Jump to content

Queen’s Park 21/22


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

 

Interesting to read that the Lesser re-development is slightly more ambitious:

https://queensparkfc.co.uk/bigger-and-better-for-lesser-hampden/

Clearly it was needed now the club is full time. What I find amusing is that the above poster seems to have given them ideas - i.e. moving the pitch, extending the stand the full length of the pitch and building behind the goal.

Is this why work stopped, perhaps?

Anyway, good for Queens Park, though a shame about the cottage.

 

One of the challenges to having a wraparound stand is the ground elevations on the outside of the boundary wall, as you can see below. The south-east corner is lower in both directions. The boundary wall is staggered to accommodate the rising elevations. To have a continuous stand with an even roofline, to give the best aesthetics from inside the ground, needed cladding introduced to infill the gaps between roof and walls. You can see on the new design drawing published on our website that is now included. This significantly adds cost not only in material but with a more complex construction and a specialist contractor to sign it off. It also means that with the roofline now being at a constant height, structural steel columns will vary, again adding complexity. Introducing complexity increases the risk of mistakes and thereby delays, added cost etc. This suggest to me that the new architect has been given a much better brief and also that we will need to employ a contractor with relevant experience to do this. We’ve moved from a very simple tin shed to an integrated design with architectural feature. Presumably when the north stand is eventually built it will follow a similar design. Celtic Park’s new stands were built in 3 stages but finished to look like a single continuous stand.

I also noted from the images published that the floodlights are featured. These are mentioned in the planning consent re light pollution etc. but they are actually one of the key elements with regard to the SPFL requirements to have the ground licensed. They haven’t been mentioned previously. I suspect these and the wall-hung Director’s stand were two of the main problems in the original contract.

The only thing I don’t see yet that would be useful is a pukka club shop which I would have built-in to the South stand but with a shopfront onto the street. The shop could then be opened when the community teams play, or reserves or just about any time. Just to the right of the current pavilion, suited with similar glass design, colour scheme. And of course a back door that allows stadium tours to exit via the shop. Just a thought…..

Whilst the original pause seemed to be about contractual difficulties, the subsequent introduction of new staff and the increased availability of investment has allowed a more ambitious design. The end result now looks like a football stadium rather than a converted training ground. The champagne will stay in the fridge until it’s built but it looks like we’re on the right track now. Just have to get it built!

image.thumb.png.3741acc57f8ea8a763214c9fed6c10fd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

That seems like a very spurious claim tbh. It was a farmhouse until Lesser Hampden was built in the 1920s.

If Brechin City decided to start changing in the cathedral would that become the oldest football building in the world?

Yeah, I mean it's only the "oldest surviving football building in the world" because other clubs have demolished buildings over the years to accommodate what they needed to do to re-develop their own ground. But we're not allowed to do that apparently, we're everyone's favourite little heritage project (when it suits them) Apart from when we were forced to sell Hampden and departed without any fanfare. Not many of them seemed to care about that aspect of our history. How many of them have been to Lesser and actually seen the place? It's basically dressing rooms, showers and toilets with a small upstairs room. It would probably have been gone years ago if Willie Haughey hadn't donated a  team of his workies to give it a spruce up. It won't be getting used again for anything so the pearl clutchers just want it to sit there. Maybe one of them could take it away brick by brick and re-assemble it in their back garden?

I'm one of the club's biggest critics at times but I back them 100% on this. They've tried to incorporate it into the plans but it's just not feasible now. I love our history but I care more about the future.  

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

One of the challenges to having a wraparound stand is the ground elevations on the outside of the boundary wall, as you can see below. The south-east corner is lower in both directions. The boundary wall is staggered to accommodate the rising elevations. To have a continuous stand with an even roofline, to give the best aesthetics from inside the ground, needed cladding introduced to infill the gaps between roof and walls. You can see on the new design drawing published on our website that is now included. This significantly adds cost not only in material but with a more complex construction and a specialist contractor to sign it off. It also means that with the roofline now being at a constant height, structural steel columns will vary, again adding complexity. Introducing complexity increases the risk of mistakes and thereby delays, added cost etc. This suggest to me that the new architect has been given a much better brief and also that we will need to employ a contractor with relevant experience to do this. We’ve moved from a very simple tin shed to an integrated design with architectural feature. Presumably when the north stand is eventually built it will follow a similar design. Celtic Park’s new stands were built in 3 stages but finished to look like a single continuous stand.

