Infilling marks the next stage of construction at Bramley-Moore Dock

So the water has been pumped out?

No James, that's not how it's being done. The sand is pumped in to displace the water. Go to the Everton website and learn. It's fascinating.

So basically they're dumping a bunch of sand into the water to reclaim it from the sea? If we are worried about desertification in parts of the world, and rising sea levels in others, couldn't we use this method on an albeit slightly larger scale to dump all the sand from these growing deserts off the coast of Holland, Norwich and Miami to prevent coastal flooding? EITC need to look into this.

60 times a minute - that is almost one a second!

The only thing needed filling in this week is the 192 square foot of space behind Jordan Pickford to stop United scoring.

Phil "60 times a minute - that is almost one a second!"

You have a watch with a Mickey Mouse dial like mine?!

Once the dock is infilled with sand, a controlled process will consolidate the upper six metres by dropping a nine-tonne weight, at a frequency of 60 times per minute.

How on earth can a nine tonne weight be lifted and then dropped every second?

Rob, with a big fuck off machine. 😉

I thought that Brian, but then maybe I thought Jonathan Tasker could be raising and dropping a nine tonne weight every second, seeing as we all know how keen he is to see the new stadium develop!! 😁😁😁

Rob [8] I guess you never saw Sam Allardyce jogging?

Paul, Allardyce and jogging in the same sentence????? You're right, I've never seen him jog, but I bet he would make a boss steam roller!!

Rob#11.
Is he the "it'll never get built" merchant?

Phil and Brent, I believe there is a decent watch repairer in town, who is an Evertonian too, so a favourable rate could apply. Sounds like your M M watches need calibrating with a lump hammer. Which I believe, although he can achieve 60 times a minute, but usually finds that one or two is adequate to complete the aforementioned calibration process, on your timepieces ! 😜💙

Rob
You just use air driven jacking hammers
Once it's compressed the steel piles will also be hammered in
Colin Chong is telling us what a difficult job it is because someones convinced him it is to bung the cost up!
A bit like our transfer business

A stadium built on sand? A bit like our squad 😂. Seriously though, we will be very proud of this stadium. I can't wait!

Love the bright yellow excavators against steel grey water. Lots of Tonka Toys for real tough boys, perfect for ToffeeWeb.

When's the Webcam starting?

Link on Facebook showing the progress and explaining the process.

https://fb.watch/8oqhktHJmJ/

Sixty times a second? Nine ton weight? Doucoure can manage that on his own with a pulley attached to an exercise bike.

Everton's Stadium Development Director, Colin Chong, said: “This is a huge maritime engineering project"

“We expect the whole infilling process to take around four months, and is a hugely complicated process."

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a simple process.

Kieran #5, transport costs alone would be more than the £500 million budget. And there's not enough lorry drivers anyway.

Compacted sand is one of the best substrates to build on. I would imagine that the engineering cost to build on the proposed Kirkby site would have been far higher and at more risk.
The RS must be worried about their new stands holding up. They have been built on a site entrenched in bs for decades🤣 Old farts full of wind who don't go the game. I do hope to see a large pocket of ground gas discovered under Annie rd.

The Watchmaker of Everton, Derek? That was a Georges Simonen novel wasn't it?

Interesting video on the club website about the dock infill

https://www.evertonfc.com/video/2276696/watch-bramley-moore-dock-infill-begins

Thanks for link Rob - great video. Still not convinced will be open by when anticipated however a great landmark project for the city and all involved should be immensely proud. COYB

Thanks for link Rob - great video. Still not convinced will be open by when anticipated however a great landmark project for the city and all involved should be immensely proud. COYB

Thanks, Rob for the link, fascinating viewing. Cannot fathom how the sand stays where it is dropped. I guess it's very heavy when wet and glad I'm not on that boat. Channel crossings when the English Channel is like a mill pond is sufficient to make me hurl.

Fascinating insight.

That would be our old friend gravity, Mark. Sand grains are ~165% heavier than water and drop to the bottom. There's no currents in the dock, so they stay put – especially when there's more piled on top.

Eric's right in that it is a fundamentally simple process. Sucking up silt and mud rather than sand is just about the biggest problem.

