New Riverside Design

[toshes mate]

However, a major motivation is that this development is seen as a way of increasing revenue, with game day and none game day business opportunities to increase money coming into the club.

Compared to the original concept of the Riverside Stand I believe this is the crucial difference to the approach by Khan and certainly influenced the Heatherwick study for example.  Craven Cottage is the home of Fulham FC but it does not mean it cannot be turned into something much more than that given its proximity to Hammersmith which is already an 'entertainment' hub.   Exploiting the potential revenues available seems essential as Craven Cottage is never going to be large enough to support the kind of crowds to be expected at larger football club venues but that does not mean facilities cannot be diversified to improve expected and anticipated income.

I worry, however, that key features of any ground, such as acoustics and atmosphere on all four sides, appear not to figure in the overall plan (see MJG's comments in this thread) at this stage as a piecemeal approach has lead to the stadium being in its present form.   I would prefer to see a complete plan (split into stages of import if necessary) rather than something which simply complicates instead of expediting further developments.   If we want a seriously good place for people unconnected with FFC to spend their money then it needs to seriously look good on paper too.   

[MJG]

However, a major motivation is that this development is seen as a way of increasing revenue, with game day and none game day business opportunities to increase money coming into the club.

Compared to the original concept of the Riverside Stand I believe this is the crucial difference to the approach by Khan and certainly influenced the Heatherwick study for example.  Craven Cottage is the home of Fulham FC but it does not mean it cannot be turned into something much more than that given its proximity to Hammersmith which is already an 'entertainment' hub.   Exploiting the potential revenues available seems essential as Craven Cottage is never going to be large enough to support the kind of crowds to be expected at larger football club venues but that does not mean facilities cannot be diversified to improve expected and anticipated income.

I worry, however, that key features of any ground, such as acoustics and atmosphere on all four sides, appear not to figure in the overall plan (see MJG's comments in this thread) at this stage as a piecemeal approach has lead to the stadium being in its present form.   I would prefer to see a complete plan (split into stages of import if necessary) rather than something which simply complicates instead of expediting further developments.   If we want a seriously good place for people unconnected with FFC to spend their money then it needs to seriously look good on paper too.   

just to clarify I'm not saying there isn't a long term plan. There is, but as to how integrated this design is with future plans is maybe a question some can ask at the open events.

[mrmicawbers]

Surely when it is drawn up they will use every bit of available space which would join up with the Putney and Hammermith ends.This i would hope would improve the acoustics no end.

[Burt]

One of the benefits of the prior design was no loss of capacity whilst the new stand was to be built around and over it.

I assume if it is now single-tier that for a while we will be down to 3 stands only?

[flyingfish]

Lots of  interesting comments  on here.

I don't deal with stadia development specifically but do work on high profile major developments where the processes of design and securing consent will be similar.

Firstly, if he is pre-application stage with the Council, believe me there is a lot more than the sketch available. All will be revealed I am sure in the consultation.

Secondly, in the design of a major development with lots of interested parties (in this case, fans, users of the river, residents, TFL, london underground, Natural England, Historic buildings buffs, the council themselves etc etc etc) there is a balance to be struck between seeking early opinion and revealing your hand and being sure of your design enough to really promote it as the best option. Reveal too early, and everyone thinks they can have their say about what it should be. Go too late and it comes across as a fait accompli riding roughshod over 'stakeholders' concerns but it helps to develop the design to a considerable degree and 'get your lines right' before revealing it, while still suggesting that you are early enough to take into account comments from people. That seems to be what the Khan's are doing.


The reality is that one does not design stuff like this according to whims, even Mr Khan's. One does not just drop a thousand seats because they feel like it, or add in a parade of commercial space because it looks good. The economics behind it all are immense, and will relate to cost of materials, potential rental income, fans revenue etc etc etc. Believe me that this takes time to work out and it is not done over the weekend.

