tom_widdows

About a week old but something jarred when I heard one of the objectors 'summarise' the history of the stadium site planning. https://www.kingsfordstadium.co.uk/sites-considered-new-aberdeen-stadium/

Still not a patch on Kirk Broadfoot

We did. They were owned by the council and paid for out of the Council Tax Budget, donations and local groups occasionally hiring them at an hourly or specified rate depending on the event you were hosting. Tuesday night football cost us 50p- £1 each for 1hr back in the 80s. They were not privately owned or located on a private company's land. When the council could no longer afford them they were either sold off (if the land was valuable), or handed over to the local community who set them up as registered charities (which is what happened in my home village). These charities charge for people to use their facilities otherwise they have to close them down and leave them to rot. Some of the faciltiies at Kingsford will apparently be available for local groups to use (pitches, sports pavilion etc) but this will be at the clubs discretion. If the people of Westhill or Kingswells want similar facilities which are 'publicly' owned then they will have to Lobby Aberdeen & Aberdeenshire Council to extend or open up a new sports centre or two 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. 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? Before all this of the Club has to convince the council to sell the oldest Municipal Golf Course in the city. 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. My understanding it is being built to relieve congestion throughout the city but in particular the A90 route (Anderson Drive, The Parkway and the bottle necks at the brig o dee, Haudigan and Bridge of Don rounabouts} All trucks heading to or coming from Peterhead, Fraserburgh etc have to take this route with the Brig O'Dee being especially bad as large trucks cannot use the existing bridge.

The invincibles currently 3-0 and its not yet half time. As much as I dislike Paris SG it is nice to see yon Tis getting a pasting

The issue with that manc is where do you add them? The discussion seems to have moved away from 'Pittodrie being redeveloped' to 'new stadium just down the road' but a presumption seems to be the Council would take the view the existing infrastructure is fine. Crowds and Traffic currently arrive and disperse through residential streets which causes significant disruption to local residents, is a hindrance to emergency services and results in gridlock in the city centre. Yes the Railway & Bus stations are less than 2miles away but how many home fans do actually use the train to come to the game? (Genuine question as my trips north for home games on the train or bus never seem to end with me fighting through massive hordes of red shirted folk on the station concourses waiting for the West or South bound trains home) In Scotland, St Mirren, Stirling Albion, Dumbarton, East Fife, Falkirk, St Johnstone as I recall all had stadiums surrounded (at least partly) by residential areas. All moved to new stadiums clear of residential property. New clubs Caley Thistle & Livingston's stadiums were built away from residential areas. New stadium = New guidelines and I seriously doubt the master-planning, & transport/ crowd gathering & dispersal strategies will be allowed to be based on fans walking up Pittodrie street, Merkland Road, Pittodrie place, or across the golf course onto the esplanade. Yes you can't stop people doing this but you also can't rely on it for a new development. Resolving or at least cutting the traffic congestion on King Street is not a simple task as it cuts through an established highly populated area and like it or not in Aberdeen the car is king. My last home game was back in December 2016 and eventually got the bus I required to Bridge of Don just after 6pm - more than 1hr stood in the rain. The bus lanes were completely ineffective in the gridlock Like it or not when it comes to traffic control, the moment that Bypass opens Kingsford has the edge over Pittodrie. Please also remember the Kingsford transport strategy/shuttle bus plan is a proposal. Until it is put into practice no one will know how effective it will be. The transport Scotland conditions require the plan to be reassessed and updated accordingly following each match day Once flaws are established changes can be made until after a few a seasons the whole thing falls into place. It is not in the clubs interest for fans to miss kick-offs/ sit in traffic for hours after the game.

People who for whatever reason are incapable of finding their seats in a theatre/ stadium/ cinema/ trains etc even after being directed by stewards or ushers. For the bonus are the ones who argue that they are in the correct seat even when tickets have been produced as proof. Once had an argument in the RDL with a guy who demanded my Dad and I get 'out of his seats'. He refused to back down and got quite aggressive when we pointed out they were our season ticket seats, the row number on his tickets was different and his seats were actually for the upper tier. Steward eventually took him away.