It is funny about the fool building his house upon the sand... as Jason (@25) says, compacted sand forms a very good foundation – shows just how much Jesus H Christ knew about soil mechanics!

I feel a new chant beginning...

Oh isn't it grand
Just like Brazil, we play on the sand,
So tell me ma, put the tea on
Everton, we'll be champ-ion...
Of En-ger-landdddd!

The so called 'Three Graces' were built on an infilled dock and seem to be OK after more than a century.

Indeed Bill Watson, the river went up all the way to where the town hall is.

BMD is being infilled in the same way we did it for the aprons and terminal building at London city airport. We headed across the Thames after we'd finished the underwater dock wall repairs right through Canary Wharf using limpet cofferdams.

Without digressing too far, but it is kind of on topic, us filling a dock in to build a stadium is small scale in comparison to what the Dutch done to create the Flevoland Province on the Zuiderzee.

For those interested, in reclaiming land, check out a map of Holland in the 1800s compared to today.

Forget a stadium, they have an entire province with towns and communities living on what used to be an inlet of the North Sea to the east of Amsterdam.

Iain,

I think the water used to go up to where the old tunnel entrance is.

Water Street was originally called - Bonk Street (it ran up the "bonk" in Lancashire dialect, the bonk of the river, ie, the bank), eventually became Bank Street and then Water Street. It's one of Liverpool's oldest streets and it was the main approach from the river, at the foot of which travellers landed on the sandy seashore of the town,

I think the river went up to St Nicholas's church.

It's really quite interesting the way buildings can be built over the old docks, I really recommend trying the Mersey Tunnel tour run by Merseytravel.

Deep underneath the George's Dock Building you can look through a small hole inside the old dock wall at the water flowing in and out under the Three Graces buildings. Nothing to worry about on the smaller Bramley-Moore Dock.

Ron; the Mersey Tunnel tour is brilliant. The side roads between the buildings are actually on concrete stilts with, as you say, the river gushing about, below.

When you consider the tools those guys had to work with it's amazing what they achieved.

B-M D, with modern equipment and digital enhancing, will be a doddle by comparison!

When you actually see the disgusting and derelict areas like these it makes you wonder WTF the so called Heritage Society saw in making their original status decisions...yes, of course it it is old, but oh my, why try to keep it as is?

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gallery/everton-new-stadium-21-photos-21765524

They don't make 'em like they use too!
As long as there's no corners cut it all sounds good. Looking forward too attending a match there.

52 thousand sounds smaller since 'them' announced an increase upto 61. But the most important part is success on the pitch.

Can we win silverware for the new stadiums display shelf?

As several people have observed many buildings on the waterfront have been built by filling docks in sand, most recently our soon to be neighbours at UU who followed that process about 10 years ago when upgrading the waste water plant, so I don't see why anybody is concerned.
Justin #42 raised the point of the capacity. Presumably given the experiment with safe standing taking place the club will be planning the initial build to accommodate this and a capacity of 60,000 plus? It will be much easier to build in now rather than retro fit later

I was rather hoping to see a post from the person who said that BMD would never happen and that he'd show his arse in Tesco if it ever did.

Martin, he was arrested in Tesco last month.

Stan #45, it's now being used as a place to park your bike, I hear.

Fantastic Stan.

Who said they would show their arse in Tesco? Wouldn't be JT by any chance? 😁😁😁

Stan, what era are you? My memories from your name are 60's when one of my favourite groups were the Small Faces and they made this amazing track on one LP (Ogden's Nut Gone Flake Tobacco) called Happiness Stan with Professor Stanley Unwin. Oh yes, the scintillating moon and dangly.

Rob @48,

I'm not sure about doing a moony in Tesco but I'm sure Tony Marsh spent a lot of time dismissing the idea of BMD going ahead but I'm sure both will say "yeah yeah, it's not built yet" possibly waiting for the last brick to be laid?

Martin, I'm 67, from the era of Stanley Matthews and Stanley Unwin. When I was about 6 we lived near the Ogden's factory (where there was a big smoking pipe outside) on West Derby Rd, opposite The Grafton. We were also near the Barker & Dobson factory at the end of Saxon St, so there was a constant aroma of boiled sweets and pipe tobacco. They were the days!

