Kirkby situation

[stanleypark]

Thus removing in part 1 of the reasons were moving in the 1st place, ie more corporate boxes. Personally i wouldn't change a thing, i have always liked the design

Double the boxes up on the sides. It would actually increase the no. of boxes.

 

[steevie]

I would move it 4 miles down the road, in Walton.

Is right

 

[Goat]

If the Club think the people in the corporate boxes are going to pay money to share a stand with common people, they need help.

Never have i wanted a lady to say no so much in my life, come on Hazel love, save us from this joke.

 

[kenada_blue]

I think with the decision due in 5 months time, this would be a great time to concentrate on the actual design of the stadium. I think Elstone mentioned that there is room for modifications of the design so if you can make a few modifications what you have?

Dont forget once built there's nothing that be done. So any improvements to the design only that are sensible affordable and do not involve the location changing or a complete rebuild now is your chance. So put aside for one moment whether you want to move or not, it is irrelevant to this topic.

My number one change would be for the boxes behind the goals to go, so that we have a huge single tier behind both goals.

Sensible post that mate. Bit of a change to the usual DK debate - help instead of washing ya hands of it.

 

[Goat]

And to the Mods. Instead of locking it, maybe you should move this thread to the alehouse?

kisses

xxxx

 

[HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0]

Double the boxes up on the sides. It would actually increase the no. of boxes.

Fair comment SP. I personally prefer the double stands myself

 

[Makis]

I think with the decision due in 5 months time, this would be a great time to concentrate on the actual design of the stadium. I think Elstone mentioned that there is room for modifications of the design so if you can make a few modifications what you have?

That would be a change, because the club has said on several occasions they are not going to take input from the fans. On the contrary they have already made a number of changes that basically make the shed even worse just to cut expenses (like the store under stadium that was seen in the first images).

I very much doubt they are interested in fan input for real. The aim is to make the stadium as cheaply as possible because that's all they can afford. But if you can point me to the direction of said comment, I'd be interested to see it.

 

[stanleypark]

Another thing I'd like is for every stand to have the capability to hold an extra tier. 50,000 to start is fine, I'm happy with that. I know it seems distant but 20 years is a long time, no one knows where we'd be then, clubs have rose significantly in that time span. An extra tier on each stand means 8 different stages and choices on how to expand. We may only ever reach stage 1, or 5, stage 7, or even stage 0, it doesn't matter at the moment. What does matter is that options and choice is constantly there.

For example, the designers commented on the outside case having enclosed sides being a plus, if we fill in the corners they're gone. We could however choose to add a tier to an End Stand instead of filling in the corners. Or we could do both! It's not a decision to made now how we choose to expand, just a case of having options open.

An extra tier on the Ends would take it from 2 tiers to 3. End Stands are always better kept to a minimum, so it makes sense to go from 1 large single tier to 2 tiers. Incidentally, as long as its overlapping the extra tier then thats fine for the atmosphere side. For space and viewing purposes it will be overlapping anyway.

As long as we maintain for now that the extra tier capability is for options then we are sticking to the 60,000 planning permission. Two End tiers on a 50,000 will make it 60,000, 1 side tier added only males it 57500, so we have an excuse to allow for options.

Just say twenty years or whenever down the line and we are ready to go beyond 60,000 then the stadium will be ready its a case of the permission side of things. One less thing to worry about if the stadiums ready.

 

[davek]

Can they get HOK to redesign it rather than Barr? Oh no, that'd mean a world class stadium might be built when the remit is for a 'a Premiership-standard', 'mid-level’ football stadium. Oh well.

 

[HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0]

Can they get HOK to redesign it rather than Barr? Oh no, that'd mean a world class stadium might be built when the remit is for a 'a Premiership-standard', 'mid-level’ football stadium. Oh well.

Are Hok the only designers of stadia all of a sudden?

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Can they get HOK to redesign it rather than Barr? Oh no, that'd mean a world class stadium might be built when the remit is for a 'a Premiership-standard', 'mid-level’ football stadium. Oh well.

84% liked the design. The design isn't an issue.

http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/news-updates/1737-poll-new-stadium-design-vote-now.html

 

[davek]

84% liked the design. The design isn't an issue.

http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/news-updates/1737-poll-new-stadium-design-vote-now.html

The people have spoken.

20th July 2007...when the batman lights and tall tales of a world class facility were blinding the gullible? They could have put a graphic for Prenton Park out at that point and you'd have gotten 70%.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

The people have spoken.

20th July 2007...when the batman lights and tall tales of a world class facility were blinding the gullible? They could have put a graphic for Prenton Park out at that point and you'd have gotten 70%.

Ah, so now the 655 fans from the 778 who voted are gullible?

Fair enough.

Another angle is that they actually liked the design, which hasn't changed.

Anywho, already been discussed at length. :lock:

 

[davek]

Are Hok the only designers of stadia all of a sudden?

No, there's Barr Construction too. They're in huge demand: Bayern Munich, Arsenal, Juventus, St Mirren....oh, ok, only one of them used Barr.