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?

We've all seen the shite that goes up in Aberdeen - and I'd certainly call Muse developments name into question - with absolutely no public support and defy any number of planning questions (the capitol 6 storey rear end anyone?). We haven't even tested the water. That doesn't seem like the move of a club that's explored all options.

 

Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?

Exactly.

Equally, the ones you describe are in the absolute minority. You're more likely to get a non football related bampot acting up. Football is, whether we like it or not, more of a family day out these days.

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.

Yeah, fuck you tom_widdows, taking the time and effort to provide the model the moaners wanted, you and your professional expertise, what do you know anyway? 

 

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.

by all accounts Kingswells is massively in favour

Is there anything to show this? Everyone I know from Kingswells think everything new is terrible, with traffic the foremost concern in their lives.

Not sure what you mean?

 

It would reduce the capacity. Takes up more space.

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.

If you can point to any evidence of a 12K seater stadium, then I'll happily be persuaded. In fact, the only thing of any importance in this thread that remains unproven is the 12K figure.

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.

 

You can't increase height of the South stand due to the flats behind.

 

You can't increase height of the Merkland due to the flats behind.

 

Those aren't planning considerations to be debated, they're red-lines. You simply can't do it.

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

I think a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over 15 years would get more in total attendance than 20K at Kingsford. The initial glut that would tank up to a new stadium would put Kingsford significantly ahead for the first 2-3 seasons, however I think this would be quickly overtaken as crowds settle back down to a lower level (which they will). In Kingsford's case, we'll lose as much paying for the over-capacity as we gain from those games with the larger crowds (after the initial 2-3 season's excitement). I think we'd be more likely to get larger average crowds at Pittodrie @ 17K too because of the decreased supply and more tight atmosphere that it would create (a bit like closing dick's end improved our crowds).

This is exactly how I see it.

I'm more than happy to leave Pittodrie, but like you I do hope the club come out and explain the 12,000 figure just to put an end to the argument once and for all.

 

Out of interest, have you ever approached the club for an answer? Maybe it's something worth raising with Dons Supporters Together?

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'.

 

Hertz are spending money because their main stand needs renewed (like ours). They've not added significant corporate hospitality and, from memory, no pitch-facing corporate. I would suggest that with three new stands, we could easily increase our corporate hospitality. With the location of Pittodrie, I'd expect far more customers through the door during the week than at Westhill (next to the business park with more than adequate facilities), but if we're looking to make a killing on that then I think we'd be sadly disappointed. There's a saturation point for meeting and conference facilities and I think that both AFC and Aberdeen city have probably hit that. It certainly isn't worth moving stadium for the extra revenue. I think that's hugely over-stated. And indeed costly if not used.

 

Also, it's not about history for me, and not a single shuttle bus. It's about location and transportation. Massive issues. Unresolved at present.

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.

 

I'm not going to even bother answering this, because it's a waste of time.

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?

Craven cottage. A ground I know well. Right, the riverside stand that has been given permission for expansion sits over the river. They also don't sit in any of the London view corridors (neither do we of course) but their main stand must remain as is. This is because it is a) flanked by a road and b) there are houses on the other side of it. Not sure how this is a relevant precedent. Youve just backed up my argument.  Putney end and Hammersmith ends are both temporary but have parkland behind.  You'll be sad to know the mj statue is no more.

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.

As both Tom and I have said countless of times...there are flats, roads etc which dictate all of this. There really isn't that much additional space behind the south stand. There are independently owned properties all around the site which prevent this from being more than we require.

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?

I think yer missing some pretty important details in there though! Whilst I obviously don't believe the 12K figure, suggestions like this are pretty unhelpful as they can easily be shot down (for example, we need more area behind the stands than previously because of changed regulations). This makes it seem like there's no possible way that it could be built, when really we need to see the drawings. As AK says, it should have been a collaborative process. Everything should have been transparent, detailed and discussed.

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?

I may be wrong, but I believe part of the issue is that  is already not suitable?

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

Yep. Mentioned on hundreds of occasions. They used to say 12.5K, but it went down to 12K for some reason.

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.

It's never been tried. Insurmountable apparently. Unlike bussing 6,000 people out to the sticks every week. It's amazing how quickly the hurdles were written off as impossibly large when discussing re-developing Pittodrie when those facing both Loirston and Kingsford are seemingly simple inconveniences. I'm not suggesting re-routing Pittodrie street is any way easy of course, but it certainly isn't an avenue that has ever been explored in detail. Even turning it into a single lane, with zero parking on one side (and zero on either on match days) would greatly allow room in what is a reasonably wide road (4 cars wide currently).

 

Anyway, there are plenty of reasons why it would be very difficult, just as there are plenty of reasons why Kingsford is. The problem is that we're not looking at the two side-by-side, and what little presentation given of Pittodrie is not given equal weight.

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.

 

I am afriad (swallow your pride) Rangers are the same club. May have folded, may have went bankrupt and liquidated - but its same set of fans, same name, same stadium, same ethics, same support, same chants, same tea ladies etc.

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.

I have never in my life met a hun sympathising afc fan.

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.