Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 0:14:35 GMT
Could the memorial stadium be upgraded into a 15,000 seater stadium with retail and conference facilities? Could we replicate bristol city and turn our ageing ground into a modern all seater stadium for the modern age with a view to establishing ourselves as a viable championship team? Now i love my football,all the tactics and stuff and i played for so many years in western league and below that standard football but im not to good at financial and political issues regarding the running of clubs. It worked for city,could the same albeit smaller scale plan work for our club?
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on May 24, 2017 5:07:56 GMT
Well the short answer to that is yes.
Plans were afoot for pretty much that 10 years ago (ish) where planning permission was granted, in process turn pitch 90 degrees, and we had a grant from the football trust.
We were all planning to spend a season at whaddon road for the privilege!
It would be my preferred choice, but i can foresee logistic problems with that idea..
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by harrybuckle on May 24, 2017 6:39:17 GMT
Not a chance. Owners ruled it out too many space restrictions
|
|
|
Post by richmace on May 24, 2017 6:59:51 GMT
Yes. We had planning permission for an 18,500 all seater stadium, and this included an enabling development of student flats within the design.
So, I don't see why you could not design a 20,000 all seater stadium on the site, but it would be tight and there is limited space for other income-generating facilities.
It could be done if needed, I don't think this would happen though.
Me personally, I would love a new stadium at the UWE, but I would also love to see the Mem rebuilt too.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 24, 2017 7:12:21 GMT
It's surely a bit simplistic to say "We can upgrade the Mem" (assuming that is the way we will go - which is as yet unknown) as it then dependent on the supporting plans for any road/transport infrastructure in the surrounding area. Not to mention any objections from the locals. It is already traffic chaos there now in a tight residential area. Increasing that traffic flow will not be seen as a "good thing". I am sure there are ways around it but it's just not as straightforward as we would like to imagine? Not sure about it tbh. Not that I ever go there but my understanding is that around the neighbourhood of our southern inbred friends it is chaos on a match day. On the other hand.....is there ever an easy solution?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 7:31:48 GMT
Being tight for space dictates stadia design which forces the most intense atmoshphere and experience. The more space available, the larger the pitch, the further supporters are from the pitch, the quieter the end result.
|
|
|
Post by richmace on May 24, 2017 7:33:42 GMT
Being tight for space dictates stadia design which forces the most intense atmoshphere and experience. The more space available, the larger the pitch, the further supporters are from the pitch, the quieter the end result. A redeveloped Mem would certainly be a noisy place...
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on May 24, 2017 9:32:27 GMT
It could be along the lines of the Aviva Stadium in Dublin, where they've solved the problem of light to the nearby houses with see-through walls, and Brighton's. There's enough room to replace the East Stand side with a reasonably large stand that could sweep down to lower end stands and up to the height of the current West Stand. Nick a bit of the car park and you could probably get a 20,000 stadium on the site.
|
|
trunky
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 230
|
Post by trunky on May 24, 2017 10:05:17 GMT
I hope this is all pie in the sky,there are several reasons why I think the Mem is not fit for purpose for a club who hope to be playing at a much higher level, I think we need to move into the 21st century with vastly improved facilities right across the board.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on May 24, 2017 10:11:45 GMT
Just a discussion if it ever came to that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 10:19:00 GMT
You just have to wonder what the owners will come up with as a realistic alternative should the uwe project collapse? I think at this stage it would be better and easier if the uwe does go ahead but it seems to have dragged on.
|
|
|
Post by pauljlac on May 24, 2017 12:24:11 GMT
Has everyone forgot about the Sainsbury's planning saga already with all the years of court battles with 'TRASH' and there was 'ROSE' prior to that who were opposing the stadium redevelopment. Unless we kept the stadium capacity to somewhere near the capacity it is now there will be massive protests again and years of legal battles. Unfortunately the only future I can see for the Mem is for it to be sold to a housing developer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 12:29:53 GMT
I think I must have forgotten them. The only court battle I recall was with Sainsburys.
|
|
|
Post by pauljlac on May 24, 2017 12:39:24 GMT
There was no court battle with "ROSE" (Residents Opposed to Stadium Expansion), but with success that TRASH had and increased judicial review powers I'm certain we would be on a hiding to nothing and I'm sure the Al-Qadi's are smart enough to know that too.
|
|
|
Post by richmace on May 24, 2017 20:38:22 GMT
It is important to note that all the "local" protests ultimately failed and planning permission was granted. There is no reason why a new planning application would be refused.
I am not sure that much can be done with regards to local infrastructure, even the UWE is in a horrendous traffic location. Ashton Gate got planning permission with no new infrastructure.
