North Stand Construction Discussion

Francis Crawford said:
Ok
That’s ur opinion, just for Balance and for the record how would u want a 4 star hotel stuck between a football stadium and a concert Arena in inner City Manchester to look ?

Serious question


For the record I like it and I also think when finished ,will look total acceptable for what it is and where it fits in to the campus overall
Click to expand...

I bloody love the look of this:

IMG_9191.jpeg

Just look at it, superb! Looks exactly like a big vocal stand should look like. Huge steep tier to house a substantial group of fans under a deep roof, nowhere near away fans so will never get moved for Cup games. Mint!

But I think the quality of the buildings that are going up on the external of this fantastic looking stand are not of a similar standard aesthetically.

IMG_0121.jpeg
(And buildings always look better in the renders than when realised.)

Similarly, Co-Op Live is a fantastic looking building. It’s made the stadium look poor in comparison, so you’d have expected the stadium to start to catch up to Co-Op Live so there was an architectural equivalence standard of the two main buildings on the site. But for me the external plan falls short of that.

IMG_0120.jpeg

Plus from the outside it will hide the stadium too much/won’t look like a football stadium.

IMG_0122.jpeg

If the hotel had been built where I’ve highlighted in yellow/blue/pink here, it wouldn’t matter how it looked because it wouldn’t be part of the stadium:

IMG_0118.jpeg

But it is literally going to be part of the stadium, so it does matter how good it looks. There aren’t many new hotels in Manchester or in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking, which makes the idea of having it as part of the stadium daft.

That’s just my take on it all.

There’ll be others who think the opposite; they may not like the architecture of Co-Op Live but like the North Stand external buildings. There’ll be others who like both. There’ll be others who like neither. There’ll be others who won’t let people have an opinion because it differs from their own and they’ll tell them to support another team because they don’t know how to converse with people properly or they fail to understand that human are capable of both liking or disliking the look of things.
 
Gray said:
Didn't look that windy, they never tried to attach it. Something amiss I think.
Click to expand...
It moved and swayed a fair bit. Tbh didn't look like they had it truly under control. They really must trust the crane operator because the weight and momentum of that thing, if not properly controlled, those dudes up there are getting squished.

The fact they never actually tried to connect it to me suggests more that it was either unsafe to attempt it, or they just couldn't deal with its size and shape. Rather than it being not quite right. Unless it was way way off, and it was that evident without needing to get it any closer.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
(And buildings always look better in the renders than when realised.)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that bit, is just not true.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Depends on the quality of the visual, depends on the quality of the build, depends on the timing and how much is known or resolved when.

I really do respect opinions and people's dislike of stuff and their saying so. Zero issue with that.

But if you or others are basing it on the fact that you anticipate the finished thing to look worse than an in itself a not great render, you might be at least partly off track.

Don't particularly disagree with anything else you said, as such. Well apart from the claim that there aren’t many new hotels in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking.
 
Coatigan said:
Do you happen to know the total number of minutes you have posted, all in, so far on this build since you started doing it?
Click to expand...
88 videos , 1,348 minutes (22.5 hours).

Filmed a whole lot more, today for example i had nearly 3 hours of footage and only ended up using nearly 40 minutes worth
 
Coatigan said:
How windy was it?

There is a fair sway and rock on that piece, in the video. Could be that the conditions werent right to try control a piece of that size hanging off a crane and that's why it was sent back down.
Click to expand...
It wasn't particularly windy, i probably only had a couple of wind warnings on the drone all day.
From what i have heard it simply didn't fit.
 
Coatigan said:
It moved and swayed a fair bit. Tbh didn't look like they had it truly under control. They really must trust the crane operator because the weight and momentum of that thing, if not properly controlled, those dudes up there are getting squished.

The fact they never actually tried to connect it to me suggests more that it was either unsafe to attempt it, or they just couldn't deal with its size and shape. Rather than it being not quite right. Unless it was way way off, and it was that evident without needing to get it any closer.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert but that feels a decent explanation of whats gone on today
 
I was always intrigued how it would fit. On the cap piece, the two rear cross connections are at an angle to each other, so are further apart at the bottom than higher up. But… they have to slot into the spire connections that are also angled, so are a lot closer together at the top then further down. I’m sure a look inside the top cap would explain how they actually connect.

