Topic: Anfield Road

[illustrator28]

The arguments are not the same. Anfield as it stands generates £40m a year without debt. This is a great situation and a quite fantastic return to the club. The new stadium requires a very significant investment to be paid in in the space of three years - a great lump of debt on the club, which as has has been said, generates a very nice return for the investor. To demolish 45000 seats at Anfield is to replace a paid-for asset with exceptional return, all paid to the club, with a debt-laden asset that requires a quite enormous payment to an investor with very little extra paid to the club. Worse still - if the anticipated income does not eventuate (and the return to the investor is taken from the existing income of £40m), the club will receive LESS than it does now. In other words, the investment return to the investor is backed by the existing income ie he pretty much can't fail but the club can, and will be paying OUT instead of getting more money IN.

Notwithstanding that normally the seats at the back of any stadium are more expensive to build than those at the front (because of the higher structure required), adding 15000 seats to Anfield is both technically possible and considerably cheaper (and so any debt would be corespondingly less) than building 60000 brand new, shiny seats (even allowing maintenance and even upgrades of the existing facilties and systems at Anfield - including the drainage run under the main stand car park). Not only that but the premium paid for the higher seats is not the redundant cost it normally is. The additional substructure required to get to the higher level will be used to accommodate greatly expanded pre- and post-match corporate facilties. In other words this 'additional' structure can actually pay for itself and very much more besides.

The arguments are not meaningless as they do address the investment options and there is really no need for detail cost comparison. Even in your wildest dreams if you were to imagine that adding 15000 seats at Anfield would cost the same as a new stadium at 60000 seats (dream on), Anfield can be redeveloped in stages over a longer period with inherently less debt burden and to suit cashflow ie the construction of a redeveloped Anfield can be paid for, not by massive debt repayments, but from smaller debt repayments or even from the existing income stream. And as each stage is completed there is a bigger and bigger income stream to 'play' with. The day a new stadium opens you have to hit the attendance targets and make the repayments. There is little leeway for error, a(nother) downturn in team performance or flexibility for any other crisis.

There are at least two ways of avoiding loss of revenue during construction but even if you decided to rebuild rather than add, the cashflow beneifts of redevelopment in stages could and would outweigh the losses incurred from a rebuild (in other words and in that case, you build some then remove some)

No, the two sets of funding opportunites are not the same at all and greatly in favour of a redeveloped Anfield. It would be useful to hear if anyone can refute the argument other than to say we don't know enough about it, when in fact we do.


I look around anfield and study pictures of the surrounding area of anfield and cant for the life of me see why extending the main and anfield road end isnt possible. It seems we can go as far back as we want at the road end and create a truly world class stand with lots of boxes and corporate facilities, plus pay points. Also there is a car park further back which looks ideally suited to attach directly onto the new structure. I just feel that its all there to be done. As for the main stand, the area behind seems empty and ready to be knocked down so how far back we can go I dont know but there must be room for a significant stand on top. we must be able to surpass 60000 and more if we make these stands as big as humanly possible!

[TMOI]

I look around anfield and study pictures of the surrounding area of anfield and cant for the life of me see why extending the main and anfield road end isnt possible. It seems we can go as far back as we want at the road end and create a truly world class stand with lots of boxes and corporate facilities, plus pay points. Also there is a car park further back which looks ideally suited to attach directly onto the new structure. I just feel that its all there to be done. As for the main stand, the area behind seems empty and ready to be knocked down so how far back we can go I dont know but there must be room for a significant stand on top. we must be able to surpass 60000 and more if we make these stands as big as humanly possible!

[Red_Mist]

Bit early for this kind of speculation, but interesting sentence in the Post's profile of John W Henry:

“The Sox have the second oldest stadium in baseball and he has fixed it up better than people thought he would. He spent more than people thought he would, I would imagine probably $50m, if not more.”

[xerxes1]

Quote from: TMOI on October  2, 2010, 07:12:12 PM
I look around anfield and study pictures of the surrounding area of anfield and cant for the life of me see why extending the main and anfield road end isnt possible. It seems we can go as far back as we want at the road end and create a truly world class stand with lots of boxes and corporate facilities, plus pay points. Also there is a car park further back which looks ideally suited to attach directly onto the new structure. I just feel that its all there to be done. As for the main stand, the area behind seems empty and ready to be knocked down so how far back we can go I dont know but there must be room for a significant stand on top. we must be able to surpass 60000 and more if we make these stands as big as humanly possible!

You are right on a Construction basis.Retaining the Centenary/Kop and redeveloping the Main/Annie Rd is the most practical solution.

The planning obstacles of increased elevations for those stands and Rights of Light objections are likely to be deal breakers, particularly the first point.

