Topic: New stadium when we get new owners?

[Alan_X]

ive always been very excited by the HKS design. and the initial "3-sided" setup is fine by me too. reminds me of the old annie road end. can you imagine all the away fans lined up across 10 rows in that one stand, staring at the rest of the stadium towering over them? they'll feel powerless.

They'd love it - having the whole end to themselves with no Liverpool fans behind the "away"goal. Any team that won the tos would make us play to that end in the second half. What a dispiriting shitty idea to attack, at your own ground, towards 3,000 away fans.

then when the infrastructure is built around the ground, we will be able to pile the tiers on that end and make it huge.

There's more chance that the infrastructure would never be built as there is no real need for a 70,000 seater stadium. The 70,000 figure is just another example of Hicks out-of-control ego. Anyone doing the figures will see there's no financial case for it. I posted this in the other thread:



Our average attendance has never broken 50,000.

as for it being a bastardized nfl stadium, i think youre giving the owners too much credit for the design there. a 4-sided, asymentric plan- it, to me, looks like what anfield would look like if it was given a 21st centruy makeover. it looks nothing like a bowl (unlike the other design, which looks like a corss between millenium stadium and old trafford) and when built would be totally unique to our club.

That stadium is Hicks vision - Gillett didn't want it. I've watched HKS architect talk about the design and read articles on it. He hasn't got a clue about what makes Anfield great. He doesn't understand the Kop. Seeing it once when we're playing Barcelona on a European night is meaningless - that's a day-trippers view of the ground. How do you make a new Anfield work on a Monday night when we entertain West Brom or Wigan? For a start you wouldn't make the Kop any larger than it is now. People seem to think it's going to be like the Westfalenstadion - it's not - it'll be full of day-trippers.

the yanks have fucked a lot of things up, but they did well to appoint HKS to design the stadium (that never was)

We'll have to agree to differ mate. HKS have no experience of football grounds and they shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near our club.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Like I said, nothing UNIQUE about the STADIUM structure.
Its a bowl and its boring. The HKS design is a traditional 4 sided stadium but with interesting design.

Nonsense ... The old AFL design was clearly a classic 4-stands football stadium, with partially filled corners ...



It was nothing like the bowl at the Emirates ...

[shelovesyou]

Nonsense ... The old AFL design was clearly a classic 4-stands football stadium, with partially filled corners ...



It was nothing like the bowl at the Emirates ...

Just my opinion mate, I like the HKS design, is that ok ?

[shelovesyou]

They'd love it - having the whole end to themselves with no Liverpool fans behind the "away"goal. Any team that won the tos would make us play to that end in the second half. What a dispiriting shitty idea to attack, at your own ground, towards 3,000 away fans.

There's more chance that the infrastructure would never be built as there is no real need for a 70,000 seater stadium. The 70,000 figure is just another example of Hicks out-of-control ego. Anyone doing the figures will see there's no financial case for it. I posted this in the other thread:



Our average attendance has never broken 50,000.

That stadium is Hicks vision - Gillett didn't want it. I've watched HKS architect talk about the design and read articles on it. He hasn't got a clue about what makes Anfield great. He doesn't understand the Kop. Seeing it once when we're playing Barcelona on a European night is meaningless - that's a day-trippers view of the ground. How do you make a new Anfield work on a Monday night when we entertain West Brom or Wigan? For a start you wouldn't make the Kop any larger than it is now. People seem to think it's going to be like the Westfalenstadion - it's not - it'll be full of day-trippers.

We'll have to agree to differ mate. HKS have no experience of football grounds and they shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near our club.

Why because were too good for HKS ?
I dont get that , how many stadiums did the guy who designed wembley design before that ?
Answer - 0.

[Trousers]

Will it have 4 stands ? Yes.

If you consider something the size of the paddock a stand then yes it does.

[Trousers]

Why because were too good for HKS ?
I dont get that , how many stadiums did the guy who designed wembley design before that ?
Answer - 0.

