Very impressive Peter. I've tended to prefer new build but if something along those lines were achievable...
Given the infrastructure provisions I'd doubt we'll see anything over 60k in either a redevelopment or new stadium initially. What is the capacity and estimated cost?
Too big and too much, but cheaper than a new stadium of the same size.
60k
is about right.
That's the bit we (non-architects and those outside your industry) all need to get our heads round, isn't it? What in FSG's eyes will constitute "working".
Gate revenue, sponsorship revenue, in-ground screen and billboard revenue, project cost...
'Working' in that sense means the meeting of commercial demand with safety (ie., regulation).
Starting from scratch, you will tend to end up with an Emirates, bowl type design. Both the commercial demand (hospitality, boxes, space) and the regulations push any designer to an almost inevitable solution - they all look the same (if they get it right). The imagination ends up on the outside. If they get it wrong (base it on NFL parameters for example...), it doesn't work.
Because Westfalen starts from somewhere else (lower prices, higher capacity, standing) and in a different safety regime, the end result is more appealing to us because it looks like, feels like and is like what we want.
Ultimately Germany (and others) put more faith in the fans to do the right thing - to be safe. Their regulations are no less safe in themselves (some say safer) but they will entertain a different way to achieve a (better) design.
The benefit of starting with Anfield is you get a chance to keep the intangible properties that makes it great. You don't have to keep the problems as well. You can address the issues of legroom, the poor views, the lousy food and beverage as well as addressing the commercial requirements for boxes (there are in fact way too many on that design) and hospitality - and safety.
