St James' Park: "NEWCASTLE UNITED" lettering on East Stand roof being replaced (Official)

[TomYam]

20 hours ago, OpenC said:

Have not kept up with this thread and I'm sure it's been discussed at length (possibly very recently) already but what's the reason that Leazes Park/Castle Leazes moor doesn't get mentioned? It's been getting more and more run down for years and would seem to be the ideal solution, if the existing SJP could be turned into part of a better green area as part of the development. It's not like you'd need to use the whole site if you planned it carefully so there could still be plenty of regular park park.

 

I guess something to do with protected space/freemen/that sort of thing but just wondered. I know they've tried it before but that was getting on for three decades ago and these lot can probably do a better job of explaining the redevelopment than John Hall could.

 

 

 

This is a very realistic alternative/solution and, providing the club has excellent proposals for both stadium and extended park, this would surely be approved as it would enhance the city considerably.

 

Hall's proposals from about 28 years ago involved retaining a reduced St.James's Park as well as building a new stadium. In my opinion that would have been to the detriment of the city - particularly as Hall had a history of promising way more than delivering.

[ohmelads]

You can't buy history, and you can't buy a location like ours anywhere. Once it's gone it's gone. I look at Spurs and I don't envy them at all. I just see a generic, soulless bowl. Aye, it's a feat of modern engineering but it looks like something out of the NFL to be honest, with a roof bolted on. As more clubs go down that route, old stadia become more rare and unique. I'd rather be one of the few clubs that never sold out. In years to come those are the clubs people will envy and I don't know of any with a location like ours right in the city centre and a major part of the city skyline. Surely there is a way to get it to 60K, maybe even 65K, on the current site.

[OpenC]

If they could do Leazes Park though, it is essentially the same place. I know what you're saying about modern vs new design stadiums but they inevitably become anachronisms and millstones eventually, particularly given the development everywhere else in the city taking up more and more space.

 

I love SJP to bits, warts and all, but I wouldn't object to them doing something new in the same venue. I wouldn't actually object to them moving it down to the Elswick riverside around the Arena site, but I'd prefer it to stay where it is.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by OpenC

[prefabtoon]

We cant move from St. James' Park, It would be as unthinkable as moving the Temple Mount. 

[loki679]

I'm alright with moving the Temple Mount tbf

[OpenC]

If you could pick up the whole thing (brick by brick via Beamish, obviously) and move it a mere 400 metres north west so there were no more planning issues around the east stand, would you consider that though?

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by OpenC

[OpenC]

Even in the context of everything we consider the City Centre, and even in the context of Newcastle city centre being very compact and small scale, it'd hardly be a gigantic shift like

 

[OpenC]

And according to OS, the area around the lake in the park is actually 20m higher up so you don't have to stop calling it the cathedral on the hill 

[Kid Icarus]

Have a search for Ponsaelius's posts in this thread, we've gone through the possibilities of it a few times. TL;DR there would probably need to be some sort of land swap.

[Kid Icarus]

On 14/10/2021 at 15:37, ponsaelius said:

This is a rough guide of the conservation and planning constraints (ignoring any construction constraints, ownership or anything to do with the Freemen):

 

Leazes Terrace is as protected as you can possibly get. Grade I listed means you're not going to be able to touch it, incorporate it etc - it's just a non starter. Not only that but you're not going to be allowed to build up or any closer in any way which further impacts upon its historical setting. Its residential use adds to this constraint as any building upwards would result in increased shadowing and loss of light. It's also very unlikely this use could ever be changed - the original use of any listed building is part of its cache and historical significance and any change to this is usually considered detrimental. Particularly because it usually requires internal changes to the fabric (which all need consent). You need significant justification to change the use of a Grade I listed building - proof that it's unviable in current form, that it's going to disrepair etc. Basically that for it's continued survival change of use is the only option - which is clearly not the case here. 

So any extension to the East Stand is basically a non-starter I think. Maybe a whole rebuild, incorporation of safe standing might boost numbers slightly. But probably barely worth it.

Plonking it directly into Leazes Park is also a no-goer. Although this is only Grade II listed - you couldn't just build a stadium right in the middle of it. Its intrinsic historic layout is part of its historic significance. It would also probably not significantly improve the setting of Leazes Terrace.

