Topic: How a redeveloped Anfield would look:

[xerxes1]

I really like the idea of staying at Anfield but working with the Council to help regenerate the area through the Football Quarter.
It seems to me that if the Council can approve a huge new stadium inside Stanley Park then why should they not be amenable to some less prominent but commercially more valuable development in the Park as a gateway between the 2 stadia? A scheme that would re-create the Anfield Plaza of hotels, shops plus community facilities and car parks on the Park instead of the site of a demolished Anfield. Some of the Plaza & the parking was to be located in Stanley Park anyway.

A planning non-starter. Loss of Public Open Space purely for Commercial development does not stand a chance.

As for redeveloping Anfield, we are talking about 2 new stands so far as I can see, I don't see any necessity for a 3rd tier to the Centenary. A massive 3 tier Main Stand with vast corporate facilities plus a bigger Anfield Road stand, now that we don't have the restrictions on housing behind. That should give us our 60,000 seater stadium and at far less cost than the new stadium which requires massive groundworks.

I agree that developing the Main Stand and Annie Rd only is likely to be the optimum commercial answer.The problem is that increased capacity will mean increased height. That will raise two objections.The first relates to what height buildings should be in that location. Permission for increased elevation may result in unwanted applications for other buildings in the vivinity to be built or redeveloped to increased height. the second relates to Rights of light complaints from surrounding businesses / homes.
The fact that an alternative consent exists significantly damages those prospects.

[TMOI]

A planning non-starter. Loss of Public Open Space purely for Commercial development does not stand a chance.

I agree that developing the Main Stand and Annie Rd only is likely to be the optimum commercial answer.The problem is that increased capacity will mean increased height. That will raise two objections.The first relates to what height buildings should be in that location. Permission for increased elevation may result in unwanted applications for other buildings in the vivinity to be built or redeveloped to increased height. the second relates to Rights of light complaints from surrounding businesses / homes.
The fact that an alternative consent exists significantly damages those prospects.

That is a very narrow view. A redevelopment could bring as much benefit to the community and even return the park to the people - its original intent and certainly better than a strip of tarmac. And what is a stadium (in the park or otherwise) if it is not a commercial development?

I'm sure NESV are going to look at this very coolly and if a new stadium is not worth doing, council may end up losing the regeneration altogether if they don't give consent for a redevelopment.

[Alan_X]

That is a very narrow view. A redevelopment could bring as much benefit to the community and even return the park to the people - its original intent and certainly better than a strip of tarmac. And what is a stadium (in the park or otherwise) if it is not a commercial development?

I'm sure NESV are going to look at this very coolly and if a new stadium is not worth doing, council may end up losing the regeneration altogether if they don't give consent for a redevelopment.

There's a big difference between building a stadium in parkland and a commercial development (offices, hotel and retail etc). A stadium is in full use every other Saturday and mid-week while the rest of the time it has relatively low use.

[LiamG]

If anfield were to be developed Stanley Park could still have something, The football quarter is a brilliant idea, not sure how much compared to  a new stadium that would help the area

[beejay]

There's a big difference between building a stadium in parkland and a commercial development (offices, hotel and retail etc). A stadium is in full use every other Saturday and mid-week while the rest of the time it has relatively low use.

We are not talking about a commercial development in isolation though. The current planning permission is for a range of uses over a wide area covered by the red line application. This permission cannot be implemented because of cost and this is preventing the much-needed regeneration of Anfield/Breckfield from proceeding. By re-modelling the uses within the same red line area, the community will benefit from the scheme progressing.

It also ties in with the "Football Quarter" concept that the Council will perceive as benefitting both clubs on match day, not just LFC. 

[beejay]

I agree that developing the Main Stand and Annie Rd only is likely to be the optimum commercial answer.The problem is that increased capacity will mean increased height. That will raise two objections.The first relates to what height buildings should be in that location. Permission for increased elevation may result in unwanted applications for other buildings in the vivinity to be built or redeveloped to increased height. the second relates to Rights of light complaints from surrounding businesses / homes.
The fact that an alternative consent exists significantly damages those prospects.

Rights of light are not necessarily a problem, it depends on title and angles and given there is an existing stadium towering above the houses, an increase in height may not adversely impact on residents. There have been plenty of examples of other stadia extended or redeveloped within tight residential streets.

I also don't recall that this was ever cited as a reason for building a new stadium and I'm sure that for PR purposes it would have been mentioned if there was an insuperable problem with rights of light.

[red bomber]

Shoot me down in flames here im no archetect but could not the pitch be turned so a goal would be in front of the centenary and in the new main stand .Kop could be extended as to the new Anny rd .

[Alan_X]

Shoot me down in flames here im no archetect but could not the pitch be turned so a goal would be in front of the centenary and in the new main stand .Kop could be extended as to the new Anny rd .

Any particular reason?

[red bomber]

Would it not enable the capacity to be more than 60 000 also might keep the height of the stands down?

[Alan_X]

Not really no. The Kop's constrained by the Walton Breck Road. you'd have to demolish loads more houses and  the height of the stands depends on the capacity not the orientation.

[Paul Gardner]

Not really no. The Kop's constrained by the Walton Breck Road. you'd have to demolish loads more houses and  the height of the stands depends on the capacity not the orientation.

Rotating the ground was something that was mooted when redevelopment was first brought up over 10 years ago and residents were particularly against for Alan's reason above. You would have to demolish more houses.

[Alan_X]

Paul, do you know anything about the Houses on the corner of Anfield Road and Utting Avenue? The HKS arrangement plan shows them being left and I think the AFL scheme did as well. They are number 73 (Stanley House), number 75 and a building called the Lodge on Utting Avenue.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=google+maps+anfield+road&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=google+maps+anfield+road&hnear=google+maps+anfield+road&cid=0,0,6579200148882458598&ei=-WjUTM79GcyA5Ab9v9yCBA&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQnwIwAA

The other houses on the Park side of Anfield Rod have gone but it looks like they may be down to remain.  It has a potential impact on any plans to extend the Centenary and/or Anfield Road stands in that corner.

[Paul Gardner]

Paul, do you know anything about the Houses on the corner of Anfield Road and Utting Avenue? The HKS arrangement plan shows them being left and I think the AFL scheme did as well. They are number 73 (Stanley House), number 75 and a building called the Lodge on Utting Avenue.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=google+maps+anfield+road&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=google+maps+anfield+road&hnear=google+maps+anfield+road&cid=0,0,6579200148882458598&ei=-WjUTM79GcyA5Ab9v9yCBA&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQnwIwAA

The other houses on the Park side of Anfield Rod have gone but it looks like they may be down to remain.  It has a potential impact on any plans to extend the Centenary and/or Anfield Road stands in that corner.

No, I don't sorry.

[Niru Red4ever]

I assume the houses between Lothair road and Anfield are owned by the club? If enough space around Anfield is owned by the club; Right to Light won't be an issue, right?

[Paul Gardner]

I assume the houses between Lothair road and Anfield are owned by the club? If enough space around Anfield is owned by the club; Right to Light won't be an issue, right?

Lothair Road is first road. Nothing in between. They do own some on the Main Stand of the road, but not all. Majority are unoccupied.

[Alan_X]

I assume the houses between Lothair road and Anfield are owned by the club? If enough space around Anfield is owned by the club; Right to Light won't be an issue, right?

You can't say that without doing the calcs. On one project we're doing in Central London the RoL calculations have thrown up some wierd anomalies - buildings next door to our site aren't affected that much but one a block away is.

[shelovesyou]

Lothair Road is first road. Nothing in between. They do own some on the Main Stand of the road, but not all. Majority are unoccupied.

Never forget coming to Anfield and walking up Lothair and seeing a youngish man sweeping the front of his house.
Had a lasting impression on me that. Fair play.

[selas]

See below quote from our ex chairman .... suprised as I thought he was cleverer than that ... but I did find the sentence in bold to be of interest to this thread ....