I'm worried about the mental health of Jeff, from West Derby, now work is underway.

Stan @51,

They were and I'm of your generation too. I don't know the area you describe so well. I was born in Liverpool but immediately emigrated to Northwich area where the smell was ICI.

Stan @ 51 I lived not far from you in the Everton area, talking about aromas, my twin sisters first job was in Ogden's and my first job was a glazier, so when we got home at night the house had a unusual smell of tobacco and putty.

Martin,
The small faces were one of my favourite bands too in fact I still play "all or Nothing" and "My minds eye" on my guitar from time to time.

Steve Marriott was a brilliant singer who never got the recognition he deserved.

What a great time the 60's was. Football, music, Mods, Rockers and flower power.

E too D for me! Marriott was way underrated. Wimple Winch weren't bad either were they?

Jay@55 The 60's was just an amazing time as we came out of war time rationing and cultural subservience. To be young and part of it was an experience that few will ever see. As a generation we were blessed.
I love Itchikoo Park

Bill #40
When you consider the tools these guys had to work with its amazing what they had to work with.
The excavation of the Tunnel involved the removal of one million two hundred thousand tons of rock and gravel from the workings.
In the initial stages the working face of the heading was broken up by a battery of compressed air drills, but progress was later expedited by the use of gelignite On another subject did any of you see the Crying Shames.I only ask as my cousin George Robinson , his mother was my dads sister,was with them and i still keep in touch with him.

Justin (42) - The thing is that the additional seats that "Them", are adding require arctic clothing and an oxygen cylinder, and binoculars, before you can occupy them. Additionally, if applying for a ticket you must provide medical evidence that you do not suffer from vertigo, as the slope is so acute they fear people with questionable balance may well fall off and land on the pitch, half a mile below.

For those interested, the Palm Jumeirah, in Duabi, was built on reclaimed sand foundations. Here is a link to its "Wiki" page that will give a lot of insight into what is possible using this method of construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah

On the general stadium theme it's good to see the club has taken the sensible (IMHO) approach and decided not to take up the option to trial safe standing at Goodison.
No point in putting time and money in any other direction than BMD (with regard to infrastructure not playing staff).

Re the questions some posters have raised about building on sand, the basic principle is that sand is fine as a foundation if it's under compression from all sides, which is of course it will in BMD.

John #43

The club have chosen to go with tread depths of just 750mm for the sections earmarked for safe-standing. Even if legislation changes to allow safestanding ratios >1:1, this will only allow an uplift of approx 1.3:1 at that tread depth without a change in the current Green Guide clearway and spacial allowances for new builds.
If there are only 7500 seats allocated to safestanding, this will only add 2,300 to the capacity. I think 800mm treads would've yielded 1.6:1 or nearer 5,000.

Strangely, the green guide appears to allow a slightly higher ratios for existing stands with the corresponding treads. Even if the harsher green guide spacial parameters are wavered for new builds, we will still need to convert more seats to break the 60k capacity threshold. While not inconceivable, it has to be remembered that this then eats further into our seated capacity.

Welcome back, Tom @63
With your knowledge and experience, I'd like to hear your opinion on the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

60s? Hmm.... chatting with Martha Reeves and the Vandellas in a lift in the Top Rank, going to see the Four Tops at the Empire and meeting them in The Milk Bar in Lime Street afterwards. Saturday night music cruises on the Royal Iris, Proud Mary keeps on burning... St Benet's social, drink till you drop, the winter of 63, bonfire nights... toffee apples... hitch-hiking to Wembley, only to get beat, the little ticket vouchers in the Everton programme. Dr Who.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive
But to be young was very heaven

Kinks, Cream, Jethro Tull, Who, Ten Years After, Mike Cotton Sound,, Stefan Grossman, Julie Driscoll, Victor Brox, John Lee Hooker, Sonny Boy Williamson, Julie Driscoll, Brian Augur all live in and around Liverpool. Mainly Students Union, Cavern. A fair few more I don't remember.

Loads of clubs playing live music, rock, soul, Blues, Folk, Country, every night.

Radio and TV full of our music, our slang, our jokes, our culture. Liverpool was cool and centre of the universe for a brief shining moment.