However - Leazes Park has changed a bit over time since it was first laid out. A proposal on Castle Leazes would likely infringe slightly on the north-west extremes of Leazes Park, but would also see it expanded and enhanced on the site of the current SJP, and would dramatically improve the setting of Leazes Terrace. There's an argument there that any harmful impact to the original footprint of Leazes Park is outweighed by the wider benefits - particularly the setting of Leazes Terrace.

 

 

 

 

 

?

[OpenC]

aye, the land swap thing was what I was getting at when I said the current SJP could probably be reworked as a better green space than the current Leazes Park.  Will have a read though, like I say I hadn't kept up to date with all the arguments

[RodneyCisse]

Imagine Leazes park was just a field which we could purchase man. 

[OpenC]

Aye   Leazes Park is going to rats-and-goose-shit ruin though, and it has been for years now - there may be a conversation to be had on better use of what is currently Castle Leazes, Leazes Park and SJP, is what I'm saying are there no precedents for grade II listed land and building being developed in certain circumstances? London must be fucking full of them

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by OpenC

[OpenC]

On 14/10/2021 at 15:37, ponsaelius said:

 

However - Leazes Park has changed a bit over time since it was first laid out. A proposal on Castle Leazes would likely infringe slightly on the north-west extremes of Leazes Park, but would also see it expanded and enhanced on the site of the current SJP, and would dramatically improve the setting of Leazes Terrace. There's an argument there that any harmful impact to the original footprint of Leazes Park is outweighed by the wider benefits - particularly the setting of Leazes Terrace.

 

Basically this giving up the existing SJP as part of the deal would obviously further improve Leazes Terrace

[Whitley mag]

8 hours ago, ohmelads said:

You can't buy history, and you can't buy a location like ours anywhere. Once it's gone it's gone. I look at Spurs and I don't envy them at all. I just see a generic, soulless bowl. Aye, it's a feat of modern engineering but it looks like something out of the NFL to be honest, with a roof bolted on. As more clubs go down that route, old stadia become more rare and unique. I'd rather be one of the few clubs that never sold out. In years to come those are the clubs people will envy and I don't know of any with a location like ours right in the city centre and a major part of the city skyline. Surely there is a way to get it to 60K, maybe even 65K, on the current site.

A few hundred yards up the road would hardly matter have Spurs really sold their soul ? I could understand if St James was like Fenway Park in Boston and had maintained its character, but let’s be honest it’s changed beyond recognition and I’m not sure it has any character at all. Yes it dominates the city sky line like we all love, but for how much longer with new developments ?

 

An extended Gallowgate in the mirror image of the Leazes will rip any remaining atmosphere out of St Jame’s, the acoustics are fucking awful for creating noise. Level 7 sight lines aren’t favoured by a lot of folk, so not sure staying at St Jame’s and saving our history at the detriment of atmosphere and match day experience is really worth it, when the current place looks like a 3 quarters built new stadium anyway.

[OpenC]

Not sure it has no character at the minute but plenty of folk who remember it being smaller are more passionate about how it used to be 

 

I don't mind it being lopsided but the only aspect of the current stadium I really love seeing is from towards the bottom of Barrack Road where the entrance to the car parks is, I don't think it looks so great from any other angle personally.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by OpenC

[Kid Icarus]

It looks absolutely class from my work (Henry Daysh Building) where you can more or less see inside. I love the glimpse you get of Level 7 from Haymarket and the view of it from Gateshead and Weetslade as well.

[madras]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It looks absolutely class from my work (Henry Daysh Building) where you can more or less see inside. I love the glimpse you get of Level 7 from Haymarket and the view of it from Gateshead and Weetslade as well.

Passing it almost every day I probably take it for granted but you want to hear away fans on the train as it sweeps round on the King Eddy.

[pedro111]

The atmosphere issue with extending the gallowgate could be easily remedied with a singing area/section/stand whatever you want. 6 to 10k toon fans minimum who want to go mental all in the same area would be transformative. Even with no roof whatsoever. This has to be the way forward Shirley.

[ohmelads]

3 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

A few hundred yards up the road would hardly matter have Spurs really sold their soul ? I could understand if St James was like Fenway Park in Boston and had maintained its character, but let’s be honest it’s changed beyond recognition and I’m not sure it has any character at all. Yes it dominates the city sky line like we all love, but for how much longer with new developments ?