It's a good job Wembley didn't go over budget and failed to meet it's deadlines isn't it?
Not that I see any valid points that, that line of argument can possibly make.

[Alan_X]

Why because were too good for HKS ?
I dont get that , how many stadiums did the guy who designed wembley design before that ?
Answer - 0.

Do you mean Norman Foster?... You're right - he hadn't designed a football stadium before which is why he brought in HOK Sport to work on the Wembley project. I think he should have left it to them - what we got was an over-priced joke of a stadium. It looks like shit on the outside - big glass facades (a bit like the side elevations of HKS design for Anfield) make it look like a corporate headquarters, a pointless arch and an overcomplicated roof that still doesn't allow the grass to grow.

Over-budget, delayed and over-specced in the wrong places. I love Norman's work but that was certainly not one of his best. My thoughts from 2007:

Putting those corporate seats right down to pitch level is a fucking joke. Who in their right mind thought of that one? They were empty for most of the game.

I really am beginning to hate New Wembley. There's something about it I just cannot stand. The roof is a fucking joke - designed to be seen from the outside not from the inside where the fans are. It looks like a badly designed factory roof, and those fucking clunking great sliding bits! I don't think Sir Norman has a clue about what a football stadium should be. Compare it to the great stadiums and it comes up short from what I've seen so far. It's all about facilities, toilets and other ancillary shite. I'll reserve final judgement until I've actually been there but so far... "Best Stadium in the World..." Not by a mile.

[Niru Red4ever]

Why because were too good for HKS ?
I dont get that , how many stadiums did the guy who designed wembley design before that ?
Answer - 0.

And thats partly the reason why the pitch is messed up. I don't mind the HKS design; as long as it won't affect the pitch (some posters reckon it will; and pointed out that the designers of Emirates Stadium took sunlight falling on the pitch in account.)

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Will it have 4 stands ? Yes.

If you say so ...

[shelovesyou]

If you say so ...

Simple question, Does that design have 4 stands ?
Yes or No ?

[shelovesyou]

Do you mean Norman Foster?... You're right - he hadn't designed a football stadium before which is why he brought in HOK Sport to work on the Wembley project. I think he should have left it to them - what we got was an over-priced joke of a stadium. It looks like shit on the outside - big glass facades (a bit like the side elevations of HKS design for Anfield) make it look like a corporate headquarters, a pointless arch and an overcomplicated roof that still doesn't allow the grass to grow.

Over-budget, delayed and over-specced in the wrong places. I love Norman's work but that was certainly not one of his best. My thoughts from 2007:

Im not so sure the delays were specifically due to Norman Foster , Im open to be proved wrong of course but its just personal taste I suppose.
I like it, I think it keeps a traditional perspective of football stadia and integrates well with the future of stadium design.

[Alan_X]

If that gets built and we're left with that ridiculous "away" end we will be a laughing stock around the world.



We would be "unique" - we'd be the only top-flight club in Europe with a ground that looks like it's been designed by a moron.

[shelovesyou]

If that gets built and we're left with that ridiculous "away" end we will be a laughing stock around the world.



We would be "unique" - we'd be the only top-flight club in Europe with a ground that looks like it's been designed by a moron.

Laughing stock ? No offence intended here but thats just ridiculous.
We will be proud of any new stadium we may have. Personal preferences aside.

[F412OUK]

If that gets built and we're left with that ridiculous "away" end we will be a laughing stock around the world.



We would be "unique" - we'd be the only top-flight club in Europe with a ground that looks like it's been designed by a moron.

why would we be a laughing stock, I think it was well documented they away initially will be less, but is designed to incorporate extra seating in the future when the away end will not remain open, like it is in the pictures now.

[vorsprungtorbenpieknik]

By the time the stadium is built (if it gets built) the upgrading of local transport infrastructure would have been completed. This will allow the 73k capacity to be built as the transport upgrade was a condition of the planning permission. Should we get taken over and the new owners like the design, they will simply fulfil the planning condition as the stadium gets built.

If we see this stadium at all, it will be 73k by the time it's finished.

[Alan_X]

why would we be a laughing stock, I think it was well documented they away initially will be less, but is designed to incorporate extra seating in the future when the away end will not remain open, like it is in the pictures now.

That's assuming there's a business case for a 70,000 seater, which I doubt. I'll say it again - the size of the stadium is down to Hicks ego and no other reason. One season out of the Champions League and 7th place and suddenly we're struggling to fill the ground for a 3.00pm weekend kick-off.

To install the 70,000 the club needs to build a new station and a whole load of other traffic and infrastructure enhancements.

Anfield is a great ground because of the atmosphere, not because the stands are all slightly different. And a major part of that atmosphere is because the ground is completely enclosed - there are no gaps with views out



The AFL design was closer in terms of the current Anfield:



Than this overblown fucking monstrosity with huge glass walls in the corners:



And why is the Kop so steep?

[shelovesyou]

That's assuming there's a business case for a 70,000 seater, which I doubt. I'll say it again - the size of the stadium is down to Hicks ego and no other reason. One season out of the Champions League and 7th place and suddenly we're struggling to fill the ground for a 3.00pm weekend kick-off.

To install the 70,000 the club needs to build a new station and a whole load of other traffic and infrastructure enhancements.

Anfield is a great ground because of the atmosphere, not because the stands are all slightly different. And a major part of that atmosphere is because the ground is completely enclosed - there are no gaps with views out



The AFL design was closer in terms of the current Anfield:



Than this overblown fucking monstrosity with huge glass walls in the corners:



And why is the Kop so steep?

I will admit its hard to disagree with the concept of the corners being filled in as it does create a better atmosphere , I just like the design of the HKS ground.
I dont think we'll have any worries filling up a 73,000 seater , no probs doing that with all the day trippers.

[Alan_X]

We were 31,000 day-trippers short last Sunday.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Simple question, Does that design have 4 stands ?
Yes or No ?

No ...

[Alan_X]

No ...

What a joke. Three hundred million for a ground with three sides, a Kop that's split in half and tens of thousands spent on picture windows in the corners.

Bin the fucking thing.

[stueya]

Agree with Alan, if we eventually get a new stadium it has to be a start from scratch job, I understood the reasoning behind HKS's unique design but what they came up with just wasn't right, there again the AFL design which was effectively just a big Reebok stadium which again didn't suit our needs IMO.

We need no more than 60,000 to say 63,000 with some emphasis on the corporate aspect- at the end of the day it is this that will bring in the extra dough and could even be used to lower ticketing prices in the rest of the stadium

[Trousers]

By the time the stadium is built (if it gets built) the upgrading of local transport infrastructure would have been completed. This will allow the 73k capacity to be built as the transport upgrade was a condition of the planning permission. Should we get taken over and the new owners like the design, they will simply fulfil the planning condition as the stadium gets built.

If we see this stadium at all, it will be 73k by the time it's finished.

Where have you got this from?
Liverpool FC has permission to build a 61,000 all seater stadium, that is it.
The likely cost of a new transport infrastructure will be staggering, and would potentially put off any owners.
• A new station at the end of Stanley Park Avenue South.
• The refurbishment and upkeep of a derelict line.
• Probable electrification of new line.
• At least one major carpark to be built at the end of new line to enable park & ride.

And you think we could afford, never mind complete such a huge task?

[Paddock77]

By the time the stadium is built (if it gets built) the upgrading of local transport infrastructure would have been completed. This will allow the 73k capacity to be built as the transport upgrade was a condition of the planning permission. Should we get taken over and the new owners like the design, they will simply fulfil the planning condition as the stadium gets built.

If we see this stadium at all, it will be 73k by the time it's finished.

Out of interest who will be commissioning this upgrade of the transport network?

