I don't think it will look good from any angle. Just endless metal bars, it'll look like a prison.

1 hour ago, coco said:

Aesthetically i agree.

It's the irregular outer shape, and the perfect circle in the middle, they don't sit together.

Also the round ridge line on top should be rounded off and not like a rim. It would look better Aesthetically if it was all curves and not angles. Like this sort of thing at the Bullring in Birmingham...

Taste is subjective: I don't like this at all!

1 hour ago, Zeta said:

I don't think it will look good from any angle. Just endless metal bars, it'll look like a prison.

I think you'll find it's mainly brick columns around the outside, if you check out other images.

Not saying it's beautiful though!

It's a bit moderne for my tastes.

I think something more traditionally English  would look better- Mock Tudor perhaps with a thatched roof?

15 minutes ago, fester said:

I think you'll find it's mainly brick columns around the outside, if you check out other images.

Not saying it's beautiful though!

I think some people are going to be surprised how beautiful it will look. It's going to be leagues ahead of every other stadium in the country. 

I would probably focus on these pictures, which aren't great as the colour all seems a bit off. 

 

https://www.dreamteamfc.com/c/archives/news-gossip/187003/pics-chelseas-new-60000-seater-stadium-looks-brilliant/

Edited April 23, 20188 yr by benjsross

I would still have something like this...

 

Over this...

Ours might look a bit odd at first but at least it will be unique and I think most will grow to love it, it's doing something different unlike Arsenal, Tottenham & West Ham. We could do with some better images of it though.

2 hours ago, Zeta said:

I don't think it will look good from any angle. Just endless metal bars, it'll look like a prison.

Stadium is going to be predominantly made from bricks so that it is in keeping with the aesthetic of the stadiums surrounding, especially the cemetery.  

Should be a very impressive structure when finished more resembling a cathedral than a modern day football stadium. 

It will look awesome, when do you think we are likely to break ground?

End of next season?

Prefer ours

The main thing about the new stadium, no matter how it divides opinion, we're going to get 60k, we're staying at home and we're going to be able to compete with other sides that have similar sizes stadiums in term of match day revenue, an area we're getting absolutely smashed on the balance sheets by a number of clubs.

I for one cant bloody wait for the construction/demolition to start and moving back in.

Genuinely think it will be the best looking stadium in the world. The brick and archways are very atmospheric. The asymmetric design is unique albeit out of necessity. Stunning bit of architecture, and infinitely more appealing than a soulless concrete bowl.

that said, the proposed design for the battersea site was also jaw dropping 

I'm sure whn it's finished and all lit up we will be in awe. 

On 4/22/2018 at 12:49, Zeta said:

If that's what the new stadium will look like, it's god awful.

I think it looks stunning. Unique and breathtaking.

Severfield sounded out about Chelsea's Stamford Bridge rebuild
By Dave Rogers24 April 2018

Severfield has been sounded out about the steelwork contract at the scheme to rebuild Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.

The firm, which is currently on site completing work on a £50m deal at the new home of Tottenham Hotspur, said it had been approached for its input into the scheme.

Chief executive Alan Dunsmore said the job was currently projected to use around 6,000 tonnes of steel – less than half the amount being used on the Spurs’ 61,000 seat stadium.

Severfield has a strong track record in carrying out work for high-profile Premier League clubs recently, having completed the steelwork on the main stand expansion at Liverpool’s Anfield ground nearly two years ago for main contractor Carillion.

Dunsmore said: “We’ve been having discussions with Chelsea. If you look at Spurs, we were having conversations around that for five or six years before the tender came through.” Most of the steel used on the Chelsea job will be in the roof structure, Dunsmore added.

Last week, Building revealed that the first major package on the £1bn redevelopment had gone to VolkerFitzpatrick which is set to carry out the enabling works contract which is centred on rail works and carries a pricetag of around £95m.

The next major package set to be let is the deal to tear down the club’s existing ground. As well as demolition, the contract is expected to include excavation, basement and piling and substructure work.

It is believed to have been talking to Multiplex, Lendlease, Mace and Sir Robert McAlpine about the main contractor role with an appointment due next year.

The west London club wants to replace its existing 41,600 capacity ground with a 60,000 seat development that has been designed by Swiss architect Herzog & de Meuron, putting the capacity of the new ground on a par with Arsenal’s Emirates stadium.
 

I have no concerns about how the new stadium will look when built. 

I don't think CGI's do it justice; it will be a feat of engineering & architecture, and will be a masterpiece of a stadium that will be like no other anywhere in the world. I think that, to a point, you just have to trust that with the amount of money being spent on employing experts in every field, this is going to be special. 

