The Everton/Goodison Footprint

[Deggo]

Knock down the park end and start again, league 1 stand that

Supposedly built with the option of putting another tier on it,however apparently the foundations are not sufficient to hold the weight,unbelievable if true

 

[royalblue66]

Supposedly built with the option of putting another tier on it,however apparently the foundations are not sufficient to hold the weight,unbelievable if true

Cheap job by Peter Johnson.

 

[Deggo]

Cheap job by Peter Johnson.

Very short sighted by all involved I mean why not just do it while construction is on going

Like you say cheap by Peter Johnson

 

[Duncan Disordely]

Anyone know off hand how much bigger the footprint for a redeveloped Goodison was that KEIOC had produced?

 

[Deggo]

Anyone know off hand how much bigger the footprint for a redeveloped Goodison was that KEIOC had produced?

They reckoned the footprint wouldn't have to change and four stands could be redeveloped across four seasons with the capacity not dropping below 26000 if I remember correctly with the final capacity increased to 55000

Had the fella who did Twickenham involved in the feasibility study

 

[Eggs]

....I would've thought the footprint wasn't only in respect of the stadium, it's also the surrounding land for access, infrastructure, parking etc.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Old Trafford

165 x 232 (180 long before 3rd tiers on ends). I reckon 148 x 180 before redevelopment.

anyone think that these dimensions are showing a reluctance to do a goodison redevelopment ? both in past & presently

 

[The Esk]

From various sources the best use of the plot would involve the following:

• Lowering the pitch by 5 m
• Moving the pitch several metres towards Stanley Park allowing for an enlarged 2 tier Gwladys Street with steeper seating.
• The lower pitch would also allow a redesigned Bullens Road with a middle executive level, increased capacity and steeper seating
• A new 3 tier main stand with the middle section exclusively executive seating.
• A two tier Park End.
• Cantilever roofs for each stand.

Such a redevelopment though is very expensive, arguably more expensive than a new build.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

They reckoned the footprint wouldn't have to change and four stands could be redeveloped across four seasons with the capacity not dropping below 26000 if I remember correctly with the final capacity increased to 55000

Had the fella who did Twickenham involved in the feasibility study

175 x 240 ish

I reiterate that some of these are way bigger than we'll need often there's a case that there's a 3rd tier which when removed would reduce the size to what we have, the case of Old Old Trafford being the point.


Wonder what the kings dock footprint was ?

 

[Deggo]

Old Trafford

165 x 232 (180 long before 3rd tiers on ends). I reckon 148 x 180 before redevelopment.

anyone think that these dimensions are showing a reluctance to do a goodison redevelopment ? both in past & presently

Didn't the club release images of a new stadium on top of the current footprint and it covered a lot more land and so rule out redevelopment

 

[BigDunc'sFod]

I think we should just build the seats directly above the pitch and have everyone site like the Alton towers nemesis

 

[Caolam]

The plot on which the stadium stands is only part of the land take, you need circulation space, space for access, space for servicing, evacuation space. The expense involved in this type of brown field re-development would be a major factor. Planning legislation may also be an issue.
I would be nice to see the re-development fully costed out, it is hard to believe this board wouldn't just go for the cheapest simplest option.
Just because it is problematic doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[jaycee]

You could build any size capacity on the foot print but it takes time money planning determination etc all if which the present board lack,

 

[Groucho]

I've been looking on Google Maps on Satellite view and if you right click you can drop some markers for distances and so measure the size of the land that we currently have which is around 150 x 200m if trying to maintain a rectangular shape. The actual is about 230x150x200x150 with Goodison rd the longest side.
I did this so as to then compare the footprint of other stadiums that are in existence, mainly because my arl fella went to The Bernabeu a few years ago & said that from the outside it doesnt seem that big and when approaching you dont really realise its there until its right in front of you.
So, I did similar footprint measures with a few stadiums as a comparison, it does seem that we have a bit of a problem with whats available width wise but have whats seeming to be a 'standard' length of approx 200m. Goodison footprint as approx 177 x 116 using a rectangle but 150 at widest point of Bullens to Main Stand.

here are some results....

Bernabeu 211 x 200, San Siro almost the same

Juventus 170 x 200

Dortmund 187 x 200

Mestalla 192 x 150


any other suggestions to measure whilst I'm at it ?

Up with this sort of thing.

What we need are a few overlays of the stadia style we'd be looking at, to be get a sense of where we'd need to buy up land.

This thought has crossed my mind on occasion.

Every potential site I thought would be great for a new stadium from ground level turned out to be tiny.

 

[Stan Lee Park]

The plot on which the stadium stands is only part of the land take, you need circulation space, space for access, space for servicing, evacuation space. The expense involved in this type of brown field re-development would be a major factor. Planning legislation may also be an issue.
I would be nice to see the re-development fully costed out, it is hard to believe this board wouldn't just go for the cheapest simplest option.
Just because it is problematic doesn't mean it can't be done.

The former Walton Motors site is council-owned, as is Gwladys Street school, of course. If this space could be utilised, together with the first few houses on Diana Street plus the first few houses on one side of Muriel Street, then a re-routing of Bullens Road could open up a lot more space. Haven't mapped this out, but I know an architect did an exercise using these assumptions on behalf of KEIOC during the debate on the Kirkby move. In fact, this was presented at an AGM but in the rush to move a few miles up the East Lancs, it was ignored.