New stadium plans include rail-seating

What I don't quite understand, though, having never been to a ground where it was in operation, is this. For whatever reason, you decide to sit down for a while, the people in front remain standing, does this obscure the view of the seated person?

Or is the elevation between rows such that that would not occur, mind you people are all different heights, and the younger generation seem to be gradually getting taller?

Could be wrong.

The figures I have heard before are that 1.5 people could stand in a rail-seating area per 1 person that could sit. It would increase our capacity for Premier League games.

Obviously the European competitions are still against it so we would have to use the seats for that competition.

Google Toffee TV. Those guys have done a great video on it and how it works in Germany.

Hopefully MK & Lyndon don’t mind me posting the link.

I believe though even with rail seating it will not be as good as the past, this is because it's the people who have changed that go to matches as much as the seating.

There were many more younger lads that went and made lots of noise back in the day, they've been replaced by their grandmothers, mothers, aunties.

Link

There's 2 steps, the lower step has a rail for those standing up to lean on, the higher step has seats either folded away or in a seating position dependent on occasion, if the seat is up both steps can accomodate people standing up, else sitting down just one person.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yeh, you are wrong, Rob. For the same area rail seating provides 1.5 x the capacity of seats. Therefore, if rail-seating was installed in both ends of the stadium and each end had a seated capacity of say 8k, then the rail seating would have a 12k capacity, thereby increasing the seated-only capacity by 8k in total.

It's not simply a bar behind conventional seats. Look it up.

There's two steps, one with a seat and one with a rail

Crossed wires me thinks!

I'm a different Rob and shouldn't have answered your post.

I don't actually like crowds and I'm not the tallest guy. I hate going to events such as concerts where I inevitably end up with some 6'5" behemoth in front completely blocking my view even if I'm on a slightly raised step.

The status-quo works for me but I understand it doesn't work for everyone. The video posted by Tommy (#7) is a great demonstration of how it could work at BMD and seems to be a good compromise.

I just hope that Dan Meis has been allowed to create a Dusseldorf-type stadium that creates basic comfort levels for all fans, in either standing or sitting scenarios.

That said, as a fall-back position, I'd love Bramley-Moore to encompass the sheer atmosphere of Celtic Park with its comfortable vertiginous stands from which a noise like thunder flows down to the pitch. It's electric.

I don't believe "standing at matches stopped for very good reasons" at all. It's always seemed clear to me that the enforced move to all-seater stadia was part of the post-Hillsborough "it was all down to out of control football fans" message coming from the authorities.

If lots of people standing together was genuinely a high-risk activity then the all-seater strategy would not have been so specifically targeted at football in particular.

In a side note, that PR manager has an awesome name -- Mo Maghazachi. Sounds like a player we should sign for the right side of our midfield.

My dad, a powerful man stood next to him, placed himself in such a position behind the young man as to relieve the pressure to such an extent that I was able to drag him under the barrier. He was collapsed but within minutes was able to stand again. It was scary, surges were scary, thuggery was scary, but the football in comparison to today was full-blooded. Make of that what you will!

When I look back on it now, it was really dangerous for youngsters in particular so I think the move to all seating is a good thing.

Having said that, I followed Tommy's #7 link and think that the “yellow wall” standing rail system is great for those fans that want it. It wouldn't be too difficult for the club to have a check box in the season ticket application for any fan wanting to stand and eliminate the problem for some fans that Joe identified @ 23.

On a side note, the only time I was really frightened at a football match was coming through the exit tunnel after an FA cup tie at Southport. At one stage, I nearly fell to the ground and I reckon if I had I wouldn't be posting this out 50-odd years later.

Hopefully that 1.5 increase in capacity in these zones means a 33% price reduction compared to seated tickets as well.

Further if Everton do pioneer this in the English leagues, our fans can continue to lead by example and do the club proud.

Saying that, I feel for the Ronnie Corbetts who are 'safe standing' behind the John Cleeses.

