jess

A document which lists the multiple sites around the city and the reasons they were deemed unsuitable. How does that not have anything to do with the 'council has offered land' debate?

I'm lost that you're asking this question. Nothing to do with land by the beach the council may have identified after the club indicated they were moving to Kingsford. 

Could you please also clarify your last statement about the Planner's not accepting these reasons?

SDPA - However, this does not demonstrate the need to have co-location but merely that it is preferable for the club. The applicant has still not adequately addressed the need to co-locate activities on one site. In light of this, the sequential test should be approached on the basis of separating the stadium from the training facilities.

It goes on and on after that about almost every aspect of it not being right.

Back to the Kingslinks discussion you are actually correct in the Cricket Ground + Driving Range is 10 hectares (checked this on a CAD plan). The problem is the club needs 25 Hectares.

The other issue (as stated in long post about the alternative sites) is Aberdeen's 2017 local plan has zoned the Kingslinks (including the cricket ground & Driving Range) as Urban Green space, Green Space network, and a Developed Coastal Management area.

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=74498&sID=9484

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=74499&sID=9484

If you think trying to build on green-belt in the suburbs is hard, wait till you try to concrete over existing urban green-space. Many people still haven't forgiven the 1990s councils for allowing the loss of the grassland next to Codona's to build the Queen's links leisure park.

Can't believe the time wasted on the wrong sites. 15 years since we were apparently first presented the opportunity of this site, these hurdles could have been passed long ago. We will continue to waste time on the wrong sites.

The 2003 plan which you posted a couple of images from (Seem to recall from my Uni days that it included suggestions of a tram network) has been superseded several times and now no longer applicable.

Where it says development opportunity may have been this newly identified land.

Hopefully Tom that will put to bed the "...but the council has offered land in Aiberdeen......." nonsense.

Great post.

You wot? I've read that spiel 100 times and it has nothing to do with "the council has offered land in Aiberdeen". The reasons were also not accepted by planners.

Development opportunity..... 

They were not privately owned or located on a private company's land.

This is basically what I was getting at.

 

The Cricket pitch plus the Driving range is not 10 Hectares. The Current Pittodrie site is 5.5 Hectares and that would only just fit into in that space.

I would say the 10 hectares is the the driving ranges plus the Kings Links Golf Course.

Plus the course? Right, I've copied the whole Pittodrie site and cut it up to check this.

In terms of compensation I take it you mean the following

1) Pay out the remaining lease to the council. Current rate-able value for the Kings links golf centre is £108,000 per year. Exactly how long is this long Term lease?.

2) Find a replacement site and pay for the construction of a New Driving Range, and the relocation of the Business. This latter used to be the way Supermarkets got hold of old Stadium sites.

Finding and purchasing a site large enough for a new driving range with modernised facilities plus construction costs - £2.5Million?

Only said long term in one of the docs.

2003 planning study

There are possibilities if people are willing and all parties involved.

 

Now we move onto the stadium complex. Planning rules require a specific amount of car Parking for sports stadiums and just because a kings links stadium is closer the city centre does not mean this will be relaxed.

Falkirk's new stadium has a capacity half of Pittodrie and is 15mins walk from the Train station but still required more than 600 Parking spaces.

Then there is the road infrastructure - Improvements to the Golf Road, The esplanade etc which will be made all the more complicated by the prospect of 350 new residential units being built on the Doorstep.

But the biggest headaches are the sandy soil conditions, the drainage/ flood prevention infrastructure (Kings Links is only approx 7ft above sea level). These alone could potentially double or even triple the cost of construction.

 

It could be done but it is by no means a cheaper alternative.

Loads of things like this needing to be done for Kingsford.

OK, so can I just turn up at your place of work, anytime, and use the facilities for, y'know (I'm channeling Dingus here, just for effect), any old thing I would like to do in "some empty room"?

Or if you dinna work (for whatever reason) can I just come and use your TV/computer/bathroom?

Did none of you have a local pitch/court and/or community centre? Is that after your time or something?

Where's this 10 hectare site? What businesses does it involve buying or relocating? Do you think it's possible to cram the same size stadium, the same size car park into a space that's quite a bit smaller? How does the AWPR aid the bottleneck from traffic leaving the site via king street? (I'm guessing it probably won't)

The 10 hectare site is the driving range and adjacent cricket pitch. Both are owned by the council. Craig Group Leisure have a long term lease on the driving range. It would involve compensating Craig Group Leisure to relocate the driving range. I don't know if the shop would have to go with it, but otherwise the construction cost of moving a few signs and a teeing off area to another location around the Links wouldn't be high I would think?