When you look at the number of soulless bowls popping up around the country, it only further reinforces my belief that we are getting something so much more special.

My concern is what happens during the three years away, and what is left of the match going fan base when we return. 

It looks like we will be at Wembley for the 3 (or 4) seasons away, and it's probably the only viable option. The only positive note for me is that I live down the road, but even then, I think it is a very bleak outlook for these years away from SW6. 

I think there is a real worry that many of the match going fans of today will see this as the end of an area, and an appropriate time to call it a day. I think many will at least take a break while we are at Wembley. I honestly dread to think what our average attendance will be whilst we are at Wembley, but I don't think it will be pretty. 

Then there is the question of what will be left of our core support when we return. In an ideal world, everyone just picks up where they left off..... but I think that is very optimistic. I am sure prices will rise, and I fear that many who have been going to the current SB for decades will see it as the end of an area and decline. Whilst Arsenal may never have had a reputation for a loud & vocal home support, there is no question that their atmosphere got worse when they moved, and never recovered. Their match going fan base at the Emirates is pretty much the laughing stock of the league now. 

There is also the question of what match day pubs in the area will survive without 3-4 years of match day revenue. They have been dropping like flies for years now anyway, so I do wonder what would still be standing by the time we returned. 

 

 

3 hours ago, mclovin83 said:

I have no concerns about how the new stadium will look when built. 

I don't think CGI's do it justice; it will be a feat of engineering & architecture, and will be a masterpiece of a stadium that will be like no other anywhere in the world. I think that, to a point, you just have to trust that with the amount of money being spent on employing experts in every field, this is going to be special. 

When you look at the number of soulless bowls popping up around the country, it only further reinforces my belief that we are getting something so much more special.

My concern is what happens during the three years away, and what is left of the match going fan base when we return. 

It looks like we will be at Wembley for the 3 (or 4) seasons away, and it's probably the only viable option. The only positive note for me is that I live down the road, but even then, I think it is a very bleak outlook for these years away from SW6. 

I think there is a real worry that many of the match going fans of today will see this as the end of an area, and an appropriate time to call it a day. I think many will at least take a break while we are at Wembley. I honestly dread to think what our average attendance will be whilst we are at Wembley, but I don't think it will be pretty. 

Then there is the question of what will be left of our core support when we return. In an ideal world, everyone just picks up where they left off..... but I think that is very optimistic. I am sure prices will rise, and I fear that many who have been going to the current SB for decades will see it as the end of an area and decline. Whilst Arsenal may never have had a reputation for a loud & vocal home support, there is no question that their atmosphere got worse when they moved, and never recovered. Their match going fan base at the Emirates is pretty much the laughing stock of the league now. 

There is also the question of what match day pubs in the area will survive without 3-4 years of match day revenue. They have been dropping like flies for years now anyway, so I do wonder what would still be standing by the time we returned.

 

Good post. I suspect, if we go to Wembley, a lot of match-going fans will give it a swerve, apart from maybe the big games. However I'm sure the club will sell tickets as cheap as possible to meet capacity, and a lot of youths, families, tourists etc will attend. The capacity will probably be set at 50k with the upper tiers closed, which was initially the capacity Tottenham agreed but Brent council eventually allowed them to have maximum capacity for the season, although they've often fallen way short of it. There's no guarantees we will want the upper tiers open, nor that the council will agree to it for our extended stay. Certainly Brent's residents won't be keen on it, considering we're talking 3+ years.

 

Once we return to the Bridge, you'd hope the appeal of being back in SW6 and in a fancy new stadium will tempt everybody back but I think your concerns are valid. The demographic at our club has changed considerably over the last 15 years or so and for the worse IMO, and my fear is that this will only be exacerbated by this process. We'll fill the new ground, no doubt about that, but it may be more gentrified than ever, although once again the club will sell tickets as cheaply as they have to to fill it, so I don't have the same concerns about prices. Prices only increase if there's a huge demand for tickets. We might not have that problem and I'm sure the club will ensure there aren't any empty seats, and set prices accordingly. That doesn't mean they'll lose out on revenue of course, because more tickets sold equals more revenue, even if those seats are slightly cheaper, and of course bums on seats usually means more revenue through catering and merchandise. There'll also be a lot more corporate seats on offer, with far better facilities, and those packages will undoubtedly see a price hike, with all the extra revenue that ensues.

 

So, I think we'll get 50k at Wembley, and we may be allowed to increase that capacity for big CL nights for example, and I think we'll fill the new ground once we get it, but there's no doubt we'll be seeing a new breed of supporter, a less passionate breed, and the passion amongst our fanbase has already taken a knock in recent years. I hope the club are aware of this and take measures to address it, though I'm not convinced they even care. In fact, judging by the amount of banning orders they hand out, they may even be happy to go the other way, and marginalise our traditional support even further.