[Alan_X]

By the time the stadium is built (if it gets built) the upgrading of local transport infrastructure would have been completed. This will allow the 73k capacity to be built as the transport upgrade was a condition of the planning permission. Should we get taken over and the new owners like the design, they will simply fulfil the planning condition as the stadium gets built.

If we see this stadium at all, it will be 73k by the time it's finished.

The cost of the infrastructure improvements will be borne by the club. It would only be put in to service the increased traffic on matchdays. How or why you think it will miraculously appear at someone else's expense is beyond me. You could be right - I hope you are - but some documentary evidence would help us all. 

[TMOI]

Some thoughts on the ‘H&G’ stadium:

●   separating the stands with big gaps in between weakens the atmosphere... it looks like a ground for spectators sitting quietly and being entertained and eating burgers (or prawn sandwiches), not for shouting, encouraging, intimidating the opposition and generally taking part

●   having the corners empty means that each stand has to be bigger front-to-back to get the required number of seats - so the view is less good (and it weakens the atmosphere...)

●   the 8m margin around the pitch is required at the ends for european games only (and it weakens the atmosphere...)

●   everyone can see the pitch but not everyone can see everyone else which weakens the atmosphere...

●   the kop is split which weakens the...

●   the distance from the pitch to the back of the kop must be close to the maximum because the ‘parabolic’ angle of the kop improves sightlines but makes it steep at the top - and expensive to construct

●   the low pitch of the lower seating is good for views from the back but not good for views at the front and is better for short-burst activity sports (like athletics or american football) - not football.

●   the roof is huge compared to the stadium which is very expensive and the glass corners are unnecessarily expensive.

●   the ‘expansion end’ would be just dumb if it were ever built that way - the most expensive seats to build are the seats at the very, very back; this is where the expansion should be... if it’s not built as 70k-plus it will be 60k-plus for a long time and everyone will regret paying for such a roof over such a big empty space

   (BTW the Canada Dock branch line is being electrified for goods traffic but it would need extra kit and controls for passenger traffic and Peel Ports may or may not be happy with the disruption... the cost of a station is about £5-10m. Then there’s extra connections (at least at the Kirkdale end)... open air parking wouldn’t cost much particularly if someone runs a separate business from it.

●   it looks like a mobile phone (fliptop nokia?) which has already dated and has nothing to do with the spirit and greatness of the club

The list could go on; but anyway, apart from that...

[CraigDS]

Some thoughts on the ‘H&G’ stadium:

●   separating the stands with big gaps in between weakens the atmosphere... it looks like a ground for spectators sitting quietly and being entertained and eating burgers (or prawn sandwiches), not for shouting, encouraging, intimidating the opposition and generally taking part

●   having the corners empty means that each stand has to be bigger front-to-back to get the required number of seats - so the view is less good (and it weakens the atmosphere...)

●   the 8m margin around the pitch is required at the ends for european games only (and it weakens the atmosphere...)

●   everyone can see the pitch but not everyone can see everyone else which weakens the atmosphere...

Like Anfield has been since it was built?

[TMOI]

Like Anfield has been since it was built?

Even if that were true, we wouldn't want to pay close to £400m for a purpose-built stadium that recreates the same problems.

[Ray K]

Alan F,

I always enjoy your contributions in the stadium forums, but I've a couple of questions for you.

In this thread you've referred to HKS plan as being a bastardised NFL stadium. What are the fundamental differences between an NFL stadium and a football stadium (pitch size/shape excepted) for spectators - excluding the ancillary/corporate stuff like concourses, bars etc? i.e for your everyday Joe Punter, what differences are there in the viewing experience for someone going to an NFL game this weekend and someone going to a Premier League game?

Also, you refer to the average attendance never breaking 50k. Is this a result of the (various) capacities, or is there a way to quantify this in terms of max capacity - ie are we talking about the average never exceeding 75%, or 95%?
I can't seem to get a year-on-year capacity - our record is 61k in the 50s, but that must have changed a lot over the years.
I seem to remember capacity being 49k in the late 80s, but I could be dreaming.