Stadium and car park would be more crammed in. Lot of filler space in stadium half of Kingsford due to car park limit, replaced with extensive concourse, trees and so on.

Isn't the AWPR specifically being built to relieve congestion on Union Street and King Street and the bridges into Aberdeen?

I just associate it with turning up when you require and using whatever facilities are there! Whether that be a gym or computers or some empty room.

Shame it's in such an unrequired location if there are indeed community uses.

It's available for use by the community... not really sure why that couldn't be community use?

 

Where's the 1300 spaces coming from at kingslinks? Is there the footprint there for that size of car park? If there is How does that ease congestion on the main routes away from the stadium that are gridlocked after games? It's tolerated currently, a fresh application across the roads changes that though. Maybe I'm missing something but would that really be passed?

 

I mean barring the improved access on foot pittodrie is fucking awful to get to at times from anywhere but on foot and on some bus routes.

 

Just trying to look at it logically.

It's 10 hectares - the stadium side of Kingsford is 12.5 hectares and the awkward shape appears to limit it.

I don't know all the would be answers to congestion issues leaving. Controlled car parks, better traffic organisation and more buses would aid that I'd think. The AWPR have some impact freeing up roads too?

So turning up and using the facilities for free you mean? When would that ever be the case?! Apart from having to pay for use I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's going to be available for use whenever the club isn't training, much like how hearts facilities have worked well for years (albeit the were erring slightly run down last time I saw it).

 

Basketball too? Let's see how much that would be used.

 

Also, has the club mentioned whether the gym would be available to locals? Can't say I've seen it confirmed that it wouldn't be. So we are up to multiple high quality floodlit grass and allweather pitches, multi use community rooms and possibly a gym. Not exactly nothing is it? Add in a permanent base for the AFCCT and it all mounts up.

I honestly can't remember one time in my childhood where I paid to use a community facility or booked anything. Turned up and played football and used changing rooms and whatever.

Not saying it wouldn't benefit people in general and have some organised stuff on but it's just not the bored kids and louts turning up in the middle of their community that I associate the thing with. 

That is community use, it allows community groups to make use of the space.  It's not defined as setting restrictions on how they can use it (within reason).  The best spaces provided for community spaces are usually left to morph into whatever suits the community/group.

 

How would you define community use?

I associate it with turning up somewhere and using the facilities there. Maybe there's another description for that type of thing.

Modernised community use I think of those fully fenced dual fitba basketball courts.

Good standard of pitches available for hire (of course there would be a cost, it's daft to think otherwise), then there's space available for general use, so community groups can hire the space for whatever community groups do.

 

Change of subject but it's widely accepted the transport situation at kingsford has is flaws, can anyone explain how the club are going to be able to put together a transport case for kingslinks when the existing car parking has been sold and the existing infrastructure is gridlocked post match even with modest attendances? Wouldn't moving to kingslinks be treated as a new development so even saying it's suitable currently has no bearing on it?

 

It strikes me that if we can't make a transport case work with a brand new bypass serving the local area and dual carriageway in to town, as well as additional parking over and above what we would normally be allowed and shuttle buses (ignoring the fact folk are unconvinced on having to use a shuttle bus to get there  for now)... how on earth can we expect it to be passed with none of those things albeit much more accessible on foot?

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I can't get my head around the thinking there

Might just be me but I wouldn't call that community use.

Kings Links is served by enough public transport from all over and they'd say they would add additional ones to bring down the amount of cars. 1300 spaces, the beach and perhaps Bridge of Don park & ride.

Either I don't understand it or this community stuff is being mindlessly repeated. As far as I've read there will be 5 pitches and 1 or 2 available for hire (cost?) when not being used by the youngsters which I don't think would be very often or at useful times. It's not the local kids being able to turn up and play whenever they want.

Apart from that there will be...a cafe?

 

You don't need trains or trams to get to the standard of Pittodrie.

 

You do need approximately 30 more bus lines running every 10 minutes.

 

12,000 - 14,000 will be fine at Kingsford. We'll accept it's a bit of a pisser to get to, but it'll be worth it to see the Dons in a fantastic stadium.

This is where I specifically totally disagree. I was slightly enthused by the idea of some superstadion that everyone would make the effort to go to. The stadium looks so average the mock ups suck the life out of me.

I've no idea, not saying it isn't true, but just because someone says it on a forum, doesn't make it gospel.  Needs credibility and substance to it. 