A meat pie which first bite the greasy gravy runs down the front of your shirt and a cardboard cup of Higson's brown ale poured the same way as you took the first swig and someone knocked your elbow.

Todays supporters don't know the half of it – you went to the match like a new pin and came home like one of the Town Centre Applejack Club.

Also did anyone read that UNESCO were trying to stop the stadium being built?

I mentioned this on a thread yesterday and my post was removed, however there is link to an article on the matter at the top of the article.

"Did anyone read that UNESCO were trying to stop the stadium being built?"

That's a distorted embellishment about a recent story that UNESCO has 'concerns' about the development of the docks area which 'may have' consequences for the city's World Heritage Site listing.

Link

The BBC report clearly states UNESCO's concerns are for the entire development plans, NOT specifically Everton's stadium build as your post implies.

In response, both Joe Anderson and Peel Holdings, the developers, are quoted in the report as saying the development can go ahead without compromising the World Heritage Site listing.

For balance, in an equally recent report Dan Meis said the stadium will be “unique yet respectful” of Liverpool's Unesco World Heritage Site status.

Link

Gentlemen would roll up an Echo and piss down that, so nobody got wet.

Dennis #26 wholeheartedly agree mate.

Here is an article from 22:30 last night. There ARE concerns that the World Heritage status could go if the development, including the Stadium, do not meet the concerns of UNESCO. (Who didn't give a tom tit about the Echo Arena or the black match box at the Pier Head.)

Gordon is right to have some concerns, I personally think that most of these big outfits are corrupt to their very core and that a brown paper envelope would make all these "concerns" disappear. You only have to look at Qatar buying the World Cup for recent evidence of corruption.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-brink-losing-world-heritage-16497155

Completely agree with you, Stan.

If at Hillsborough all of the gates, barriers, locks etc been properly designed for all eventualities and the staff properly trained, it wouldn't have happened.

We'd still have the Gwladys Street the way it was (probably?), although I always the thought the old Gwladys could have done with a few more uprights on the terrace to control excessive crowd movement.

I can understand the safety sentiment, but if everything is properly designed and people properly trained, there's even no need for rail seating, we could have a normal terrace (as they do in Germany).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1OuDRMvlnM

In around 1980, I thought that golden waterfall running past me in the Gwladys Street was a design feature.

With these seating rails, there's a decent chance there will be lots of "water features" around the new stadium.

Anyone wanting to start their own will have lots of cover to do it in, looking at that picture above.

Back then, they were identifiable, If it happend today it could be shemale. Things the way they are, be careful what you say!

That sounds to me like they tried to stop it.

And yes, I do have concerns that these people are hindering the development and capacity of our new stadium.

To preserve the bits they deem worthy isn't going to happen for free...

Within Ray's linked report, once again Peel and Joe Anderson respond to UNECO's 'concerns'. That is very different from the stark claim Gordon made earlier that the illustrious body was 'blocking the building of the new stadium'.

There will be a lot of posturing and arm wrestling to protect each others interests, but as Anderson says both time and funds have been dedicated to ensure any development complies with UNESCO's 'demands' whilst also denying that it is an 'either/or' situation. Either there is no development and the UNSCO status is retained, or development goes ahead and the status is lost to the city.

There is room for compromise. As Anderson also adds, "the city centre is not a monument that can be preserved in aspic – we are a bustling, dynamic, thriving 21st Century city that continues to evolve."

The downtown and dock areas have been hugely, magnificently, transformed since the Tory 'managed declined' era of the 1980s seemed intent on destroying the heart, soul and spirit of the city. It should be allowed to grow and develop, whilst preserving the docklands history which it has tastefully done to date.

By anybody's reckoning, the area leading to and around Brmley-Moore Dock is rundown, barren, stark. Development there can be mutually beneficial to both the city's economic and social growth, as well as retaining and promoting its history.

I said to my mate, "I need a piss."

"Piss in his hood in front of you."

"Won't he notice?"

"You didn't!"

