New stadium thread

[jess]

Not sure what you mean?

 

It would reduce the capacity. Takes up more space.

 

A redeveloped 12k Pittodrie would cost circa £40m. 

 

Standing would take up more space? Surely seats take up more space? Some models allow 1.5 or 2 to a seat which goes in for european games.

[donsdaft]

What are the actual rules on selling alcohol at the fitba?

 

1/ How close to kick off would they have to call last orders?

 

2/ How quickly after the full time whistle could they open the bar again?

 

An open pub at full time would reduce the numbers trying to leave together.

[Madbadteacher]

Is it going to have a pool and offer swimming lessons?

[tom_widdows]

 

This sketch is very rough but it is my own work and has not been sanctioned by Aberdeen Football Club. It has been created using publicly available documents/ images and is for discussion only.

 

Capacity - Approx 12,670 + whatever corporate boxes could be fitted in the Main.

 

The pitch is the current maximum size permitted by UEFA (future proofing for when they decide to play silly buggers again) with a 3m wide grass run off and 5m wide track.

The Stand gradients are the the steepest currently permitted (Tynecastle style) with the current minimum aisle (1200mm) and row (750mm) widths.

I may have gone over the top with the number of disabled seats and vomitories but I have also made the assumption it would be possible to build a retaining wall strong enough to hold back the SS car park and not screw up the Flats behind so as to provide both an emergency vehicle path and a high level concourse under the stand for fans, plus that the council would continue to allow Merkland Lane/ Pittodrie street to be used as emergency dispersal areas (as they currently are)

 

Stand heights are based on the existing stand heights (obtained by counting bricks). There may perhaps be scope to add a couple more rows to the merkland given it backs onto a car-park but it would only add about 400 seats max.

 

Main stand would be a smaller version of Boca Junior's Admin block/ stand.

 

For those who continue to suggest re-routing Pittodrie street, I happened to be running around the stadium last Sunday and by my estimates to do this would require the club to purchase at least 6 houses and both the Bon Accord & Caledonian Golf Club Houses. Compulsory purchase orders are very hard/ expensive to get and even harder when you are messing around with public roads. Could end up waiting 5 years just to get permission and then face the appeals process all the while putting money on the lawyers pockets.

The club would perhaps have to emulate what Hearts are doing with the neighbouring Nursery, and build new club houses for the Golfers into a new stand/ admin block.

 

Anyway I'm away to stock up on canned food, shotguns & tin hats, and dig myself a fall out shelter.

 

[manc_don]

Good work Tom 

 

Saw this on the beeb this morning

 

Kingswells group asked to withdraw Aberdeen FC stadium objection - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41082477

[Garlogie_Granite]

Saw this on the beeb this morning

 

Kingswells group asked to withdraw Aberdeen FC stadium objection - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41082477

I'd expect Westhill & Elrick CC to be similarly pulled up.

[RicoS321]

I'd expect Westhill & Elrick CC to be similarly pulled up.

 

Yep. It certainly shows where ACC stand on the situation. I think argument is pretty tenuous like. KCC clearly objected on grounds of green belt land, I'm not sure they would need a public consultation.

 

Fantastic work on the drawings Tom, much appreciated. Will follow up with some questions later....

[Garlogie_Granite]

Yep. It certainly shows where ACC stand on the situation. I think argument is pretty tenuous like. KCC clearly objected on grounds of green belt land, I'm not sure they would need a public consultation.

If you go onto the Kingswells FOR Kingsford facebook page, you'll see the reason why KCC are out of order on this, with a letter published from the Community Council liaison officer to the person who raised the objection.

 

It's about consultation, a CC must represent their community, by all accounts Kingswells is massively in favour, but those on the KCC are not, and carried out no public consultation, but purely put forward their own views.

 

Hence the refusal by ACC.

[jess]

 

 

Excellent and as I imagined. Don't know why the south and merkland would be limited to such a small size and was told that wouldn't apply though. They're much smaller than the buildings they're next to and not near them, whereas the housing plans (indeed most housing plans) are the same size and right up against them.

 

As I said earlier, I know you've done it now but, I wonder what difference certain standing models would make.

