Author Topic: Naming the six training pitches  (Read 4075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheDeeDon

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • Rating: 18
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2019, 06:56:07 PM »
go on then, show us yer workings?

Do you say that to all the boys?  I just had another look at my post and not anything suggested I had workings, but because it is my job, a rough calulation for me would be roughly £300k for a basic breezeblock construction done whilst the groundworks was being done at the site, maybe more depending on the type of roof that was put on, but not anything like £1million.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3305
  • Rating: 76
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2019, 08:30:48 PM »
Do you say that to all the boys?  I just had another look at my post and not anything suggested I had workings, but because it is my job, a rough calulation for me would be roughly £300k for a basic breezeblock construction done whilst the groundworks was being done at the site, maybe more depending on the type of roof that was put on, but not anything like £1million.

Sounds about right for a basic shed in the Sports Village indoor pitch style. It's not like yer adding more changing facilities or the like. Fairmers put up sheds like that a' the time, and they're always skint.

Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Rating: 39
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2019, 08:46:48 PM »
Building control wont allow a basic breezeblock construction and hopefully neither would the club. Its not a case of just building a garage around a pitch.

Full size modern articifial pitch completely enclosed in modern energy efficient structure with the required M&E/ lighting/fire alarm systems etc, Changing facilities & equipment store (no point players getting changed in one building then getting soaked walking across to the indoor pitch).

£300k might get you a 5-a side one but I doubt you will get anything close to an 11-aside one for less than £3million. Ideally the indoor pitch should have been part of the current indoor facilities.

Toryglen centre in Glasgow (1 indoor & 3 outdoor 11-aside astroturf, plus 2 smaller training pitches, and 3no 7 a side grass) apparenlty cost circa £17million back in 2006 although that does include a 700 capacity stand for supporters.



« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 08:48:37 PM by tom_widdows »
I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3305
  • Rating: 76
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2019, 10:13:42 PM »
So what's the sports village pitch then? Breeze block with a steel frame on top isn't it? It's fucking freezing in the winter, so I reckon it's energy efficient in that it doesn't have heating or insulation. Given it's the dons' training centre, I'm assuming that getting changed in one building before heading to the indoor pitch would be absolutely fine. Part of the warm up. Would seem more energy inefficient to have twa shiters.

Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Rating: 39
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2019, 11:07:50 PM »
I've only been in tory glen but the Aberdeen Sports village supposedly cost circa £28million.

Toryglen certainly isnt freezing in the winter.

Anyway estimated sizes based on 105m x 68m pitch

370m x 3m of blockwork (with steel windposts)
Steel portal frame with pitched or barrel roof shape at a height which allows for an actual match to be played (15m?)
370m x up to 15m External cladding. This will need to have some form of insulation properties to maintain frost protection and prevent the building turning into a greenhouse in summer. Also need to be tough enough to withstand footballs being kicked against it, vandalisms, the salt content in the air, bird shite etc.
110m x 80m roof  (composite cladding panels?) with deep flow surface water drainage.
74m x 110m reinforced concrete floor slab with suitable gas membrane protection (given what they dug out of that size).
Cross flow ventilation system (passive or mechanical) to prevent condensation build up and over heating.
Indoor flood lighting system
Surrounding infrastructure for servicing/ maintenance.

For building warrants a rough guide has the cheapest price per m2 for non-domestic buildings is £185 for general agricultrural buildings.
The building ive described above is 8140m2 so if it was classed as a farm shed etc it would cost £1,505,900.00.
The next cheapest price in the guide is £609 per m2 for warehouses.








« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 12:09:39 AM by tom_widdows »
I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3305
  • Rating: 76
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #45 on: November 03, 2019, 11:50:59 PM »
Well that's ruined my plans for a pitch in my back gairden.

Good work min, good to know. Surely next time we play the Arabs in the cup, we can get a couple of their caravan-dwellers to do it for £300K cash? Or give them Gleeson? Plus £400K cash.

Offline TheDeeDon

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • Rating: 18
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2019, 06:49:48 AM »
JUst drove past it on my way to work and it is miserable outside weather wise, really poor they didn't build a cattle shed with an indoor pitch but to fuck with spending £3 million on a facility to produce the next generation Darren Mackie.

Maybe we could get DIY SOS to come around and build us something with the help of local dandies in the building trade. Write them a letter telling them we need them to get Gleeson fit again, one look of him in his current shape and we may well just get away with it on the sympathy vote.

