The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[RiG]

Bold move for Aberdeen to state in their updated documentation that development at Kings Links was ruled out because the area "is zoned as Urban Green Space, Green Space Network and Coastal Management Area. This zoning carries a presumption against development" and then submit an application to build a new stadium and training complex on, erm, green space land (though it's hard to see exactly what designations apply to the land at Kingsford - a good time for ACC to update their website and remove their previous Development Plans).

Edited November 29, 2017 by RiG

[strichener]

17 minutes ago, gkneil said:

Thats strange, link didn't work there either.

The following looks to be exactly the same link, but it does work for me.

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/files/39B93B02D4641C2722A2963DB85EB6DF/pdf/170021_DPP-Supporting_Statement-1578549.pdf

 

The next link is to the website that has the 4 latest submissions by the club, supporting statement and 3 sets of appendices.

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00

 

If the links still don't work, search the planning application website for supporting statements. They were uploaded on the 21st Nov

Thanks, still can't get the link to work but I have looked at the economic case in Appendix P and stand by my earlier post regarding the absolute fantasy of the numbers.  It basically boils down to - Pittodrie can only get worse, Kingsford will be better (in terms of supporter numbers).  Also interested to note that they think there will be an improvement in meals etc. whilst having less corporate boxes than they currently have.  I am not sure that being able to cater 100 more meals 18 times a season will balance even this simple reduction.

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, RiG said:

Bold move for Aberdeen to state in their updated documentation that development at Kings Links was ruled out because the area "is zoned as Urban Green Space, Green Space Network and Coastal Management Area. This zoning carries a presumption against development" and then submit an application to build a new stadium and training complex on, erm, green space land (though it's hard to see exactly what designations apply to the land at Kingsford - a good time for ACC to update their website and remove their previous Development Plans).

Bolder still is their assertion that ONLY Kingsford is viable.  Anyone looking a satellite image of Aberdeen will see how ludicrous this statement is.

[Dunfermline Don]

Well, Dunfermline and Perth have similar populations. Dunfermline average attendance in the Championship 5800.
StJohnstone, a top six team, average attendance 4800. One is further away from the town centre (St Johnstone )but not nearly as far away as Kingsford from Aberdeen. Most of the Dunfermline support walk to the stadium.
If the Dons moved to Kingsford and they ever hit a bad patch, as all teams do, it could prove disastrous for the club.
Pittodrie is the option for me and two fingers to Stewarty boy.

Dunfermline count season ticket holders whether they attend or not, last weeks game v Morton had 4800ish as the official crowd but it was probably nearer 3000.

[gkneil]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

Bolder still is their assertion that ONLY Kingsford is viable.  Anyone looking a satellite image of Aberdeen will see how ludicrous this statement is.

There's a bit more to it than looking at satellite images. What satellite images are you looking at anyway? I only ever looked at google maps which is quite outdated now.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

4 hours ago, gkneil said:

Thats the club submitted additional information regarding the Kingsford proposal focussing on a number of points the the planning department had raised queries on. Based on a combined training/stadium complex, the Club can demonstrate clearly why Kings Links & Loirston are no use but I hope the supporting info on why we need to combine them is enough.

Link to the Club's statement: https://www.afc.co.uk/aurora/

Link to the additional information we've submitted: https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/files/39B93B02D4641C2722A2963DB85EB6DF/pdf/170021_DPP-Supporting_Statement-1578549.pdf

The appendices to go with the above main doc can be found on the website too.

Plenty NIMBYism flowing in from Westhill, but with a focus on 'don't move from Pittodrie' as much as NIMBY.

I'd be very careful about supporting the move to Kingsford. Who wants to see the destruction of one of Scotland's greatest stadiums just to make a lot of £'s for a property developer? There is no reason at all why Pittodrie cannot be re-developed.

[PauloPerth]

1 hour ago, Dunfermline Don said:

Dunfermline count season ticket holders whether they attend or not, last weeks game v Morton had 4800ish as the official crowd but it was probably nearer 3000.

Really?!

1800 season ticket holders don't bother going along to a home game? That sounds a lot.

[Dunfermline Don]

Really?!
1800 season ticket holders don't bother going along to a home game? That sounds a lot.

