Mega Thread New Stadium

[Scotland]

With regards to the orientation issue: the sun is at its worst when it is setting. The current West-East alignment is absolutely horrible. Players in the forward line and backline at the East end of the ground are constantly shielding their eyes in the 3rd and 4th quarters for Subiaco games that start at 2:40pm. And as a fan who sits in the south east wing, i can tell you my retinas just about burn out even with a hat and sunglasses on.

The correct orientation for players and fans alike is north-south. Players dont stare across the width of the ground during a game, they look down the length of it. Mind you, a roof wouldnt go astray as we are living in the 21st century, and this stadium should be designed to last us the next 50 years. With a ground orientation of North-south, the coaches box and media boxes, etc would be best placed on the West side of the ground with the sun at their backs, so as to avoid the disaster that is the Skilled stadium coaches box situation, where coaches and media alike stare into the sun for the last half of the game.

Agree, N-S FTW.

As for being a multipurpose stadium, I hope they slightly elevate the boundary line seats by about 2 metres. Would then mean there is still room for a graduated incline for the portable seating for rectangular field sports, and it means that boundary line level fans have more depth in their view, rather than having to see over the hump in the middle that all grounds have.

Agree.

The players race should be directly under the coaches box, to avoid the silly circumstance of having 10 assistant coaches + the head coach walking down 3 flights of stairs, then walking 150m to the other side of the ground, and then down another level. The trip there and back is about 5-7 minutes of half-time wasted, which im sure Woosha would love to use with his players and assistant coaches. A lift that goes straight down to the rooms from the coaches box would be ideal.

Makes sense.

The grandstand on the north-West side of the ground should have an elevated ceiling to block out the sun for fans who sit on the East side of the ground. It would not affect the Fremantle doctor that generally blows from South-west to North-east.

Not sure about this one.

There should be NOTHING underneath the playing surface. The situation with the Docklands underground carpark that prevents grass growing on the playing surface is embarrasing, and constantly having to replace dead turf is expensive. Natural soil with nothing man-made underneath the playing surface please.

Disagree. The grass at Docklands doesn't grow because it doesn't get enough light and the soil depth is too low.

The use of the area under the stadium for carparking and potentially a train station is a must. If there's a decent depth of good, free-draining soil the surface should be fine.

We need adequate big screens at the ground. The big screen on the north side at Subiaco oval is pathetic. The big screens also need to be placed at a suitable height and angle that maximises the number of people who can view them. They should also be placed on the north-east and south-west sides of the ground so that the setting sun isnt directly behind them

Seems fine.

The emergency services lane where the ambulance accesses the ground should be at the north side of the ground, so that it has quick unobstructed access to the Graham Farmer Freeway that leads to Royal Perth Hospital (the closest most well equipped hospital in the area). Going through great eastern highway and the causeway has too many sets of traffic lights and would take longer to get players there.

Sensible. Traffic flow in and out of the venue overall needs to be a priority in the overall design.

Hopefully the roof will enclose over all the seating so when it does rain almost all fans stay dry (unless the wind is really howling). At subi, most seats are completely exposed to the elements.

Sounds reasonable, provided the surface isn't affected by blocked light.

Everything else should be straight forward for the designers of this stadium. Currently if there was a fire at Subiaco, there would be hell in the narrow corridors. It takes 10 minutes of stop/start walking to get out of the ground from where I sit. Its a major fire hazard.

Thats about it for now.

Agreed. If nothing else the venue needs decent ramps to get into the stands, seats that are big enough for people taller than 5'6'' and a conservative estimate for the number of toilets, plus about 100 more.

 

[TheMightyEagles]

Is the new stadium's total capacity of 60k really enough?

Presently Subiaco can hold a crowd of 43k. Its always sold out. We also have a full 'In the Wings' membership list of around 5k. Then there are people like myself who want to go to games, but have resigned themselves to the fact that tickets generally won't be available.

By the time the new stadium is built in 2018, the population of WA would have continued to rapidly expand on account of the mining boom. Taking all these factors in account, it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that we will fill up the additional 17k chairs fairly quickly.

 

[kempy]

Re: WA approves new stadium

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117294/default.aspx

"WA Premier Colin Barnett announced on Tuesday that the new multi-purpose stadium would be built on the Burswood Peninsula with a capacity of 60,000 and the ability to expand to 70,000."