 

Let's hope not.

16 hours ago, Davey Baby said:

 judging by the amount of banning orders they hand out, they may even be happy to go the other way, and marginalise our traditional support even further.

Banning orders for what? Presumably banning orders happened for significant issues or persistent smaller offenses.

6 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Banning orders for what? Presumably banning orders happened for significant issues or persistent smaller offenses.

The burden of proof required for a banning order isn't a lot.

On 23/4/2561 at 17:34, Valerie said:

Taste is subjective: I don't like this at all!

If they wanted that to look like a bog, they couldn't have done a better job.

6 minutes ago, Ewell CFC said:

The burden of proof required for a banning order isn't a lot.

Ok...but for what? Foul language? Persistent standing? Fighting? racism?  All stuff  which  impact  on the  enjoyment of  others. I go regularly, but have never been in any kind of trouble, let alone close to getting banned...so these guys (or girls) must be doing SOMETHING? I am just asking what....

42 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Ok...but for what? Foul language? Persistent standing? Fighting? racism?  All stuff  which  impact  on the  enjoyment of  others. I go regularly, but have never been in any kind of trouble, let alone close to getting banned...so these guys (or girls) must be doing SOMETHING? I am just asking what....

I've personally witnessed someone being singled out by stewards for standing up- even though everyone else was standing- got slung out and had to appeal to keep hold his ST-   A middle aged mild mannered mate of mine refused entry for being drunk ( not and disorderly) - he was that irate he handed back his ST and vowed never to return.

Countless examples of people reacting to little hitler stewards ( the club will stand by the stewards testimony rather than fans if push comes to shove)

In terms of Football Intelligence banning orders, you can be subject to an order without having committed an offence. ( purely knocking around with certain people is enough for someone to be considered a risk supporter)

22 hours ago, mclovin83 said:

It looks like we will be at Wembley for the 3 (or 4) seasons away, and it's probably the only viable option. The only positive note for me is that I live down the road, but even then, I think it is a very bleak outlook for these years away from SW6. 

I think there is a real worry that many of the match going fans of today will see this as the end of an area, and an appropriate time to call it a day. I think many will at least take a break while we are at Wembley. I honestly dread to think what our average attendance will be whilst we are at Wembley, but I don't think it will be pretty. 

Wasn't there a rumour going around that we were going to explore the option of helping to develop Loftus Road or Craven Cottage (or maybe another stadium closer to Stamford Bridge) to get it up to around 30k and then ground share with them for 3/4 years whilst Stamford Bridge was being rebuilt?

I don't know about the logistics of something like that but that would, in my opinion, be so much better than completely relocating to north London for such an extended period. 

1 hour ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Wasn't there a rumour going around that we were going to explore the option of helping to develop Loftus Road or Craven Cottage (or maybe another stadium closer to Stamford Bridge) to get it up to around 30k and then ground share with them for 3/4 years whilst Stamford Bridge was being rebuilt?

I don't know about the logistics of something like that but that would, in my opinion, be so much better than completely relocating to north London for such an extended period. 

For me, a ground share at Craven Cottage for the 3/4 years would be the ideal solution. 

It's on the door step to the point that everyone could continue their match day routines, and even continue to drink in their same pubs before jumping on the tub for 5 mins. 

It's also a cracking little ground set in a gorgeous location which we would fill our every week without fail. It would mean that only ST holders would get a look in though. It's just not currently big enough for the club to consider it as an option.

Not heard the rumour of us helping to redevelop either of the grounds, but sounds like something that would never be ready by the proposed date of moving out of SB. 

19 minutes ago, mclovin83 said:

For me, a ground share at Craven Cottage for the 3/4 years would be the ideal solution. 

It's on the door step to the point that everyone could continue their match day routines, and even continue to drink in their same pubs before jumping on the tub for 5 mins. 

It's also a cracking little ground set in a gorgeous location which we would fill our every week without fail. It would mean that only ST holders would get a look in though. It's just not currently big enough for the club to consider it as an option.

Not heard the rumour of us helping to redevelop either of the grounds, but sounds like something that would never be ready by the proposed date of moving out of SB. 

Love this idea but its the capacity issue. Wembley seems the only option which i hate the idea of, any midweek pointless games are going to be embarrassing crowd wise.

I'd go out on a limb and suggest push comes to shove, for our tenure in Wembley we'll manage a higher average attendance than Spurs.

Theres more chance of tourists and day trippers turning up if theyre assured of a ticket at Wembley to see Chelsea than they would Spurs, IMO.