Stephen_Evans Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: The club is definitely building plans around the existing North Stand - one of the phrases that stuck with me from the meeting was "we want to find ways to get bigger without getting smaller" and I think that's a key. The North Stand project as was is dead I think, but there were suggestions from the club at the meeting that they're still looking at ways they can do things with the North Stand that are bigger than those that are planned over the next couple of summers. It is definitely possible to keep the North Stand and extend it, adding a new roof. That was basically the plan 25 years ago. How they stop it falling down when the roof comes off I don’t know, but the Ellis plans did not involve the demolition of anything except the roof and the roof supports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted May 30 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted May 30 11 hours ago, Stephen_Evans said: It is definitely possible to keep the North Stand and extend it, adding a new roof. That was basically the plan 25 years ago. How they stop it falling down when the roof comes off I don’t know, but the Ellis plans did not involve the demolition of anything except the roof and the roof supports. Ah, Ellis, that famous architect. He probably invented cantilevers. 1 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLeftSide Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 Don’t think if it’s feasible on any level, but dortmund are an example of expansion where internal pillars taken out and roof held up and extended via external supports. A bit ugly too from outside but shows it could possibly be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 6 minutes ago, TheLeftSide said: Don’t think if it’s feasible on any level, but dortmund are an example of expansion where internal pillars taken out and roof held up and extended via external supports. A bit ugly too from outside but shows it could possibly be done. Westfalenstadion could be a good model for us. Their capacity has gone from 40,000 to 80,000 without knocking down a stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson1 Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 8 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: Westfalenstadion could be a good model for us. Their capacity has gone from 40,000 to 80,000 without knocking down a stand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 12 hours ago, Follyfoot said: The North stand used to have a walk under tunnel if I recall. It’s where the St John’s ambulance people were when we pretended to have sprained ankles out of the Holte to walk past the away fans and clock what they had @sheepyvillian knows what I am on about I'm saying nothing till I've seen my "Brief". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 30 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30 It's weird. You would think they would talk to architects and structural engineers before coming up with any plan to extend the North Stand. Should have asked some randoms on the internet first. NSWE out. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 30 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30 1 hour ago, TheLeftSide said: Don’t think if it’s feasible on any level, but dortmund are an example of expansion where internal pillars taken out and roof held up and extended via external supports. A bit ugly too from outside but shows it could possibly be done. You are correct. it's not feasible on any level. Dortmund had pillars holding up the roof above an independent stand structure. North Stand is supported in it's entirety by the pillars. Remove the pillars and the stand collapses. Extending the stand with the pillars in place would be daft and likely cost more than just knocking the whole thing down and starting again. And the main point of extending the stand is not just the seats but the areas behind the stand which would not be solved by any other method than a full rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 8 minutes ago, sidcow said: You are correct. it's not feasible on any level. Dortmund had pillars holding up the roof above an independent stand structure. North Stand is supported in it's entirety by the pillars. Remove the pillars and the stand collapses. Extending the stand with the pillars in place would be daft and likely cost more than just knocking the whole thing down and starting again. And the main point of extending the stand is not just the seats but the areas behind the stand which would not be solved by any other method than a full rebuild. ... 17 minutes ago, sidcow said: It's weird. You would think they would talk to architects and structural engineers before coming up with any plan to extend the North Stand. Should have asked some randoms on the internet first. NSWE out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 30 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: ... Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's been fairly well established that the North Stand Pillars support the whole stand, not the roof. They are of course free to ignore my thoughts and take the worlds biggest angle grinder to them. I'm sure it will be fine. Edited May 30 by sidcow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's been fairly well established that the North Stand Pillars support the whole stand, not the roof. They are of course free to ignore my thoughts and take the worlds biggest angle grinder to them. I'm sure it will be fine. I like the angle grinder idea. It is intriguing what their plans are if it really can't be extended, considering they insist we're still on for the 50k capacity or whatever required for Euro '28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 2 minutes ago, sidcow said: Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's been fairly well established that the North Stand Pillars support the whole stand, not the roof. They are of course free to ignore my thoughts and take the worlds biggest angle grinder to them. I'm sure it will be fine. There is a way to engineer everything. There will be