[Red_Mist]

Xerxes/TMOI/Alan etc - pre-empting any studies (I know we've just got to wait and see now), and height issues aside, do we have any idea if it would be physically practical to keep the Main Stand and Anfield Rd end as they are, remove the roofs and add a new tier on each stand? Only asking because I've seen it done in Spain at El Molinon (Sporting Gijon), the oldest ground in Spain, and it looks fantastic now. Was sat in there many times whilst the new tier was going up above our heads. Didn't take long either, a matter of months.

If it was possible to do the same at Anfield, it would surely have several advantages over demolision and re-building the stands (cost, less disruption/loss of revenue, and also it would keep the current capacity of the existing Main Stand which I've read on other threads is relatively high due to the compact seating).

Any ideas if it's physically possible to start with? (P.S. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer!)

[The Manhattan Project]

Knock down the Anfield Road stand and built a giant new one.

All the other stands have been picking on the Annie Road one for years.

They are bigger than he is. He feels inadequate.

[Alan_X]

Xerxes/TMOI/Alan etc - pre-empting any studies (I know we've just got to wait and see now), and height issues aside, do we have any idea if it would be physically practical to keep the Main Stand and Anfield Rd end as they are, remove the roofs and add a new tier on each stand? Only asking because I've seen it done in Spain at El Molinon (Sporting Gijon), the oldest ground in Spain, and it looks fantastic now. Was sat in there many times whilst the new tier was going up above our heads. Didn't take long either, a matter of months.

If it was possible to do the same at Anfield, it would surely have several advantages over demolision and re-building the stands (cost, less disruption/loss of revenue, and also it would keep the current capacity of the existing Main Stand which I've read on other threads is relatively high due to the compact seating).

Any ideas if it's physically possible to start with? (P.S. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer!)

You could but I'm not convinced of the value in doing that. The Anfield Road is a tiny stand and another tier wouldn't add that many seats - maybe 3-4,000. It really needs knocking down and rebuilding, which should be possible now the houses are gone. The Main Stand is just too compromised in my view. You're right that it holds more fans per square metre but the seats are awful - I hate going in there if I can avoid it. The two "grandstands" should have good quality seats, especially in the middle sections. And unless it was completely gutted the concourses and facilities behind will remain poor and cramped.

Any pics of El Molinon? I'll do a search later but if you have any before and after shots it would be interesting.

[xerxes1]

Knock down the Anfield Road stand and built a giant new one.All the other stands have been picking on the Annie Road one for years.They are bigger than he is. He feels inadequate.

My job involves realising similar projects, but I commission Architects, I am not one. So these comments are based on working, not expert, knowledge. (The issues of raised elevation and Rights of Light are "expert", they are planning obstacles).

Any substantial developement of the stand involves building over the road. That has a cost implication because there is a void underneath which earns no money. So if you do it, it establishes a bigger footprint for the overall stand which then creates a catch 22. To make it worth your while you have to build big, but by building big the elevation/ROL issues become exacerbated.

The only "clean" build is the demolition and reconstruction of the Main Stand on a bigger footprint and a raised elevation. Whether the raised elevation would be consented, and whether the redevelopment of one stand only would be enough,are other questions.

[Red_Mist]

Any pics of El Molinon? I'll do a search later but if you have any before and after shots it would be interesting.

There's some before shots in this thread if you scroll down.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=666116&page=7

And a video of the work here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWbVBW0tr40&feature=related

It's on a much smaller scale than Anfield, the work increased capacity from 23K to 30K, but there were two interesting aspects to it:-

1) Not a single fan was 'displaced' during the construction, and

2) There was a river directly behind the stand (ie harder obstacle to solve than a road) which i thought would prevent expansion, but they just built upwards, then outwards (with angled girders), then over the top.

Probably not the best comparison due to the size, but it did get me thinking about the road end. More specifically about the possibility of removing both the main stand and anfield road roofs and somehow constructing a mega tier that stretched right round from the Annie/Centenary corner to the Kop/Main stand corner. Even if possible, could end up looking horribly unbalanced.

[TMOI]

My job involves realising similar projects, but I commission Architects, I am not one. So these comments are based on working, not expert, knowledge. (The issues of raised elevation and Rights of Light are "expert", they are planning obstacles).

Any substantial developement of the stand involves building over the road. That has a cost implication because there is a void underneath which earns no money. So if you do it, it establishes a bigger footprint for the overall stand which then creates a catch 22. To make it worth your while you have to build big, but by building big the elevation/ROL issues become exacerbated.

The only "clean" build is the demolition and reconstruction of the Main Stand on a bigger footprint and a raised elevation. Whether the raised elevation would be consented, and whether the redevelopment of one stand only would be enough,are other questions.

Can we just bury this Rights of Light issue once and for all... if the relevant properties are owned by LFC - no problem. If they are own independently or by council, then negotiations can take place - no problem. If they no longer exist because they have been 'land swapped' for development of derelict properties in neighbouring streets - no problem.

How does demolition make the solution any cleaner? Do you think you can build a new stand lower? Think again.

