Villa Park redevelopment

[MrBlack]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

It got lowered for new advertising boards and ducting under the pitch for the artifical lights about 7 or 8 years ago

I think whether it's lowered or not, the turf itself is going to get relaid regularly during a life. The fact we dug a bit more of the soil under the turf away at any point in the past is moot.

The ground, includes the stadium and the pitch, but there is no ground in the world that has never relaid its pitch, so I think that aspect gets made irrelevant.

To the stadium, there's not a great deal between what Wembley did and what Spurs did.. but one gets considered the same stadium and the other one not? Seems weird to me.

[sidcow]

17 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

fist moved in here.....

 

[mikeyjavfc]

6 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

I think whether it's lowered or not, the turf itself is going to get relaid regularly during a life. The fact we dug a bit more of the soil under the turf away at any point in the past is moot.

The ground, includes the stadium and the pitch, but there is no ground in the world that has never relaid its pitch, so I think that aspect gets made irrelevant.

To the stadium, there's not a great deal between what Wembley did and what Spurs did.. but one gets considered the same stadium and the other one not? Seems weird to me.

The spurs stadium moved a few 100 metres so the end stand could be started whilst WHL was still functional. I believe Wembley was demo’d and rebuilt on more or less the same spot but I could be wrong.

WHL:

I agree it’s basically semantics though, both are new stadiums in my opinion. There is just something more final about razing a stadium to the ground prior to rebuilding, compared to gradual redevelopment of the stands, which preserves the soul. I guess it is because by the time you redevelop another stand the other ‘new’ stands are now ‘old’ and excepted as part of the clubs heritage. A new stadium wipes everything away in one go, leaving no history. They really should have preserved  the Wembley Twin Towers as originally proposed, what a loss that was.
 

 

 

[villa82]

4 hours ago, turvontour said:

I really hope the Holte end stays as is.

It's referenced so often by commentators in games. No one knows the names of the ends at Tottenham, man City, arsenal etc.

There are a few things that could have been done with The Holte End to make it even better than it is today.

First to build out the corner towards Trinity. There is enormous potential for more spectators, as well as making the stadium better. Have to do something about the roof at Holte End, as well as demolish the restaurant at the end of Trinity.

The other thing to improve at Holte End is the roof, it shouldn't slope down towards the pitch so much, dampens the sound level and makes the stand less impressive. This is also solved by building out the corner. My guess this is how we add the extra 2-3000 seats after the new Nort Stand.

Edited October 23, 2023 by villa82

[The Fun Factory]

2 hours ago, villa82 said:

There are a few things that could have been done with The Holte End to make it even better than it is today.

First to build out the corner towards Trinity. There is enormous potential for more spectators, as well as making the stadium better. Have to do something about the roof at Holte End, as well as demolish the restaurant at the end of Trinity.

The other thing to improve at Holte End is the roof, it shouldn't slope down towards the pitch so much, dampens the sound level and makes the stand less impressive. This is also solved by building out the corner. My guess this is how we add the extra 2-3000 seats after the new Nort Stand.

You can't as it is right over a road and there is a  massive stairwell on the Trinity Road Stand. I don't really think the Holte roof slopes down much,, nothing like Old Trafford anyway.

[Captain_Townsend]

Ironic that each new build over the past 30 years has tried to align the roofs with the old North Stand! Now that it is going all the other stands will be dwarfed by the new one

[Sam-AVFC]

7 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said:

They really should have preserved  the Wembley Twin Towers as originally proposed, what a loss that was.

Completely agree. I have two enduring memories from going as a kid. Approaching the stadium with the twin towers looming overhead and the noise the Brazilian fans made. 

[The_Rev]

On 23/10/2023 at 13:59, mikeyjavfc said:

The spurs stadium moved a few 100 metres so the end stand could be started whilst WHL was still functional. I believe Wembley was demo’d and rebuilt on more or less the same spot but I could be wrong.

WHL:

I agree it’s basically semantics though, both are new stadiums in my opinion. There is just something more final about razing a stadium to the ground prior to rebuilding, compared to gradual redevelopment of the stands, which preserves the soul. I guess it is because by the time you redevelop another stand the other ‘new’ stands are now ‘old’ and excepted as part of the clubs heritage. A new stadium wipes everything away in one go, leaving no history. They really should have preserved  the Wembley Twin Towers as originally proposed, what a loss that was.

I know Wembley fairly well though my job. The company I work for has a depot a hundred metres south of the stadium (circled on the map) and I’ll find myself there a few times a month  

 

The old stadium was built in pretty much the same location but they moved it by a similar distance as Spurs moved their stadium.  The main reason with Wembley was because the old stadium was squeezed right up against the road (South Way) and railway line, the new stadium has much more space for crowds to circulate and vehicles to access on that side and the stands are much much wider because they contain so many more facilities.  If you laid the old stadium on the new one then the twin towers that adorned the north stand would be in the middle of the pitch at the new stadium. Preserving the towers would have required either not making the new stadium fit for purpose (which would have made rebuilding it pointless and unlikely to happen) or taking them down brick by brick and rebuilding them only to find that because of the scale of the new building they’d look like Stonehenge at a Spinal Tap concert.   It was a shame to lose them but any call to have saved them doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny.  

