Jump to content

St. James' Park


The SD signs are no more. What should happen now?   

343 members have voted

  1. 1. The SD signs are no more. What should happen now?

    • The ground should be kept as 'clean' as realistically possible, with any replacement signs erected only in the most subtle fashion, with the most visually prominent sections remaining clear
    • Some significant/large signs would be fine, but not to the same amount/extent as the SD signs - providing that NUFC actually benefits from those revenue opportunities
    • The SD signs can be replaced with something else exactly like-for-like - providing that NUFC actually benefits from those revenue opportunities
    • They own the club, they can do whatever the hell they like, paint it green for all I care
  2. 2. Is it important that the 'Newcastle United' text on the East Stand is changed to something not in the SD font?



Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

People want to move the stadium? I know we cant expand as much as wanted but good god I would't trade having stadium at top of city for the world. Albeit also realise keeps getting fucking blocked off by more and more shit buildings

 

It's not what people want it's what the consortium will require. The revenue for a 70,000 - 80,000 stadium is big compared to 52,000. It's the reason other clubs have extended or planning to extend. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done at St James'

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

Too late for the riverside. The entire plot beside the Arena is just about to get approval for residential.

 

Yes, I posted this link about that earlier in the week . . . 

 

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/quayside-west-ex-calders-yard-site-heliport-site-and-newcastle-arena-future-site-newcastle-various-approved.983200/post-168894560

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robm said:

It's had approval for a while hasn't it? Would imagine it's not an easy site to develop with being industrial. Maybe do a swap.

 

As manorpark has alluded to, city planners were unhappy with original scheme. This have now been revised, and proposals for the site are now moving forward.

 

 

Edited by Turnbull2000

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Am I right in thinking manorpark that the Freemen gave the Castle Leazes site the go ahead in the 90’s, and if Hall had gone the distance it would have then gone to govt planning for approval.

 

Was it not the timescales for planning approval that made them resort to SJP redevelopment ?

 

 

Edited by Whitley mag

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Am I right in thinking manorpark that the Freemen gave the Castle Leazes site the go ahead in the 90’s, and if Hall had gone the distance it would have then gone to govt planning for approval.

 

Was it not the timescales for planning approval that made them resort to SJP redevelopment ?

 

 

 

 

Yes, the City Council had approved it, and (amazingly) the Freemen had agreed to support it. They liked the plans for an enlarged Leazes Park encroaching into part of the land that had been occupied by the football stadium. That (St James' Park) was going to be reduced in size by about 50% of land area, and would have been converted into an indoor arena.

 

Local protest groups had gained support though and would have taken it to a public enquiry. It would all have taken far too long SJH said, so they opted to expand St James' Park instead.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Rich changed the title to St. James' Park
  • Rich changed the title to St. James' Park: SD signage removal underway
  • Rich locked this topic
  • Rich unlocked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...