Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moggzy said:
I've not misunderstood and the east and west are not part of any further expansion plans, only the north and that is a few years away.
Click to expand...

Thats not right mate. The corners are designed to be pulled down quickly when they do the sides in the future. That's why the corner sections of the new roof are of a slightly different look to the rest of the development.
 
Think the design of corner sections has more to do with allowing "flex" between the old and new roof sections which are each independently supported so will move relative to one another.
 
ManCityX said:
Thats not right mate. The corners are designed to be pulled down quickly when they do the sides in the future. That's why the corner sections of the new roof are of a slightly different look to the rest of the development.
Click to expand...


Afraid not. The corner sections look different to the rest of the new roof as they are the only sections designed to integrate into the existing roof.

They are designed to be permanent
 
tumblr_npulvklZP01u0qii5o1_1280.jpg

View from the top
 
Moggzy said:
Afraid not. The corner sections look different to the rest of the new roof as they are the only sections designed to integrate into the existing roof.

They are designed to be permanent
Click to expand...

The official design documentation says otherwise. Worsley has even just been told the same thing, which can be seen in the original post I quoted.

This isn't a piece of info I made up. I've taken it from the actual document.

You're behind ;)
 
ManCityX said:
The official design documentation says otherwise. Worsley has even just been told the same thing, which can be seen in the original post I quoted.

This isn't a piece of info I made up. I've taken it from the actual document.

You're behind ;)
Click to expand...


No the stage D design report said so. The signed off structural design by severfield utilises a different approach as populous's concept wasn't structurally viable

Severfield are the roof manufacturers and co-structural engineers
Populous are the architects
 
Last edited:
Moggzy said:
No the stage D design report said so. The signed off structural design by severfield utilises a different approach as populous's concept wasn't structurally viable

Severfield are the roof manufacturers and co-structural engineers
Populous are the architects


I am (or may be) the lead planner working on the project - though I can't substantiate that until the 11th Aug (end of contract) ;)

How do you think I got the picture of the inside today :/
Click to expand...
Whilst they are designed to be permanent does that preclude adding additionally to the CB stand and the East stand?
 
Moggzy said:
No the stage D design report said so. The signed off structural design by severfield utilises a different approach as populous's concept wasn't structurally viable

Severfield are the roof manufacturers and co-structural engineers
Populous are the architects


I am (or may be) the lead planner working on the project - though I can't substantiate that until the 11th Aug (end of contract) ;)

How do you think I got the picture of the inside today :/
Click to expand...

Id have thought the lead planner knew about this in the design doc.

image.jpg
 
I do and again - that's part of the stage D design report. Stage D is design development under the 2007 RIBA CODING MATIRX

http://www.architecture.com/Files/R...actice/Archive/OutlinePlanofWork(revised).pdf

It's ok the client at this stage requesting a permanent / temporary structure for future use, but during design development it became apparent that it wasn't possible due to the nature of the existing roof.

That's why it changed
 
Last edited:
So the design had to change but that doesn't mean it is now not possible to expand the cb and east stands, unless I'm missing something? It seems that they have had to put a more substantial structure in the corners which obviously adds cost and complexity but surely that doesn't preclude further development on the sides if the club wish to do so?
 
tailspin747 said:
So the design had to change but that doesn't mean it is now not possible to expand the cb and east stands, unless I'm missing something? It seems that they have had to put a more substantial structure in the corners which obviously adds cost and complexity but surely that doesn't preclude further development on the sides if the club wish to do so?
Click to expand...


They could - but it's a huge project that would cost a lot of money.

Simply put - there is no way to cantilever the quadrants and remove the lower supporting internal steelwork. The only way would be additional and substantial structural work externally and it would take a long time and cost mega bucks !
 
Moggzy said:
I do and again - that's part of the stage D design report. Stage D is design development under the 2007 RIBA CODING MATIRX

http://www.architecture.com/Files/R...actice/Archive/OutlinePlanofWork(revised).pdf

It's ok the client at this stage requesting a permanent / temporary structure for future use, but during design development it became apparent that it wasn't possible due to the nature of the existing roof.

That's why it changed
Click to expand...

surely the stand would have been designed using the 2013 RIBA regulations and not the superceded 2007 coding matrix and therefore it would be under stage 3 and 4 technical design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top