New stadium update...

[bazza76]

What about the 'Kop' signs that are on the outside of the stand at Anfield?

It's no different. The signs are currently on the wall outside the ground and this design is no different.

I think we should brag about it as much as we can. Use it as an attraction, let people be reminded, even from the outside that the famous kop is on the other side of the stand. It is not intended to be a direction sign for regular match goers.

[rushscored4]

Just when I get hold of the elevations I was promised weeks ago AFL go and put everything on their website anyway!

I was right about the twin arches à la Wembley but the shape isn't very potty-like as I had been led to believe.

What I did find out tonight was that there was a 16 man panel to judge the two stadium designs and according to my man at AFL no less than 15 preferred their scheme which has better acoustics and is realistic. Only one person apparently voted for the Texan firm HKS - can you guess who it was?

Now that the architects at AFL have seen the opposition's design it might sound like sour grapes but they've absolutely ripped it apart saying it's very pretty but completely non-functional. It seems that they couldn't put seats in the far corners of the ground because they are more than the maximum 80 metres away from the centre circle. There are other areas that haven't been very well thought out and the underground car park and interior have been sacrificed to shave a lot of the £100m from the original cost of £400m.

As I've said all along, the revised AFL design isn't as radical as HKS Mark II but I like it just as much and it would probably have been a better British football stadium whereas the HKS design wouldn't look out of place as an American football stadium.

[Dhav]

Hicks seems to be running the club purely on his own. What the hell is going on? How the hell does the HKS design get picked when he is the only one in favour of it?

BTW RS4, I still much prefer the HKS design, in spite of what those AFL cry babies say

Thanks for sharing, and Yanks Out!

[bazza76]

Just when I get hold of the elevations I was promised weeks ago AFL go and put everything on their website anyway!

I was right about the twin arches à la Wembley but the shape isn't very potty-like as I had been led to believe.

What I did find out tonight was that there was a 16 man panel to judge the two stadium designs and according to my man at AFL no less than 15 preferred their scheme which has better acoustics and is realistic. Only one person apparently voted for the Texan firm HKS - can you guess who it was?

Now that the architects at AFL have seen the opposition's design it might sound like sour grapes but they've absolutely ripped it apart saying it's very pretty but completely non-functional. It seems that they couldn't put seats in the far corners of the ground because they are more than the maximum 80 metres away from the centre circle. There are other areas that haven't been very well thought out and the underground car park and interior have been sacrificed to shave a lot of the £100m from the original cost of £400m.

As I've said all along, the revised AFL design isn't as radical as HKS Mark II but I like it just as much and it would probably have been a better British football stadium whereas the HKS design wouldn't look out of place as an American football stadium.

people will remember what goes on more on the inside than what it looks like on the outside, we want it as intimidating as possible. This Hicks cunt is pissing me off more and more all the time.

[bazza76]

What I did find out tonight was that there was a 16 man panel to judge the two stadium designs and according to my man at AFL no less than 15 preferred their scheme which has better acoustics and is realistic. Only one person apparently voted for the Texan firm HKS - can you guess who it was?

Any idea who was in this 16 man panel Iain?

[Skullflower]

Just when I get hold of the elevations I was promised weeks ago AFL go and put everything on their website anyway!

I was right about the twin arches à la Wembley but the shape isn't very potty-like as I had been led to believe.

What I did find out tonight was that there was a 16 man panel to judge the two stadium designs and according to my man at AFL no less than 15 preferred their scheme which has better acoustics and is realistic. Only one person apparently voted for the Texan firm HKS - can you guess who it was?

Now that the architects at AFL have seen the opposition's design it might sound like sour grapes but they've absolutely ripped it apart saying it's very pretty but completely non-functional. It seems that they couldn't put seats in the far corners of the ground because they are more than the maximum 80 metres away from the centre circle. There are other areas that haven't been very well thought out and the underground car park and interior have been sacrificed to shave a lot of the £100m from the original cost of £400m.

