Jump to content

Parramatta Stadium To Be Rebuilt!

mack

By mack
in Western Sydney Wanderers

Recommended Posts

Wanderboy

Wanderboy

Posted
Posted

I also prefer the uniform design all around, but the above one with the red/black seats wouldn't fit lengthwise in the current space, that was a fantasy design.

 

The other option is to do something similar to the above, but just have the ends smaller and without a 2nd tier, but still enclosed?

Yep, I understand, but Flytox hasn't got back to me yet whether this new stadium will need to be within the confines of the current footprint, with height also being a concern, without legislation change.

If not, surely we could have a similar design still with two tiered ends, just smaller?

Link to comment
Gazmon

Gazmon

Posted
Posted

 

I also prefer the uniform design all around, but the above one with the red/black seats wouldn't fit lengthwise in the current space, that was a fantasy design.

 

The other option is to do something similar to the above, but just have the ends smaller and without a 2nd tier, but still enclosed?

Yep, I understand, but Flytox hasn't got back to me yet whether this new stadium will need to be within the confines of the current footprint, with height also being a concern, without legislation change.

If not, surely we could have a similar design still with two tiered ends, just smaller?

 

 

Depends what people want too... so no sloped top tier is fairly a no go?

 

Could do a smaller top tier, similar to the MK Dons one too.

Link to comment
Wanderboy

Wanderboy

Posted
Posted

 

 

I also prefer the uniform design all around, but the above one with the red/black seats wouldn't fit lengthwise in the current space, that was a fantasy design.

 

The other option is to do something similar to the above, but just have the ends smaller and without a 2nd tier, but still enclosed?

Yep, I understand, but Flytox hasn't got back to me yet whether this new stadium will need to be within the confines of the current footprint, with height also being a concern, without legislation change.

If not, surely we could have a similar design still with two tiered ends, just smaller?

 

 

Depends what people want too... so no sloped top tier is fairly a no go?

 

Only for me. Just a personal preference mate.

Link to comment
Flytox

Flytox

Posted
Posted

Wanderboy.  I don't know how the Government will tackle the limitations of the existing site.  Currently the site cannot be enlarged but the Government might be able to negotiate a change with the Park maybe by swapping land???  As to height restrictions that were placed on the existing development the new development should be judged on its merits as far as environmental impact is concerned.  Increased height may or may not be an issue.

 

The curved top tier is actually better for atmosphere than the equally loaded design for a number of reasons.  The corners are the least preferred places to sit and moving spectators from there and grouping them around halfway reduces their viewing distances by 25m+ and reduces the distance between spectators throughout the seating bowl resulting in significantly increased sound intensity/pressure throughout the bowl.  The high wall created by the extended top tier also visually improves the sense of enclosure from the stands opposite but also in side vision from the end tiers.  The reason a circular plan design isn't adopted often is it takes up more area and is harder to build because of the curves and changes in roof height.

 

I was going to elaborate on this in response to comments made earlier about liking the atmosphere at SFS but didn't get to finish it.  :)

Link to comment
Flytox

Flytox

Posted
Posted

 

Would it be feasible to have a similar (but smaller) open area at the same walkway height in the North Terrace so the accessible seating/spaces don't have to be so detached from the rest of the RBB. Perhaps extending the terrace a few rows higher so there is no loss in capacity, but still remaining a single tier.

 

Asking for a friend :ninja:

 

I read the latest BCA recently but don't have a copy so I am going by memory here but it requires that accessible seating be placed throughout the venue so that "every" experience that is feasible within the seating bowl is available to patrons who need these facilities.  I can't remember what size bowl I was playing around with at the time but it might have been a 40k all seater and it required about 210 accessible seeing/spaces plus companion spaces.  Your friend should be able to get good views from wherever he wants to sit.  ;)

Link to comment
Wanderboy

Wanderboy

Posted
Posted

Wanderboy.  I don't know how the Government will tackle the limitations of the existing site.  Currently the site cannot be enlarged but the Government might be able to negotiate a change with the Park maybe by swapping land???  As to height restrictions that were placed on the existing development the new development should be judged on its merits as far as environmental impact is concerned.  Increased height may or may not be an issue.

Yet you said this on the 3rd December, 2013.........

 

I'd think that it would be much harder to get approval now than it was 30 years ago in fact I'd be quite surprised if a Government tried again to circumvent legislation enacted for the management of the Park and the protection of heritage.

http://www.westsydneyfootball.com/topic/4455-parramatta-stadium-upgrade-news-future-lobbying/page-17?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, rather just trying to understand whether there will be issues with Baird's plans.

The issues with the park and the Trust, are still here now, I would guess. It's only just over 23 months since you made that comment, and I'm hoping, as you seem to have some knowledge of these issues, that we won't come up against a stone wall again.

 

I sat and watched all this nonsense the last time when Cumberland Oval was proposed to be upgraded.

I'm just hoping that this time, these issues will not road block any proposal, or, worse still, have them down graded because of a few trees, of that maybe, a long dead Governor might have a visual of it from his Heritage listed bedroom window from Government House across the river, in which no one resides anyway.

Link to comment
Wanderboy

Wanderboy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah the national trust or whatever they're called are still very anal about the view lines to old govt house. It's a world heritage site afterall. Parra council has had a heap of dramas dealing with the restrictions as part of their CBD master planning

Indeed they have. I've been watching that too.

So does this mean the stadium won't go ahead?

