There will be lots of complaints, that's inevitable.

 

Some will no doubt hate the design, regarding it as an eyesore. Thankfully in this sense it's pretty hidden from most viewpoints. The site becomes bigger, due to the walkways built over the railway lines, and along the East Stand this pushes the stadium closer towards the cemetery and residential streets. 

 

Then we have Oswald Stoll. The walkway proposed from the station looks over the building. So many more spectators increases noise for the veterans. Their views are also impacted by the proposal.

 

The MH will be higher and that will impact views from behind that stand, where it is all residential. Then we have the impact on businesses. We move away for 3 years, say, and their income is affected. The club say they will make more money once we return but will they? Underneath the walkway from the Fulham Road there will be cafes and so forth, intent on taking some of that revenue, and the Millennium Hotel, the music venue and health spa are going, resulting in a loss of visitors. The club can't argue that the walkway from the station will decrease the number of spectators on the street and then argue there will be increased revenue for local businesses, that seems a bit contrary to me.

 

Having said that, I understand that a stadium of this standard, and the improved hospitality facilities, are likely to increase visitors on a daily basis, which should please local businesses.

 

Then we have the noise of a demolition and rebuild of this scale and how that will impact residents. I know the club are addressing traffic and parking issues but that will be another bone, and so on and so on. There will be tons of objections. This is generally a quiet residential area normally, as opposed to your typical stadium location, so it's a very delicate issue. 20000 more spectators won't be welcome, although the club appear to have done everything to address the issues and appease all the neighbourhood concerns.

 

Personally, because the building is so iconic, I would welcome it as a resident. I can see the efforts the club have made to factor in local concerns and I regard it as an outstanding bit of architecture that will enhance the area. Most clubs go for more modern designs. Look at Spurs for example and their proposals. A shiny, new sparkling stadium, spacious and state-of-the-art facilities. The trouble with these stadiums, as we see with Arsenal's, is that they become dated pretty quickly. Spurs' is just an updated version of Arsenal's, by the same architects. It's like a new version of the iPhone or the Playstration, sooner or later a new improved version comes along. Chelsea's design however is timeless and owes nothing to modern trends. It will be just as impressive in 100 years as it will be in 10. I'm proud of everybody concerned with this project. We couldn't have hoped for better.

 

I'm in love with it, I don't mind saying. I don't understand those who don't like it, though I respect their views.

 

Considering the restraints the club have had to work with, regarding height, space, egress, considering the local council and neighbouring homes and conservation areas, considering the fact there are properties on the site that don't belong to them, considering the fact the area doesn't require regeneration, etc etc, a truly astounding project has been proposed against all odds. We also have to bear in mind planning consent won't mean we can go ahead and build, as a whole lot more permissions will have to be obtained, as we are dealing with a lot more people than just the council.

 

Edit: All we can do is cross our fingers and support the club as much as possible. Proposals don't come much more impressive than this.

What a rousingly great post Davey     

You're right Davey  someone always complains,  but I think the club have tried to mitigate the impact of the new stadium on the neighbours. A few points from the planning statement.

 

*Oswald Stoll will benefit from having the train tracks covered over making their properties much quieter all year round - apart from match days (a temporary sound-barrier will be put in place on match days to help contain any noise from the new walkway). A significant benefit.

 

*Because of the design of the roof there will be no significant loss of light to Oswald Stoll. 'Moderate (significant) adverse effects as a result of a loss of daylight are limited to only one property'.

 

 

*Currently, the stadium is used for approximately 1,000 events annually with up to a maximum of 8,500 people accommodated at any one time (at multiple events). It is envisaged that a broadly similar pattern of use will be accommodated in the hospitality areas of the new stadium... these additional stadium visitors will have an increased positive economic impact on local businesses, particularly in the Fulham Town Centre.

 

 

*The two hotels currently located at the Stamford Bridge Grounds (the Millennium Hotel and the Copthorne Hotel) will not be replaced...It is assumed that a proportion of the hotel employees will be redeployed elsewhere within the Proposed Development.

 

*the Proposed Development will result in a temporary loss of 807 full time equivalent jobs on the site during the construction phase, but will employ approximately 1,034 full time equivalent jobs in construction work; resulting in a net increase in on-site employment during the construction phase of 227 jobs. Some local food businesses that will miss out on match-day income will presumably gain income from having these workers around all week for 3 years.

A plus for us is the negative quote for the spuds stadium "We object to the new proposed development because [it is] overbearing, out of scale and out of character with a redbrick Heritage High Road.

"The shiny glass and concrete stadium facility is now 10 storeys high and further forward than previously proposed."

Cant be said about ours. What would anyone object to?

There will be lots of complaints, that's inevitable.

 

Some will no doubt hate the design, regarding it as an eyesore. Thankfully in this sense it's pretty hidden from most viewpoints. The site becomes bigger, due to the walkways built over the railway lines, and along the East Stand this pushes the stadium closer towards the cemetery and residential streets. 

 

Then we have Oswald Stoll. The walkway proposed from the station looks over the building. So many more spectators increases noise for the veterans. Their views are also impacted by the proposal.

 

The MH will be higher and that will impact views from behind that stand, where it is all residential. Then we have the impact on businesses. We move away for 3 years, say, and their income is affected. The club say they will make more money once we return but will they? Underneath the walkway from the Fulham Road there will be cafes and so forth, intent on taking some of that revenue, and the Millennium Hotel, the music venue and health spa are going, resulting in a loss of visitors. The club can't argue that the walkway from the station will decrease the number of spectators on the street and then argue there will be increased revenue for local businesses, that seems a bit contrary to me.

 

Having said that, I understand that a stadium of this standard, and the improved hospitality facilities, are likely to increase visitors on a daily basis, which should please local businesses.

 

Then we have the noise of a demolition and rebuild of this scale and how that will impact residents. I know the club are addressing traffic and parking issues but that will be another bone, and so on and so on. There will be tons of objections. This is generally a quiet residential area normally, as opposed to your typical stadium location, so it's a very delicate issue. 20000 more spectators won't be welcome, although the club appear to have done everything to address the issues and appease all the neighbourhood concerns.

 

Personally, because the building is so iconic, I would welcome it as a resident. I can see the efforts the club have made to factor in local concerns and I regard it as an outstanding bit of architecture that will enhance the area. Most clubs go for more modern designs. Look at Spurs for example and their proposals. A shiny, new sparkling stadium, spacious and state-of-the-art facilities. The trouble with these stadiums, as we see with Arsenal's, is that they become dated pretty quickly. Spurs' is just an updated version of Arsenal's, by the same architects. It's like a new version of the iPhone or the Playstration, sooner or later a new improved version comes along. Chelsea's design however is timeless and owes nothing to modern trends. It will be just as impressive in 100 years as it will be in 10. I'm proud of everybody concerned with this project. We couldn't have hoped for better.

 

I'm in love with it, I don't mind saying. I don't understand those who don't like it, though I respect their views.

 

Considering the restraints the club have had to work with, regarding height, space, egress, considering the local council and neighbouring homes and conservation areas, considering the fact there are properties on the site that don't belong to them, considering the fact the area doesn't require regeneration, etc etc, a truly astounding project has been proposed against all odds. We also have to bear in mind planning consent won't mean we can go ahead and build, as a whole lot more permissions will have to be obtained, as we are dealing with a lot more people than just the council.

 

Edit: All we can do is cross our fingers and support the club as much as possible. Proposals don't come much more impressive than this.

 

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

 

1. As far as the design is concerned, it is certainly not pretty when looking from above. The circular roof and the rectangle inside are hideous, but how would anyone see that from outside? Apart from that, it looks amazing from the ground - much better than the current stadium. And in any case, if someone does not like the design visually, I would not consider this a valid complaint.

 

2. Actually, the inclined roof means that more sunlight will be available around the stadium, including the area behind MH. Have a look at the planning application. 

