• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan

Are those the only buildings that the fuss has been about then?
Are they the ones which used to be the Supporters Club etc?
And do we own the buildings?

If so, prime candidate for some kind of museum experience thing I guess.
 
Yeah..think i heard they were gonna be cafes/bars/museum, that sort of thing..will look spot on,linking the old with the new.
The thing missing in the photo (new plans are to be submited for it) is the walkway linking the ground with WHL station, and it will be from the middle of the new WHL along where those cars are parked in the foreground, to where the British Queen pub is (not in picture) wich will be demolished to make a new southern entrance to WHL station.
 
Re the supermarket - are we going to own the land and buildings and lease them to say Tesco? Or will they be owned by the council?

If we own it then I can understand why its being built first (on the assumption that there are financial benefits to building the supermarket first). If we dont own it, then I cant understand why we need to wait for next summer to begin
 
I'm still loving the way they have integrated the huge single storey club superstore underneath the hugepodium/walkway. Very well done.

Also am still holding out hope for well over 60k in a revision, however juvenile that might sound!

A pint bottle of grolsch in Rudolphs before watching us try to stay in 15th place with a draw will seem an eternity away in this place come 2015. Will miss those days, but on the other hand, I won't.. if you know what I mean!
 
AdamB said:
Re the supermarket - are we going to own the land and buildings and lease them to say Tesco? Or will they be owned by the council?

If we own it then I can understand why its being built first (on the assumption that there are financial benefits to building the supermarket first). If we dont own it, then I cant understand why we need to wait for next summer to begin
Click to expand...

We will own it. Our land. Our (borrowed) money paying for its construction. Whether Sainsburys (who are the supermarket involved) will buy the property from us or whether they will rent / lease it is another matter.
 
Did I see right that beneath the flats there is somekind of three storey business, is this the where the health centre etc goes. Or will they be Franchises like Dominoes, KFC Starbucks etc.
 
Phil Horatio said:
I'm still loving the way they have integrated the huge single storey club superstore underneath the hugepodium/walkway. Very well done.

Also am still holding out hope for well over 60k in a revision, however juvenile that might sound!

A pint bottle of grolsch in Rudolphs before watching us try to stay in 15th place with a draw will seem an eternity away in this place come 2015. Will miss those days, but on the other hand, I won't.. if you know what I mean!
Click to expand...

Yep me too, would love it to be 60,161, but i really cant see them getting another 4k in the same space, though if it were me i would put a small top teir of seating above the 'kop end' right at the back..say 10 rows or so, for an extra 2k ish seats..allowing for the correct sight lines from the back row of the lower tier to see the top of the far goal.
Maybe thats what they've got planed,who knows.
 
unknown said:
Did I see right that beneath the flats there is somekind of three storey business, is this the where the health centre etc goes. Or will they be Franchises like Dominoes, KFC Starbucks etc.
Click to expand...
Yes thats whats happening as i see it..makes sence to do so.
 
KingTuT said:
View attachment 216
This is the approved ground design with the historic buildings cleaned up and left in situ (wich were never going to be removed after we agreed to keep them), anyway it looks better with than without imo,and this is where the Bill Nick gates will be..I need TP for my bunghole.
COYS
Click to expand...


You are wrong as it happens, there will be a further planning application submitted in the near future regarding the Stadium the main point will be (Increased stadium capacity) and for changes to the podium (the removal of the Four listed buildings), it clearly states that there will be a further planning application on those points on the Haringey Council website, in the planning section.
 
jimmyb said:
We will own it. Our land. Our (borrowed) money paying for its construction. Whether Sainsburys (who are the supermarket involved) will buy the property from us or whether they will rent / lease it is another matter.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wasnt sure whether we owned the supermarket part of the site. Makes sense to me then that we're building the supermarket first as presumably you can build a supermarket quicker than a stadium so therefore cash starts coming in sooner and can help finance the stadium
 
If thats the case why are they releasing images with them still in it,and as has been reported they said at the planning meeting yesterday something along the lines of 'Dont worry,the listed buildings are still in'.
I expect the new planning app will be for the new walk way,and maybe some tweeking of the capacity,though i'm not sure its needed as its inside the main shell,wich allready has the permissions.
 