 

by all accounts Kingswells is massively in favour

 

Is there anything to show this? Everyone I know from Kingswells think everything new is terrible, with traffic the foremost concern in their lives.

[Garlogie_Granite]

Excellent and as I imagined. Don't know why the south and merkland would be limited to such a small size and was told that wouldn't apply though. They're much smaller than the buildings they're next to and not near them, whereas the housing plans (indeed most housing plans) are the same size and right up against them.

 

As I said earlier, I know you've done it now but, I wonder what difference certain standing models would make.

 

Yeah, fuck you tom_widdows, taking the time and effort to provide the model the moaners wanted, you and your professional expertise, what do you know anyway? 

 

[jess]

Yeah, fuck you tom_widdows, taking the time and effort to provide the model the moaners wanted, you and your professional expertise, what do you know anyway? 

 

 

Opinion on stand heights is contrary to that of a director of a global design company, hence I don't know what to believe. 

[RicoS321]

If you go onto the Kingswells FOR Kingsford facebook page, you'll see the reason why KCC are out of order on this, with a letter published from the Community Council liaison officer to the person who raised the objection.

 

It's about consultation, a CC must represent their community, by all accounts Kingswells is massively in favour, but those on the KCC are not, and carried out no public consultation, but purely put forward their own views.

 

Hence the refusal by ACC.

 

Is it about consultation? Surely if there are genuine restrictions that apply, the CC don't need to check with the public first? For example, my in-laws wanted to build a turbine on their land, which the community council objected to because it was on green belt (it didn't go to committee or public consultation). I applied for a hoose on the same land but on the site of an existing ruin, and it went to public committee because it didn't contravene green belt planning considerations, but was still in an area where they felt the public should have a say (they didnae gie a fuck so it passed). In other words, the mechanisms and rules are in place that enforced that objection. I'm pretty certain that if the entire community had wanted the turbine to be built, the CC would still be entitled/required to object because it contravenes the green belt planning rules (that would be their default position, unless persuaded otherwise)? Otherwise what's the point in those rules? It's then up to the cooncil to justify why they think said rules should be broken on this occasion. Are we/you saying that any application that is being objected to by CC for breaching a specific rule has to go for public consultation? Genuine questions, I'm unsure how the process works.

 

[Garlogie_Granite]

Is it about consultation? Surely if there are genuine restrictions that apply, the CC don't need to check with the public first? For example, my in-laws wanted to build a turbine on their land, which the community council objected to because it was on green belt (it didn't go to committee or public consultation). I applied for a hoose on the same land but on the site of an existing ruin, and it went to public committee because it didn't contravene green belt planning considerations, but was still in an area where they felt the public should have a say (they didnae gie a fuck so it passed). In other words, the mechanisms and rules are in place that enforced that objection. I'm pretty certain that if the entire community had wanted the turbine to be built, the CC would still be entitled/required to object because it contravenes the green belt planning rules (that would be their default position, unless persuaded otherwise)? Otherwise what's the point in those rules? It's then up to the cooncil to justify why they think said rules should be broken on this occasion. Are we/you saying that any application that is being objected to by CC for breaching a specific rule has to go for public consultation? Genuine questions, I'm unsure how the process works.

The letter to retract their objection because they did not follow the process prescribed for community councils came from the council officer in charge of that area.

 

What the exact reason was I cant recall, the letter has been taken off the Kingswells page now .

[Garlogie_Granite]

7PM Tonight, W.A.N.K.S. meeting at Westhill Inn if anyone wants to join my under-cover op?

[manc_don]

7PM Tonight, W.A.N.K.S. meeting at Westhill Inn if anyone wants to join my under-cover op?

 

Look forward to reading about it tomorrow 

[RicoS321]

Tom, a few questions regarding yer design. First, to clarify, you're at 13K including the Merkland being raised a couple of rows? In other words, you're already doing better than the dons. I've had issue with the 12K figure the whole time, it stinks of us being lied to and I think your diagram adds to this (sorry)! An honest, open stadium consultation - with drawings - would have prevented this. Something similar to your diagram but with a Q&A section where any other suggestions (like mine below) could be rebutted/answered. The fact that we haven't had this strikes me as more deliberate than incompetent. It's shite that we're having to ask you questions like this on a fitba forum.