 

3. There will be some impact for local business for a comparatively short period, yes. But the long term benefits are greater and if we're honest it is not the club's responsibility to sustain local businesses. Any sense of entitlement here is not a valid complaint and should be ignored.

 

4. The club will have a few restaurants/pubs under the aqueduct, and inside the stadium, but I doubt there will be enough space for 20k extra people, so on net balance local businesses should still see some benefits. But even if not, they have no right to claim it.

 

5. Noise of demolition will be a concern for some people, but if this was a valid complaint then a vast majority of building projects in London should be cancelled.

 

Hence I am confident that there is very little room for valid complaints that can be considered reasonable when compared to other building projects and the club's responsiblities. On the whole, Chelsea are much more benevolent than anyone can reasonably expect.

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

 

1. As far as the design is concerned, it is certainly not pretty when looking from above. The circular roof and the rectangle inside are hideous, but how would anyone see that from outside? Apart from that, it looks amazing from the ground - much better than the current stadium. And in any case, if someone does not like the design visually, I would not consider this a valid complaint.

 

2. Actually, the inclined roof means that more sunlight will be available around the stadium, including the area behind MH. Have a look at the planning application. 

 

3. There will be some impact for local business for a comparatively short period, yes. But the long term benefits are greater and if we're honest it is not the club's responsibility to sustain local businesses. Any sense of entitlement here is not a valid complaint and should be ignored.

 

4. The club will have a few restaurants/pubs under the aqueduct, and inside the stadium, but I doubt there will be enough space for 20k extra people, so on net balance local businesses should still see some benefits. But even if not, they have no right to claim it.

 

5. Noise of demolition will be a concern for some people, but if this was a valid complaint then a vast majority of building projects in London should be cancelled.

 

Hence I am confident that there is very little room for valid complaints that can be considered reasonable when compared to other building projects and the club's responsiblities. On the whole, Chelsea are much more benevolent than anyone can reasonably expect.

 

One man's meat is another man's poison. You may call the view from above hideous, I certainly don't agree, and nor do the architects presumably, or Roman. I think it looks stunning, from every vantage.

 

The biggest issue will probably be to do with egress and hopefully the club have found a workable solution. In case of emergency, 60000 people have to be evacuated, and that is a more challenging task at SB than any other stadium I can think of. Building over the railway lines is crucial of course, and permission for this is far from a formality.

 

I hope you're right and there are few grounds for valid complaint. The club appear to have done everything in their power to get this passed.

I personally think the stadium proposals are stunning and pretty much tick all the boxes of what I would have hoped for, being realistic.

 

The main thing is that we have avoided going down the route of what, is to me anyway, the "blueprint of what to avoid" in terms of modern football stadia which is the Emirates.

Whilst undeniably a  fantastic venue it it's own right, it's known as a "soulless bowl" for a reason- that is exactly what it is. It could be mistaken for many other large modern sports arenas and has about as much character as Michael Owen. There is nothing unique or iconic about it what so ever. it is literally a state of the art sports arena designed to accommodate the masses with great emphasis on corporate hospitality. Much like Wembley, this appears to have been the priority, hence the "ring of silence" corporate middle tear which does it's best to destroy any atmosphere that would be typically generated from one of the ends behind a goal in a traditional football ground.

 

When Tottenhams new stadium is built there will be another one of them. A slightly newer, better one, but I bet from the air they will appear almost identical.

 

What we will have is a stadium like no other in the world, let alone London. If we pull it off it really will be a masterpiece in terms of both design and engineering when you consider the restraints we have to work around.

 

What people should also consider is that one way or another, we need a bigger stadium and eventually, we will have to have one. That is a fact when you look at where the other "top" clubs will all be playing in 5-10 years.

 

Basically, if this doesn't come off be prepared to be playing at the 70,000 capacity Yokohama stadium in Twickenham instead.

It's different from anything else in football.

For that reason alone I'm itching for it to get underway.