a solution that allows for the NS pillars to be taken out and replaced with something else. I don't know what that is. But it's a matter of cost vs reward, nothing else. Maybe we can build some sort of an outside frame to support the stand while making it bigger. Who knows. But it's certainly possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 We know what can be done if the will is there with north stand but the biggest issue for me is the Witton and especially the frankly embarrassing upper tier concourse. The plan shows how easy it would be to add an additional tier to the Trinity & remove that god awful sloping roof without impeding at all on capacity whilst it was being done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycv Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 5 minutes ago, thabucks said: We know what can be done if the will is there with north stand but the biggest issue for me is the Witton and especially the frankly embarrassing upper tier concourse. The plan shows how easy it would be to add an additional tier to the Trinity & remove that god awful sloping roof without impeding at all on capacity whilst it was being done. Where's this come from? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 (edited) 35 minutes ago, andycv said: Where's this come from? Interesting. That is from the very extensive plans for the new North stand. Now shelved. On @thabuckspoint, I thought someone said the current Trinity isn't structurally sound enough to take the weight of another tier? Could be wrong. On the roof, they took the other three sides all had their roofs match the current North stand! Edited May 30 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 30 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30 49 minutes ago, Mic09 said: There is a way to engineer everything. There will be a solution that allows for the NS pillars to be taken out and replaced with something else. I don't know what that is. But it's a matter of cost vs reward, nothing else. Maybe we can build some sort of an outside frame to support the stand while making it bigger. Who knows. But it's certainly possible. I'm sure they would have considered that when coming up with the original plan. What I DO know is working around existing structures is a difficult and expensive game. Construction companies much prefer to flatten and start again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: That is from the very extensive plans for the new North stand. Now shelved. On @thabuckspoint, I thought someone said the current Trinity isn't structurally sound enough to take the weight of another tier? Could be wrong. On the roof, they took the other three sides all had their roofs match the current North stand! The current trinity stand wouldn’t need to carry any additional weight as you’d just build behind it with the new tier supporting itself. It would encroach on the park minimally and a few houses would need to be removed. To assist with the right to light the corners or the new upper tier and roof would arch down… that’s an extra 7-8k seats or so…. It’s just a pipe dream as they’ve shown with the cancelled north stand there is little appetite right now to meaningfully expand. Edited May 30 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 3 minutes ago, thabucks said: The current trinity stand wouldn’t need to carry any additional weight as you’d just build behind it with the new tier supporting itself. It’s just a pipe dream as they’ve shown with the cancelled north stand there is little appetite right now to meaningfully expand. Ah, got you. I know right? I grew up with Villa Park as one of the biggest and grandest grounds. Bit by bit it is being overtaken: Spurs, Sunderland, Newcastle, West Ham and soon Everton being five examples to have passed us on capacity since say 2000. To me it affects us medium- long term financially but more hurtful it also impacts our prestige. I am really gutted they have walked away from redevelopment (if it wasn't obvious!). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHW Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 The Trinity upper is already amongst the Gods. A tier above that would be crazy when we have the ridiculous 1970s North Stand begging to be bulldozed. A Trinity extension would also do little to resolve one of the key problems which is lack of corporate hospitality space. A new North can be as deep as they want and cater for this. The short-term reduction in capacity is not that bad economically, they are the cheapest seats in the stadium. I'm amazed we haven't just bitten the bullet and got on with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 (edited) 7 minutes ago, CHW said: The Trinity upper is already amongst the Gods. A tier above that would be crazy when we have the ridiculous 1970s North Stand begging to be bulldozed. A Trinity extension would also do little to resolve one of the key problems which is lack of corporate hospitality space. A new North can be as deep as they want and cater for this. The short-term reduction in capacity is not that bad economically, they are the cheapest seats in the stadium. I'm amazed we haven't just bitten the bullet and got on with it. Agree with you, it makes no sense to row back. The main argument people here make in favour of the decision to cancel is that we are so tight on FFP that we cannot afford to be without the North stand. This mever made sense to me given it is thr smallest, oldest and cheapest stand with badly outdated premium offerings. If we were sailing that close to the wind the new £5m each club is getting from the cancellation of parachute payments would probably cover it and/or the changing rules being discussed. Another option discussed at one point was playing elsewhere for a year! My argument was that surely playing at a 36k capacity Villa Park temporarily while it's done is prefable to moving to say Perry Barr for a year which is even smaller. Looks to me they want to keep as it is and just add premium everywhere which will kill the atmosphere and drive regulars away. Edited May 30 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts