Stadium Design Optimisation

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

liddle_4_ever
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Team Supported: Darlo
Location: Scotland

Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by liddle_4_ever » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:34 pm

There's a few things about the design of the new stadium at Blackwell Meadows that I can't understand why it hasn't been changed to ease it evolving over the next few years/decades to suit our long term needs.

First and most obvious change would be a change to the stand behind the goal. I believe the current design is for stand of about 7 steps with a roof across the full width of the pitch. To upgrade this design of stand to take a larger capacity you would need to remove the roof and throw it away before building more steps and buying a new roof.
My suggested change would be to build a higher but narrower stand (e.g. twice as high but half the width), then to increase capacity you can extend this stand to either side when we have money, without the wastage of throwing away a roof. It would also offer a superior view for our fans from day 1.

2nd change would be the location of the pitch. This sounds drastic but would be very cheap to implement but this could only be achieved prior to any work commencing. I can only see positives from moving the pitch 5-10m further away from the clubhouse. This would allow a stand/steps to be built along that side of the pitch. It would also have the effect of moving the water trunk pipeline (which we can't build over) away from the halfway line which would be the most popular/expensive seats.

The only downside I see to these changes would be planning permission (I presume the flood lights will be changed anyway). What are people's opinions? Feel free to pull these ideas apart.
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

Yarblockos
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Yarblockos » Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:04 pm

The first suggestion, building a shorter but higher terrace behind the goal seems like a good idea. If we are using portal frames from the old tin shed then I'm not sure why the roof can't be a high as the old tin shed anyway, which was around 13 steps.

The second idea, moving the pitch away from the clubhouse, would I think, mean that the water trunk pipeline would end up running through the terrace behind the goal. So we couldn't build a terrace along the entire end.

onewayup
Posts: 2851
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by onewayup » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:08 pm

Did you every stand in tin shed. There were seven steps from bottom to top.three wider at the bottom than the other four if I remember correctly. However I think it's a good point raised.

liddle_4_ever
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Team Supported: Darlo
Location: Scotland

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by liddle_4_ever » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:17 pm

onewayup wrote:Did you every stand in tin shed. There were seven steps from bottom to top.three wider at the bottom than the other four if I remember correctly. However I think it's a good point raised.
There was 13 steps in the old tin shed (although 2 of these were basically taken up with the crush barriers).

The size and depth of the steps in the original tin shed are probably not appropriate in modern times so I can easily see a 7 step terrace taking up the same space as the original tin shed's steps.
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

liddle_4_ever
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Team Supported: Darlo
Location: Scotland

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by liddle_4_ever » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:45 pm

Yarblockos wrote:The first suggestion, building a shorter but higher terrace behind the goal seems like a good idea. If we are using portal frames from the old tin shed then I'm not sure why the roof can't be a high as the old tin shed anyway, which was around 13 steps.
As I mentioned in my last post I imagine a 7 step modern terrace will take up the same space as the original tin shed steps.
I don't think we should be making future improvements more expensive just because we have some beams from Feethams (although it would improve the character of the ground).
Yarblockos wrote:The second idea, moving the pitch away from the clubhouse, would I think, mean that the water trunk pipeline would end up running through the terrace behind the goal. So we couldn't build a terrace along the entire end.
I think you've misunderstood here. The pipeline approximately goes from the corner flag (between the club house and the stand behind the goal) and the halfway line opposite the clubhouse.
Moving the pitch away from the clubhouse will have the effect of the pipeline crossing the touchline opposite the clubhouse further away from the stand behind the goal. It will also push the pipeline away from the corner flag to the touchline next to the club house. So moving the pitch will either have no effect on the stand behind the goal or have a slight positive effect (depending on the exact location that the pipeline on the current pitch).
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by lo36789 » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:56 pm

I am not too concerned. There is a whole end of the ground which is undeveloped plenty of scope there.

