New stadium thread

[Garlogie_Granite]

m1Ln3 wANts p1tT0drie foUr fl4T5

[Madbadteacher]

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.

Never said I trusted then (haven't really since the Chris Anderson era) and never said it was correct either!

[RicoS321]

Never said I trusted then (haven't really since the Chris Anderson era) and never said it was correct either!

 

Apologies, I was agreeing with you, nae accusing you!

[tom_widdows]

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.

 

I would like to clarify a few things about the sketch

- I have no experience designing sports stadia. I have worked on public assembly buildings (Conference centres, wedding/ funeral venues among others), but stadiums are a specialist design category hence why the usual suspects end up designing them - Arup, Barr, Miller Partnership to name a few

 

- 12670 is closer to 12500 which I believe was the clubs original figure.

 

- The sketch footprint is based on a scanned OS Map used by AFC for a planning application to install temporary ticket portakabins outside the RDS which I downloaded from the ACC planning portal. It was then scanned into Autocad, scaled as closed as possible to 1:1 using visible scale bar and then traced.

OS Maps are good but they are not 100% accurate and are certainly not a substitute for a proper measured survey. The original map could be out by a couple of metres and tracing over pixelated lines may have made it even less accurate.

 

In short this sketch should not be used to accuse the club of 'lying to the fans'. The club may have appointed far more qualified people than me to look at this and were give advice without the need for any drawings. I have advised people not to proceed with building projects which would not achieve what they desired without needing to produce any drawings. Some ignored me & succeeded, but others ignored me and got their fingers burnt and their bank accounts emptied.

 

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.

As far as I am aware stadiums require at least 2 emergency vehicular access/ egress points. There is an existing access road/ path in that corner and I felt this would be the logical place to install it.

Filling in the corner would also require structural alterations to the RDS to remove the a chunk of the windshield, perhaps even the structural lattice frame and would also result in one of my pet hates - modern stands which do not tie in with their existing neighbours- Stamford bridge, Valley Parade, The Valley, Tannadice all spring to mind. The stands I have shown are like Tyncastle compared to the shallower RDL Gradients.

IMO The expense of messing around with the RDS offset against the number of seats you would gain and the final appearance does not add up.

 

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.

Take the two blocks you have shown and add the one immediately next to it. Those are semi detached houses = 6.

The bon accord golf club house could possibly be retained but the current road access would may need to be changed.

Pittodrie Street is a wide Collector/ Distributer Road (may even be classed as an arterial road) and re-routing it means you have to ensure it is no worse than existing. The new stretch would also need to comply with all the modern road regulations - sight lines, corner radiuses, drainage routes, pavement widths, pedestrian crossings.

Re-routing it a few metres as you said would be pointless as in doing so you would remove the clubs argument that they could still use it as an emergency muster point. If you are going to the expense of moving a road and want a decent size main stand the whole road needs to be re-routed well clear of the existing main stand.

 

I'd say the only way to re-route the road is as per the sketch below. This would allow for decent sized main stand plus external concourse.

 

 

To prevent a hairpin bend at Merkland Lane you would need space to provide the required corner hence the loss of at least 6 houses. If the new route then turned again to reconnect with the existing Golf road junction (ie wrapping around a new main stand) it would cut a chunk off the stand (Fir Park, Rugby Park spring to mind).

 

The other problem with this re-routing malarky is the loss of stadium car parking. I doubt the council would allow that even if the capacity was reduced. You can't park cars on a pedestrian concourse on match days

 

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.

The height issue comes down to the following.

- Is there actually enough space within the site boundary to build as high as the RDS - Unfortunately not

- Those flats being in the South West Corner mean they have been designed to get a certain level of sunlight to the windows and Garden areas based on the surrounding area - When you extend or building anything nearby the local planning regulations kick in.

Increasing the depth and/or height of the existing south stand will affect the current sunlight path of those wonderful giant blocks of flats which now cover more than half the south stand (wasnt aware they had extended right up to the away support concourse).

To give you some context I had to reduce the size of a small single storey rear extension to a house (4m x 6m )because it failed the 45degree sunlight path test in relation to the neighbours garden. The extension was less than 3.5m high.

The South stand would need to pass both the 25degree & 45degree tests

(http://www.firstinarchitecture.co.uk/designing-for-daylight-45-and-25-degree-test/). I estimate the existing one is about 18m high and I seriously doubt it would pass any of the tests if the height and or depth was increased.

 

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.

 

Building in a built up urban environment is a very different beast from a large empty field.

The lack of space around Pittodrie is the ball&chain that will hold it back as you have to fit modern regulations into a constrained environment. Kingsford is a blank canvas so at the moment pretty much anything design wise is possible.

There seems a belief that greenbelt land is some sort of mythical protected beast that can never be touched however it is often easier to form a case for building in such areas than it is for causing significant disruption in a predominantly urban residential area.

Kingsford has less chance of utilities being accidentally cut off, roads being closed, property being damaged, residents being disturbed by the charming individuals that make up a large portion of your average building site staff.

Perhaps ACC see the Kingsford move as a way of removing a potential troublesome element of society away from the city centre. (I am often ashamed to be associated with some of the people who frequent football stadiums these days.)

 

I wish I could say the planning process is straight forward but it isn't. It is often slow, confusing & tedious and at its worst you could say is blatantly corrupt.

 

[tom_widdows]

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.

 

I believe the existing plant is next to the Merkland which is why I have indicated it there. Could be wrong though

 

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. 

 

All are Mid way up the stand on the central concourse.

 

Ever since Uni I have tried to design accessible spaces either to the back or the middle of any tiered seating arrangement. Its hard enough to spend your life in a wheelchair let alone having your view blocked by a steward or an enlarged advertisement hoarding, and risking a football in the face.

Unfortunately its often much easier & cheaper just to stick them down the front.

[Garlogie_Granite]

So, very well attended, 320 they thought, how many undercover agents other than myself among those though, who knows?

Meeting chaired by Alastair McKelvie, also in attendance the other three councillors for ward 13, and Burnett & Rumbles, the MSPs for the area. Guy from TV and a guy from the P&J/EE.

 

McKelvie lead off with his comments, points against:

• Green Belt – we’ve heard all this one before

• Big Buildings – didn’t catch his point as he kept moving away from the mic

• Noise – apparently the noise from a Dons game is horrendous. Clearly never been near Pittodrie in his life

• Air Quality - now I’m sorry, but what? Apparently the stadium will have a negative effect on the area. He didn’t explain how cars moving directly onto dual carriageways and away  rather than being gridlocked on King Street  and surrounds would increase this pollution, seems utterly perverse.

 

We then moved on to some of the NKS committee

• The reason for Kingsford is co-location of stadium and training facilities, NKS feel there’s no need as plenty of other clubs (most) don’t do this. They of course fail to point out this is because traditionally stadiums were hemmed in in city centres and simply couldn’t do this. This is a progressive modern development where clearly it is preferable that they are co-located

• This will lead to Prime 4 being granted change of use and developed, and houses on the other side of the road, leading to full development between Kingswells and Westhill

 

Lady who used to work for SEPA took the stage

• Noise – again

• Fan Zone noise – apparently this will also be deafening and go on for four hours before hand and two hours afterwards

• There are otters, deer and 42 species of birds fly overhead.

 

Next up is the traffic “expert”

• Parking – there will be yellow lines everywhere, but fans will ignore them because there will be no traffic wardens and police will be too busy to bother about parking violations

• AWPR – This was the best bit, apparently “it only goes north/ south, what about people coming from the tyrebagger” – well Mr, they will join the AWPR at Craibstone and pop right across from there, they sure won’t come through tyrebagger woods unless they’re mintal. “And what about Banchory, Alford etc” – seemingly forgetting that these people all already come through Westhill for a home game. His points here were laughable

• He then moved onto Arnhall parking, where there are currently 600 places sorted, but “how will fans cross a busy dual carriageway?”. He then brings up a picture of a footbridge the likes of which you see up and down the country. This was hysterical to the assembled crowd. Easily amused, you can understand Mrs Browns Boys popularity after this.

 

Diane Reid is next to speak talking about the legal issues

• NKS have reserved Gillespie MacAndrew from Edinburgh as their advocates, they have history of blocking a similar development in St Andrews.

• Costs will likely amount to £60k if they have to appeal a successful planning application for the stadium. So far they have £5k raised

• They are looking for “loans” and pledges from the crowd, and everyone received a leaflet on leaving

• The P&J has been very biased she adds to her piece

• There is a site visit at 2pm on Sept 11th from the city councillors, they plan a protest

 

Questions and statements from the floor

• It was pointed out not getting many is worse than no protest at all, they plan big numbers

• If Dons lose and appeal, they will re-appeal

• There seem to be concerns (from the club) that the ground could be contaminated, hence why machinery has been seen drilling in the fields

• Question about concerts – apparently there was an outdoor wedding in the area last year and some poor woman could hear it in Kingswells

• KCC was praised for it’s “tremendous job”.  John Gerrie (sp) stood and gave us all a run down on how often he’d been on TV and radio, and how his Radio Scotland interview had been repeated hourly. He seemed rather pleased with himself. He finished with “unfortunately the trouble with the press is they want to give both sides, so whenever I was on Stewarty Milne (or other) was on not long after giving the clubs view” .  Imagine that eh, the sheer cheek of the press trying to be fair?

• Gerrie claims he stepped down from KCC so that he could approach the press as a plain citizen rather than as a community councillor, so KCC will not be withdrawing their objection.

• He was very pleased with himself, and the allegations made are simply incorrect

• Many residents were keen to precede their questions/statements with “I’ve been in Westhill since......” confirming of course they are not local and have themselves moved into green belt housing.

• Police have not objected at all, seemingly to the disgust of residents

• Ian Douglas raised a question about why if T in the Park was moved due to piplines under the site, are AFC being allowed to build here. He got this answer at the previous NO meeting which he was also at, but hey, let’s go again. As was again pointed out, the development is within the safe zones, and neither BP nor Shell, the stakeholders, have any objection to this build.

• Ian Fyfe, a shareholder and Dons fan he says, then brought up why has this not been classified as a business relocation and blocked on those grounds. I couldn’t hear him properly so not sure what the argument is.

• From the top table, disgust was expressed that the community facilities would “only” be a couple of football pitches, but no indoor gym or other facilities are going to be provided for the community by the club. Gotta love it!

• Police again get it in the neck for not objecting

• Finally we get to the crux – “does anyone know if property prices will go up or down”, ...more hilarity from the floor...they like a laugh these folks. Statement from top table again which ignores all studies where not a single one has shown a negative effect on house prices for similar developments, and a comment from the floor that it’s not like for like, elsewhere it’s Wembley, or Man City, but this is Aberdeen, there’s no attraction to them being on your doorstep!

• Human Rights – oh yes, one of the highlights, why has no-one brought up the human rights violations of having this stadium in your locality, where are the human rights groups camping out on the site?

 

Next up were the two MSPs

• Alex Burnett encouraged the room to concentrate on possible alternative sites. If this is the only possible location, Dons will have a better chance of getting this passed.

• Mike Rumbles encouraged the room not to write to him (I can understand this, he doesn’t like communicating with his constituents-  from personal experience), and stated that he thinks it’s outrageous and perverse that Westhill/Aberdeenshire has no say in this development and this is simply wrong.  OK Mr Rejected at the ballot box list MP!! Irony not your strong point.

 

Meeting closed with a dig at the press, especially Aberdeen journals for mis-quoting them and being unfair, and supporting the Dons. The young reporter in front of me is shaking his head at this. I made sure as I left to point out that there may be 320 in the room, but it wasn’t all NKS/NO people. He gave me a wink, the little devil.

 

And that was it, I took one of their pledge leaflets as I was leaving, and threw it in the bin outside. I’ve probably missed a bit or two, but you get the gist.

 

They are very well organised, and really know their planning and legal stuff now, what they don’t know, or are being deliberately disingenuous to the assembled crowd is what a modern game of football and football stadium is all about, they want to paint a grim picture, and the assembled mob loved it.

 

 

 

[donsdaft]

Did you remember to pish in people's gardens on your way home?

[Garlogie_Granite]

Did you remember to pish in people's gardens on your way home?

it was already pishing it doon, would have been an empty gesture

[Obanred]

How can a former inert waste tip be classed as greenfield??

 

I used to travel past the site every single day, I know that it was a tip, I seen the trucks tipping !!!

[CtS]

G_G, I just read that whole post and genuinely appreciate your feedback, and your attendance at a meeting I didn't even know was happening.

