North Stand Construction Discussion

bluesmith said:
No. You can buy separately.
Click to expand...

Ah hadn't realised that. Thought they were sold as an entire box.

Guess you risk being ounted in with 11 ithers you don't know or like. Or some galatasaray and real madromid fans.
 
Gordyola said:
City Sq was primary an open area with portacabin, food and beverage outlets with a few seating areas covered with small canopies, the rest was an open area with a stage
Medlock Sq is a covered area for 3000 people with outlets, one being a large City store and possibly other retail outlets in the Commercial Building. On the hotel side are 3 F&B outlets with seats and tables at the stand end is a raised stage and either side a F&B outlet I dont understand the criticism of the architects they have design what will probably be the best fan zone in the PL which will also have multiple uses outside the >28 occasions when football is being played, this will provide additional revenue for the club along with the hotel, museum VT experience and the leased office space I envisage that a sell out gig at the arena could be streamed into the square, its going to be a superb facility for Manchester
Click to expand...
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.

I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.

I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.

I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
 
Coatigan said:
Ah hadn't realised that. Thought they were sold as an entire box.

Guess you risk being ounted in with 11 ithers you don't know or like. Or some galatasaray and real madromid fans.
Click to expand...
In essence I’m sure the club see these bedrooms as more private boxes , and would obviously prefer to sell it on a “complete “ basis but possibly game by game ???
 
Luddite_Blue said:
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.

I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.

I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.

I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
Click to expand...
It will hold 3000 and be covered.
 
Luddite_Blue said:
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.

I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.

I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.

I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
Click to expand...
Not sure it is smaller, City Square was pretty much the bit between the shop and Blue moon cafe with at a guess a couple of hundred bench seats around the tables and the bit between the back of the shop and the stage, plus the small area cordoned off for the Summerbee bar,doubt there was ever more than 3000 sat or stood round those 3 bits,and it was never bouncing,, probably more people waiting around the entrance for the bus.Wasn’t closed in like the new area so seemed bigger,but not sure it was.
 
Luddite_Blue said:
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.

I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.

I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.

I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
Click to expand...

It's not a smaller space. It is a smaller area than the total before the hotel and museum footprint were brought, but as a usable gathering space it is slightly bigger than the public space that was there before. Because it is better organised and the previous one was broken up and interrupted, as a useable space. I did a comparison some time ago, if I manage to find it, will put it up again. It is also covered, has at least one food outlet onto it, and has ample separate toilet provision.
 
There’s a definite shift to making it less City outside of a match day or at least having the option for it to be. The removal of the badge at the top of the stand now seems symbolic. Interestingly I’ve spoke to spurs fans who have similar criticisms of their ground. But if the club think this will make them more money, which will in turn keep us competing I suppose it is what it is. It’s a great option to have, especially if taking kids. Can’t wait to see it up and running. I’ll happily pay for some overpriced noodles every now and then even though I’ll probably be in town or local pre match as usual.
 
Luddite_Blue said:
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.
Click to expand...


Medlock Square has a capacity of 3,000 and it is covered. It will be a much more useable space, all year round, especially in the Manchester weather. From a fans perspective it will be more appealing than City Square. That was a forerunner in English football. Medlock Square will take it to the next level.

City fans will also have the options of the Co-Op Live plus outlets around the stadium.

Others can exercise their preference to go to Mary D`s, the pubs in the surrounding areas, the walkable city centre, Ancoats and so on.

There is no spin, only probably from a luddite. City are providing superb facilities.


Luddite_Blue said:
I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

The majority of fans will be very pleased. They have managed during the construction process. Those that want an alternative can easily find one.
It is difficult to understand your premature conclusions.

Luddite_Blue said:
I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.
Click to expand...

The Platt Lane, Swales and Bullens are irrelevant to the 21st century and a development by the same company that designed Spurs stadium.

Luddite_Blue said:
I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
Click to expand...

Footfall during the week is crucial. Yes, the facilities are aimed at all year round use. Surely that makes a lot of sense.

Some fans loved City Square on a sunny day when there was a decent band on and sometimes special guests. Others didn`t. On a wet day / night it was not much fun. It certainly did not lead to a bouncing collective ready to march into the stadium and roar the team on.

The ticketing strategy is being reviewed and has not been announced.

Very few fans that I know are disconnected. Most are entirely connected. Most recognise and understand that City are now amongst the very best on world football. There are some elements at every club who are less than happy. That will always be the case.

