Homepage Update: Mayor's Bramley Moore Dock Open Letter To Evertonians

[Moomin]

From the other stadium thread, 22nd of April and i was apparently a troll when posting it.

I'm 95% sure that Birmingham will get the commonwealth games, as stated before they have the team that delivered the 2012 bid working for them and a team doing the feasibility study who have delivered the last few commonwealth games. Compared to Liverpool they have much better infrastructure in place.

But, if its a joint bid of Manchester and Liverpool that might win due to less funding from central government required due to the facilities in place from the Manchester games.

People need to forget about West Hams ground, Football was an after thought and that stadium is a black mark against LOCOG. If Spurs would have won when they bidded for the olympic stadium they would have knocked it down and built a stadium for Football.

If Liverpool council is serious about bidding for the games they will more than likely lean on us to use the new stadium. Does not mean we have a permenant running track but the facility to have a track would need to be engineered in.

Think we will know more in a few weeks. Birmingham will be releasing their findings from the feasibility study and Liverpool council will have to offer further details on its bid.

 

[orly]

From the other stadium thread, 22nd of April and i was apparently a troll when posting it.

Wow. That's virtually word for word what has happened

 

[jonnyboy316]

From the other stadium thread, 22nd of April and i was apparently a troll when posting it.

Do we know what Birmingham are doing for the stadium? I would have the thought there would be a reluctance to opt for another bid that includes a conversion like this where conversation costs could spiral like with the London world championships although in fairness I believe the Glasgow games were deemed a success

 

[RobSpurs]

^^ Details released tomorrow:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...and-logo-for-commonwealth-games-bid-on-monday

 

[bicycleheader]

My opinion...

-The stadium won't have 'a reduced capacity at first'.
-The stadium will have it's 'FINAL' capacity at first.
-Because it's being built as a football stadium not an athletics stadium.
-It won't have removable stands, because it won't be used for athletics again following the Commonwealth Games.
-The athletics track is a temporary one time only special deal.
-Yes, it will be built on stilts, above the pitch and into the stands, positioned above seating, taking out at least the first 10 rows of all stands, maybe more depending on the steepness gradient. This is not a joke, this is how the removable temporary track was built at Hampden.
- Yes, the stands weren't as steep at Hampden as they will be at BMD, but that's the challenging Meis is meeting and why he's paid the big bucks.
-Dan Meis tweeted just a few days ago that the new stadium 'will be nothing like West Ham's', i.e. no permanent running track and the stands will be close to the pitch. He is the world-renowned architect designing the stadium. He is not going to lie and create ill-will.
- We do not have any future aspirations or plans to 'host the Diamond League' FFS.

Don't understand why people keep acting and posting like the running track is a permanent thing, will affect the design, is a factor in the design, or pretty much any and all of these things, where people seem to be taking the complete opposite view of what Mayor Anderson wrote and what Dan Meis tweets on a daily basis. Y'all would/will fail your GCSE English Comprehension test based on your posts, that's for sure.

As for the person who wanted a roof... the stadium is situated in one of the most scenic sites in the country. The last thing you do is put a roof on a stadium in that position and block out the scenery.

Don't know why posters want to dismiss any querying of what the architect is saying. His idea of what is close enough to the pitch may not match the majority of fans. Below is an example of him posted before, talking about the Roma stadium in glowing positive terms when the actual distance to the pitch would not be so great.

If you read The dan Meis details about the new Roma stadium he talks about 'intimacy' and 'home field advantage' but the reality is the distances from the pitch are larger than at the new Spurs stadium

The Roma stands are 8.9 to 11.7m away from the pitch for a 52k stadium. Spurs are 4.9 to 7.9 for 61k. Spurs would be very acceptable whilst Roma disappointing.

 

[Moomin]

Do we know what Birmingham are doing for the stadium? I would have the thought there would be a reluctance to opt for another bid that includes a conversion like this where conversation costs could spiral like with the London world championships although in fairness I believe the Glasgow games were deemed a success

Not sure, they are launcing its bid tomorrow so we should know more than.

 

[malfosse]

That's not the point being made. My point is that the owner will have no motivation to get done what we want to get done. He's here to get a dockside stadium and to increase his shares and get out.

He couldn't give a flying one about design for atmosphere.

Do you have proof of that mate? The little wums inside your head don't count.

