Villa Park Redevelopment

[pauliewalnuts]

The thing is, the thought of a brand new Villa Park on the existing site is really exciting, even it would mean playing our home games in Leicester or Wolverhampton for a couple of years.

We're going to have 10,000 fewer seats than Everton (Everton, ffs), probably 20k fewer than Newcastle will when they extend / move, 20k fewer than West Ham, 18k fewer than Spurs, and we'll be in a stadium where two of the stands are genuinely not fit for purpose.

I have a problem with how utterly small time that is.

[pauliewalnuts]

Incidentally a few months ago we resubmitted the plans without Villa Live.

Why didn’t we pause the whole thing then?

They wanted to downgrade Villa Live.  There was no reason not to resubmit the stand at the same time to retain the planning permission.

What I mean is - downgraded Villa Live, then shortly after pause the entire thing. It can't be that they've had some sort of epiphany between that and now?

Just pause it there and then.

There's something afoot.

[exigo]

The only feasible way to add anywhere near 3,000 seats into the existing stand footprint would be to dig the pitch down and put in extra rows at the front. And we all know that's not happening.

You've got the four corners, with the two either side of the North being the obvious targets. But it wouldn't be a quick or easy job at all. You'd have to knock down what's there already, put the seats in somehow, and then think about what you do with the roof so that they're covered. It would end up being a right botch job and looking shit, and I don't think for a second that they're going to do it.

That's not what I said – that would be extending the footprint, which is also a feasible way of adding 3,000 seats, just not a particularly inspiring way of spunking a whole chunk of cash for the added capacity.

[London Villan]

They needed planning permission for the new doors and external terrace in the Holte - so i guess 2000-3000 seats would need some sort of planning permission. Let alone safety certificates and crowd flow modelling etc.

[Villan82]

The thing is, the thought of a brand new Villa Park on the existing site is really exciting, even it would mean playing our home games in Leicester or Wolverhampton for a couple of years.

We're going to have 10,000 fewer seats than Everton (Everton, ffs), probably 20k fewer than Newcastle will when they extend / move, 20k fewer than West Ham, 18k fewer than Spurs, and we'll be in a stadium where two of the stands are genuinely not fit for purpose.

I have a problem with how utterly small time that is.

That's why redeveloping the North Stand made sense. Get us to 50k and all the bells and whistles in a new stand. Reassess and then see what can be done with the Witton. By all accounts we do pretty good hospitality in the Trinity. Keep the Holte as the stand of the die hard fans.

[pauliewalnuts]

The only feasible way to add anywhere near 3,000 seats into the existing stand footprint would be to dig the pitch down and put in extra rows at the front. And we all know that's not happening.

You've got the four corners, with the two either side of the North being the obvious targets. But it wouldn't be a quick or easy job at all. You'd have to knock down what's there already, put the seats in somehow, and then think about what you do with the roof so that they're covered. It would end up being a right botch job and looking shit, and I don't think for a second that they're going to do it.

That's not what I said – that would be extending the footprint, which is also a feasible way of adding 3,000 seats, just not a particularly inspiring way of spunking a whole chunk of cash for the added capacity.

Think how horrendously half-arsed and botched it'd be.

We can't tell ourselves we have a beautiful, characterful ground, then hammer in 3,000 seats where there are gaps, and end up with some sort of eye bleedingly awful mess like Wolves have.

[London Villan]

The only comparison I can think of is somewhere like Wrigley Field in Chicago, where seats have been shoehorned onto the roofs of adjacent buildings to increase the capacity and make the most of the properties overlooking the field. This could be done in the corners...

[PeterWithe]

Perhaps the 3k seats are going in Aston Park so they can see part of the field between the Holte and TR?

It would also give us some troops in reserve if we ever need them for Battle of the Condiments II

[Ads]

The thing is, the thought of a brand new Villa Park on the existing site is really exciting, even it would mean playing our home games in Leicester or Wolverhampton for a couple of years.

We're going to have 10,000 fewer seats than Everton (Everton, ffs), probably 20k fewer than Newcastle will when they extend / move, 20k fewer than West Ham, 18k fewer than Spurs, and we'll be in a stadium where two of the stands are genuinely not fit for purpose.

I have a problem with how utterly small time that is.

That's why redeveloping the North Stand made sense. Get us to 50k and all the bells and whistles in a new stand. Reassess and then see what can be done with the Witton. By all accounts we do pretty good hospitality in the Trinity. Keep the Holte as the stand of the die hard fans.

We'd still have a smaller ground than the aforementioned and we'd lack seriously behind the majority facility wise and money generation potential as a result. It makes no sense when you consider it from that point of view.

[eamonn]

There's a good photo by Terry Weir of fans watching on from the slopes of Aston Park having been "locked out" of Villa Park for the all-important (in the end, totally unimportant!) Villa v Ipswich top of the table clash in April '81

[chrisw1]

Incidentally a few months ago we resubmitted the plans without Villa Live.

Why didn’t we pause the whole thing then?

They wanted to downgrade Villa Live.  There was no reason not to resubmit the stand at the same time to retain the planning permission.

What I mean is - downgraded Villa Live, then shortly after pause the entire thing. It can't be that they've had some sort of epiphany between that and now?

Just pause it there and then.

There's something afoot.

Because they didn't need to.  Why not just keep the planning permission alive at no extra effort or cost?

[ian c.]

You've got the four corners, with the two either side of the North being the obvious targets.

I think the 2 massive roof supports would cause issues with lines of sight meaning only a smallish section could be tacked on the ends of the Witton and Trinity Road stands, unless you put on a new roof and took the supports away. 

[Ads]

Incidentally a few months ago we resubmitted the plans without Villa Live.

Why didn’t we pause the whole thing then?

They wanted to downgrade Villa Live.  There was no reason not to resubmit the stand at the same time to retain the planning permission.

What I mean is - downgraded Villa Live, then shortly after pause the entire thing. It can't be that they've had some sort of epiphany between that and now?

Just pause it there and then.

There's something afoot.

Because they didn't need to.  Why not just keep the planning permission alive at no extra effort or cost?

We still have planning permission now even though we've canned it. Our intention is immaterial.

[Gareth]

The thing is, the thought of a brand new Villa Park on the existing site is really exciting, even it would mean playing our home games in Leicester or Wolverhampton for a couple of years.

We're going to have 10,000 fewer seats than Everton (Everton, ffs), probably 20k fewer than Newcastle will when they extend / move, 20k fewer than West Ham, 18k fewer than Spurs, and we'll be in a stadium where two of the stands are genuinely not fit for purpose.

I have a problem with how utterly small time that is.

That's why redeveloping the North Stand made sense. Get us to 50k and all the bells and whistles in a new stand. Reassess and then see what can be done with the Witton. By all accounts we do pretty good hospitality in the Trinity. Keep the Holte as the stand of the die hard fans.

We'd still have a smaller ground than the aforementioned and we'd lack seriously behind the majority facility wise and money generation potential as a result. It makes no sense when you consider it from that point of view.

It’s exactly this discussion that shows that it wasn’t the decision that was necessarily incorrect it was the ham fisted way they communicated it.   All they had to say was that it was on hold whilst they consider all options rather than using the 200 seats excuse.

Communication is awful

[algy]

The only comparison I can think of is somewhere like Wrigley Field in Chicago, where seats have been shoehorned onto the roofs of adjacent buildings to increase the capacity and make the most of the properties overlooking the field. This could be done in the corners...

This is one of my favourite photos ... from Dundee United when their stand was under construction ...