The new North Stand will be large,on one level, visually impressive, dominant and acoustically the best stand in the stadium.
 
I never took to City Square, especially in the wet and cold Autumn and Winter months. When it was lashing down with rain it was a dead zone. The only people there were the presenters and guests under stage canopy, and a few hardy souls under their umbrellas.
 
Bert Swift said:
Medlock Square has a capacity of 3,000 and it is covered. It will be a much more useable space, all year round, especially in the Manchester weather. From a fans perspective it will be more appealing than City Square. That was a forerunner in English football. Medlock Square will take it to the next level.

City fans will also have the options of the Co-Op Live plus outlets around the stadium.

Others can exercise their preference to go to Mary D`s, the pubs in the surrounding areas, the walkable city centre, Ancoats and so on.

There is no spin, only probably from a luddite. City are providing superb facilities.




The majority of fans will be very pleased. They have managed during the construction process. Those that want an alternative can easily find one.
It is difficult to understand your premature conclusions.



The Platt Lane, Swales and Bullens are irrelevant to the 21st century and a development by the same company that designed Spurs stadium.



Footfall during the week is crucial. Yes, the facilities are aimed at all year round use. Surely that makes a lot of sense.

Some fans loved City Square on a sunny day when there was a decent band on and sometimes special guests. Others didn`t. On a wet day / night it was not much fun. It certainly did not lead to a bouncing collective ready to march into the stadium and roar the team on.

The ticketing strategy is being reviewed and has not been announced.

Very few fans that I know are disconnected. Most are entirely connected. Most recognise and understand that City are now amongst the very best on world football. There are some elements at every club who are less than happy. That will always be the case.

The new North Stand will be large,on one level, visually impressive, dominant and acoustically the best stand in the stadium.
Click to expand...
Great post mate
 
jrb said:
Credit Super Stadiums or whoever took the picture?

Whether you like the look or not of the new North stand, the covered Fan zone, the 2 claws, and the hotel externally, it is an amazing transformation from the old North stand and City Square.

View attachment 185583
Click to expand...
It was cheesy as fuck and in dire need of a paint job in the end so I didn’t go for the last few years, but that pic makes me miss City Square. I thought it was an absolutely brilliant addition when it was built, and used to enjoy the build up there with the anticipation of the stadium in the background.
 
Luddite_Blue said:
City Square largely accommodated everyone who wanted to go there whereas if, as seems, Medlock Square is significantly smaller then it will not do so. I do not see how from a fans perspective that can be regarded as some sort of triumph. If Medlock Square was slightly smaller and covered then fair enough, but if its significantly smaller then I think we're being deceived by the architect's spin.

I think a relevant constituency on this would be City fans who used to use City Square and I think amongst that grouping once opened a majority will be disappointed. I hadn't been following this closely but was pretty shocked by the drawings earlier in this thread.

I understand the revenue aspect but Swales new box heavy Platt Lane stand will have brought in more revenue and was much worse than what went before. As an aside the old Platt Lane stand was much better than the Bullens Road stand and it was a travesty that it closed 30 years earlier.

I think it's notable the plans seem to suggest that the outlets will be targeting weekday footfall -what outlets are going to be included? - and with every detail that is revealed this new stand seems to move further away from what it could had been of a bouncing City Square pre game with a coherent affordable ticketing strategy and an atmospheric full Blue Wall stand. I also think if the club had gone down the route of the new stand having the best facilities in the world, a premium being charged for it which was used to subsidise the other stands then that would had been ok. In my view, this chosen middle way is just going to lead to a more disconnected fanbase.
Click to expand...
So how many were in City Sqaure when the weather was inclement? The club are building a sensation facility which on match days will be de facto City Square. There is a screen above the stage which is almost as wide as the building which will feature City content hosted by Natalie Danny etc with City guests Large screens x 3 on the end of each leg will on match day feature City content and probably some on non match day depending upon the events on the day
I doubt there were more than 3k in City Sqaure even on days when the weather was pleasant People also come and go as suits them

Yes, Medlock Square is targeted at none match day audiences and good that it is but, as I said it’s 100% City Square on match days just under 30 or so there are 335 other days in the year to earn income.

I really don’t understand your negativity this will help the financial bottom end of the club and even more so with today’s announcement with I’m sure more to come, employing even more local people in start contrast to the Trafford lot They will also be on more than the living wage unlike some of the rags employed
 
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