(All that is an incredibly long-winded way of asking how elastic the demand for tickets is).

Cheers.

[Alan_X]

Alan F,

I always enjoy your contributions in the stadium forums, but I've a couple of questions for you.

In this thread you've referred to HKS plan as being a bastardised NFL stadium. What are the fundamental differences between an NFL stadium and a football stadium (pitch size/shape excepted) for spectators - excluding the ancillary/corporate stuff like concourses, bars etc? i.e for your everyday Joe Punter, what differences are there in the viewing experience for someone going to an NFL game this weekend and someone going to a Premier League game?

Also, you refer to the average attendance never breaking 50k. Is this a result of the (various) capacities, or is there a way to quantify this in terms of max capacity - ie are we talking about the average never exceeding 75%, or 95%?
I can't seem to get a year-on-year capacity - our record is 61k in the 50s, but that must have changed a lot over the years.
I seem to remember capacity being 49k in the late 80s, but I could be dreaming.

(All that is an incredibly long-winded way of asking how elastic the demand for tickets is).

Cheers.

Need to get to bed for an early start but in relation to your first point. An NFL game is essentially a "linear" contest with the action moving from end to end but being reset in the centre of the pitch after each down. The best way to watch it is in stands at the sides of the pitch.

Football (Association Football) is far more fluid and the action takes place all over the pitch. While the grandstands are still the best way to appreciate the game tactically (and therefore most expensive), the ends behind each goal still provide a great view of the action and have traditionally been the location where the most passionate fans stand or sit.

The architect from HKS clearly couldn't get his head round that and said as much in the talk he gave to students (on YouTube somewhere). The Dallas Cowboys stadium is all grandstand with a massive glass wall behind the end-zones and a bit of token seating:



He was obviously fascinated by the Kop but completely misunderstood what it's about. He talked about it as the "stage" with the rest of the ground the audience admiring it. That's fucking bollocks - it's a day-trippers view of Anfield. The Kop is just one of the stands and all have their history (although in different forms over the years). Do the old farts in the Main Stand sit and gaze at the Kop in amazement throughout the game?... do they fuck. But that's what's been designed. A second-rate version of an NFL stadium with an oversized Kop for us all to stare at. Except it's so big it'll be full of day-trippers and any atmosphere left will be diluted even further.

[LiamG]

We'll have to agree to differ mate. HKS have no experience of football grounds and they shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near our club.

Tottally Agree, It makes no sense at all to get someone in who has never designed a "Soccer" Stadium
Especially not over 1 visit to Anfield!

Why because were too good for HKS ?
I dont get that , how many stadiums did the guy who designed wembley design before that ?
Answer - 0.

Like Alan F said, HOK Sports helped him design & build wembley, They are probably 1 of the best football stadium architects in the world! Here's some of the stadiums they have built, I suggest you visit there site and look http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/stadiums/index.html :

• Aviva Stadium
• Brit Oval
• • City of Birmingham Stadium
  • Croke Park
  • Deportivo De La Corunia
  • Emirates Stadium
  • Estadio Algarve
  • Estadio da Luz
  • Everton Football Club Stadium
  • Galpharm Stadium
  • Grand Stade de l'Olympique Lyonnais
  • Highbury Stadium North Stand
  • City of Manchester Stadium
  • Millennium Stadium - Didnt alot of people suggest we had something built similar to this?
  • MK Stadium
  • Portman Road North Stand
  • Reebok Stadium
  • Sochi 2014 Main Stadium
  • Stadium de Toulouse
  • Stamford Bridge North Stand
  • Toulouse Stadium
  • Wembley National Stadium
  
  Even AFL architects (the ones who designed the "parry" bowl) Have alot of experience in building football stadia, They even designed and built melwood.... Here's some of the projects they have taken on http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectsGroup.aspx?SectorID=1
  
  • East add West Stands at Old Trafford
  • Peter Mokoba Stadium, Sout Africa
  • Charlton's ground
  • Preston North End's ground
  • Heart's Ground
  • The Nou Camp Re-development (I think this was with Norman Foster?)
  • Walford Road (Lecister Tigers) Rugby Ground
  • Ipswich Town's South stand
  • Molineux Stadium Expansion (Never got done)
  
   

[shelovesyou]

No ...