User avatar
uncovered
Site Admin
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by uncovered » Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:18 pm

The pipeline goes straight through the middle of the open end, to the centre of the pitch and turns to go away from the pitch past the centre circle. Hence the half stand on the opposite side of the clubhouse. Couldn't be worse if I am honest but beggars can't be choosers.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by dickdarlington » Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:23 pm

I have mentioned moving the pitch south by 5 metres before. And I've also approached the club about it. Not sure if it has been furthered but it should be. By moving the pitch, given the angle of the pipe, the available space to build on without disrupting the pipe increase, as the pipe will be in the corners, or much closer to the corner (as above). It would be minimal in terms of work needing to be done as the floodlights are benign moved anyway, and the pitch is being relaid. The only issue I can see is with the perimeter encroaching on the training pitches behind.

It makes sense also because you can then build a stand in front of the club house maximising space.

Also, there are lots of efficiencies which we can take from clubs like Marine who make the most of the land available

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Quakerz » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:10 pm

onewayup wrote:Did you every stand in tin shed. There were seven steps from bottom to top.three wider at the bottom than the other four if I remember correctly. However I think it's a good point raised.
There was loads more than 7!

Now I was never sad enough to count them, but I reckon it was nearer 15.

Anyhow, 7 or 8 steps in today's terms would likely take up as much space as the steps in the old tin shed, because terracing steps are bigger these days.

Anyone remember the Polam End? In those days it was maybe a medium terrace but in today's terms it would be fucking massive!

Imagine that at Blackwell?
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

Neil Johnson
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Neil Johnson » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:17 pm

onewayup wrote:Did you every stand in tin shed. There were seven steps from bottom to top.three wider at the bottom than the other four if I remember correctly. However I think it's a good point raised.
13 steps

Neil Johnson
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Neil Johnson » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:27 pm

The stands seem to be set-back permitting future expansion.

Using the old tin shed steel doesn't have to limit us, as it can be set upon more steel at some later date, to raise the structure and include more steps.

We should have space all around the pitch, so that stands can be added in, however there may be an issue with DRFC's traditional use of the current drinking balcony, however a new balcony can be a feature of a future new stand on that side.

liddle_4_ever
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Team Supported: Darlo
Location: Scotland

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by liddle_4_ever » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:54 pm

Neil Johnson wrote:The stands seem to be set-back permitting future expansion.

Using the old tin shed steel doesn't have to limit us, as it can be set upon more steel at some later date, to raise the structure and include more steps.

We should have space all around the pitch, so that stands can be added in, however there may be an issue with DRFC's traditional use of the current drinking balcony, however a new balcony can be a feature of a future new stand on that side.
I don't mean to be rude, but what are you talking about?

Setting the stands back has literally no impact on future expansion.

You can't just raise the roof of the tin shed and get more steps in, you'd also have to move the back of the stand away from the pitch to get additional steps and if you do that the roof wouldn't cover the full stand. You might think that you could extend the roof etc etc etc but the beams are not designed to take this additional load and a structural engineer is highly unlikely to sign it off as fit for purpose (especially given it's age).

There won't be space for a stand along the club house unless the pitch is moved. As it currently is you might be able to get a 3 step uncovered terrace but nothing else. I don't believe the balcony will change. I imagine it will be used for corporate and filming the game.

The more I've thought about this the more I think it's vital that the pitch moves a little away from the clubhouse or this will be something we come to regret in the decades and generations to come.
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by lo36789 » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:36 am

I was sure the last picture I saw of the pipe had it going trough the corner and out just past the halfway like. Then was it 4m either side or something like that we couldn't build on.

There is still scope in the north and south corners of the ground to do something if we needed.

It would be very ragtag but it would have some character!

User avatar
Mr_Tibbs
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
Location: Gruzia
Contact:

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Mr_Tibbs » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:03 am

Neil Johnson wrote:
onewayup wrote:Did you every stand in tin shed. There were seven steps from bottom to top.three wider at the bottom than the other four if I remember correctly. However I think it's a good point raised.
13 steps
Correctamundo...

