New Everton Stadium Discussion

[Thetigerblue]

I've said this before, I've worked on and seen many more big structures and the first thing they do is dig a big hole, so why fill it in.
Most of that area sits on a big ledge of sandstone. Now the Dock walls that keep out millions of tons of water out weren't just plonked down on a muddy river bottom, they must be anchored to something...that something being the sandstone bedrock
One of the first steps will be to drain, check/fix for leaks, (in fact I'd say the biggest on going problem will be continuous seepage. There will have to be sumps, collection points and pumps going 24/7 all over the place.) assess structural strength, then drill test bores to see what you're building on...though its all well documented on 5 or 6 big projects; Building the actual dock, the late 19th cent. rail tunnel, the 1930s road tunnel, the new tunnel, the Mersey rail stuff...even the new road bridge, plus any number of big dock warehoses of the era.
Short version; you dig down around there you very soon hit the sandstone bedrock...why fill in a perfectly good hole.

Hi. Sorry, I've some daft questions (I've no civil engineering experience)
If I've understood you correctly, you are saying that the dock can be drained leaving a big hole.
A lot of people (me included) assume this hole will be filled in and the stadium built on what is then solid ground material.
Are you saying this isn't necessarily correct? Would a ground level platform covering the dock be built, resting on piles sunk into the bedrock, and the stadium built on that? With a large empty space below, save piles and any basement levels?

 

[RobSpurs]

Where has this 1:8 standing ratio in the new stadium come from?

I thought Tottenham added a standing area with a ratio of 1:1.

Exactly right. But the 1.8 isn't a number plucked from nowhere.

The Green Guide allows for a ratio of 1.8 standing for every 1 'seat' in standing areas in UK stadiums. However, in the top two divisions of English football every spectator must be provided with a seat by law and that supersedes the guidelines in the Green Guide. So 1:1 is the best we can do for now.

If the quote about safe-standing adding 10k to BMD is to be taken at face value, what the club are relying on is a change in the law, not just to fully allow safe-standing but also to allow it on a 1:8 ratio in the top divisions. I don't know how likely that is.

And even if that change happens you need to design the stadium with 12k 'seats' safe standing to get an extra 10k on a 1:8 ratio. Going by current seating plans, the whole of the single-tier couldn't be converted as it's too steep (again see Green Guide of rake allowed in standing areas), so you'd maybe need to convert half the single-tier (designing the front section to be shallower as we've done at NWHL), all of the opposite stand and some of the away area?

It's not quite what I expected when they said the stadium could be expanded to 62k in future. If the quote from the AGM is to be taken at face value, capacity increase is not in your own hands.

 

[degsy]

Hi. Sorry, I've some daft questions (I've no civil engineering experience)
If I've understood you correctly, you are saying that the dock can be drained leaving a big hole.
A lot of people (me included) assume this hole will be filled in and the stadium built on what is then solid ground material.
Are you saying this isn't necessarily correct? Would a ground level platform covering the dock be built, resting on piles sunk into the bedrock, and the stadium built on that? With a large empty space below, save piles and any basement levels?

I've not much tbf, but Ive seen plenty and worked on site of a few as a welder and when it got to hard climbing about up in the air, as a site mechanic and they all start with a big hole.
Then they shore up the outsides with reo and concrete, then drill into the bedrock and pour reinforced columns etc etc
But It All Starts With A Hole.
Is there a big new build somewhere near you, have a look.

 

[Yarrgh]

I want the new ground to look like Goodison in the 60's-70's period. The Clocks and the cutaways at each end and the blue and white designs on the Bullens Road. Best ground in the country then by a mile. I will be amazed if there are no homely features.

Those elements I would love to see. Surely not beyond the wit of man to incorporate them.

 

[Yarrgh]

Exactly right. But the 1.8 isn't a number plucked from nowhere.

The Green Guide allows for a ratio of 1.8 standing for every 1 'seat' in standing areas in UK stadiums. However, in the top two divisions of English football every spectator must be provided with a seat by law and that supersedes the guidelines in the Green Guide. So 1:1 is the best we can do for now.

If the quote about safe-standing adding 10k to BMD is to be taken at face value, what the club are relying on is a change in the law, not just to fully allow safe-standing but also to allow it on a 1:8 ratio in the top divisions. I don't know how likely that is.

And even if that change happens you need to design the stadium with 12k 'seats' safe standing to get an extra 10k on a 1:8 ratio. Going by current seating plans, the whole of the single-tier couldn't be converted as it's too steep (again see Green Guide of rake allowed in standing areas), so you'd maybe need to convert half the single-tier (designing the front section to be shallower as we've done at NWHL), all of the opposite stand and some of the away area?

It's not quite what I expected when they said the stadium could be expanded to 62k in future. If the quote from the AGM is to be taken at face value, capacity increase is not in your own hands.

It sounds like you have had several long years to become expert on such matters @RobSpurs! IF you were a betting man, and knowing what you know with the build at White Hart Lane, what season would you put Everton's first home game in a new stadium if the planning permission was handed in before the end of 2019?

 

[GwladysPhil]

It sounds like you have had several long years to become expert on such matters @RobSpurs! IF you were a betting man, and knowing what you know with the build at White Hart Lane, what season would you put Everton's first home game in a new stadium if the planning permission was handed in before the end of 2019?