Erm. . .  I think you'll find there are.
1,2,3 and 4 separate stands. One is significantly smaller yes but its still a stand and added to the others makes 4.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Tottally Agree, It makes no sense at all to get someone in who has never designed a "Soccer" Stadium
Especially not over 1 visit to Anfield!
Like Alan F said, HOK Sports helped him design & build wembley, They are probably 1 of the best football stadium architects in the world! Here's some of the stadiums they have built, I suggest you visit there site and look http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/stadiums/index.html

Even AFL architects (the ones who designed the "parry" bowl) Have alot of experience in building football stadia, They even designed and built melwood.... Here's some of the projects they have taken on http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectsGroup.aspx?SectorID=1

To be honest, apart from the Millennium Stadium, I don't really like the HOK Sports' designs ... As for AFL, the ''First Generation Anfield'' was definitely their best work, apart from the roof suspension that was pretty ugly, with all those huge masts and cables ... They actually had a much better solution for the roof suspension, and they implemented it at the Thomond Park ...



With that type of suspension, and with a single-tiered Kop, the ''First Generation Anfield'' designed by AFL would have been the perfect stadium for LFC ...

[wah00ey]

Just got back from Munich where we did a stadium tour of the Allianz Arena.  It was superb - absolutely what we should be aiming for - albeit with some kind of design for the Kop to set it apart from the other stands.

[Alan_X]

Just got back from Munich where we did a stadium tour of the Allianz Arena.  It was superb - absolutely what we should be aiming for - albeit with some kind of design for the Kop to set it apart from the other stands.

The irony is that Herzog de Meuron, the architects for the Allianz were inspired by Anfield.  The directors are Basle fans - and understood that the atmosphere at Anfield doesn't come from all the stands being different or it being "unique". It gets its atmosphere from being completely enclosed and the fans who sit in it.



No fucking glass walls - just four stands round the pitch.

[TMOI]

The irony is that Herzog de Meuron, the architects for the Allianz were inspired by Anfield...

Another very good reason for staying at Anfield and making it 60,000!!

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Another very good reason for staying at Anfield and making it 60,000!!

Can you please tell me how would you do that ?

[Niru Red4ever]

Is that green patch on the top a part of Stanley Park?

btw, if the club keeps delaying on making a move, will the council want the land back?

[TMOI]

Can you please tell me how would you do that ?

There have been several schemes - at least one on here, and the club itself had a scheme which was dropped in favour of a new stadium. BTW the photo is a bit out of date - the houses on Anfield Road and in the old boys pen corner have gone. In general, the houses behind the main stand are derelict with only a few exceptions. A redeveloped Anfield would mean the planned rehousing of the area could go ahead.

[TMOI]

Is that green patch on the top a part of Stanley Park?

btw, if the club keeps delaying on making a move, will the council want the land back?

It is. The club are/were going to lease part of the park for the new stadium.

[Niru Red4ever]

There have been several schemes - at least one on here, and the club itself had a scheme which was dropped in favour of a new stadium. BTW the photo is a bit out of date - the houses on Anfield Road and in the old boys pen corner have gone. In general, the houses behind the main stand are derelict with only a few exceptions. A redeveloped Anfield would mean the planned rehousing of the area could go ahead.

So why did the club want to move? Loss of revenue during rebuilding at Anfield? That can be sorted out by arranging at Goodison for a couple of years.

It is. The club are/were going to lease part of the park for the new stadium.

So the club hasn't got a lease yet? Thought a boundary wall had been made.