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....'

As I see it Levein actually did the Dons a favour by taking off Goncalves and sticking on Lafferty. Goncalves always looked dangerous and was prepared to shoot. Lafferty once again failed to provide me with any evidence for the previous transfer fees some have paid for him. Not sure about hearts organisation of the away end. I don't remember seeing a single steward in the stand and a fair few folk were just stood in the aisle in front of me. Wonder if that was a factor in the number of arguments/ fights Bobby witnessed?

It is one Application. The answer will either be: a) APPROVAL - No chance of this as certain consultants require conditions to be imposed b) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL c) NO there is also secret answer (d) which is the same fate that Bellfield suffered (Anyone remember Bellfield? That was apparently going to create a regional centre for sporting excellence with a football stadium, Olympic size swimming pool, community facilities etc about 1.7miles closer to the city centre than Kingsford?). Called in by the Scottish executive, dumped in a pile and forgotten about. My cynical view of this outcome is 'its no unless you grease a couple of palms'

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.

The Glasgow Reds seemingly getting the 1045 from Queen street then heading to the Roseburn Not sure the tram will be a good idea given it drops off on the south side of Murrayfield

Shooting them is a bit harsh so I can see why they could get pissed off

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 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. On the flip side if you lowered the whole thing to the RDS concourse level there is the issue of connecting with Golf Road. This new stadium is now turning into serious Engineering which leaves Kingsford's budget in the dust. 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. 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. 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 How does that solve the parking requirements? 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.

2009 Polish Planning & building regulations versus 2017 Scottish Planning & Building Regulations? 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? 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? 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? 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 2) The Planners, Police etc will allow the removal of the South West Car Park whilst Pittodrie is still being used 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. 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. 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. 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. you mean the one that sits in public parkland and was built in the 1980s?

Ireland on the back foot now and basically no chance of automatic qualification. Also looks like they will have to beat the Welsh in Cardiff to make the playoffs Welsh & Irish group is currently missing out on a playoff spot anyway

Back on topic. A few more consultant responses have been uploaded and it would appear transport Scotland & the Flooding & Coastal protection department have now given conditional approval. transport conditions are as follows:

Get Manc to do it.

I would disagree. The back pedaling break system IMO is up there with stopping your car using just the handbrake. If you are confident experienced cyclist the only thing that should send you over the handle bars is hitting something, or some joker jamming a stick through the front wheels which then spins, hits the frame and causes the 'kick' that puts you in the air. if you have to apply the front brake in an emergency you do it the same way ABS does on your car - on/off/on/off. You either stop or at least have the control to swerve which means you either avoid a collision or reduce its impact. If yer really good yer left hand is also activating the rear brake which takes away some of the impact of the front. I narrowly avoided hitting someone who decided to step into the cycle lane on waterloo street while looking at his phone using the front & rear brakes on my bike. The other reason I didn't hit him was about 10m before the incident I clocked his body language and guessed he was looking to cross but was only interested in avoiding oncoming traffic rather than checking behind him (road is one way, cycle lane is 2 way). Hazard perception was part of my cycling proficiency test in Primary school, my driving test when I was 17 and my fairly recent CBT. This guy appears to think he is a great cyclist but as I see it his use of the illegal track bike on a public road shows he was more interested in the speed aspect and was primarily interested in himself. A cycling boy racer if you will. The whole 'oh its all about being in control' just doesn't wash with me. My experiences of rear wheel braking is restricted to a couple of BMX rides and I never ever felt in control. You want to drive/ ride any vehicle on a public road it is your responsibility to ensure it is Legal (not for race tracks only) and also road worthy. If the cops do you for illegal tyres on your car your defence of 'I didn't realise they were illegal' is dismissed straight away as it is your responsibility to keep your vehicle in a road worthy legal condition. I personally hope this incident starts the ball rolling on how cycling is policed/ regulated as successive governments are really pushing for people to reduce their car use and get on a push-bike but there is little to no education on the dangers and your responsibilities for doing so. Cycling Infrastructure takes time to install but any muppet can head down to Evans or halfords and buy a bike and be causing chaos and/or accidents on the city streets or shared concourses before the credit card payment has cleared.