 

I've kept my thoughts about kingsford to myself (pretty much) thus far. My emotional attachment to Pittodrie and (I guess) my age make it naturally instinctive for me to resist change, especially when it comes to something I care about so deeply - but I must admit even I have been persuaded by the passionate arguments from the manager, and other posters on here, that this is the right way forward for our club. I would never profess to 'know better' than anyone else, and I can see both sides of the 'for' and 'against' debate, but I do think the time has come for us to move on and accept that modern day fitba is delivered in a 'Kingsford' shaped package. No matter where we put it, there's always gonna be noisy objectors, some people who live in Dyce still complain about airport noise despite the runway being there long before they were, but the reality is.....life will go on.

 

Let's get over the shock, sadness and sentiment. And support what's right for our club.

[RicoS321]

So, very well attended, 320 they thought, how many undercover agents other than myself among those though, who knows?

Meeting chaired by Alastair McKelvie, also in attendance the other three councillors for ward 13, and Burnett & Rumbles, the MSPs for the area. Guy from TV and a guy from the P&J/EE.

 

McKelvie lead off with his comments, points against:

• Green Belt – we’ve heard all this one before

• Big Buildings – didn’t catch his point as he kept moving away from the mic

• Noise – apparently the noise from a Dons game is horrendous. Clearly never been near Pittodrie in his life

• Air Quality - now I’m sorry, but what? Apparently the stadium will have a negative effect on the area. He didn’t explain how cars moving directly onto dual carriageways and away  rather than being gridlocked on King Street  and surrounds would increase this pollution, seems utterly perverse.

 

We then moved on to some of the NKS committee

• The reason for Kingsford is co-location of stadium and training facilities, NKS feel there’s no need as plenty of other clubs (most) don’t do this. They of course fail to point out this is because traditionally stadiums were hemmed in in city centres and simply couldn’t do this. This is a progressive modern development where clearly it is preferable that they are co-located

• This will lead to Prime 4 being granted change of use and developed, and houses on the other side of the road, leading to full development between Kingswells and Westhill

 

Lady who used to work for SEPA took the stage

• Noise – again

• Fan Zone noise – apparently this will also be deafening and go on for four hours before hand and two hours afterwards

• There are otters, deer and 42 species of birds fly overhead.

 

Next up is the traffic “expert”

• Parking – there will be yellow lines everywhere, but fans will ignore them because there will be no traffic wardens and police will be too busy to bother about parking violations

• AWPR – This was the best bit, apparently “it only goes north/ south, what about people coming from the tyrebagger” – well Mr, they will join the AWPR at Craibstone and pop right across from there, they sure won’t come through tyrebagger woods unless they’re mintal. “And what about Banchory, Alford etc” – seemingly forgetting that these people all already come through Westhill for a home game. His points here were laughable

• He then moved onto Arnhall parking, where there are currently 600 places sorted, but “how will fans cross a busy dual carriageway?”. He then brings up a picture of a footbridge the likes of which you see up and down the country. This was hysterical to the assembled crowd. Easily amused, you can understand Mrs Browns Boys popularity after this.

 

Diane Reid is next to speak talking about the legal issues

• NKS have reserved Gillespie MacAndrew from Edinburgh as their advocates, they have history of blocking a similar development in St Andrews.

• Costs will likely amount to £60k if they have to appeal a successful planning application for the stadium. So far they have £5k raised

• They are looking for “loans” and pledges from the crowd, and everyone received a leaflet on leaving

• The P&J has been very biased she adds to her piece

• There is a site visit at 2pm on Sept 11th from the city councillors, they plan a protest

 

Questions and statements from the floor

• It was pointed out not getting many is worse than no protest at all, they plan big numbers

• If Dons lose and appeal, they will re-appeal

• There seem to be concerns (from the club) that the ground could be contaminated, hence why machinery has been seen drilling in the fields

• Question about concerts – apparently there was an outdoor wedding in the area last year and some poor woman could hear it in Kingswells

• KCC was praised for it’s “tremendous job”.  John Gerrie (sp) stood and gave us all a run down on how often he’d been on TV and radio, and how his Radio Scotland interview had been repeated hourly. He seemed rather pleased with himself. He finished with “unfortunately the trouble with the press is they want to give both sides, so whenever I was on Stewarty Milne (or other) was on not long after giving the clubs view” .  Imagine that eh, the sheer cheek of the press trying to be fair?

• Gerrie claims he stepped down from KCC so that he could approach the press as a plain citizen rather than as a community councillor, so KCC will not be withdrawing their objection.

