Proposed new stadium, by Aberdeen beach

[DeltaRay1903]

22 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

Hearts spent £20 million on one stand 4 years ago when construction prices weren't as expensive. We'd no doubt be looking at around £100 million now to renovate Pittodrie into a soulless identikit lego stadium that would likely be a significantly lower capacity stadium than it is now. Renovating Pittodrie will never be an option.

At the moment it's looking very likely to be the only option. Albeit it won't be any major reconstruction. Just some tinkering here and there and done piecemeal.

An actual new stadium is pie in the sky. 

[zeroisgod76]

6 minutes ago, DeltaRay1903 said:

At the moment it's looking very likely to be the only option. Albeit it won't be any major reconstruction. Just some tinkering here and there and done piecemeal.

An actual new stadium is pie in the sky. 

Pittodrie is a crumbling wreck. Tinkering won't make any difference. Its not a long term solution. The only option is to move and it will happen eventually, like everyone else though i don't see it being anytime soon.

[20two20]

26 minutes ago, DeltaRay1903 said:

At the moment it's looking very likely to be the only option. Albeit it won't be any major reconstruction. Just some tinkering here and there and done piecemeal.

An actual new stadium is pie in the sky. 

An actual new stadium is the far more sensible option.

I don't think people realise how expensive "tinkering" with a practically derelict building is.

[ab24_5qh]

2 hours ago, sooth_stander said:

South stand had a cantilever roof put on in the summer of 1980, that was all, financed from the sale of Stevie Archibald.

Mental when you think the terracing upon which sits the main, south and Merkie stands are all untouched from the early 1900s. 

Aye, my old man worked for Cameron Farquhar Builders who did the work. They were originally lined up to do the exact same job to the Merkland but the club scaled back their plan and just refurbed it instead.

[englishred]

11 hours ago, Andy_123 said:

Do they not say getting promoted to the premiership guarantees the team like £250m in additional income?

Not the best comparison to our situation is it?

Agreed. That's a good point. 

[RabidGiraffe]

Loftus Road has some steep, narrow two tier stands and an attendance similar to Pittodrie.  The footprint of these stands can't be too different from South Stand and the Merkland in particular:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loftus_Road#/media/File:Loftus_Road_3.jpg

 

[Dunty]

3 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

Loftus Road has some steep, narrow two tier stands and an attendance similar to Pittodrie.  The footprint of these stands can't be too different from South Stand and the Merkland in particular:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loftus_Road#/media/File:Loftus_Road_3.jpg

 

It was built in the 70s and 80s. This will shock you, building & uefa regulations have changed significantly since then.

 

[RabidGiraffe]

Just now, Dunty said:

It was built in the 70s and 80s. This will shock you, building & uefa regulations have changed significantly since then.

 

I'm sure they have, but have they changed in a way that makes building something with a similar ethos impossible? 

As a qualified architect and construction engineer, I'm sure you'll be able to give us a definitive answer and even quote the appropriate regulations.

[Tommy]

11 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

 

As a qualified architect and construction engineer, I'm sure you'll be able to give us a definitive answer and even quote the appropriate regulations.

Surely you, as a qualified architect and construction engineer will have easy access to them?

[RabidGiraffe]

6 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Surely you, as a qualified architect and construction engineer will have easy access to them?

I wasn't claiming to be, I just didn't word my response very well

One or two folk on here talking like they are qualified architects/engineers and know unequivocally what can't be built.

[The Hulk]

15 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

I'm sure they have, but have they changed in a way that makes building something with a similar ethos impossible? 

On the Pittodrie footprint, it is not impossible, but only achievable with a grossly reduced capacity and an extremely (even more) bappit-looking setup. This is well established by now.

I think most of us would probably prefer to say at Pittodrie but to say it can be improved in a cost-effective way is based on emotion and understandable ignorance rather than any reality.

As a general principle; concourses would need to be provided under the South & Merkland Stands, and the Main Stand would need to become like the narrow stand at the Bombonera. A reduction in capacity very conservatively of 5,000 and it'd cost upwards of £50m to do it.

[dave_min]

Anything can be built, not everything is affordable to be built.

We should build a copy of Stade Louis II. I’ve had a Quick Look on Google Maps and recon we could do it for £13.5million.

[Dunty]

8 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

I'm sure they have, but have they changed in a way that makes building something with a similar ethos impossible? 

As a qualified architect and construction engineer, I'm sure you'll be able to give us a definitive answer and even quote the appropriate regulations.

You don't need to be a qualified architect, you can read any new stand or stadium plan that has been submitted to a council - there's 1,000s of them online, take your pick.

