Villa Park Redevelopment

[algy]

The North Stand is much more urgent. It is really poor in there, it is the oldest stand, we have plenty of room behind it to do something special and it just ruins the look of the stadium.

It maybe older but it's miles better than the Witton in my experience, and it doesn't ruin the look at all, it's a brutalise masterpiece next to that piece of crap, Barratt-home esque monument to mediocrity with the travel agent's name on it.

Strong agreement here. Was in the North Stand for the Burnley game ... forgot how much I love the upper tier in it. Best view in world football, and as LeeB says it's a brutalist masterpiece, as relevant to the city's architectural past as the new Holte End is.

[VillaTim]

another member of the North Stand architectural heritage fan club here . It's unique.

[The Edge]

I think the North Stand is ugly inside and out but it's main problem is it holds just over 7,000. That's miniscule in terms of modern stadia.

[The Edge]

I don't think the delay to the North Stand is any more controversial than they see us being competitive for the first time in decades, probably well ahead of what they considered possible even 12 months ago. The prospect of playing in the Champions League & compeating at the top end of the PL in a ground with a reduced capacity is rightly being seen as a huge disadvantage.

Heck's remit is increase the clubs revenue & I have no doubt that's what he'll do. They'd be foolish if they didn't consider the option of moving to a new stadium & the potential revenues that could be generated from that.

In the meantime they'll squeeze every penny they can from the existing stadium, with minimal levels of investment.

It's been said plenty of times on here. The lower North is a solid Bank and could be kept. The upper North could be removed and built entirely new just as Liverpool did. We would only lose less than 4,000 seats during construction by doing it that way.

[Percy McCarthy]

I don't think the delay to the North Stand is any more controversial than they see us being competitive for the first time in decades, probably well ahead of what they considered possible even 12 months ago. The prospect of playing in the Champions League & compeating at the top end of the PL in a ground with a reduced capacity is rightly being seen as a huge disadvantage.

Heck's remit is increase the clubs revenue & I have no doubt that's what he'll do. They'd be foolish if they didn't consider the option of moving to a new stadium & the potential revenues that could be generated from that.

In the meantime they'll squeeze every penny they can from the existing stadium, with minimal levels of investment.

It's been said plenty of times on here. The lower North is a solid Bank and could be kept. The upper North could be removed and built entirely new just as Liverpool did. We would only lose less than 4,000 seats during construction by doing it that way.

It has been said plenty of times on here because people seem to ignore the problem of re-routing all the utilities, which is why it can’t be done. Even though that has been said plenty of times too.

[DB]

Liverpool just expanded the top tier of the existing stand.

[villa_cads]

I can't see why re-routing the utilities couldn't be done in isolation from new construction anyway. There is nothing to stop that starting now if there was a desire. In the context of the shelved plans, I'd have thought it would be more about programme.

[Percy McCarthy]

I can't see why re-routing the utilities couldn't be done in isolation from new construction anyway. There is nothing to stop that starting now if there was a desire. In the context of the shelved plans, I'd have thought it would be more about programme.

Well the club said it would take seven months and had to be done 1) after demolition and 2) before building could begin.

I’m pretty sure they asked someone who knows about these things.

[villa_cads]

I'm sure they did ask someone, but this is construction, there are many ways to do things depending on time and budget.

[usav]

The re-routing of utilities is a legitimate issue, however, they managed it 100 years ago in Indianapolis.

[Villan82]

They must know that announcing things, and going full bells and whistles with them, only to cancel them with no explanation is going to raise eyebrows.

[maidstonevillain]

I'm sure they did ask someone, but this is construction, there are many ways to do things depending on time and budget.

And who you ask.

[The Edge]

They must know that announcing things, and going full bells and whistles with them, only to cancel them with no explanation is going to raise eyebrows.

Exactly

[The Edge]

I don't think the delay to the North Stand is any more controversial than they see us being competitive for the first time in decades, probably well ahead of what they considered possible even 12 months ago. The prospect of playing in the Champions League & compeating at the top end of the PL in a ground with a reduced capacity is rightly being seen as a huge disadvantage.

Heck's remit is increase the clubs revenue & I have no doubt that's what he'll do. They'd be foolish if they didn't consider the option of moving to a new stadium & the potential revenues that could be generated from that.

In the meantime they'll squeeze every penny they can from the existing stadium, with minimal levels of investment.

It's been said plenty of times on here. The lower North is a solid Bank and could be kept. The upper North could be removed and built entirely new just as Liverpool did. We would only lose less than 4,000 seats during construction by doing it that way.

It has been said plenty of times on here because people seem to ignore the problem of re-routing all the utilities, which is why it can’t be done. Even though that has been said plenty of times too.

I've worked in construction for most of my life. I'm an electrician and I don't see the issue with relocating utilities. Any groundworks would be done once the upper tier has been removed. The lower North could be left in place whilst the construction of the new stand can carry on behind it.

[IFWaters]

another member of the North Stand architectural heritage fan club here . It's unique.

Norwich City built an identical copy. So no.