Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Chelsea's new ground

robroy
robroy Posts: 4,458
in General Charlton
This is up there with the worst I have seen. Looks like an ash tray

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10725446/chelsea-given-unanimous-backing-for-stamford-bridge-development-by-hammersmith-fulham-council
«13

Comments

  • palarsehater
    palarsehater Posts: 12,304
    working local to the area, i think it looks okay difficult build because stamford bridge is in the middle of houses, im glad there staying put grounds around residential areas are dying out.
  • bazjonster
    bazjonster Posts: 2,875
    Going to be built by Swan Vesta apparently.
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,659
    Most stadia are "in your face" and visible for miles in a clear line of site. This development looks like it has tried to be as innocuous as is possible.
  • soapy_jones
    soapy_jones Posts: 21,409
    Some good ones in the pipeline

    Spurs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4tjzdUh1jhU
    Chelski

    https://youtu.be/DZgSfpWK0jQ

  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,022
    It's certainly different, the brickwork makes it look like a cross between a cathedral and a late 70s block of flats!
  • Addickforlife
    Addickforlife Posts: 2,101
    From a transport point of view, when Chelsea are at home the whole of West London is an absolute nightmare as it is. Would love to know how they propose to have an extra 15,000 people travelling to games.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,316
    ShootersHillGuru said:

    Most stadia are "in your face" and visible for miles in a clear line of site. This development looks like it has tried to be as innocuous as is possible.

    I think that was the point.

    If it was my team's stadium I'd want a bolder statement about who's ground it is but as a local resident I'd prefer the low impact.

    It does have a cathedral look about it.

    image
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    Personally would've been a fan of them moving into the battersea power station site (even though they would no longer technically be in chelsea). Would've looked really epic with a proper london landmark. Instead we've got luxury flats...

    image
  • Elthamaddick
    Elthamaddick Posts: 15,861
    that looks a bit like Genoa/Sampdoria in Italy

  • Sponsored links:



  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,697
    interesting that the number of away fans is increasing by a big fat zero
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,022
    edited January 2017
    kentaddick said:

    Personally would've been a fan of them moving into the battersea power station site (even though they would no longer technically be in chelsea). Would've looked really epic with a proper london landmark. Instead we've got luxury flats...

    That would have been an amazing development.

    Stamford Bridge comes under Hammersmith & Fulham rather than Kensington and Chelsea anyway (H&F have 3 grounds in their borough which must be a record)
  • Swisdom
    Swisdom Posts: 14,977
    Reminds me a bit of North Korea's Ryugong Hotel that was both hideous and so poorly designed that it couldn't be used as it was too heavy

    image
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,697
    is that where Roland holds his company's AGM?
  • eaststandmike
    eaststandmike Posts: 14,956
    LargeAddick said:

    interesting that the number of away fans is increasing by a big fat zero

    Quite correct, looking at the season ticket waiting list why should they increase it.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    killerandflash said:

    kentaddick said:

    Personally would've been a fan of them moving into the battersea power station site (even though they would no longer technically be in chelsea). Would've looked really epic with a proper london landmark. Instead we've got luxury flats...

    That would have been an amazing development.

    Stamford Bridge comes under Hammersmith & Fulham rather than Kensington and Chelsea anyway (H&F have 3 grounds in their borough which must be a record)
    it would've been great, a lot of modern grounds get bemoaned as having no atmosphere, i think that ground would've instantly felt it had some atmosphere with those chimneys bearing down on you.
  • ElfsborgAddick
    ElfsborgAddick Posts: 29,228
    LargeAddick said:

    interesting that the number of away fans is increasing by a big fat zero

    Not going to affect us for a while!
  • newyorkaddick
    newyorkaddick Posts: 3,054
    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."
  • ChiAddick
    ChiAddick Posts: 1,781
    newyorkaddick said:

    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."

    Was having this same discussion earlier. The transport system around WHL is abysmall as is. With a greater capacity many fans will leave early to get away. Arsenal have excellent transport yet their stadium is half empty on 85 minutes.

    Back to the design. It doesnt look great from overhead, but from street level is looks decent.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,022
    newyorkaddick said:

    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."

    There are so few decent sites in London. Arsenal were incredibly lucky to find a site round the corner from the Emirates.

    And people from the city will take the train from Liverpool Street to WHL station.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Leeds_Addick
    Leeds_Addick Posts: 4,713
    killerandflash said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."

    There are so few decent sites in London. Arsenal were incredibly lucky to find a site round the corner from the Emirates.

    And people from the city will take the train from Liverpool Street to WHL station.
    Getting the site for the Emirates didn't come without it's problems but yeah, as you say, they were very lucky.

    It's just a shame that the design is shockingly bad. But this was forced a bit by the space constraints they had.
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,381
    Anyone else think the Spurs capacity is just a direct dig at West Ham, Chelsea and Arsenal? They all have 60000 seater stadiums but the new Spurs stadium will be a 61000 seater stadium...

    The Chelsea stadium looks amazing from the outside, but apparently they'll need to move out for 3 years whilst rebuilding it, where will they groundshare? Fulham and QPR are too small, West Ham is a non starter, Spurs and Arsenal are doubtful too, and I wouldn't want them at Wembley for that amount of time
  • LuckyReds
    LuckyReds Posts: 5,866
    Swisdom said:

    Reminds me a bit of North Korea's Ryugong Hotel that was both hideous and so poorly designed that it couldn't be used as it was too heavy

    image

    This is why I love CharltonLife; all jokes aside, there are often some really interesting gems on here.

