Constructive ideas for Ground Development

[Richard Petty]

Bostons jakemans community stadium videos are worth a look https://youtu.be/_bPC4MVbpSo

Unsure how a new Rec could possibly come under budget in comparison?

Really think glulam timber should be considered as a building material, not only for comparable cost savings but as an exposed beam wall/ceiling feature.
Nothing screams "high end" about Boston's wedding reception facilities either, at least my misses wouldn't think so.

Now that should be a blueprint for what we should be aiming for. I have just watched all 5 video's and it is without doubt an amazing stadium.

If I were to be picky I would say that whilst the main stand is superb I would like to see the other stands a little bit higher as the balance of the stadium looks a bit off but that really is being picky. I don't think we could fit something quite as big on the site of the Rec because of being hemmed in by the BT Building and and the Railway line but as a concept it is perfect.

[supershots]

Bostons jakemans community stadium videos are worth a look https://youtu.be/_bPC4MVbpSo

Unsure how a new Rec could possibly come under budget in comparison?

Really think glulam timber should be considered as a building material, not only for comparable cost savings but as an exposed beam wall/ceiling feature.
Nothing screams "high end" about Boston's wedding reception facilities either, at least my misses wouldn't think so.

Now that should be a blueprint for what we should be aiming for. I have just watched all 5 video's and it is without doubt an amazing stadium.

If I were to be picky I would say that whilst the main stand is superb I would like to see the other stands a little bit higher as the balance of the stadium looks a bit off but that really is being picky. I don't think we could fit something quite as big on the site of the Rec because of being hemmed in by the BT Building and and the Railway line but as a concept it is perfect.

Yes but if you built them with a higher rake and steeper you will get a far better viewing platform and get more seats per stand, I notice that most of the pictures posters have put up the stands are of a very flat rake which does not help viewing. Look at the difference between our North and south stands,

[Shot through (& throu]

Exactly, I am a season ticket holder for the South Stand but sat in the North Stand yesterday. Any action that took place down the left side of the pitch attacking the East Bank was completely obscured by the sitting spectators. Can't wait to get back to my normal seat next Tuesday.

[supershots]

Exactly, I am a season ticket holder for the South Stand but sat in the North Stand yesterday. Any action that took place down the left side of the pitch attacking the East Bank was completely obscured by the sitting spectators. Can't wait to get back to my normal seat next Tuesday.

At last somebody agrees with me

[Sean Chambers]

Exactly, I am a season ticket holder for the South Stand but sat in the North Stand yesterday. Any action that took place down the left side of the pitch attacking the East Bank was completely obscured by the sitting spectators. Can't wait to get back to my normal seat next Tuesday.

Absolutely spot on the view from there is nowhere as good and I too am looking forward to my normal view on Tuesday night.

[Ian Rust]

I think stands as Boston's West Stand on 3 sides of The Rec (North/South/High St) and then of course something really special for the East Bank standing area. That would give us an approx 12,000 capacity (2,100 seated on 3 sides, plus say 6,000 standing for the East Bank).
Nice one and what we've got to be aiming for as a minimum. Key to the whole stadium will be the acoustics and presence of the East Bank, loose that iconic stand & the whole scheme will be lost.

[Birdman]

I think stands as Boston's West Stand on 3 sides of The Rec (North/South/High St) and then of course something really special for the East Bank standing area. That would give us an approx 12,000 capacity (2,100 seated on 3 sides, plus say 6,000 standing for the East Bank).
Nice one and what we've got to be aiming for as a minimum. Key to the whole stadium will be the acoustics and presence of the East Bank, loose that iconic stand & the whole scheme will be lost.

12,000 is too big, our average crowd (2k maybe) would be rattling around. Even during our Conference promotion season our average (off the top of my head) was around the 3,000 mark, the biggest gate was towards 6,000 which I think was for the Weymouth game at the end of the season when we were awarded the Conference Trophy. Statto might be able to give a more accurate figure.
The current capacity in a properly configured redevelopment would imo be enough.

[hepcat]

I think stands as Boston's West Stand on 3 sides of The Rec (North/South/High St) and then of course something really special for the East Bank standing area. That would give us an approx 12,000 capacity (2,100 seated on 3 sides, plus say 6,000 standing for the East Bank).
Nice one and what we've got to be aiming for as a minimum. Key to the whole stadium will be the acoustics and presence of the East Bank, loose that iconic stand & the whole scheme will be lost.

12,000 is too big, our average crowd (2k maybe) would be rattling around. Even during our Conference promotion season our average (off the top of my head) was around the 3,000 mark, the biggest gate was towards 6,000 which I think was for the Weymouth game at the end of the season when we were awarded the Conference Trophy. Statto might be able to give a more accurate figure.
The current capacity in a properly configured redevelopment would imo be enough.