Offline Ten Caat

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Rating: 37
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2019, 10:13:21 AM »
Just been reading elsewhere that the height restriction for the whole site is 21m. Which isna very high at all. It was why the club have been saying that steep sides on the stadium are pretty much a no no. Id imagine Joe kicking from hand (or any keeper) using his normal technique, the ball would reach higher than that at the top of its arc. As would many clearances by defenders just aiming to get the ball out of play. No problem in a roofless stadium. Big problem on a covered training pitch which might well get utilised for some youth team matches. Last thing you want is bits of lighting raining down on you

Offline Panda

  • Under 21's
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Rating: 6
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2019, 12:43:10 PM »
Just been reading elsewhere that the height restriction for the whole site is 21m. Which isna very high at all. It was why the club have been saying that steep sides on the stadium are pretty much a no no. Id imagine Joe kicking from hand (or any keeper) using his normal technique, the ball would reach higher than that at the top of its arc. As would many clearances by defenders just aiming to get the ball out of play. No problem in a roofless stadium. Big problem on a covered training pitch which might well get utilised for some youth team matches. Last thing you want is bits of lighting raining down on you

I don't know how these things are measured - another one for Tom to answer perhaps. But on the planning application for Hearts new main stand, it said the roof would be 21.4 metres from ground level.

But it also says the truss is 27.6m high, so maybe what they mean re-Kingsford is 21m is the highest point of the roof?

Loirston I think was to be 24 metres high.

As for steepness, again I'm no expert on these things, but I was at the Groupama Arena in Budapest for the Scotland game a few years ago and it's really steep (did the stadium tour the next day, impressive place) yet the height of the stadium appears to be 22 metres according to a quick google search. The pitch is below ground level though, but on the other hand much of the stadium's height is from a huge roof.

My concern with the stadium height is more that George Yule told me a few years ago that the plan was 20,000 now, then to expand in future if demand dictated it. A height restriction would make that difficult, and the talk last week from Cormack is that the club are actually considering 17,000-18,000 capacity.


Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Rating: 39
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2019, 07:34:07 PM »
In my experience when you have height restrictions (be it for planning or building warrant purposes) the height is measured from the lowest external ground level in relation to the building ie if your site is on a small hill you wont get away with taking the measurement from the elevation which faces uphill. Whether or not restriction is just to the roof surface or includes cantilevered trusses etc I don't know as I have yet to work on an actual stadium (although my current employers have done one in the past)

A trick to get around this could be to sink the pitch below ground level like Hampden partly is, however to do that on all 4 sides to the extent hampden is would push up the costs significantly and probably not feasible for club stadiums under a 40000 capacity.

As for the gradient as I understand it the steepest you can have under Scottish Building regulations would be 34degrees (Tynecastle Wheatfield stand closest example). Once you go over that your stairs are too steep to be permitted for the general public (Stairs in private houses can go to 42degrees).

If the pitch was built exactly at finished ground level at 34degrees it should be possible to get 30 rows of seating but that would be based on the roof surface being the level the height restriction applied to and not any cantilevered trusses. I have a rough cad section of a 34degree stand and one the length of the South or Main should get about 6000 seats with a goal end getting around 4000 which would of course = 20,000.

I personally feel future permanant expansion is something that should be forgotten about. Any chance of a major sports tournament being hosted in Scotland is dead under the current FIFA/ UEFA capitalist wet dream but if by some miracle it did become a reality the best chance I reckon would be for temporary additional tiers to be added. That is something that is potentially sellable to planners as the benefits to the local area would outweigh the temporary disruption to the landscape.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 08:00:27 PM by tom_widdows »
I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Online Slim

  • Star Striker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Rating: -985
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2019, 10:29:01 AM »
Typically what would be the chances of getting a relaxation on the height restriction a couple of years down the line after the local opposition has quietened down a bit?

Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Rating: 39
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2019, 01:29:48 PM »
Typically what would be the chances of getting a relaxation on the height restriction a couple of years down the line after the local opposition has quietened down a bit?

You need an additional separate Planning application if you wish to remove or change a condition(s) on an approved permission.
This of course allows for new objections from neighbours and/or the general public so you would need to have a fairly detailed justification to apply for it.

I've only skim read the planning documents and conditions but I didnt see anything about height restrictions and it seems bizarre to impose such a measure on a site in a semi-rural location. If the site was in the city centre or an established built up area i could understand it.
Only mention of heights seems to be raising the ground levels to avoid potential flood issues.

Does anyone have a link to a document which mentions this height restriction?


I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Offline Ten Caat

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Rating: 37
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2019, 04:08:34 PM »
Can't be arsed looking to see where in the approval it is mentioned but heres the bit of the application that mentions it

and Sport Facilities, Football Academy And Stadium (Circa 20,000 Capacity), Formation Of Access And All Associated Parking, Landscaping And Engineering Works’ on land at West Kingsford (north of the A944 Road), Skene Road, Aberdeen.
 
