It's at planning so there's still time to push for modification during detailed design. I'd be happy to look at a few quick sketch options to put to the club if you know the right people to approach. The first thing to do would be to push for a larger concourse for wheelchair users. Second option would be a mixed GA and wheelchair area at level 1. It would be difficult as it would mean access from the upper part of the stand.
I don't have the figures obviously but the costs and return must be really tight. One telltale is the area labelled 'Fan Zone' on the plans. What that screams to me is that there's basically no money for fitout in that area. The hospitality seating on level 1 and the income from the hospitality lounges will be what make the stand viable.
Thanks again, Alan.
I realise there's still time for modifications to the interior design but I do not know the right people to approach. First and foremost it would be up to the LDSA to pursue such a matter. Do you know anybody in there that would be interested? Do any come on here? It would certainly be interesting to get their viewpoint.
Money might be tight, but I don't think it is that tight when spread out over the lifetime of this stand, which might be 50 years or more. Hospitality may make the stand more viable, but that should not be at the expense of wheelchair users. As I said at the beginning of my posts, this boils down to the philosophy of "inclusivity".
Disabled people are always seen as "costs", rather than as customers -- in all walks of life. Fulfilling the needs of disabled people is always seen as an "extra" unwanted cost, for the sake of just a few people. It might cost an extra £1m to make that disabled area in the proposed Anfield Road stand more "inclusive" just for the sake of 32 wheelchair users or over £31k each and that is unreasonable. Except for the fact that from an inclusive design perspective, the aim is to produce a stand for it for all users, their friends and families, throughout their lives. So that £1m extra should not be divided by 32, but by the stand capacity of 7000, which works out at around £142 each! That is hardly a deal-breaker!
To use a different and tongue-in-cheek analogy, the seats in the Main Stand roughly 10% larger than those in the Sir Kenny Dalglish stand. This is largely because since that stand was built, people have become *ahem* 'bigger'. More specifically, a portion of the population have allowed themselves to become grossly overweight, and because of this, the club architects have made a decision to make each and every seat larger, so that the 15% who are grossly overweight can sit anywhere. Why did they not consider a "fat" corner in the same way they have built this wheelchair corner? Seats could be made larger for the fatties who need them, meaning more seats could be provided for those who manage to keep their timber the control. In the main stand, a 10% increase in seat sizes probably equates to around 2000 lost seats. Therefore in order to maintain the same match day income from ticket sales, everyone must pay around 10% more for their tickets!
Genuine question: why is inclusivity automatically applied in the case of overweight able-bodied people. It is done without question and everyone shares the cost. It is possibly because able-bodied customers, are seen as just that -- customers. Also, if people were corralled into a corner of the ground with their own entrance and tuck shop, there would be a huge outcry and cries of discrimination!
The hypocrisy and double standards results in shocking discrimination against disabled people in all walks of life which, as the Anfield Road stand plans suggest, shows little sign of being eliminated.