• He was very pleased with himself, and the allegations made are simply incorrect

• Many residents were keen to precede their questions/statements with “I’ve been in Westhill since......” confirming of course they are not local and have themselves moved into green belt housing.

• Police have not objected at all, seemingly to the disgust of residents

• Ian Douglas raised a question about why if T in the Park was moved due to piplines under the site, are AFC being allowed to build here. He got this answer at the previous NO meeting which he was also at, but hey, let’s go again. As was again pointed out, the development is within the safe zones, and neither BP nor Shell, the stakeholders, have any objection to this build.

• Ian Fyfe, a shareholder and Dons fan he says, then brought up why has this not been classified as a business relocation and blocked on those grounds. I couldn’t hear him properly so not sure what the argument is.

• From the top table, disgust was expressed that the community facilities would “only” be a couple of football pitches, but no indoor gym or other facilities are going to be provided for the community by the club. Gotta love it!

• Police again get it in the neck for not objecting

• Finally we get to the crux – “does anyone know if property prices will go up or down”, ...more hilarity from the floor...they like a laugh these folks. Statement from top table again which ignores all studies where not a single one has shown a negative effect on house prices for similar developments, and a comment from the floor that it’s not like for like, elsewhere it’s Wembley, or Man City, but this is Aberdeen, there’s no attraction to them being on your doorstep!

• Human Rights – oh yes, one of the highlights, why has no-one brought up the human rights violations of having this stadium in your locality, where are the human rights groups camping out on the site?

 

Next up were the two MSPs

• Alex Burnett encouraged the room to concentrate on possible alternative sites. If this is the only possible location, Dons will have a better chance of getting this passed.

• Mike Rumbles encouraged the room not to write to him (I can understand this, he doesn’t like communicating with his constituents-  from personal experience), and stated that he thinks it’s outrageous and perverse that Westhill/Aberdeenshire has no say in this development and this is simply wrong.  OK Mr Rejected at the ballot box list MP!! Irony not your strong point.

 

Meeting closed with a dig at the press, especially Aberdeen journals for mis-quoting them and being unfair, and supporting the Dons. The young reporter in front of me is shaking his head at this. I made sure as I left to point out that there may be 320 in the room, but it wasn’t all NKS/NO people. He gave me a wink, the little devil.

 

And that was it, I took one of their pledge leaflets as I was leaving, and threw it in the bin outside. I’ve probably missed a bit or two, but you get the gist.

 

They are very well organised, and really know their planning and legal stuff now, what they don’t know, or are being deliberately disingenuous to the assembled crowd is what a modern game of football and football stadium is all about, they want to paint a grim picture, and the assembled mob loved it.

 

That's a fairly unbiased view point....

 

Just joking. Interesting read. I disagree with the bit in bold. It's not progressive in the slightest (obviously the training ground is). Like any out of town facility (B&Q, Asda, IKEA etc), it's entirely unsustainable and lacks basic connectivity. That's not progressive. Obviously a modern stadium is progress over the existing one, but nobody is arguing otherwise.

 

Also, whether they just turned up in Westhill last year or are long term residents, the fact it was green belt land once is entirely irrelevant. It's an established community of a number of decades that hasn't had to contend with a stadium before. Most of their complaints above, as you say, are utter bollocks but I can understand why folk may feel aggrieved by unexpected building works on their front doorstep. Whether we like it or not, people's entire wealth in 21st century is built into their assets (hooses), and if they feel that something like this could seriously damage that wealth then it must be pretty shite for them. It is green belt land, and so it's right that folk weren't expecting anything to be built there when they purchased their properties. They're also correct that more houses will get built in the surrounding area as a result of the stadium, this devaluing their properties further perhaps. The evidence of that is clear in the Loirston project, which was effectively used as a stalking horse for a thousand hooses after planning was granted (no prizes for guessing who benefited). I don't believe these things are issues, but I can see why folk think they are, and I don't think it's entirely fair to judge people for going to extreme and irrational measures to protect what in many cases will be their greatest store of wealth.

 

But good on ye for attending. I agree with you in the main that their arguments are weak at best, stupid at worst. I don't believe there's anything you've mentioned in there that is of any concern for AFC. I think it'll sail through, and I don't think NKS will get near the funds required to challenge it.