UEFA currently let Aberdeen away with having smaller run-off areas than they're supposed to have because of grandfather rights. As soon as you knock the stand down, they lose those rights, and have to rebuild it to Uefa pitch regulations. So a wider and/or longer pitch, which reduces your footprint.

Likewise, new safety regulations mean you need bigger concourses, evacuation areas, ambulance and police access, stands can't be as steep as they once were, you can't cram as many seats into a small space, so the footprint they get built on has to be significantly bigger. Essentially the space behind the stand has to be able to hold the capacity of the stand in the event of an evacuation. The South Stand fails that, the RDS passes it.

Example 1: Hearts' three stands built in the 90s, they're fine because they were built in the 90s, Hearts wouldn't get permission to build them now. New main stand, you'll notice it's further from the pitch than the other three, not as steep, and they had to knock down the nursery behind the old main stand & move it elsewhere to expand the footprint.
 

Example 2: Liverpool are rebuilding Anfield, but it can't host Euro 2028 games because the pitch is too small. They didn't have to widen the pitch because they didn't knock the main stand down, they build a third tier, but in order to do so they had to buy and knock down the houses behind it.

For Aberdeen to stay at Pittodrie, they either need to accept a significantly reduced capacity (12,000 most likely, maybe a stretch to 14,000) or knock down the flats behind the south & Merkland, and buy land behind the main too, then rebuild.

It's why I use Hamilton's New Douglas Park as an example. You could build stands like that on a small footprint - small stands with a big concourse below. However, you don't need me to tell you the capacities are small - the main stand & one behind the goal have a combined capacity of 5,500.

It's cheaper and more realistic to move.

[milne_afc]

7 minutes ago, dave_min said:

We should build a copy of Stade Louis II. I’ve had a Quick Look on Google Maps and recon we could do it for £13.5million.

A teuchter will do it for half(cash)

[dave_min]

5 minutes ago, milne_afc said:

A teuchter will do it for half(cash)

Sorry pal, that price was for cash.

[zeroisgod76]

10 minutes ago, Dunty said:

You don't need to be a qualified architect, you can read any new stand or stadium plan that has been submitted to a council - there's 1,000s of them online, take your pick.

UEFA currently let Aberdeen away with having smaller run-off areas than they're supposed to have because of grandfather rights. As soon as you knock the stand down, they lose those rights, and have to rebuild it to Uefa pitch regulations. So a wider and/or longer pitch, which reduces your footprint.

Likewise, new safety regulations mean you need bigger concourses, evacuation areas, ambulance and police access, stands can't be as steep as they once were, you can't cram as many seats into a small space, so the footprint they get built on has to be significantly bigger. Essentially the space behind the stand has to be able to hold the capacity of the stand in the event of an evacuation. The South Stand fails that, the RDS passes it.

Example 1: Hearts' three stands built in the 90s, they're fine because they were built in the 90s, Hearts wouldn't get permission to build them now. New main stand, you'll notice it's further from the pitch than the other three, not as steep, and they had to knock down the nursery behind the old main stand & move it elsewhere to expand the footprint.
 

Example 2: Liverpool are rebuilding Anfield, but it can't host Euro 2028 games because the pitch is too small. They didn't have to widen the pitch because they didn't knock the main stand down, they build a third tier, but in order to do so they had to buy and knock down the houses behind it.

For Aberdeen to stay at Pittodrie, they either need to accept a significantly reduced capacity (12,000 most likely, maybe a stretch to 14,000) or knock down the flats behind the south & Merkland, and buy land behind the main too, then rebuild.

It's why I use Hamilton's New Douglas Park as an example. You could build stands like that on a small footprint - small stands with a big concourse below. However, you don't need me to tell you the capacities are small - the main stand & one behind the goal have a combined capacity of 5,500.

It's cheaper and more realistic to move.

Goes in one ear and out the other for some posters on here. 

Understand some people want to stay at Pittodrie for sentimental reasons but facts are its never going to happen.

[sooth_stander]

2 hours ago, ab24_5qh said:

Aye, my old man worked for Cameron Farquhar Builders who did the work. They were originally lined up to do the exact same job to the Merkland but the club scaled back their plan and just refurbed it instead.

As I recall, in 1985, the club wanted to build a two tier stand in place of the Merkie, but couldn’t get planning permission (some Council shite about TV reception being impaired for the flats on Merkland Rd!) so simply replaced the roof, which was probably full of corrugated asbestos sheeting) and the terracing remained exactly the same

[Andy_123]

19 minutes ago, Dunty said:

You don't need to be a qualified architect, you can read any new stand or stadium plan that has been submitted to a council - there's 1,000s of them online, take your pick.

