Renovating Anfield

[Maldini]

Interesting talk from architect Peter Kirk about redeveloping Anfield rather than moving to Stanley Park. It's a pretty detailed proposal, he reckons it can be done at half the cost.

 

 

can't embed the second part, here it is though

 

http://http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zdRw-CRL5mA

[The Hitman]

Always thought this was possible, especially when you look at the stage of some of the nearby housing.

[Leo No.8]

Got to be possible - the idea of a new stadium is nice but how good would it be to stay at Anfield?

[johngibo YPC]

I can't get sound at work so can#t access the link

But i've never understood why it couldnt be looked at

But then i don't understand why the club wouldn't persue it if it was economically viable

[goose island]

But then i don't understand why the club wouldn't persue it if it was economically viable

 

new stadium is a bit of a vanity project (seemed that way for DM)? maybe the owners now don't want to be seen going back on stanley park after so long?

[The Hitman]

As mentioned previously,the last person to explore this route was Rick Parry.

 

Reason enough to reinvestigate?

[Falconhoof]

Is it possible to see the detail of the scheme ?

I'd really like to see how this can be achieved for the cost he talks about.

[richwilks]

I thought Purslow had claimed that it had all been looked into under the yanks and that it wasn't viable?

[Paddy 66]

I haven't seen the detail of this, but one of the negatives about redeveoping Anfield is the fact of the reduced gate, poorer atmosphere and reduced revenue coming in over the period of the redevelopment.

[fabfive]

Anything is viable.

 

Admit haven't seen the video as it's blocked at work.

 

 

 

The problem could be the hit one takes redeveloping Stand by Stand or tearing down Anfield and rebuilding on the same site.

 

Where do we go to play our matches for the 1-2 years it will take to build the new stadium? Ground share with Everton? As if they'd have us after all that's gone on about not ground sharing.

 

Plus the under ground stuff would have to be thoroughly dug up and taken care of. Anyone remember when the sewer line collapsed and the Kop had to be redone?

 

So it is more than just the cosmetics of what we see.

 

Then there is the number of suites and executive boxes to be part of the new Anfield.

 

 

Where a new Stanley Park stadium becomes more viable is that Anfield is already paid for and we can still use it whilst we build a new stadium. If we stay where we are it will cost us more, rent to the club we share a ground with, and probably less capacity so we earn less to boot. That's a double hit. Spend more and take in less. All the while paying for a new stadium.

 

Doable but only if someone has a lot of money and is adamant of staying where we are. Imho.

[Falconhoof]

Admit haven't seen the video as it's blocked at work.

 

A lot of your questions are answered by the architect in the video. Though, it would help greatly if we could see the reasoning behind his conclusions. How has it been costed? Is there a realistic programme of work that really does not impact on the football season and staying in the stadium ?

 

I've been sceptical all along of the case for redeveloping as i'd thought costs would be too great, but i'd have to admit I was wrong if we can see more detail on this proposal and it really has been as thoroughly researched as he claims.

[David Hodgson]

A lot of your questions are answered by the architect in the video. Though, it would help greatly if we could see the reasoning behind his conclusions. How has it been costed? Is there a realistic programme of work that really does not impact on the football season and staying in the stadium ?

 

I've been sceptical all along of the case for redeveloping as i'd thought costs would be too great, but i'd have to admit I was wrong if we can see more detail on this proposal and it really has been as thoroughly researched as he claims.

 

I'd want an understanding of how much of the ground would need closing during development and for how long, however I strongly favour re-looking at staying at Anfield.

 

I have a suspicion that the so many people over a period of time become committed to the principle of a new stadium that it requires a paradigm shift for them to re-open their minds to the alternative. The 'experts' employed, the Architects, will be the worst culprits here. They will want the glory that is the new Anfield super stadium and whether consciously or otherwise will do what it takes to make that the preferred option. They get more fees and more glory from a total new build. They are also the key feasibility analysers.

 

The case for a new ground was one thing when the estimated cost was £150m. Its now double, but I'll bet the revenue projections haven't doubled. I'm suspicious that the business model to justify the case for a £350-400m spend isn't hugely geared around constant CL qualification and average attendances close to 70,000 a week. Neither thing can be guaranteed. Additionally, during the building of a new ground resources will be tighter than ever, unless we have a super super rich owner. People talk about Wenger not winning anything for x number of years, but he has had negative budget for the team for at least 5 years now. He's helped fund the stadium build by selling players.

[Sion]

IIRC the major problem was loss of revenue whilst building was taking place not making it financially viable. 1) because we'd struggle to cope income wise on a 30k ground for a few seasons and 2) it'd end up costing us nearly as much than a brand new stadium when you take into account lost revenue + building costs

 

Would like it to be properly looked into though.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Sion

[Cunny]

is there a link to his design anywhere?

He mentions the design in the film but it's not shown.

[Hodgson for Chelsea]

If the yanks did what they promised we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm 100% behind a new stadium once the appropriate investors are found. If they are not, then maybe this can be looked at.

[magneto]

Considerable income would be lost during rennovation.

[Maldini]

Considerable income would be lost, but £200m worth? It'd be nice to see the breakdown in figures alright, don't know why they're not featured

[owenthomas]

in work so i too haven't seen the video - but as the Yanks haven't got a pot to piss in does the guy mention where on Earth this money's coming from? we're fkin skint.. we can't afford a new stadium.. we can't afford to redevelop Anfield.. we're probably trying to get out of paying Council Tax! we're f***ed..

[PeeG]

is there a link to his design anywhere?

He mentions the design in the film but it's not shown.

 

Architect doesn't want the design out there other than showing it in the meeting. The main point of focus is the Football Quarter at the moment and showing that the redeveloped Anfield is a possibility and it doesn't require knocking down a stand to rebuild it again.

[Falconhoof]

Architect doesn't want the design out there other than showing it in the meeting. The main point of focus is the Football Quarter at the moment and showing that the redeveloped Anfield is a possibility and it doesn't require knocking down a stand to rebuild it again.

 

That claim doesn't have any credibility without seeing the design though. I'm sure this Peter fellow is a reputable professional but I personally can't see his working out and I find that difficult to get on board.

[Sion]

If he posted a picture and it was a decent mock up this idea would get tons more coverage amongst Liverpool fans which is the key to getting the club to reconsider/say why it's not a good idea.

[PeeG]

That claim doesn't have any credibility without seeing the design though. I'm sure this Peter fellow is a reputable professional but I personally can't see his working out and I find that difficult to get on board.

 

I understand that completely. His choice with it. It had been costed as well for it, but obviously its his job and its his designs with it. As things move along further with it he may want to release more details with it then.

[Falconhoof]

fair enough, its his choice to reveal or not. Shame, as it could spark off a lot of useful publicity and discussion about regeneration of the area. If only we had a news publication in the city that would take up the cause.

[richwilks]

I can't really see why the idea of the renovation was brought up without the details of actually seeing what it could be like and the costings behind it.

 

I think the Stanley Park idea was more than simply getting more seats in.

[Falconhoof]

I can't really see why the idea of the renovation was brought up without the details of actually seeing what it could be like and the costings behind it.

 

I think the Stanley Park idea was more than simply getting more seats in.

Thats covered in the video.