Peter Greens Fleetwood MAC on their debut Southend On Sea. John Renbourn, Alex Campbell, Dave Swarbrick Canterbury

All for a few Bob entrance, really cheap, accessible. All beating a path to Liverpool to play for us.

Oh, and Tommy Ring, Royston, Alex, Collins, Kay, Harvey, West, Wilson, Kendall Ball, Royle, Morrisey.

We were truly blessed, no question about it.

But we've not half payed for it in the last 30 years. (But I wouldn't trade it in for all tea in China)

Martin (#57), and there's me thinking Itchicoo Park was a paddock outside Inverness for cows found to be verminous just prior to going to market.

(Don's the hat of a "Tin Soldier").

Here is a video update of BMD progress
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-bramley-moore-dock-stadium-21795103

I found this way quicker to access the video of BMD: https://www.evertonfc.com/news/2285067/watch-aerial-tour-of-new-stadium-site

I wonder whether anybody's superimposed a scale image of GP on the BMD site to show the comparative footprints?

Thanks, Gerry and Steavey, for those links – it conveys a much better idea of both what is happening and a perspective of how the new Stadium fits in.

Don, I was under the impression your 'tin hat' was permanent whilst posting on TW, keep it going mate, great entertainment, especially when the 'Don and Darren' show is in town. :-)

Christine, ah the nostalgia, that's not what it used to be either these days. :-)

Dennis #70

https://images.app.goo.gl/fWouiMhqv3nbFAbf7

This shows an overlay of GP and BMD and other comparisons.

Pete #64,

I can't profess to being an expert, just a keen observer of all things stadia, with the same additional invested interest in this as every other Evertonian. As such, I am as excited as the rest at the prospect of the new stadium.

However, I have some slight reservations and concerns that hopefully will prove unfounded or trivial as it all unfolds.

I responded to the question regarding increasing capacity via safe-standing, as this is one such slight concern. That is: that under present legislation and guidelines, the capacity will not be expandable via this method to above 60k by just converting the sections shown in proposals. If those are relaxed we might be able to get close. I'm not personally obsessed with the 60k capacity figure, just that this was voted the preferred capacity during the consultation process and safe-standing has been mentioned as the solution. Of course, the subsequent issue is one of future-proofing the stadium for success and hopefully growing future demand.

Another obvious concern is the on-going lack of transparency regarding the costs and finance strategy, how we pay for it, and what it will mean to our bottom line going forward. Yes, I know to many that is not a major concern, it is just assumed that it is all covered. but obviously it is an important issue that hasn't yet got full clarity and certainly has a major say in the whole viability of the scheme.

This issue crosses over into the stadium design itself. I feel that given the site's prominence and importance, the onus of the design brief has been disproportionately towards the external aesthetics.

Personally, I have always felt that a stadium's quality in terms of form and function are those attributes best viewed and judged from within: How the stadium performs as a viewing platform; how tiers are arranged to bring people close to the action and offer the broadest type of viewing experiences across a broad range of ticket pricing that best matches our fanbase demographics; How those sections interact to help generate an atmosphere and general feel of being a part of something special for want of a better expression.

At the risk of perhaps sounding a bit picky, at a cost of £500M (if that is what the final bill will be), we might've conceivably expected at least a bit more than what we have seen. Why? Well the internals are fairly basic. Yes, neat clean lines and good sightlines throughout as we'd expect but there are no proper over lapping tiers bringing the fans closer to the action on average, inkeeping with our traditions.

There are no curved stand frontages or curved corner sections to improve lateral viewing, just basic straight fronted stands. There is no closing roof or moving/folding pitch for better multi-functionality to maximise those revenue streams. There are only 22 boxes (unless that has been revised) and not a particularly large or well defined corporate offer compared to many others who have many more boxes and dedicated tiers for high-value offer. Those boxes could've been convertible to rooms to form a reasonably sized 365-day hotel offer with dining facilities overlooking the pitch and waterfront.

A simple comparison could be with Feyenoord's new stadium proposals. 63k triple decker bowl with closing roof also partially built on reclaimed land for less than £400M. A bigger and more complex structure for less. Similar for Meis's other proposals for Roma a more complex and imo superior stadium design of the same capacity, yet costing less than £300M.