FORMER Liverpool FC chairman Martin Broughton has called on Merseyside’s big two clubs to consider sharing a new football stadium. Speaking to an audience of 580 business leaders last night, he called on fans to put aside emotional considerations in favour of the economic advantages of a groundshare between Everton and Liverpool football clubs. Mr Broughton said he “fully supported” New England Sports Ventures (NESV) – now the Fenway Sports Group – in their preferred option to redevelop Anfield. But he went on: “If that’s not possible, then in my personal opinion, ground sharing should be seriously considered. “Fans are understandably emotional about this issue, but this has to be addressed. It’s not the case of being red or blue. You can be red one week, and blue the next.” Mr Broughton said fans had to understand that football clubs face a choice between a stadium of their own, or having money left over to invest in players. He added: “It’s up to people like Kenny Dalglish to communicate the business sense of all this. It would mean open minds on all sides.”

Maybe we'll get a redeveloped Anfield after all...

[Corcaigh]

 obtaining planning permission to redevelop the ground will be next to impossible. The opposition from local residents is intense, This opposition was only overcome because of the council's support. This support was entirely dependent upon us building a new ground on Stanley Park and handing over Anfield for redevelopment, thereby regenerating the Anfield area. Consequently the council will oppose any application to redevelop Anfield. Coupled with the opposition from local residents I cannot see the application succeeding. While we might win on appeal to the Secretary of State it is by no means a sure thing - increasing the size of a football ground may not be seen as a priority or to be in the best interests of the region or the nation.

[Driftwood]

  increasing the size of a football ground may not be seen as a priority or to be in the best interests of the region or the nation.

What about all the extra money coming into the area on match days?

[alfonso]

obtaining planning permission to redevelop the ground will be next to impossible. The opposition from local residents is intense, This opposition was only overcome because of the council's support. This support was entirely dependent upon us building a new ground on Stanley Park and handing over Anfield for redevelopment, thereby regenerating the Anfield area. Consequently the council will oppose any application to redevelop Anfield. Coupled with the opposition from local residents I cannot see the application succeeding. While we might win on appeal to the Secretary of State it is by no means a sure thing - increasing the size of a football ground may not be seen as a priority or to be in the best interests of the region or the nation.

What about still being involved in regeneration of the area and redeveloping the ground?

[Kopite1971]

obtaining planning permission to redevelop the ground will be next to impossible. The opposition from local residents is intense, This opposition was only overcome because of the council's support. This support was entirely dependent upon us building a new ground on Stanley Park and handing over Anfield for redevelopment, thereby regenerating the Anfield area. Consequently the council will oppose any application to redevelop Anfield. Coupled with the opposition from local residents I cannot see the application succeeding. While we might win on appeal to the Secretary of State it is by no means a sure thing - increasing the size of a football ground may not be seen as a priority or to be in the best interests of the region or the nation.

The actual impact on local residents of a redeveloped Anfield is probably at it's lowest level it's ever been since Anfield was first built, due to the councils policy of having knocked down hundreds of homes in the streets around Anfield.  It is true that this land will currently be designated housing land, so stopping redevelopment of Anfield becomes a political argument.  It will then be upto FSG to put forward their plans, ensuring first and foremost that they comply with all the planning laws including covering transportation to an expanded stadium though it would be hard for the council to argue against any figure at or below 60000.

I suspect that if FSG do opt for a redeveloped Anfield,their plans will include looking at the surrounding area,potentially including in phase 2 things like hotels, additional retail etc.  It would also be interesting  to see how the council would respond to 1) FSG saying they don't want to build on the park, many local residents argued that LFC shouldn't be allowed to build on the park anyway, 2) Any proposals that FSG have to expand the stadium, until we see the plans it's hard to comment on their possible ideas 3) Any proposals LFC put forward for park and ride schemes, the club recently sent out an email survey which included questions on park n ride and 4) what ideas that FSG have for the surrounding srea based upon their track record in Boston. 

I think that we won't hera much about the stadium until the 2nd half of 2011 at the earliest as they'll want to have the whole think sorted and costed at their end before they present anything for council, local residents and fans consumption

[Corcaigh]

What about all the extra money coming into the area on match days?

