are absolutely shite and the location is also absolutely shite.

 

Thanks for clarifying about the 7 - 7 split (or nae), that was my mistake.

 

However, you've given people the opportunity to be faux-offended by your jew-based comments, which might just detract from yer other points a touch.

[BigAl]

Started out as if going to be reasonably well presented piece.

Don't know how it finished as gave up when I got to the Treblinka comment and any merits your post may have contained suddenly disappeared.

[donsdaft]

Nobody's suggesting moving to the shire.

[Edinburghdon]

I expect the usual stuff in reply, its fine I have had a lot of abuse through the whole campaign against Kingsford online.

 

I understand that its a highly divisive topic and not all Dons fan agree.

 

Just to enlighten those unclear and requiring 'clarity' about the Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructural Committee held 0n 16.03:

 

- The plans were submitted in January.  Its not a case of a lots of council members meeting on June 20th and saying Yes or No.  Like any legislature or governance board a cross feed of consultant committees, specialists, planners and public opinions contribute to the final decision.  At the moment the crucial stakeholders (and ISC were one) have fed in negative consulting papers.  As did the Road / Transport guys at ACC. 

 

-There was no 7 v 7 'split' amongst councillors on 16.03 at Woodhill House.  7 committee members objected and 7 others did not object or approve.  7 only abstained so they they could get 'clarity' about the transport plans which at the moment are not good.  The presiding officer called the Transport Plan for Kingsford ' A Dogs Breakfast' and formed an objection for the group as a representation voice for all the committee members.

 

Not a single person in the committee 'approved'.  There was no 7 v 7 split

 

I don't think you've seen anyone saying that anyone on the committee approved, it's widely accepted that 7 were reasonable enough to understand the proposal has the potential to be a major benefit to the area but that the plans as they stand need work. The other 7 either believed the issues rightly raised weren't able to be resolved or completely ignored the huge potential benefits that exist for the area (which there are many that the anti kingsford lot seem to either overlook or flat out deny. Which is ridiculous really.

 

Well done for providing the much needed 'clarity' though.

 

 

- At the current time there is a lots of consensus amongst lots of council members everywhere that the stadium idea is great.  That is a 'new stadium idea is great' but Kingsford is not 'great' - that is the consensus.  A lot of Dons fans seem to think 'Oh, it looks good it must be approved'.  However at the moment it is a planning submission and planning submissions do not get approved as they 'look good'.  To sum up and BE CLEAR the Transport Assessment related to the stadium plans (which is pivotal to the whole thing) is a total and utter amateurish, dogs breakfast mess which is an insult to the word 'plans'.  At the moment the stadium plans for Kingsford will be declined.  Why?  Poor access, parking issues, crime worries, poor access for fans via road, road problems on the A944 (or whatever its called), can't walk safely, cannot cycle safely on the route etc etc.

 

I can assure you nobody thinks the proposal is perfect, lots of rational minded people understand that there's absolutely no suitable location within the city centre and the location at kingsford is probably the best alternative and that with some work kingsford could work. Nothing at all to do with looks, all to do with fitting a need and ticking as many boxes as possible. Feel free to suggest a suitable alternative (note, the existing site isn't one).

 

You mention parking issues and access by road, both are a significant improvement on the current situation.

 

as far as crime goes a lot has been made on the number of CCTV cameras in Aberdeen compared to westhill but it's conveniently ignored that the overwhelming majority of these cameras are in the city centre itself rather than the route to pittodrie, it's just as hard monitoring fans between the city centre and pittodrie and the city centre and Westhill. The difference is kingsford will have better CCTV at the stadium and will be designed to maximise segregation between home and away fans. So it's perfectly reasonable to think crime prevention will be easier at the proposed site.

 

As far as walking goes, it's perfectly safe to walk from either westhill or the kingswells park and ride to the proposed site. To suggest otherwise is laughable. People walk that route every day. There's also been a study done on cyclists using the route daily and found the number inconvenienced is in low single figures...

 

 

The club seem to think 5-6000 people will queue up for a bus in the city and get shuttled out.  We'll take a look at a video of Treblinka or Auchwitz on Youtube and you will get the idea.  Hearding people like cattle on buses is not going to work.

