Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[jrb]

We ripped out 1500 seats in 2021 to install bigger advertising holdings. So the idea the club are wanting to get to a certain capacity is nonsense.

And where are you getting this idea that ‘everyone is wants a proper home end’ ?

I must have missed that vote. Every blue I know it not arsed and certainly won’t be swapping seats no matter what type of stand is built.

What’s with the aggressive tone of your post?

The club can still get that certain ‘capacity’ by expanding the NS, and maybe expanding the CBS and the ES in the future, regardless of removing 1500 seats for larger advertising boards?

So who doesn’t want a proper home end, you and everybody you know? I’m sure there are 1000’s of City fans who would relocate to a proper home end ‘if‘ that’s what the NS expansion turned out to be? Nobody is expecting or forcing you and the people you know to move to a new home end. I’m sure you’ll be happy staying where you are.

 

[Goatmeal]

it’s always difficult to have an home end when seating is allocated. Unlike the old Kippax you will get fans who just want to sit and watch the game amongst those that sing and shout.

My idea that I have said before is for certain sections you buy a ticket for that section.
This would allow the loudest fans to congregate together. Standing with the rails.
First there gets choice of area.

You could do this with blocks at the side of the away fans in the south stand.

Those that like to sit and watch the game can migrate to a specified seat in the new north stand. Freeing up spaces for those who want a sing song.

This is probably the closest we would get to recreating the Kippax atmosphere with the limitations of the stadium design and seating restrictions.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Man City crowd for Sevilla offers more evidence of Etihad progress

Manchester City have already qualified for the Champions League knockout rounds but there is still lots of interest in the Sevilla game

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[LEXSTARproject]

Seen a couple of posts on here where people are having digs, this is a forum to discuss the stadium and surrounding area not to attack other people for having an opinion or suggestions. I wrote my last post here after seeing what people said on here and other forums so that is why I was writing from a third-party perspective. It seems on here that there is a group of people who want change and a better atmosphere for the team and there is a group who just want to shout down these people. For City to make more they need the stadium and area surrounding it to become a destination seven days a week not just match days so that is why I using other teams as an example .....

 

[Centurions]

Seen a couple of posts on here where people are having digs, this is a forum to discuss the stadium and surrounding area not to attack other people for having an opinion or suggestions. I wrote my last post here after seeing what people said on here and other forums so that is why I was writing from a third-party perspective. It seems on here that there is a group of people who want change and a better atmosphere for the team and there is a group who just want to shout down these people. For City to make more they need the stadium and area surrounding it to become a destination seven days a week not just match days so that is why I using other teams as an example .....

You wrote a nonsense post stating that people would be happy with 3 tiers and then put forward a plan for 2 tiers. I guess maths isn't your strong point?

What's this third-party perspective nonsense now?

 

[Centurions]

We ripped out 1500 seats in 2021 to install bigger advertising holdings. So the idea the club are wanting to get to a certain capacity is nonsense.

And where are you getting this idea that ‘everyone is wants a proper home end’ ?

I must have missed that vote. Every blue I know it not arsed and certainly won’t be swapping seats no matter what type of stand is built.

Bigger advertising holdings and the club wanting a certain capacity aren't mutually exclusive though.

 

[bluesmith]

Bigger advertising holdings and the club wanting a certain capacity aren't mutually exclusive though.

They are if taking those seats out makes it impossible to achieve the capacity they are supposedly aiming for. Or proves they weren't aiming for a specific capacity.

 

[Claytop]

Do we not need 60k to be eligible for European Cup finals?

Or have I just made that up?...

 

[blueparrot]

They are if taking those seats out makes it impossible to achieve the capacity they are supposedly aiming for. Or proves they weren't aiming for a specific capacity.

Whos says it makes it impossible. From my memory the plan for over 60000 pre dates those extra seats going in, and only some of the extra seats ( that everyone complained about anyway) were removed for the advertising.
So taking the seats out don't make any difference to the original plan for 60,000 plus.