    That's a stunning photo, I love little peeks in to North Korea.
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,381
    edited January 2017
    LuckyReds said:

    Swisdom said:

    Reminds me a bit of North Korea's Ryugong Hotel that was both hideous and so poorly designed that it couldn't be used as it was too heavy

    image

    This is why I love CharltonLife; all jokes aside, there are often some really interesting gems on here.

    That's a stunning photo, I love little peeks in to North Korea.
    Have you seen the national stadium in North Korea? Staggering

    Capacity of 200,000 people (115,000 seated)

    image

    image
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,051
    killerandflash said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."

    There are so few decent sites in London. Arsenal were incredibly lucky to find a site round the corner from the Emirates.

    And people from the city will take the train from Liverpool Street to WHL station.
    There's strong talk of a new 'spur' of the Victoria line, up to Northumberland Park on match days. There's already a tube depot there with the lines, its just a matter of building a station.
  • Leeds_Addick
    Leeds_Addick Posts: 4,713
    sam3110 said:

    Anyone else think the Spurs capacity is just a direct dig at West Ham, Chelsea and Arsenal? They all have 60000 seater stadiums but the new Spurs stadium will be a 61000 seater stadium...

    The Chelsea stadium looks amazing from the outside, but apparently they'll need to move out for 3 years whilst rebuilding it, where will they groundshare? Fulham and QPR are too small, West Ham is a non starter, Spurs and Arsenal are doubtful too, and I wouldn't want them at Wembley for that amount of time

    Spurs might be playing at Wembley when Chelsea need a home anyway.

    Wembley or Twickenham have been rumoured as the likely grounds.
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,051
    Leeds_Addick said:

    sam3110 said:

    Anyone else think the Spurs capacity is just a direct dig at West Ham, Chelsea and Arsenal? They all have 60000 seater stadiums but the new Spurs stadium will be a 61000 seater stadium...

    The Chelsea stadium looks amazing from the outside, but apparently they'll need to move out for 3 years whilst rebuilding it, where will they groundshare? Fulham and QPR are too small, West Ham is a non starter, Spurs and Arsenal are doubtful too, and I wouldn't want them at Wembley for that amount of time

    Spurs might be playing at Wembley when Chelsea need a home anyway.

    Wembley or Twickenham have been rumoured as the likely grounds.
    The '61' is significant as its a permanent memory of the 1961 double winning year.
  • Leeds_Addick
    Leeds_Addick Posts: 4,713
    JohnBoyUK said:

    Leeds_Addick said:

    sam3110 said:

    Anyone else think the Spurs capacity is just a direct dig at West Ham, Chelsea and Arsenal? They all have 60000 seater stadiums but the new Spurs stadium will be a 61000 seater stadium...

    The Chelsea stadium looks amazing from the outside, but apparently they'll need to move out for 3 years whilst rebuilding it, where will they groundshare? Fulham and QPR are too small, West Ham is a non starter, Spurs and Arsenal are doubtful too, and I wouldn't want them at Wembley for that amount of time

    Spurs might be playing at Wembley when Chelsea need a home anyway.

    Wembley or Twickenham have been rumoured as the likely grounds.
    The '61' is significant as its a permanent memory of the 1961 double winning year.
    It's also definitely a dig at Arsenal though
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,022
    JohnBoyUK said:

    killerandflash said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    I'm particularly amazed that Spurs chose to build their new stadium in the same location as WHL - the traffic/parking/public transport is appalling already and will be twice as bad when it opens.

    How on earth will they sell thousands of corporate hospitality tickets especially to midweek games? "Delighted you can attend our box Mr. Very Important Client - just hop on the Victoria Line to Seven Sisters then it's a short 30 min walk through arguably London's most beautiful area to the stadium."

    There are so few decent sites in London. Arsenal were incredibly lucky to find a site round the corner from the Emirates.

    And people from the city will take the train from Liverpool Street to WHL station.
    There's strong talk of a new 'spur' of the Victoria line, up to Northumberland Park on match days. There's already a tube depot there with the lines, its just a matter of building a station.
    The Victoria line is already at full capacity though, I can't see it happening
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,022
    Leeds_Addick said:

    sam3110 said:

    Anyone else think the Spurs capacity is just a direct dig at West Ham, Chelsea and Arsenal? They all have 60000 seater stadiums but the new Spurs stadium will be a 61000 seater stadium...

    The Chelsea stadium looks amazing from the outside, but apparently they'll need to move out for 3 years whilst rebuilding it, where will they groundshare? Fulham and QPR are too small, West Ham is a non starter, Spurs and Arsenal are doubtful too, and I wouldn't want them at Wembley for that amount of time

    Spurs might be playing at Wembley when Chelsea need a home anyway.

    Wembley or Twickenham have been rumoured as the likely grounds.
    Spurs have Wembley in 2017/18. If their ground is ready, and construction seems to be going well, that would leave Wembley free

    Twickenham would be better for the Chelsea fan axe though

Categories

“Marketplace”