KingTuT said:
Yep me too, would love it to be 60,161, but i really cant see them getting another 4k in the same space, though if it were me i would put a small top teir of seating above the 'kop end' right at the back..say 10 rows or so, for an extra 2k ish seats..allowing for the correct sight lines from the back row of the lower tier to see the top of the far goal.
Maybe thats what they've got planed,who knows.
Click to expand...

Putting in a second tier at the single tier end would require a roof redesign. Otherwise the roof trusses would cause restricted views.

As to how the architects could find an extra 4K seats without increasing the footprint of the stadium:

1. Move the stands a row or two closer to the pitch.
2. Add an extra row or two by marginally reducing the leg room.

...after roof redesign:

3. Fill in the dipping corners to some extent.
4. Add rows to the back of the single tier or, as you suggest, a second tier.
 
KingTuT said:
Yep me too, would love it to be 60,161, but i really cant see them getting another 4k in the same space, though if it were me i would put a small top teir of seating above the 'kop end' right at the back..say 10 rows or so, for an extra 2k ish seats..allowing for the correct sight lines from the back row of the lower tier to see the top of the far goal.
Maybe thats what they've got planed,who knows.
Click to expand...

All for a 60k stadium, but dont want a "special number" like that as our capacity? Why? Because its the past. History and heritage is alright but in someways it was laughable that we were celebrating the 50 year anniversary last year with no title since then. We were rightly mocked by the goons for that. A bit like 1966, it could become a curse more than anything. I want us to be focusing on titles to come.

Celebrating 1901 is different because that was the first of many, and it was a never-to-be-repeated achievement (non league FAC winners). First double the last millennium unfortunately became more and more irrelevant, I'm afraid.
 
jimmyb said:
Putting in a second tier at the single tier end would require a roof redesign. Otherwise the roof trusses would cause restricted views.

As to how the architects could find an extra 4K seats without increasing the footprint of the stadium:

1. Move the stands a row or two closer to the pitch.
2. Add an extra row or two by marginally reducing the leg room.

...after roof redesign:

3. Fill in the dipping corners to some extent.
4. Add rows to the back of the single tier or, as you suggest, a second tier.
Click to expand...
Jimmy i think you are wrong,and i'll tell you why if i may. Its exactly the same roof designe as when the entire stadium was gonna be 3 teirs all round,all they have done is take the top teir off and made a single teir 'kop'. No roof changes whatsoever. So putting a few rows of the top tier back will require no roof ajustment,as its the same roof as before the 'kop' redesign with exactly the same sight lines.
 
chicken_badge said:
All for a 60k stadium, but dont want a "special number" like that as our capacity? Why? Because its the past. History and heritage is alright but in someways it was laughable that we were celebrating the 50 year anniversary last year with no title since then. We were rightly mocked by the goons for that. A bit like 1966, it could become a curse more than anything. I want us to be focusing on titles to come.

Celebrating 1901 is different because that was the first of many, and it was a never-to-be-repeated achievement (non league FAC winners). First double the last millennium unfortunately became more and more irrelevant, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Its no biggy..i just want anything over 60k so 60,250 is ok by me,just think 60,161 is a nice touch,though not really important.
 
LoughtonSpurz said:
You are wrong as it happens, there will be a further planning application submitted in the near future regarding the Stadium the main point will be (Increased stadium capacity) and for changes to the podium (the removal of the Four listed buildings), it clearly states that there will be a further planning application on those points on the Haringey Council website, in the planning section.
Click to expand...

Loughton, the fact that the club may set their face against the remaining buildings after all the aggro that was involved with them suggests it may be closely linked to your first point, a possible capacity increase.

Furthermore, this would lend itself to something more dramatic as, if the above were in any way on the money, the buildings would not impinge on such things as an extra row here or there, a dig down, squeezing of seat spacing, slight re-jig or whatever.

It may suggest that the bowl dimensions itself are to enlarge and/or move somewhat!

Lots of reading between the lines there, but that's what they're forcing us to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back