Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[supercity88]

Why ? I can see the club asking fans about the expansion or stadium facilities, I can see fans wanting / needing some kind of input.
The campus though will be a purely commercial decision by the club owners and it's partners, I doubt they would base their commercial decisions on what fans want, as they won't be the target customer base, it will be non match day cutomers the club partners for any campus /leisure attractions will be interested in.
It will be more a case of which Hospitality / Leisure companies are offering to occupy or lease Campus land / buildings and deciding from there.

They will ask fans on both elements to tick the box on community involvement. They will have decided already on both the expansion and campus proposals and will release them for a fan consultation in the new year, before claiming they got overwhelming positive feedback, summarising a few concerns (which they'll claim to have subsequently addressed) and then submitting their application.


When you are investing money and want a return, the last thing you do is genuinely ask people what they think because usually it's nonsense or expensive and therefore ain't going to happen.


The decisions will have been made. The campus will be fantastic, I'm sure. No better owners really when it comes to that sort of thing, although transport issues seem unsolveable on the face of it. The expansion...well it would be logical to mirror the south stand and keep things as they are, so that's what I expect. I hope I am wrong on that part though.

 

[jrb]

They will ask fans on both elements to tick the box on community involvement. They will have decided already on both the expansion and campus proposals and will release them for a fan consultation in the new year, before claiming they got overwhelming positive feedback, summarising a few concerns (which they'll claim to have subsequently addressed) and then submitting their application.


When you are investing money and want a return, the last thing you do is genuinely ask people what they think because usually it's nonsense or expensive and therefore ain't going to happen.


The decisions will have been made. The campus will be fantastic, I'm sure. No better owners really when it comes to that sort of thing, although transport issues seem unsolveable on the face of it. The expansion...well it would be logical to mirror the south stand and keep things as they are, so that's what I expect. I hope I am wrong on that part though.

That’s not quite true. But I accept your point, which has been proven often.

The redevelopment of St Peter’s Square. 1 of 5 proposals shown via a public consultation at Manchester Town Hall. The public chose their preferred proposal which was thankfully taken forward by the city council. I’m glad to say I also chose the winning proposal as well. :-)

St Michael’s tower. The public backlash against the original proposal for the tower was huge. The tower was dropped and the Architects were replaced. The city council didn’t come out of the whole sorry episode well.

The public backlash was against this. Thankfully!



Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-scale objections to the Planning Consultation.

10,000 signatures were made against this scheme with 1500 objections. Legal cases threatened and national heritage conservation groups were ready to assist the citizens. Local groups and individuals including Manchester Shield, the Meteor, built-environment specialist Aidan O’Rourke, Councillor Joan Davies and property developer Mike Ingall all provided their criticism of the scheme.

Revised St Michael’s Tower: How Your Objections Will Shape Manchester’s Future

Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-sc…

urbanitymcr.wordpress.com

But as you rightly say, the North stand, City Square Plaza, the City Museum, the City Souvenir Store, and the City Hotel presentation will be a box ticking exercise, a formality, which most City fans, including us, will no doubt support.

 

[LEXSTARproject]

That’s not quite true. But I accept your point, which has been proven often.

The redevelopment of St Peter’s Square. 1 of 5 proposals shown via a public consultation at Manchester Town Hall. The public chose their preferred proposal which was thankfully taken forward by the city council. I’m glad to say I also chose the winning proposal as well. :-)

St Michael’s tower. The public backlash against the original proposal for the tower was huge. The tower was dropped and the Architects were replaced. The city council didn’t come out of the whole sorry episode well.

The public backlash was against this. Thankfully!

View attachment 64010

Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-scale objections to the Planning Consultation.

10,000 signatures were made against this scheme with 1500 objections. Legal cases threatened and national heritage conservation groups were ready to assist the citizens. Local groups and individuals including Manchester Shield, the Meteor, built-environment specialist Aidan O’Rourke, Councillor Joan Davies and property developer Mike Ingall all provided their criticism of the scheme.

Revised St Michael’s Tower: How Your Objections Will Shape Manchester’s Future

Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-sc…

urbanitymcr.wordpress.com

But as you rightly say, the North stand, City Square Plaza, the City Museum, the City Souvenir Store, and the City Hotel presentation will be a box ticking exercise, a formality, which most City fans, including us, will no doubt support.

According to what is written here the biggest bone of contention is the North Stand is a three-tier or two-tier with an expanded second tier, with fans talking about a home end to help create a better atmosphere in the ground

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

They will ask fans on both elements to tick the box on community involvement. They will have decided already on both the expansion and campus proposals and will release them for a fan consultation in the new year, before claiming they got overwhelming positive feedback, summarising a few concerns (which they'll claim to have subsequently addressed) and then submitting their application.


When you are investing money and want a return, the last thing you do is genuinely ask people what they think because usually it's nonsense or expensive and therefore ain't going to happen.