 

[LEXSTARproject]

You wrote a nonsense post stating that people would be happy with 3 tiers and then put forward a plan for 2 tiers. I guess maths isn't your strong point?

What's this third-party perspective nonsense now?

@Centurions this is what I was on about

 

[bluesmith]

Whos says it makes it impossible. From my memory the plan for over 60000 pre dates those extra seats going in, and only some of the extra seats ( that everyone complained about anyway) were removed for the advertising.
So taking the seats out don't make any difference to the original plan for 60,000 plus.

We added approx 7000 seats (48k-55k) with the last redevelopment which included the south extention and the seats at the front we know 1500 have come out from the front, so assuming the ss3 holds 5500 and is mirrored in ns3 we would hit 59k, if we wanted a 60k stadium we wouldnt have taken 1500 seats out.

Some of the planning apps talk about 6250 seats in the 3rd tier if this is correct we would probably just about hit 60k seats when including segregation.

 

[blueparrot]

We added approx 7000 seats (48k-55k) with the last redevelopment which included the south extention and the seats at the front we know 1500 have come out from the front, so assuming the ss3 holds 5500 and is mirrored in ns3 we would hit 59k, if we wanted a 60k stadium we wouldnt have taken 1500 seats out.

Some of the planning apps talk about 6250 seats in the 3rd tier if this is correct we would probably just about hit 60k seats when including segregation.

Not sure your point reall if they want to go over 60000 with the new extension , then they will.Seems to be a worry about nothing. Especially as we have no idea whether the plans are a mirror or a large 2nd tier.

 

[bluesmith]

Not sure your point reall if they want to go over 60000 with the new extension , then they will.Seems to be a worry about nothing. Especially as we have no idea whether the plans are a mirror or a large 2nd tier.

My point was based solely on it being mirrored. City know what it will be as architechts have the brief as they are engaged already.

 

[jrb]

In the grand scheme of things it isn’t important, but having and breaking the 60,000 capacity figure would be nice.

It’s like building a residential tower. Renaker breaking the 200 (201) metre mark at the South tower, Deansgate Square, was great. Building it to 199 metres would have been disappointing. :-)

 

[bluesmith]

In the grand scheme of things it isn’t important, but having and breaking the 60,000 capacity figure would be nice.

It’s like building a residential tower. Renaker breaking the 200 (201) metre mark at the South tower was great. Building it to 199 metres would have been disappointing. :-) Not really, but you know what I mean?

I think if we have ambitions to hold Champions league finals it is important. As theres only the porto stadium with a capacity under 60k that has held the final and that was a reduced crowd anyway.
Not that many blues will be to arsed by that.

 

[willipp]

I think if we have ambitions to hold Champions league finals it is important. As theres only the porto stadium with a capacity under 60k that has held the final and that was a reduced crowd anyway.
Not that many blues will be to arsed by that.

Id say even with an expanded NS that takes it above 60k, our chances of a CL final are pretty much zero.

 

[jrb]

I think if we have ambitions to hold Champions league finals it is important. As theres only the porto stadium with a capacity under 60k that has held the final and that was a reduced crowd anyway.
Not that many blues will be to arsed by that.

Agreed.

The Etihad‘s capacity is currently at 53,400, give or take. Adding 6,600 would take the capacity to 60,000. The SSL3 expansion added 6000.(stand corrected on that) So a similar and mirrored NSL3, as rumoured, would create a 59,400 capacity, 600 sort of 60,000.

In all honesty the Etihad and our growing fan base needs a bigger capacity than 60,000. I’d be happy to see a NSL2, 10,000 capacity expansion, taking the Etihad capacity to circa 63,400 and in the process creating a pretty decent 2 tiered stand and home end.

Admittedly I’m banding new Etihad capacity figures about which are pie in the sky.