 

That said, if ACC had just come to the realisation at that time, that's their own fault.  AFC would have spunked shed loads of cash by that point and would have paid an extortionate amount in abortive fees to get a redesign / surveys etc...too late in the day.  A stadium doesn't get designed overnight, it takes years.

If this fails then we'll find out!

 

I remember reading this. He said he'd been told the deal was for Kings Links. From memory the council were willing to help relocate the golf driving range and let Aberdeen build there.

 

But Aberdeen have already responded to this in the application. As Tom Widdows has alluded to, building on the land would have issues, it's too small to include the training ground, and Aberdeen believe it'll cost them at least £6m more.

The person in question didn't know where it was. There were folk speculating and one saying the driving range would relocate if it could be done. I guess Douglas Craig is a friend of Milne since he was one of those doing the All For Aurora. There's nothing to get bulldozed or anything. Council could just lease us the land rather than us buy it since it would be very expensive?

As soon as you said where you'd read it, the validity went out the window. Anyone can say anything on the Internet, I was talking about proof, not hearsay. People have a agendas, and will lie until theyre blue in the teeth. Report / email from the council would be the only way to prove that claim up. Even still, I doubt they'd be able to offer the area the club wants.

Do you think he made up the first part and it happened to be right?

Do you consider that to be a reliable source of anything?

 

In the early days AFC chat a rumour started that the Dons were going to sign Gabriel Batistuta thanks to an Oil Company (or 2) bankrolling his wages. I believe the boy who started that one actually got charged with some early internet crime.

 

Evidence would be say a letter or email from a council official. You could also even consider a story in the P&J

 

Someone posting on facebook or AFC Chat is the modern day equivalent of 'My mate heard from a guy in the pub that....'

I don't believe there's any chance this person made it up and persistently lied about something so random that came true a few weeks later. Unless others see a reason to?

No the application is as a single development.

 

If the worst happens and the stadium is rejected, I don't want the training facilities anywhere near Westhill, these cunts should in no way gain any direct benefit from AFC after this, and I hope the club sees the same.

 

What the anti-mob amongst fans seem to be missing, is that there is nowhere else. You can greet all you want, but it's not going to be Pittodrie redeveloped, and you run the real risk of this now going outwith the city and into Aberdeenshire. It was mooted long ago that Wiggy had dibs on land near Portlethen that was a fall back option. Obviously the fact it's out of the city is why not much has been made of this, but this looks awfully like the last chance to keep the stadium within the toon

I think it would be training facilities there in another application and stadium who knows where. It simply won't be Aberdeenshire unless right next to a train station and again it would help to know where the land at Dyce was that the council identified 4 years ago.

Jess, we asked 100AkS to provide evidence of this, but where has it been proven the council offered up land by the beach? Obviously I wouldn't accept a statement about it from the idiots on the NTK website as they are the purveyors of fake news.

Read it on afc chat and facebook from people who'd posted about Westhill before it was announced.

I didn't like Loirston, but I just don't get the clamour for Kingsford at all, it's clearly an inferior location.

We were shit. You value things more when not winning, a better perspective.

Depends on the media spin but I think the Planners have already made up their minds and a decision will be issued by October 1st.

Could they somehow say no to the stadium only or would it be an outright no and try again?

Granted, I'll give you that one. The shuttle bus journeys would be shorter. If AECC was the option I would support it.

 

But it's important to note there would still be a need for shuttle buses, and it'd be heavily reliant on them, same as Kingsford. It's not a big improvement on Kingsford, and the point I'm making is I can't see why Kingsford would be rejected but AECC passed.

There would be a need for shuttles along King Street. It would take less time, the same bus could be used much more and presumably would mean far less buses needed. Kingsford needs private hires from every corner of the city to the ground. It's like a Kingsford but with public routes from everywhere to Kingswells P&R.

Apparently so, George Yule says they investigated that site. They say that ACC requires a land receipt from the sale of the land to help pay off the new AECC, essentially meaning the club won't get it cheap so it's a lot more expensive than Kingsford. They also said it doesn't have room for the stadium and training facilities, though if Kingsford is rejected that might not be an issue because the only way they can still build a dual facility in that case will be in Aberdeenshire. They also said permission has already been given anyway to another developer to build there.