Said cyclist was also riding an illegal track bike (no front brake and only backwards pedaling to slow down) and showed no remorse seemingly taking to social media to berate the victim. I believe he still has not changed his attitude since her death or his conviction. Hazard perception is key to riding or driving in any situation, and ignornance of the law is not and hopefully never will be a defence. I wonder if the gentleman in question would have a different attitude had he killed a small child?

Smoking closely followed by vaping. The latter is perhaps soon to overtake the former in the irritation stakes because it is claimed (it still hasn't been proved) to be healthier than smoking and for that reason some people (morons) who have never touched a cigarette are now taking it up because 'its safe'. At least one saving grace for the vaper is they aren't chucking their fag ends out of car windows or onto the pavement. I am considering carrying a can of lynx around with me which I can spray in the faces of vapers who choose to exhale their 'perfume' all over passers by. Lack of self awareness. Some examples: Those who get onto crowded trains/ planes etc still wearing their massive ruck-sacks and proceed to bash already seated passengers in the head as they waddle down the aisle and/or suddenly turn around to talk to their mate. Those who unload their shopping trolleys in the doorway of the supermarket because it would be too much hassle to move an extra couple of metres. Those who block off side streets when there is a queue of traffic at the lights. Often these are the same people who sit in the middle of box junctions. Cyclists who ignore traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, over take on the inside of stationary or slow moving traffic, cycle on busy pavements, don't use lights, hi vis clothing or hand signals. On the opposite side, drivers who tailgate and then overtake cyclists so closely they could clip your handlebars with their wing mirrors. The apparent removal of indicators from cars, vans, motorbikes, and buses. Those who will walk their dogs in parkland or in the hills, put their dogshit in plastic bags, and then leave it on the ground or hanging from trees. What the fuck is their logic for this? Broken Glass. I am hoping one day glass bottles will be phased out and no longer will public parks or pavements be plagued by the shards from a broken Buckfast bottle

And every single one of them has now been knocked out Dons U20 knocked out by Caley Thistle 4-2

I believe the removal of the bottom team results is only used to determine the 2nd place teams that go into the playoffs. All goals scored in the actual group stages count towards your final position. At the moment Group E is apparently missing out on the Playoffs

I fear the 'Alex Smith Syndrome' is still alive and well. Depending on the scorelines 2 Scotland wins along with 2 Slovakia defeats could mean going into the last game in Ljubljana with the chance a draw would be enough. (2-0 England, 5-0 Scotland, 2-0 Scotland = Scotland +9 vs Slovakia +2 goal difference.

In my experience arguments against projects based on peoples opinions of those who will start frequenting the area are rarely taken into account as it cannot reasonably be determined. Group of 'bams' can suddenly turn up anywhere at anytime but provided they do not break any laws they are entitled to be there as much as the local vicar/ WI group. I recall seeing an application to use a house as a Nursery/ Creche in which one of the objections was 'it will attract Paedophiles to the area' Objecting based on the 'number' of people who will suddenly show up is another matter hence why the club has to show the development and local road infrastructure can handle up to 20000 people showing up for 3-4 hours on a weekend afternoon, or a weekday night.

I believe the existing plant is next to the Merkland which is why I have indicated it there. Could be wrong though All are Mid way up the stand on the central concourse. Ever since Uni I have tried to design accessible spaces either to the back or the middle of any tiered seating arrangement. Its hard enough to spend your life in a wheelchair let alone having your view blocked by a steward or an enlarged advertisement hoarding, and risking a football in the face. Unfortunately its often much easier & cheaper just to stick them down the front.