Under 12 seasons are free. The club stopped selling them on match days due to that being abused so there may be a few bought and only used once.
Anyway back to subject of the thread I prefer Pittodrie or a location near the city centre not by a ring road.

[Salvo Montalbano]

Dunfermline count season ticket holders whether they attend or not, last weeks game v Morton had 4800ish as the official crowd but it was probably nearer 3000.

While that's certainly true (and makes a mockery of announcing the attendance when it's no such thing) apparently it's done by all the clubs in the top two leagues so it's still comparing like with like.

[strichener]

 

2 hours ago, gkneil said:

There's a bit more to it than looking at satellite images. What satellite images are you looking at anyway? I only ever looked at google maps which is quite outdated now.

I have attached a satellite image of Aberdeen that is a couple of years old (hasn't some of the more recent housing etc.) 

The red section is where AFC want their stadium and is the approximate size of the site that they have allocated.  Now tell me that looking at the attached overview of this, that the only place that this stadium could go is Kingsford!  It may be an available site (and inexpensive) but it certainly is not the only place it can go.

If you want a more recent satellite image then you can see one here:  https://s2maps.eu/  a look at which will only confirm the above.

 

 

[Aberdeen Cowden]

17 minutes ago, strichener said:

 

I have attached a satellite image of Aberdeen that is a couple of years old (hasn't some of the more recent housing etc.) 

The red section is where AFC want their stadium and is the approximate size of the site that they have allocated.  Now tell me that looking at the attached overview of this, that the only place that this stadium could go is Kingsford!  It may be an available site (and inexpensive) but it certainly is not the only place it can go.

If you want a more recent satellite image then you can see one here:  https://s2maps.eu/  a look at which will only confirm the above.

 

 

The site was available for peanuts because two other developments had already been refused as it is greenbelt. The developer took a punt, nothing to lose, if it comes off he will make a fortune.

[Dunty]

On 29/11/2017 at 17:00, strichener said:

 

I have attached a satellite image of Aberdeen that is a couple of years old (hasn't some of the more recent housing etc.) 

The red section is where AFC want their stadium and is the approximate size of the site that they have allocated.  Now tell me that looking at the attached overview of this, that the only place that this stadium could go is Kingsford!  It may be an available site (and inexpensive) but it certainly is not the only place it can go.

If you want a more recent satellite image then you can see one here:  https://s2maps.eu/  a look at which will only confirm the above.

 

 

But all that green space you're showing is all land that is clearly no-where near the city centre. So if you're against an out of town stadium your satellite image isn't doing much to convince there's better alternatives.

The land at Kingsford is costing just over £1m. To buy land in the city centre (the old AECC site for example) is somewhere between £14m-£25m. Aberdeen believe the Pittodrie site is worth £18m for example. The council were going to give them land at Loirston then took it away.

Building it anywhere else other than Kingsford, including Pittodrie, leaves the club with a massive shortfall, one they can't afford and would cripple them financially.  So in that respect it is the only realistic option.

[strichener]

1 minute ago, Dunty said:

But all that green space you're showing is all land that is clearly no-where near the city centre. So if you're against an out of town stadium your satellite image isn't doing much to convince there's better alternatives.

The land at Kingsford is costing just over £1m. To buy land in the city centre (the old AECC site for example) is somewhere between £14m-£25m. Aberdeen believe the Pittodrie site is worth £18m for example. The council were going to give them land at Loirston then took it away.

Building it anywhere else other than Kingsford, including Pittodrie, leaves the club with a massive shortfall, one they can't afford and would cripple them financially.  So in that respect it is the only realistic option.

Well if you start on a false premise then you are likely to miss the point.  I am not against an out-of-town stadium.  AFC have however stated that Kingsford is the only place that it can go.

As for your costings, they are immaterial to the planning process and it certainly doesn't make Kingsford appropriate for a stadium on the basis that it is the only place that is affordable to AFC.  There is green-belt land and local plans for a reason.  A dodgy business case and lots of emotion does not provide a sound basis for using green-belt land.

[Dunty]

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

Well if you start on a false premise then you are likely to miss the point.  I am not against an out-of-town stadium.  AFC have however stated that Kingsford is the only place that it can go.

As for your costings, they are immaterial to the planning process and it certainly doesn't make Kingsford appropriate for a stadium on the basis that it is the only place that is affordable to AFC.  There is green-belt land and local plans for a reason.  A dodgy business case and lots of emotion does not provide a sound basis for using green-belt land.

