collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Brentford League Cup Post match moan. by tomd2103
[Today at 01:40:09 PM]


Sunderland vs Aston Villa pre-match thread by VancouverLion
[Today at 01:36:34 PM]


Unai Emery by ROBBO
[Today at 01:33:47 PM]


Donyell Malen by RamboandBruno
[Today at 01:33:18 PM]


Kits 25/26 by cdbearsfan
[Today at 01:26:16 PM]


Villa Goal of the season by Toronto Villa
[Today at 01:22:46 PM]


Evann Guessand by brontebilly
[Today at 01:06:11 PM]


Ramón Rodríguez Verdejo (AKA Monchi) by SamTheMouse
[Today at 12:57:43 PM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Villa Park Redevelopment  (Read 1212525 times)

Online pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74932
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11190 on: September 16, 2025, 07:32:06 PM »
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.

Offline London Villan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11029
  • Location: Brum
  • GM : 01.10.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11191 on: September 16, 2025, 07:59:52 PM »
Probably 15% shorter and doesn't wrap into the middle tier of the Trinity.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37500
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11192 on: September 16, 2025, 08:12:18 PM »
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.

Offline eamonn

  • Member
  • Posts: 34128
  • Location: Stay in sight of the mainland
  • GM : 26.07.2020
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11193 on: September 16, 2025, 08:22:51 PM »
As long as we're over the "psychological barrier" of 49,999...

Online pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74932
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11194 on: September 16, 2025, 08:26:46 PM »
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.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37500
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11195 on: September 16, 2025, 08:30:08 PM »
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

Offline Villan82

  • Member
  • Posts: 4261
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11196 on: September 16, 2025, 08:35:15 PM »
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.

Online pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74932
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11197 on: September 16, 2025, 08:36:12 PM »
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.

Offline FatSam

  • Member
  • Posts: 1480
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11198 on: September 16, 2025, 08:54:43 PM »
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.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 37500
  • Age: 45
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11199 on: September 16, 2025, 09:07:48 PM »
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.

Online pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74932
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11200 on: September 16, 2025, 09:39:23 PM »
It's worth losing a couple hundred seats to stop this joining-up-stands nonsense.

It's un-English.

Offline cdbearsfan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 73687
  • Location: Yardley Massive
  • I still hate Bono.
  • GM : 03.02.2026
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11201 on: September 16, 2025, 09:40:31 PM »
Not if it means we get crowds of 49,900 every week.

Online pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74932
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11202 on: September 16, 2025, 09:41:16 PM »
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.

Offline chrisw1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10107
  • GM : 21.08.2026
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11203 on: Today at 11:20:21 AM »
I think Everton's new stadium is outstanding, albeit a touch tight on capacity.

The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff could do with aesthetic improvements externally, but inside is an incredible stadium.

Not all new stadia are soulless bowls.

I love VP, but you can easily link the lower tiers and still retain the 4 stands look.  I also think a horseshoe of the Trinity, North and Witton with the Holte as a feature single tier stand would look great.

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • Posts: 43268
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 17.04.2024
Re: Villa Park Redevelopment
« Reply #11204 on: Today at 11:44:59 AM »
I found their new ground...functional. Well sort of.

Functional in the sense that I could see the entire pitch for the first time in 35 visits. Seat and the safe standing rail all par for the course.

But the toilets were a bit weird. Endless cubicles and only 3 in the womens. Then there was the queue. Bit of a scrum, quite Villa Park-esq.

It's not really that big close up and they funnel you through the old wall of the dock, so you get natural choke points. Then when you're queuing to get in. I dunno.

Inside its fine I guess, if characterless steel is your bag. Inoffensive I suppose. Like they'd added 3.5 tiers into Leicester and tipped the angle a bit.

I dunno. Maybe I've seen too many bowls to be impressed by much.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal