Villa Park redevelopment

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Ah, the good old days when there was a not for profit bus service, football special trains and less than one car per adult parked outside all the houses.

Wasn't our capacity something like 48000 before the Holte End got replaced in the early to mid 90s? You know, after Thatcher had already destroyed public transport and when there were already plenty of two and three car families?  It's hardly days of yore.  Aren't there other, bigger stadiums with similar challenges? It's many years since I went there but I don't recall Anfield, for example, being surrounded by great road or rail access.  Yet that's already 55k+ and due to be 60k+.  What other locations in the West Midlands do you think would alleviate this issue, without major development work?   

[Sulberto21]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Wasn't our capacity something like 48000 before the Holte End got replaced in the early to mid 90s? You know, after Thatcher had already destroyed public transport and when there were already plenty of two and three car families?  It's hardly days of yore.  Aren't there other, bigger stadiums with similar challenges? It's many years since I went there but I don't recall Anfield, for example, being surrounded by great road or rail access.  Yet that's already 55k+ and due to be 60k+.  What other locations in the West Midlands do you think would alleviate this issue, without major development work?   

There’s approximately 11m more cars on the road today when compared to 1994/95. Also cars today are longer and wider. 

[Chindie]

All discussions of a transport issue are a smoke screen. They stopped being relevant the second the council looked at the submission, including, amongst the many and varied concerns in it, the transport impact, and decided to agree the permission.

Heck threw it out as a way of making his short term decision, that was obviously going to be unpopular, was actually a reasoned and considered one that was the only right and justifiable decision. It is a nonsense. The decision hasn't been made because of transport concerns, it's been made because the club wants to get rapid revenue increases with limited costs and a 2 year long construction project which actively cuts into revenue streams and is primarily a long term investment isn't what is going to make his job a success (even if long term it's blindingly obvious the right decision is to increase capacity to ensure we have increased match day revenue opportunity for decades to come and ensure we've got updated facilities rather than a really run down and outdated stand that's 20 years past it's sell by date).

Edited December 20, 2023 by Chindie

[meregreen]

1 hour ago, spiezels said:

I dont get how people cant comprehend theres more traffic now

Nothing in any infrastructure work will reduce the amount of cars in society. 

[meregreen]

13 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

There’s approximately 11m more cars on the road today when compared to 1994/95. Also cars today are longer and wider. 

So are you in favour of relocating Villa Park to a more accessible site then. Because those cars aren’t going away.

[villa89]

The good news is that we might finally get The Dr. Tony Fraud theme park that we were promised. 

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, spiezels said:

I dont get how people cant comprehend theres more traffic now

Like in the middle of Manchester with that 77,000 capacity stadium you mean?

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I think they can plan phases remove the roof and the goal posts and expand it. More incremental changes around the ground than a demolition of the north stand and rebuild. 

I think for example could plan to remove the roof of North and Doug Ellis, increase the seating / corporate and fill in the corner with the Doug Ellis while removing the goal post at that end. 

There are options anyway to improve that don't result in the demolition of the North Stand 

I don't know if you're a structural engineer - I'm not, so I have no idea whether what you're saying is possible - but I would gently suggest that you're probably not the first person in history to have this idea and if it's not on the table there's probably a reason why not. 

[sidcow]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

All discussions of a transport issue are a smoke screen. They stopped being relevant the second the council looked at the submission, including, amongst the many and varied concerns in it, the transport impact, and decided to agree the permission.

Heck threw it out as a way of making his short term decision, that was obviously going to be unpopular, was actually a reasoned and considered one that was the only right and justifiable decision. It is a nonsense. The decision hasn't been made because of transport concerns, it's been made because the club wants to get rapid revenue increases with limited costs and a 2 year long construction project which actively cuts into revenue streams and is primarily a long term investment isn't what is going to make his job a success (even if long term it's blindingly obvious the right decision is to increase capacity to ensure we have increased match day revenue opportunity for decades to come and ensure we've got updated facilities rather than a really run down and outdated stand that's 20 years past it's sell by date).

Yes, I can't believe this is even a discussion point really.  77,000 at Old Trafford with no train stations and a few tram lines shuffling a few hundred people around.   Council looked at the expensively commissioned transport strategy and agreed permission.

It's a bullshit excuse.

Edited December 20, 2023 by sidcow

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, Sulberto21 said:

There’s approximately 11m more cars on the road today when compared to 1994/95. Also cars today are longer and wider. 

Fair enough it's quite a big increase.  But, even then,  what other possible locations within the Birmingham area would be immune to such challenges, and why hasn't it stopped Liverpool going to >60k?  If there have been major transport and access upgrades around Anfield fair enough but I'm not aware of any.

