Author Topic: Bascombe Story - let's wait for confirmation before discussing it ok? (Read 150095 times)

l12ngo · « **Reply #120 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:18:08 pm »

Just to confirm, this is the one we're talking about?

http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectDetail.aspx?projectID=33

I know the atmosphere can be poor these days but for me it just looks souless. I'd expect more atmosphere in a discotheque in rural france on a weekday.

djschembri · « **Reply #121 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:18:12 pm »

Quote from: Southern Pansy on January 17, 2012, 05:14:39 pm

Would that work in the UK climate? With that much roof how much sunlight would the pitch get? Be a nightmare for the groundsman. And if we want to see pass and move we cannot compromise on the quality of the grass.

Don't know about the roof but do UK regulations allows the fans to be that close to the pitch?

TepidT2O · « **Reply #122 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:19:12 pm »

Quote from: Scud02 on January 17, 2012, 05:01:50 pm

I don't know it's not unique enough or maybe I just prefer the look of the 2008 AFL design

Also where is the Kop end, is that it on the left ?

This never got planning permission, so it's a total no go.

It's all right having pipe dreams, but we also have to be realistic.

gorgepir · « **Reply #123 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:21:04 pm »

Quote from: l12ngo on January 17, 2012, 05:18:08 pm

Just to confirm, this is the one we're talking about?

http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectDetail.aspx?projectID=33

I know the atmosphere can be poor these days but for me it just looks souless. I'd expect more atmosphere in a discotheque in rural france on a weekday.

If this is the correct stadium, I don't see any single tier stand there.

Alan_X · « **Reply #124 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:27:54 pm »

Quote from: gorgepir on January 17, 2012, 05:14:41 pm

So essentially, what you are saying is that the 2003 design is the best that Liverpool FC can ever hope for. The HKS design although unique was horribly designed, the new Reebok bowl is good, and all other designs are impractical because we have daytrippers and nobody sings anymore.

Maybe it is just we have different ambitions and viewpoints of LFC. I probably have to accept your viewpoint of us being a club that will always have to compromise in the end and will never end up with the best of anything.

No - I'm saying that there's a lot of misrepresentation of what the AFL design is. The AFL design is the best we can hope for if we move. I would rather we stay at Anfield because I love it. I hate the Emirates and I don't like the impact that optimising sightlines and quality of view has on the upper profile of the stands.

But what people do is read the overall oval plan (which they'll only see if they arrive by helicopter) and the profile of the top of the stands and read it as a round bowl of seats. In fact it's four distinct stands with rows of seats parallel to the pitch and links at the lower levels:

Alan_X · « **Reply #125 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:28:17 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 05:19:12 pm

This never got planning permission, so it's a total no go.

It's all right having pipe dreams, but we also have to be realistic.

That's the 2003 scheme.

Alan_X · « **Reply #126 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:30:00 pm »

Quote from: djschembri on January 17, 2012, 05:18:12 pm

Don't know about the roof but do UK regulations allows the fans to be that close to the pitch?

They aren't close to the pitch.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #127 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:33:23 pm »

Quote from: Alan_X on January 17, 2012, 05:28:17 pm

That's the 2003 scheme.

Ah thought he was on about the 2008 one.....

It actually more like old trafford on the inside than the emirates by the look of it

I think people are being a bit silly worrying so much about the aesthetics....

vanoord · « **Reply #128 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:33:55 pm »

Quote from: Alan_X on January 17, 2012, 04:54:38 pm

The 2008 scheme is not the one that Bascombe is talking about. It's the 2003 scheme with 'tweaks' (non-material amendments) so there will be no need for a new planning application.

A planning application would be valid for 5 years from the date of approval and would lapse 5 years after, unless extended by a Section 73 application.

The 2003 scheme was not finally given planning permission until 11th April 2006, so that consent would have lapsed on 11th April 2011 - unless the consent was extended.

Although I can find the application on the Council's website, I can't get the documents page to load, so I can't determine whether or not it was extended.

That said, had it been extended (in early 2011), I suspect we'd have heard about it.

Again, that said, it may be possible that the Section 73 application has been lodged but not determined. That is one option that a smart planning consultant might have used as it would enable to consent to be kept just alive, possibly pending submission of new supporting data, if that were considered required to determine whether an extension should be granted (for example, updated traffic flow projections or energy efficiency stuff).

The only option that has a valid planning consent at the moment is the HKS scheme, although that only appears to have outline consent, so would require a full application to be made before the stadium could be built, a process that could take many months.

For the 2003 scheme to be resurrected (if it has not been extended via a Section 73 application), a new consent would be required, although planning permission might not be too difficult to achieve given the site's history. Such an application may also include design revisions, along the lines of the 'second generation' scheme proposed in 2007.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #129 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:39:29 pm »

Quote from: vanoord on January 17, 2012, 05:33:55 pm

A planning application would be valid for 5 years from the date of approval and would lapse 5 years after, unless extended by a Section 73 application.

The 2003 scheme was not finally given planning permission until 11th April 2006, so that consent would have lapsed on 11th April 2011 - unless the consent was extended.

Although I can find the application on the Council's website, I can't get the documents page to load, so I can't determine whether or not it was extended.

That said, had it been extended (in early 2011), I suspect we'd have heard about it.

Again, that said, it may be possible that the Section 73 application has been lodged but not determined. That is now option that a smart planning consultant might use as it would enable to consent to be kept just alive, possibly pending submission of new supporting data, if that were considered required to determine whether an extension should be granted (for example, updated traffic flow projections or energy efficiency stuff).

The only option that has a valid planning consent at the moment is the HKS scheme, although that only appears to have outline consent, so would require a full application to be made before the stadium could be built, a process that could take many months.

For the 2003 scheme to be resurrected (if it has not been extended via a Section 73 application), a new consent would be required, although planning permission might not be too difficult to achieve given the site's history. Such an application may also include design revisions, along the lines of the 'second generation' scheme proposed in 2007.

The 2003 application stands as work was started on it, so essentially permission goes on and on

shelovesyou · « **Reply #130 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:42:57 pm »

Quote from: Red Beret on January 17, 2012, 05:07:24 pm

I'm slightly peeved to see this at the same time United are looking to expand to 90k.

How are they going to do that ?

vanoord · « **Reply #131 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:44:11 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 05:39:29 pm

The 2003 application stands as work was started on it, so essentially permission goes on and on

As in demolition of the houses?

The council may - or may not - consider that a start: often there is a requirement to put something (i.e. foundations) in the ground, not just to demolish the existing buildings.

It may depend on what the Council's opinion/requirement is.

Edit: again, without being able to see the documents, it's difficult to comment, but there may also be pre-construction conditions which have not been satisfactorily discharged, in which case a start can not legally be considered to have been made.

shelovesyou · « **Reply #132 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:44:18 pm »

Quote from: Southern Pansy on January 17, 2012, 05:14:39 pm

Would that work in the UK climate? With that much roof how much sunlight would the pitch get? Be a nightmare for the groundsman. And if we want to see pass and move we cannot compromise on the quality of the grass.

I know nothing about that sort of thing, my point really was that just because it looks bad from above and in the design pics doesnt mean
that will translate once inside the ground.

Strummer77 · « **Reply #133 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:44:28 pm »

Quote from: Alan_X on January 17, 2012, 05:06:31 pm

Oh and for those who like Dortmund's ground - this is the AFL Kop and the Sudtribune at the same scale:

Hang on... So the AFL design did have a singled tiered end after all? Or am I being thick.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #134 on:** January 17, 2012, 05:48:35 pm »

Quote from: Southern Pansy on January 17, 2012, 05:14:39 pm

Would that work in the UK climate? With that much roof how much sunlight would the pitch get? Be a nightmare for the groundsman. And if we want to see pass and move we cannot compromise on the quality of the grass.

They move high powered arc lamps around the pitch to ensure plenty of light.....

Hugely inefficient but has improved the quality of the grass.

Alan_X · « **Reply #135 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:06:40 pm »

Quote from: Strummer77 on January 17, 2012, 05:44:28 pm

Hang on... So the AFL design did have a singled tiered end after all? Or am I being thick.

Yes (or no, you aren't being thick). I don't think it's the greatest ground ever but it's a long way from the ill-informed bollocks that's been spread about it. Single tier Kop about the same number of rows and a similar rake as the Sudtribune at Dortmund (although with a curved profile to the top of the stand).

The break in the seating is a gangway. It could be 'tweaked' to minimise the impact - and anyway, when the Kop is full you won't see it. The same way you don't see the gangway that cuts across the Sudtribune in Dortmund when it's full.

