Home Park Redevelopment

[with menace]

After visiting the consultation and having a week to think about the proposal I have come to the conclusion that the main reason for lack of support clearly evident amongst the green army is the lowering of the ground capacity, already slashed over recent decades. Therefore the lack of a proper second tier is the real issue. With this in mind, and also bearing in mind the need to keep the rest of the development (hotel/cinema/ice rink) intact which no doubt makes the whole thing financially viable I have drawn what I believe would be a quite workable solution for consideration here. This would give a full second tier, but maintain rest of the current details. An external structure would be required to enable the columns shown supporting the cantilever roof to be removed but this would fit between the stand and adjacent buildings. No doubt some additional internal space would be required to cope with the additional capacity - wider fire escapes, more toilets etc. - but I would think these could be accommodated. So here it is:

At a guess I'd say this is the original main stand for the Barr design ?
The very one that was planned at the time of the balcony promise ten years ago. If we're goi g for a carv up this had got to be a happy medium neither side should have a problem with.

 

[IJN]

'Side'? Strange comment, we're all Argyle fans aren't we?

 

[esmer]

It's excellent but would there be planning issues with the roof being some 7m higher?

 

[monkeywrench]

I think that design would satisfy everyone wouldn't it? It would also allow for future expansion in one corner and additional seats as already mentioned.

 

[with menace]

'Side'? Strange comment, we're all Argyle fans aren't we?

I often wonder, I really do.

 

[Fergy]

I think that design would satisfy everyone wouldn't it? It would also allow for future expansion in one corner and additional seats as already mentioned.

:thumbup:

 

[greenroberts]

The drawing is simply the current Akkeron design, with a few tweaks to raise the roof to accommodate a full second tier, and some extra steelwork to support the roof without columns obstructing the second tier which would not be acceptable on a modern stadium. My intention was to attempt to show what could be done to achieve an acceptable solution (to me), without massive additional costs, and without effecting the rest of the planned development.
Whilst I don't know the exact height of the existing stand I believe it is in excess of 20m so this would not represent a huge change from what is there already. I believe the issue of planning is probably a red herring, perhaps used to try and justify the "mean" proportions of the current scheme on the table. Considering the existing stand and adjacent life centre building are already tall buildings, and the proposed scale of developments already in the vicinity, given the importance of the development to so many people in Plymouth, and the fact there is already a stand at the same location, it would be very difficult for the planners to reject.

 

[Stuart_C]

Well done roberts. A picture paints.............

It isn't the Barr phase 2 version but it is very similar and demonstrates quite neatly how a 2nd tier can be constructed within a reasonably confined space. The Barr design had a larger extension to the rear of the stand to accommodate the ancillaries such as the dressing rooms, offices, club shop and corporate hospitality and bars etc.

Once again for the unbelievers

Have a look at the time lapse of the Hibs West stand build on link below.

http://www.easterroad.com/easter-road/rebuilding-easter-road/

The similarities between the bottom tier and Phase 1 and the way the second tier is supported would suggest that although not a "modular bolt-on" it could be possible. An expensive possibility only feasible after a trip to the premier league I would venture but possible.

 

[with menace]

Well done roberts. A picture paints.............

It isn't the Barr phase 2 version but it is very similar and demonstrates quite neatly how a 2nd tier can be constructed within a reasonably confined space. The Barr design had a larger extension to the rear of the stand to accommodate the ancillaries such as the dressing rooms, offices, club shop and corporate hospitality and bars etc.

Once again for the unbelievers

Have a look at the time lapse of the Hibs West stand build on link below.

http://www.easterroad.com/easter-road/rebuilding-easter-road/

The similarities between the bottom tier and Phase 1 and the way the second tier is supported would suggest that although not a "modular bolt-on" it could be possible. An expensive possibility only feasible after a trip to the premier league I would venture but possible.

It's nothing to do with 'believing' just that the foundations already in place on the horse shoe are not Sufficient to support an extension. It's made by Barr and its green. The rest is built to a different spec.

 

[jumbo jack]

All of this discussion about the seating capacity of the new stand seems not to take into account that the quoted figures ignore the fact that a certain number of seats will not be available to fans because of the need for directors' seating, broadcasting & press etc. On the basis of 12 press (local, PAFC & visiting journos), 4 tv (2 cameramen, 1 BBC, 1 Sky), 13 radio (3 BBC Devon, 3 Hospital radio, 3 Soccersight, 4 visiting broadcasters), 30 PAFC board & guests, 15 visiting team directors & guests, 6 FA (Ref assessor, visiting scouts & managers), would it be reasonable to assume a necessary allocation of 70-80 seats?