Im happy. Anyone have any reservations?

Yeah, I have a few.

- Nothing has actually been done yet. No feasability study, no engineering study, no funding agreement. Essentially its just a concept at this stage to get it off the agenda for a while.

- Barnett has once again shown what an arrogant tosser he is. He is the one who knows best about anything and everything. There was a major study done which put Burswood last. Not good enough for Barnett though because he knows best.

- I doubt much funding will come from this government. This government has already ramped up State debt and has a poor record for building any infrastructure other than roads for its transport mates. They will be looking for private funding which will result in high user costs when finished. Of course, they will also look for Federal help, even though their hypocritical stance is that WA gets nothing from Canberra.

I won't be planning on attending matches in another stadium this decade.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: WA approves new stadium

Yeah, I have a few.

- Nothing has actually been done yet. No feasability study, no engineering study, no funding agreement. Essentially its just a concept at this stage to get it off the agenda for a while.

- Barnett has once again shown what an arrogant tosser he is. He is the one who knows best about anything and everything. There was a major study done which put Burswood last. Not good enough for Barnett though because he knows best.

- I doubt much funding will come from this government. This government has already ramped up State debt and has a poor record for building any infrastructure other than roads for its transport mates. They will be looking for private funding which will result in high user costs when finished. Of course, they will also look for Federal help, even though their hypocritical stance is that WA gets nothing from Canberra.

I won't be planning on attending matches in another stadium this decade.

Well said. A rubbish decision made by an arrogant w***er.

If Barnett wasn't such a ******** the stadium would be at Kitchener Park. But of course, common sense, numerous studies and evidence backing up how much of shit area Burswood is to build doesn't mean anything to Colon.

 

[juddy_Like]

Few Points....
The stadium will be built on the current State Tennis centre and not on the northern part of Burswood Golf course as the report pointed out. The difference is that the tennis centre is away from the river and on more stable ground.

Also Barnett is a arrogant prick but he has made the right decision. My thinking is that Subi is/was never an option purely on the basis that the report/studies were carried out by John Louganlout (sp?) who is Barnett's fiercest rival in politics.

In saying that, Football in Subi is limited in land and thinking, congested roads, Australia's worst council and lets not start on the nimby Subiaco residents. Burswood offers a fresh brand new start, with endless opportunities.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Re: WA approves new stadium

Yeah, I have a few.

- Nothing has actually been done yet. No feasability study, no engineering study, no funding agreement. Essentially its just a concept at this stage to get it off the agenda for a while.

Well - he did mention that it was part of a broader development plan for Perth. As such we chose a site that is preferred - and now do the rleevant assessment as to whether it is worth it. It's no different whatsoever to what Carpenter did.

- Barnett has once again shown what an arrogant tosser he is. He is the one who knows best about anything and everything. There was a major study done which put Burswood last. Not good enough for Barnett though because he knows best.

One man's arrogance is another's leadership. The report didn't say Burswood was last - it may have suggested it would cost more - but that doesn't mean it was last. The report came with 4 viable options only - all with pro's and con's. The peninsula may have been last in terms of pricing - but cheapest isn't always best

- I doubt much funding will come from this government. This government has already ramped up State debt and has a poor record for building any infrastructure other than roads for its transport mates. They will be looking for private funding which will result in high user costs when finished. Of course, they will also look for Federal help, even though their hypocritical stance is that WA gets nothing from Canberra.

If you think anyone is going to vote for Eric Ripper - you are sadly mistaken - I didn't vote for Barnett - but he has been a quality premier and a mile better than the current alternative. It's a pity Carpenter got the arse (and Gallop sick) - but in reality he was a great leader of a shit party.

Barnett has already said it's going to be a state asset, so whilst some funding may come from the AFL and Federal government - it won't come from private sources. The voices in your head aren't always right.

If you want to see cost overruns go and look at the Arena - cost overun of 300% by the labor party.