 

Can I ask why the corner isn't filled in between the South and RDS? I'm assuming that was deliberate, so interesting to hear your reasoning? I'm guessing emergency access/assembly zone of some sort? In which case, is there alternatives that would allow the stand to overhang any pedestrian area (as the stand gets higher it gets deeper)? Given the South Stand in your diagram doesn't jut out significantly, I would have thought that it would be feasible to corner it appropriately to the same depth as the stand.

 

You mention that we'd have to buy at least 6 houses to move the mainer back. I'm struggling to see which ones, do you think you could point them out? Two at most by the looks of google maps, which I think is up to date for that side of the stand. Again, I'm struggling to see why the golf clubs would necessarily be affected too. We're talking a few metres, not right through the entire car park. To avoid the two houses at the Merkland end, would it not be possible to curve the main stand back into the road returning to meet the RDS corner (see my amazing pic)? Thus creating additional seats with the greater span.

 

Also, why does the main stand (and South) have to be the same height it's entire length? I'm assuming it has to be no higher than existing in order not to block out light from the existing houses? In which case, it can surely rise to the height of the RDS over it's length in a waveform (because we're by the fucking sea!) giving double height, or close to double height from around the centre of the stand (or whatever point suits the light trajectory). Again, this would add further seating. Potentially quite a bit I'd have thought.

 

Finally, in terms of the planning decision. Where does light blockage (stadium height) rank in the list of objections? Compared to say building in the green belt? Both are against the rules, but it seems that those rules are flexible enough that if a good case is put forward, then they can be overcome. Is that a correct statement? Thus, what makes building on the green belt at Kingsford so much easier to get through planning than blocking out light in x number of flats at the site of an existing stadium? Assuming that no compulsory purchases are required - which I agree would be a mountain - then are the two not both capable of de-railing the entire thing through legal challenge? In reality, is there anything "more" insurmountable about renovating Pittodrie than Kingsford from a planning perspective? I expect that if we were actually renovating Pittodrie then the club would be suggesting that any planning issues raised are trivial and that folks "need to get behind it" and those objecting are NIMBYS. In other words, there is parity between the two. Both are difficult to get permission for, but neither particularly more difficult than the other, it just so happens that Kingsford is the one we are trying to promote.

 

 

 

[donsdaft]

Pointless arguing about a stadium with a capacity of 12,000 - 13,500

 

That's simply not big enough for the Dons.

 

As much as I really want to stay at Pittodrie it's not looking likely is it?

 

Mind you, I don't want any bastardin B&Q

 

Build a stadium to be proud of.

 

 

The big advantage to Kingsford of course is just to get it up those Westhill wankers.

[Garlogie_Granite]

Tom, a few questions regarding yer design. First, to clarify, you're at 13K including the Merkland being raised a couple of rows? In other words, you're already doing better than the dons. I've had issue with the 12K figure the whole time, it stinks of us being lied to and I think your diagram adds to this (sorry)! An honest, open stadium consultation

Oh come on. As DD says, that's still a useless capacity, and do remember Tom is doing this on the hoof, I'm sure if he knew every spec that AFC want included/excluded, and had time to do this fully as a professional job and not knocking it up quickly, it would be even more accurate.

 

Rather than knocking AFC's figure, he's rather proved the point that they are being honest about how much a redevelpoed Pittodrie would hold.

 

Let it go, wherever the Dons end up, it's not going to be there.

[manc_don]

Rico, the corners could be partially filled in, although we need to provide suitable access for the emergency services.  I think the only tweak I would consider would be to move the plant compound to the corner of the RDS / SS (removing the mound) and enable that corner to be filled in, albeit maintaining a route through on to the pitch for the emergency services.  That being said, this would only be to the benefit of a few seat which isn't realistically going to make much difference.  It might also be a struggle to unify the changes in heights between the main stand / merkie without providing terrible sight lines.

 

I'm guessing, but if we did do the wave form stand, depending on where it started, the amount of structure required to provide little benefit would probably be the reason why you wouldn't do it.  Seat kills would be quite drastic.

 

Tom, as a side note, are the accessible seats pitch side or at higher level?  If the former, I'd presume we'd lose a few more seats as it's generally preferred to have a mixture of the two options available. 