 

[Stuart_C]

Well done roberts. A picture paints.............

It isn't the Barr phase 2 version but it is very similar and demonstrates quite neatly how a 2nd tier can be constructed within a reasonably confined space. The Barr design had a larger extension to the rear of the stand to accommodate the ancillaries such as the dressing rooms, offices, club shop and corporate hospitality and bars etc.

Once again for the unbelievers

Have a look at the time lapse of the Hibs West stand build on link below.

http://www.easterroad.com/easter-road/rebuilding-easter-road/

The similarities between the bottom tier and Phase 1 and the way the second tier is supported would suggest that although not a "modular bolt-on" it could be possible. An expensive possibility only feasible after a trip to the premier league I would venture but possible.

It's nothing to do with 'believing' just that the foundations already in place on the horse shoe are not Sufficient to support an extension. It's made by Barr and its green. The rest is built to a different spec.

w_M, same discussion going on across different threads as this currently talking about the footprint for a satisfactory south stand but.....
The whole "modular build" thing perpetuated by "run by fans" board was bobbins from the outset, but it doesn't mean that there isn't an engineering solution to decent extension outside of the horseshoe, as long as the access road doesn't go in on non-PAFC_Akkeron land

 

[satfan]

I think everybody wanted a brand spanking beautiful new stadium with incredible stands that look just like the one at Hull or the one at Brighton etc. However unfortunately lets remember we can't get a stand like that in this league.

Hull and Brighton were both championship clubs (brighton to be promoted) when they built new stands/new stadiums, we unfortunately aren't, and on current evidence I see no way we will be able to climb the leagues. We have a fairly poor team, we have a board who seem to know little about football, the ambition on the pitch just isn't there, therefore the ambition in the development department also isn't there.

The ground needs to be developed, no question about it, we all wanted something amazing, some beautiful ambitious new scheme which would top Nou camp and the Emirates however as fans, we are living in the past due to the garbage we have served up over the last few years.

People say we are a big club, now this point needs to be addressed, how are we a big club? We have a fairly large stadium, we have a good history, and we have ok crowds. In my opinion there is no such thing as a big club, clubs should be measured on league status and whether they are run well. I add in the 'run well' part as you might misunderstand me and start assuming I believe Crawley to be a good club.

I'm sorry but Cheltenham, Southend, Morecambe, Wycombe, AFCW, Dagenham and even little old Torquay are better than us. What gives us the right to demand huge plans over Morecambe? They are the better football team? Plans should be based on League status.

The current plans proposed by the board are satisfactory and considering where we are in the league, I think we should be darn pleased with the plans. Success on the pitch will bring higher league status, it will bring higher crowds, and with it optimism for the future of the club, until that happens, huge scale premier league plans just aren't credible.

Success on the pitch will bring opportunity off the pitch.

So do we just wait til we're good again and then scurry around building a bigger stadium?

That success on the pitch came in 2003 onwards very good success for Argyle but no new ground developments. I get very frustrated when i hear quotes like 17,500 capacity is big enough where is the ambition, building big brings momentum, bigger crowds more money spent at the club and usually on field success, also Hull's stadium was built when they were in Div3,

 

[jerryatricjanner]

It seems clear that extending the horseshoe is going to be a non starter, certainly at this stage and almost certainly not cost effective in the future to add perhaps 2,000 extra seats. Reading through Mr Brent's Q and A from April last year he states that the new Grandstand will hopefully have a capacity of c.20,000 and WILL be built to facilitate extending the capacity in the future should it be required. It is disappointing therefore that we are looking at a proposal with a 10% reduction on his hoped for capacity of last year. More worrying is the talk suggesting that we are limited in what we can build size/height wise. What has changed in 11 months that even with a lower capacity of 17,000 plus that it cannot be designed to facilitate or make it easy to extend in the future rather than the sole possibility being to knock down and rebuild the Devonport which again will prove to be too expensive. Now is the time to facilitate future expansion surely and for Mr Brent to deliver on what he stated last year?

 

[Monkey Nuts]

It's excellent but would there be planning issues with the roof being some 7m higher?

You may be right, but I'd say that any planning issues resulting from the roof being too high will be unfair, considering that the current Mayflower roof towers above the other stands as it is.

 

[IJN]

The height of the new stand cannot exceed that of the Life Centre.

Would the Barr stand, do that?

Graham Clark has the key, if the access could be sorted out and a top approach could be adopted, the horse shoe extension could be a goer.

The traffic around the new HPP development could be a nightmare unless the access is improved.

The new layout as it stands will result in an accident sooner rather than later and it will get a lot worse. It's not helped by the stupid 'pavement' road they have created.