[xerxes1]

Can we just bury this Rights of Light issue once and for all... if the relevant properties are owned by LFC - no problem. If they are own independently or by council, then negotiations can take place - no problem. If they no longer exist because they have been 'land swapped' for development of derelict properties in neighbouring streets - no problem.

How does demolition make the solution any cleaner? Do you think you can build a new stand lower? Think again.

TMOI, on this, I am not asking, I am telling. Any significant elevation of any of the stands at the existing site will give cause for legitimate Rights of Light objections. Significant problem.

Refurbs are invariably more expensive than new build. A new structure, on a fresh customised footprint is the easiest, and often most economic, build solution.

Any new stand whose elevation exceeds the existing height will be subject to the further test of the acceptability of increased elevation in a predominantly residential area. Objections will be not only on the basis of immediate Rights of Light, but the adverse precedent it may set in the area. Those objections are lesser at Stanley Park because of the reduced immediate environmental impact.

One point I am unsure about, and perhaps Alan can help me here, is how high the highest new stand is at Stanley Park in relation to the highest point at Anfield?

I hope this helps.

[TMOI]

TMOI, on this, I am not asking, I am telling. Any significant elevation of any of the stands at the existing site will give cause for legitimate Rights of Light objections. Significant problem.

Refurbs are invariably more expensive than new build. A new structure, on a fresh customised footprint is the easiest, and often most economic, build solution.

Any new stand whose elevation exceeds the existing height will be subject to the further test of the acceptability of increased elevation in a predominantly residential area. Objections will be not only on the basis of immediate Rights of Light, but the adverse precedent it may set in the area. Those objections are lesser at Stanley Park because of the reduced immediate environmental impact.

One point I am unsure about, and perhaps Alan can help me here, is how high the highest new stand is at Stanley Park in relation to the highest point at Anfield?

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the lecture.

There is no issue if the affected properties do not existing or belong to you - no problem.

A 25% refurb will NOT cost more than a 100% new build.

As (I think) you well know Rights of Light are established in relation to that which is currently enjoyed and a reasonable minimum, both. A street even two streets away may not have any appreciable reduction in light from an increase in height of a new stand or a reduction below a reasonable minimum normally calculated as a 2% Daylight Factor over 50% of the area (the so-called 50/50 ‘rule’).

[xerxes1]

There is no issue if the affected properties do not existing or belong to you - no problem.

The impact of a raised elevation is a planning issue whch goes far beyond any property you may own.Rights of Light can impact hundreds of metres.

A 25% refurb will NOT cost more than a 100% new build.

I agree.

As (I think) you well know Rights of Light are established in relation to that which is currently enjoyed and a reasonable minimum, both. A street even two streets away may not have any appreciable reduction in light from an increase in height of a new stand or a reduction beyond a reasonable minimum )normally calculated as a 2% Daylight Factor over 50% of the area (the so-called 50/50 ‘rule’)

It might impact, it might not, I agree. It depends upon the scheme doesn't it? Which is my only point.

[TMOI]

The impact of a raised elevation is a planning issue...

How so in an area that is NOT controlled by any particular policy (Conservation Area, SDP/Urban Design Guidelines, World Heritage Site...)? If you're talking sbout loss of amenity and/or rights of light, my comments stand.

[LiamG]

To avoid going higher the only solution would be to go deeper and im not quite sure how much land they own around the stand's to do that and i imagine right of light would not just be houses surrounding the stands but a fair few 100 metres further away aswell

[TMOI]

To avoid going higher the only solution would be to go deeper and im not quite sure how much land they own around the stand's to do that and i imagine right of light would not just be houses surrounding the stands but a fair few 100 metres further away aswell

There is no doubt the stands would be higher (and don't forget for every metre you would dig down, you would need the (new) stands to go back about 3 metres). This from another thread also relates to rights of light.....

Back on home turf. It's both. Planning conditions may indeed require substantial financial contributions to the developer. But substantial redevelopment programmes may be blocked on the grounds that supporting infrastructure improvements are required which the Council cannot afford, and which the Developer would not meet.

Council are apprently satisfied that the infastructure in the area (with the modifications to traffic measures proposed) are adequate to cater for 60,000 and in so saying they have effectively said that the costs of enhanced infrastructure for a 75,000 seat stadium are down to the club.

I suggest, that council have viewed the stadium issues in a wide context ie., they feel it is of benefit to the community of Anfield/Breckfield as a whole. I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to do so. Viewed as a whole (and at risk of the area regeneration collapsing for very sensible want of several hundreds of million to be spent on a new stadium), it makes sense for derelict properties adjacent to the ground to make way for the revitalisation of housing in the whole area subject to the necessary agreements with individual property owners, which is some instances no doubt includes both the club and council.

Given the pattern of ownership and the state of dereliction behind the main stand, you could call it a no-brainer unless of course you were a bluenose leader of council and wanted a shared stadium.