I've read Yule's newspaper letter about the AECC just now. When you have to list "community sports hub, training academy and new stadium with associated parking" there's a whiff of unwillingness. It would be helpful to know basic estimated costs for the locations they look at. I read a few times the council panicked at the club trying for Kingsford and suddenly identified land by the beach but the club weren't interested. Also would be helpful to know where this is. I reckon the strange ground conditions unallocated land next to Seaton.

What I also don't understand, and didn't understand long before Kingsford ever came on the scene. Why were fans so against Loirston but happy for the AECC site? The walk is pretty much the same.

Perceived bus links and direction of travel. A much stranger thing is how fans were so against Loirston but militantly in favour of Kingsford. My biggest worry is it's because we're winning and no one gives a shit about anything while that happens. All For Aurora is really All For McInnes Staying And Winning And We Will Reach The Champions League.

 

Not trying to be cheeky, but I've read that three times and don't understand what you mean.

A condition for Loirston was near 75% would take the bus, and there was to be some astronomical number like 140 Park and Ride buses.

The council seem to be very strong on too much car use. They don't believe people would use the buses since there are so few links.

You think there'll be less cars using the stadium than what currently use the AECC?

Less parking next to it due to bigger numbers in cars and more on buses and walking.

How many bus routes go past the AECC? I'd suggest the majority of fans will still need a bus into Aberdeen then a bus to AECC for a concert.

 

What I will say about AECC, and I wouldn't be massively against it (that's not the point I'm making), is that buses would reach it quicker than Kingsford. But I just don't see how the overrall picture is a better one than Kingford, and how if Kingsford fails that AECC could be viewed as a possibility.

A couple, but as you say it would be an actual shuttle bus along King Street for those going to or from town for another one, rather than up to 40 minutes back.

If Kingsford fails, it would be stupidity for the club to spend more money embarking on a plan somewhere that isn't earmarked for a stadium in the LDP or has good transport links. If they lose this, they just have to accept Aberdeen Council are only going to let them build at Pittodrie, Kings Links or Loirston.

Possibly, but I don't understand why they say there is no evidence ACC would like to purse a football stadium with the club. Well obviously there's not going to be. Have they asked?

 

But, I think Kingsford will get the go ahead. The main concerns are pedestrian safety, and Aberdeen will have to spend a fair bit on footbridges, on bus laybys and on widening paths, decreasing the width of the dual carriageway, and all the other wee things road traffic management have suggested in their report.

I was thinking it might but given Aberdeenshire Council's objection and threats and Strategic and Economic being against it I don't think so anymore.

Other than that - traffic, it's going to be a problem anywhere, and would have been just as bad if not worse at Loirston, which the council passed. There wasn't loads of parking at Loirston which got passed. The shuttles bus idea was flawed at Loirston, passed.

There was a huge condition on the buses at Loirston, if I remember correctly, 73% would get there by bus and Aberdeen had to prove it would happen. At Kingsford the club wants close to the opposite, and the council don't believe it wouldn't be closer to 90%.

 

The only reason really for any councillor rejecting this will be they believe Aberdeen need to stay in the city centre for economic reasons. I think that's a weak reason and would be astonished if that happened.

That could be the reason but not the reason given...

 

All true, but it also says in the stadium application that Aberdeenshire council offered the club land for a new stadium at Blackburn, Balmedie and Portlethen. I don't know why their attitude is so anti-Kingsford - maybe because it's not actually in Aberdeenshire?

Pandering.

Secondly, how many parking spaces are actually there? Is it more than 1300 (the Kingsford number)? Bear in mind Aberdeen were asked to reduce parking spaces, and in the council report released today the use of arnhall has been criticised because it increases car use. They're not suddenly going to be encouraged to go for a site with more parking.

Look like maybe 2500 in total in the proper car parks - 600 or more taken away for a stadium.

The club also says the site isn't big enough for training facilities. I call bullshit on that unless they're desperate for 5 pitches.

In the 2014 AECC development framework, it has comments from locals who have viewed the plans for the area once the AECC moves to Bucksburn. Link is here. http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=64900&sID=2991  - look at the comments. Page 13 Too much traffic, roads can't cope, public transport links need improved, traffic is a nightmare. Page 11 - 24% of 600 respondents said too much traffic. Page 15 - 56% have road traffic concerns. Page 16 destroys all arguments you're making about great transport links. This is for an area about to lose a 4,000 capacity AECC - the locals aren't even being asked about their thoughts on a 20,000 capacity stadium.

Ignore the capacity - it would be around a third of the parking?

