St James' Park

[Rich]

I thought it was just my eyes, but recently got contacts and it makes no difference.

[Chris_R]

Can anyone remember why the Leazes was left so much smaller after the roof was removed?

 

I can't seem to find anything online about why the roof was taken off and, more importantly, why it was left just as a tiny strip of terrace when before it was as large if not larger than the Gallowgate? 

 

Surely they could've removed the roof without making the terracing so much smaller? Surely it would actually be cheaper to do that than to also reduce it in size? It's something I've never understood.

[Guest HTT II]

11 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Can anyone remember why the Leazes was left so much smaller after the roof was removed?

 

I can't seem to find anything online about why the roof was taken off and, more importantly, why it was left just as a tiny strip of terrace when before it was as large if not larger than the Gallowgate? 

 

Surely they could've removed the roof without making the terracing so much smaller? Surely it would actually be cheaper to do that than to also reduce it in size? It's something I've never understood.

They should have built it twice the size…

[bigfella]

8 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Can anyone remember why the Leazes was left so much smaller after the roof was removed?

 

I can't seem to find anything online about why the roof was taken off and, more importantly, why it was left just as a tiny strip of terrace when before it was as large if not larger than the Gallowgate? 

 

Surely they could've removed the roof without making the terracing so much smaller? Surely it would actually be cheaper to do that than to also reduce it in size? It's something I've never understood.

 

The Leazes End roof removal was part of a much grander plan, which (thankfully, in my opinion) never went ahead.

Basically, the East Stand was the first part and the plan was to complete the whole ground in the same design.

The Leazes End was next and after removing the roof and relaying the small terrace, the club ran out of money and left it as it was. 

The finished capacity on completion would have only been about 40,000 or so and that was with standing areas at the front of all the stands.

We would have ended up with about a 25,000 capacity, once all seater stadiums became the requirement.

[Danh1]

Wonder if they’ve removed the Malia nightclub style SD signs from around the tunnel or off the seats in the dug outs. 

[Dancing Brave]

1 hour ago, Chris_R said:

Can anyone remember why the Leazes was left so much smaller after the roof was removed?

 

I can't seem to find anything online about why the roof was taken off and, more importantly, why it was left just as a tiny strip of terrace when before it was as large if not larger than the Gallowgate? 

 

Surely they could've removed the roof without making the terracing so much smaller? Surely it would actually be cheaper to do that than to also reduce it in size? It's something I've never understood.

I always thought it was the police who had influenced the decision. 

 

[midds]

Booked a tour for myself and the boy tomorrow, part of his Xmas presents . I'll have a nose around and take a few pics

[manorpark]

5 hours ago, bigfella said:

 

The Leazes End roof removal was part of a much grander plan, which (thankfully, in my opinion) never went ahead.

Basically, the East Stand was the first part and the plan was to complete the whole ground in the same design.

The Leazes End was next and after removing the roof and relaying the small terrace, the club ran out of money and left it as it was. 

The finished capacity on completion would have only been about 40,000 or so and that was with standing areas at the front of all the stands.

We would have ended up with about a 25,000 capacity, once all seater stadiums became the requirement.

 

In 2010 I wrote a detailed article about the 1972 proposals, that you are describing, over on the Newcastle Forum of Skyscraper City . . . 

 

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/newcastle-as-it-might-have-been.1009531/post-53665235

[MarkyMark]

I’m in the ‘bulldoze it’ camp too.  It’s lopsided and poorly positioned for expansion.  Would have zero issue with starting again, either with a rebuild or a new build elsewhere (preferably Leazes Park).  Personally, I always thought that the John Hall rebuild was a bit of an eyesore - something that has become more apparent as it has aged (and it has aged badly).

 

The attachment to a building which is younger than most people who attend is lost on me - proper ‘ship of Theseus’ stuff, but it’s as much St James’ Park as the current Wembley is Wembley Stadium. 

[NEEJ]

5 hours ago, MarkyMark said:

I’m in the ‘bulldoze it’ camp too.  It’s lopsided and poorly positioned for expansion.  Would have zero issue with starting again, either with a rebuild or a new build elsewhere (preferably Leazes Park).  Personally, I always thought that the John Hall rebuild was a bit of an eyesore - something that has become more apparent as it has aged (and it has aged badly).

 

The attachment to a building which is younger than most people who attend is lost on me - proper ‘ship of Theseus’ stuff, but it’s as much St James’ Park as the current Wembley is Wembley Stadium. 

Hi, 90s kid here. The lopsidedness of SJP is part of its wonder in my opinion. It looms over the city and creates that whole cathedral on the hill thing. It still leaves me in awe when approaching the city. 

 

I love the history of the place, and the different iterations that we've gone through over the years, but I can't fathom why some of our (seemingly older) fans hold no attachment to the current version. Clean it up, (re)modernise it, and bring it right up to spec and I'd be absolutely over the moon. Once that's done let's look at what's next, but I hope that whatever we do, we build on what's already there. 

[Heron]

2 minutes ago, NEEJ said:

Hi, 90s kid here. The lopsidedness of SJP is part of its wonder in my opinion. It looms over the city and creates that whole cathedral on the hill thing. It still leaves me in awe when approaching the city. 

 

I love the history of the place, and the different iterations that we've gone through over the years, but I can't fathom why some of our (seemingly older) fans hold no attachment to the current version. Clean it up, (re)modernise it, and bring it right up to spec and I'd be absolutely over the moon. Once that's done let's look at what's next, but I hope that whatever we do, we build on what's already there. 

100% This. St James' Park, once brought up to date, will be one of the greatest stadiuns in Europe. History, location, architecture (biggest cantilever ceiling in Europe?), and aside from owt else, I don't wanna sit in a half full 80k stadium when the Saudis fuck off. 

[Dr Venkman]

All of that forgetting the actual rectangle of earth that the team have been playing on for over 100 years.

[TheGuv]

27 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

All of that forgetting the actual rectangle of earth that the team have been playing on for over 100 years.

140 years. Crazy 

[RodneyCisse]

5 minutes ago, TheGuv said:

140 years. Crazy 

West End since 1882 which just sounds insane to type.

[Yorkie]

Obviously I don't agree but I do find it an interesting take, just wanting to get rid of it. I'm just programed to assume everyone loves the stadium.

 

I think it has incredible character tbh, precisely because of its 'lopsidedness'. Externally architecturally its got three very distinctive parts, but it isn't hideously incongruous despite the contrast in style between say the East Stand and the Milburn. It doesn't match at all and you would never, ever design it from scratch like that, but there's something about it which just works. Though I appreciate that's probably just my familiarity/bias talking. 

 

New stadiums like Arsenal and Spurs are obviously very impressive and I'm sure I would enjoy them for what they are, but I'd take our uneven expansion over their clinical symmetry every day of the week. For instance, that doctored picture that always crops up (showing SJP with all sides reflecting the Milburn/Leazes) I'm sure would be amazing, but we'd be losing our rough edges and, to an extent, that very visual, tangible and authentic evidence of history and progress. That wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Spurs is ridiculously good mind, it’s in a different league to the Emirates. They’ve managed a super modern stadium but also kept high sides and packed the fans in. Might be the best stadium in the world at the moment. 

[Big Geordie]

I bet no-one misses the old Gallowgate bogs!

 

[Awaymag]

4 minutes ago, Big Geordie said:

I bet no-one misses the old Gallowgate bogs!

 

everyone did, that was the problem!  

[Yorkie]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Spurs is ridiculously good mind, it’s in a different league to the Emirates. They’ve managed a super modern stadium but also kept high sides and packed the fans in. Might be the best stadium in the world at the moment. 

 

Don't doubt you and I'm being fussy for the sake of it really, but I find those several narrow tiers along its longest edges - lit up with continuous digital screens - pretty ugly. 

[Big Geordie]

Just now, Awaymag said:

everyone did, that was the problem!  

 

Not the worse toliets I've ever been in - special mention to Juventus away which was just a hole in the ground. :???:

[bowlingcrofty]

Would hope that one of the ambitions of the owners would be to be able to make the stadium a 5 star UEFA venue so we could compete to host European finals 

[Izakaya]

If SJP ever does move I'd love to see the Angel moved to the hill to replace it. It's wasted being next to the A1. 

[Whitley mag]

I’m sure our new owners could pull something like this off.

 

 

Failing that another old git who’s happy to move to arena site or Castle Leazes.

 

The atmosphere at 36000 St Jame’s under Keegan was something else, however since redevelopment the sound doesn’t carry around the ground. A purpose built stadium with good acoustics and better sight lines than level 7 brings would be my preferred option.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Joey Linton]

2 hours ago, Izakaya said:

If SJP ever does move I'd love to see the Angel moved to the hill to replace it. It's wasted being next to the A1. 

No offence, but this is one of the worst ideas I've ever read.

 

But then I suppose the alternative will be yet another hotel, office block, student site. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Joey Linton

[manorpark]

48 minutes ago, Izakaya said:

If SJP ever does move I'd love to see the Angel moved to the hill to replace it. It's wasted being next to the A1. 

 

An empty hill with the Angel of the North Sculpture stuck at the top of it is about as 'inappropriate' an idea for the City Centre that it is possible to imagine !!!

 

Space is too expensive, too much in demand in the City Centre.

 

It works fantastically well out in a country area next to the A1, it is actually great there to welcome people to (the start of) 'home' if you've been Down South.