[jess]

I'm also a bit perplexed at the painting of all football fans as angels now. If you have a wander down to where certain away fans drink and migrate through on a match day you'll see the behaviour being claimed does not happen anymore. If they start drinking in Westhill instead as you'd think, they will do the same there.

[manc_don]

I'm also a bit perplexed at the painting of all football fans as angels now. If you have a wander down to where certain away fans drink and migrate through on a match day you'll see the behaviour being claimed does not happen anymore. If they start drinking in Westhill instead as you'd think, they will do the same there.

 

Equally, the ones you describe are in the absolute minority. You're more likely to get a non football related bampot acting up. Football is, whether we like it or not, more of a family day out these days.

[rocket_scientist]

There's no reasonable case for staying at Pittodrie now. I feel zero sentimental attachment and unlike many, I embrace change. It's the way that we got here that I object to, neglecting the stadium and mismanaging the finances so that we had no choice. You may forget how bad our football has been for coming up for a quarter of a century under Milne. I say football wasn't even his concern. When the agendas, hopes, dreams and desires of the customers and the man in charge are so divergent, the boss needs to pretend otherwise. He's been lying to us since the day he inveigled his way into Ian Donald's pants.

[gosgka]

fan zone noise 4 hours before and 2 hours after what the hell stadium are they talking about it's not ours

if the people of kingswells don't want us we should use the land there as a land fill site ( see their happy little faces light up as a string of bucket lorries goes past, then the wind changes and they get a whaft of the sweet smell of the Torry pong )

[jess]

Equally, the ones you describe are in the absolute minority. You're more likely to get a non football related bampot acting up. Football is, whether we like it or not, more of a family day out these days.

 

Aye they're in the minority. There are however still quite a lot in number of bams behaving in a way which normal people find shocking, even if just loutish singing. Expected behaviour standards are quite different within football. I'm a bit surprised football fans think weegies/plastic paramilitaries will make their way from the closest pub to the ground in a civilised fashion.

[tom_widdows]

In my experience arguments against projects based on peoples opinions of those who will start frequenting the area are rarely taken into account as it cannot reasonably be determined.

Group of 'bams' can suddenly turn up anywhere at anytime but provided they do not break any laws they are entitled to be there as much as the local vicar/ WI group.

 

I recall seeing an application to use a house as a Nursery/ Creche in which one of the objections was 'it will attract Paedophiles to the area'

 

Objecting based on the 'number' of people who will suddenly show up is another matter hence why the club has to show the development and local road infrastructure can handle up to 20000 people showing up for 3-4 hours on a weekend afternoon, or a weekday night.

 

 

 

[manc_don]

 

 

Honestly.  That thread alone is a reason why some people shouldn't have the internet.

[rocket_scientist]

 

 

Honestly.  That thread alone is a reason why some people shouldn't have the internet.

 

How? Is it not cheaper to build one stand than buy land and build a whole new soulless stadium?

 

Does this not make more sense? Would the majority of customers not prefer this?

[manc_don]

How? Is it not cheaper to build one stand than buy land and build a whole new soulless stadium?

 

Does this not make more sense? Would the majority of customers not prefer this?

 

Not this post per-se, more the follow on messages and in other associated threads following Tom's sketch.  Calling the professions name into question, personally I find ridiculous, as if Tom did that on the club's behalf.  The principle of doing as the little red line is fine if we get the finance to do it, but suddenly every cunt thinks they know better?  Why settle for a bit of a nice stadium than a complete new and nice one?

[rocket_scientist]

Not this post per-say, more the follow on messages and in other associated threads following Tom's sketch.  Calling the professions name into question, personally I find ridiculous, as if Tom did that on the club's behalf.  The principle of doing as the little red line is fine if we get the finance to do it, but suddenly every cunt thinks they know better?  Why settle for a bit of a nice stadium than a complete new and nice one?

 

I have no idea who Tom is nor could I be arsed reading twitter.

 

"If we get the finance" to build one stand is surely more cost effective than getting the finance for Westhill Soulless?

 

"Every cunt knows better" than who? Milne? The man who tried to relocate us 20 years ago without presenting his case? The man who took control of our club through his negotiations with baby Donald surrounding the RDS which he built? The man who wrecked our balance sheet and who "saved" it with a £10m injection from Wm. Donald, a supposed "gift" for which his benefit is yet to be disclosed? The man who presided over 20 years of shite football resulting in the missing thousands? The man who neglected the basic maintenance of Pittodrie to pursue HIS vision?