The benefit of increased attendance at Anfield would provide very limited benefit to the local community compared to the envisioned improvement foreseen in the redevelopment incorporated into the Stanley Park scheme. Fans attending matches spend relatively little in the surrounding areas [apart from in the pubs, and lets face it there are precious few other attractions in the Anfield area] and that is easily offset by the disruption caused by the increase in traffic congestion and problems with parking in the surrounding areas. 

 

By comparison the Stanley Park scheme included the development of hotels and other facilities in the Anfield area that [it was hoped] would attract business to the area and, as a consequence, create long term employment. Subsequently, local government approval, and tacit central government approval, was predicated upon the assumed increase in employment generated by the scheme and the consequent regeneration of the area. No prospect of generating large numbers of jobs equals no regeneration of a deprived area, no political capital which equals no planning permission.

[Peter McGurk]

While we’d all be more than happy to see the area improved there’s no reason why that would make it the club’s sole responsibility.

[jambutty]

The best thing for the community would be jobs.  Retail, entertainment, services, i.e: shops, salons, mall stores, theatres, arcades, restaurants.  All could be housed around a 60k cap stadium and be open every day, rain or shine.

Will never happen as that's the opposite of what a majority of our fans want.

[Peter McGurk]

The best thing for the community would be jobs.  Retail, entertainment, services, i.e: shops, salons, mall stores, theatres, arcades, restaurants.  All could be housed around a 60k cap stadium and be open every day, rain or shine.

Will never happen as that's the opposite of what a majority of our fans want.

It's not unknown and if it makes money for the club as well...

[alfonso]

The best thing for the community would be jobs.  Retail, entertainment, services, i.e: shops, salons, mall stores, theatres, arcades, restaurants.  All could be housed around a 60k cap stadium and be open every day, rain or shine.

Will never happen as that's the opposite of what a majority of our fans want.

I just couldn't see them making money from retail/restaurants or theatre due to the location. Maybe on a match day, but most fans wouldn't be going to anfield to buy from a retail store. And most fans are male. A lot of retail is for the female.....etc
A store would open and go out of business in 6 months.

And there would be loads of bitters boycotting the place.

[danwms]

It would be fantastic if we could stay at anfield.

[jambutty]

I just couldn't see them making money from retail/restaurants or theatre due to the location. Maybe on a match day, but most fans wouldn't be going to anfield to buy from a retail store. And most fans are male. A lot of retail is for the female.....etc
A store would open and go out of business in 6 months.

And there would be loads of bitters boycotting the place.

Imagine you're going the match with your kid.  Normally, you'd leave the missus & girls home. Amusements would encourage entire families to come to a newly developed Anfield and cruise the other attractions whilst two were at the match.  Not to mention eating in an LFC experience restaurant.

Coupled with themed video/footy skills and other LFC related activities, tourists that come in for the match might feel a longer stay would be worthwhile, resulting in more lolly being spent. 

Once again, this is an idea that most of our 'purist' fans would hate. 

But it would be good for Liddypool.

[CornerFlag]

I just couldn't see them making money from retail/restaurants or theatre due to the location. Maybe on a match day, but most fans wouldn't be going to anfield to buy from a retail store. And most fans are male. A lot of retail is for the female.....etc
A store would open and go out of business in 6 months.

And there would be loads of bitters boycotting the place.

In terms of the bitters boycotting the place, would a worthwhile option (if we're not to groundshare) be to take them on board as investors in any kind of retail plan like that?  That way the divide would be bridged, both teams would see profits (a healthier Everton serves a purpose for us too, intense rivalry with both playing well is always a great atmosphere) and neither team would hurt the other simply by not spending there.  Probably massively far-fetched but it just reminded me of the Glasgow teams with shirt sponsorship, except it's the clubs bridging for the venture in the name of profit as opposed to the venture bridging the clubs in the name of profit.  Passing thought.