Multiple other clubs manages to shuttle  far greater numbers of fans to their stadiums on a weekly basis. It's a damning inditement of Aberdeen if they can't solve that issue. Any number of those stadiums would have been a more relevant point than this...

 

 

There is not no-where enough parking space.

 

Agreed, probably why the club has agreed in principle for additional parking nearby.

 

 

I would take the opportunity to inform users here Aberdeen City Council have previously stated they want to work with AFC towards identifying land for a stadium WITHIN the city.  The club appear (as with Beach Kings Links) to be declining this possibly.  It would appear Milne / Yule are hellbent on moving to the Shire at any-cost.

 

Except the proposed site is within the city boundries...  can you propose any other site within the city centre with sufficient space? There's none at pittodrie, kingslinks would require buying the driving range a significant portion of the golf course and would be prohibitive from a cost perspective and leave the same shite transport links.

 

 

Someone is able to line pockets from Kingsford land - that is why it's been chosen

 

Landowner profits from selling land, yawn.

 

Sadly this whole thing has turned into a blinkered NIMBYS v PRO KINGSFORD argument.  Its not. Lots of people in No Kingsford camp are Dons fans who want good facilities for the Dons.

 

There's a huge number of idiots on each side. The "get it built" and the "not on my door step" fannies should be ignored, there's a huge number of people that have put a lot of thought in to kingsford and the alternatives (or lack thereof) and although admit the current proposal has its flaws, it can be improved so that it's workable. As it stands there's no option that has a chance of being feasible. Sadly a lot of the anti kingsford people have no idea for alternative sites and can't seem to see any positives in the plans. Which is a shame.

 

The problem is the Club have submitted a plan for a stadium in a place (Westhill/Kingswells) that is totally and utterly unsuitable for a football stadium.  The area, access etc is not fit for matchday purposes. The plans show a complete and utter lack of foresight and are now teetering on the brink of failure.

 

The proposed site has the best transport links possible within the city, the location in relation to the existing dual carriageways and the AWPR is as good as you'll get, there's simply nowhere else nearer the city centre with better road links. Buses etc will be put on as per the plans. It's not perfect by any means but it'll be workable and a significant improvement on the current situation. That's a fact anyone who's ever driven to pittodrie will agree with.

 

I would remind you all the failings of the club to 'deliver' a new stadium goes back to July 1999.  All the signs are you can add Kingsford to that long line of failings............

 

Again, nobody will claim the plans are perfect, simply writing them off when there's still the potential to improve them won't help find a workable solution at all, it's only adding to the problem.

[Edinburghdon]

Started out as if going to be reasonably well presented piece.

Don't know how it finished as gave up when I got to the Treblinka comment and any merits your post may have contained suddenly disappeared.

 

It didn't get any better. 3/10 at best. Even that's generous...

[Jute]

I don't think you've seen anyone saying that anyone on the committee approved, it's widely accepted that 7 were reasonable enough to understand the proposal has the potential to be a major benefit to the area but that the plans as they stand need work. The other 7 either believed the issues rightly raised weren't able to be resolved or completely ignored the huge potential benefits that exist for the area (which there are many that the anti kingsford lot seem to either overlook or flat out deny. Which is ridiculous really.

 

Well done for providing the much needed 'clarity' though.

 

I can assure you nobody thinks the proposal is perfect, lots of rational minded people understand that there's absolutely no suitable location within the city centre and the location at kingsford is probably the best alternative and that with some work kingsford could work. Nothing at all to do with looks, all to do with fitting a need and ticking as many boxes as possible. Feel free to suggest a suitable alternative (note, the existing site isn't one).

 

You mention parking issues and access by road, both are a significant improvement on the current situation.

 

as far as crime goes a lot has been made on the number of CCTV cameras in Aberdeen compared to westhill but it's conveniently ignored that the overwhelming majority of these cameras are in the city centre itself rather than the route to pittodrie, it's just as hard monitoring fans between the city centre and pittodrie and the city centre and Westhill. The difference is kingsford will have better CCTV at the stadium and will be designed to maximise segregation between home and away fans. So it's perfectly reasonable to think crime prevention will be easier at the proposed site.

 

As far as walking goes, it's perfectly safe to walk from either westhill or the kingswells park and ride to the proposed site. To suggest otherwise is laughable. People walk that route every day. There's also been a study done on cyclists using the route daily and found the number inconvenienced is in low single figures...