As I've said all along, the revised AFL design isn't as radical as HKS Mark II but I like it just as much and it would probably have been a better British football stadium whereas the HKS design wouldn't look out of place as an American football stadium.

i don't care where the hks' indigenous aesthetics lie, the afl stadium is disgusting. It is truly disturbing that 15 out of 16 people didn't see it.

Do you have any more details on where hks have made cuts, in order to save money? where are the cars gonna go? i thought it was gonna be hard enough to justify the increased capacity. What indoor facilities have been chopped?

[Dhav]

i don't care where the hks' indigenous aesthetics lie, the afl stadium is disgusting. It is truly disturbing that 15 out of 16 people didn't see it.

I agree with that. I can't understand how 15 out of 16 people could find that design inspiring.

[rushscored4]

Any idea who was in this 16 man panel Iain?

No, I guess it was Hicks and Gillett (senior and junior) and their hangers on, Parry and a few other club officials. If the William G Stewart comment is true then it's further fuel for the stories about a rift between Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid...

[Skullflower]

people will remember what goes on more on the inside than what it looks like on the outside, we want it as intimidating as possible. This Hicks cunt is pissing me off more and more all the time.

all's i'm saying is, this is a ****ing beast







and this is merely decent

[Dhav]

people will remember what goes on more on the inside than what it looks like on the outside, we want it as intimidating as possible. This Hicks cunt is pissing me off more and more all the time.

I think Hicks was always going to be hell bent to pick the HKS design to save some face, especially after the way they heralded the previous design

[rushscored4]

i don't care where the hks' indigenous aesthetics lie, the afl stadium is disgusting. It is truly disturbing that 15 out of 16 people didn't see it.

Do you have any more details on where hks have made cuts, in order to save money? where are the cars gonna go? i thought it was gonna be hard enough to justify the increased capacity. What indoor facilities have been chopped?

I agree with that. I can't understand how 15 out of 16 people could find that design inspiring.

As Bazza will tell you, great architecture is finding the right balance between aesthetics and function within set parameters such as cost. I didn't say that 15 out of 16 on the panel thought the AFL design was the prettiest.

I've no reason to bull AFL up or slag HKS off but I'm told by a professional stadium architect that the HKS design as it stands (no pun intended) is unworkable. Maybe the cynics who say it'll never be built anyway are not as daft as they look...

[Dhav]

As Bazza will tell you, great architecture is finding the right balance between aesthetics and function within set parameters such as cost. I didn't say that 15 out of 16 on the panel thought the AFL design was the prettiest.

I've no reason to bull AFL up or slag HKS off but I'm told by a professional stadium architect that the HKS design as it stands (no pun intended) is unworkable. Maybe the cynics who say it'll never be built anyway are not as daft as they look...

What is unworkable about it? was their previous design as unworkable as this one?

To be honest I'll be amazed if we ever get it built under these two anyway. Ignoring financial concerns there seems to be serious discord at the heart of the club if everyone was against this design yet it got chosen. Is Hicks bullying his way into full control?

[Skullflower]

As Bazza will tell you, great architecture is finding the right balance between aesthetics and function within set parameters such as cost. I didn't say that 15 out of 16 on the panel thought the AFL design was the prettiest.

I've no reason to bull AFL up or slag HKS off but I'm told by a professional stadium architect that the HKS design as it stands (no pun intended) is unworkable. Maybe the cynics who say it'll never be built anyway are not as daft as they look...

unworkable, how?

[Skullflower]

As Bazza will tell you, great architecture is finding the right balance between aesthetics and function within set parameters such as cost.

btw, i think that is exactly what hks have achieved here. they've obviously got a lot more talent amongst their ranks imo.


i'm worried that the afl design is even in circulation, as it may become a back up plan.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

What about the 'Kop' signs that are on the outside of the stand at Anfield?

It's no different. The signs are currently on the wall outside the ground and this design is no different.

Obviously. Let's be honest though they aren't as intrusive as the proposed one on the AFL design, look at the size of them in relation to everything else, talk about big **** off letters. Still at least we won't be giving the stadium a gay moniker like the "Theatre of Dreams".

But it's only a minor detail and it's not the reason I don't like it. Still think it's an idetikit of other grounds. At least the HKS is original.