[Peter McGurk]

In terms of the bitters boycotting the place, would a worthwhile option (if we're not to groundshare) be to take them on board as investors in any kind of retail plan like that?  That way the divide would be bridged, both teams would see profits (a healthier Everton serves a purpose for us too, intense rivalry with both playing well is always a great atmosphere) and neither team would hurt the other simply by not spending there.  Probably massively far-fetched but it just reminded me of the Glasgow teams with shirt sponsorship, except it's the clubs bridging for the venture in the name of profit as opposed to the venture bridging the clubs in the name of profit.  Passing thought.

Sounds a bit like the Football Quarter although that is mostly about sport it has potential for football-related retail at Anfield and Goodison.

[xerxes1]

The benefit of increased attendance at Anfield would provide very limited benefit to the local community compared to the envisioned improvement foreseen in the redevelopment incorporated into the Stanley Park scheme. Fans attending matches spend relatively little in the surrounding areas [apart from in the pubs, and lets face it there are precious few other attractions in the Anfield area] and that is easily offset by the disruption caused by the increase in traffic congestion and problems with parking in the surrounding areas. 

 

By comparison the Stanley Park scheme included the development of hotels and other facilities in the Anfield area that [it was hoped] would attract business to the area and, as a consequence, create long term employment. Subsequently, local government approval, and tacit central government approval, was predicated upon the assumed increase in employment generated by the scheme and the consequent regeneration of the area. No prospect of generating large numbers of jobs equals no regeneration of a deprived area, no political capital which equals no planning permission.

Fair points. There is little doubt that the Council and Community benefit from a New Anfield/ Anfield and do not from a redeveloped Anfield for reasons you succinctly identify.

The question of what an Anfield Plaza would comprise is a fair one. Harsh economics say that an Asda/PC World delivers in a way that football themed businesses cannot.

[Peter McGurk]

Fair points. There is little doubt that the Council and Community benefit from a New Anfield/ Anfield and do not from a redeveloped Anfield for reasons you succinctly identify.

The question of what an Anfield Plaza would comprise is a fair one. Harsh economics say that an Asda/PC World delivers in a way that football themed businesses cannot.

Whatever is in the Anfield Plaza, it can still be built as part of a redeveloped Anfield. It may be as well to keep an open mind to Walton Breck Road which would benefit hugely from this kind of development or alternatively to some of this supporting development being incorporated into the stadium itself.

Also bear in mind how successful football-themed businesses can be - see Yawkey Way.

[plasterered]

I see the roof on the main stand looks more like a bigger version of the proposed kop on the HKS plans of the stanley park stadium - I can only imagine that this is because it will be totally new as it is the older part of the staduim along with the anni road end and the kop itself along with centenary have had recent work so great ammounts of money would not be spent here but on the main stand.
 the roof will act as part of the structure as the old stanctions will no longer be there and will also add to the noise so will need to be a big structure. looks good to me great noise amplification and seats near the half way line so the both halfs of the game is easily viewed

I would like to see the kop grow too

[Peter McGurk]

I see the roof on the main stand looks more like a bigger version of the proposed kop on the HKS plans of the stanley park stadium - I can only imagine that this is because it will be totally new as it is the older part of the staduim along with the anni road end and the kop itself along with centenary have had recent work so great ammounts of money would not be spent here but on the main stand.
 the roof will act as part of the structure as the old stanctions will no longer be there and will also add to the noise so will need to be a big structure. looks good to me great noise amplification and seats near the half way line so the both halfs of the game is easily viewed

I would like to see the kop grow too

What's that?

[LiamG]

I love the design that is similar to Dortmund's ground

[plasterered]

What's that?

you know the picture on the first post in this thread. it shows the main stand with a big swooping roof - obviously as this would be the main focus of any budget if we stay at anfield.

or were you takin the piss out of my grammer

[RJH]

you know the picture on the first post in this thread. it shows the main stand with a big swooping roof - obviously as this would be the main focus of any budget if we stay at anfield.

or were you takin the piss out of my grammer

You are aware that first post is over 8 years old aren't you?

[plasterered]

yeah but Staying put is back on the agenda with NESV/FSG so the plans maybe revisited. although I agree with one of th posts that planning permission for re-dev of anfield will be difficult.

ha at least he wasnt taking the piss out of my grammer

[Peter McGurk]

Ok, right, I got it. 

8 years...