UEFA currently let Aberdeen away with having smaller run-off areas than they're supposed to have because of grandfather rights. As soon as you knock the stand down, they lose those rights, and have to rebuild it to Uefa pitch regulations. So a wider and/or longer pitch, which reduces your footprint.

Likewise, new safety regulations mean you need bigger concourses, evacuation areas, ambulance and police access, stands can't be as steep as they once were, you can't cram as many seats into a small space, so the footprint they get built on has to be significantly bigger. Essentially the space behind the stand has to be able to hold the capacity of the stand in the event of an evacuation. The South Stand fails that, the RDS passes it.

Example 1: Hearts' three stands built in the 90s, they're fine because they were built in the 90s, Hearts wouldn't get permission to build them now. New main stand, you'll notice it's further from the pitch than the other three, not as steep, and they had to knock down the nursery behind the old main stand & move it elsewhere to expand the footprint.
 

Example 2: Liverpool are rebuilding Anfield, but it can't host Euro 2028 games because the pitch is too small. They didn't have to widen the pitch because they didn't knock the main stand down, they build a third tier, but in order to do so they had to buy and knock down the houses behind it.

For Aberdeen to stay at Pittodrie, they either need to accept a significantly reduced capacity (12,000 most likely, maybe a stretch to 14,000) or knock down the flats behind the south & Merkland, and buy land behind the main too, then rebuild.

It's why I use Hamilton's New Douglas Park as an example. You could build stands like that on a small footprint - small stands with a big concourse below. However, you don't need me to tell you the capacities are small - the main stand & one behind the goal have a combined capacity of 5,500.

It's cheaper and more realistic to move.

Everything you say above has been pointed out on this forum countless times over the years.

At this point you’ll never convince anyone who wants to stay at Pittodrie (fuck knows why it’s a total shithole). They aren’t interested in what you’ve got to say

[sheepcrooky]

Costs of renovating buildings/stadiums are also subject to VAT @ 20%. New builds are exempt from VAT. 

[20two20]

5 minutes ago, Andy_123 said:

Everything you say above has been pointed out on this forum countless times over the years.

At this point you’ll never convince anyone who wants to stay at Pittodrie (fuck knows why it’s a total shithole). They aren’t interested in what you’ve got to say

Never understood wanting to stay at Pittodrie, I've spent ~25 years going to Pittodrie with varying degrees of frequency and it's always been a shithole, It's been a shithole for my entire lifetime.

Just because some great memories were made there doesn't mean we should be holding back the club for the sake of sentimentality.

If Aberdeen want to be a club of the future we can't do it at Pittodrie.

[At The Border Guy]

It's not happening until construction and material costs drop significantly. Council are skint, so won't be contributing a dime. Reckon there'll be the odd aesthetic change to Pittodrie, but nothing substantial is happening for years.

[20two20]

13 minutes ago, At The Border Guy said:

It's not happening until construction and material costs drop significantly. Council are skint, so won't be contributing a dime. Reckon there'll be the odd aesthetic change to Pittodrie, but nothing substantial is happening for years.

Dangerous game to play, who knows if material costs will ever come down? 

The manufacture cost of a material might come down but it's up to the suppliers to pass that change on to the customers. Literally last year 10 construction firms were fined £60m for colluding on price fixing. It happens all the fucking time.

[RabidGiraffe]

Thanks to @The Hulk and @Dunty and for taking the time to provide some form of explanation

 @zeroisgod76 , not everybody may have read the same stuff you have or reads every single page on this forum.  Do I need to point that out to you, or will it go in one ear and out the other?

@dave_min and @milne_afc, I'm looking forward to seeing your potential designs for New Pittodrie. Genuinely.

[NEM]

45 minutes ago, At The Border Guy said:

It's not happening until construction and material costs drop significantly. Council are skint, so won't be contributing a dime. Reckon there'll be the odd aesthetic change to Pittodrie, but nothing substantial is happening for years.

First bit of sense spoken on this thread today

[huncunts]

1 hour ago, RabidGiraffe said:

I'm sure they have, but have they changed in a way that makes building something with a similar ethos impossible? 

As a qualified architect and construction engineer, I'm sure you'll be able to give us a definitive answer and even quote the appropriate regulations.

https://www.righttolightsurveyors.co.uk/right-to-light-assessments/

Buildings can't block the light for residential buildings. That's a bog standard regulation and all you really need to know for why it's not possible now. There are now flats right behind the South and Merkland.

Concourses need to hold a certain capacity and there's no concourses currently for those stands. We can't make concourses under a newly built steeper stand, because they would then be too tall, blocking the light. 