One man's meat is another man's poison. You may call the view from above hideous, I certainly don't agree, and nor do the architects presumably, or Roman. I think it looks stunning, from every vantage.

 

The biggest issue will probably be to do with egress and hopefully the club have found a workable solution. In case of emergency, 60000 people have to be evacuated, and that is a more challenging task at SB than any other stadium I can think of. Building over the railway lines is crucial of course, and permission for this is far from a formality.

 

I hope you're right and there are few grounds for valid complaint. The club appear to have done everything in their power to get this passed.

 

To be honest, the planning application reads like the circle on the roof is there for technical reasons rather than aesthetics - to support the roof structure. I might be wrong here, but I doubt they'd have chose this design otherwise. But if you like it, good for you!

To be honest, the planning application reads like the circle on the roof is there for technical reasons rather than aesthetics - to support the roof structure. I might be wrong here, but I doubt they'd have chose this design otherwise.

 

If they didn't like the look of it, it wouldn't be there.

The circle on the roof is a nod to the cemetery isn't it? 

The only time the 'circle on the roof' becomes an issue is when you're on a plane conming into Heathrow and by then then there are more important things to worry about, a safe landing for example, I hope my suitcases are on this plane, a terrorist's RPG, etc, etc.

The circle on the roof is a nod to the cemetery isn't it? 

 

Officially that's one of the reasons, yes, but they probably just picked it up to make it look like they wanted it to blend in even more. According to the planning application, the major reason is structural support. 

Officially that's one of the reasons, yes, but they probably just picked it up to make it look like they wanted it to blend in even more. According to the planning application, the major reason is structural support. 

 

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. The circle may be there for structural support, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Similarly, a roof is there to protect spectators from the elements. We can say, "It's only there to protect spectators from the elements, otherwise it wouldn't be there". Well yes, the stadium needs a roof, so the designers design one which jolly well pleases them. I hope you see.

 

As Jones1905 says, the circle is informed by the cemetery, just as every aspect of the design is informed by the surrounding area, both aesthetically and historically. That's the approach Herzog and de Meuron have taken.

 

You give the same brief to another architect and they will come up with a completely different design, one that doesn't involve a circle. It's a choice, it's by no means forced upon them.

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. The circle may be there for structural support, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Similarly, a roof is there to protect spectators from the elements. We can say, "It's only there to protect spectators from the elements, otherwise it wouldn't be there". Well yes, the stadium needs a roof, so the designers design one which jolly well pleases them. I hope you see.

 

As Jones1905 says, the circle is informed by the cemetery, just as every aspect of the design is informed by the surrounding area, both aesthetically and historically. That's the approach Herzog and de Meuron have taken.

 

You give the same brief to another architect and they will come up with a completely different design, one that doesn't involve a circle. It's a choice, it's by no means forced upon them.

 

I think if you've followed the whole story you'll see that it's entirely possible that there is just this one way to skin that cat if you want to find enough room for 60k people. After all, years have gone into planning it.

 

In any case, you might want to give the planning application a read. It isn't quite as dramatic as you are, but in my opinion a lot more insightful.

I think if you've followed the whole story you'll see that it's entirely possible that there is just this one way to skin that cat if you want to find enough room for 60k people. After all, years have gone into planning it.

 

In any case, you might want to give the planning application a read. It isn't quite as dramatic as you are, but in my opinion a lot more insightful.

 

I've followed the story very closely for a long time. You're just going to have to get over the roof. If the architects felt it looked hideous, I assure you it wouldn't be there.

 

Edit: Indeed when I went to the first consultation, before the roof was ever shown, the consultants spoke about the view from above in reverential tones. As I say, one man's meat, another man's poison.

Edited December 7, 201510 yr by Davey Baby

I've followed the story very closely for a long time. You're just going to have to get over the roof. If the architects felt it looked hideous, I assure you it wouldn't be there.

 

Edit: Indeed when I went to the first consultation, before the roof was ever shown, the consultants spoke about the view from above in reverential tones. As I say, one man's meat, another man's poison.