You have to wonder how much of the money that should be spent on the fan experience and atmosphere in the ground will be spent on tarting it up to World Heritage Site standards.

It looks like Unesco have the council by the balls. It's sad if it is the case, we don't build these things too often and we need to get it right when we do.

In my opinion, all-seater stadiums killed football stone dead. But at least I'm old enough to remember what it was like to 'feel' being a Blue. How it was when it visceral. Hopefully the plans for the new ground will bring some of that back. Hopefully...

Don't recall the phony, self-appointed body handing out these plaudits moaning when that was built. Or threatening Norton's scrapyard or Barry's skips.

Tell them where to go and mind their own business.

No thankfully never got christened. But once ended up flying down the steps at Bloomfield Road when the crowd surged forward.

Happy Days!

I remember a Granada Reports show from Maine Road when fencing was first introduced around grounds. A safety expert's opinion was that "these fences will kill people". It turned out he was right.

I was 13 when I saw us lose 3-0 at home to Burnley in 1960. The attendance was 74,000. Me and some other boys were lifted over the wall for our safety and we watched the game sat in front of the wall.

I was back over there on vacation a few years ago and I went with one of my brothers to the last St Helens game that was played at Knowsley Road and we were standing. It would not have felt right to be sitting.

The irony being that you can still stand at St Helens new ground. and most other Rugby League grounds.

The last remaining features are the actual bodies of water and quaysides themselves, and there lies the crux of their argument. They're actually advocating the protection of a space. A type of space that is notoriously difficult to develop for anything other than marinas, residential or high rise commercial as the available footprints are often so tight, and the greatest area is given to water.

Again, lots of these spaces have already been lost, and indeed most of the original central docks were infilled over 100 years ago to build the Pier Head and its Three Graces, and the original Customs House long before that, but several more central docks have been filled in the past 30 years and, as a result, the perceived value of these remaining monumental central dock quaysides has been elevated.

Bramley-Moore Dock is at the periphery of the World Heritage Site, next to equally historic docks that now accommodate a sewage plant (a wholly insensitive development in practically every sense that I think just predates the World Heritage Site designation). At just over 1 mile from the Pier Head, the site is at the very edge of where the club can derive any real geographic or logistical benefits.

Having attended the recent previews, and sat through a presentation where the transport plan consisted of 0.8-mile walk to Sandhills (as Vauxhall Station isn't happening) or over a mile walk to town, and there will be some shuttle buses (because private bus companies will see it as a commercial opportunity), it could probably be said that, at best, there are only limited logistical and transport benefits at this site (if any). Which, to be honest, combined with the obvious planning minefield, to me begs the question as to how this site got past the first stage of any selection process in the first place.

The latest costing appears to be in the region of £600M, for just 52k capacity. Expansion to 62k via rail seats is fanciful (imo), would require a change of the law, and even then, at 1.5:1 ratio, would require 20,000 rail seats (out of 52k). In any case, Colin Chong indicated that it has been a struggle modelling people movement in and around the site at just 52k, so again is 60k+ realistic?

The club are faced with a £30-40M bill just to preserve those Quaysides by raising them above a flood plain (?). The USM King Canute stadium, on the (broken) banks of the Royal Blue Mersey?

If the stadium is going to be the redevelopment catalyst for the whole Liverpool Waters scheme beyond Waterloo Dock, then why didn't we go for the already filled-in sections south of Trafalgar Dock, and adjacent to the 10 Streets development? Only half-a-mile from the Pier Head, much closer to all transport hubs, faster turnarounds for shuttles and more realistic walking distances. If we're the enabler, why have we plumped for the least convenient, most problematic and expensive site, that might never allow for expansion? In otherwords, there are more issues than just World Heritage Site status and Unesco, which we've always known about.

The mind boggles and you have to suspect that this is all just a supporter appeasement exercise (again) designed to take minds off the team never winning anything.

Stinks to high heaven, worse than the sewage works.