In terms of the general format Personally, I would've preferred a stadium with 2 home ends as we have now. With the away fans tucked away onto a relatively shallow lower tier on the side, with a new safe-standing paddock along the front to easily accommodate larger cup game allocations. Keeping their fans far away from acoustic enhancing roof sections at the same time.

On a similar point, viewing the stand cross sections for the large home end it can be seen that this end will possibly only derive limited acoustic effects from the roof because the chosen curved geometry places the roof very high above this section, which at only 60 rows is perhaps also not quite the monster home stand promised (making it all safe-standing would fix that though). A comparison with Dortmund's South tribune shows superior geometry with a downward sloping roof helping propogate the noise (although the cranked corners and arched will have some beneficial effect also).

Most of these individual issues can probably be viewed as trivial and or slightly subjective, collectively they may point to a slightly less than optimum solution. The cost thing needs clarity as that could trump everything if it leaves us financially hamstrung afterwards.

The transport strategy in the earlier revisions was also quite vague (although that may have now been revised), perhaps purposely so to wash over the obvious defficiencies and limitations of a waterfront stadium in a bit of a transport weakspot (this is certainly not the Kings Dock). While this might not be insurmountable, a poorly connected stadium is generally not a great idea. The loss of the Vauxhall station promised so early in the proposals, and no real mention of a dedicated mass transit system serving the Liverpool Waters scheme, poses several more questions too. Again, I think there are some obvious partial solutions but haven't heard much apart from the promise of some shuttle buses and road closures.

Apologies at perhaps sounding over critical that's not really my intention, just the nature of offering a critique. It's good points obviously speak for themselves.

No problem with offering a critique Tom.

As many who read my posts on here know, I go to watch Schalke and the Veltins Arena, even though now 20 years old, is still an impressive stadium, complete with retracting roof. The capacity is about 62,000 for league matches (with standing), and about 54,000 for internationals (when they replace the standing areas with temporary seating).

It's important we build something of quality that is lasting as well as iconic. Also, it's been interesting to hear recent views on clubs who chose to remain in situ the 90s and redevelop. At first glance it made us envious as Goodison remained a grand, but ageing, throwback to her heyday of the 70s. Gary Neville criticising Old Trafford for rusting. Alan Shearer only this morning saying similar things about the apparently magnificent St James' Park, which admittedly is an awesome sight from the outside as you look at it from Newcastle City Centre. It maybe shows that as emotional as it is for some, relocation is probably the best move as really they've built extensions on the house, but it's still the same house and the rest just gets a lick of paint.

I noted earlier this year that Roma have shelved their plans to move to the planned 52,500 capacity Stadio Della Roma. A shame, because if you've ever attended a match at the Stadio Olimpico, which they share with Lazio (I have - to watch both teams), it can be a soulless place. There may well be an impressive 40,000 in the ground, but in a stadium that can hold over 70,000, a half full stadium doesn't do much for atmosphere other than the ultras kicking off behind the goal every now and then. Juventus, giants of Europe, moved from a former Olympic stadium housing just shy of 70,000 to a purpose built ground (built on the same site), that has a capacity of just over 40,000, similar to Goodison now.

To the capacity debate. I'd much rather have a 52,000 bursting at the seams and electric Bramley Moore than empty seats.

But yes, the internal design is as important as the iconic looking external one.

Danny,

I have also been lucky enough to visit the Veltins Arena too and several other German World Cup stadiums. As you say, it's a few years old now, but the basic functionality offered by its closing roof and moving pitch are still noteworthy attributes that put it on a different level to many British stadiums. In terms of configuration of tiers, I prefer slightly steeper overlapping upper tiers than those at the Veltins.

As regards redevelopment versus new build, I think the decision is often one of simple pragmatism as much as emotional sentiment, tbh – it is generally cheaper to redevelop a large stadium, especially if much of the existing structures can be recycled and/or simply added to.

However, I also wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the value of history, tradition and time-honoured, tried and tested matchday ritual as purely sentimental only. In actual fact, the majority of the apparently rusting steelwork at St James's Park or Old Trafford is probably no older than that at the Veltins, and most of the other German stadiums (many of which are themselves redeveloped grounds). Even the Bernabeu's latest incarnation has come about because it is a more cost-effective option than building the same capacity totally anew, but I don't think anyone would call that redevelopment ad-libbed or piecemeal.

