North Stand Construction Discussion

Starr Gate Blue said:
That looks similar to "The Point" at Lancashire cricket ground.
Click to expand...

4D8BDBBC-E1BC-4191-8708-2637528B82AF.jpeg

04-FE7-EF6-2-B78-4540-ADE5-1-F25133405-A5.webp
 
LEXSTARproject said:
View attachment 71260
Click to expand...

Completely clueless tbh. Couldn’t be more wrong about the roof which is supported in exactly the same way as the new south stand roof. The design is completely independent of the old cable net. Having a standard roof support design different to the rest of the stadium would be terrible.
 
Centurions said:
It looks like 2 levels of them above City square, I can't tell if both levels continue through to the pitch side although the windows look high enough. Presumably it's linked to the hotel, perhaps a pricey corporate area?
Click to expand...
I’d be amazed if the hotel didn’t have a restaurant which looks out over the pitch.

Aside from match days, I think they’ll be offering packages for the corporate market where hotel guests have their conference at the ground or hotel, have a dinner overlooking the stadium in the evening, followed by a tour of the museum and trophy room, and then maybe even an event at the Co-op.

Would go down an absolute storm.
 
Definitely looks like a sky view platform from the top/back of the stand with views over the stadium and City Square.

It’s obviously going to be a new hospitality offering maybe linked in to the hotel, although perhaps this could form part of the stadium tour as well.
 
jrb said:
I’ve already stated the club have delivered ‘what the fans wanted’. The club could have quite easily released more detailed CGI’s of the proposal. They have them.

I’ve been to numerous public consultations over the years where that has been done.

The club are asking fans for important feedback on the back of basic drawings with little or no detail.
Click to expand...

There's too much money on this for the club to carry out meaningful engagement mate. Why spend the money on all of those visuals just to give people more to look at and therefore comment negatively on. Better to go through this process, tick the box and then finalise and submit with all the visual information. Design is subjective anyway, and due to the location of the stadium it's not hugely concerning what it looks like. It's the function of it and wider public realm design and benefits that are of interest, plus the impacts which need to be fully assessed. That holds the key to planning permission.

I know we've had this conversation before, but you do whatever it takes to get planning and 99% of the time giving the public sketch images is the best way to go. That creates the perception that things aren't fixed and you're willing to make changes. But that's rarely the case. City aren't going to let people derail their proposals by giving too much information at this stage. It's more about the principle. The main issue is transport. Design could always be better, but generally you're fixed to the constraints/costs you have.

I know you mentioned schemes where they did fully engage but that was because they had to in order to get planning. If they didn't change the design they weren't getting permission so it was forced on them. No developer willingly allows the public to influence proposals unless they have to, because 99% of the time the suggestions cost more money!
 
supercity88 said:
There's too much money on this for the club to carry out meaningful engagement mate. Why spend the money on all of those visuals just to give people more to look at and therefore comment negatively on. Better to go through this process, tick the box and then finalise and submit with all the visual information. Design is subjective anyway, and due to the location of the stadium it's not hugely concerning what it looks like. It's the function of it and wider public realm design and benefits that are of interest, plus the impacts which need to be fully assessed. That holds the key to planning permission.

I know we've had this conversation before, but you do whatever it takes to get planning and 99% of the time giving the public sketch images is the best way to go. That creates the perception that things aren't fixed and you're willing to make changes. But that's rarely the case. City aren't going to let people derail their proposals by giving too much information at this stage. It's more about the principle. The main issue is transport. Design could always be better, but generally you're fixed to the constraints/costs you have.

I know you mentioned schemes where they did fully engage but that was because they had to in order to get planning. If they didn't change the design they weren't getting permission so it was forced on them. No developer willingly allows the public to influence proposals unless they have to, because 99% of the time the suggestions cost more money!
Click to expand...
Supercity you are spot on, but you don't want a carbuncle building
 
HelloCity said:
Definitely looks like a sky view platform from the top/back of the stand with views over the stadium and City Square.

It’s obviously going to be a new hospitality offering maybe linked in to the hotel, although perhaps this could form part of the stadium tour as well.
Click to expand...

Looking out of the sky viewing platform windows at the back of L2, wishing they were in the singing section on L2.(hopefully)

1678105661245.gif
 
jrb said:
Could be a whole level for corporate from the back of the stand/windows, see above CGI, to back of L2 looking out over the stadium and pitch? You’d assume this level would be accessible from the hotel? In the CGI you can see 2 separate levels looking back over the plaza. Under the bottom level you can see the front glazing for the new City plaza.

Level 2.
Level 1.
Glazing for the City plaza below.
Steel, cladding or glazing above the entrance to City Plaza.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's deeper on the exterior view than I thought, perhaps an open balcony (below the 2 visible rows of windows) above City Square at the very least.
 
HelloCity said:
Completely clueless tbh. Couldn’t be more wrong about the roof which is supported in exactly the same way as the new south stand roof. The design is completely independent of the old cable net. Having a standard roof support design different to the rest of the stadium would be terrible.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why Lex decided to screenshot a post from another forum and then post another which explained why the original poster was talking crap.
 
supercity88 said:
There's too much money on this for the club to carry out meaningful engagement mate. Why spend the money on all of those visuals just to give people more to look at and therefore comment negatively on. Better to go through this process, tick the box and then finalise and submit with all the visual information. Design is subjective anyway, and due to the location of the stadium it's not hugely concerning what it looks like. It's the function of it and wider public realm design and benefits that are of interest, plus the impacts which need to be fully assessed. That holds the key to planning permission.

