Loirston chosen for new stadium

Aberdeen FC set to move

EXCLUSIVE

By Charlie Allan

 

Published: 03/04/2009

 

THE Evening Express can today reveal the preferred location for Aberdeen’s new community stadium.

 

The £38 million community facility, which will become home to Aberdeen FC, will be at Loirston Loch in the south of the city.

 

It follows a year-long series of feasibility studies to decide if the site at Nigg would be the best location for the stadium.

 

The report on the recommendation of the Nigg site will now go out to consultation and will be referred to the council’s policy and strategy committee on April 28.

 

A number of other potential sites across the city, including one at King’s Links, were examined by Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeen FC and it was decided all of them were unsuitable.

 

Aberdeen FC managing director Duncan Fraser, who is also a member of the Arena Project Advisory and Monitoring Board created to advise of the best site and stadium design, said: “These recommendations have still to be approved and at the appropriate time, there will be a full consultation process with fans.

 

“Their feedback will be important.â€

 

For more on this story, and an exclusive image of the new arena, pick up today’s Evening Express or check back later

* The club have said on several occasions that Pittodrie could not be rebuilt. 

No they have not.  They've always said it was unfeasible, and would mean a greatly reduced capacity.

A quick google got me this.....

 

 

From 31/1/2017

 

http://www.afc.co.uk/news/9141.php#.WZvenPvyu9I

 

 

 

 

From 23/8/2012 

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/archives/football/66728/yule-still-get-new-stadium/

 

 

 

No they have not.  They've always said it was unfeasible, and would mean a greatly reduced capacity.

 

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

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

 

They forgot to factor in the extra large toilets theyd have to install for when 100% Anti Kingsford was attending on account of how much pish comes out of him...

They forgot to factor in the extra large toilets theyd have to install for when 100% Anti Kingsford was attending on account of how much pish comes out of him...

 

Highly creative.

 

Score update today Yes Kingsford (14) points vs. No Kingsford (1) point.

 

 

 

 

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 may be wrong, but I believe part of the issue is that

This would still leave the same area behind the stands that there is there.

is already not suitable?

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.

 

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.

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.

20 years ago. Building & H&S regs have changed since then.

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 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.

 

Jist to clarify, by 'collaboration' I wasn't referring to me as a user.  I'm an ordinary bod using a fitba forum like the rest of us.  There has been no rallying port of call for Dons fans against Kingsford.

 

By collaboration I mean Kingsford and a project of this type - at the end of the day you are speaking about a project worth £50m - the stadium development should have been based on a more collaborative transparent approach between all main stakeholders as a means of breaking down the differences at the outset.    It has never been a positive campaign leading to lies, mistrust, polarisation, anger, spite, argument - and the Aurora thing last week stirred up a hornet's nest.

 

It's ok AFC to say 'this is £50m private investment' but whether they liked it or not the main stakeholders were always going to be 1: AFC 2: ACC 3: Local community action groups impacted and adjacent to plans (for or against).  ACC are and have always been a key pivotal stakeholder. Its hardly clever Mr Milne now driving them into a corner now.

 

Forget the views on here.  The campaign for this stadium has not been a positive one - it has been a divisive uncollaborative project between the main stakeholders who should have all worked together successfully.  More or less now at this late stage one party has driven the each other into a corner via threats i.e. AFC Exec's have forced ACC into a corner with their 'or there is nothing else' rhetoric and NKS have threatened legal action.

 

AFC are hardly stepping into Westhill with a positive approach with certain sections of the community, are they?  By the sounds of it the community in Westhill is also deeply divided and polarised and whose fault is that?

There has been no rallying port of call for Dons fans against Kingsford

 

That's because you can count them all with the fingers on one hand. 6 

* The club have said on several occasions that Pittodrie could not be rebuilt.  Last week (w/c 14.08) they said it could be rebuilt but only to 12,000 capacity - really?

 

Really.  And slightly earlier than last week - without even leaving this thread for a source:

 

Capacity of a redeveloped Pittodrie would apparently be 12,000 according to Milne at the AGM.

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?

 

 

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.

Jist to clarify, by 'collaboration' I wasn't referring to me as a user.  I'm an ordinary bod using a fitba forum like the rest of us.  There has been no rallying port of call for Dons fans against Kingsford.

 

I was. Not specifically you, or members of this site, of course. But dons fans. The club have approached this with the "we know what's best for you" approach (also known as the "don't ask any questions" approach). As they did with Loirston. They're telling us what's best for us. In short, they've treated the support like idiots (many have lived up to that....), instead of involving them in a transparent project - like Hertz have done with their new stand. There was no scrutiny allowed for the 12K figure and no evidence presented, but fans were expected to ignore all that shite and "get behind" kingsford. That's not the way a football club should be run. Whether fan-owned or not, the club should be run as something more than a business. They're a private company that can do what the fuck they like after all, but in reality the club should be treated as an entity that transcends existing the ownership who are mere custodians.

 

You're right, the lack of collaboration with key stakeholders has led to that divide (the cornering of the council especially - like they've learned nothing from the Loirston project) but, for me, the biggest stakeholder is the support, and they certainly haven't been fully involved.

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 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?

 

Post pictures of them and we'll go through them.

 

Given planning permission for expansion to 30,000.

 

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.

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?

 

Supposedly there are visual plans going around on Twitter of Stewart Milne's signed off housing plan for the Pittodrie land.

 

Supposedly there are visual plans going around on Twitter of Stewart Milne's signed off housing plan for the Pittodrie land.

 

Do you mean the plans that the club submitted for planning when selling Pittodrie a couple of years back? They were public if so, with no attempt to hide them. On the club website as I remember.

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?

Again, what is your point, how does this relate to Pittodrie? Are you implying the south stand and riverside are similar? They are not.the main stand? You'll see they haven't touched that for the reasons outlined in my previous post. Merkie? We can't build higher than we already are and the spacing between seats increases because of modern standards. Instantly decreasing the number of seats as it is.

 

Hammersmith and putney ends have no habitable accommodation behind them. Hence why I mentioned the parks. Although, having said that the Hammersmith end has been developed up to its boundary, from memory the stand isn't much higher,  if at all, than the trees in the park.

 

I forgot to address your point about the riverside, this stand, had the concourse to the rear of it. The new stand will extend beyond,  in terms of access over the water but by doing so, they've allowed public access through the site. My hunch is the stand itself is still on their land but have been able to provide further access with agreement with the council to ensure public access through, which wasn't previously possible.