I don't disagree about the empty seat argument. They'll be aiming at that sweetspot of maximising income per seat versus construction cost, based on their estimates for the size of our fanbase and ticket price elasticity and the financial model. However, I was mainly referring to the issue of future-proofing the stadium for ease expansion and aspiration beyond safe-standing uplifts if needed. This is something that Juventus fans are acutely aware of.

You make a good case for the redevelopment side of things Tom. And to counter my own statement, some of these relatively new stadiums already look jaded. It's why we should be focussed on quality of build.

I didn't want to suggest time-honoured matchday rituals as purely sentimental. I meant that, when the day comes, it will be with a heavy heart that we leave; it will be emotional. It will be for me.

I suppose that's where Schalke (and in the UK, I would use Tottenham as an example) have been fortunate from that sense. They've been able to build on the site of their old stadium. Okay, Schalke moved about 1,000 yards!! If you didn't know, their former stadium at the top of the hill, overlooking the academy, which itself is in the shadow of the Veltins, has just been renovated as part of the academy for some of the more prominent matches. They have been allowing 1,000 to attend; might increase post-Covid. And Tottenham's aim is to change the matchday experience by providing the facilities in the ground to keep fans in rather than outside in the local pubs and chippies. But I suppose regular punters have the choice.

I always said, if we were to have redeveloped Goodison, it would have had to be a Tottenham style operation. We'd have had to buy up those terraced rows outside the Bullens Road and the Gwladys Street stands and rotate the pitch in my opinion. But then we'd have had to find a temporary home somewhere for a period. And forbid where that could have been looking at the realistic local & regional options!! I didn't say it, but I'm going to wash my mouth out anyway.

Bramley-Moore Dock it is. I agree on the steepness by the way. I'm no architect or construction expert, so treat that as an unqualified "bloke in the pub" view of it!!

Great video on that link, Gerry (post 68).

If you freeze the video at 2:20 and then slowly drag the cursor across a frame at a time to 2:25 you get a fantastic image of the new stadium "growing" over the existing dock.

The more I see and read of this project, the more excited I become. I'll be 70 by the time it actually hosts a football match and, without wanting to wish my life away, I can't wait to see it.

Thanks for the link, Tom. Now that I've seen those images, I do recall having seen them before but must have forgotten all about them.

I whole heartedly agree with your comments. I've always been in favour of redevelopment of Goodison Park, which would have been much cheaper, I would have thought. However, if we must up sticks down to the docks, so be it. My concern about the new stadium is regarding how much of a "football" stadium it proves to be – one only has to look at Arsenal to see how not to do it, imo.

My other concern is the one you mention about future proofing. I think the powers that be have rather underestimated the pent up demand and potential for growth, which wouldn't be so bad if the site lent itself to substantial enlargement in the future, but I feel the size of the footprint & restrictions on height make this nigh-on impossible.

Dennis @79,

I'm glad you mentioned restrictions on height. I remember the original plan had to be lowered to meet Unesco / World Heritage demands, I'm sure. Now that "honour" has been removed, surely we can build whatever height we want?

I'm in the slightly childish camp of build it as high as possible. I love the design but I would also like to be impressed by its scale. I would love to know what we are protecting by not building high? Is it the view of Terry's Timberyard from the river?

Keeping with the height, I'd like to ask Tom Hughes if he knows the difference in the original height and the revised plan and how this compares to the height of the Top Balcony? I know you have sent a link, Tom, but I ask in case I have no joy finding it.

Thanks.

Billy.

Yes, now that the UNESCO problem has gone, the stadium should not be understated in any way. Build it high as possible putting a shadow over that loft conversion of a stand by Stanley Park!

Brian @82,

Yes, totally agree.

Chris Williams (@66),

A very apt post number! An exceedingly wonderful time to be young and in Liverpool and an Evertonian!

Sorry to piss on yer chips but the overall design is fixed and won't be changing.

Planning permission was granted for the design that was submitted, and the height restriction will be a part of the local building regulations, totally unaffected by the Unesco World Heritage Site listing or delisting.

