http://www.umaxit.com/index.php/columns/revealing-chelseas-formative-plans-to-convert-stamford-bridge-into-a-60000-seater-super-stadium

 

This is no mere facelift, but a full demolition and rebuilding job, and that will require the movement out of the Chelsea area for at least a season, probably two.

 

Earlier suggestions that the Blues might march into Twickenham for a campaign or two were met with horror in the genteel streets surrounding the home of rugby.

 

But much consultation has been conducted in this area too and, coupled with a significant recent change in the political climate in that locality, there is a belief that what was once seen as impossible may be made to happen; maybe with a spreading of the impact across more than just the one stadium venue.

 

These are exciting times for Chelsea. After a decade of saying it could not happen, there is the real prospect that in 24 to 36 months time, Stamford Bridge could become a 21st Century sporting venue fit for generations to come.

 

Two years away from the Bridge but a 60,000 seater stadium at the end of it. Gonna be very strange but good in the long run, and have no problem going to Twickenham for 1 or 2 seasons.

If it keeps us at the Bridge than I'm all for it.

2 years pain for a future of more famous nights at the Bridge.

No brainer IMO.

When is this going to start? We keep hearing talk, but no solid date. The last thing I heard was we had consulted the designers of the allianz arena to help design the bridge.

Edited May 13, 201511 yr by enigma

When is this going to start? We keep hearing talk, but no solid date. The last thing I heard was we had consulted the designers of the allianz arena to help design the bridge.

 

The report reckons planning permission this year to knock down and rebuild possibly over two years, so 2018-19 in the new place. That sounds optimistic to me.

Two years away from the Bridge but a 60,000 seater stadium at the end of it. Gonna be very strange but good in the long run, and have no problem going to Twickenham for 1 or 2 seasons.

 

 

I remain slightly skeptical because I thought previously architects had said there simple isn't enough acres of land available to build a 60k stadium on the existing site.

 

If the whole thing is being knocked down and starting from scratch then surely it is more likely to be 2-3 years away from the Bridge, there's no way you could knock it all down and rebuild within 12 months, especially if there are works to be done on the surrounding area in addition to the stadium. 

Also remain very skeptical, this has been chipped away at for years with no real confirmation of the ability to extend in a financially sound way.

Would be amazing to stay at the Bridge, lets hope there are some solid news coming soon.

An official architect's drawing would go a long way!

The Matthew Harding is bound to be the easiest stand to extend if the health club and spa is done away with and we can somehow extend on to the old railway line.

I remain slightly skeptical because I thought previously architects had said there simple isn't enough acres of land available to build a 60k stadium on the existing site.

 

If the whole thing is being knocked down and starting from scratch then surely it is more likely to be 2-3 years away from the Bridge, there's no way you could knock it all down and rebuild within 12 months, especially if there are works to be done on the surrounding area in addition to the stadium. 

 

I think the space issue is going to necessitate a unique stadium design which is fine by me. The other issue has always been egress from the ground which is also part of the study. I reckon that one thing we'll definitely see is naming rights being sold though.

 

The big concern is losing 'home advantage' if we're at somewhere like Twickenham.

I think the space issue is going to necessitate a unique stadium design which is fine by me. The other issue has always been egress from the ground which is also part of the study. I reckon that one thing we'll definitely see is naming rights being sold though.

 

The big concern is losing 'home advantage' if we're at somewhere like Twickenham.

 

To be honest naming rights doesn't bother me, I'm sure that it will still be Stamford Bridge and the fans will continue to call it that as well. 

 

Decking over the railway was spoken about as a way of getting around the egress issue and I would imagine that is going to play a big part in the new designs. 

 

What I hope is that any new design isn't just a lifeless bowl like the Emirates stadium is. The proposed designs for Battersea were fantastic because it would have been a very unique stadium design, I would hope that there is a sense of identity with any proposal. 

 

I think keeping hold of Jose is going to be important if we do go ahead with a rebuild because he can instill the "home" mentality into the players, keeping a group identity is going to be key if we are playing in a temporary stadium for a couple of years. 

I always thought space wasn't the problem but more the lack of space and exits to evacuate the ground into, I presume they now have a way round this. But whatever it takes to keep the club at the Bridge is ok by me.

 

 

 

This is no mere facelift, but a full demolition and rebuilding job, and that will require the movement out of the Chelsea area for at least a season, probably two.

 

Earlier suggestions that the Blues might march into Twickenham for a campaign or two were met with horror in the genteel streets surrounding the home of rugby.