[DJBOB]

I think mired in all this is that you had one vision from the previous CEO (Purslow) that was sold and then another CEO comes in and takes a look at the less than public ideas behind it and pulls the plug.

So while I think Heck might take the blame on this as the public face, NWSE has to shoulder some responsibility for the abrupt about face on it as well. It is, after all, theirs and their investor's cash and not Heck's.

Perhaps similar to the decision to hire Unai - either Nassef or Wes will take a more hands on approach to the stadium renovations.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

After a few hours of mulling the news over I can see the idea of pausing redevelopment of The North Stand.

It seems logical to continue riding the current wave of positivity and especially the home form which is so important to our success. The feeling of fortress Villa Park is one we will need next season more than ever before if we do qualify once again for Europe or dare I say Champions league. To take away a complete stand for next season would greatly reduce the atmosphere and I'm all for keeping it the way it is, just for now.

[IrishVilla10]

2 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

After a few hours of mulling the news over I can see the idea of pausing redevelopment of The North Stand.

It seems logical to continue riding the current wave of positivity and especially the home form which is so important to our success. The feeling of fortress Villa Park is one we will need next season more than ever before if we do qualify once again for Europe or dare I say Champions league. To take away a complete stand for next season would greatly reduce the atmosphere and I'm all for keeping it the way it is, just for now.

This is what I’ve taken from it

[rubberman]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

I think bubbling away in the back ground is a thought that no one wants to face.....These decisions take courage and an awful lot of consideration to all factors.

Many of those factors affecting this decision, is not of our direct making such as outside infrastructure and transport facilities.

The prospect of taking a on a huge undertaking such as this, was always a big ask, while still fulfilling fixtures....the logistics is way above my head.

Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, West Ham and Man City......had a much easier transition, in to their expansion plans.....I do fear, it may come down to us doing much the same.

I believe this has been announced as a "Pause" to let the dust settle, the penny to drop, before the practical and sensible options get aired.

Ther will be a lot of debate on this.

See Chelsea for details. They have had new stadium plans for years and are no closer to realising them. Latest cost was something like £2bn and will take 7 years - including having to ground share with eg Fulham for a while. Can't see us agreeing to ground share with anyone nearby!

[rubberman]

Just to feed the chat, fella here's got AI to mock up a 'new' VP:

 

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, rubberman said:

Just to feed the chat, fella here's got AI to mock up a 'new' VP:

 

Wow...certainly gets the creative juices flowing.

[Teale's 'tache]

It does feel like we are approaching somewhat of a crossroads when it comes to Villa Park.

Ideally, I think the owners would like us to stay where we are and have always been careful not to trample on traditions or take anything away from our club's identity. At the same time, they must know that to compete off the pitch we need our stadium to be more profitable, both on matchdays and all year around, the capacity has to increase and more corporate spaces created, to do that and for it all to be feasible it will also need to be more accessible than it currently is.

Is our location holding us back? Can we create the facility we need in the space we currently have? Can we afford to lose revenue while development takes place?

I don't know. It's all very much up for debate.

However, I don't think the North Stand update alone was ever going to solve all of the issues or future-proof the stadium for where we intend to be.

Maybe there are grander plans afoot?

Like the Bernabeu with its disappearing pitch and closing roof, imagine the events they can hold there, and the additional revenue it will attract. As others have said the ability to easily host other sporting events like NFL and MLB games brings in plenty of coin, concerts the same, it all adds up.

I love a brick facade as much as the next man, I love our stadium. But football has long become a business as much as a sport, and if you want to compete with the big boys you simply have to do so on and off the pitch.

Change is coming one way or another, whether you or I like it or not.

[sharkyvilla]

I was already a bit depressed that I'd be over 40 when the North Stand was finished, now I suspect I'll be 50 and the ground will look much the same.  This looks so good and such a shame if it doesn't go ahead.

 

[Stephen_Evans]

46 minutes ago, rubberman said:

Just to feed the chat, fella here's got AI to mock up a 'new' VP:

 

Where do I sign?

[Captain_Townsend]

53 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

After a few hours of mulling the news over I can see the idea of pausing redevelopment of The North Stand.

It seems logical to continue riding the current wave of positivity and especially the home form which is so important to our success. The feeling of fortress Villa Park is one we will need next season more than ever before if we do qualify once again for Europe or dare I say Champions league. To take away a complete stand for next season would greatly reduce the atmosphere and I'm all for keeping it the way it is, just for now.

The atmosphere was cracking against Inter in 1994 with thr Holte end as a building site.