SMD · « **Reply #136 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:07:18 pm »

If we redevelop Anfield, we wouldn't be forced to move the stands back would we, so it could stay as close as it is now?

royhendo · « **Reply #137 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:19:48 pm »

BTW if you weren't already aware, our owners are driven by financial factors, and the rest, despite the spin, is rhetoric.

See this re the Fenway Park redevelopment.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/red_sox_confidential_the_teams_former_pr_man_tells_all

It's a hatchet job but regardless, the PR stuff around that redevelopment is relevant here.

Strummer77 · « **Reply #138 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:20:03 pm »

Quote from: Alan_X on January 17, 2012, 06:06:40 pm

Yes (or no, you aren't being thick). I don't think it's the greatest ground ever but it's a long way from the ill-informed bollocks that's been spread about it. Single tier Kop about the same number of rows and a similar rake as the Sudtribune at Dortmund (although with a curved profile to the top of the stand).

The break in the seating is a gangway. It could be 'tweaked' to minimise the impact - and anyway, when the Kop is full you won't see it. The same way you don't see the gangway that cuts across the Sudtribune in Dortmund when it's full.

Cheers. I'm fine with the Parry Bowl now. The lack of single tiered 'Kop' end was my only issue with it, an it seems it was there all along. A nice tweak as you say... and it'll do me.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #139 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:23:52 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on January 17, 2012, 06:19:48 pm

BTW if you weren't already aware, our owners are driven by financial factors, and the rest, despite the spin, is rhetoric.

See this re the Fenway Park redevelopment.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/red_sox_confidential_the_teams_former_pr_man_tells_all

It's a hatchet job but regardless, the PR stuff around that redevelopment is relevant here.

I don't mind financial reasons being important, it would be silly if they weren't really...

vorsprungtorbenpieknik · « **Reply #140 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:26:25 pm »

The club need to make some sort of statement as this has really left my head in a spin. Can anybody, with a degree of certainty, confirm whether or not it is the 2003 or 2008 design that is being taken forward? I guess the 2003 as that has planning consent, but I'm seeing all sorts of contradictory reports.

I'd personally be happy with the 2008 but really don't want the 2003 design. The tweaks required to make it acceptable would in my mind necessitate a new planning application.

Strummer77 · « **Reply #141 on:** January 17, 2012, 06:27:37 pm »

Quote from: Strummer77 on January 17, 2012, 06:20:03 pm

Cheers. I'm fine with the Parry Bowl now. The lack of single tiered 'Kop' end was my only issue with it, an it seems it was there all along. A nice tweak as you say... and it'll do me.

Going back to this... are the two 'behind' goal ends the same, or is there only one single tiered end?

DutchRed · « **Reply #142 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:00:36 pm »

Major concern is that we've appointed the same company as the one that built Old Trafford. Old Trafford is absolutely terrible. The outside, the inside, its shape, its stands, its entire design: it's so shit that even those people sitting in there deserve better. And if THOSE people deserve better, it must be worse than shit.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #143 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:06:18 pm »

Quote from: DutchRed on January 17, 2012, 07:00:36 pm

Major concern is that we've appointed the same company as the one that built Old Trafford. Old Trafford is absolutely terrible. The outside, the inside, its shape, its stands, its entire design: it's so shit that even those people sitting in there deserve better. And if THOSE people deserve better, it must be worse than shit.

But, to be fair, they have been extending an existing stadium to the bloated leviathan that Old Trafford has become.

There was nothing wrong with the parry bowl apart from it not being exciting enough for some.

BurstingTheNet · « **Reply #144 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:07:20 pm »

Quote from: Michaelanscombe on January 17, 2012, 04:35:05 pm

that kop does look great imagine that on a european night !!!!!!!

A kop like Dortmund's would be unbelievable:

TepidT2O · « **Reply #145 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:09:23 pm »

But they are standing aren't they?

We won't and can't have that for all the right reasons

BurstingTheNet · « **Reply #146 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:10:05 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 07:09:23 pm

But they are standing garment they?

We won't and can't have that for all the right reasons

On European nights they're forced to make it seating, obviously I wouldn't advocate standing

DutchRed · « **Reply #147 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:10:50 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 07:09:23 pm

But they are standing garment they?

