jess

How would this end up getting approved by the way? If it breaks heaps of planning policies do they just say "fuck it, doesn't matter"? Then couldn't that be easily challenged?

Exactly.

Aye they're in the minority. There are however still quite a lot in number of bams behaving in a way which normal people find shocking, even if just loutish singing. Expected behaviour standards are quite different within football. I'm a bit surprised football fans think weegies/plastic paramilitaries will make their way from the closest pub to the ground in a civilised fashion.

I'm also a bit perplexed at the painting of all football fans as angels now. If you have a wander down to where certain away fans drink and migrate through on a match day you'll see the behaviour being claimed does not happen anymore. If they start drinking in Westhill instead as you'd think, they will do the same there.

Opinion on stand heights is contrary to that of a director of a global design company, hence I don't know what to believe.

Excellent and as I imagined. Don't know why the south and merkland would be limited to such a small size and was told that wouldn't apply though. They're much smaller than the buildings they're next to and not near them, whereas the housing plans (indeed most housing plans) are the same size and right up against them. As I said earlier, I know you've done it now but, I wonder what difference certain standing models would make. Is there anything to show this? Everyone I know from Kingswells think everything new is terrible, with traffic the foremost concern in their lives.

A redeveloped 12k Pittodrie would cost circa £40m. Standing would take up more space? Surely seats take up more space? Some models allow 1.5 or 2 to a seat which goes in for european games.

Indeed. Although I'd also like to find out how they've calculated 6,000 seats as the same as a 25 hectares development. And depending on the reason for the apparent capacity restriction, what difference all types of standing sections would make.

I have asked people who would know what they're talking about and they don't know why this would be the case for the Merkland's current height. The issue is not even law in Scotland so I think it is considerations to be debated or negotiated and resolved, which is what ACC say in a post around 60 pages ago, and what they say in one of the site selection docs. Hence, I don't know what those in this thread are talking about. The reasons I've seen being perpetuated are - You need the same space behind the stand on private land as there is in it - Emergency services need to be able to go right around the stadium - You can't build higher than the stands currently are This is exactly how I see it. I've tried all possible channels and there is no explanation past 'due to the pitch size and run off areas and being landlocked we can establish the capacity of a redeveloped stadium'. Fine points. To me the location is terrible for a football stadium. Obviously out of town people think being able to drive there and home in 5 minutes is good, but to such a large amount of a football crowd the day is about more than going to the game. Kingsford doesn't and will never provide that, because it's not next to the city centre which is where all the necessary shops, pubs, restaurants and travel is.

Why not? You and your pal are giving out different messages and can barely explain what you're talking about because it all makes sense in your head alone. This should save time rather than a full 3d model. Just draw the outline of where can and can't be built.

So it's nothing to do with having space behind them for some sort of access or evacuation? I'm sure I read that in this thread. You're saying it's all to do with the height? Main stand - buildings aren't allowed to back onto pavements now? What on earth is going on? And you can't build higher than anything around it? WTF?

You seem to be saying you can't build anything next to houses. Don't you mean they could object, and it could be approved anyway? Why would houses of the same size be allowed? The stands don't back straight onto open parks, they're as hemmed in by a big perimeter wall as we are. They've also got permission to part knock down and redevelop the ends of those stands. In regards to the river stand, where's all the space required for that?

Given planning permission for expansion to 30,000.

I honestly fail to see what the difference is for us if the same space is behind our stands. There are other new English grounds I've looked at with no space and I mean nothing behind them at all. How is this allowed?

Aye I know that more space is required etc. There is lots of it. Many times what there is behind the south now. Here's where they've just added the extension and how much space they have behind the stands they've just updated. What is the difference?

Was referring to Stoke's not ours. It would be the same as this.

There was no mention of anything like this in the Bellfield application. The issue seemed to be that they couldn't make it 30,000 capacity. Also it would cost money... Unless someone put their design in front of me I cannot believe it could be 12k. Using other team's stadiums, and areas around them etc. as a measure, I think it's impossible for it to be 12k, and surely 20k or that ballpark. My idea would be knock down the main stand, taking it back around 5-10 metres and have it only for changing rooms, offices, directors seats, sky boxes etc. Then an L shape stand like Stoke covering the Merkland and SS. Stoke's houses 15,000 in a very small area and have just changed all their seats and built an extension in the empty corner to the same spec so it's nothing to do with old developments. This would still leave the same area behind the stands that there is there.

I have no doubt Kingsford would be great for everyone who drives, doesn't drink and goes to the football for no social reason. Stinking location for everyone else. As far as I can tell the club's final shuttle bus update serves 8 direct journeys. This isn't what the roads authority last said was required, which was routes covering the whole city with pick ups along the way. If they go into the hearing with 42 buses from 4 locations around Union Street, I think they'll be told to do one. That's so clearly not going to happen, especially over time. The support for this I read online all appears to be from people talking about driving from elsewhere. It isn't going to be a stadium and travel that people love*. The number having to be ferried from the city for every game for decades to come is enormous. The cost of this? Ticket prices will also be going up and up. How much for a ticket and bus from an inconvenient location to an inconvenient location? I'm very concerned about the ramifications of everything to do with going to the game over time. *Not really sure why they've not done the stands or at least one of them steep like the consensus was? Not enough safe standing as well, or none at all, and the whole thing will be a disaster.

Twitter seems to be edging towards a lot of buyers remorse, now the anti WANKS hysteria has died down and people realise the gravity of the situation. Facebook is still Kingsford supporters (people who live in the shire) rounding on anyone who says otherwise.

If it were cut off or even re-routed around the edge of the main stand car park which surely wouldn't be too hard to negotiate replacing a street with a street, then as far as I can see there is nothing unworkable about 3 new stands at all.

See there's a few new unfavourable documents up on the application. I couldn't be more certain this doesn't have 0.1% of a chance. Out of interest, is it possible to get permission to build on where Pittodrie Street is now and re-route it? I've noticed it's the side that prevents all others from working.

That's all well and good except Rangers were a company. It had shareholders not members. It's a new company. It's a different member of the league and SFA. Don't bother wasting your time about your perception of what's the same.

Atmosphere problem could be solved with unallocated terracing next to the away fans and those who think the stadium is a cinema could go elsewhere. The cliquey order of Pittodrie would then be rid of.

Hun culture sympathising, if you catch my drift. Unionists. IRA obsessives. Folk that go on about leftists, migrants and muslims. They can have this kit.

It's a kit for closet huns, hun sympathisers and tories. Very apparent in the difference between who likes it and doesn't from those I follow on social media. A few exceptions who are 'just supporting the club' or easily lead by the hun sympathisers.