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

Tom didn't provide a 17K seater though. That's what I'm asking. For the sake of my argument, let's add 4K seats to the mainer. How much taller and deeper would it need to be? Then, based on that drawing/dimension, which hooses would need to be bought, and why?

 

 

I'm afraid you'll have to go further than NZ to escape the responsibility Tom has just given you.

 

Thanks in advance...

 

 

Once I have time, i'll definitely look at this.  I can provide a section 

Roger Manc.

 

I now see that by Tom you meant the Widdows character and that what you were referring to was not that twitter thread (which I didn't read anyway) but to some stuff earlier in this thread including his drawing.

 

I also see that you were referring to self-proclaimed experts in civil engineering stuff, which obviously doesn't include me.

 

From my point of view, and Rico possibly nails it with his post earlier today, I simply don't believe that there was any will to develop Pittodrie by the current chairman, following Ian Donald's obvious agenda of doing so with the building of the RDS. That's my sole bugbear. That Milne decided that relocation was best (for him) and was pursuing this agenda before the paint was even dry on the RDS. Had he been acting in the best interests of AFC, he would have spelled out then why the Main Stand could not have been rebuilt and why relocation was an integral part of our future. This was TWENTY fucking years ago!

 

It's the basic neglect of the facility and the turning upside down of our balance sheet, not to mention the advent of time (and HSE rules etc. etc.) that helps his agenda enormously. It was an agenda that ran contrary to the last chairman and it was an agenda that was never openly discussed with the customers nor the city and shire. It's going to be a new soulless white elephant is my fear, one that was put upon us by deceit and stealth and that is never the NE way.

 

I hope I'm totally wrong and that it will be a fantastic facility that attracts even bigger crowds and we become a profitable business with a successful team on the park. I hope Stewrat's vision turns out to be a boon, despite the way he went about it. But he lied to us in the Capitol in 1996 when he said that "the product would always be his no. 1 priority". Not only was that a strange thing to say, we thought at the time (as it didn't need saying, being so obvious), it clearly was NOT the case that "the product" - which he has subsequently referred to as "the football side of the business" - was EVER his number 1 priority.

nothing more to say about stadium as I am getting fed up of it

just wanted to be top of page 100

damn it 2nd time lucky

top of page 100

sod it if not top of page 100 this time I give up

yessssssss :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

yessssssss :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

hate to tell you, but you're bottom of page 40 

hate to tell you, but you're bottom of page 40 

well mine says top of page 100 and that's enough to keep me happy ;D ;D ;D

 

Aye but your posts and ratings = 666   

Aye but your posts and ratings = 666   

what can I say I'm a cute little devil 

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:

(a) The proposed development shall not become operational until a Travel Plan / Transport

Management Strategy, which addresses inter alia, access by walking and cycling, public transport

provision, car parking management and traffic management, has been submitted to and approved

in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation with Transport Scotland and Police

Scotland.

The Transport Management Strategy shall incorporate a monitoring and review process to be

undertaken for each match day / event held at the Stadium. Where this review process identifies

issues with the existing Transport Management Strategy, the applicant shall submit proposals to

address these issues to the Planning Authority who, in consultation with the relevant Roads

Authorities (Transport Scotland, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council) and Police

Scotland, shall approve amendments to the Transport Management Strategy for subsequent

events.

(b) Specifically, with regards to the trunk road network, the Transport Management Strategy shall

identify the procedures for managing queues before and after matches on the A90 slip roads at the

AWPR / A944 Kingswells South Junction, for example, through traffic signal control or manual

control by Police Scotland. Where permanent traffic signal control is proposed, the layout design

and specification shall all be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation

with Transport Scotland and Police Scotland, and thereafter installed to the agreed plans prior to the

development becoming operational.

2 No part of the development shall become operational until details of match day advanced directional

and warning signage have been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, following

consultation with Transport Scotland, and thereafter erected in accordance with the agreed plans.

 

Thanks, Tom. Don't think they seem unreasonable, in fact I'm surprised they're that lenient. All very logical though,  unlike some numbskull fans on twitter. Shouldn't be difficult for the club / transport companies to adhere to.

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?

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.

 

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?

You can drive the proverbial coach & horses through the LDP if it's in the greater national/regional interest - which this clearly is.

Couple of beers last night Jess?

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.

the issue here being that we'd still have to pay to play elsewhere due to grass growth,

Turf min. It'll be rolled oot ready grown and ready for mowing.

Turf min. It'll be rolled oot ready grown and ready for mowing.

 

Should have realised 

o.k. this is maybe stupid but why don't we go down the way ?

dig down 30ft lay the pitch there, then we can make the stands bigger but still the same hight

o.k. this is maybe stupid but why don't we go down the way ?

dig down 30ft lay the pitch there, then we can make the stands bigger but still the same hight

 

Because the sea exists.

Because the sea exists.

the sea is not 30ft below the stadium or it would have sunk by now

you can dig down 30ft without hitting water of falling through to Australia

the sea is not 30ft below the stadium or it would have sunk by now

you can dig down 30ft without hitting water of falling through to Australia

 

 

Would the stadium not then be fraught with flooding and drainage issues? That's pretty damn close to the sea.

The water table would mean if you dug 30 feet down you would be converting Pittodrie from a football stadium into a lido....

We might nae have the best football team in the country but we'd be the fucking kings of water polo.