[Farlz]

 

[Captain_Townsend]

It is critical this gets done ASAP. I find the tone there a bit disconcerting to be honest. Sometimes think it is a pity it wasn't pushed through when first discussed 20 years ago.

[ender4]

10 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

It is critical this gets done ASAP. I find the tone there a bit disconcerting to be honest. Sometimes think it is a pity it wasn't pushed through when first discussed 20 years ago.

Or 6 years ago when the plans included a roller coaster around the rim of VP.

[Stephen_Evans]

56 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

It is critical this gets done ASAP. I find the tone there a bit disconcerting to be honest. Sometimes think it is a pity it wasn't pushed through when first discussed 20 years ago.

I have to say I am glad it wasn’t.  Half the ground would be in the, er, “style” of the current Trinity.

[Lord Willard]

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

Or 6 years ago when the plans included a roller coaster around the rim of VP.

Tbf there is a circus near by… it’s called small heath 

[The Fun Factory]

WMCA and the Council don't think the Witton station redevelopment is justified with just additional crowds at match day, the whole area needs to be redeveloped like what has happened at Perry Barr. The planning application that was passed did not say that the station needs to be rebuilt, this is what the club or Purslow before he left, was pushing. The club does not seem to be want to be responsible for any other alternative traffic management schemes.

It looks like a significant impasse and the clock is ticking for the euros. If we mess this up then the second city will not be a host city. 

It is coming up to a year since the original application was passed and the only news is that we have dropped the Villa live idea due to the massive cost increases in construction. Purslow gave regular updates and it seemed like his pet project whereas I don't think Heck has had a single AVTV interview yet and sees more interested in fleecing the fans in the existing match day experience and changing our club crest again.

[cheltenham_villa]

40 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

WMCA and the Council don't think the Witton station redevelopment is justified with just additional crowds at match day, the whole area needs to be redeveloped like what has happened at Perry Barr. The planning application that was passed did not say that the station needs to be rebuilt, this is what the club or Purslow before he left, was pushing. The club does not seem to be want to be responsible for any other alternative traffic management schemes.

It looks like a significant impasse and the clock is ticking for the euros. If we mess this up then the second city will not be a host city. 

It is coming up to a year since the original application was passed and the only news is that we have dropped the Villa live idea due to the massive cost increases in construction. Purslow gave regular updates and it seemed like his pet project whereas I don't think Heck has had a single AVTV interview yet and sees more interested in fleecing the fans in the existing match day experience and changing our club crest again.

i really dont know how they go about fixing the transport problems. Even if you fix the station, you still need more trains to be running to take people away. 

I wonder if the club could consider some sort of park and ride, maybe using star city a bit more? but even then, if we want to get 10 thousand more fans in, conservatively thats 2.5 thousand more cars and nearly 200 full bus journeys to ship people about. 

Didnt we make a hire in this space? a guy very experience in transport planning etc?

[MWARLEY2]

32 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

WMCA and the Council don't think the Witton station redevelopment is justified with just additional crowds at match day, the whole area needs to be redeveloped like what has happened at Perry Barr. The planning application that was passed did not say that the station needs to be rebuilt, this is what the club or Purslow before he left, was pushing. The club does not seem to be want to be responsible for any other alternative traffic management schemes.

It looks like a significant impasse and the clock is ticking for the euros. If we mess this up then the second city will not be a host city. 

It is coming up to a year since the original application was passed and the only news is that we have dropped the Villa live idea due to the massive cost increases in construction. Purslow gave regular updates and it seemed like his pet project whereas I don't think Heck has had a single AVTV interview yet and sees more interested in fleecing the fans in the existing match day experience and changing our club crest again.

I don't know how funding for these projects works but i expect that the recent news about the council having to fork out for pay equality will cause issues for anything like this. If services are being cut i cannot see them forking out 10s of millions for a station upgrade. And rightly so. 

.

[brommy]

12 minutes ago, MWARLEY2 said:

I don't know how funding for these projects works but i expect that the recent news about the council having to fork out for pay equality will cause issues for anything like this. If services are being cut i cannot see them forking out 10s of millions for a station upgrade. And rightly so. 

.

I think I read that transport infrastructure in the West Midlands is not funded directly by Birmingham City Council.

My current guess for the short term future of Villa Park is -

Phase 1 to be commenced in summer 2024 or summer 2025. Either date will ensure completion of a 50k capacity in time to host the summer 2028 Euros.

No major redevelopment of the station beyond a minor tarting up of signage.

50k crowds increasing match day congestion delays, causing fans to complain to the club and local residents complaining to Birmingham City Council, who will then blame each other.

[DakotaVilla]

It’s time for the club to get very political with a general election coming up.

It’s time for the Tories in the council to pony up or to be left under no illusion that if the funds are not coming the club will go full scorched earth to the entire fan base regarding who was responsible for not coming through. 

[Stephen_Evans]

The Athletic article purports to be an update but I don’t think it tells us anything we didn’t already know.

The club are a bit quiet on it all mind.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

It looks like a significant impasse and the clock is ticking for the euros. If we mess this up then the second city will not be a host city. 

An impasse for the station? 

The stadium development for the Euros will go ahead regardless.

Why would Birmingham not be a host city because the station isn't redeveloped? There's nothing in the stadium planning permissions that insists on it as a prerequisite and I don't think there's anything in the Euros bid that states that either - it's a 'nice to have'.