 

An extended Gallowgate in the mirror image of the Leazes will rip any remaining atmosphere out of St Jame’s, the acoustics are fucking awful for creating noise. Level 7 sight lines aren’t favoured by a lot of folk, so not sure staying at St Jame’s and saving our history at the detriment of atmosphere and match day experience is really worth it, when the current place looks like a 3 quarters built new stadium anyway.

 

For me a move half a mile or whatever is the least bad compromise. I could live with it, but still sounds like a downgrade from keeping St James'.

 

I don't see why a baseball stadium built in America in 1912 is relevant. That opened three decades after St James'. Are you suggesting Fenway Park has more character and history than St James' Park?

 

Of course St James' doesn't look like it did in 1880, or in 1990. Neither does your Fenway Park, or any other sports site more than a century old. They've all been rebuilt very recently. St James' location itself is much of its character. Are we talking a 60K SJP vs a 65K or 70K to move site? What kind of difference are we talking here - 5K extra seats between the mooted plans? Genuine question. Acoustics are a moot point because until it's built, we have no idea. A lot of new stadia seem to have crap atmospheres. Look at Arsenal and Tottenham, for example.

[cubaricho]

8 hours ago, ohmelads said:

Of course St James' doesn't look like it did in 1880, or in 1990. Neither does your Fenway Park, or any other sports site more than a century old. They've all been rebuilt very recently.

The bones of Fenway are still almost entirely original construction for what it’s worth. It opened the same week the Titanic sunk, fun fact. 

[Whitley mag]

14 hours ago, ohmelads said:

 

For me a move half a mile or whatever is the least bad compromise. I could live with it, but still sounds like a downgrade from keeping St James'.

 

I don't see why a baseball stadium built in America in 1912 is relevant. That opened three decades after St James'. Are you suggesting Fenway Park has more character and history than St James' Park?

 

Of course St James' doesn't look like it did in 1880, or in 1990. Neither does your Fenway Park, or any other sports site more than a century old. They've all been rebuilt very recently. St James' location itself is much of its character. Are we talking a 60K SJP vs a 65K or 70K to move site? What kind of difference are we talking here - 5K extra seats between the mooted plans? Genuine question. Acoustics are a moot point because until it's built, we have no idea. A lot of new stadia seem to have crap atmospheres. Look at Arsenal and Tottenham, for example.

Some old stadia around the world have kept some character, I’d even say Ibrox with its main stand red bricks has real character from the outside. I just don’t see any of that at St James’, it’s a great location and prominent but that’s not character for me.

 

I think with a move we’re talking a 65 to 70k capacity with better concourses, increased hospitality, better views and a new stadium could definitely be built with better acoustics to keep the noise inside. The noise from Spurs single tier stand is quite impressive when they get going and reverberate’s around that stadium.

 

It’s all preferences though as I’ve never been a big fan of St James since the 52k expansion. I compare it to the recent developments at Anfield where the stadium still feels enclosed/intimate and the atmosphere stays inside. I think the Leazes/Milburn look impressive but they killed the atmosphere in the place. The Leazes stand at 36k was just as noisy as the Gallowgate.

 

All opinions though and if I was a betting man I think you’ll get your wish and they’ll find a way to expand St James to around 60k.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miggys First Goal]

Some ideas here. 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11592001/AI-predicts-Londons-stadiums-look-like-future.html

 

Could always do this if people are so determined to stay at SJP. Get some student accommodation underneath and stick a new stadium on top. 
 

 

[nufcjb]

Stick the stadium on top of Leazes Terrace.

[Dr Venkman]

On 26/12/2022 at 02:45, ohmelads said:

You can't buy history, and you can't buy a location like ours anywhere. Once it's gone it's gone. I look at Spurs and I don't envy them at all. I just see a generic, soulless bowl. Aye, it's a feat of modern engineering but it looks like something out of the NFL to be honest, with a roof bolted on. As more clubs go down that route, old stadia become more rare and unique. I'd rather be one of the few clubs that never sold out. In years to come those are the clubs people will envy and I don't know of any with a location like ours right in the city centre and a major part of the city skyline. Surely there is a way to get it to 60K, maybe even 65K, on the current site.

Out of interest, have you been to the new Spurs stadium?