 

You might think Milne knows best. Some of us would dispute that on the sole grounds that the man cannot be trusted. Therefore it should have been a proper debate, not a fait accompli ramroad job.

[RicoS321]

Not this post per-say, more the follow on messages and in other associated threads following Tom's sketch.  Calling the professions name into question, personally I find ridiculous, as if Tom did that on the club's behalf.  The principle of doing as the little red line is fine if we get the finance to do it, but suddenly every cunt thinks they know better?  Why settle for a bit of a nice stadium than a complete new and nice one?

 

I'm assuming Carhandle's illustration was a piss take out of those suggesting re-development of Pittodrie, no?

 

Nobody is calling the profession's name into question. My point was that there are certain companies, within Aberdeen or anywhere else, who you could call upon to make a case for a point you wanted to make. If I went to a company, let's say HFM for example, and said I want to build a case for making a new stadium and I want to show that Pittodrie could only be re-developed to a small capacity. It wouldn't be calling the entire profession's name into question, it would be suggesting that this particular company will put profit over ethics in this case and choose not to question the morality of the request and simply do it (that's not a criticism of the company, but the club). The question I've raised, and Tom's simple drawing (simple for a man of your talents, Tom!) helps illustrate, is: was a company asked to maximise re-development capacity, or minimise it? Were they given the task of trying every single possibility to eek out every single seat and present a list of options and red lines (e.g South Stand must be less then 6metres, we could add 2K capacity to the main stand, but we'd have to re-home/buy out two tenants or get planning agreement to bypass this requirement) that showed where we could get to and why?

 

My opinion is that a company was asked to show that Pittodrie could not be re-developed. Not that a company tried absolutely everything to come up with the maximum re-development capacity and were simply unable to do any more. We've all seen the shite that goes up in Aberdeen - and I'd certainly call Muse developments name into question - with absolutely no public support and defy any number of planning questions (the capitol 6 storey rear end anyone?). We haven't even tested the water. That doesn't seem like the move of a club that's explored all options.

 

Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?

[jess]

We've all seen the shite that goes up in Aberdeen - and I'd certainly call Muse developments name into question - with absolutely no public support and defy any number of planning questions (the capitol 6 storey rear end anyone?). We haven't even tested the water. That doesn't seem like the move of a club that's explored all options.

 

Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?

 

Exactly.

[tom_widdows]

 

Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?

 

 

Get Manc to do it.

[manc_don]

It wasn't Carhandles illustration I was particularly having a dig at, it was the furore surrounding it and his messages, along with others within that thread and elsewhere where the profession has been called into question.  This is what pissed me off.  It feels like every time someone provides a reasonable response (such as Tom's), someone, with no knowledge of how a building is designed or can be constructed, knows better (this isn't aimed at you or Rocket).  Then the goal posts get moved and the requests get higher.

 

The least planning onerous option is probably not far from what Tom has provided.  However, if we had a vast sum of money, i'd say you buy those houses, re-route the services, build a new road elsewhere to retain the access and build the main stand out.  The issue with the main stand is that we're trying to get it to do a number of things, provide commercial space as well as the much needed facilities that the club require.  They've made no secret that there isn't sufficient space for them to operate (given the scale of activities these days).  Whether they needed to be there or adjacent to the stadium is another question, however it certainly makes more sense to have it all within the same building.  This then relies on the people willing to sell and the council allowing us to re-route Pittodrie street.  There's then the fun with co-coordinating the re-routing with all the utility companies.  Achievable, but an unknown risk and very expensive.

 

Building over a road isn't impossible, but there'd be security risks with allowing it to be open to the public. So i'd reckon we'd have to build another road to compensate.  To either extend the stand back or build over, we'd need to buy those properties and then some i'd guess.  Then there's the added issue of parking that we'd lose because of extending back, we'd likely have to dig down which will add masses amount to the build.

 

Rocket, I was by no means saying I was fully behind Milne.  SM fucked up by not buying the land behind the South Stand, I doubt we'll ever know if it's down to motive or lack of cash.  I'd like to think it was the latter.

 

Tom, once I'm in NZ, and if this hasn't been resolved, I'll have a go at it