Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[squirtyflower]

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 :/

Whilst they are designed to be permanent does that preclude adding additionally to the CB stand and the East stand?

 

[HelloCity]

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 :/

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

 

[tailspin747]

Fair enough, I didn't realise the brief had changed.

 

[HelloCity]

Fair enough, I didn't realise the brief had changed.

Doesn't fit in with what Worsley has just been told.

 

[tailspin747]

I'm not an engineer but looking at the corners they seem to be 'tree like' space frame structures that are totally separate to the other roof sections. That seems a pretty close match to the above. I don't know, we'll wait and see I suppose.

 

[Moggzy]

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

 

[tailspin747]

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?

 

[Moggzy]

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?

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 !

 

[pirate]

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

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.

 

[tailspin747]

So it would be a totally new roof and supporting structure similar to the process employed on the south stand? Can't imagine it would be cheap. Mind you, the south stand must've cost a few pennies to re-develop. Cheers