New Everton Stadium Discussion

[Tom Hughes]

Yeah, most of that time is spent watching the football. Acoustic studies have taken place and used as part of the design. A good seat, a good atmosphere, a decent concourse and good footy on the pitch is all we need isn't it?

Exterior aesthetics are far more important than interior aesthetics when all the right basic facilities of the interior are in place.

Yes.... but it's a bit fur-coat-no knickers if the facilities are basic. 22 boxes, lower capacity, larger viewing distances in the upper tiers due to no overlapping, no closing roof meaning the front few rows get soaked and flexibility is minimal.... might also mean that that money could've been better spent.

I honestly don't think the externals add any real value or functionality tbh.

 

[Tom Hughes]

It is going to be a beautiful stadium sat on what we have always wanted 'The Royal Blue Mersey'. Much needed as Goodison is basically not fit for purpose by todays standards. We should all just accept and brace our new ground and not nit pick and find problems with it........if you want to find problems just look at our present ground. Great memories and what a history but well out of date

But Goodison hasn't had £10m spent on it, nevermind £500m.

It's not nit picking to make comparisons between the 2 different designs at BMD (3 if you include the east-west one) or indeed other new stadia elsewhere. They are all valid comparisons, unlike comparing to a stadium with almost 100 year old stands that has been allowed to fall behind.

 

[Gardocki]

You are only talking about the external view. This has no effect whatsoever on the stadium's performance as a viewing or atmosphere enhancing platform.

Yes... from the outside it looks great. However, you spend a few mins looking at the outside as you approach.... then 2 hrs inside. All camera angles are also from inside.

For me the outside could've been clad with rusting metal, ivy or psychedelic illuminated balloons for all I care. It's only the internal architecture that dictates its performance as a stadium.

This is probably the first time I’ve heard the opinion that the architecture of the outside of a building isn’t important in making it iconic.

It’s going to be one of the most recognisable, photographed, beautiful, sporting arenas in the world. I don’t think people appreciate how lucky we are with it.

And the vast majority of people will never step foot inside. Those who do will be concentrating on the football from their steep stands overlooking the pitch.

 

[Davideeyore]

Yeh looks like most other modern bowls! ?

It's going to be one of the most iconic, best looking stadiums in the world
View attachment 170510

It does look spectacular.

Although everything I've moaned about is about the inside. (Apart from a retractable roof!). That's before we even get to the football on the pitch!

Perhaps some of the CGI images don't do it justice. I mean it's gonna be big, from seeing the contruction images. It is definitely dumbed down from the
orginal St Lukes version and the changes to internal designs do make it more generic.

 

[kev]

But Goodison hasn't had £10m spent on it, nevermind £500m.

It's not nit picking to make comparisons between the 2 different designs at BMD (3 if you include the east-west one) or indeed other new stadia elsewhere. They are all valid comparisons, unlike comparing to a stadium with almost 100 year old stands that has been allowed to fall behind.

Back on ignore you go.
You are like some type of parasytic beetle attempting to suck the joy and positivity from this thread.

 

[MikeH72]

Ffs can we reopen that Goodison redevelopment thread?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Whilst that much is true, the inside is relevant for two hours every fortnight whereas the city and its visitors have to look at the outside 24/7. I've not been inside any of the three graces or either cathedral but they are instantly recognisable as symbols of the city.

I bet some spod was whinging when they designed the cathedrals ' but depth of the choir benches will reduce baritone volume by 8%'

As I said.... stadia are possibly the one building type that are always best judged by their internals. The interior views are their dominant architectural signature that we recognise them by, and the arrangements of the seated tiers are what dictates their performance. What goes on in that 2 hrs should be what matters most to us.... a Royal blue glass block would've been equally effective externally.

 

[John from Bootle]

I honestly don't think the externals add any real value or functionality tbh.

In reality they don't. We could all just play in concrete boxes and stick a couple of flags up.

You can get away with all sorts of flaws with the aesthetics of older stadia, as we know all too well. If the kopites went to the drawing board and built Anfield on a new site, exactly how it looks now, then they'd be be a laughing stock, wouldn't they?

This is a new development. The exterior design and how it's perceived are massively important. It will help shape a legacy that has not yet been created.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Ffs can we reopen that Goodison redevelopment thread?

You might have to if the Americans are like FSG.......

However, the points people have made relate the current design, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning reopening the GP redevelopment thread.

 

[banno]

But Goodison hasn't had £10m spent on it, nevermind £500m.

It's not nit picking to make comparisons between the 2 different designs at BMD (3 if you include the east-west one) or indeed other new stadia elsewhere. They are all valid comparisons, unlike comparing to a stadium with almost 100 year old stands that has been allowed to fall behind.

Mate the design is now done and dusted and the majority of us are happy with it and looking forward to its completion.
Most of us will accept it because it is something that was needed. You are putting downers on everything. Just accept the changes and brace was is going to be a much needed fantastic stadium on the Banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.
I know you want to discuss changes in plans but you really are sounding negative. I am certainly following the build with excitement and pride

 

[Tom Hughes]

In reality they don't. We could all just play in concrete boxes and stick a couple of flags up.

You can get away with all sorts of flaws with the aesthetics of older stadia, as we know all too well. If the kopites went to the drawing board and built Anfield on a new site, exactly how it looks now, then they'd be be a laughing stock, wouldn't they?

This is a new development. The exterior design and how it's perceived are massively important. It will help shape a legacy that has not yet been created.

Not massively important at all generally. As people have already stated the new Spurs stadium is overwhelmingly interior focused with a clad exterior.... as are the vast majority of new stadia. Bayern's Allianz stadium is covered in bubble wrap effect. Lille in strips of metal..... etc.

 

[MikeH72]

You might have to if the Americans are like FSG.......

However, the points people have made relate the current design, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning reopening the GP redevelopment thread.

Yes I'm sure they would buy a football club halfway through a stadium build (with stadium costs factored into the price) just to torpedo it. A perfectly normal and sensible thing to do that happens all the time.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Mate the design is now done and dusted and the majority of us are happy with it and looking forward to its completion.
Most of us will accept it because it is something that was needed. You are putting downers on everything. Just accept the changes and brace was is going to be a much needed fantastic stadium on the Banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.
I know you want to discuss changes in plans but you really are sounding negative. I am certainly following the build with excitement and pride

I'm also looking forward to it with a lot of excitement.... but it's supposed to be a discussion forum and several people have mentioned their reservations and/or concerns.... and if they can't without being told to shut up, there's something seriously wrong. It's not "putting downers" on something by stating some simple facts or making direct comparisons. If it is, then perhaps all isn't what it says on the tin. Nothing whatsoever to do with positivity or negativity.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Yes I'm sure they would buy a football club halfway through a stadium build (with stadium costs factored into the price) just to torpedo it. A perfectly normal and sensible thing to do that happens all the time.

Half way built?

 

[Dr Baxter]

Ffs can we reopen that Goodison redevelopment thread?

Tom, I know you know your onions and I do take on board some of the points you make (even with the reduced capacity it would have been better to keep the 3 tier, 2 X 2 tier and 1 tier pattern of Gooodison Park) but be honest, you were a staunch advocate of staying at Gooodison Park and even of we were spending double on the stadium and it was instantly considered to be the best in Europe you'd still find fault, be honest. I think the stadium will be fantastic and will overall be the best league ground in England. Do I think it could have been even better? Of course I do.