An oversized shoehorn may be needed [emoji6]
 
cpoverview said:
It wasn't particularly windy, i probably only had a couple of wind warnings on the drone all day.
From what i have heard it simply didn't fit.
Click to expand...
I am with you on that, they need to force the back 2 pillars apart to get the widest part of the cap on. The person who designed that must have been aware of the problem.
 
Coatigan said:
I'm sorry, but that bit, is just not true.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Depends on the quality of the visual, depends on the quality of the build, depends on the timing and how much is known or resolved when.

I really do respect opinions and people's dislike of stuff and their saying so. Zero issue with that.

But if you or others are basing it on the fact that you anticipate the finished thing to look worse than an in itself a not great render, you might be at least partly off track.

Don't particularly disagree with anything else you said, as such. Well apart from the claim that there aren’t many new hotels in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking.
Click to expand...

It's going to go off topic again for a bit, but I'll give you and everyone else a perfect example of that. Not that you need an example. You've probably seen that happening on a number of occasions.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
I bloody love the look of this:

View attachment 148909

Just look at it, superb! Looks exactly like a big vocal stand should look like. Huge steep tier to house a substantial group of fans under a deep roof, nowhere near away fans so will never get moved for Cup games. Mint!

But I think the quality of the buildings that are going up on the external of this fantastic looking stand are not of a similar standard aesthetically.

View attachment 148914
(And buildings always look better in the renders than when realised.)

Similarly, Co-Op Live is a fantastic looking building. It’s made the stadium look poor in comparison, so you’d have expected the stadium to start to catch up to Co-Op Live so there was an architectural equivalence standard of the two main buildings on the site. But for me the external plan falls short of that.

View attachment 148911

Plus from the outside it will hide the stadium too much/won’t look like a football stadium.

View attachment 148922

If the hotel had been built where I’ve highlighted in yellow/blue/pink here, it wouldn’t matter how it looked because it wouldn’t be part of the stadium:

View attachment 148920

But it is literally going to be part of the stadium, so it does matter how good it looks. There aren’t many new hotels in Manchester or in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking, which makes the idea of having it as part of the stadium daft.

That’s just my take on it all.

There’ll be others who think the opposite; they may not like the architecture of Co-Op Live but like the North Stand external buildings. There’ll be others who like both. There’ll be others who like neither. There’ll be others who won’t let people have an opinion because it differs from their own and they’ll tell them to support another team because they don’t know how to converse with people properly or they fail to understand that human are capable of both liking or disliking the look of things.
Click to expand...
Got to say that “co-op live” and “architectural “ are not words I would associate with
 
Penders1957 said:
Got to say that “co-op live” and “architectural “ are not words I would associate with
Click to expand...
Each to their own in terms of design but the Coop Live is a simply a black box, the LED display screens at the top could have made it so much better if they had gone the full width of the building.

The Hotel looks functional, just wish there was a little more colour, the whole stadium area is so grey/concrete matching the Manchester skies.

Hopefully the club/council will continue planting a lot more trees around the area once construction is finished.
 
jrb said:
It's going to go off topic again for a bit, but I'll give you and everyone else a perfect example of that. Not that you need an example. You've probably seen that happening on a number of occasions.
Click to expand...
I always welcome seeing and discussing examples. We could find/show countless examples of both.

Which then just shows that it isn't 'always' the case, as if that is a rule of some sort.
Psychedelic Casual said:
I bloody love the look of this:

View attachment 148909

Just look at it, superb! Looks exactly like a big vocal stand should look like. Huge steep tier to house a substantial group of fans under a deep roof, nowhere near away fans so will never get moved for Cup games. Mint!

But I think the quality of the buildings that are going up on the external of this fantastic looking stand are not of a similar standard aesthetically.

View attachment 148914
(And buildings always look better in the renders than when realised.)