 

[Belltower]

I can't believe how long it is going to take. The decision took forever and now we have to wait until 2018 for the stadium to be finished. There is a story on one of the footy sites saying going to take over a year longer than bigger stadiums that have a roof. Do they want to look like heroes when they finish earlier or do they have to spread the funding over more budgets. Maybe if they stop building singing dunnies in the outback we could finish it earlier. I am glad they picked Burswood over Subi but I have to be an in the wings member for at least another 6 years. Also 60000 with 70000 is shortsighted I would go for 70 with 80. The Eagles already have 50K+ members and to get a better balanced crowd will probably only be allowed to have 50,000 seated members?? in the new stadium, increase it to 70 and we have 55 seated members with more room for ES travellers and in derbies dockers members. Could you imagine how much better the atmosphere would be then.

 

[kempy]

Re: WA approves new stadium

Well - he did mention that it was part of a broader development plan for Perth. As such we chose a site that is preferred - and now do the rleevant assessment as to whether it is worth it. It's no different whatsoever to what Carpenter did.

Of course its different. Tosser Barnett decided without a study of any sort.

One man's arrogance is another's leadership. [\quote]
Barnett is just arrogant

The report didn't say Burswood was last - it may have suggested it would cost more - but that doesn't mean it was last. The report came with 4 viable options only - all with pro's and con's.

"This (Burswood) was one of the three final locations we identified for a new stadium, it was third but nevertheless it was one of the three," Langoulant said

The peninsula may have been last in terms of pricing - but cheapest isn't always best

It wasn't just cost that counted against Burswood in the study.

If you think anyone is going to vote for Eric Ripper - you are sadly mistaken - I didn't vote for Barnett - but he has been a quality premier and a mile better than the current alternative. It's a pity Carpenter got the arse (and Gallop sick) - but in reality he was a great leader of a shit party.

Why bring Ripper into the debate? And I'm not surprised you didn't vote for Barnett. He is a crap leader who listens to no-one else but himself, who has surrounded himself who a useless bunch of thickos in his cabinet. Just take the time to look at their performances so far.

Barnett has already said it's going to be a state asset, so whilst some funding may come from the AFL and Federal government - it won't come from private sources. The voices in your head aren't always right.

I guess we will see in time. And since when was the AFL not private?

If you want to see cost overruns go and look at the Arena - cost overun of 300% by the labor party.

Very interesting that the prime contractor was BGC, owned by none other than Buckridge, a prominent Liberal supporter.

And finally, from the West the other day:
His (Barnett) approach to the stadium - brushing aside the recommendations of a specialist task force, rebuffing the advice of his own departments and telling dissenting Cabinet colleagues they were wrong - has been vintage Barnett: belligerent, pigheaded and contemptuous.

 

[E92_]

Re: WA approves new stadium

doesn't he also want to rename the area Eastside instead of Burswood?


IMO 60k is way to small we should of been thinking anywhere from 70k-MCG size, considering WA may have a 3rd AFL team in the next 10-20 years and the population growth in that time.


Also why is the stadium going to take 2 years of planning?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: WA approves new stadium

And finally, from the West the other day:
His (Barnett) approach to the stadium - brushing aside the recommendations of a specialist task force, rebuffing the advice of his own departments and telling dissenting Cabinet colleagues they were wrong - has been vintage Barnett: belligerent, pigheaded and contemptuous.

"In 10 years it might also be considered visionary."

Fingers crossed I guess.

 

[Mancey]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/pr...s/story-e6frg1wu-1226084882917?from=public_js

WA Premier Colin Barnett has warned his state's two AFL teams that many seats at Perth's new football stadium will be set aside for non-members and interstate clubs, even if it forces them to cap their memberships.

Thoughts on this. Seems pretty ridiculous that a team has to cap membership well below a grounds capacity. Certainly putting a restriction on the cash flow of the club.

Sucks if you're on the waiting list and you thought this was going to be a sure fire way of getting a seat. At least you could easily get a GA ticket tho

 

[Quinz]

60000 seats, if they decide to cap it at 50000, we will still have people left on the waiting list. And that's now, not in 7 years time.

 

[greennick]

60000 seats, if they decide to cap it at 50000, we will still have people left on the waiting list. And that's now, not in 7 years time.

Surely they won't leave more than 5k seats over just in case some other people want to come??

 

[Scotland]

We have seats set aside now for non-members.

It's unrealistic to think any stadium - 60,000 seats or otherwise will have all seats available for club members.

 

[Quinz]

Surely they won't leave more than 5k seats over just in case some other people want to come??

Well you'd certainly hope they wouldn't.

 

[Mancey]

All it says to me is that there are already concerns that our much vaunted new stadium will not have sufficient capacity to cater for members and the general public...and it's still 7 years away from opening.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Re: WA approves new stadium

"This (Burswood) was one of the three final locations we identified for a new stadium, it was third but nevertheless it was one of the three," Langoulant said

It wasn't just cost that counted against Burswood in the study.

So the terms of reference of that report encompassed building a sporting/entertainment precinct did it? Or perhaps was it just scoped to a decision purely and simply on a stadium with no other thought to further development?

Why bring Ripper into the debate? And I'm not surprised you didn't vote for Barnett. He is a crap leader who listens to no-one else but himself, who has surrounded himself who a useless bunch of thickos in his cabinet. Just take the time to look at their performances so far.

You were the one who suggested this government wouldn't pay for it - so i'm assuming you think he'll be deposed either by his own party or at the next election.

I mean - i know you aren't that stupid that you wouldn't think the WA government would bear the majority cost of a state public asset.

Very interesting that the prime contractor was BGC, owned by none other than Buckridge, a prominent Liberal supporter.

How is that interesting - because an incompetent labor government appointed them? I don't see the reference - keep throwing darts though.

And finally, from the West the other day:
His (Barnett) approach to the stadium - brushing aside the recommendations of a specialist task force, rebuffing the advice of his own departments and telling dissenting Cabinet colleagues they were wrong - has been vintage Barnett: belligerent, pigheaded and contemptuous.

Nice selective editing...

 

[Scotland]

Would all the Barnett bashers prefer he maintained the status quo of (non)decision by committee that we've had for the last decade?

 

[Galileo9]

i have no problem with where the stadium is going to go. however the fear is that they have committed somewhere where there are so many risks and if the price comes in much higher than they thought, what will they do? cut costs and give something thats hardly fit for use.

i hope barnetts arrogance stays and thinks of the stadium as some sort of legacy. if he starts worrying about cost, we will end up with a convention centre-like building.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I think this will end up costing 800-900 million for the stadium and 200 million for Road, Rail and other items like a footbridge.

I'd look to a builder like Grocon or Brookfield.

I think the location is the best it just needs more money spent in the area to bring it up to speed. The long term benefits will be large and if it's a good stadium that transforms the area then people will forget the cost in 10-20 years.

 

[larrikin]

I think this will end up costing 800-900 million for the stadium and 200 million for Road, Rail and other items like a footbridge.

I'd look to a builder like Grocon or Brookfield.
I think the location is the best it just needs more money spent in the area to bring it up to speed. The long term benefits will be large and if it's a good stadium that transforms the area then people will forget the cost in 10-20 years.

All the majors will go after it. With a job this size they will probably JV it anyway

 

[juddy_Like]

I will go on record and say BGC won't be building this.

They have admitted themselves that they are struggling with the complexities of Perth Arena let alone doing something much bigger.

 

[Galileo9]

I will go on record and say BGC won't be building this.

They have admitted themselves that they are struggling with the complexities of Perth Arena let alone doing something much bigger.

just because its bigger, doesnt mean its more complex.

whilst the risks are higher, building th eburswood stadium should be simple. piling that will be required is done all the time in the world and really, when it comes to football stadiums, roof is generally not that difficult (unless u have a slanted arch ala Wembley). its just time consuming.

arena-there is steelwork all over the place. its like a big maze, trying to read drawings would have been rather interesting.

 

[larrikin]

just because its bigger, doesnt mean its more complex.

whilst the risks are higher, building th eburswood stadium should be simple. piling that will be required is done all the time in the world and really, when it comes to football stadiums, roof is generally not that difficult (unless u have a slanted arch ala Wembley). its just time consuming.

arena-there is steelwork all over the place. its like a big maze, trying to read drawings would have been rather interesting.

The carpark underneath is what ****ed up that project - it was added after the initial design was completed and costed

 

[bodazoka]

The carpark underneath is what ****ed up that project - it was added after the initial design was completed and costed

It continually amazes me that people think its a good idea to add sht like that after the design has been completed. And in most cases during the build...