RicoS321 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 The least planning onerous option is probably not far from what Tom has provided. However, if we had a vast sum of money, i'd say you buy those houses, re-route the services, build a new road elsewhere to retain the access and build the main stand out. The issue with the main stand is that we're trying to get it to do a number of things, provide commercial space as well as the much needed facilities that the club require. They've made no secret that there isn't sufficient space for them to operate (given the scale of activities these days). Whether they needed to be there or adjacent to the stadium is another question, however it certainly makes more sense to have it all within the same building. This then relies on the people willing to sell and the council allowing us to re-route Pittodrie street. There's then the fun with co-coordinating the re-routing with all the utility companies. Achievable, but an unknown risk and very expensive. 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? Tom, once I'm in NZ, and if this hasn't been resolved, I'll have a go at it I'm afraid you'll have to go further than NZ to escape the responsibility Tom has just given you. Thanks in advance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket_scientist Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 nothing more to say about stadium as I am getting fed up of it just wanted to be top of page 100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 damn it 2nd time lucky top of page 100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 sod it if not top of page 100 this time I give up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 yessssssss :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 yessssssss :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: hate to tell you, but you're bottom of page 40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elgindon Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Aye but your posts and ratings = 666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Aye but your posts and ratings = 666 what can I say I'm a cute little devil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_widdows Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jess Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jess Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicoS321 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Couple of beers last night Jess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Turf min. It'll be rolled oot ready grown and ready for mowing. Should have realised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicoS321 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Caat Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 The water table would mean if you dug 30 feet down you would be converting Pittodrie from a football stadium into a lido.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotland v 
Switzerland
Scotland v Switzerland
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.