I'm keen to know at this early stage whether this proposal will be stonewalled, or whether the site height and boundary limitations will be a hindrance to planning, as Flytox was saying previously. He was adamant that the legislation would be an impediment to exceeding current height and boundary legislative limitations.

 

Flytox said......

 

I guess we will have to disagree. It has nothing to do with a Government having "balls". It is to do with a Government respecting the intent of law enacted by the NSW Parliament. If a Government wants to ride roughshod over a proper planning system and make the decisions it wants to then they should have the "balls" to repeal the legislation and set up the letterbox for the little brown envelopes at the Ministers office.

And I'm saying that legislation shouldn't be changed just to get this potential project up. If the project can't get through the "system" including appeals to the Land and Environment Court then it shouldn't happen.

 

So, I'm just questioning whether this may be a potential problem.

Maybe someone from the club or otherwise, can answer.

Edited by Wanderboy
Link to comment
Flytox

Flytox

Posted
Posted

Wanderboy.  I'm really unsure what you are after.  There is a process for approving this development that is meant to deliver the right outcome for the whole of society.  That process takes into account heritage and environmental issues amongst lots of other things.  Of course there is a chance that the process will see the project modified but at this stage we don't even know what the project is other than a 30k rebuild of the stadium so how can we know the outcome of the process and worrying about it serves no purpose.  Keep your eye open and if there is an opportunity for public input go for it then if its needed.

 

You seem to be worried about the limitation of the site.  One thing you should take note of is the general principle that you can only develop on the land you own not on someone else's land.  At the moment the Park is on a different title to the stadium so development can't happen there without some change occurring or some agreement being reached.  At this stage we don't even know whether the size of the site is of concern to the project.  Time will tell.

 

If you really want something to worry about then you should know that the unions have put a green ban on the North Parramatta Redevelopment Precinct next to the stadium.  Let's hope they don't buy into this and use it as a political football.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/unions-weigh-in-on-fight-over-heritage-site-development/6729952

Link to comment
Gazmon

Gazmon

Posted
Posted

Based on my design I'll stick to the plot of land that it currently resides on (I'm assuming that the plot is squared off, roughly); this will give me at least some framework to design within.

 

I do like the curved roof design too, but I fear that that design would just blend in with ANZ and Allianz. As much as I like Suncorp I don't want anything too 'box-type' and bland. Then with AAMI that is very iconic and would be perfect, but I don't want an AAMI Park copy.

 

I was even thinking of a smaller version of Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta or US Bank in Minneapolis, both of which are new NFL stadiums, but can be retro-designed to suit.

Link to comment
ColdRock

ColdRock

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wanderboy. I'm really unsure what you are after. There is a process for approving this development that is meant to deliver the right outcome for the whole of society. That process takes into account heritage and environmental issues amongst lots of other things. Of course there is a chance that the process will see the project modified but at this stage we don't even know what the project is other than a 30k rebuild of the stadium so how can we know the outcome of the process and worrying about it serves no purpose. Keep your eye open and if there is an opportunity for public input go for it then if its needed.

 

You seem to be worried about the limitation of the site. One thing you should take note of is the general principle that you can only develop on the land you own not on someone else's land. At the moment the Park is on a different title to the stadium so development can't happen there without some change occurring or some agreement being reached. At this stage we don't even know whether the size of the site is of concern to the project. Time will tell.

 

If you really want something to worry about then you should know that the unions have put a green ban on the North Parramatta Redevelopment Precinct next to the stadium. Let's hope they don't buy into this and use it as a political football.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/unions-weigh-in-on-fight-over-heritage-site-development/6729952

Please, a quick brown paper bag and they'll become very amicable..... turncoat scum Edited by ColdRock
Link to comment
Flytox

Flytox

Posted
Posted

Based on my design I'll stick to the plot of land that it currently resides on (I'm assuming that the plot is squared off, roughly); this will give me at least some framework to design within.

 

I do like the curved roof design too, but I fear that that design would just blend in with ANZ and Allianz. As much as I like Suncorp I don't want anything too 'box-type' and bland. Then with AAMI that is very iconic and would be perfect, but I don't want an AAMI Park copy.

 

I was even thinking of a smaller version of Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta or US Bank in Minneapolis, both of which are new NFL stadiums, but can be retro-designed to suit.

If you get on to SIX Maps and choose Maps in Basemaps and Lot Boundaries in Map Contents you can see the actual boundaries.

At the risk of looking like a massive dill, since its a new stadium .... if there are height restrictions can't we just dig down further and have the pitch lower ?  Or is there an artesian basin down there or something ?  

From memory they took it as low as they could and still be far enough above the water table.

Link to comment
Smoggy

Smoggy

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

I also prefer the uniform design all around, but the above one with the red/black seats wouldn't fit lengthwise in the current space, that was a fantasy design.

 

The other option is to do something similar to the above, but just have the ends smaller and without a 2nd tier, but still enclosed?

Yep, I understand, but Flytox hasn't got back to me yet whether this new stadium will need to be within the confines of the current footprint, with height also being a concern, without legislation change.

If not, surely we could have a similar design still with two tiered ends, just smaller?

 

 

Depends what people want too... so no sloped top tier is fairly a no go?

 

Could do a smaller top tier, similar to the MK Dons one too.

 

 

This thread has been ruined for me by introducing the name MK Dons and showing a photo of their stadium, vile club  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:  :bad:

 

MK Dons should never be associated with a template for anything. Plenty of other good stadium examples out there.

Edited by WSWBoro
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...