 

But much consultation has been conducted in this area too and, coupled with a significant recent change in the political climate in that locality, 

 

 

Wonder what they mean by "significant recent change in the political climate in that locality"?  It's been a Tory council since 2010 and the MP has just changed from Lib Dem to Tory - would that make any difference?  

 

Or maybe the new MP is a Chelsea fan?

Wonder what they mean by "significant recent change in the political climate in that locality"?  It's been a Tory council since 2010 and the MP has just changed from Lib Dem to Tory - would that make any difference?  

 

Or maybe the new MP is a Chelsea fan?

 

I think that is in reference to:

 

"a planning system that now firmly puts the applicant ahead of the local objector"

what about something like this

 

what about something like this

Traffic would be a nightmare for home games ;)

Edited May 13, 201511 yr by enigma

Wonder what they mean by "significant recent change in the political climate in that locality"?  It's been a Tory council since 2010 and the MP has just changed from Lib Dem to Tory - would that make any difference?  

 

Or maybe the new MP is a Chelsea fan?

 

Labour won control of H&F council last year. As I understand it, they tend to be a bit more favourable towards us than the Tories.

Especially since Cameron is such a loyal Villa, Err West Ham, er... Aston Villa fan.

He's a guy you just know loves football

ha

Edited May 13, 201511 yr by Zola

what about something like this

 

 

I can't see where we'd fit the stadium in. There isn't much space between the lake and the city and the magic spires and whatnot. So we're just back to the same space issues as we currently have.

would people want the pitch to remain the same size or would there be a call for larger pitch to emulate Barca etc etc?

What about a hollowed out volcano...you know....to match our evilness.

would people want the pitch to remain the same size or would there be a call for larger pitch to emulate Barca etc etc?

 

I wouldn’t want a big pitch as it would slow the game down but at the same time I wouldn’t want something tiny and crampt. I think the size of the pitch at the Bridge is fine.

 

What I would love to see as part of any new ground would be at least one end in the style of the Dortmund ‘Wall/The Kop. Ie. One huge lower tier that just keeps ascending to the roof. Would be brilliant for atmosphere. Who knows, perhaps this could be the ‘New Shed’ or something like that. Ideally I’d like to see this as an all-standing tier but that seems very unrealistic at this point.

Labour won control of H&F council last year. As I understand it, they tend to be a bit more favourable towards us than the Tories.

 

But the reference followed on from discussion of Twickenham earlier suggestions that the Blues might march into Twickenham for a campaign or two were met with horror in the genteel streets surrounding the home of rugby.

 

But much consultation has been conducted in this area too and, coupled with a significant recent change in the political climate in that locality,"

 

So they weren't talking about Hammersmith and Fulham?

 

But the reference followed on from discussion of Twickenham earlier suggestions that the Blues might march into Twickenham for a campaign or two were met with horror in the genteel streets surrounding the home of rugby.

 

But much consultation has been conducted in this area too and, coupled with a significant recent change in the political climate in that locality,"

 

So they weren't talking about Hammersmith and Fulham?

 

 

This.

would people want the pitch to remain the same size or would there be a call for larger pitch to emulate Barca etc etc?

a big pitch would help us i think. give eden hazard an extra 5-10 yards of space down the sides and he'll be an even bigger threat. plus it gives fabregas more space to play the passes into and stretch play

 

But the reference followed on from discussion of Twickenham earlier suggestions that the Blues might march into Twickenham for a campaign or two were met with horror in the genteel streets surrounding the home of rugby.

 

But much consultation has been conducted in this area too and, coupled with a significant recent change in the political climate in that locality,"

 

So they weren't talking about Hammersmith and Fulham?

 

 

Oh sorry I though you were referring to H&F. Apparently Vince Cable was solidly against us playing at Twickenham and him being booted out last week seems to be the only significant political change in that area. Perhaps the new MP is better disposed towards the idea.

Still think the whole thing will be a massively difficult undertaking. It's not just 4 stands and a pitch that's going to be demolished, but you have to assume the hotel and flats will go too and there will be a loss in earnings from the facilities, restaurants and associated businesses.

 

Despite that I wouldn't have a problem with it going. It's changed so much since I've been going and whilst I'm sure I'll get a bit misty-eyed if it does happen, other stadiums' facilities are really starting to put it to shame. What it needs to be is some modern, but unique. I really don't want something like Wembley or the Emirates, but something with personality and it really has to be designed with atmosphere in mind.

If this were to happen, if Roman is gonna invest this vast amount of money will he want full rights to the ground? What way would this stand with CPO