Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 How can it be a totally different building when they're going to start building the 60k stadium before they get permission for the extra seats, which could take years? They don't have the go ahead for either ATM, only planning permission to build a stadium up to 60k. They are submitting another request for the 78K, then i guess it goes to the council to accept the final designs, then they start building. This is what SSN's & Rick Parry and some architect have just been banging on about before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 How does it compare to those 'leaked architect' pics the other week? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I'm all for different designs and something special but that thing is just horrendous. Its pig ugly, and has a lot of s*** built on it just to look different, not to do anything or make it a better building. What a load of pretentious American trash. I completely agree. What a mess! Apparently it was re-designed by American architects and like most U.S. sports stadiums, it's just functional and incredibly ugly. Personally i'd be suprised if it gets planning permission in it's current format, since it's in the middle of Stanley Park. I'd be interested to hear what the Liverpool supporters think of it, especially since the original designs were completely different to this. What exactly makes you think it will not get planning permission in it's current format? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 all football stadiums are relatively ugly things. SJP is hardly fucking beautiful, if you take away the fact that our own team play there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I'm all for different designs and something special but that thing is just horrendous. Its pig ugly, and has a lot of s*** built on it just to look different, not to do anything or make it a better building. What a load of pretentious American trash. I completely agree. What a mess! Apparently it was re-designed by American architects and like most U.S. sports stadiums, it's just functional and incredibly ugly. Personally i'd be suprised if it gets planning permission in it's current format, since it's in the middle of Stanley Park. I'd be interested to hear what the Liverpool supporters think of it, especially since the original designs were completely different to this. What exactly makes you think it will not get planning permission in it's current format? Buildings which that kind of impact very rarely do. No building goes from the design stage to actually built without undergoing changes enforced by authorities, complications, time or money. But with a building placed in such a controversial location its even harder. Nevermind what the local council have to say on the matter, you've also got the residents surrounding the grade 2 victorian park living in their listed victorian buildings who if enough object will delay it for years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest trotter58 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Its not an extension, its a totally different building from what i've seen on SSN's. No the 60,000 and 78,000 capacity stadiums are one and the same. They plan to start off with a 60,000 stadium which is what they revealed today and the fill in the currently empty corners to bring it up to 78,000. The reason that they're doing it that way is because they already had planning permission for the original stadium designs (which looked nothing like the current ones) which also had a capacity of 60,000. Personally i think that Rick Parry is being very naive if he thinks that the current plans will quickly be approved just because the initial capacity is the same. It could be a massive own goal because if the plans are rejected, they may have to resurrect the original plans! Whooops! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Its not an extension, its a totally different building from what i've seen on SSN's. No the 60,000 and 78,000 capacity stadiums are one and the same. They plan to start off with a 60,000 stadium which is what they revealed today and the fill in the currently empty corners to bring it up to 78,000. The reason that they're doing it that way is because they already had planning permission for the original stadium designs (which looked nothing like the current ones) which also had a capacity of 60,000. Personally i think that Rick Parry is being very naive if he thinks that the current plans will quickly be approved just because the initial capacity is the same. It could be a massive own goal because if the plans are rejected, they may have to re-surrect the original plans! Whooops! Agh, i've just seen the still pics close up, your right its the same design, just from a different angle. But on the plans on SSNs the 78k is much much bigger physically on the outside, it doesn't just look like the corners are filled in, but again they could of just zoomed although they talked about it and said 'its a bigger and totally different stadium to the 60k' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/2007/edit-0707-STADIUM-in1.jpg That looks steep as owt! No way can that be safe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 What a fucking awful render. It looks like it was done by someone who's acquired a 10 year old copy of 3D Studio Max and an "Idiots Guide" book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 That looks steep as owt! No way can that be safe? The architect on SSN's says it might not comply with British law. It can only be on a 34 degree angle, where in the states they can have up to 38, another thing that might have to be changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I'm all for different designs and something special but that thing is just horrendous. Its pig ugly, and has a lot of s*** built on it just to look different, not to do anything or make it a better building. What a load of pretentious American trash. I completely agree. What a mess! Apparently it was re-designed by American architects and like most U.S. sports stadiums, it's just functional and incredibly ugly. Personally i'd be suprised if it gets planning permission in it's current format, since it's in the middle of Stanley Park. I'd be interested to hear what the Liverpool supporters think of it, especially since the original designs were completely different to this. What exactly makes you think it will not get planning permission in it's current format? Buildings which that kind of impact very rarely do. No building goes from the design stage to actually built without undergoing changes enforced by authorities, complications, time or money. But with a building placed in such a controversial location its even harder. Nevermind what the local council have to say on the matter, you've also got the residents surrounding the grade 2 victorian park living in their listed victorian buildings who if enough object will delay it for years. I know all about the planning process, thank you. I just wanted why exactly he thought it would not get planning permission. They had already received planning permission for a 60,000 capacity stadium in the same location and if Liverpool FC were to move away from the area, which they will do if they don't receive planning permission, it would be a absolute disaster for the local area and local economy. There may well be a few tweaks to the plans before permission is granted, but I'm pretty sure the stadium will get planning permission. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. It could then go to a public enquiry though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 lets not pretend SSN has "FACT" stamped over everything they say/show as 'news.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks quite American, like others have said some glass thrown here and there to look 'modern'. I'm glad we weren't taken over by yanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest trotter58 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I know all about the planning process, thank you. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. Then you don't know as much about the planning process as you think you do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I'm all for different designs and something special but that thing is just horrendous. Its pig ugly, and has a lot of s*** built on it just to look different, not to do anything or make it a better building. What a load of pretentious American trash. I completely agree. What a mess! Apparently it was re-designed by American architects and like most U.S. sports stadiums, it's just functional and incredibly ugly. Personally i'd be suprised if it gets planning permission in it's current format, since it's in the middle of Stanley Park. I'd be interested to hear what the Liverpool supporters think of it, especially since the original designs were completely different to this. What exactly makes you think it will not get planning permission in it's current format? Buildings which that kind of impact very rarely do. No building goes from the design stage to actually built without undergoing changes enforced by authorities, complications, time or money. But with a building placed in such a controversial location its even harder. Nevermind what the local council have to say on the matter, you've also got the residents surrounding the grade 2 victorian park living in their listed victorian buildings who if enough object will delay it for years. I know all about the planning process, thank you. I just wanted why exactly he thought it would not get planning permission. They had already received planning permission for a 60,000 capacity stadium in the same location and if Liverpool FC were to move away from the area, which they will do if they don't receive planning permission, it would be a absolute disaster for the local area and local economy. There may well be a few tweaks to the plans before permission is granted, but I'm pretty sure the stadium will get planning permission. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. It could then go to a public enquiry though. Good for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 That type of shitty sweeping curve along the outside is a decidedly un-american feature. Not that I'd expect you inferiority-complex having limey cuntrags to understand that. By god you insecure motherfuckers go out of your way to link something you don't like to an american in some way just to extrapolate that as though it was something all of the USoA voted on as a whole so you can sit around and jack each other off over tea, pip-pipping and cheerio-ing how happy you are to be ruled by an inbred moncarchy and how silly all those yanks are. Go fuck yourselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I know all about the planning process, thank you. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. Then you don't know as much about the planning process as you think you do. They can't. If a plan confirms to local and national policy contained in Planning Policy Guidelines and Planning Policy Statements as well as Liverpool's Local Development Framework and any adopted local plans then the planners can't just decline the application because it is ugly. Well they could but the developer would win on appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I know all about the planning process, thank you. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. Then you don't know as much about the planning process as you think you do. They can't. If a plan confirms to local and national policy contained in Planning Policy Guidelines and Planning Policy Statements as well as Liverpool's Local Development Framework and any adopted local plans then the planners can't just decline the application because it is ugly. Well they could but the developer would win on appeal. Even when its on listed ground surrounded by listed buildings? The architect seemed to think that could be a problem, am no expert, but he is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I know all about the planning process, thank you. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. Then you don't know as much about the planning process as you think you do. They can't. If a plan confirms to local and national policy contained in Planning Policy Guidelines and Planning Policy Statements as well as Liverpool's Local Development Framework and any adopted local plans then the planners can't just decline the application because it is ugly. Well they could but the developer would win on appeal. Even when its on listed ground surrounded by listed buildings? The architect seemed to think that could be a problem, am no expert, but he is. Then it would be subject to PPG15 and other government guidelines and policy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I know all about the planning process, thank you. Planners can't decline an application because the proposal is ugly. Then you don't know as much about the planning process as you think you do. They can't. If a plan confirms to local and national policy contained in Planning Policy Guidelines and Planning Policy Statements as well as Liverpool's Local Development Framework and any adopted local plans then the planners can't just decline the application because it is ugly. Well they could but the developer would win on appeal. Even when its on listed ground surrounded by listed buildings? The architect seemed to think that could be a problem, am no expert, but he is. Then it would be subject to PPG15 and other government guidelines and policy. So what does that mean for them, could the ground be changed to fit the surroundings better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks more like a rolled up giro from outside! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks more like a rolled up giro from outside! Maybe it will pass through without a problem then! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks more like a rolled up giro from outside! Maybe it will pass through without a problem then! I wonder what the memorial area's like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks more like a rolled up giro from outside! Maybe it will pass through without a problem then! I wonder what the memorial area's like? For the chicken? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Looks more like a rolled up giro from outside! Maybe it will pass through without a problem then! I wonder what the memorial area's like? For the chicken? Well let's face it everythings foul in liverpool! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now