Fair enough, Michael @84,

So does that mean every potential development on this land stretching from Bramley-Moore Dock to Queens Dock will be no taller than the stadium? Limited by the same local building regulations.

I remember the "New Shanghai" images constantly promoted by Peel Holdings and I'm sure they included some (imaginary) impressive skyscrapers.

I realise they are still basically fanciful ideas by Peel but are they really beyond regulations and defunct as an idea?

Billy #85 Michael #84

The northern docks aren't in a designated conservation area so no special planning regs apply. The height was reduced solely to appease Unesco so that implies it could be higher.

Nothing to do with local building regulations even if there are special regulations covering the semi-derelict northern docks, which I very much doubt.

Thanks, Bill @86

Maybe my chips aren't so soggy after all!!

Just to support your point Billy, the plans for the North End of the docks included multi-story apartments and offices right alongside our stadium. So seeing as we are free of that bunch of ninnys, I don't see any reason why EFC couldn't build the stadium as high as any one of those multi-story blocks, light it up in Royal Blue every evening and have great big statues of the Liver Bird all around the top of the stadium!

I can remember when Kenwright lost us our chance of the Kings Dock, the proposed ground was limited in height, in order to fit in with the height of the Three Graces and the Albert Dock. Only local planning is required now, I should think, to build it as Tom was suggesting.

Whether that happens or not is probably going to be based on the Clubs view about whether we could fill it.

So Billy, you might have a bit too much vinegar on but that's all.

Bill,

Looking at the planning documents, building height constraints for the new stadium are a pretty complex issue, and what you said is partly true.

Nevertheless, there are specific limits set for Liverpool Waters Building Heights which limit new buildings on each side of Bramley-Moore Dock, 38 m being the highest, on the west side. The submitted stadium design at 46.86 m high represents an exceedance to the maximum approved height by 8.86 m.

Then, in the amended design:

"The building height has reduced to below 45 m (44.75 m), thereby being defined as ‘mid-rise' within the World Heritage Site Supplemental Planning Document."

WHS is all over the design rationale for the stadium, all of which was approved in granting planning permission. I still maintain that to go back and change the design now, just because of WHS delisting, is a complete non-starter. It would require a massive resubmittal of loads of very expensive documents, and probably puts the project on hold for another 2 years before it gets full approval again.

Is that what you guys really want?

No Michael, at least I don't. However, should the club find that we have a waiting list, as long as the waiting list we hope will become season ticket holders, then I'd hope the club push for higher ground. We have what we have and let's look forward to it getting built and us going the first match.

But if ever, in the future, we submit plans for same, the world heritage crew start sticking their oar in, then I hope Liverpool City Council and our Government tell them, in the politest, diplomatic language, to piss off, and just get it built.

Michael @89

Of course we wouldn't want to see any delay in this build.

I wasn't advocating ripping up the original plans and starting again, it was more a suggestion that we reverse the compromise we had originally made to please is it UNESCO or local? I'm still unsure on who was objecting?

Anyway I'm glad you added some much-needed detail as far as the difference in the amended version – about 2 m. I couldn't find anywhere this information so assumed it to be a lot greater to be honest.

Obviously this is not a lot to get worked up about either way; the actual height (45 m) is also a figure I was struggling to come by, so again thanks for making that clear.

It will be interesting to see the heights of all future developments on this site, however.

I think the only height planning issue was regards the proximity and conflict with the Stanley Dock warehouses. I'm not sure if that is still an issue or not.

That said, the height of the roof probably should be a slight concern for all of us. A quick look at the comparison between the cross sections of new and old mainstands shows how high the new roof line really is. The projected rain fall line would show how exposed the first 10-20 rows will be if you've ever sat in the enclosure on a wet day you'll know the potential pitfalls of a front section under such a high roof.

This has been quite common at many of the new larger stadiums with their high roof lines, and it would be nice to learn a few of those lessons. Which is another reason why a closing roof could've been highly beneficial. I think Bilbao extended the roof above the playing area to fix some of this. I'm not sure how effective that has been but hopefully we can do something similar.

Dan is back, brilliant. 👏

apparently they where going to throw that big dope Rondon in to the dock to help fill it up, but like with a ball he cant hold anything up!!!