St James' Park

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

Any way to pin this post btw? It's still the most useful one in here.

[Stifler]

14 minutes ago, Hovagod said:

Absolutely none of that chimes with any of my experiences, but okay.

 

The wor flags folk presumably are season ticket holder aren’t they? And, besides, there’s people in the world who are….falsely claiming to be behind flag displays in football grounds? Really? Are you sure?

There absolutely is a division though, and I’m not saying it most season ticket holders, but there is one.

It was only a year ago when that young lass spent years having a go at fans who weren’t season ticket holders and taking the piss out of them being locked out ended up kicking off at the club because of the Champions League ticket prices, and how she now goes to university, has a part time job, and because mammy and daddy are no longer paying, can’t afford it.

[Jackie Broon]

19 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I get your point although I do think there is benefit in staying closer to SJP and limit the impact on the area. Just went searching for some original posts post takeover from Ponsaelius and saw that we've had this exact conversation before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wandy]

18 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Any way to pin this post btw? It's still the most useful one in here.

This hypothetical illustration is a nonsense too I’m afraid. The “new’ stadium that has been plonked there on Castle Leazes has a smaller footprint even than SJP in it’s current guise, never mind putting a new stadium on there with a much bigger footprint.

[ponsaelius]

It's a paint job I did in about 5 mins, it's not supposed to be to scale or extremely accurate. More trying to show the planning constraints. But that area with a bit of LP is absolutely achievable for a new stadium just as it would have been with the 90s plan.

 

You should be able have a far more 'efficient' footprint with a complete new build than the current SJP - even with a bigger capacity. 

[Kid Icarus]

It has a bigger footprint  It's a mock up of if the Leazes stand size went all the way round. 

 

We're all just posting suggestions anyway but I'd argue that Pons' contribution considering his job is more valuable than most on here. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Kid Icarus

[Stifler]

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

This hypothetical illustration is a nonsense too I’m afraid. The “new’ stadium that has been plonked there on Castle Leazes has a smaller footprint even than SJP in its current guise, never mind putting a new stadium on there with a much bigger footprint.

Yeah, but the first bit which outlines which parts is listed is a good thing to keep.

[ponsaelius]

Somebody feel free to map to scale Tottenham's stadium or Dortmund's into the same space, it'll fit there with some minimal overlap on LP even if you needed to flip it which way or another. 

 

Certainly far more obtainable there than to the north of the ground or in the existing location for various reasons.

[Wandy]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It has a bigger footprint  It's a mock up of if the Leazes stand size went all the way round. 

 

We're all just posting suggestions anyway but I'd argue that Pons' contribution considering his job is more valuable than most on here. 

 

 

It hasn’t. Take some measurements if you don’t believe me.

 

Not saying a stadium couldn’t be put there but it would need a bigger footprint than the one hypothesised in this illustration.

[Stifler]

4 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

Somebody feel free to map to scale Tottenham's stadium or Dortmund's into the same space, it'll fit there with some minimal overlap on LP even if you needed to flip it which way or another. 

 

Certainly far more obtainable there than to the north of the ground or in the existing location for various reasons.

Atalanta’s Mercedes Benz has the smallest footprint of the newer stadium, whilst still having a larger capacity. The capacity for our football there is just over 73,000, so very much where I would expect a new stadium for us to be. It also has a semi-open end behind one of the goal lines.

[Keegans Export]

 

Marvel at my elite MS Paint and Google Map skills

[Jackie Broon]

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

It hasn’t. Take some measurements if you don’t believe me.

 

Not saying a stadium couldn’t be put there but it would need a bigger footprint than the one hypothesised in this illustration.

 

The residential properties to the north West are also a constraint, there will need to be sufficient distance from them not to unacceptably impact on light.

 

But there probably would be layout that would work, with the stadium turned 90 degrees and closer to Barack Road.

[ponsaelius]

God that stadium is ugly mind, can't understand the love for it at all and would hope we don't end up with something like that on the skyline.

 

Have at it with this https://joshuahhh.com/projects/same-scale/#16.49/51.492453/7.450687/54.978340/-1.626496/Satellite

 

 

[Groundhog63]

11 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

Marvel at my elite MS Paint and Google Map skills

That's it. I'm IN

[bigfella]

10 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The residential properties to the north West are also a constraint, there will need to be sufficient distance from them not to unacceptably impact on light.

 

But there probably would be layout that would work, with the stadium turned 90 degrees and closer to Barack Road.

 

I would imagine if we were to build on that site, then the pitch would be below surface level, much like the SoS? That would lessen any right to light impact, surely?

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by bigfella

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Wandy said:

It hasn’t. Take some measurements if you don’t believe me.

 

Not saying a stadium couldn’t be put there but it would need a bigger footprint than the one hypothesised in this illustration.

 

Like the one below for example? As has been said, it's just for illustration purposes but you don't need to measure it to see that applying The Leazes end all the way around SJP means you get a bigger footprint than the current site, that's the exact reason why we can't do it. 

 

 

 

It's absolutely bigger btw

 

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, bigfella said:

 

I would imagine if we were to build on that site, then the pitch would be below surface level, much like the SoS? That would lessen any right to light impact, surely?

 

 

 

 

Maybe lessent a bit but it would still be a factor in how close the stadium can be to them.

[Kid Icarus]

21 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

God that stadium is ugly mind, can't understand the love for it at all and would hope we don't end up with something like that on the skyline.

 

Have at it with this https://joshuahhh.com/projects/same-scale/#16.49/51.492453/7.450687/54.978340/-1.626496/Satellite

 

 

 

 

Done

 

[Kid Icarus]

[Kid Icarus]

and one for our resident toilet bowl fetishists

 

[Miggys First Goal]

36 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

Marvel at my elite MS Paint and Google Map skills

Looks like a damn mothership landed. 

[WilliamPS]

With a new stadium the surrounding areas will have a ring around it, like the emirates, spurs, coms, Olympic stadium etc. The security and safety expectations are much higher and so the land area needed will be much bigger then the pitch and stands footprint 

[NSG]

I’d love a design to be San Siro style. Someone shop that in  

[Stifler]

8 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

and one for our resident toilet bowl fetishists

 

I’m sure Spurs’ stadium is larger than the Mercedes Benz stadium.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

With a new stadium the surrounding areas will have a ring around it, like the emirates, spurs, coms, Olympic stadium etc. The security and safety expectations are much higher and so the land area needed will be much bigger then the pitch and stands footprint 

Spurs’ doesn’t, however they do close off the nearby roads.