There needs to be access for emergency vehicles around the stadium. We can't put this under or within the stands like new hemmed-in stadiums such as Wimbledon or even Tynecastle, for the same reason.

Then you get the reduction in capacity from current UK stadium building guides. Seats need to be wider, rows need to be deeper, stairways wider and accessible within 10 seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_stadium_categories

Then the reduction in capacity from the requirements for a UEFA category 4 stadium for European group stages.

The Pittodrie pitch would need to be 5 metres longer and 2 metres wider than it currently is, with 5 metres of track behind the goal and 4 metres of track on the sidelines, massively reducing the footprint available for the stands. 

You need 100 VIP seats. 150 VIP parking. 60 media seating 30 with desks. 2 TV studios. 10 commentary positions. 1000m2 outside broadcast van area.

 

You can see the resulting capacity of the 3 rebuilt stands would be absolutely tiny. The South Stand would end up being about 6 rows deep. 

It is not possible to build Loftus Road, Tynecastle or Easter Road today. Not piece by piece and not even if you flattened Pittodrie then did it. We missed any chance by not buying the surrounding land and allowing residential buildings to be built there.

All of this is before you get on to the financial side of things, where we'd have to demolish the 3 stands and prepare the land for tens of millions and also not get anything from the sale of the Pittodrie land. All to play in a 12,000 capacity stadium with the RDS still towering over it.

 

For as much as it's home, Pittodrie is a brutal stadium from 1903. The incredible thing is despite that and despite us sitting 10th, we've been pulling in crowds of 17,000 at some run of the mill games this season. Yet Dave Cormack wants us to build a new stadium with a lower capacity than that, despite the fact that new stadiums in the right locations always see crowds go through the roof. A new state of the art £80-100m job, along with being successful on the pitch, could easily add 5-10,000 on to attendances - why would it not? The 16,000 plans would be a catastrophic decision.

[20two20]

3 minutes ago, huncunts said:

A new state of the art £80-100m job, along with being successful on the pitch, could easily add 5-10,000 on to attendances - why would it not? The 16,000 plans would be a catastrophic decision.

Agree with the vast majority of your comment but would like to focus in on this bit.

It would be a catastrophic decision based on attendance numbers only. I can't remember the specific interview with Cormack, I think it might have been a year or even two ago, where he mentioned wanting there to be higher demand than supply for tickets to Aberdeen games.

That sounds great, until you realise that an efficient business prices the excess demand out until it meets the supply.

If 26,000 people want to attend a game at a 16,000 seater stadium they don't just clap themselves on the back and say "good job!", they increase the price of a ticket until you've got 16,500 people trying to attend and willing to pay the inflated prices. That's exactly what Cormack (a businessman) wants, to make the highest profit with the smallest outlay.

If you own a bakery and sell all your cakes in a day you increase your prices gradually until you end the day with 1 cake, then you roll back the price by one increase so you sell all your cakes for the maximum amount of money.

[dave_min]

31 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

Thanks to @The Hulk and @Dunty and for taking the time to provide some form of explanation

 @zeroisgod76 , not everybody may have read the same stuff you have or reads every single page on this forum.  Do I need to point that out to you, or will it go in one ear and out the other?

@dave_min and @milne_afc, I'm looking forward to seeing your potential designs for New Pittodrie. Genuinely.

Still waiting on you to issue the PO, min

[zeroisgod76]

36 minutes ago, RabidGiraffe said:

Thanks to @The Hulk and @Dunty and for taking the time to provide some form of explanation

 @zeroisgod76 , not everybody may have read the same stuff you have or reads every single page on this forum.  Do I need to point that out to you, or will it go in one ear and out the other?

@dave_min and @milne_afc, I'm looking forward to seeing your potential designs for New Pittodrie. Genuinely.

The same argument is brought up every time this thread gets bumped. You really wouldn't have had to read every single page on this forum.

[At The Border Guy]

1 hour ago, 20two20 said:

Dangerous game to play, who knows if material costs will ever come down? 

I mean, yeah, but costs now have fecked any projections that were made 5-10 years ago. Just because it might get even more expensive, doesn't change the fact we probably don't have the money for it just now.

If a guy who owned a construction firm couldn't get this moving, then I can't see Toothy Dave managing it in the current financial climate.

[20two20]

14 minutes ago, At The Border Guy said:

I mean, yeah, but costs now have fecked any projections that were made 5-10 years ago. Just because it might get even more expensive, doesn't change the fact we probably don't have the money for it just now.

If a guy who owned a construction firm couldn't get this moving, then I can't see Toothy Dave managing it in the current financial climate.

Basically we're fucked no matter what we do. Unless I win the euromillions.