 

If Kingsford is rejected, I can't see how Aberdeen could make an argument for the AECC site and suggest whatever got Kingsford rejected wouldn't be a problem at Bridge of Don. Traffic, nightmare. Fans pouring onto main road up to five times the volume they currently do. Noise, light, not on LDP, no sustainable transport plan, heavily reliant on cars.

I think it would be far less reliant on cars. They don't appear to believe any cunt would use the bus plan they've submitted to go to Kingsford, whereas people already go into town and along King Street. It's only adding to the same journey.

 

4) The club move to Aberdeenshire.

Aberdeenshire Council which everyone is pointing towards as helpful has objected to Kingsford and raised concerns/threatened that half of the footbridge, which is a condition of approval from RDM, is in Aberdeenshire. 

Scotland has some of the strictest Planning & Building regulations in Europe if not the world.

Last time I checked (and based on my last visit) the Polish are not even in the top 20.

I would be looking to Germans if you want to use continental european stadium examples

As I have said in the previous posts building standards approval is a piece of cake compared to Planning approval as the former has set standards which you either comply with or you don't.

Planning is objective and as is being nicely highlighted by the Kingsford campaign it is minefield open to abuse.

So what can you see that Arka's stadium doesn't comply with stadium safety guide wise? Needless to say Tynecastle fits in much the same, as does the Paderborn one.

 

So in your vision the existing away section concourse is maintained? Fair enough

If you then flatten the hill and build the pitch at RDS concourse level you would require a massive retaining wall to ensure the concourse and the tower blocks do not collapse. You would then either be faced with the nightmare of fitting Toilets, First Aid Facilities, Snack bars etc underground or build them all at the top of the stand, the latter would significantly reduce the space for seating.

 

There is also the problem of emergency vehicle access being required all around the entire stadium. That high level concourse will somehow need to drop 10m at one end as the regulations will not allow a 'dead end' for emergency vehicles in a brand new stadium.

Whatever is cheapest, works best and ensures nothing collapses.

Its not within the boundary of the Pittodrie site and anyone wanting to demolish it would need to negotiate with the owner. The 3d images from the 'Planning permission in principle' may show flats being built there but that is merely an indication of what 'could' be built. The final residential development could look nothing like the 3d wireframe images as the whole site requires 'detailed' planning consent & building warrant part if which requires the consent of all owner's for the development to proceed.

A residential property developer can adapt their scheme to avoid that house if the owner wont sell. Your stadium relies on it being flattened.

It looks like it's away to fall down anyway. I'm not expecting it to be free if we don't own it.

Not having such a car park in the first place is one thing. Suddenly removing it with no alternative solution is another. If the club couldn't provide alternative facilities to make up for losing this area the Cops, Council, HSE could issue a revised safety certificate reducing the capacity of Pittodrie or worst case scenario actually refuse to grant one.

This is all what ifs though. It might be no problem at all.

As previously mentioned the flats scheme is an indicative proposal and does not have detailed planning consent or building warrant approval. There is no guarantee the Golf Road hill can or will be flattened in any development.

It is also much easier to build on a site when one of your priorities is ensuring you don't undermine the structural integrity of a football stadium

I'm telling you now, just the preparation works for your vision will be more than 10million

I don't think it would remain as is otherwise most of it is unusable. I can't picture this but building the rest of it up the way instead of taking the hill down?

How does that solve the parking requirements?

We can't take away the car park but can't replace the car park like for like on the other side with more access routes?

Do you mean the reason against a 'redeveloped' pittodrie?

There is a big difference between trying to redevelop within the existing footprint and just flattening the place and starting again, and money would be top of the list in the case against the latter.

Meant on the current site but nothing to do with current position.

I still think the AECC site is our best option, and we can make use of most of the existing facilities to cut down on costs.

 

 

A stadium the size of Pittodrie plonked over the existing main conference hall still gives us access to thousands of existing parking spaces and all the space in the world behind each stand.

 

If we use:

The red highlighted building for changing rooms, medical facilities, gym, players canteen, etc. Make use of the existing bridge and connect it to the stadium.

The blue highlighted building for main entrance, corporate offices, function rooms, etc.

The purple highlighted building for club museum, supporters bar, club shop and keep the viewing tower.

The green highlighted building can be converted into indoor training pitches.

 

Then we can minimise the amount of stuff we need to incorporate into the stadium, basically just the seats and corporate boxes.

 

The yellow area we can try to purchase from the army for outdoor training facilities, we train there often enough anyway.

 

Still have the Park & Ride facility already on site, plenty of buses going both north and south within 5 minute walk of the stadium, the AWPR starts a few miles to the north too.

