davieG Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 BBC Chelsea have made a bid to buy Battersea Power Station and plan to redevelop it into a 60,000 capacity stadium. The landmark's four chimneys would be kept as part of a design that includes a 15,000 seat single-tier south stand. Chelsea said in March expanding their current home, Stamford Bridge, made no economic sense, while a new stadium on the site faced planning problems. The club added they are not the only party interested in acquiring the site. Wow love that idea.
21st Century Fox Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 That's a tough one. It's a really iconic building (apparently the inside still has many of it's art deco fixtures and fittings) but it's just been in a dilapidated limbo for so long I can't see it ever getting redeveloped. I've been there twice for the Red Bull X-Fighters events and it's a pretty nice location for sports events. Done right and keeping enough of it's character, I suppose it could be good.
lcfcadam Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Done well, it could easily look sensational. I take it moving south of the river wouldn't be as important to a club like Chelsea as to say, Arsenal or Spurs? (and yes I know Arsenal were originally a south London club, but that was a long time ago!)
Darkon84 Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 When I first read about them looking at this site, ages ago, I thought the idea sounded great. Love the idea of the 15,000 single tier stand too. Apparently the chimneys are they only part of the site that they would be required to keep, therefore the art deco interior may well be lost. Though I would think that sections of it would be bought up by collectors, National Heriage etc. A really exciting project if it goes ahead.
21st Century Fox Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 It's a shame that something couldn't be done to preserve the whole site, but some of the planned redevelopments have sounded awful; industrial theme park, glass domed office space...
breadandcheese Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Call me a massive cynic, but I can't help feel that Abramovich is making a PR move here, either to put pressure on the Stamford Bridge shareholders to sell, or to create some momentum so that they can secure the Battersea property, before then announcing that the plans to re-develop the power station are unviable due to structural safety problems and that the only viable option is to knock down the power station.
steveherbe Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 I believe they have to retain the chimneys. Sepp Blatter has insisted, as the German bombers use them as markers on the way to bomb the East end. "They're heinkels". "No they're not, they're Meserschmitts". "Nah, Heinkels" NAME THE FILM!! Sol the wall bamba, you aint allowed to enter.
BlueSi13 Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 If they retain the character of the original power station then it could be the most spectacular stadium in the UK. However,what is it with clubs wanting to limit their stadiums to 60,000? why not go 70,000 or 80,000? Give Manchester United a run for their money!
davieG Posted 4 May 2012 Author Posted 4 May 2012 If they retain the character of the original power station then it could be the most spectacular stadium in the UK. However,what is it with clubs wanting to limit their stadiums to 60,000? why not go 70,000 or 80,000? Give Manchester United a run for their money! Maybe they're happy with the 'smaller' size, they can charge more so get the same income from less people, either way the TV money outweighs whatever gate receipts they get. I doubt the extra 10-20K would affect the atmosphere.
purpleronnie Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 If they retain the character of the original power station then it could be the most spectacular stadium in the UK. However,what is it with clubs wanting to limit their stadiums to 60,000? why not go 70,000 or 80,000? Give Manchester United a run for their money! I would think its because those capacities would incur more costs and the reality is they will struggle to get that many fans through the gates.
breadandcheese Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 If they retain the character of the original power station then it could be the most spectacular stadium in the UK. However,what is it with clubs wanting to limit their stadiums to 60,000? why not go 70,000 or 80,000? Give Manchester United a run for their money! Take a look at Juventus. They've downsized their stadium last year from 69,000 to 41,000. They just couldn't fill it.
Darkon84 Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Take a look at Juventus. They've downsized their stadium last year from 69,000 to 41,000. They just couldn't fill it. Thing is, they actually own their new one (only club in Serie A to own their own stadium I think). So even though it's a smaller size, they will be bringing more money in.
HEGGSY Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 I love Juves New stadium, and to think it cost only £90m for such a good ground.
m00nie Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 The landmark chimneys would be kept, wonder if they mean just the top white parts, as in they would knock it all down and stick the 4 chimneys on the new stand?? be good if they could incorporate some of the actual building into one though.