Similarly, Co-Op Live is a fantastic looking building. It’s made the stadium look poor in comparison, so you’d have expected the stadium to start to catch up to Co-Op Live so there was an architectural equivalence standard of the two main buildings on the site. But for me the external plan falls short of that.

View attachment 148911

Plus from the outside it will hide the stadium too much/won’t look like a football stadium.

View attachment 148922

If the hotel had been built where I’ve highlighted in yellow/blue/pink here, it wouldn’t matter how it looked because it wouldn’t be part of the stadium:

View attachment 148920

But it is literally going to be part of the stadium, so it does matter how good it looks. There aren’t many new hotels in Manchester or in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking, which makes the idea of having it as part of the stadium daft.

That’s just my take on it all.

There’ll be others who think the opposite; they may not like the architecture of Co-Op Live but like the North Stand external buildings. There’ll be others who like both. There’ll be others who like neither. There’ll be others who won’t let people have an opinion because it differs from their own and they’ll tell them to support another team because they don’t know how to converse with people properly or they fail to understand that human are capable of both liking or disliking the look of things.
Click to expand...
Just a side point, not really that significant to your argument.

Where you have highlighted in yellow, there is another hotel planned there longer term (no.2 below).

1707047905690.png

I would think the club will have actively Wanted a hotel attached to the stand, rather than not really knowing where else to put it. I get your views on the merits or issues with that though.
 
jrb said:
Obviously we don't know if the cap fits or not atm.
But let's just say the cap doesn't fit.
What the fuck do they do then?
How do they get around the problem?
Click to expand...
I just want to know that when it does fit, how is it bolted up, is there some sort of access hatch?
 
Last edited:
Psychedelic Casual said:
I bloody love the look of this:

View attachment 148909

Just look at it, superb! Looks exactly like a big vocal stand should look like. Huge steep tier to house a substantial group of fans under a deep roof, nowhere near away fans so will never get moved for Cup games. Mint!

But I think the quality of the buildings that are going up on the external of this fantastic looking stand are not of a similar standard aesthetically.

View attachment 148914
(And buildings always look better in the renders than when realised.)

Similarly, Co-Op Live is a fantastic looking building. It’s made the stadium look poor in comparison, so you’d have expected the stadium to start to catch up to Co-Op Live so there was an architectural equivalence standard of the two main buildings on the site. But for me the external plan falls short of that.

View attachment 148911

Plus from the outside it will hide the stadium too much/won’t look like a football stadium.

View attachment 148922

If the hotel had been built where I’ve highlighted in yellow/blue/pink here, it wouldn’t matter how it looked because it wouldn’t be part of the stadium:

View attachment 148920

But it is literally going to be part of the stadium, so it does matter how good it looks. There aren’t many new hotels in Manchester or in Britain that are particularly architecturally good looking, which makes the idea of having it as part of the stadium daft.

That’s just my take on it all.

There’ll be others who think the opposite; they may not like the architecture of Co-Op Live but like the North Stand external buildings. There’ll be others who like both. There’ll be others who like neither. There’ll be others who won’t let people have an opinion because it differs from their own and they’ll tell them to support another team because they don’t know how to converse with people properly or they fail to understand that human are capable of both liking or disliking the look of things.
Click to expand...
If the hotel was separate from the stadium, no one would discuss the design. Having the hotel as part of the stadium makes it more attractive as a hotel and it makes it possible to create a functional space for fans.
 
Gray said:
I am with you on that, they need to force the back 2 pillars apart to get the widest part of the cap on. The person who designed that must have been aware of the problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah that would be 'not fitting' in a very different sense to it not fitting on because it was built the wrong size as some assumptions might run away with.

I think something that big, that high up, with such varying geometry, was always going to be a challenge to fit.

I had actually previously assumed they would slot it in at an angle pointing downwards.

The two cross connections, don't go as far down as it actually looks on the piers, they seem to stop about a third of the full cross length.

The issue is the same mind you, there will be a converging point to get past. It is just not as extreme as it looks.

Their biggest issue imo is, there doesn't seem to be any way of temporarily propping or restraining that piece while they try navigate it to meet 4 separate points.
 
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