St James' Park

[ponsaelius]

38 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That resistance was NIMBYs and Mackems.   Leazes Park remains a perfect solution, for exactly the reasons you’ve outlined.  Perhaps in the days of social media it’ll be harder for those fuckers to stand on Sunderland high street asking for signatures to block it (they were still vastly outnumbered despite those tactics)

 

There's so many advantages to building on Castle Leazes. The council can leverage the application to get obligated improvements in terms of landscaping and public realm on the existing site of SJP and Strawberry Place. You could secure additional tree planting to offset those that would be lost. And you could get improvements to a lot of the existing Leazes Park which could actually do with some TLC and security over long term maintenance. The green argument just doesn't stack up for me - the right scheme can easily be a net benefit in nearly every way.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by ponsaelius

[ponsaelius]

I wouldn't want their stadium but some of the landscaping and public realm around the Olympic Park is absolutely fantastic, particularly now it's all maturing.

 

Whether you go more contemporary or whether you tie directly into the existing Victorian park aesthetic, it could become a fantastic thoroughfare up from SJP Metro to a new stadium.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by ponsaelius

[Whitley mag]

My memory fails me but did Castle Leazes even get rejected, wasn’t it just going to be a long drawn out application that would have been called in, and basically Hall was to impatient and decided expanding would be quicker ?

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Whitley mag

[Pancrate1892]

21 minutes ago, Orphanage said:

Reason to move Number 1 . Wasn't SJP cursed by gypsies ? 

 

Move slightly north to Castle Leazes - lose the curse . 

Most interesting comment so far.

Why did they do that? Were they camped out on the grass and somebody said fuck off we need this land for the new foota team? 

Nee wonder we can't win owt 

[Wandy]

13 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

My memory fails me but did Castle Leazes even get rejected, wasn’t it just going to be a long drawn out application that would have been called in, and basically Hall was to impatient and decided expanding would be quicker ?

 

Yeah, that rings a bell. The club withdrew the bid as they couldn't be arsed with the hassle.

[Whitley mag]

14 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Yeah, that rings a bell. The club withdrew the bid as they couldn't be arsed with the hassle.

Some snippets from the Chronicle-

 

At least 10 possible locations around Newcastle were considered, but it quickly became clear that Castle Leazes on the Town Moor was the only viable option and one which the club, the city council and the Freemen of the City all agreed on.

 

The new 55,000 all-seater venue (with capacity eventually rising to 70,000) would be a rival to Milan’s San Siro and Barcelona’s Nou Camp, while the £90m project would provide the region with a major economic boost and raise the city’s international profile.

 

On a site that was used for cattle grazing, the new state-of the-art stadium, set off with steel and glass, would be sunk eight metres into Castle Leazes at Spital Tongues. It would be a three-tiered bowl, boasting unimpaired views for all fans.

 

The structure of the roof would also echo the city’s most famous landmark, the Tyne Bridge, by having two huge arches.

 

In the event, as we know, there was a furious reaction from local pressure groups, local residents, and environmentalists to the plans - and the new stadium was not be. 

 

After a sustained campaign of marches, protests, letters and petitions against the stadium, and the possibility of a long drawn-out and costly public enquiry, the club reluctantly withdrew its proposals in late 1997.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Whitley mag

[LordJake]

32 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

My memory fails me but did Castle Leazes even get rejected, wasn’t it just going to be a long drawn out application that would have been called in, and basically Hall was to impatient and decided expanding would be quicker ?

 

 

 

Aye, I was working at the city council at the time and it would have be a lengthy process with public enquiry after public enquiry. SJH got impatient binned the scheme and threatened relocation to either a site at the metro centre or a site near Gateshead stadium.

There two main opposition groups, No Business on The Moor and Friends of Leazes Park led by the Indefatigable Dolly Potter, she was like a dog with a bone!

[Checko]

57 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

First thing I’d do is leave a floater in it. 

What? And poison all the sea-horses? Unacceptable.

[Wandy]

12 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Some snippets from the Chronicle-

 

At least 10 possible locations around Newcastle were considered, but it quickly became clear that Castle Leazes on the Town Moor was the only viable option and one which the club, the city council and the Freemen of the City all agreed on.

 

The new 55,000 all-seater venue (with capacity eventually rising to 70,000) would be a rival to Milan’s San Siro and Barcelona’s Nou Camp, while the £90m project would provide the region with a major economic boost and raise the city’s international profile.

 

On a site that was used for cattle grazing, the new state-of the-art stadium, set off with steel and glass, would be sunk eight metres into Castle Leazes at Spital Tongues. It would be a three-tiered bowl, boasting unimpaired views for all fans.

 

The structure of the roof would also echo the city’s most famous landmark, the Tyne Bridge, by having two huge arches.

 

In the event, as we know, there was a furious reaction from local pressure groups, local residents, and environmentalists to the plans - and the new stadium was not be. 

 

After a sustained campaign of marches, protests, letters and petitions against the stadium, and the possibility of a long drawn-out and costly public enquiry, the club reluctantly withdrew its proposals in late 1997.

 

The council will be even more receptive to it this time. And if the club are going to give back the existing site as new parkland then this would surely keep the environmentalists happy too.

[TheBrownBottle]

Surely at this point every has to be aware that the survey was complete bollocks, too?  ‘Renovate or a new stadium at the site of the current SJP’.  Why would anyone have an issue with a new stadium at SJP?  The question is obviously loaded.  

