New Everton Stadium Discussion

[davek]

To be fair, I understood it to be because they are a bit crap. Loads of luxury etc but you don't feel you're at the match. More than anything I understood that they were going out of fashion. Even rich people want something which is a bit more of a hybrid, isn't?

I dont know. That's a theory. I'm waiting to see the evidence they're not financially fruitful and being used less in new stadia...

 

[Jacko93]

Yeah, thanks Jacko. Based on nothing but optimism and instinct, I am convinced we will increase our capacity by rail sitting as described. And yes, I do know what the CURRENT legislation is. Didn't the speed limit used to be 10 mph?

I believe so, yes. However, speed regulations were based upon improvable measures, these are based upon physical space.

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

So, I have put together a few images explaining the design of BMD and why they went for a reduced seating capacity.

It is fairly common knowledge now that rail seating will be installed at BMD in a number of areas, up to 3 have been mentioned at some point or other. There was also mention in a number of places about Dortmunds Yellow wall. This reference was less about the size, than it was the strategy. The 'seating' at BMD is designed like this

View attachment 138987

Notice the double step, that allows somebody to stand behind the person in front and maintain a view. That means that we could double the rows in the ground (almost, a person standing takes up more width that a person sitting, ever notice how its more cramped at half time and people spill onto the walkways....)

Many older stadiums have been designed and built under different regs than the new stadiums, such as Spurs, BMD etc, and the regs allowed more people per facility. When the all seater stands were mandated, in all cases the capacity came down, and facility provision per person improved, meaning that every available space could be taken by a seat, regardless of regulations at the time. The result was that concourses were deemed suitable for full seated capacity. There will be no appetite to decrease provision per person as it would now be in direct contravention of current regulations. Hence, old stadiums will not be able to install rail seating beyond 1:1 (with the increased width of a standing person being larger than one seated, it may only be 0.8:1 for standing versus seated, based upon blue book guidance and minimum measurements.)

This image show a concourse designed to balance maximum seating, such as at Spurs.

Spurs was a funny case though as they also gave large parts of their stadium to NFL usage (Massive changing rooms etc. pushing other facilities elsewhere and reducing concourse space. A massive balancing act.

View attachment 138991

Whereas the following two show the design at BMD, over provisioning for the seated arrangement, allowing a capacity to be raised during standing. All within the same boundary constraints

View attachment 138992
View attachment 138993


The images above are based upon a 1.6:1 ratio, purely cause it worked easier on powerpoint.

Thanks for that mate, just a question if both the north and south stands had provisions for save standing in theory could we double the capacity of both stands, because that what it looks like with the last image.

 

[Jacko93]

Thanks for that mate, just a question if both the north and south stands had provisions for save standing in theory could we double the capacity of both stands, because that what it looks like with the last image.

Only if the concourse was built to take that many people. BMD concourses are built larger than required for full capacity seating, by what number? I don't know. That will essentially be the figure that we can increase capacity by through rail seating.

 

[The binman chronicles]

You might want to back that up with some data.

It's common knowledge Dave, companies have had to clean up their acts due to anti bribery/competition rules. Beforehand company A might have a swanky box to wow clients with free tickets as part of sweetner to gain their business, this is now looked down on especially in the United States of 'Merica where it first took off.

This is why places like the Emirates have turned single boxes into lounge spaces instead.

 

[mahermi1]

So, I have put together a few images explaining the design of BMD and why they went for a reduced seating capacity.

It is fairly common knowledge now that rail seating will be installed at BMD in a number of areas, up to 3 have been mentioned at some point or other. There was also mention in a number of places about Dortmunds Yellow wall. This reference was less about the size, than it was the strategy. The 'seating' at BMD is designed like this

View attachment 138987

Notice the double step, that allows somebody to stand behind the person in front and maintain a view. That means that we could double the rows in the ground (almost, a person standing takes up more width that a person sitting, ever notice how its more cramped at half time and people spill onto the walkways....)

Many older stadiums have been designed and built under different regs than the new stadiums, such as Spurs, BMD etc, and the regs allowed more people per facility. When the all seater stands were mandated, in all cases the capacity came down, and facility provision per person improved, meaning that every available space could be taken by a seat, regardless of regulations at the time. The result was that concourses were deemed suitable for full seated capacity. There will be no appetite to decrease provision per person as it would now be in direct contravention of current regulations. Hence, old stadiums will not be able to install rail seating beyond 1:1 (with the increased width of a standing person being larger than one seated, it may only be 0.8:1 for standing versus seated, based upon blue book guidance and minimum measurements.)

This image show a concourse designed to balance maximum seating, such as at Spurs.

Spurs was a funny case though as they also gave large parts of their stadium to NFL usage (Massive changing rooms etc. pushing other facilities elsewhere and reducing concourse space. A massive balancing act.

View attachment 138991

Whereas the following two show the design at BMD, over provisioning for the seated arrangement, allowing a capacity to be raised during standing. All within the same boundary constraints

View attachment 138992
View attachment 138993


The images above are based upon a 1.6:1 ratio, purely cause it worked easier on powerpoint.

Thanks mate excellent, informative post and good news for a higher capacity if we go safe standing in certain parts of the ground.

 

[Dr Baxter]

I believe so, yes. However, speed regulations were based upon improvable measures, these are based upon physical space.

Which was exactly your point. Double steps and over provision of toilets, bars, entrances and exits. Something tells me we have future proofed the BMD. Clever thinking.