 

Again, great work Tom 

[RicoS321]

Pointless arguing about a stadium with a capacity of 12,000 - 13,500

 

That's simply not big enough for the Dons.

 

 

I agree, which is why I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that Tom's design, with little effort, exceeds that of the dons by 1,000. I see absolutely no reason why that couldn't reach 17K with the same effort as was granted to Loirston or Kingsford. I've asked a couple of pertinent questions regarding planning and design. Questions that should have been fielded by the club.

 

@Garlogie they've given a figure of 12K, which is blatantly a lie, with no evidence to back it up. The last thing that it could be called is honest. It's completely lacking in transparency.

 

@Manc I mentioned the wave form for the Mainer, because I suggested it would be curved (inward at the ends) also, that would surely eliminate a lot of seat kills. Depending on where that could start, and given it ends at the RDS, you'd be talking about 1/3rd of the main stand (including RDS corner) being at RDS height. That'd add a fair chunk of seats, similar to that of the upper deck, circa 2K.

 

Again, the main point is that the club have not fielded these questions. They've not provided their drawings, calculations, options, investigations, considerations or configurations for us to analyse make suggestions and ask questions. They didn't approach the renovation of Pittodrie with the attitude of trying to eek out every last seat and maximise the capacity, they produced a document that gave the lowest possible capacity to back up a decision they had already made - to move.

[Madbadteacher]

I agree, which is why I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that Tom's design, with little effort, exceeds that of the dons by 1,000. I see absolutely no reason why that couldn't reach 17K with the same effort as was granted to Loirston or Kingsford. I've asked a couple of pertinent questions regarding planning and design. Questions that should have been fielded by the club.

 

@Garlogie they've given a figure of 12K, which is blatantly a lie, with no evidence to back it up. The last thing that it could be called is honest. It's completely lacking in transparency.

 

@Manc I mentioned the wave form for the Mainer, because I suggested it would be curved (inward at the ends) also, that would surely eliminate a lot of seat kills. Depending on where that could start, and given it ends at the RDS, you'd be talking about 1/3rd of the main stand (including RDS corner) being at RDS height. That'd add a fair chunk of seats, similar to that of the upper deck, circa 2K.

 

Again, the main point is that the club have not fielded these questions. They've not provided their drawings, calculations, options, investigations, considerations or configurations for us to analyse make suggestions and ask questions. They didn't approach the renovation of Pittodrie with the attitude of trying to eek out every last seat and maximise the capacity, they produced a document that gave the lowest possible capacity to back up a decision they had already made - to move.

 

And like it or not it is, ultimately, their decision!

[RicoS321]

And like it or not it is, ultimately, their decision!

 

So was allowing a newly formed Rangers straight back into the top flight. So was allowing the 11-1 vote to be maintained.

 

Why people put so much trust in our board to make the correct decision, I'm unsure.

[donsdaft]

Well there's 2 things I am sure of.

1/ they're determined to move

2/ they're not going to listen to me

 

 

Looks like I'll just have to make the best of it.

[RicoS321]

Well there's 2 things I am sure of.

1/ they're determined to move

2/ they're not going to listen to me

 

 

Looks like I'll just have to make the best of it.

 

Aye, that's very true. Doesn't mean it's nae worth discussing on a fitba forum though. That'd rule out a lot of topics. Nor does it mean you have to "get behind it", which seems to be the prescription of most.

[rocket_scientist]

And like it or not it is, ultimately, their decision!

 

HIS decision. One man.

 

Has anybody been watching? TWENTY YEARS AGO, he tried to offer us a new stadium. The paint was barely dry on the RDS. Was that in the best interests of AFC, or in the best interests of him?

 

Does anyone know how boardrooms work? Committees don't do shit. One man has a vision and he executes it, making damn sure that the people around him know how to spell sycophants before he gets it from them, in spades.

 

The plan, his plan, has ALWAYS been relocation. And when he didn't get his way in the latter half of the 90's, he fucked our balance sheet to such an extent that it is now almost certain that we have to move.

 

Does nobody find it strange that all the overspending that resulted in a eight figure debt didn't include even the bare minimum for the maintenance of our biggest and most valuable asset?

 

It's an agenda and it's NEVER been about the football. Wake up sheeple.