It's a case of reading between the lines. Aberdeen are clearly saying, realistically, this is our only option because we can't afford anywhere else and the council's *help* in all this has been remote at best.

Yes you can say redeveloping Pittodrie is possible. It's possible if you double the budget. 

If Kingsford is rejected, then Aberdeen can't afford anything else. There is no plan B.

 

edit: On the point about "costings being immaterial to the planning process". Aberdeen were asked to provide more information as to why they have chosen Kingsford over other sites. They have made their reasons clear - they can't afford the other ones and in some cases the land is too small anyway.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Dunty

[strichener]

23 minutes ago, Dunty said:

It's a case of reading between the lines. Aberdeen are clearly saying, realistically, this is our only option because we can't afford anywhere else and the council's *help* in all this has been remote at best.

Yes you can say redeveloping Pittodrie is possible. It's possible if you double the budget. 

If Kingsford is rejected, then Aberdeen can't afford anything else. There is no plan B.

 

edit: On the point about "costings being immaterial to the planning process". Aberdeen were asked to provide more information as to why they have chosen Kingsford over other sites. They have made their reasons clear - they can't afford the other ones and in some cases the land is too small anyway.

Once again, AFC's affordability has nothing to do with the suitability of a site from a planning and development perspective.  Their wish to have everything on a single site is a major reason why there are a lack of suitable sites.  Why does Aberdeen need to have a single site solution when it is clearly not the norm within professional football clubs.  If they cut the site size down to that  required for training facilities they would be opening up many more options. 

As for redeveloping Pittodrie - there is no way that it would not require a doubling of the budget.  Hearts have just managed to redevelop their main stand at a cost of £12million and in a smaller area of ground than AFC have at the moment.  Why would Aberdeen not manage to do the same?  Let's no kid on here - it isn't a case that Pittodrie cannot be redeveloped within AFC's budget but that they don't want to do it. 

[fatshaft]

On 11/29/2017 at 17:20, Aberdeen Cowden said:

The site was available for peanuts because two other developments had already been refused as it is greenbelt. The developer took a punt, nothing to lose, if it comes off he will make a fortune.

Not a developer, local farmer, direct sale to AFC

[Dunty]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

Once again, AFC's affordability has nothing to do with the suitability of a site from a planning and development perspective.  Their wish to have everything on a single site is a major reason why there are a lack of suitable sites.  Why does Aberdeen need to have a single site solution when it is clearly not the norm within professional football clubs.  If they cut the site size down to that  required for training facilities they would be opening up many more options. 

Because according to the planning committee that is the main issue. They have asked Aberdeen to justify the site selection. They have said they can't afford anywhere else.

Whether they accept that reasoning or not is up to them, but I wouldn't say Aberdeen saying they cant and won't be able to build anywhere else as irrelevant, as it could be a case of Aberdeen City Council turning down £50m of private investment.

The council are pushing Kings Links and Loirston. Aberdeen have explained the costs in splitting the project into two seperate sites. They reckon it's an extra £11m. That's the difference between being able to do it and having to shelve it due to lack of funds.

 

[Dunty]

 

3 hours ago, strichener said:

As for redeveloping Pittodrie - there is no way that it would not require a doubling of the budget.  Hearts have just managed to redevelop their main stand at a cost of £12million and in a smaller area of ground than AFC have at the moment.

 

The land Hearts had to build their main stand far exceeds the room Aberdeen have behind three of their stands. That's not up for debate, look at a photo of it.

But even if you were correct, even if building a 20,000 capacity stadium on that footprint was possible, because they're not selling the land they're starting without a good £15m-£17m of funds. They have to either play elsewhere for a year or sieve four years with reduced capacity while it's built stand by stand, so that's more money thrown away. 

And the fact you're wrong and Aberdeen will need to buy more land to increase the footprint, it would easily double the cost of Kingsford.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

 

I might be missing something here but...

 

Isn’t there a 22,000 capacity stadium on the existing footprint already?

 

Which suggests that it might be at least possible to fit a 20,000 capacity stadium on it.

 

 

[thekorean]

What is the benefit of new stadium if it isn't going to boost the attendance numbers? The location seems awful.