Image
Join - Shop - Collect

Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:

Image

www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg

onewayup
Posts: 2851
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by onewayup » Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:59 am

I stand corrected, I really thought it was seven .proved it is 13.apologies.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by don'tbuythesun » Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:46 am

I was trying to find the Polam End capacity and came across this. Interesting final comment in the written stuff
http://www.footballgroundz.co.uk/indivi ... ington.htm

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by dickdarlington » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:11 pm

Think the Polam end had a certificate for 2200 in the final season (as memory recalls). 1000 for the Tin Shed (reduced throughout the season).

After catching someone yesterday, I've been advised moving the pitch isn't an option (despite the obvious benefits). However, as suggested above taking examples from other grounds can increase the space we do have available.

The tin shed will have an initial capacity of 902. But this this restricted due to the number of turnstiles and access. Further down the line, this could or be increased by isolating it and providing its own facilities/ access exits etc. Crude calculations show a terrace in front of the club house (uncovered) at 7 steps deep with indented vormetories would give enough access behind and a capacity of between 800 and 1000. The tin shed terrace can further be expanded around the corner to the south until it hits the pipeline perimeter. Likewise the main stand could be further extended to 750 seats without having to extend backwards (think Wycombe/Anfield). On the undeveloped end, a 400 seat stand and a terrace in front for circa 400 would be easily accommodated to the south of the pipeline boundary. It would be unauthodox but have a capacity of 4K of you consider the safe standing where the pipe would be. That is conference standard. And can be built as the funds become available. Further development to football league standards and I'm beginning to scratch my head without going backwards on both the terrace and the main stand.

This is of course purely conjecture on my behalf. However, what I do find baffling is we are still not proposing to bring the temporary seating. In my mind this is a no brainer. Yes, it can't be used for formal ground grading. But in the short term would provide unclassified seats for fans coming to visit, who can't stand yet won't be able to sit in the limited capacity main stand. Add to that, we could move the red seats already st Blackwell. The added benefit of these are they can be placed over the pipe because they can be quickly moved to grant access.

User avatar
Mr_Tibbs
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
Location: Gruzia
Contact:

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Mr_Tibbs » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:31 pm

don'tbuythesun wrote:I was trying to find the Polam End capacity and came across this. Interesting final comment in the written stuff
http://www.footballgroundz.co.uk/indivi ... ington.htm
Yeah... so true.

Image
Join - Shop - Collect

Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:

Image

www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg

darlo_baron
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:28 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by darlo_baron » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:01 pm

Expansion of the ground is going to be necessary in line with the club's ambitions, realistically. The pipe remains a major issue in respect to this. I'd be interested to see what future plans are as I expect it will raise itself as an issue in the not too distant future. Maybe worth a question at the fans forum.

However to be clear progress to this point has been exceptional and in no way do I think we had an alternative option to what we are currently planning. Credit to all parties involved.
Craig Liddle is God!!

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by D_F_C » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:20 pm

http://www.fsif.co.uk/_resources/assets ... /34014.jpg

Some people had mentioned Stamford's ground was good. Were you thinking something like this?

jjljks
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by jjljks » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Lot of fair points being made about the size of stands, capacity and so on, however one of the main lessons we should learn from Heritage Park is to start off by getting the pitch right. It is a worry that the rugby and football first teams will be sharing the same pitch. What is needed is almost an impossible compromise, one that has some great drainage but also gets rolled flat after every game. The rugby scrum need something which allows them to dig in to get a shove, whilst the soccer players want a smooth, firm surface. When building the ground would like to think someone has given consideration to the necessary growing conditions, prevailing winds and sight-lines, not just the size of the stands. Sorry if I sound like an afficionado of Gardener's Question Time, but I don't want to go through the stress of this season again when every dark cloud over HP had me praying the match would not be called off due to waterlogging! Having spectacularly failed to get it right with the Arena, hopefully we can come up with some long-term strategic options that enable the facility to grow with the success of both clubs. This will be our last chance to get it right, so keep on open mind, please!