I also noted from the images published that the floodlights are featured. These are mentioned in the planning consent re light pollution etc. but they are actually one of the key elements with regard to the SPFL requirements to have the ground licensed. They haven’t been mentioned previously. I suspect these and the wall-hung Director’s stand were two of the main problems in the original contract.

The only thing I don’t see yet that would be useful is a pukka club shop which I would have built-in to the South stand but with a shopfront onto the street. The shop could then be opened when the community teams play, or reserves or just about any time. Just to the right of the current pavilion, suited with similar glass design, colour scheme. And of course a back door that allows stadium tours to exit via the shop. Just a thought…..

Whilst the original pause seemed to be about contractual difficulties, the subsequent introduction of new staff and the increased availability of investment has allowed a more ambitious design. The end result now looks like a football stadium rather than a converted training ground. The champagne will stay in the fridge until it’s built but it looks like we’re on the right track now. Just have to get it built!

image.thumb.png.3741acc57f8ea8a763214c9fed6c10fd.png

Good comment about a club shop, but the fact that this is not in the plans, suggest to me that when they move the pitch to build the away support stand, that when it is relayed it will be a grass pitch and that the youths etc will be playing in Toryglen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dooflick said:

Good comment about a club shop, but the fact that this is not in the plans, suggest to me that when they move the pitch to build the away support stand, that when it is relayed it will be a grass pitch and that the youths etc will be playing in Toryglen

I would also agree about the shop and a visible entrance from the outside.

There's a lot that's been said so far from Dempster and the past president about maximising profitability from Lesser. As well as the pitch, this seems to include refitting the pavilion with multi function rooms that can be rented out for various different types of events (dance/fitness classes, business meetings/conferences, dining). I would therefore expect that the new pitch will also be astro so that it can be used all through the week both for our own women's, youth and community teams, and rented out to others.

I know that the Community teams haven't found it easy to have a regular all weather pitch to train on recently, and I believe that the youth teams have had similair issues, so unless (or until) we have first refusal over other training facilities, I would expect Lesser will be used throughout the week.

My understanding is that the first team will continue to train at Lochinch once Lesser is finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the farmhouse/pavilion side, I  wonder if the wording of the update on the website is a bit misleading.

I believe the original plan was to have that side as the home stand, with seating for around 800. Much of the concrete work to extend the existing stand down towards the pitch to accommodate more seating has now been completed. I can't see that being removed now, and surely there is no need for 800 seats for directors and sponsors.

My reading of the update is that this stand will eventually be completed roughly as per the original plan, with the back section where the farmhouse is being the area for directors and sponsors.

There are no images of the proposal for this side, so I'm admittedly guessing all this, but it would make sense to me that we would still have plenty of seating on the Pavilion side if we want to increase attendances as time goes by as i would expect the ambition will be for more than 1000 home fans. The only thing that makes me less sure about this is that at the last meeting we were told that the new East stand would be the priority so that we can be in for the start of next season, and work on the West side would continue once we're back. Would they want an unfinished stand/active construction site between the directors/sponsors area and the pitch?

I also wonder what the plans now are for the balcony that was meant to host the directors. Will this be reinstated as it was previously or will we still have something similair to the first draft of the plans?

I'm a bit confused by the timeline. Apparently the completion of the directors area is part of the first phase, but the refit of the Pavillion is the second phase. However surley hospitality will take place within the pavilion so if that's not finished by the time we're back in, then where will the hospitality take place? Or is the plan to build a hospitality area on the site of the farmhouse?

Again images of the pavilion side would help, but hopefully there will be more detailed information at the AGM.

Edited by Ben Reilly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dooflick said:

Good comment about a club shop, but the fact that this is not in the plans, suggest to me that when they move the pitch to build the away support stand, that when it is relayed it will be a grass pitch and that the youths etc will be playing in Toryglen

Maybe. What I was suggesting was that the club shop shouldn’t dependant on people who have a ticket to a game every other Saturday, as it is now. Anyone should be available to shop there. Maybe have connection to the Hampden tours.

Clearly if we get some grainy sepia pictures of the farmhouse and byre on sale they’ll be shipping them all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ben Reilly said:

On the farmhouse/pavilion side, I  wonder if the wording of the update on the website is a bit misleading.

I believe the original plan was to have that side as the home stand, with seating for around 800. Much of the concrete work to extend the existing stand down towards the pitch to accommodate more seating has now been completed. I can't see that being removed now, and surely there is no need for 800 seats for directors and sponsors.

My reading of the update is that this stand will eventually be completed roughly as per the original plan, with the back section where the farmhouse is being the area for directors and sponsors.

There are no images of the proposal for this side, so I'm admittedly guessing all this, but it would make sense to me that we would still have plenty of seating on the Pavilion side if we want to increase attendances as time goes by as i would expect the ambition will be for more than 1000 home fans. The only thing that makes me less sure about this is that at the last meeting we were told that the new East stand would be the priority so that we can be in for the start of next season, and work on the West side would continue once we're back. Would they want an unfinished stand/active construction site between the directors/sponsors area and the pitch?

I also wonder what the plans now are for the balcony that was meant to host the directors. Will this be reinstated as it was previously or will we still have something similair to the first draft of the plans?

I'm a bit confused by the timeline. Apparently the completion of the directors area is part of the first phase, but the refit of the Pavillion is the second phase. However surley hospitality will take place within the pavilion so if that's not finished by the time we're back in, then where will the hospitality take place? Or is the plan to build a hospitality area on the site of the farmhouse?

Again images of the pavilion side would help, but hopefully there will be more detailed information at the AGM.

I would expect the balcony to be reinstated as the Legends lounge is very likely to be retained. That shouldn’t be an issue. When I first saw the sectional drawings for that proposal there was no reference to an engineering drawing or any fixing details etc and the weight of the seats plus bodies probably was never calculated (my guess is the contractor signed up to a non-design contract, based on the published value of £1.5M) As I mentioned previously, weather exposure would also be a feature, again not an issue for an occasional viewing platform. 

I’m hoping, but doubting in equal measure, that the farmhouse will make way for a whole new lounge area as you say with exclusive seats and the seated in area in front becomes the Members area. Which begs another question…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

 

Interesting to read that the Lesser re-development is slightly more ambitious:

https://queensparkfc.co.uk/bigger-and-better-for-lesser-hampden/

Clearly it was needed now the club is full time. What I find amusing is that the above poster seems to have given them ideas - i.e. moving the pitch, extending the stand the full length of the pitch and building behind the goal.

Is this why work stopped, perhaps?

Anyway, good for Queens Park, though a shame about the cottage.

 

Ha

Well, I am an architect and shall be billing Queens Park for the use of my ideas 😉

I would never have advocated demolishing the farmhouse though. It's renowned for being the oldest football building in the world - to lose it would be an absolute travesty. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NavyBlueArmy1876 said:

Ha

Well, I am an architect and shall be billing Queens Park for the use of my ideas 😉

I would never have advocated demolishing the farmhouse though. It's renowned for being the oldest football building in the world - to lose it would be an absolute travesty. 

 

 

Someone jokingly suggested that it could be removed brick by brick and rebuilt somewhere else. Obviously that was intended as a joke, but I'm sure I have heard that sort of endeavour having been accomplished. Would it be feasible? I imagine the cost would be prohibitive, but what about raising funds online?

Anyway, Celtic managed to demolish the school in front of their ground, which was a listed building. I believe they claimed it was dangerous, though I used to frequently pass it and saw no suggestion that it would have imminently collapsed. The other thing that seems to happen when the preservation of an old building threatens an architectural project is for there to be a fire...so I imagine by hook or by crook, this will eventually get planning permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

I would expect the balcony to be reinstated as the Legends lounge is very likely to be retained. That shouldn’t be an issue. When I first saw the sectional drawings for that proposal there was no reference to an engineering drawing or any fixing details etc and the weight of the seats plus bodies probably was never calculated (my guess is the contractor signed up to a non-design contract, based on the published value of £1.5M) As I mentioned previously, weather exposure would also be a feature, again not an issue for an occasional viewing platform. 

I’m hoping, but doubting in equal measure, that the farmhouse will make way for a whole new lounge area as you say with exclusive seats and the seated in area in front becomes the Members area. Which begs another question…..

