Chelsea submit new 60,000-seat stadium plans

Enzouk · December 1, 2015

Chelsea submit new 60,000-seat stadium plans
Chelsea have submitted a planning application to build a new 60,000-seat stadium at Stamford Bridge.

The application, which involves the demolition of the 41,600-seat stadium and other buildings currently on the site, will be examined by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

The council have set a deadline for comments on the application of Friday, 8 January 2016.

The club say that the planning process will last beyond the end of the season.

In a statement on their official club website, Chelsea said that the new stadium would see "facilities improved for every area" and offer an "outstanding view" from every seat in an arena "designed to create an exciting atmosphere".

A view of Stamford Bridge as it was prior to redevelopment in the 1990s

The new stadium involves both excavation works and the construction of new external concourse areas, including the formation of decking platforms over part of the District Line and part of the Southern mainline railway.

Chelsea have played at Stamford Bridge since 1905, and the ground was last redeveloped in the 1990s.

However, its current capacity of about 42,000 is significantly smaller than the stadia of Premier League rivals Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City, whose grounds hold 76,000, 60,000 and 55,000 respectively.

Blues owner Roman Abramovich had initially considered seeking a permanent new home, with the club describing the option of expanding Stamford Bridge as "not feasible or viable" in 2012.

But the club decided to redevelop its current ground because of a lack of suitable sites available in London - having had a bid to build an "iconic" new stadium in Battersea Power Station rejected.

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34974544

jal123 · December 1, 2015

I like the design, the money is absolutely irrelevant to that club though. Interesting that people seem to think we can build a whole new stadium and development in the park for about a third of that cost though.

TheFinnFan · December 1, 2015

Rich basterdz

Yid4life · December 1, 2015

Pass the bucket - save the bridge!

Yid4life · December 1, 2015

AndyC · December 1, 2015

Kinda begs the question that if they can/have found a way to replace a 42,000 seat stadium with a 60,000 seater on basically the same footprint, then shouldn't Everton at least be talking to the architects/designers who have come up with such a plan visa-vie conducting a similar site review/re-design exercise for GP ?

Jacko93 · December 1, 2015

BlockHead said:
Kinda begs the question that if they can/have found a way to replace a 42,000 seat stadium with a 60,000 seater on basically the same footprint, then shouldn't Everton at least be talking to the architects/designers who have come up with such a plan visa-vie conducting a similar site review/re-design exercise for GP ?

It would remain not viable to us through cost alone.

ToffeeDoug · December 1, 2015

In the past, the development of SB was not considered viable due to the railway line passing directly behind the East Stand. Presumably, the other buildings being demolished will include the new ones put up recently, such as the hotel onto which the old Shed End stand backs.

Baines' left foot · December 1, 2015

jal123 said:
I like the design, the money is absolutely irrelevant to that club though. Interesting that people seem to think we can build a whole new stadium and development in the park for about a third of that cost though.

And then they'll say "I don't want no copy and paste flat pack stadium, I want a decent one like Wembley blah blah blah".

Baines' left foot · December 1, 2015

BlockHead said:
Kinda begs the question that if they can/have found a way to replace a 42,000 seat stadium with a 60,000 seater on basically the same footprint, then shouldn't Everton at least be talking to the architects/designers who have come up with such a plan visa-vie conducting a similar site review/re-design exercise for GP ?

Chelsea may well be able to build a bigger stadium on the same footprint, but they'll more than likely be shelling out a lot of money civil engineering wise to do so. We can't afford that.

AndyC · December 1, 2015

Baines' left foot said:
Chelsea may well be able to build a bigger stadium on the same footprint, but they'll more than likely be shelling out a lot of money civil engineering wise to do so. We can't afford that.

I wasn't posing the potential cost up front when posing the question, my thoughts were if there is a design/architect group able to come up with a plan for a new 60,000 seat stadium (that's an approx increase in capacity of 42.85% !!!) within moreorless the same footprint area for SB, then if they can draw up plans for that, why not investigate what options they could suggest they could do within the current footprint of GP ??

None of us are simple enough (certain members of EFC hierarchy may be exempt as they clearly are simple) to expect such a redevelopment to be anything other than a cost almost of third world debt proportions, but the club surely has to consider all options as the flat-pack ideas mooted for WHP have seemingly fallen by the wayside and unless I'm mistaken or seriously out of touch, there are currently no other options under anything remotely like open discussion or consideration.

degsy · December 2, 2015

BlockHead said:
Kinda begs the question that if they can/have found a way to replace a 42,000 seat stadium with a 60,000 seater on basically the same footprint, then shouldn't Everton at least be talking to the architects/designers who have come up with such a plan visa-vie conducting a similar site review/re-design exercise for GP ?

yeah right like that's going to happen

bol-uk · December 2, 2015

Enzouk said:
Chelsea submit new 60,000-seat stadium plans
Chelsea have submitted a planning application to build a new 60,000-seat stadium at Stamford Bridge.

The application, which involves the demolition of the 41,600-seat stadium and other buildings currently on the site, will be examined by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

The council have set a deadline for comments on the application of Friday, 8 January 2016.

The club say that the planning process will last beyond the end of the season.

In a statement on their official club website, Chelsea said that the new stadium would see "facilities improved for every area" and offer an "outstanding view" from every seat in an arena "designed to create an exciting atmosphere".

A view of Stamford Bridge as it was prior to redevelopment in the 1990s

The new stadium involves both excavation works and the construction of new external concourse areas, including the formation of decking platforms over part of the District Line and part of the Southern mainline railway.

Chelsea have played at Stamford Bridge since 1905, and the ground was last redeveloped in the 1990s.

However, its current capacity of about 42,000 is significantly smaller than the stadia of Premier League rivals Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City, whose grounds hold 76,000, 60,000 and 55,000 respectively.

Blues owner Roman Abramovich had initially considered seeking a permanent new home, with the club describing the option of expanding Stamford Bridge as "not feasible or viable" in 2012.

But the club decided to redevelop its current ground because of a lack of suitable sites available in London - having had a bid to build an "iconic" new stadium in Battersea Power Station rejected.

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34974544

This picture just goes to show how tinpot this club was just a short time ago.

They are the ultimate in plastics. It amazes me how many men my age support Chelsea but are from anywhere but, there is no way they would have supported them when they were younger and chels were gash.

The Esk · December 2, 2015

The Stamford Bridge site is some 60% larger than the Goodison footprint and the key (apart from cost) is the amount of un-utilised space available plus the potential to expand the site.

Chelsea have more space to expand into (ie higher degree of un-utilised space) and the ability to expand over the east side over the railway. We can expand across the Bullens Road side (albeit with significant planning difficulties) and behind the Park End. Expanding Goodison is a very different proposition to Stamford Bridge.