 

[malfosse]

SBC would have been the far easier and cheaper option but not necessarily the more profitable. In theory we could receive a public funding windfall due to the CWG which would drastically reduce debt and therefore increase share value all without costing the shareholders a penny.
As for architectural legacy the Emirates was lauded as a beautiful design by architects but it's a bowl that reduced the atmosphere they had at Highbury. Hence it's known as the library.

Arsenals previous ground, the four sided Highbury, was also known as "the library".

 

[TheFinnFan]

You doubters should just calm down. It will be amazing stadium. Trust me.

 

[davek]

Do you have proof of that mate? The little wums inside your head don't count.

Yes I have proof: he's allowing some 'kin muppet washed up mayor to railroad the club into dictating the dimensions of any new stadium down there at the docks to accommodate an athletics track...and that IS a destroyer of stadium design if you want great acoustics and atmosphere. They publish said muppet mayor's letter on the subject on the club's own website, so must be on board with it.

THAT's my proof.

 

[malfosse]

I'm sure everyone understands

Yes I have proof: he's allowing some 'kin muppet washed up mayor to railroad the club into dictating the dimensions of any new stadium down there at the docks to accommodate an athletics track...and that IS a destroyer of stadium design if you want great acoustics and atmosphere. They publish said muppet mayor's letter on the subject on the club's own website, so must be on board with it.

THAT's my proof.

Sorry, still can't see any mate.
Do you have any plans, drawings or even better, photographs?

 

[davek]

I'm sure everyone understands

Sorry, still can't see any mate.
Do you have any plans, drawings or even better, photographs?

No. D'you know why? Because this lot aren't providing ANY graphics in terms of rough but probable design...and that's because they dont want to reveal their hand and expose to us the limited nature of their vision which will jar with expectations.

 

[malfosse]

No. D'you know why? Because this lot aren't providing ANY graphics in terms of rough but probable design...and that's because they dont want to reveal their hand and expose to us the limited nature of their vision which will jar with expectations.

At the moment.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

No. D'you know why? Because this lot aren't providing ANY graphics in terms of rough but probable design...and that's because they dont want to reveal their hand and expose to us the limited nature of their vision which will jar with expectations.

Apart from doing virtual jumping up and down and demanding to be involved in the planning process, denigrating the Mayor of our city , an Evertonian himself , what exactly do you do to alter things ? Have you ever got involved with anything other then whinging on the Internet?.........no, I thought not.

 

[Trueblue1878]

My opinion...

-The stadium won't have 'a reduced capacity at first'.
-The stadium will have it's 'FINAL' capacity at first.
-Because it's being built as a football stadium not an athletics stadium.
-It won't have removable stands, because it won't be used for athletics again following the Commonwealth Games.
-The athletics track is a temporary one time only special deal.
-Yes, it will be built on stilts, above the pitch and into the stands, positioned above seating, taking out at least the first 10 rows of all stands, maybe more depending on the steepness gradient. This is not a joke, this is how the removable temporary track was built at Hampden.
- Yes, the stands weren't as steep at Hampden as they will be at BMD, but that's the challenging Meis is meeting and why he's paid the big bucks.
-Dan Meis tweeted just a few days ago that the new stadium 'will be nothing like West Ham's', i.e. no permanent running track and the stands will be close to the pitch. He is the world-renowned architect designing the stadium. He is not going to lie and create ill-will.
- We do not have any future aspirations or plans to 'host the Diamond League' FFS.

Don't understand why people keep acting and posting like the running track is a permanent thing, will affect the design, is a factor in the design, or pretty much any and all of these things, where people seem to be taking the complete opposite view of what Mayor Anderson wrote and what Dan Meis tweets on a daily basis. Y'all would/will fail your GCSE English Comprehension test based on your posts, that's for sure.

As for the person who wanted a roof... the stadium is situated in one of the most scenic sites in the country. The last thing you do is put a roof on a stadium in that position and block out the scenery.

Hampden has huge gaps all the way around especially at the ends (like the Old Wembley) and they still lost eight rows of seats.

Please explain to me mathematically how we'll be able to accommodate a temporary platform for the loss of on 2 more rows? (Seat depth is approx 0.700 mm - 0.800mm)

The laws of physics can't be changed just because Meis says that it won't affect the tightness to the pitch.

We know that athletics require an area of >16500 square metres so even leaving one end open would still require a fairly sizeable platform.

Twice you've mentioned only needing to build over 10 rows......please explain how other than our new ground looking like Hampden?