 

Not much local residents to complain about it either, and if they're willing to put up with Olly Murs putting on a concert in the car park directly next to their houses, I'm sure they won't worry too much about a stadium.

 

Lobby the council to sign everything over to us on the cheap to save them demolition costs and having to construct something else on the site. Tap up our new neighbours GE Oil & Gas for stadium naming rights and use that cash to buy out the owners of the 2 hotels. I've thought of everything!

 

If we've already bought the Westhill site, just pave the bit of it closest to the houses, put a locked gate in front of it, and it'll be turned into an unofficial gypsy camp in no time.

Good bit of thinking. Wonder how much the cost actually would be?

It's a decent effort, Jess, something that we looked at a while ago, I think Tom alluded to it in one of his posts. Ignoring scale for the time being, the issue here being that we'd still have to pay to play elsewhere due to grass growth, not sure the club could afford suffer the loss of income and increased outgoings. It's one of the benefits of building elsewhere as they'd still have an income. Tottenham is a prime example of what you've shown. I'd guess we'd probably close to toms capacity as you've currently shown it, as we'd probably want more commercial space. Nice stadium though.

Artificial pitch? If that's what you're referring to. I was watching a Young Boys Bern game and thought the pitch looked good then found out it's artifical. Nothing like the Hamilton and Killies.

2009 Polish Planning & building regulations versus 2017 Scottish Planning & Building Regulations?

Lots of legroom, exits and stairways?

What angle of slope to you have in mind?  Also can I ask why in your quest to show pittodrie can be redeveloped do you continue to post pictures of stadiums which are constructed in clear sites well away from any residential development?

Any that doesn't block light for the flats. There is lots of space left between them and the stadium though, especially if you entered from the top as demonstrated.

Here's that same one for reference, at 16,000.

I don't see what the well clear of residential development has to do with this when it's the same or more space provided as the Pittodrie sketch and room for everything needed

Pedantry here but that's the East Stand. A Stand which holds almost 13500 people and has a footprint almost double that of the RDS. Yes the club could 'stick whatever is required' in that but why use a structure twice the size of the RDS as an example?

Can't think of another one with the main entrance on the end.

 

May I ask what stadium's roof you have used as I have my doubts what you have shown would add up to more than 10000 capacity?

It's Arka Gdynia.

This is Anderlecht's 28,000 seater entire space.

I think alot of assumptions are being made with your sketches

1) The person who owns the house at the back of the RDS will happily sell up

Does someone still own or live in that? I thought there's rusty boarded up windows. It's part of the land used in the application for flats.

2) The Planners, Police etc will allow the removal of the South West Car Park whilst Pittodrie is still being used

I doubt that would be a problem since not many grounds have a giant car park mostly for away fans and segregation.

3) It is possible to half build a stadium which will most likely require a huge raft foundation due to the high sandy soil content, the first part of which will be into a hill the summit of which is approx 10m above the RDS concourse.

I don't know the cost. I'd guess it's around King's Links costs. The hill is flattened in the application for flats, of course.

4) Its possible to build the other half in the space of a couple of months. Hearts new stand will eventually (if there are no more delays) take the best part of 7 months to construct and they don't have the problem of digging out a hillside and ensuring a Main Road doesn't cave in.

I wasn't thinking about doing the other half in a couple of months, just about the need for a pitch for the start of the next season.

5) If by some miracle this was pulled off that the Planners would actually allow a massive car-park to be built on the old Pittodrie site. The existing road infrastructure is barely suitable for the existing car-parks. Its a whole new ball game the moment you increase the size and push all the parking into one location.

So a massive concourse.

 

I would not be surprised if the cost of your vision was the same if not more than Kingsford with the difference being the club wouldn't have any money from selling Pittodrie, or any training facilities.

Not saying it wouldn't, I'm more interested in what's possible, and if the reason against a new Pittodrie as shown would be only down to money.

Here, my last effort at Pittodrie. There's no way they're going to go through rebuilding current stands so a new build.

I've used Arka Gdynia's 15,000 capacity stadium which looks up to all our regulations.

Use a slope if necessary for light issues from the flats.

Stick whatever required and the main entrance on the north end like Old Trafford.

Flatten the car park hill. Build the outer 2.5 stands first while we use the current ground so they can be used the next season.

Bang. Circulation. Evacuation. Near 20k. Concourses. Facilities. Double the parking space where West Pittodrie was.

Not far off the same shape and footprint as Anderlecht.