There some details about the “directors stand” on the planning application site now……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spider Rico said:

There some details about the “directors stand” on the planning application site now……

Do you have a link to the plans? I'm quite interested in this project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look on the Planning Applications section of the Glasgow City Council website, you can see the drawings of the West Stand. Situated on the half way line and only holds 40. Includes it's own  kitchen and hospitality area. Hopefully it's built with a view to extending it with 'normal' seats at each end at a later date. Surprised to see it doesn't reach down to ground level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dilp said:

Hopefully it's built with a view to extending it with 'normal' seats at each end at a later date.

This. I hope all the plans allow for relatively easy extensions throughout the stadium in the future if required.

With hindsight we build the JB for what we needed at the time with no thought about what may be needed in the future.

Edited by JT1867
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

Someone jokingly suggested that it could be removed brick by brick and rebuilt somewhere else. Obviously that was intended as a joke, but I'm sure I have heard that sort of endeavour having been accomplished. Would it be feasible? I imagine the cost would be prohibitive, but what about raising funds online?

Anyway, Celtic managed to demolish the school in front of their ground, which was a listed building. I believe they claimed it was dangerous, though I used to frequently pass it and saw no suggestion that it would have imminently collapsed. The other thing that seems to happen when the preservation of an old building threatens an architectural project is for there to be a fire...so I imagine by hook or by crook, this will eventually get planning permission.

That wouldn't really be feasible or possible, given I assume the walls are thick stone rather than brick. You could build an exact replica of course, but it seems a bit pointless to me. As you say there are lots of avenues for unwanted listed buildings to be removed, if it is even listed

 

10 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

Do you have a link to the plans? I'm quite interested in this project.

1944677968_ScreenShot2021-12-06at18_53_45.thumb.png.db58c24dc86083b3b73808d5edd1dbb2.png

 

1587898767_ScreenShot2021-12-06at18_54_13.thumb.png.78350e98911708a26ff456d691582dc4.png

 

There you go.

I'm not impressed tbh. Both with the design overall and the needless demolition of the farmhouse. But that's what you get when you use a glorified interior design company on the cheap rather than an architect 

I assume the south stand and moving the pitch will be part of the phase 2 works 

Edited by NavyBlueArmy1876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NavyBlueArmy1876 said:

That wouldn't really be feasible or possible, given I assume the walls are thick stone rather than brick. You could build an exact replica of course, but it seems a bit pointless to me. As you say there are lots of avenues for unwanted listed buildings to be removed, if it is even listed

 

1944677968_ScreenShot2021-12-06at18_53_45.thumb.png.db58c24dc86083b3b73808d5edd1dbb2.png

 

1587898767_ScreenShot2021-12-06at18_54_13.thumb.png.78350e98911708a26ff456d691582dc4.png

 

There you go.

I'm not impressed tbh. Both with the design overall and the needless demolition of the farmhouse. But that's what you get when you use a glorified interior design company on the cheap rather than an architect 

I assume the south stand and moving the pitch will be part of the phase 2 works 

Hmmm, I'm not really impressed either. It looks like I was right with my guesses.....sort of.

There will be a new lounge in place of the farmhouse, and they will retain the recently extended stepped concrete base. Unfortunately the new stand will just be built on top of the base with a load of cladding to attempt (badly) to cover it up. If it looks like it does on the drawing it will be very obvious that this was added as an afterthought.

There does seem to still be an area if the original stand to the north of directors 'pod' so I presume that portion will eventually have seats added to it as per the original draft to increase capacity.

I can see now why they didn't include any design drawings of this on the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

That’s massively disappointing. Members have been shunned enough and this is basically a f**k-off. My worst fears about Haughey’s influence are coming true.

You'll not be welcome at Super duper Lesser if you criticise Haughey or want to do things like retain the world's oldest football related building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RosspCfc said:

You'll not be welcome at Super duper Lesser if you criticise Haughey or want to do things like retain the world's oldest football related building

You’ve confused me with someone who gives a f**k. Haughey’s only been allowed to be involved because of a succession of poor decisions, weak negotiating and lack of vision and ambition by successive committees. And when their capability was exhausted it took little effort for an opportunist to seize the moment. 

Members voted to not be Berwick or The Shire but more toward Alloa or Arbroath. We’re becoming mini-me Celtic.

Edited by Bring Your Own Socks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...