We won't and can't have that for all the right reasons

We could somehow make it seated as Dortmund have to do it in Europe too.

royhendo · « **Reply #148 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:13:55 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 06:23:52 pm

I don't mind financial reasons being important, it would be silly if they weren't really...

I agree - I just reckon we'll get waves and waves of PR on this. In fact, we might be on the end of some with this announcement.

zakka · « **Reply #149 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:52:39 pm »

Would love it to be similar to Dortmund! Went there for the final in 2001 and still think its one of the best!

shelovesyou · « **Reply #150 on:** January 17, 2012, 07:53:36 pm »

I like elements of the AFL design, but its still part bowl , although 4 seperate stands, and it does look a tad generic.
But like Ive said its better to wait until you get inside on a matchday to really judge its significance.

Rob Dylan · « **Reply #151 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:03:59 pm »

The 2003 design definitely looks better inside than it does outside, and as Alan X has said, it will never really look like a 'bowl' unless you see it from above. Agree that it's down to the fans to make the atmosphere, but the design can help in this - would like to see the crowd a little closer to the pitch, for instance.

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #152 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:21:32 pm »

Quote from: Andy @ Allerton on January 17, 2012, 12:50:55 pm

I hope that we stay where we are if the new 'Stadium' is going to look as rank as that. Utterly small time and fucking minging looking. It's a joke IF the article is true and IF the club are thinking of builing and moving to such a concrete shithole.

+1 I don't see the need for the rush. If it takes another five years to get this right then so be it. This stadium will outlast most of us on this forum. If we are going to do it, lets at least get it right. It is not like we are going to have Barcelona etc playing there any time soon. The team is in transition, that surely gives us more time to get something this important right.

I can see that horrible new Wembley from my room, been to it a few times and it is fucking shyte, 90s circa stadium, the Emirates is equally soulless. One thing LFC is known for is atmosphere. Spurs design (a smaller stadium) is way better than AFL's and has a very steep and intimidating Kop-style tier. I can see us ending up with a soulless Parry bowl and Chelsea and Spurs both building the type of stadiums we should be building.

LFC should not be rail-roaded into this decision by the council. The new Wembley and Arsenal are already out-of-date in terms of design. Generic American sports stadiums masquerading as football stadiums.

exiledintheUSA · « **Reply #153 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:26:10 pm »

Alan - thanks for your technical input in here, really asists in seeing the bigger picture with regards to the reasoning behind 60K capacity ect ect.

Zeb · « **Reply #154 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:26:23 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on January 17, 2012, 07:13:55 pm

I agree - I just reckon we'll get waves and waves of PR on this. In fact, we might be on the end of some with this announcement.

Think we've been due one on the design since last April/May when they put it into the accounts that they were looking at writing off the costs of the Hicks Bowl. So either Bascombe is adding up and coming to the conclusion that without new consent that just leaves the original Parry design or something's moving (Alan Kayll's comments seem to make it more likely the latter?).

It's interesting looking at the Parry design fresh. At the time, I thought 'bland' but the Dortmund comparisons Alan_F has been doing are a bit of an eyeopener. What kind of price was that design costed at 8 years ago?

TepidT2O · « **Reply #155 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:33:28 pm »

Quote from: Twelfth Man on January 17, 2012, 08:21:32 pm

+1 I don't see the need for the rush. If it takes another five years to get this right then so be it. This stadium will outlast most of us on this forum. If we are going to do it, lets at least get it right. It is not like we are going to have Barcelona etc playing there any time soon. The team is in transition, that surely gives us more time to get something this important right.

I can see that horrible new Wembley from my room, been to it a few times and it is fucking shyte, 90s circa stadium, the Emirates is equally soulless. One thing LFC is known for is atmosphere. Spurs design (a smaller stadium) is way better than AFL's and has a very steep and intimidating Kop-style tier. I can see us ending up with a soulless Parry bowl and Chelsea and Spurs both building the type of stadiums we should be building.

LFC should not be rail-roaded into this decision by the council. The new Wembley and Arsenal are already out-of-date in terms of design. Generic American sports stadiums masquerading as football stadiums.