I do feel this is simply a theoretical discussion between fans, and the Mem will not be rebuilt. It is definitely possible though, and there is some merit to the idea.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on May 24, 2017 22:01:56 GMT
It is important to note that all the "local" protests ultimately failed and planning permission was granted. There is no reason why a new planning application would be refused. I am not sure that much can be done with regards to local infrastructure, even the UWE is in a horrendous traffic location. Ashton Gate got planning permission with no new infrastructure. I do feel this is simply a theoretical discussion between fans, and the Mem will not be rebuilt. It is definitely possible though, and there is some merit to the idea. I so wanna agree with you. Unfortunately there is infrastructure in form of long Ashton bypass and the metro system, for them. Transport logistics of getting basically potentially double the amount of people in and out of the Mem, when there is nothing to offer in restructuring roads, would present a problem. It's so unfortunate that as desirable a location the Mem is for the community, that is it's downfall - you can't amend Glos Rd, Filton Ave or Muller Rd.. I'm sure we would fail on that before anything. It's such a shame, but I can't see any way around it.
|
|
|
Post by richmace on May 24, 2017 23:01:43 GMT
It is important to note that all the "local" protests ultimately failed and planning permission was granted. There is no reason why a new planning application would be refused. I am not sure that much can be done with regards to local infrastructure, even the UWE is in a horrendous traffic location. Ashton Gate got planning permission with no new infrastructure. I do feel this is simply a theoretical discussion between fans, and the Mem will not be rebuilt. It is definitely possible though, and there is some merit to the idea. I so wanna agree with you. Unfortunately there is infrastructure in form of long Ashton bypass and the metro system, for them. Transport logistics of getting basically potentially double the amount of people in and out of the Mem, when there is nothing to offer in restructuring roads, would present a problem. It's so unfortunate that as desirable a location the Mem is for the community, that is it's downfall - you can't amend Glos Rd, Filton Ave or Muller Rd.. I'm sure we would fail on that before anything. It's such a shame, but I can't see any way around it. Yeah, I do agree with the logistics of getting 20K people in and out of Horfield, it is bad enough with 12K. I cannot imagine 8K more people on a regular basis. To be fair, 20K getting in and out of Abbeywood would also be horrible as well. Neither option has the supporting infrastructure. I live in North Bristol and it is a traffic nightmare on the best of days. I agree 100% with you.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on May 25, 2017 5:18:06 GMT
I so wanna agree with you. Unfortunately there is infrastructure in form of long Ashton bypass and the metro system, for them. Transport logistics of getting basically potentially double the amount of people in and out of the Mem, when there is nothing to offer in restructuring roads, would present a problem. It's so unfortunate that as desirable a location the Mem is for the community, that is it's downfall - you can't amend Glos Rd, Filton Ave or Muller Rd.. I'm sure we would fail on that before anything. It's such a shame, but I can't see any way around it. Yeah, I do agree with the logistics of getting 20K people in and out of Horfield, it is bad enough with 12K. I cannot imagine 8K more people on a regular basis. To be fair, 20K getting in and out of Abbeywood would also be horrible as well. Neither option has the supporting infrastructure. I live in North Bristol and it is a traffic nightmare on the best of days. I agree 100% with you. Huh the irony of your reply is I actively campaigned for petition as a teenager when we proposed a move to Stoke Gifford in 80s. It was refused because of traffic concerns on a weekly basis! Now we have traffic concerns not just on a daily basis, sometimes on an hourly basis !! 😠I live in north bris too, and with this pro eco green politically correct council, my point is so many walk to stadium, any change would up the use of car.....i wonder how far it would go to help a football club to say that?!
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on May 25, 2017 7:20:15 GMT
Build a new Rovers ground on some of Horfield Common. Move some of Horfield Common to the Mem site.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 25, 2017 7:43:04 GMT
I so wanna agree with you. Unfortunately there is infrastructure in form of long Ashton bypass and the metro system, for them. Transport logistics of getting basically potentially double the amount of people in and out of the Mem, when there is nothing to offer in restructuring roads, would present a problem. It's so unfortunate that as desirable a location the Mem is for the community, that is it's downfall - you can't amend Glos Rd, Filton Ave or Muller Rd.. I'm sure we would fail on that before anything. It's such a shame, but I can't see any way around it. Yeah, I do agree with the logistics of getting 20K people in and out of Horfield, it is bad enough with 12K. I cannot imagine 8K more people on a regular basis. To be fair, 20K getting in and out of Abbeywood would also be horrible as well. Neither option has the supporting infrastructure. I live in North Bristol and it is a traffic nightmare on the best of days. I agree 100% with you. It seems impractical to have anymore on the Mem site. Even now i beleive the Mem side of Filton Avenue should be one way to ease congestion
|
|