• 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

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

Oh right ok for a moment i thought it was a new photo - actually forgot about that trial, makes me wonder whether that's what is going in then...
 
Gutter Boy said:
seats730.jpg
Click to expand...

7percent said:
nintchdbpict000341860674.jpg
Click to expand...

Just posting both pics for easy comparison.
 
Probably needs clarification from the club but as mentioned earlier if the rails were to be in from day 1 of the stadium I would have expected them to be shown on all of the views from the 3D website seat view thing. Theres no point having them in there if standing doesn’t get approved for 5 years. I reckon the seats are the same throughout the stadium and they would change it in the next summer after they have been approved.
 
7percent said:
Just posting both pics for easy comparison.
Click to expand...
That rail looks way higher than 900mm off floor level to my eyes. I'd say 1400-1500mm .The rail system that the seats are attached to is not the same as the ordinary seats either. The 2nd seating rail is on floor mounts, for strength I would imagine.

I think it seating mode that rail is pretty close to being right at eye level.
 
billyiddo said:
It's just earmarked as the area that will be safestanding.

Don't think that's true re the rails being installed now (though could be wrong)

JTS, just think they mention the rail height as if the area gets used for safe standing in the future the rails will be too high for kids - so a warning not to buy there now if you won't be happy to stay once it's introduced.
Click to expand...

That would make sense. The rails do seem to be associated with the seat in front.
 
Rorschach said:
That rail looks way higher than 900mm off floor level to my eyes. I'd say 1400-1500mm .The rail system that the seats are attached to is not the same as the ordinary seats either. The 2nd seating rail is on floor mounts, for strength I would imagine.

I think it seating mode that rail is pretty close to being right at eye level.
Click to expand...

The rail is no more than 1000 mm above floor level. at 1500 mm you are at chest height for a normally tall man. That is way below that.

However, you are probably right when it comes to the rail, either the horizontal bar or the supporting verticals, impeding sight lines.
 
bjholmem said:
The rail is no more than 1000 mm above floor level. at 1500 mm you are at chest height for a normally tall man. That is way below that.

However, you are probably right when it comes to the rail, either the horizontal bar or the supporting verticals, impeding sight lines.
Click to expand...
Actually you are right. I had a brain fart and was incorrectly looking at the height from the step the rail is fixed to to the top of the rail, and of course it is the step behind that matters. Each step of terracing looks about 400mm in height I would say so 1000mm from the stp behind to the top of the rail is probably close.
 
Daisuk said:
Stole this off of user "Pellsheck" on Skyscrapercity:


A few images of the Wanda Metripolitano at the same stage last year (late March/early April 2017):



upload gif from url



Images from this thread/page: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...662282&page=78

> Incomplete roof
> No seats fitted yet
> Pitch area still a mud patch
> Interiors still a building site
> Exterior render not complete
> Public access, roads & paved areas outside still a mess
> Far, far fewer workers on site, and not 24/7 iirc
> Etc.

The stadium was ready for kick-off ~5 months later.

Of course, it's not a perfect apples & apples comparison, but it's presumably not an unreasonable ballpark comparison.
__________________

So, you know, it might be ready in time! :)
Click to expand...

Relevant time-lapse images from around 2m20s into this construction video...


And what we can look forward to in a few months time :cool:

 
That A Madrid build was done on a blank canvas and in what was presumably a much better location with regards to logistics than ours is and still took 5 years to construct - when you compare that to how long we will have managed to complete ours in you really have take your hat off to the team/people behind it all - i know we done some prep work the year before the NE corner went out but the bulk of the build, including taking down the old stadium, has taken 2 years - it's incredible
 
I'm still of the opinion that the photos above of the supposed safe standing seats at NWHL are not actually safe standing seats. The whole purpose of safe standing seats is to prevent people from being able to push forward from their allocated row. Those NWHL seats clearly do not prevent that, too much open space.

They are logically mobility impaired seats - the rail above is to assist people getting in an out of the seats. Not everybody who is disabled needs a wheelchair. We would also be the laughing stock of the football world if we tried to implement safe standing with a setup that didn't prevent crushing forward.
 
CanberraSpur said:
I'm still of the opinion that the photos above of the supposed safe standing seats at NWHL are not actually safe standing seats. The whole purpose of safe standing seats is to prevent people from being able to push forward from their allocated row. Those NWHL seats clearly do not prevent that, too much open space.

They are logically mobility impaired seats - the rail above is to assist people getting in an out of the seats. Not everybody who is disabled needs a wheelchair. We would also be the laughing stock of the football world if we tried to implement safe standing with a setup that didn't prevent crushing forward.
Click to expand...


Erm, the rail looks pretty spot on, height wise to me.

Do you mean it would be too easy for people to go around either side of the rail? because they'd fit the rail all the way along a row.

That being said, these could just be prototypes and we could end up with something completely different.
 
Here is a picture from the Allianz Arena, which i believe is a safe standing area even though the rails are much lower than in the example above.

You can see each section of rail covers approx 3 seats like our example.

allianzarena6.JPG
 
7percent said:
Erm, the rail looks pretty spot on, height wise to me.

Do you mean it would be too easy for people to go around either side of the rail? because they'd fit the rail all the way along a row.

That being said, these could just be prototypes and we could end up with something completely different.
Click to expand...

Another thing that doesn't look right to me is the difference in height of the rails between rows. Imagine that same gradient going down for 20 rows in front of you and have obstructed views.

Anyway, we'll find out eventually one way or another.
 
CanberraSpur said:
Another thing that doesn't look right to me is the difference in height of the rails between rows. Imagine that same gradient going down for 20 rows in front of you and have obstructed views.

Anyway, we'll find out eventually one way or another.
Click to expand...

I did think that as well, but I think these seats weren't necessarily installed in the standing area, they just wanted an area to try them away from the worst of the building works.

I can't be sure, but I would think there'd be a steeper rake in the standing areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back