If we are the catalyst development to kick-start the whole northern section, then evidently those other developments have not really taken care of themselves thus far, and if so, perhaps we could've negotiated a better deal and location. Conversely, if that site is spoken for and those developments are about to be in place, and we are being asked to bookend the whole scheme with a far higher value development than was originally envisaged, shouldn't this also have come with major financial incentives as enablers part-funded by those schemes?

The Liverpool Waters scheme was first announced over 12 years ago. Yet, there is very little if anything new to show for it beyond Prince's Dock, as Waterloo Dock was already underway and half-occupied. I think a lot of the redevelopment has stalled because of the transport issues, and I had believed that Vauxhall Station was meant to address some of this. It's the eternal Catch-22 conundrum of many brownfield sites. Redevelopment is stifled by lack of infrastructure, and infrastructure isn't built because there is nothing to serve.

Normally, the infrastructure is built to help attract the investment. However, despite Everton's proposed massive investment, Colin Chong said that the station is not happening. Several asked how this could be? Maybe he said it to shame the powers that be, but that's where we are as regards the nearest train station, and walking distances to transport hubs as things stand. Bramley-Moore Dock is less than half-a-mile closer to our national rail hub at Lime Street than Goodison Park is, which at least has several direct bus services to and from Goodison Park.

Yes, there are potential transport solutions regarding re-routing or extending some bus services and/or providing a dedicated fixed rail system for the whole Liverpool Waters scheme... which is what I was expecting to hear about in some detail at this stage in the process. All we got was vague references to shuttle buses (private), and quite long walking distances. The Northern Line is a great asset for any stadium, but Kirkdale Station is actually closer to Goodison Park than Sandhills is to Bramley-Moore Dock, so what are we actually gaining in transport terms apart from a few more trains per hour? Regardless of how many stations are built and when, it is still only one line, and one island platform.

I agree. There's a long history of the club making the problem fit the next offered solution that comes along. This one came along with the funding incentives from a Commonwealth Games bid. That has long since vanished, and the club are now talking of a £600m bill — for just 52k seats. 10 years ago, they rejected the loop site because they said 55k was too small.

Perhaps the president of Unesco has got an undeclared interest in Barry's Skips?

I think Usmanov, is the man with the steel, so the more long term investment that this project achieves, then the more money they will all make when they start their plans?

I think once Everton build on Bramley-Moore Dock, then everything between the stadium and the city will definitely become prime land, and everything the other side of our new stadium, all the way to Millers Bridge, will also become a much more sought-after location.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, Tom, but the trains will come, because this overall development will quite possibly become the biggest in the whole country, which I'm not sure would ever be the case if Everton had chosen to build much closer to the city centre.

"We would have to build bridges" is what Wyeness said, simply because, without outside investment, Kenwright could not have built anything.

You only have to look at how bad the outside of Goodison Park, had deteriorated before Moshiri arrived, so I always prefer to look at our chairman's actions, over anything the man has ever said.

By the way, I've always believed that Goodison could have been totally rebuilt and I think it was yourself (?) who submitted plans for the regeneration of Goodison Park many years ago in the Echo and have continued to argue this point.

Maybe with a different chairman?

Having seen and heard first the excitement then the utter disappointment of my dear departed father (God bless his soul) over the Kings dock fiasco, I can understand your cynicism regarding the latest proposal - it is well founded. You also raise some very pertinent points regarding transport and location.

However, I think their is reason for optimism this time round and for all the people of Liverpool based on what I saw evolve with my own eyes during the development of the Melbourne Docklands. In my view the similarities between that development and the proposed development of the Liverpool waterfront are striking.

For example:
The area had deteriorated as containerisation business moved west and was becoming an eyesore.
The Victorian state government developed a proposal to develop the area and came up with a 25 year plan.
The first phase of the development was the construction of the AFL Docklands stadium which the scaffolding business I worked for.

That kickstarted the whole development and was a great boost for the building game which had not long come out of a recession.

The following two websites are well worth a read for all Evertonians.

Melbourne Docklands - Before and after - scroll down page for image that changes.