E.g a conversation playing out over months and months might go like this: so we need to add in a few cafes, increase revenue, that means less fan revenue, but more rent, OK, that works, oh dear, now we need to extend into the river, quick call the engineers - it's going to cost what??!, OK, make the cafe smaller - what do you mean Nandos don't want it any more, what about Square Pie Co? Oh it's too big for them, poo.  Ok, what happens if we put more seats back? Right, now TFL are complaining because they say that the tube can't carry them all. OK, what about the height thing we talked about? What do you mean that the upper row of seats blocks the light of No. 27? How badly? Right, now what about the listed building? You mean Historic England don't like the design that we've just spent months on? ARRRGHHH! This process takes months and hundreds and hundreds of pages of drawings, reports and hours and hours of meetings.

Obviously in this context, they will not add 1000 seats just because H5 STH thinks they should.

It is what I do. It is very challenging, especially for people not used to doing development in UK due to our regulatory processes - but the Khans I am sure will have people helping them and they seem to me to be quick learners judign by the general tone of the programme notes and understand the context they are working in,

In all of this there will be engineers, planning consultants, historic buildings advisors, architects, surveyors, quantity surveyors, ecologists, transport consultants among many others all with competing demands on the client which a clever person needs to balance out and come up with a good scheme. They will all I imagine have signed enforceable non-disclosure agreements, common in the industry, which is why there are no leaks.

As for the old consent - for whatever reason it doesn't work anymore.. Probably doesn't stack up financially. Happens all the time in the development industry. A good developer will always be looking to squeeze a bit more out of it, and for whatever reason the Khans have established that this doesn't do the job, and there is a better scheme. Nothing wrong with that. They have done their due diligence, correctly IMO. They will not have abandoned a major engineering project on a whim, over a pint and a fag, believe me.

Unless they reveal a giant steaming turd at the consultation (which I would be very surprised if it is not stage managed by experts in public affairs), there is really nothing to criticise them for.

[mrmicawbers]

One of the benefits of the prior design was no loss of capacity whilst the new stand was to be built around and over it.

I assume if it is now single-tier that for a while we will be down to 3 stands
I thought they would be doing as previously mentioned i e building while the stand was open on matchday.If they are going to close the stand while the building work goes ahead,more reason to do it as quick as possible prior to getting back to the Prem.

[Marcel_Gecov]

One of the benefits of the prior design was no loss of capacity whilst the new stand was to be built around and over it.

I assume if it is now single-tier that for a while we will be down to 3 stands
I thought they would be doing as previously mentioned i e building while the stand was open on matchday.If they are going to close the stand while the building work goes ahead,more reason to do it as quick as possible prior to getting back to the Prem.

I've read somewhere this week they plan to keep it open.

[FulhamStu]

Was going to start a new thread, but will stick to this as this excellent thread expands its thoughts.

I have said on here and elsewhere, my hope was we would incorporate both Putney and Hammersmith ends into the new design, however I have changed my mind.

The excellent observations from the Fish, has made me realise that the more we change the design, the more long distance this vision will become.  It looks to me, the club have enhanced the original plans, to increase usable space on the river frontage, yes with a different roof, more height at the ends of the stand and maybe the middle as well.  Using the same footprint will allow a lot of the previously hard fought for agreements like building over the river to remain, and make it less challenging to get approvals.

Regarding the Putney and Hammersmith ends, as MJG has said, the club will have thought about this, and I hope have a master plan, which once the Riverside is sorted can be worked on.

For me, I would think the Putney end has huge potential, with Bishops Park being another very attractive vantage point to take advantage of.  I would like to see the Putney end become the 'singers stand'.  By the time this comes round Shrewsbury will have safe standing, so why not make the Putney end safe standing.  Build it to maximise noise projected forward to the pitch and rest of the ground.   Next develop the Hammersmith end into a 2 tier stand, away fans can have all or part of the upper tier and away from the pitch with less effect on the players and home support.  The lower tier can be all seating for home fans that want to permanently sit behind the goal.