 

[Johnnytotal]

So, I have put together a few images explaining the design of BMD and why they went for a reduced seating capacity.

It is fairly common knowledge now that rail seating will be installed at BMD in a number of areas, up to 3 have been mentioned at some point or other. There was also mention in a number of places about Dortmunds Yellow wall. This reference was less about the size, than it was the strategy. The 'seating' at BMD is designed like this

View attachment 138987

Notice the double step, that allows somebody to stand behind the person in front and maintain a view. That means that we could double the rows in the ground (almost, a person standing takes up more width that a person sitting, ever notice how its more cramped at half time and people spill onto the walkways....)

Many older stadiums have been designed and built under different regs than the new stadiums, such as Spurs, BMD etc, and the regs allowed more people per facility. When the all seater stands were mandated, in all cases the capacity came down, and facility provision per person improved, meaning that every available space could be taken by a seat, regardless of regulations at the time. The result was that concourses were deemed suitable for full seated capacity. There will be no appetite to decrease provision per person as it would now be in direct contravention of current regulations. Hence, old stadiums will not be able to install rail seating beyond 1:1 (with the increased width of a standing person being larger than one seated, it may only be 0.8:1 for standing versus seated, based upon blue book guidance and minimum measurements.)

This image show a concourse designed to balance maximum seating, such as at Spurs.

Spurs was a funny case though as they also gave large parts of their stadium to NFL usage (Massive changing rooms etc. pushing other facilities elsewhere and reducing concourse space. A massive balancing act.

View attachment 138991

Whereas the following two show the design at BMD, over provisioning for the seated arrangement, allowing a capacity to be raised during standing. All within the same boundary constraints

View attachment 138992
View attachment 138993


The images above are based upon a 1.6:1 ratio, purely cause it worked easier on powerpoint.

I like the detail in this, one question i have is if safe standing comes in surely there is provision for bigger bogs and other facilities as you are doubling footfall in those parts of the grounds.

 

[Johnnytotal]

Which was exactly your point. Double steps and over provision of toilets, bars, entrances and exits. Something tells me we have future proofed the BMD. Clever thinking.

'davek and Tom Hughes' hate this

 

[allen]

To be fair, I understood it to be because they are a bit crap. Loads of luxury etc but you don't feel you're at the match. More than anything I understood that they were going out of fashion. Even rich people want something which is a bit more of a hybrid, isn't?

I've only been in a box once, and all I wanted to do was sit on the seats out front. If you're watching football through a window you might as well be watching it on TV.

 

[Bedfordblue]

To be fair, I understood it to be because they are a bit crap. Loads of luxury etc but you don't feel you're at the match. More than anything I understood that they were going out of fashion. Even rich people want something which is a bit more of a hybrid, isn't?

Think that’s what these Loge seats are all about, not as formal as a box but sufficiently separated from the riffraff

Everton hope to bring popular US matchday trend to new stadium

Everton are proposing to bring a popular matchday trend from the United States over to the UK for the first time as part of their new Bramley-Moore Dock stadium plans

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

 

[Tom Hughes]

When you say clearing 16-20 houses are you talking about evicting local residents like our neighbours did
Surely we are better than that

While we've been at GP I think we've cleared over 100 houses. Apart from one resident in the 1930s when the St end was expanded, I'm not sure any fuss was made for the rest. Certainly none when far more houses than that were demolished to allow the Park end and car park to be expanded, and even when the last of those houses on Goodison Rd went, some quite recently. Most accepted that it was a major business in the city expanding and improving its facilities at its historic home..... bringing more money into the area by adding footfall etc.

Thousands of houses have been demolished in Liverpool in the last 20yrs to make way for various projects, edge Lane, Kensington, Smithdown, Paddington, Everton, Vauxhall..... the list is endless. That's how cities evolve and develop. This would be a tiny amount by comparison, and provided the owners or tenants are properly remunerated and accomodated I don't believe it is a major issue at all.

 

[Kiwi]

While we've been at GP I think we've cleared over 100 houses. Apart from one resident in the 1930s when the St end was expanded, I'm not sure any fuss was made for the rest. Certainly none when far more houses than that were demolished to allow the Park end and car park to be expanded, and even when the last of those houses on Goodison Rd went, some quite recently. Most accepted that it was a major business in the city expanding and improving its facilities at its historic home..... bringing more money into the area by adding footfall etc.

Thousands of houses have been demolished in Liverpool in the last 20yrs to make way for various projects, edge Lane, Kensington, Smithdown, Paddington, Everton, Vauxhall..... the list is endless. That's how cities evolve and develop. This would be a tiny amount by comparison, and provided the owners or tenants are properly remunerated and accomodated I don't believe it is a major issue at all.

All well and good mate but that's not the current plan from the club and likely won't ever be given that we have started work on the docks project and have concurrently set up a Goodison refurbishment plan as community center. What's your thoughts on the BMD stadium design?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Corporate boxes are dying off all over the world due to company and taxation rules

They're not exactly dying off.... some clubs have reduced them slightly to increase lounge space and/or to control box costs by limiting supply. I think Man Utd have 140 boxes and 20+ suites. LFC have 64 boxes and an entire corporate tier plus. NWHL has 80 box suites, and Arsenal still have more than that. Most modern boxes have seats in front, so people can feel part of it.

So just 20 boxes at BMD is still quite surprising. Especially as boxes are often convertible to hotel suites allowing 365 day usage and income streams. This is supposed to be Especially the case if location has a large hotel demand....

 

[Ray Purchase]

Latest (13-09-21) drone footage.