Stadium 3.2 The proposed 20,000 capacity, all-seated stadium would be located to the western part of the site, approximately 50m from its southern boundary and 100m from its western boundary respectively. The stadium itself would measure approximately 180 metres by 145 metres, achieving a height of just over 20m and an overall footprint of approximately 24,250sqm. The stadium would be sited approximately 17 degrees off an east-west orientation, with its stands encircling the pitch completely, including the four corners. Seating within the stadium would be laid out in a single-tier ‘bowl’ arrangement.
 
3.3 The stadium’s exterior would be finished in dark grey facing brick at low level, set slightly back from the coloured polycarbonate cladding to walls above. These vertical cladding panels, in shades of red through to white, are translucent and would create a subtle red glow from within the internally lit concourse areas at night. This translucency would also allow for diffuse natural light to illuminate the concourse during hours of daylight.   
 
3.4 Externally, the south stand incorporates silver/grey aluminium rainscreen cladding which is extruded out from the face of the remainder of that elevation to surround an extensively glazed face, framed by a darker grey cladding. This glazed frontage takes advantage of the southern elevation and allows light in to hospitality suites and other internal spaces.
 
3.5 The south-east corner of the stadium includes a projecting section, clad in the same polycarbonate vertical cladding in shades of red and white. This extruded corner identifies the club shop at ground floor level, and its outer face above is identifies as a potential location for signage, with the club crest embossed into the cladding panels and softly illuminated from within. 
 
3.6 Floodlighting to illuminate the playing surface is incorporated within the design of the stadium roof, angled downwards to reduce light spillage outwith the arena. The roof itself is angled at 11 degrees, achieving a height of 21m from the pitch to the underside of the roof cladding material. It would be finished with a silver aluminium cladding panel, with exposed steelwork above and below to be painted white. To the rear of the seated tier a translucent polycarbonate panelling would be used to allow in diffuse light. The seating within the single-tier stand would comprise three ‘rakes’, with seating becoming steeper from pitchside to the rear of the stand incrementally, at 2

Offline tom_widdows

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Rating: 39
  • Miserable Cúnt & Architectural Killjoy
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2019, 07:57:59 PM »
Unless the height detailed in the applicaiton was as a result of initial discussions with the Planners then we can't actually establish if there is a formal 21m restriction on the site.
Once you put dimensions on a planning drawing/ statement you are legally bound by them (there is a little bit of lee-way (mm)) so ideally at planning stage you want to leave yourself a bit of leeway by designing slightly bigger than is required.

I'm a bit concerned at the suggestion the 21m might now be an issue when it is something that could and indeed should have been sorted before the application was submitted.
I'm a man, and as a man I crave disappointment.

That's why I support Aberdeen Football Club & Scotland.

Offline Panda

  • Under 21's
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Rating: 6
Re: Naming the six training pitches
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2019, 02:42:16 AM »
Unless the height detailed in the applicaiton was as a result of initial discussions with the Planners then we can't actually establish if there is a formal 21m restriction on the site.
Once you put dimensions on a planning drawing/ statement you are legally bound by them (there is a little bit of lee-way (mm)) so ideally at planning stage you want to leave yourself a bit of leeway by designing slightly bigger than is required.

I'm a bit concerned at the suggestion the 21m might now be an issue when it is something that could and indeed should have been sorted before the application was submitted.

The suggestion of a height restriction came from those at the meeting last week with Cormack and Wicks. They said they were hearing lots of fans say they want the stands to be steeper, but due to height restrictions they would try their best but could only do so much. These height restrictions they say came from the "local authorities".

Unrelated: They also said safe standing costs three times as much as normal seating, and so those present were asked if they would prefer a 17,000 stadium with standing, or a 20,000 one without - to which apparently everyone picked the former.

But back to the height...


The planning documents are on this site:-

https://www.kingsfordstadium.co.uk/

I'm no Mike Ross (suits reference), but from reading it I don't ever recall seeing a height restriction officially in any of the submissions. However, in the design and access statement from January 2017, where the architects explain all the different changes they made (stadium originally was at a 90 degree angle to the one in the plans) there are two bits that say:-


Following the feedback received during the pre-application Public Consultation, the heights of the stands were reduced with the internal seating layout refined to provide the same seating numbers


And

The roof of the Stadium has been raised from 6 degrees to 11 degrees to a height of 21 metres from the pitch to the underside of the roof cladding. The roof of the original scheme was approximately 24 metres from the pitch, however, due to the reduction in the steel frame of the stands, the revised roof edge height of 18.5 metres was too low for the proposed stadium lighting to work, creating an unacceptable glare for the supporters and players.