[madras]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Surely at this point every has to be aware that the survey was complete bollocks, too?  ‘Renovate or a new stadium at the site of the current SJP’.  Why would anyone have an issue with a new stadium at SJP?  The question is obviously loaded.  

I'd rather build a new one at castle leazes or the arena site than build a new one at SJP and have to play away for at least 2 yrs.

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

My memory fails me but did Castle Leazes even get rejected, wasn’t it just going to be a long drawn out application that would have been called in, and basically Hall was to impatient and decided expanding would be quicker ?

 

 

 

Correct. The Freeman had voted for it and there was no council objections from the outset. Club was growing that quick the owners decided they couldn’t wait foolishly.

[Dokko]

Could we not go in stages, build 3 sides as close to SJP as possible, then build the final side when its ready. 

 

[madras]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

Could we not go in stages, build 3 sides as close to SJP as possible, then build the final side when its ready. 

 

 

That could get my vote.

[Whitley mag]

6 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Correct. The Freeman had voted for it and there was no council objections from the outset. Club was growing that quick the owners decided they couldn’t wait foolishly.

In a strange way the current owners are now in same boat, redeveloping SJP would be a compromise option which may get us to 60k with compromised facilities.

 

The alternative future proofing the club for generations and building something that would be the envy of most.

 

What really sways me is that I think the East Stand at the very best would end up as some half baked glass construction that would do nothing for atmosphere or character, and we’d still be stuck with thousands of seats in level 7 which feel detached from the rest of ground when it comes to atmosphere and sight lines.

[UncleBingo]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

In a strange way the current owners are now in same boat, redeveloping SJP would be a compromise option which may get us to 60k with compromised facilities.

 

The alternative future proofing the club for generations and building something that would be the envy of most.

 

What really sways me is that I think the East Stand at the very best would end up as some half baked glass construction that would do nothing for atmosphere or character, and we’d still be stuck with thousands of seats in level 7 which feel detached from the rest of ground when it comes to atmosphere and sight lines.

Agree with the final paragraph.

 

If money really is no object and it's feasible, would like to rebuild on the currrent site. Wouldn't object to Castle Leazes or the Arena site either.

[madras]

11 minutes ago, UncleBingo said:

Agree with the final paragraph.

 

If money really is no object and it's feasible, would like to rebuild on the currrent site. Wouldn't object to Castle Leazes or the Arena site either.

And play where for at least 2yrs ?

[TheBrownBottle]

41 minutes ago, madras said:

I'd rather build a new one at castle leazes or the arena site than build a new one at SJP and have to play away for at least 2 yrs.

Likewise - though I don’t think they’re serious re a new ground at SJP, because literally no-one would have an issue with it.  They’re testing the water on a new ground full stop. 

[madras]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Likewise - though I don’t think they’re serious re a new ground at SJP, because literally no-one would have an issue with it.  They’re testing the water on a new ground full stop. 

ME ! I'd have an issue with it because of, guess what, having nowhere suitable to play for at least 2yrs.

[TheBrownBottle]

30 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Could we not go in stages, build 3 sides as close to SJP as possible, then build the final side when its ready. 

 

 

Yep, if permission is granted there’s nowt wrong with it as a solution.  I don’t think permission would be though, as that part of Leazes Park is listed too …

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, madras said:

ME ! I'd have an issue with it because of, guess what, having nowhere suitable to play for at least 2yrs.

Yes, I know - that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m suggesting that they know a rebuild at the current SJP site is not feasible - but they’ve asked the question to test the water.  There is nowhere for us to go for a couple of seasons. 
 

edit: I don’t mean test the water on a SJP rebuild.  That’s not going to happen.  I mean  new stadium generally.  It’s an act of cynicism. 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by TheBrownBottle

[madras]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, I know - that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m suggesting that they know a rebuild at the current SJP site is not feasible - but they’ve asked the question to test the water.  There is nowhere for us to go for a couple of seasons. 
 

edit: I don’t mean test the water on a SJP rebuild.  That’s not going to happen.  I mean  new stadium generally.  It’s an act of cynicism. 

 

 

 

Ah right, got you now?

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

 

There's so many advantages to building on Castle Leazes. The council can leverage the application to get obligated improvements in terms of landscaping and public realm on the existing site of SJP and Strawberry Place. You could secure additional tree planting to offset those that would be lost. And you could get improvements to a lot of the existing Leazes Park which could actually do with some TLC and security over long term maintenance. The green argument just doesn't stack up for me - the right scheme can easily be a net benefit in nearly every way.

 

 

 

Yep, with you 100%.  Soft landscaping of the current SJP - effectively extending Leazes Park - always sounded good to me.

 

John Hall wanted to use the existing SJP for Newcastle / Gosforth Rugby Club when we owned them if I remember right?   Maybe a vastly reduced SJP could be used for the women’s side + youth teams etc

[Dokko]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep, if permission is granted there’s nowt wrong with it as a solution.  I don’t think permission would be though, as that part of Leazes Park is listed too …

 

 

ffs 

[TheBrownBottle]

I still think somewhere like the current arena site would be more likely, particularly for planning approvals etc.  Redevelopment of a run down area while maintaining the city centre element (as well as better access to the better watering holes - imagine walking along from the Quayside to the match?) would be the ideal.  It is closer to Central station too - and I’m aware that it’s further from Monument, but it’s often forgotten that the majority of people from Newcastle live to the west of the Monument station - most can’t actually get a Metro.