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Darlo_Pete » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:54 pm

Plenty of clubs share their ground with Rugby League or Union teams and they seem to get by ok. I know it's not ideal but the problems are not insurmountable.

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by lo36789 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:04 pm

jjljks wrote:When building the ground would like to think someone has given consideration to the necessary growing conditions, prevailing winds and sight-lines, not just the size of the stands.
Probably did it when designing it rather than when building it, but yes suspect the architect gave consideration to sight lines.

You do know we're not building the whole site from scratch right, we're adding stands to an existing facility?

As was called out months ago, in the deepest, darkest depths of the wet weather the rugby pitch was playable.

If Swansea City can play their style of play on a pitch shared with a rugby team I am pretty sure we'll find a way to deal with it. We currently play on compacted mud anyway.

tezza
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by tezza » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:04 pm

Sure Malcolm Cundick might appreciate the assistance of some of the Architects that have appeared

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by dickdarlington » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:52 pm

Tezza, some of us did discuss things with the relevant parties at the time. Amongst others further down the line.

lo36789, re the prevailing wind will be a factor. This is why the terrace was originally at the other end (until the pipe entered the equation). And you're right in saying that the pitch has held up well throughout this very wet winter. However, a bit unfair to compare Blackwell with Swansea. Swansea and the Ospreys have millions to spend on maintaining the pitch and have lighting racks, and a semi synthetic surface. A better comparison would be Notts County a few years back. Basically, if they sew the right seed, and we can collectively fix any issues before any frost kicks in, it should hold up well.

Yarblockos
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by Yarblockos » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:30 pm

D_F_C wrote:http://www.fsif.co.uk/_resources/assets ... /34014.jpg

Some people had mentioned Stamford's ground was good. Were you thinking something like this?
I'm not sure how many steps the terrace at Stamford had, about 8 I think. It seemed about the same height as the old tin shed, so the steps were certainly deeper. Interestingly, the terracing was steel rather than concrete.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:19 pm

Tezza....that made me laugh. Hope I'm in the same mood stood on the terracing at 9.30 tomorrow!

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by lo36789 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:24 pm

dickdarlington wrote:However, a bit unfair to compare Blackwell with Swansea. Swansea and the Ospreys have millions to spend on maintaining the pitch and have lighting racks, and a semi synthetic surface. A better comparison would be Notts County a few years back. Basically, if they sew the right seed, and we can collectively fix any issues before any frost kicks in, it should hold up well.
I actually started the post saying there must be 15+ clubs in the FL sharing with rugby clubs. I'd have thought not all of them have millions to spend. Wycombe have been pretty infamously skint for years yet are coping they must have found a cost effective way to manage it?

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by dickdarlington » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:29 pm

Wycombe were a bit of an odd entity as it will probably have been Wasps maintaining the pitch before they moved to Coventry. Watford famously had issues. Stockport too. However Bristol Rovers always seemed to be okay. I don't consider the rugby league grounds to be considered for comparison because they don't really scrum.

Thinking about it, didn't West play at Pools before they went bust? What was their pitch like?

I guess it'll come down to the capability of the groundsperson.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Stadium Design Optimisation

Post by dickdarlington » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:00 pm

One thing I've struggled to get my head around is why it will be so expensive to redirect the pipe. At most it will be 500m in length, through undeveloped grassland. You dig a ditch, add the pipe. Stop the flow. Connect it up (admittedly I anticipate that's the difficult part) and then open the pipe up again.

However, because of it I'm hugely optimistic we're going to have a unique ground with tons of character that we can be proud of. Much like Feethams.

Making the most of limited space, the plans at Exeter are interesting. They want to replace the main stand and the away end ( which if you've been is awful). Both are very restricted in terms of space (the main stand has a railway line behind it) and the architects have designed two very basic structures to suit the space available. Right up our street.

Post Reply