I doubt this is what will happen, but it is the sort of thing I hope our leaders have under consideration.

[HillingdonFFC]

Was going to start a new thread, but will stick to this as this excellent thread expands its thoughts.

I have said on here and elsewhere, my hope was we would incorporate both Putney and Hammersmith ends into the new design, however I have changed my mind.

The excellent observations from the Fish, has made me realise that the more we change the design, the more long distance this vision will become.  It looks to me, the club have enhanced the original plans, to increase usable space on the river frontage, yes with a different roof, more height at the ends of the stand and maybe the middle as well.  Using the same footprint will allow a lot of the previously hard fought for agreements like building over the river to remain, and make it less challenging to get approvals.

Regarding the Putney and Hammersmith ends, as MJG has said, the club will have thought about this, and I hope have a master plan, which once the Riverside is sorted can be worked on.

For me, I would think the Putney end has huge potential, with Bishops Park being another very attractive vantage point to take advantage of.  I would like to see the Putney end become the 'singers stand'.  By the time this comes round Shrewsbury will have safe standing, so why not make the Putney end safe standing.  Build it to maximise noise projected forward to the pitch and rest of the ground.   Next develop the Hammersmith end into a 2 tier stand, away fans can have all or part of the upper tier and away from the pitch with less effect on the players and home support.  The lower tier can be all seating for home fans that want to permanently sit behind the goal.

I doubt this is what will happen, but it is the sort of thing I hope our leaders have under consideration.

Theres very little they can do at either end to increase capacity. This was from someone well placed to know. Something to do with light affecting the nearby apartments and very complicated issues regarding Bishops Park

[aaronmcguigan]

One of the benefits of the prior design was no loss of capacity whilst the new stand was to be built around and over it.

I assume if it is now single-tier that for a while we will be down to 3 stands
I thought they would be doing as previously mentioned i e building while the stand was open on matchday.If they are going to close the stand while the building work goes ahead,more reason to do it as quick as possible prior to getting back to the Prem.

I've read somewhere this week they plan to keep it open.

I've seen they plan to keep the stadium open and only use the 3 stands as opposed to move house while the builders are in.

[toshes mate]

If there is such a thing as a 'master plan' then why not have it available in the supporter consultation exercise, or are we to take on trust that 'something' will happen to improve facilities, atmosphere and game experience in the Hammersmith and Putney stands?   Why have they not been incorporated into the whole as they were in at least one of the public domain artistic interpretations listed before?  I just don't get leaving them much as they are now when there is so much criticism of crowd noise being projected better by the Putney End design.  Surely getting the stadium to reverberate to home supporters has to be a priority in whatever league you play. 

[flyingfish]

If there is such a thing as a 'master plan' then why not have it available in the supporter consultation exercise, or are we to take on trust that 'something' will happen to improve facilities, atmosphere and game experience in the Hammersmith and Putney stands?   Why have they not been incorporated into the whole as they were in at least one of the public domain artistic interpretations listed before?  I just don't get leaving them much as they are now when there is so much criticism of crowd noise being projected better by the Putney End design.  Surely getting the stadium to reverberate to home supporters has to be a priority in whatever league you play.

Because the more you include the more fantasy it is. The whole process is obviously geared to getting consent for the riverside. That takes resources enough. You don't get consent for the riverside if you faff around with a wider mastwrplan : it dilutes efforts to a manageable degree and the efforts become unfocused. One step at a time. They will have a mastwrplan I expect at a broad level , but don't expect too much info.

[NogoodBoyo]

Lots of  interesting comments  on here.

I don't deal with stadia development specifically but do work on high profile major developments where the processes of design and securing consent will be similar.

Firstly, if he is pre-application stage with the Council, believe me there is a lot more than the sketch available. All will be revealed I am sure in the consultation.

