East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I thought there were plans to have 648 "premium seats" somewhere on the expanded second tier. I know they aren't boxes but thought they would be used to house those currently in the north stand boxes.
North Stand Construction Discussion
- Thread starter awest
- Start date
Without repeating the full loop, as it has been done to death, premium seats is probably the best way of describing them.
What I will add is, I keep mentioning the spacing and density, which to me is more pertinent to the noise and atmosphere, than the price point. That block of 648 premium seats is at 480mm spacing, the same as the whole rest of the 'basic' seating in the stand. IF you were to apply the 550 spacing which is what the other hospitality areas are, to that area alone, it would work out as 534 seats. That's not allowing any room for boxing it off, which other hospitality areas have, which brings it under 500, for the same zone. Which, I would agree, WOULD meaningfully affect the stand the look the noise and the atmosphere.
To me, it is clear that the middle area is not the same as other hospitality areas it is being readily compared to, let alone the tunnel club or true corporate.
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I made that point ages ago and you can add Newcastle, Everton, Villa and several others to that list.
But city fans were either side of the visitors at Maine Road (once the Kippax was rebuilt and it's what several groups wanted when we moved grounds. - Whether that was a genuine desire for continuity or a worry that the family stand was going to be too sanitised is another matter.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,204
- Team supported
- Manchester City
For those posters who are saying that the expanded NS should be all safe standing I'd ask if they actually think that there are 8000 people who would fill it on that basis?
I'm not at all sure there would be.
I'm not at all sure there would be.
There would be if it was priced right.
wolfie1988
Well-Known Member
For me, this is the thing. City price the family stand lower than the current "home end" or certainly the lower singing section of it.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,204
- Team supported
- Manchester City
It won't be priced anything like SS3 (where I am) for starters and there won't be thousands of new SC holders in there either. I can see further parts of L2 being made hospitality and existing SC holders being given first choice for the new NS (as happened with SS3). Most of it will be relocations of existing SC holders who also fancy a move and GA.
This might be worth a bump for those still interested in the hospitality bit that's not hospitality. ;-)
In the early specs it was called the Players Club, I'll try and see if i can find any references to it in any of the more recent docs. There may be references in the PA too?
Last edited:
Is there not 6000 fans who stand along SSL1 and in blocks 111, 110 and 109?
Disclaimer. I don’t know the individual capacity of the safe standing blocks along SSL1. Or if the fans in block 109 are still standing without the clubs permission.
In answer to your question, yes we could fill NSL2 with safe standing, but I think we all know they club aren’t interested in doing that.
Maybe the club will make NSL1 safe standing after offering the people currently sitting in NSL1 the opportunity to relocate to NSL2 and to other parts of the ground? Maybe? Safe standing on NSL1 is in the PA as a possibility in the future.
We’re all guessing aren’t we.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
What’s the point of building an extended 2nd tier if it isn’t going to be a City End - an end which would need safe standing to get people to even consider moving? If not, they might as well have mirrored the South Stand.
Yes, it is coloured in purple. Yes, it has the word hospitality. As pointed out previously, the occupancy capacity per sqm of that bar is exactly the same as the two bars next to it. Which can access each other at 5 different points. And share the same toilets. It has some high stool seating shown. Therein, the differences end. Take the purple away, and it is literally the exact same bar as the rest of that concourse. As are the seats above it. Again, not exactly some big premium or island of hospitality.
It is indeed noted as a possibility in the future, but there is a touch more meat on that bone than just a loose description. The 480mm seat spacing (sorry, I know) happens to be exactly the spacing of standard safe standing pods/rails. Which means they have set it out that if they ever were to change it, it would make no difference to the escapes, toilet, bar, amenity capacity or the overall scheme as approved. Including the purple bar, were it for example to not be purple any more should the 648 be absorbed into a safe standing tier with no + to it. It is a fairly considered and realistic possibility, is kind of my point.
Again I haven't said any difference. But let's not pretend it isn't hospitality? it's literally called Hospitality.
Although going off other stuff I've just read, it may not be 648 seats there's a bit of conflicting info. But that goes for all info on seats and capacity in the whole stand including safe standing. Hopefully it's all safe standing including the hospitality.
The occupancy in the bar area is for 300 people. (that obviously doesn't mean there's only 300 seats in the stand)
No, the occupancy capacity is not 300 people. Not in the approval, and not by general building standards, which apply here. It is circa 600, don't have the docs to hand now.
People didn't really argue it is not hospitality. But that it is not the type of hospitality people fear.
Plus, you will likely know that that little bit of purple and a different term could well be the difference between planners being concerned over too much offering of one type, and planners being on board with the proposals because they include a degree of variety. On top of the flexibility it offers long term once approved. Bigger picture here.
NSL2 safe standing is also in the PA as you correctly pointed out. I’m more inclined to think the club will follow what the’ve done with SSL1 and make NSL1 safe standing in the future, whilst retaining NSL2 as a seating tier including hospitality seating and ambulant seating. Having x amount of safe standing seats, sorry I don’t know the exact figure, of City fans standing behind each goal on SSL1 and NSL1 would be a positive move in my opinion. Given time both L1 ends could become vocal along with NSL2.
Dodge
Well-Known Member
That's where the club have fucked up. If they'd announced 50% padded, then entered into discussions with fan groups, surveyed the members, listened to stakeholders and ended up with a negotiated 7%, we'd be dancing round the tables, championing a great victory for the common man and moving en-masse to the North Stand.
Piece of piss this CEO stuff.
Its specifically detailed in the specs as having an occupancy of 300, Room occupancy levels are key to a design and build contractor putting in the services, if they are fundamentally wrong its likely the design of services will be wrong (MVHR, etc), there will be give but it will be approx 20%.
Last edited:
Maybe after consultating the fans they will remove the padding off the 648 seats, and offset it by changing 1000 seats in the east/west stands to hospitality instead. And have everyone dancing round the tables etc.
That's not how it works. Specs don't override standards. And that's not what is approved either. They will build it to the maximum capacity, the club (or any operator) may choose to limit it thereafter, but it has to meet the standards, which define the occupancy. Which will always be there.