Spurs got too keen and designed the potential for safe standing arrangements on a 1:1 basis, sad, but at least the stadium looks nice.

Everton are taking into consideration the potential for 1:8, whether that comes into fruition before we start building is the next question - I can imagine the legislation will be passed in the next year before we start building, but if not, likelihood is that seats will be put in place then taken out and changed to 1:8 safe standing.

 

[TommyDavo]

Once they appoint a contractor I think things will start falling into place. Hopefully that’s soon as I know for a fact they are currently discussing the stadium with a number of large contractors.

They are indeed. I think a lot more will become public knowledge very soon.

 

[RobSpurs]

It sounds like you have had several long years to become expert on such matters @RobSpurs! IF you were a betting man, and knowing what you know with the build at White Hart Lane, what season would you put Everton's first home game in a new stadium if the planning permission was handed in before the end of 2019?

Your guess is as good as mine, 2023 at the earliest I would say, but maybe 2024 more likely. If end of 2019 planning submitted, a good few months before it's approved, it'll be third quarter 2020 before the build starts at the earliest. Then 2.5 years before the 2023 season, which is possible but tight especially if site prep isn't simple.

You guys know better than me about what other things need doing as well, like new transport links etc.

Spurs got too keen and designed the potential for safe standing arrangements on a 1:1 basis, sad, but at least the stadium looks nice.

Everton are taking into consideration the potential for 1:8, whether that comes into fruition before we start building is the next question - I can imagine the legislation will be passed in the next year before we start building, but if not, likelihood is that seats will be put in place then taken out and changed to 1:8 safe standing.

All we know is that NWHL is currently installed with a 1:1 ratio, we don't know if the stadium has been future-proofed to allow for bigger ratios. There's some debate about this.

RE: BMD, who knows, maybe I'm being cynical, but to release a statement a fortnight ago that says that stadium can be expanded to 62k, then this week to hear at the AGM the added caveat "with safe standing ratios increased" sounds like a bit of a PR sop rather than a fundamental change in design. It's great if it's doable but I've no idea how likely a change in the law would be (I could see safe standing becoming fully legal, whether they'd allow more than one person per 'seat' I'm not so sure). So any capacity increase is not in your hands, that's a bit worrying if you're someone who thinks 52k is too small.

 

[mrb85]

Your guess is as good as mine, 2023 at the earliest I would say, but maybe 2024 more likely. If end of 2019 planning submitted, a good few months before it's approved, it'll be third quarter 2020 before the build starts at the earliest. Then 2.5 years before the 2023 season, which is possible but tight especially if site prep isn't simple.

You guys know better than me about what other things need doing as well, like new transport links etc.



All we know is that NWHL is currently installed with a 1:1 ratio, we don't know if the stadium has been future-proofed to allow for bigger ratios. There's some debate about this.

RE: BMD, who knows, maybe I'm being cynical, but to release a statement a fortnight ago that says that stadium can be expanded to 62k, then this week to hear at the AGM the added caveat "with safe standing ratios increased" sounds like a bit of a PR sop rather than a fundamental change in design. It's great if it's doable but I've no idea how likely a change in the law would be (I could see safe standing becoming fully legal, whether they' d allow more than one person per 'seat' I'm not so sure). So any capacity increase is not in your hands, that's a bit worrying if you're someonewho thinks 52k is too small.

Which it will undoubtedly prove to be.

 

[Thetigerblue]

I've not much tbf, but Ive seen plenty and worked on site of a few as a welder and when it got to hard climbing about up in the air, as a site mechanic and they all start with a big hole.
Then they shore up the outsides with reo and concrete, then drill into the bedrock and pour reinforced columns etc etc
But It All Starts With A Hole.
Is there a big new build somewhere near you, have a look.

I've been thinking about Canary Wharf (I work there occasionally) and you're right, the huge buildings do start with a big hole in the ground; they dig down first.

 

[degsy]

I've been thinking about Canary Wharf (I work there occasionally) and you're right, the huge buildings do start with a big hole in the ground; they dig down first.

Also, I believed that you can't just in-fill then pour concrete, it has to settle for a couple of years first

 

[GwladysPhil]

On he 52,000 capcitiy; I feel this is adequate to our current position - no way on earth would we sell out 62 regular

Also, I believed that you can't just in-fill then pour concrete, it has to settle for a couple of years first

Haha, no.

 

[Flano21]

On he 52,000 capcitiy; I feel this is adequate to our current position - no way on earth would we sell out 62 regular


Haha, no.

From what I just read it apparently takes 1 month until you can build on it

 

[degsy]

I've been thinking about Canary Wharf (I work there occasionally) and you're right, the huge buildings do start with a big hole in the ground; they dig down first.

Have thought more, all the weight will be around the circumference with the playing surface in the middle...a sort of rectangular annulus
And on that bombshell I'm out...over to you Dan Meis.
#sticktolegodegsy.

 

[Market trader]

There will also still be a water channel between the two docks on either side, though why that is necessary when both of the other docks seem to have direct access to the river, I do not know. (It is 'a historic water course' according to the line under the first graphic on https://sportsvenuebusiness.com/index.php/2019/01/09/everton-provides-stadium-project-update/ )