Multiple other clubs manages to shuttle  far greater numbers of fans to their stadiums on a weekly basis. It's a damning inditement of Aberdeen if they can't solve that issue. Any number of those stadiums would have been a more relevant point than this...

 

Agreed, probably why the club has agreed in principle for additional parking nearby.

 

Except the proposed site is within the city boundries...  can you propose any other site within the city centre with sufficient space? There's none at pittodrie, kingslinks would require buying the driving range a significant portion of the golf course and would be prohibitive from a cost perspective and leave the same shite transport links.

 

Landowner profits from selling land, yawn.

 

There's a huge number of idiots on each side. The "get it built" and the "not on my door step" fannies should be ignored, there's a huge number of people that have put a lot of thought in to kingsford and the alternatives (or lack thereof) and although admit the current proposal has its flaws, it can be improved so that it's workable. As it stands there's no option that has a chance of being feasible. Sadly a lot of the anti kingsford people have no idea for alternative sites and can't seem to see any positives in the plans. Which is a shame.

 

The proposed site has the best transport links possible within the city, the location in relation to the existing dual carriageways and the AWPR is as good as you'll get, there's simply nowhere else nearer the city centre with better road links. Buses etc will be put on as per the plans. It's not perfect by any means but it'll be workable and a significant improvement on the current situation. That's a fact anyone who's ever driven to pittodrie will agree with.

 

Again, nobody will claim the plans are perfect, simply writing them off when there's still the potential to improve them won't help find a workable solution at all, it's only adding to the problem.

 

Has there been something published that confirms why the existing stadium site cannot be redeveloped. Would like to understand how sites like Ashton Gate in Bristol (possibly different planning laws as England) and Tynecastle can be redeveloped in residential areas yet Pittodrie cannot. Is it purely financial.

 

I am someone who relies on public transport to get to the game and plans put forward for that option did seem pretty vague at best. I cannot think of any major out of town stadium that relies only on buses to transport fans 6 miles to the ground from the nearest station.

[Edinburghdon]

Has there been something published that confirms why the existing stadium site cannot be redeveloped. Would like to understand how sites like Ashton Gate in Bristol (possibly different planning laws as England) and Tynecastle can be redeveloped in residential areas yet Pittodrie cannot. Is it purely financial.

 

I am someone who relies on public transport to get to the game and plans put forward for that option did seem pretty vague at best. I cannot think of any major out of town stadium that relies only on buses to transport fans 6 miles to the ground from the nearest station.

 

Don't think m anything has been published but the likes of Manc and tom widows have covered it in this thread.

 

Will need to do some research into the buses point but I'm pretty certain in the years we've got until the thing is built the plans can be firmed up further. It'll be different to travelling to pittodrie but that's not to say it'll be bad. Folk that drive will still drive, folk that took the bus will still take the bus, it just means that rather than getting off the train and walking to pittodrie you'll get off the train and jump on a bus.

[RicoS321]

The proposed site has the best transport links possible within the city, the location in relation to the existing dual carriageways and the AWPR is as good as you'll get, there's simply nowhere else nearer the city centre with better road links. Buses etc will be put on as per the plans. It's not perfect by any means but it'll be workable and a significant improvement on the current situation. That's a fact anyone who's ever driven to pittodrie will agree with.

 

Some good points ED, well put. However, the above is balls. I have driven to the vast majority of games this season as I haven't been having more than a pint (before the game, nae after). If I'm not drinking at all, I leave from about 8-9 miles South of the city at about 30-35 minutes afore kick off, with a pickup in Torry, and am parked and in the ground afore kick-off. If I'm early, I go to the Gallowgate or somewhere and have a pint in the centre of toon KGB, Blue Lamp or some such and then head to the game. It's really simple from the South and anyone who says it isn't, isn't doing it properly.

 

As for whether or not it is in the shire, it isn't, but it's a hair's breadth. One thing for certain is that it absolutely isn't in Aberdeen. To answer Jute's question, there isn't another club in the UK that plays as far from the location from which they claim to be playing for.