Before & After

Melbourne Docklands - Development Timeline. After reading the first page click on the Docklands History tab and scroll down to Timeline after.

History & Timeline

If you can find the time to read through those websites you will understand the reason for my optimism.

For me the other key factor is Farhad Moshiri. No disrespect to him but men who have achieved billionaire status through their own efforts, follow the money. And I am absolutely convinced that when the stadium commences there will be a lot of money invested in the Liverpool Waters development.

That is why I can see nothing but good coming from this project for EFC and definitely for the people of Liverpool.

I’ve already seen off-plans for three apartment blocks facing The titanic hotel, and I’m also aware that Everton, have paid so many Million pounds to purchase Terry’s Timber, so I think that plans are already well in place.

Far-fetched it maybe, but I’ve heard that they want to transform all the way as far as Millers Bridge, so to think there won’t be more railway links, doesn’t make sense, especially because there is already a lot of this network already in place, especially between Bramley Moore and Liverpool city centre.

As you know I am a Birkenhead lad (North End) and, strangely enough, that is why I love the Liverpool waterfront - I used to travel across the river every morning to go to work in Old Hall Street.

I used to love that trip especially during the spring tides – It still makes my hackles stand up thinking about it to this day.

Keep the dream alive – it will be very exciting for everyone when the stadium construction starts and, because of the location, I reckon when the Liverpool Waters development is finished it will be better than Melbourne. It will be magnificent.

I can also see this development eventually going over to the other side of the Mersey, simply because of the magnificent gateway it will one day create!

Paul’s article is now getting down to the nitty gritty. I think that thread will have some mileage.

Talking about transport, I used to ride the overhead railway with my dad in the summers to hang out with him on the docks. Had a cuppa at Dirty Mary's and talked with the pigeon fanciers in bird shit corner. And then there was the Boy's Pen.

I know that at 5'-6" I'll have to stick to a seating spot. Parents taking their kids are a no-no as well.

One reason why I stopped going to away games: without fail, there was always some massive overweight hulk in front of me.

The fencing-in that occurred and that was rapidly accelerated after Heysal was in part a knee-jerk response to Heysal, amongst several knee-jerk responses to it. That knee-jerk of fencing in was partly responsible for the deaths at Hillsborough. Knee-jerk reactions can kill people.

There are ways to have standing terraces in safe, well-though-out ways, involving the right people in the process of design of remedial measures. This has always been the case, and is an appropriate way of doing things compared with the comparative I'll-considered responses of politicians.

This is an ongoing problem in other spheres of protecting people from hazards. A current example is the Grenfell Tower fire, and what might be done by government to manage such hazards in the future. I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing on ToffeeWeb, but for further background on this, please see a submission I made earlier this year to the Grenfell Public Inquiry, which you can also find published in the online journal The Grenfell Enquirer (hosted by Gill Kernick).

Derek Knox, is that okay with you, as you went to the trouble to sort out The Excelsior after the Man Utd game, I don't want to step on your toes. If that's okay, I'll ask the manager and if he says okay, I'll let everyone know on here (ToffeeWeb), then anyone who fancies coming is more than welcome.

I'm not a bit offended by your mention of Melbourne. It is a great example of a similar project, and its potential effects as a redevelopment catalyst. I actually cited it myself several years ago when advocating a waterfront stadium on central docks.

There have been several others too. There are some slight differences though, in that I feel the Melbourne's docks were surrounded by the city centre, thus meaning much shorter walking distances to established infrastructure.

Also, in terms of the stadium itself, the Melbourne stadium has a closing roof and even moving stands making far more flexible for multi-use. making it more of a destination than just a football-only facility.

Nonetheless, many of us actually prefer to stand at the match and, of course, a great many do so in seated areas. This can be a source of great conflict and is also potentially very dangerous. I just hope that we don't have to see deaths resulting from people standing in seated areas before the decision is taken to provide people with a safe choice between all-seater areas & safe-standing areas.