 

Mate, they were selling it to you... What do you think was the purpose of the whole thing?

Edited December 7, 201510 yr by PythonLu

Mate, they were selling it to you... What do you think was the purpose of the whole thing?

 

It's an incredible project. They were rightly proud of it. If they had to sell it, they weren't having much trouble, let me tell you. The circle and the rectangle you dislike, which is fine, you've had a bee in your bonnet about it since the start. I can assure you the architects feel differently, or it wouldn't be there.

The view from the bridge behind the MH stand looks incredible! I'm glad we have a vantage point to really take in the whole ground.

 

Does anyone know if the photos of the tables and chairs under the bridge are for restaurants or for a pub for fans? 

 

Having a good boozer where you could stand outside would be brilliant! Being able to drink right next to the stadium would be a huge bonus. 

 

As for the possibility of residents complaining I think its a good thing we don't have a ugly glass bowl like Tottenham as it wouldn't fit the aesthetic of the area at all.  

It's an incredible project. They were rightly proud of it. If they had to sell it, they weren't having much trouble, let me tell you. The circle and the rectangle you dislike, which is fine, you've had a bee in your bonnet about it since the start. I can assure you the architects feel differently, or it wouldn't be there.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jul/03/chelseas-new-stadium-inspired-medieval-village-beyond-ugliness-roman-abramovich

 

"refinement and elegance – things that would be totally absurd in Chelsea." 

^ I think you've totally misunderstood that quote. Are you suggesting the architects have designed something which they can't stand the sight of? If not, what's your point?

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something isn't "refined and elegant", it must be an eyesore, that's not what the architects are suggesting at all.

^ I think you've totally misunderstood that quote. Are you suggesting the architects have designed something which they can't stand the sight of? If not, what's your point?

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something isn't "refined and elegant", it must be an eyesore, that's not what the architects are suggesting at all.

 

Oh boy...

 

Okay, let's break it down for you in a rigorous manner:

 

---

 

refined

As per Google: With impurities or unwanted elements having been removed by processing. Elegant and cultured in appearance, manner, or taste. Developed or improved so as to be precise or subtle.

 

Antonyms: Musty, dated, undeveloped, primitive, savage and more.

 

elegant

Graceful and stylish in appearance or manner. Pleasingly ingenious and simple.

 

Antonyms: Crude, trashy, uncultured, styleless and more.

 

---

 

Let's define an antonym of X as the function antonym(X) = concatenate('not', X). That is, an antonym of beautiful can be described as not beautiful. Not strictly an antonym but it has the same meaning.

 

Hence it follows that Herzog and De Meuron think our stadium is the following:

 

Impurities and unwanted elements were not removed. Not elegant, not cultured in manner, appearance or taste. Not developed or improved. Not graceful and not stylish in appearance and not pleasing.

 

Instead the stadium, as per the interview, is:

Musty, dated, undeveloped, primitive, savage and more.

Crude, trashy, uncultured, styleless and more.

 

---

 

Moreover the following happened: They were confined by space and silly demands by locals as well as CPOs, which meant they were forced to make it ugly. They could not sell it like that because no one sells a product by saying it's ugly. So they said it is supposed to remind people of the cemetery and be unique. That's salesmanship, Davey boy. And they did that so they could claim that a majority was in favour in their planning application and to the CPOs.

 

You don't seem to be able to follow all this so let's just stop here. But trust me boy, you got schooled.

Edited December 8, 201510 yr by PythonLu

You got schooled?

Are you 12 or something?

You got schooled?

Are you 12 or something?

 

Judging by the argument he's just presented, I'd have him down as kindergarten.

What a mess that post is, some ludicrous assumptions and asinine ramblings.

Edited December 8, 201510 yr by dkw

I think it looks good. Lets be real though, it wouldnt be the first time an architect created an eyesore they thought looked good. Happens all the time, saying "The architects wanted it to look that way" Isnt really an argument for anything.

 

Architecture is all about taste and as we all know taste is subjective.