Villa Park Redevelopment

[pauliewalnuts]

They're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.

If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares.

It's about the same size, surely?

It doesn't look - from inside the stadium - any different to the Purslow version. It's the sensible thing to do, rather than having one end of the ground empty for two years.

[London Villan]

Probably 15% shorter and doesn't wrap into the middle tier of the Trinity.

[paul_e]

It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.

[eamonn]

As long as we're over the "psychological barrier" of 49,999...

[pauliewalnuts]

It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.

At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.

[paul_e]

It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.

At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.

Indeed we could, but there's no evidence that we were going to. There was talk of more work to come but we never saw anything about it

[Villan82]

It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.

At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.

Oh, how dare they. Everybody knows you are the last word on this.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.

At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.

Oh, how dare they. Everybody knows you are the last word on this.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm predicting what people will say based on 20 years wasted on here. Because someone will.

[FatSam]

They're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.

If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares.

It's about the same size, surely?

It doesn't look - from inside the stadium - any different to the Purslow version. It's the sensible thing to do, rather than having one end of the ground empty for two years.

I’m pretty sure the footprint is slightly smaller. I’m assuming that is to avoid the below ground utilities which needed to be redirected before work could start on the Purslow scheme.

[paul_e]

They're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.

If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares.

It's about the same size, surely?

It doesn't look - from inside the stadium - any different to the Purslow version. It's the sensible thing to do, rather than having one end of the ground empty for two years.

I’m pretty sure the footprint is slightly smaller. I’m assuming that is to avoid the below ground utilities which needed to be redirected before work could start on the Purslow scheme.

and the corners aren't wrapped around like they were.

About 1:15 in to the video - https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2025/april/24/aston-villa-announce-redevelopment-of-the-iconic-north-stand/

vs

2nd image down here - https://stadiumdb.com/news/2022/09/england_renderings_of_the_revamped_villa_park_revealed

Probably only a couple of hundred seats lost for that though.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's worth losing a couple hundred seats to stop this joining-up-stands nonsense.

It's un-English.

[cdbearsfan]

Not if it means we get crowds of 49,900 every week.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'd rather have 1,000 in four seperate stands than 50,000 in some sort of absurd, American-style 'bowl'.

Fuck that. That's a slippy slope to clippy clappy things like Leicester had a few years ago. And Mexican waves and goal music*




* obvs this last one, not such a problem this season.