Tottinghams stadium seems very similar indeed apart from the roof

Alan_X · « **Reply #156 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:33:43 pm »

Quote from: shelovesyou on January 17, 2012, 07:53:36 pm

I like elements of the AFL design, but its still part bowl , although 4 seperate stands, and it does look a tad generic.
But like Ive said its better to wait until you get inside on a matchday to really judge its significance.

It's a football stadium with seats on four sides so that the fans in the ground can see the match. That makes it generic. We could do a whole load of things to make it less generic and worse to watch the game.

I fully understand why we would get the things that I don't like

- the curved tops and oval plan are to ensure that everyone buying a ticket gets a decent view. We could square it off and all be pleased with the look of the ground and some poor fucker up in the far corner of the New Centenary will be getting the same shite view and crap atmosphere I've got when I've been up there.

- The seat and row spacing will be bigger than at Anfield and we'll lose some of the atmosphere, but I'll be able to sit down without fucking my knees on the seat in front. The Emirates is way too generous and hopefully we will find a decent balance of tighter rows in the 'cheap seats' to keep the atmosphere and more spacious to maximise the premium seats that subsidise them.

The alternative is to go for 'unique' as HKS did and create a brand new stadium that would have huge areas of prime viewing space empty of seats and instead have stands that went up as high, or higher than the away section at St James Park.

The irony of Anfield is that it's four generic bogstandard stands and the oldest is the most generic of all - the Main stand is essentially the Leitch stand which was rolled off his production line but with the gable stripped off and the cross girders covered up.

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #157 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:38:38 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on January 17, 2012, 08:33:28 pm

Tottinghams stadium seems very similar indeed apart from the roof

It is nothing special apart from the steep tier. It looks a lot more compact, and the fans appear to be closer to the pitch. That design is only for 56,000, which quite a few fans think is our limit too. Personally I would rather we wait, 5/10 year's call the council's bluff. That new AFL design is not too shabby but that is not the one Bascombe is referring to but rather a tweaked and modified Parry 2003 plan. From what I can recall that was 10x worse than the Emirates.

Can someone please post those plans?

Alan_X · « **Reply #158 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:40:40 pm »

Quote from: Twelfth Man on January 17, 2012, 08:21:32 pm

+1 I don't see the need for the rush. If it takes another five years to get this right then so be it. This stadium will outlast most of us on this forum. If we are going to do it, lets at least get it right. It is not like we are going to have Barcelona etc playing there any time soon. The team is in transition, that surely gives us more time to get something this important right.

I can see that horrible new Wembley from my room, been to it a few times and it is fucking shyte, 90s circa stadium, the Emirates is equally soulless. One thing LFC is known for is atmosphere. Spurs design (a smaller stadium) is way better than AFL's and has a very steep and intimidating Kop-style tier. I can see us ending up with a soulless Parry bowl and Chelsea and Spurs both building the type of stadiums we should be building.

LFC should not be rail-roaded into this decision by the council. The new Wembley and Arsenal are already out-of-date in terms of design. Generic American sports stadiums masquerading as football stadiums.

Err... the Spuds stadium is a generic bowl...

...it's almost a carbon copy of the Emirates, except they have the roof trusses under the roof skin instead of on top... and that's about it apart from the 'Kop' end. What you're looking at and being seduced by is an atmospheric bullshit night shot. What AFL shoudl have done is published a load of 'European night' images with flags and banners.

And they are definitely not American sports stadiums... they are football grounds.

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #159 on:** January 17, 2012, 08:50:34 pm »

Quote from: Alan_X on January 17, 2012, 08:40:40 pm

Err... the Spuds stadium is a generic bowl...

...it's almost a carbon copy of the Emirates, except they have the roof trusses under the roof skin instead of on top... and that's about it apart from the 'Kop' end. What you're looking at and being seduced by is an atmospheric bullshit night shot. What AFL shoudl have done is published a load of 'European night' images with flags and banners.

And they are definitely not American sports stadiums... they are football grounds.

Fair enough, I see where your coming from. Having been to the Bombonera and the incredible atmosphere that place generates mainly because of the fans but also helped by the steep stands, I was hoping we would get a design that similarly helps retain atmosphere. You are right however about viewing experience, was a bit shyte right at the top.

The fans are key to atmosphere in any stadium, little things like distance from the pitch and compactness can help but at the end of the day, as long as working class people can still afford to see games, LFC will always have passion. Tweaked and modified are pretty broad terms lets wait and see I guess.