 

[supercity88]

Agreed.

The Etihad‘s capacity is currently at 53,400, give or take. Adding 6,600 would take the capacity to 60,000. The SSL3 expansion added 6000.(stand corrected on that) So a similar and mirrored NSL3, as rumoured, would create a 59,400 capacity, 600 sort of 60,000.

In all honesty the Etihad and our growing fan base needs a bigger capacity than 60,000. I’d be happy to see a NSL2, 10,000 capacity expansion, taking the Etihad capacity to circa 63,000, and in the process creating in a pretty decent 2 tiered stand and home end.

*Admittedly I’m banding new capacity figures about which are pie in the sky.

The club proposed 6,250 in the SS and NS in their planning application and then, with the added pitchside seating they proposed a maximum capacity of 62,170 (up from 47,670).

Hosting the CL final is irrelevant, when you have the Tottenham Hotspur stadium and Wembley in England we're not getting it. UEFA can make much more from those bigger grounds.

I've said many times, the club references 70,000 in the DAS (Design and Access Statement) from that original application. They've already explored the future East/CB expansion to ensure that works to those stands do not require further amendments to the North and South Stand. The corners are therefore temporary structures that would be amended and tied into any expansion of the East and West where the roof would be amended to follow the pattern with the South Stand - aimed down towards the pitch and capable of provided additional seats. The image I included shows a much bigger provision of seating on the third tiers in the side stands. It's purely indicative at this stage.

They will want to have one of the premier club grounds in England which will be done through capacity and hospitality offering. The ground might not be as good as Spurs' but if it's got top level corporate facilities (which it can have) and has another 10,000 seats compared to Spurs it can compete to a degree. The London market makes it a tough job so we need more overall capacity for both offerings to compete revenue wise I'd imagine.

We'll see what the club comes up with. The fact they're looking at external changes means we need planning permission and they've probably looked at the future for the East and CB stands and hopefully revised the NS proposals to be a two-tiered stand. We know from the work on the training facilities they do their homework. They'll have done all the research they need to. The Tunnel Club was nicked from the Dallas Cowboys iirc. I'm sure they'll be providing something epic for hospitality in the future, and will, if they can provide something epic for your average fan as well. Hopefully that includes a home end - but we shall see.

Talk has ramped up which suggests plans may be out soon. They turned around the last application in about 3 months which, from experience, means they discussed it with the Council through pre-application meetings for quite some time to get them onboard. If we want to start when the arena finishes then that application needs submitting fairly soon. If wider development is taking place then it could mean a longer determination period - a hotel or bars/restaurants etc will have bigger impacts which means more comments/consultation.

 

[andyhinch]

In the grand scheme of things it isn’t important, but having and breaking the 60,000 capacity figure would be nice.

It’s like building a residential tower. Renaker breaking the 200 (201) metre mark at the South tower, Deansgate Square, was great. Building it to 199 metres would have been disappointing. :-)

Disappointing to who ? Can’t imagine many people know the height of a building, agree about the stadium capacity though.

 

[jrb]

Disappointing to who ? Can’t imagine many people know the height of a building, agree about the stadium capacity though.

To people like me and others who have an interest in towers and construction. Other forum members on SSC-MCR will confirm that.

For Renaker to build a 201 metre residential tower in Manchester city centre was a milestone for Renaker and Manchester. It showed Renaker had confidence in the Manchester apartment market. Manchester is the only UK regional city with a 200+ metre (residential) tower.

All 4 towers at Deansgate Square, Great Jackson Street, now 6, which includes the Blade and Three60, 52 stories each, have either sold out of apartments or the BTR/PRS apartments are constantly renting really well. There are rumours of more 200+ metre towers in the pipeline.

It’s a really exciting time for Manchester as regards towers and construction in general.(including the Coop Live Arena) There seems to be no end in towers going up or new ones being proposed.

Or maybe I’m just a sad tower Geek? :-)