Secondly, in the design of a major development with lots of interested parties (in this case, fans, users of the river, residents, TFL, london underground, Natural England, Historic buildings buffs, the council themselves etc etc etc) there is a balance to be struck between seeking early opinion and revealing your hand and being sure of your design enough to really promote it as the best option. Reveal too early, and everyone thinks they can have their say about what it should be. Go too late and it comes across as a fait accompli riding roughshod over 'stakeholders' concerns but it helps to develop the design to a considerable degree and 'get your lines right' before revealing it, while still suggesting that you are early enough to take into account comments from people. That seems to be what the Khan's are doing.


The reality is that one does not design stuff like this according to whims, even Mr Khan's. One does not just drop a thousand seats because they feel like it, or add in a parade of commercial space because it looks good. The economics behind it all are immense, and will relate to cost of materials, potential rental income, fans revenue etc etc etc. Believe me that this takes time to work out and it is not done over the weekend.

E.g a conversation playing out over months and months might go like this: so we need to add in a few cafes, increase revenue, that means less fan revenue, but more rent, OK, that works, oh dear, now we need to extend into the river, quick call the engineers - it's going to cost what??!, OK, make the cafe smaller - what do you mean Nandos don't want it any more, what about Square Pie Co? Oh it's too big for them, poo.  Ok, what happens if we put more seats back? Right, now TFL are complaining because they say that the tube can't carry them all. OK, what about the height thing we talked about? What do you mean that the upper row of seats blocks the light of No. 27? How badly? Right, now what about the listed building? You mean Historic England don't like the design that we've just spent months on? ARRRGHHH! This process takes months and hundreds and hundreds of pages of drawings, reports and hours and hours of meetings.

Obviously in this context, they will not add 1000 seats just because H5 STH thinks they should.

It is what I do. It is very challenging, especially for people not used to doing development in UK due to our regulatory processes - but the Khans I am sure will have people helping them and they seem to me to be quick learners judign by the general tone of the programme notes and understand the context they are working in,

In all of this there will be engineers, planning consultants, historic buildings advisors, architects, surveyors, quantity surveyors, ecologists, transport consultants among many others all with competing demands on the client which a clever person needs to balance out and come up with a good scheme. They will all I imagine have signed enforceable non-disclosure agreements, common in the industry, which is why there are no leaks.

As for the old consent - for whatever reason it doesn't work anymore.. Probably doesn't stack up financially. Happens all the time in the development industry. A good developer will always be looking to squeeze a bit more out of it, and for whatever reason the Khans have established that this doesn't do the job, and there is a better scheme. Nothing wrong with that. They have done their due diligence, correctly IMO. They will not have abandoned a major engineering project on a whim, over a pint and a fag, believe me.

Unless they reveal a giant steaming turd at the consultation (which I would be very surprised if it is not stage managed by experts in public affairs), there is really nothing to criticise them for.

Such an impressive post that it deserves gratitude and recognition.
Nogood "not giving a flyingfish about all this is not so easy, isit" Boyo

[flyingfish]

Glad you found it insightful. I'm looking forward to seeing how things develop and how the khans handle the whole process from now and I'll drop back in from time to time. Can't wait for the consultation but unfortunately I don't think I'm going to be able to get to the ground when it's on so hopefully there will be an online consult as well.

By the by I'm also intrigued by the land purchase at motspur park. I don't know much about if the khans do property elsewhere in the world (or real estate as they will call it)  it's piqued my interest sonic going to do some digging. I am assuming at the moment that they are not complete amateurs at development. 

[peaty]

@flyingfish...

If you weren't aware, Khan is seriously into development around Jacksonville. His plan for the city's shipyards/docklands area is an ambitious long-running saga: hotels, marinas, re-routing an expressway. It's not small:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/sports/nfl/jacksonville-jaguars/jaguars-unveil-plans-for-abandoned-shipyards-property-downtown/420752635

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-04-18/jaguars-owner-shad-khan-picked-develop-shipyards-property-jacksonville

NB: Mark Lamping, a non-exec on FFC board and president of the Jags, is heavily involved in the Jacksonville project.