The decisions will have been made. The campus will be fantastic, I'm sure. No better owners really when it comes to that sort of thing, although transport issues seem unsolveable on the face of it. The expansion...well it would be logical to mirror the south stand and keep things as they are, so that's what I expect. I hope I am wrong on that part though.

The same is true of public consultations on all building projects to a greater or lesser extent. It’s not about gathering ideas, it’s about giving people the opportunity to object to the proposals at the planning stage, not after the thing has been built.

I was involved in such a thing a couple of years ago relating to an events venue that was undergoing building work.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

What I would like to see on the collar site is something along the lines of education, technology and entertaining. Something similar to Eureka in Bradford with a feei of a mini Epcot in Florida.
We have technology partners in Silverlake, throw in a few simulator rides, even utilise the gas cylinder, it would fit well as an all year round destination bringing in bus loads of school kids and if you're been to Epcot plenty of adults to.

And without being too cynical, well, go on then, it's a superb idea, especially as the exit has to go through the City Shop and souvenirs turn minds. Moonchester giving presentations of his own planet. or something along them lines.

 

[HelloCity]

The only thing I’ve seen written on here from those who know, is that the expansion will be a 3 tiered stand. Almost nothing about 2 tiers since the development was given the green light again.

It did seem like 2 tiers was definitely the plan at some point since the survey in 2018 had a 2 tier visual and fans were shown a 2 tiered design at fan view events as well.

Perhaps feedback about people not wanting to move forced them to reconsider?

 

[supercity88]

The same is true of public consultations on all building projects to a greater or lesser extent. It’s not about gathering ideas, it’s about giving people the opportunity to object to the proposals at the planning stage, not after the thing has been built.

I was involved in such a thing a couple of years ago relating to an events venue that was undergoing building work.

I'm in the planning game and it's not about giving people the opportunity to object, it's about creating the impression you've engaged and come up with a scheme that addresses concerns. People will always whinge about something, in planning their concerns have to be based on planning policy matters and not just "I don't like it". A consultation helps flush things out. A little tick box survey for people to complete and you can then present the data to show it in a more favourable light. The planning I'm involved in is housebuilding so it's generally 99% negative! I'm fine with people objecting after the thing has been built. The money has been made then. At planning stage objections can cause problems, if they're based on actual planning concerns!

Edit - would add the part below in response to JRB's points. If people are engaged and against something then the Council will have no choice but request changes. It depends on the public benefits as well. If you're building a destination with all the investment in Manchester, the leisure/retail facilities then you're on a good starting point. If you're building apartments where the public benefit is housing and affordable housing plus some S106 obligations, you're likely to be held to account if the design isn't spot on.

 

[supercity88]

That’s not quite true. But I accept your point, which has been proven often.

The redevelopment of St Peter’s Square. 1 of 5 proposals shown via a public consultation at Manchester Town Hall. The public chose their preferred proposal which was thankfully taken forward by the city council. I’m glad to say I also chose the winning proposal as well. :-)

St Michael’s tower. The public backlash against the original proposal for the tower was huge. The tower was dropped and the Architects were replaced. The city council didn’t come out of the whole sorry episode well.

The public backlash was against this. Thankfully!

View attachment 64010

Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-scale objections to the Planning Consultation.

10,000 signatures were made against this scheme with 1500 objections. Legal cases threatened and national heritage conservation groups were ready to assist the citizens. Local groups and individuals including Manchester Shield, the Meteor, built-environment specialist Aidan O’Rourke, Councillor Joan Davies and property developer Mike Ingall all provided their criticism of the scheme.

Revised St Michael’s Tower: How Your Objections Will Shape Manchester’s Future

Today, the development group behind the St Michael’s Proposals has revealed significant changes to their development in the heart of Manchester City Centre, following a public backlash and large-sc…

urbanitymcr.wordpress.com

But as you rightly say, the North stand, City Square Plaza, the City Museum, the City Souvenir Store, and the City Hotel presentation will be a box ticking exercise, a formality, which most City fans, including us, will no doubt support.

No you're quite right in fairness. I missed the big point and that's regarding whether you'll get planning or not! If you're not going to get planning for the proposals you've put forward then you simply have to make a change and the power of objections will force your hand. I deal in much more simple things fortunately!

 

[blueparrot]

The only thing I’ve seen written on here from those who know, is that the expansion will be a 3 tiered stand. Almost nothing about 2 tiers since the development was given the green light again.

It did seem like 2 tiers was definitely the plan at some point since the survey in 2018 had a 2 tier visual and fans were shown a 2 tiered design at fan view events as well.

Perhaps feedback about people not wanting to move forced them to reconsider?

From what I remember the survey a few years ago now had both 2 and 3 tiered options, I think I went for 2 tiered but I've no idea what the concesus was.

 

[HelloCity]

From what I remember the survey a few years ago now had both 2 and 3 tiered options, I think I went for 2 tiered but I've no idea what the concesus was.

There wasn’t an option for that. It did ask about safe standing and affordable tickets though.