North Stand Expansion

[jrb]

and jrb's

TBH I don’t often criticise developments or parts of developments unles there is a reason to do that.

Construction mock-ups are a a true and honest visual indicator of what’s to come.

I think the dark grey cladding looks fine on the mock-up. But the white sails, which don’t look like sails, as shown in the PA, look more like white fins, and they don’t look great close up.

They remind me of flat pack white MDF panels you get at IKEA when you take them out of the box.

In my opinion the design and look of the hotel has always been the weak point of the North stand expansion. These white fins will only make the hotel look worse.

Obviously I have no proof, and I could be wrong, which I probably am, but the fins look value engineered, and look as if City are trying to save some money on the sail facade of the hotel.

I’ll have a look at the PA again and see how the sails/fins are described.

 

[Time will pass me by]

The stand, which is much more visible and accessible on the right side.

Thank you. I love the drone footage but your pictures give us a different perspective and incite.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Thank you. I love the drone footage but your pictures give us a different perspective and incite.

Incite what?
;-)

 

[Gray]

Incite what?
;-)

Riot!

 

[Coatigan]

and jrb's

And he has a point.

I have generally been anywhere between positive and reserved on this, I would say. But it is a lot worse than I expected, and my expectations were not that extraordinary.

There is of course a chance that either the club as the client, or the planners, look at that and get it changed. But as it is, imo it is disappointing.

 

[Coatigan]

They look exactly like the basic images in the DAS, which I always thought they would do! Pretty meh, but you don't make any money from ploughing extra into elevation treatments so I never expected anything better personally.

I don't think they do. And it also isn't what has been approved I don't think. Would need to check the wording, but pretty sure the approvals are for 'PPC metal' sails. Not, for two laminate faced compressed-fibre boards face fixed onto a frame with colour matched rivets. Looks like Rockpanel or a similar product. The planners are well within their right to reject this, depending on their pedantry for detail. There is potential there that they warp over time, the edges fray and the fixings at scale overwhelm.

For all we know though, this could be the contractor chancing their arm here, put up a cheap way of doing it, and see if it gets through. The architects may or may not even be on board with it, that happens. If neither the client nor the planners have an issue, then this is what it will end up being. If either do, they will remake them. I know you argued these rarely change, but they do. I've known one to take 6 attempts before being agreed.

As it is, It is poor imo. At such a vast scale, where this is the main look of it, it is not an insignificant thing.

 

[johnny crossan]

And he has a point.

I have generally been anywhere between positive and reserved on this, I would say. But it is a lot worse than I expected, and my expectations were not that extraordinary.

There is of course a chance that either the club as the client, or the planners, look at that and get it changed. But as it is, imo it is disappointing.

Ah well

 

[supercity88]

I don't think they do. And it also isn't what has been approved I don't think. Would need to check the wording, but pretty sure the approvals are for 'PPC metal' sails. Not, for two laminate faced compressed-fibre boards face fixed onto a frame with colour matched rivets. Looks like Rockpanel or a similar product. The planners are well within their right to reject this, depending on their pedantry for detail. There is potential there that they warp over time, the edges fray and the fixings at scale overwhelm.

For all we know though, this could be the contractor chancing their arm here, put up a cheap way of doing it, and see if it gets through. The architects may or may not even be on board with it, that happens. If neither the client nor the planners have an issue, then this is what it will end up being. If either do, they will remake them. I know you argued these rarely change, but they do. I've known one to take 6 attempts before being agreed.

As it is, It is poor imo. At such a vast scale, where this is the main look of it, it is not an insignificant thing.

The planners can refuse them if they're not happy with the look and don't believe they reflect what was submitted. They're supposed to be metal so there's something to push back on. I would anticipate the change is either because of a desire to reduce costs, or a more innocent case of the architect proposing things and then, when it comes to buying the materials, there being a cheaper alternative they deem to give them same visual impression.

Ultimately there are very few people who look closely at architectural detailing. The majority pass by without noticing the details. So it can be a very effective way of reducing costs whilst retaining the general architectural style you've got planning for. In my line of work I spend 50% of my time trying to get approval for cheaper materials than were originally proposed. And I would say I get away with it 90% of the time. But this is a much more significant project than anything I work on, so don't lose hope yet!

It's a large scale project and I don't think the majority of people viewing it when finished will even notice, nor comment on the fins being a different material or how they look. People make very quick judgements on architecture. It's great or it's shit. Not many have an opinion beyond that, and it's all subjective anyway.

 

[Coatigan]

The planners can refuse them if they're not happy with the look and don't believe they reflect what was submitted. They're supposed to be metal so there's something to push back on. I would anticipate the change is either because of a desire to reduce costs, or a more innocent case of the architect proposing things and then, when it comes to buying the materials, there being a cheaper alternative they deem to give them same visual impression.

Ultimately there are very few people who look closely at architectural detailing. The majority pass by without noticing the details. So it can be a very effective way of reducing costs whilst retaining the general architectural style you've got planning for. In my line of work I spend 50% of my time trying to get approval for cheaper materials than were originally proposed. And I would say I get away with it 90% of the time. But this is a much more significant project than anything I work on, so don't lose hope yet!

It's a large scale project and I don't think the majority of people viewing it when finished will even notice, nor comment on the fins being a different material or how they look. People make very quick judgements on architecture. It's great or it's shit. Not many have an opinion beyond that, and it's all subjective anyway.

Spot on with all of that, agree entirely.

Other than, maybe that 'majority of people viewing it when finished won't even notice'.

As you say, significant project, and that is where any pushbacks do happen. There is every chance the client rejects it too, on a £300m investment.

I formed my opinion before reading jrb's comment, and from the timing he would have formed his before reading mine. He has seen it in person mind, and I think his reaction is very telling.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

From biggest floodlights in League 2 at Maine Road to biggest stand In League 2 once we are relegated :-)