 

Whilst that might not be a big deal - certainly not in the short term - it is worth discussing. I'm not one for sentimentality, but I do understand identity, and Pittodrie has that. The location is very Ikea, very Stewart Milne Group - a meaningless nothing in the middle of nowhere, not part of anything. The journey to and from entirely soulless, no Castlegate, Marischal college, glass abomination or granite streets, shops and no beach, no sea. It's actually a perfect metaphor for the Scottish game; stripped of all meaning. It's line with 21st century building practices (expecially those of our chairman). It's designed for driving to and driving away from again, it's a commuter town like New Kintore, a Homebase/Asda Portlethen, an Altens industrial estate. A meaningless, soulless, shitehole. It perfectly encapsulates our Zombie society. Okay kids, as a treat, after the game we can go to Costco and buy a year's supply of cold meat. We'll be home by 17:45, and with these superb driving arrangements we'll barely miss a minute of sitting down in front of the TV and ignoring one another.

 

Jute, there's an unsubstantiated 12,000 (it was 12,500, but lost another 500 recently) seater reason we can't re-develop Pittodrie. Tom and Manc have it covered pretty well in this thread with some good reasoning.

[Edinburghdon]

Some good points ED, well put. However, the above is balls. I have driven to the vast majority of games this season as I haven't been having more than a pint (before the game, nae after). If I'm not drinking at all, I leave from about 8-9 miles South of the city at about 30-35 minutes afore kick off, with a pickup in Torry, and am parked and in the ground afore kick-off. If I'm early, I go to the Gallowgate or somewhere and have a pint in the centre of toon KGB, Blue Lamp or some such and then head to the game. It's really simple from the South and anyone who says it isn't, isn't doing it properly.

 

As for whether or not it is in the shire, it isn't, but it's a hair's breadth. One thing for certain is that it absolutely isn't in Aberdeen. To answer Jute's question, there isn't another club in the UK that plays as far from the location from which they claim to be playing for.

 

Whilst that might not be a big deal - certainly not in the short term - it is worth discussing. I'm not one for sentimentality, but I do understand identity, and Pittodrie has that. The location is very Ikea, very Stewart Milne Group - a meaningless nothing in the middle of nowhere, not part of anything. The journey to and from entirely soulless, no Castlegate, Marischal college, glass abomination or granite streets, shops and no beach, no sea. It's actually a perfect metaphor for the Scottish game; stripped of all meaning. It's line with 21st century building practices (expecially those of our chairman). It's designed for driving to and driving away from again, it's a commuter town like New Kintore, a Homebase/Asda Portlethen, an Altens industrial estate. A meaningless, soulless, shitehole. It perfectly encapsulates our Zombie society. Okay kids, as a treat, after the game we can go to Costco and buy a year's supply of cold meat. We'll be home by 17:45, and with these superb driving arrangements we'll barely miss a minute of sitting down in front of the TV and ignoring one another.

 

Jute, there's an unsubstantiated 12,000 (it was 12,500, but lost another 500 recently) seater reason we can't re-develop Pittodrie. Tom and Manc have it covered pretty well in this thread with some good reasoning.

 

Aye sorry I probably didn't put the transport links bit very well, pittodrie is easy to get to, not denying that at all but the traffic in general after the game is a nightmare. Any decent size crowd and king street etc is gridlocked for a significant period of time.

 

I get what you're saying about it being a bit far out but I can't really see anywhere else within the city and if positioning it beside the AWPR junction gives us decent enough access from all directions to tick as many boxes as possible I personally don't mind the location. Far from perfect but it'll do anyway.

 

As far as identity goes, you're right it is a bit soulless just now, the flip side is it's a blank canvas to create something new in the long term.

[donsdaft]

I would MUCH rather re-develop Pittodrie.

 

Rico is 100% right about the soulless aspect to out of town shite.

 

I won't do anything to stop it happening ( as if they'd listen to me)

But I won't do anything to help.

The only thing that edges me towards supporting the idea is those Westhill wankers, "crime" for fuck sake.

 

On a completely selfish note, another 10 year delay should see me too old to care.

[Slim]

"Kingsford at any cost" FFS. The reason for Kingsford is because it's the cheapest option.

[manc_don]

My knowledge of Aberdeen isn't great and i'd definitely say that in terms of location, it isn't ideal.  I'd rather be able to walk all the way (within reason) from the train station.  I guess the main issue is scotlands lack of infrastructure as if there was a railway station nearby, it would be a perfectly acceptable location to all.  The club do need to work on their transportation plan but given it is located to big roads, should be seen as a massive benefit.  Something can be worked out and it may take bus services to commit but theres a solution there.