I know we've had this conversation before, but you do whatever it takes to get planning and 99% of the time giving the public sketch images is the best way to go. That creates the perception that things aren't fixed and you're willing to make changes. But that's rarely the case. City aren't going to let people derail their proposals by giving too much information at this stage. It's more about the principle. The main issue is transport. Design could always be better, but generally you're fixed to the constraints/costs you have.

I know you mentioned schemes where they did fully engage but that was because they had to in order to get planning. If they didn't change the design they weren't getting permission so it was forced on them. No developer willingly allows the public to influence proposals unless they have to, because 99% of the time the suggestions cost more money!
Click to expand...

I get your point.

If City had released some good CGI/visuals, ‘which they have’ via Populous, I don’t think that would have led to negative feedback from the fans. On the contrary, good CGI’s are very important and give people an honest picture of what a proposal could end up looking like.

I appreciate for most City fans those basic drawings will be enough to make them take part in the consultation. Job done. They won’t be thinking about CGI’s, models or flythroughs.

As the expansion is at the back of the stadium, unlike the South stand expansion, I don’t think there will be any concerns or objections from local residents. If the Coop Live Arena got planning permission with numerous local objections, I can’t see the North stand expansion not sailing through planning and getting approval.

Do you remember the original St Michael’s tower proposal and the massive fallout about it, which led to a public backlash and a campaign against the tower, and ultimately led to the tower being completely dropped and the architect being replaced? If it wasn’t for the public campaign against the tower, MCC would have given the original tower planning consent. Thankfully the new proposal is absolutely superb.

Apologies, slightly off topic.

Original tower design.

1678107080510.jpeg

CCFDA95C-9ED1-44C6-A824-1A3C2D2819F6.jpeg

New tower design that got planning permission and is being built by Domis construction.

65BECF41-A7B6-4625-9595-58B537C4569D.png

C963D3AC-B25B-4653-996E-FAAF88F4F690.jpeg

In my opinion it’s vitality important that people get to see a true reflection of what a proposal looks like, so they can make an informed and honest judgement about it.

On a positive note. I’m all for the proposal. I know it’s going to look great. And it will be yet another positive game changer for the club and for the fans.
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
What are the vertical panels at the back of the stand? Are they windows? Probably? Are they cladding?

View attachment 71222

When you consider somebody knocked up this image, asking for something similar from Populous showing what the expanded North stand will/could look like isn’t too much to ask for during the consultation phase.

View attachment 71223
Click to expand...
There's an idea to have pole dancing sponsored by Hugh Heffners playboy to keep the City fans eyes forwards when climbing the stairs. It's a health and safety measure nothing more. ;-)
 
jrb said:
Calm down!

Of course that whole view of the Etihad will be obscured, regardless if you can see through the gap in-between the 2 buildings/arms, along with a glazed plaza front, roof, etc. I'm not bothered either way. It progress.

PXL-20230305-111214881-MP-2.jpg


PXL-20230305-112605053-MP-2.jpg


Screenshot-20230305-133649-2.png


Updated construction pictures of the Coop Live Arena to follow on the Etihad Campus thread
Click to expand...
Really appreciate your efforts.
 
jrb said:
I get your point.

If City had released some good CGI/visuals, ‘which they have’ via Populous, I don’t think that would have led to negative feedback from the fans. On the contrary, good CGI’s are very important and give people an honest picture of what a proposal could end up looking like.

I appreciate for most City fans those basic drawings will be enough to make them take part in the consultation. Job done. They won’t be thinking about CGI’s, models or flythroughs.

As the expansion is at the back of the stadium, unlike the South stand expansion, I don’t think there will be any concerns or objections from local residents. If the Coop Live Arena got planning permission with numerous local objections, I can’t see the North stand expansion not sailing through planning and getting approval.

Do you remember the original St Michael’s tower proposal and the massive fallout about it, which led to a public backlash and a campaign against the tower, and ultimately led to the tower being completely dropped and the architect being replaced? If it wasn’t for the public campaign against the tower, MCC would have given the original tower planning consent. Thankfully the new proposal is absolutely superb.

Apologies, slightly off topic.

Original tower design.

View attachment 71288

View attachment 71292

New tower design that got planning permission and is being built by Domis construction.

View attachment 71290

View attachment 71293

In my opinion it’s vitality important that people get to see a true reflection of what a proposal looks like, so they can make an informed and honest judgement about it.

On a positive note. I’m all for the proposal. I know it’s going to look great. And it will be yet another positive game changer for the club and for the fans.
Click to expand...

Ultimately I'm very sceptical about the process, having worked in planning. The most vocal people are those that object. So you show them as little as possible to keep them quiet. Those that will actually use the space/place or buy the houses don't attend the events or comment generally. If you have to change a design to get planning then that's what you have to do. The stack takes a hit and you try to recover that some other way.

Regardless of that, City have probably just not got everything together yet. Looking at timings, they need to get a move on with that planning application. So they're probably finalising everything for that process more than looking to hide the detail from us. As has been said, these guys know how to build projects with a wow factor, and they'll be looking for the building and public realm to be state of the art in order to create a year round venue that gets people to the area spending their money. I don't think we need to worry about the design from that perspective.

As per your other post, I agree that the stadium bowl aesthetic isn't really "lost" by these proposals. You'll get that context from the other angles of the ground where it's more important and as I've said before, you need to feel you're at a purpose built leisure/retail space and not just hanging around a football ground which is why I think this design works quite well. I await the DAS and supporting design images/options to see what else they explored and those other views. I'm sure they'll have done a visual impact to show the before and after and then we can make an informed comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top