0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Often think how good it would have been to have got the original design built. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a decent stadium for our level, but the one that should have been built looked a step above. Shame really.
Man City did that, but they had the width of a running track to create a lower tier.The cost to create 3 or 4 rows of seats lower would be massive against any potential gain
Quote from: Filo on May 09, 2024, 08:15:20 amMan City did that, but they had the width of a running track to create a lower tier.The cost to create 3 or 4 rows of seats lower would be massive against any potential gainThat stadium was also built with that redevelopment already in factored in, as it was always planned to be redesigned for Man City after the CWG. Probably what should have occurred with the London stadium, but it wasn’t built with that in mind. Building this way when it’s not planned for in advance also impacts sight lines and creates a very shallow raking (somebody mentioned Rotherham’s stadium, but this was built very differently to the KMS due to the physical space available to fit the stadium into, hence a much steeper rake (the maximum allowed in regulation in the UK I believe) and the smaller concourse areas). The way they I see it from what I know about engineering is that to expand the KMS, best case scenario would mean an additional tier on the top of the east/west (increasing the footprint outwards), which would include a significant alteration to the existing roof structure and existing internal infrastructure.Worst case scenario would entail a whole rebuild of that particular stand. I wouldn’t rule this out as the only option to expand it.Either way, it’s a whole load of dough we don’t have.
Any pics of the original design anyone ???
Original was more like a Reebok, KC stadium kind of feel. I somehow like the design that ended up----
this would have been so much better than what we ended up with; must admit, I absolutely despise the keepmoat - it's the fact that to all intents and purposes it has the same profile/section right the way around - gives it the impression of being the absolute cheapest option available at the time, and diminishes the 'tribal' element of having distinct stands which was so integral to OBV and many other 'traditional' grounds - but them i'm just a miserable old git, and I'm sure that many folk are more than happy with what we have and quite rightly so - it does the job, albeit in a rather soulless way...
Except, very rarely as in this Friday, the South Stand is never completely full. Why would you want to expand it?
I think you a sadly mistaken there, there are always empty seats around the edges and at the front
Any extension is probably a million quid or more exercise. If there are plenty of empty seats elsewhere in the ground but the South Stand is consistently full, that is not a business case for an investment of that scale. No CEO or CFO in their right mind would sign off that investment.