 

However, it is now getting to the point where we need new facilities, redeveloping Pittodrie isn't a viable option as much as I'm sure we'd all prefer it to be.  This project is bigger than the stadium and I think folk need to keep that in mind.  To provide everything that the club want to provide in the stadium alone would have a serious impact on the footprint.  Then there's all the outdoor training facilities, we really can't afford to have a delay in the delivery of these, it's thoroughly embarrassing and a necessity for the future of our club.

 

I can't recall but I'm guessing the Links site was ruled out for cost of purchase and loss of public land? I'd imagine Kingsford has been chosen due to these factors.

 

Edit: Slim just said it.

[Edinburghdon]

My knowledge of Aberdeen isn't great and i'd definitely say that in terms of location, it isn't ideal.  I'd rather be able to walk all the way (within reason) from the train station.  I guess the main issue is scotlands lack of infrastructure as if there was a railway station nearby, it would be a perfectly acceptable location to all.  The club do need to work on their transportation plan but given it is located to big roads, should be seen as a massive benefit.  Something can be worked out and it may take bus services to commit but theres a solution there.

 

However, it is now getting to the point where we need new facilities, redeveloping Pittodrie isn't a viable option as much as I'm sure we'd all prefer it to be.  This project is bigger than the stadium and I think folk need to keep that in mind.  To provide everything that the club want to provide in the stadium alone would have a serious impact on the footprint.  Then there's all the outdoor training facilities, we really can't afford to have a delay in the delivery of these, it's thoroughly embarrassing and a necessity for the future of our club.

 

I can't recall but I'm guessing the Links site was ruled out for cost of purchase and loss of public land? I'd imagine Kingsford has been chosen due to these factors.

 

Edit: Slim just said it.

 

I'd imagine the transport assessment for kings links would be equally bad if not worse than kingsford given it's a huge amount of traffic to route through already busy roads. Doubt that'd pass nowadays.

[donsdaft]

There is no reason whatsoever why the training facilities have to be anywhere near the stadium.

[manc_don]

There is no reason whatsoever why the training facilities have to be anywhere near the stadium.

 

Thats not my point. We've submitted a planning app, wed have to start the whole process again. Complete waste of money.

[Edinburghdon]

There is no reason whatsoever why the training facilities have to be anywhere near the stadium.

 

No, of course there's not a cast iron reason that they have to be on the same site. It makes sense to have them on site though both operationally and financially. Having them elsewhere means buying another piece of land (admittedly offset by requiring less land for the stadium) but also means 2 applications, 2 designs, clearing and preparing 2 sites etc, doubling up on all that must increase the costs hugely.

 

Unless it's absolutely unavoidable it'd be mad not to have a combined site. It's just common sense

[A llad insane]

Lets get this thing built .

[tom_widdows]

Has there been something published that confirms why the existing stadium site cannot be redeveloped. Would like to understand how sites like Ashton Gate in Bristol (possibly different planning laws as England) and Tynecastle can be redeveloped in residential areas yet Pittodrie cannot. Is it purely financial.

 

If this new stadium scenario ends up being anything like the bullshit Bristol City & Bristol Rovers have been through then the club may as well shut themselves down.

 

But a quick Summary

Ashton Gate Redevelopment cost is £45million+

Stadium boundary is clear of all primary streets so fans disperse onto private land/ carparks. City actually has space to build on.

Approx 50% of the land immediately around it is relatively new commercial property none of which are accessed via any of the land surrounding the stadium. Retail park owners don't tend to kick up a fuss about having 20000 plus people showing up on their doorsteps especially when its an existing situation.

Residential property around the stadium is either old terraced housing separated from the stadium boundary by back gardens (on one side the rear gardens are quite large too) or old tower blocks which I hazard a bet will be inline for demolition soon. Stadium redevelopment will not affect their existing accesses/ servicing so provided Bristol City don't screw up the 'daylighting' issues there is little reason for objection.

 

Compare the aerial photos of both stadiums (Old Ashton Gate & Existing Pittodrie)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RicoS321]

Pittodrie is fucking cool.