davieG Posted 4 May 2012 Author Posted 4 May 2012 Chelsea have made a bid to buy Battersea Power Station in south-west London and plan to redevelop it into a 60,000 capacity stadium. The landmark's four chimneys would be kept as part of a design which includes a 15,000 seat single-tier south stand. Chelsea said in March expanding their current home, Stamford Bridge, made no economic sense, while a new stadium on the site faced planning problems. The club added they are not the only party interested in acquiring the site. Stamford Bridge problems Access issues prevent development beyond 50,000 seats Attempts to sell naming rights stalled with Chelsea asking for £100m for a 10-year deal Previous attempts to sell naming rights to existing stadia have rarely been successful "There is no certainty we will be successful,"read a club statement. "We must also stress that making an offer for the Battersea Power Station site does not mean the club has made a definitive decision to leave Stamford Bridge." The club say the plans, which would preserve the building's Grade Two listed turbine hall and control room, would provide "a unique architectural backdrop to a world-class stadium". A development of shops, housing and offices, and a contribution to the extension of the Northern Line underground service into the area, are part of the offer. Stamford Bridge's capacity of 42,000 compares unfavourably to Arsenal's Emirates Stadium, which holds 60,000, and Manchester United's Old Trafford ground, which has seating for 76,000. Chelsea have been linked with other sites in south-west London while they are also considering ways of increasing revenue, such as selling naming rights to their current home at Stamford Bridge. Battersea Power Station lies 2.5 miles away from Stamford Bridge The club had previously shown an interest in taking over a site in Earls Court once the Exhibition Centre had been demolished, and had been rumoured to be considering a bid for Chelsea and Westminster hospital. The possibility of Chelsea relocating from the stadium they have played at for 107 years has been complicated by a disagreement with Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), a fan-owned company who acquired Stamford Bridge's freehold in 1997 to protect it from developers. The club's attempt to buy the freehold back in October was rejected by CPO's shareholders, who accused it of not making enough of an effort to remain at Stamford Bridge. Tim Rolls, a CPO shareholder, said it was his preference "and the preference of a lot of Chelsea fans is to stay at Stamford Bridge". "That hasn't changed. I am still not convinced the club have exhausted every possible avenue for redeveloping our ground, I just don't believe they have," he added. Battersea Power Station A disused coal-fired power station on the south bank of the River Thames in Battersea The largest brick building in Europe 1983: Ceased producing electricity 1993: Bought by Parkview International for £10m 2006: Power Station and surrounding land bought by Real Estate Opportunities for £400m "Having said that, if we do have to move then Battersea is one of only two options that would be acceptable to Chelsea fans. The other is Earls Court." The club claim a new stadium on the existing site would cost more than £600m and require them play away for at least three seasons, while an expansion would cost more than it would generate in extra income. Ravi Govindia, leader of Wandsworth Council, said the power station was "the biggest development opportunity in central London and a key site within the Nine Elms regeneration zone". "Any new owner will need to work within the existing planning framework for Nine Elms," he added. Battersea Power Station's owners have been trying for more than a year to find an equity investor to fund a proposed £5.5bn redevelopment. Energy stopped being generated at the station in 1983, but the site is still used for hosting events - one of the latest being the ATP World Tour Finals Gala.
m00nie Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 The club say the plans, which would preserve the building's Grade Two listed turbine hall and control room, would provide "a unique architectural backdrop to a world-class stadium". thats good then, seems would be working with it rather than knocking all done.
Fox92 Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Never understood why they wanted to move, untill I went to Stamford Bridge this season. Very compact and little room outside, especially for a ground/club that will always attract fans/near full capacity.
Out Foxed Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Never understood why they wanted to move, untill I went to Stamford Bridge this season. Very compact and little room outside, especially for a ground/club that will always attract fans/near full capacity. they want to move so they can build on that land.
davieG Posted 4 May 2012 Author Posted 4 May 2012 they want to move so they can build on that land. They don't own that land.
Jace Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 For a 60000 seater stadium to fit there is no way the existing building could be used for the stands there wouldn't be room. They would keep the listed chimney structures and the pitch would go in the opposite way to how the building faces at the moment. This would give the appearance of the building being rotated 90 degrees with the chimneys being a centrepiece of the middle of the main stands. Imagine the old Wembley with the 2 towers you would have something similar but with 4. There would need to be a lot of depth to the stands to fit probably why probably why they are planning single tiers for the ends would be very different from the Bridge I like the sound of it far more interesting than most modern stadiums
purpleronnie Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 For a 60000 seater stadium to fit there is no way the existing building could be used for the stands there wouldn't be room. They would keep the listed chimney structures and the pitch would go in the opposite way to how the building faces at the moment. This would give the appearance of the building being rotated 90 degrees with the chimneys being a centrepiece of the middle of the main stands. Imagine the old Wembley with the 2 towers you would have something similar but with 4. There would need to be a lot of depth to the stands to fit probably why probably why they are planning single tiers for the ends would be very different from the Bridge I like the sound of it far more interesting than most modern stadiums Definately sounds like a unique stadium, but so many of these designs get thrown #out and you get a boring bowl instead.
Jace Posted 4 May 2012 Posted 4 May 2012 Definately sounds like a unique stadium, but so many of these designs get thrown #out and you get a boring bowl instead. Yeah deffo when I heard 60000 seater initially first thing I imagined was another Benfica/Arsenal/New Spurs stadium
Fox92 Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 they want to move so they can build on that land. Yes I know that. What I meant is, Stamford Bridge looks bigger on the TV, but when I actually visited this season, I can see why they want to move.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.