Etihad Campus, Stadium Development and Collar Site

[stony]

I've been told that a rather hefty bill for land clearance and remediation would have landed on the FA's desk if they had not kept the stadium on the site.

It was for that reason that the FA's hands were very much tied.

It could have turned into a BP/Deepwater Horizon scenario where the bills kept landing with no real cost control possible.

How can you can compare a huge oil spill to remediation works at Wembley ?

It's been a football stadium for years, it wouldn't have cost that much in remediation. We've turned a chemical works into a training ground, there's no way it will cost more than that.

The cost of building in London is extortionate too. You could have built two new 100,000 seater stadiums in Birmingham for what they paid to build it in Wembley.

I wouldn't believe the FA if they told me the sun will shine tomorrow.

 

[fbloke]

I've been told that a rather hefty bill for land clearance and remediation would have landed on the FA's desk if they had not kept the stadium on the site.

It was for that reason that the FA's hands were very much tied.

It could have turned into a BP/Deepwater Horizon scenario where the bills kept landing with no real cost control possible.

How can you can compare a huge oil spill to remediation works at Wembley ?

It's been a football stadium for years, it wouldn't have cost that much in remediation. We've turned a chemical works into a training ground, there's no way it will cost more than that.

The cost of building in London is extortionate too. You could have built two new 100,000 seater stadiums in Birmingham for what they paid to build it in Wembley.

I wouldn't believe the FA if they told me the sun will shine tomorrow.

I thought it was reasonably clear that I wasn't comparing like for like merely saying that they had no definitive cost to work to and therefore the situation meant it was less risky to stay on-site.

 

[Falastur]

I've been told that a rather hefty bill for land clearance and remediation would have landed on the FA's desk if they had not kept the stadium on the site.

It was for that reason that the FA's hands were very much tied.

It could have turned into a BP/Deepwater Horizon scenario where the bills kept landing with no real cost control possible.

How can you can compare a huge oil spill to remediation works at Wembley ?

It's been a football stadium for years, it wouldn't have cost that much in remediation. We've turned a chemical works into a training ground, there's no way it will cost more than that.

The cost of building in London is extortionate too. You could have built two new 100,000 seater stadiums in Birmingham for what they paid to build it in Wembley.

I wouldn't believe the FA if they told me the sun will shine tomorrow.

Several points here:

- We turned a chemical works into a training grounds because we have a lot of money. The FA do not. I've seen it mentioned on the previous versions of this thread back when we were having to do the remediation that we came up against a number of problems, and basically solved them because we had the bank balance to just throw money at the problem and solve it in the optimal way. With less money, they could have bogged down into years of issues.

- If the FA built in Birmingham, they would most likely have to build on old factory space, meaning...a lot of remediation, just like us. Issues that would ramp the cost up over time.

- The old Wembley was built in 1923. They cared a lot less about the condition of the land when they built back then. It's quite possible that they had to clear up a load of problems that did exist in 1923 but lack of technology, lack of understanding and wilful negligence allowed to exist the whole time.

- By and large, the users of this forum despise the FA, the Premier League (organisation, not the actual football), the England national team and London itself, basically for existing. I mean no disrespect, but to put it plainly there's a strong dislike of the capital which means that most people aren't willing to cut organisations based there any slack, even if they claim - perhaps, even if they honestly believe - that they are not that strongly opinionated. It's not entirely a surprise that you wouldn't trust them to tell you the time, let alone to be honest about building a stadium.

 

[Manchester1894]

Other bridge docs:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?100559-dpp-0017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov. ... p-0017.pdf</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?100559-dpp-0014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov. ... p-0014.pdf</a>

 

[jonmcity]

I believe the city of Coventry were willing to give the FA the land for free. A much better place to get to for the majority in the UK than Wembley. It would have been better for half the cost.

- If the FA built in Birmingham, they would most likely have to build on old factory space, meaning...a lot of remediation, just like us. Issues that would ramp the cost up over time.

 

[Falastur]

I believe the city of Coventry were willing to give the FA the land for free. A much better place to get to for the majority in the UK than Wembley. It would have been better for half the cost.

- If the FA built in Birmingham, they would most likely have to build on old factory space, meaning...a lot of remediation, just like us. Issues that would ramp the cost up over time.

Having lived in Coventry for four years while I was at University, I can honestly tell you that anything built there would be condemned from the day it opened. And yes, the irony of my bias against Coventry is not lost on me after speaking about the bias of this forum against London.

To give a more serious answer, though - Coventry has even worse problems with tainted land than Brummingham does. Its outskirts are littered with abandoned, collapsing or flattened ex-car factories which have been crumbling for a generation. On top of that, Coventry has appalling transportation infrastructure, at least as regards transporting thousands of football fans around. I know that the tube trains between Euston and Wembley are overstocked and uncomfortable, but it's better than having to spend two or three hours walking out of the city limits to the location of the stadium.

 

[Anonymous]

Other bridge docs:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?100559-dpp-0017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov. ... p-0017.pdf</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?100559-dpp-0014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov. ... p-0014.pdf</a>

Apologies to anyone who feels this is teaching you to suck eggs, however if you copy and paste one of the addresses in your browser and change the "...0017.pdf" bit to "...0001.pdf" and then "...0002.pdf" etc you get more of a picture of what it is going to be like.

"...0008.pdf" shows trees in big blue planters.

The .pdf numbers go up to 0020.pdf.

The bridge itself looks rather bland and boring in those plans, however I am neither architect nor aesthete so I don't necessarily know what I am on about :)

 

[Ducado]

The Government have been paying developers a subsidy to clear brown field sites, it's an expensive buisiness, especially old gas work sites, but they represent prime development opportunities

 

[stony]

I've been told that a rather hefty bill for land clearance and remediation would have landed on the FA's desk if they had not kept the stadium on the site.

It was for that reason that the FA's hands were very much tied.

It could have turned into a BP/Deepwater Horizon scenario where the bills kept landing with no real cost control possible.

How can you can compare a huge oil spill to remediation works at Wembley ?

It's been a football stadium for years, it wouldn't have cost that much in remediation. We've turned a chemical works into a training ground, there's no way it will cost more than that.

The cost of building in London is extortionate too. You could have built two new 100,000 seater stadiums in Birmingham for what they paid to build it in Wembley.

I wouldn't believe the FA if they told me the sun will shine tomorrow.

I thought it was reasonably clear that I wasn't comparing like for like merely saying that they had no definitive cost to work to and therefore the situation meant it was less risky to stay on-site.

That might be what you wanted to say, but the comparison you used was hyperbolic at best. You could write headlines for The Sun with skills like that.

 

[unexpected item]

Not read the whole bridge specification to see if it's vandal proof, but parts of it look prime graffiti targets for pre derby day rag mischief.