You don't fancy a Darlington Arena then ?! The daftest way OTT new stadium (that thankfully for them never happened) was Luton-when they had the barmy owner who eventually dragged them down to the Conference. He was going to build a 75k (YES! 75,000) all seater next to the Luton turn off on the M1 ,and he was also going to buy up the Bedford Rugby team to play there to (and I quote) "Give the Asian community something to support." ? To the best of my knowledge I've never heard it said; "You know what those Pakistani's are about their rugby" although its been rumoured that SA will talk your ear off about the greatest scrums of all time if you'll let him!

[Ian Rust]

I think stands as Boston's West Stand on 3 sides of The Rec (North/South/High St) and then of course something really special for the East Bank standing area. That would give us an approx 12,000 capacity (2,100 seated on 3 sides, plus say 6,000 standing for the East Bank).
Nice one and what we've got to be aiming for as a minimum. Key to the whole stadium will be the acoustics and presence of the East Bank, loose that iconic stand & the whole scheme will be lost.

12,000 is too big, our average crowd (2k maybe) would be rattling around. Even during our Conference promotion season our average (off the top of my head) was around the 3,000 mark, the biggest gate was towards 6,000 which I think was for the Weymouth game at the end of the season when we were awarded the Conference Trophy. Statto might be able to give a more accurate figure.
The current capacity in a properly configured redevelopment would imo be enough.

I don’t understand Birdy.
I think my vision for the redevelopment is modest and anything less would be quite frankly embarrassing.
Fact is that;
(1) before the current ground safety regs our current ground comfortably held 15,000 (record is 19,000).
(2) the stand I proposed from the Boston ground is quite small. Only 2,100 capacity, that is less than our current North Bank which has 1,000 seats plus 1,500 standing under current regs.
(3) using that Boston stand on 3 sides of our ground would really only be a new High Street end as the other new stands would just represent a replacement (North Bank) and an extension (South Stand).
(4) I’ve no idea what you mean by us ‘rattling’ around with a 2,000 gate in my modestly redeveloped Rec. We would have the same amount of fans on each side of the ground as we do now.
(5) a redevelopment of any less than 12,000 would reduce the scale of our ground. If a 6,000 capacity ground was built as you propose a re-use of the existing natural bank of the East Bank wold leave us with stands of about 5 rows deep (like the current temporary stand at the High Street End) on the other 3 sides which would look a complete joke and have nothing like the scale of the current ground.

12,000 capacity on todays safety regs is the minimum/line in the sand requirement, otherwise you’re going to end up with a toy town type ground like Burton Albion, Forest Green Rovers, Crawley, Salford City etc etc which are nowhere near as imposing as The Rec in its current foremat……………. I rest my case.

[Richard Petty]

I think stands as Boston's West Stand on 3 sides of The Rec (North/South/High St) and then of course something really special for the East Bank standing area. That would give us an approx 12,000 capacity (2,100 seated on 3 sides, plus say 6,000 standing for the East Bank).
Nice one and what we've got to be aiming for as a minimum. Key to the whole stadium will be the acoustics and presence of the East Bank, loose that iconic stand & the whole scheme will be lost.

12,000 is too big, our average crowd (2k maybe) would be rattling around. Even during our Conference promotion season our average (off the top of my head) was around the 3,000 mark, the biggest gate was towards 6,000 which I think was for the Weymouth game at the end of the season when we were awarded the Conference Trophy. Statto might be able to give a more accurate figure.
The current capacity in a properly configured redevelopment would imo be enough.

I don’t understand Birdy.
I think my vision for the redevelopment is modest and anything less would be quite frankly embarrassing.
Fact is that;
(1) before the current ground safety regs our current ground comfortably held 15,000 (record is 19,000).
(2) the stand I proposed from the Boston ground is quite small. Only 2,100 capacity, that is less than our current North Bank which has 1,000 seats plus 1,500 standing under current regs.
(3) using that Boston stand on 3 sides of our ground would really only be a new High Street end as the other new stands would just represent a replacement (North Bank) and an extension (South Stand).
(4) I’ve no idea what you mean by us ‘rattling’ around with a 2,000 gate in my modestly redeveloped Rec. We would have the same amount of fans on each side of the ground as we do now.
(5) a redevelopment of any less than 12,000 would reduce the scale of our ground. If a 6,000 capacity ground was built as you propose a re-use of the existing natural bank of the East Bank wold leave us with stands of about 5 rows deep (like the current temporary stand at the High Street End) on the other 3 sides which would look a complete joke and have nothing like the scale of the current ground.

12,000 capacity on todays safety regs is the minimum/line in the sand requirement, otherwise you’re going to end up with a toy town type ground like Burton Albion, Forest Green Rovers, Crawley, Salford City etc etc which are nowhere near as imposing as The Rec in its current foremat……………. I rest my case.

Ian how could a 7,000 or 8,000 capacity ground be any smaller or less imposing than the one we already have which is just over 7,000 capacity and very tight for that as we experienced when we had the Man Utd game. There was were some areas that night that were absolutely rammed being at full capacity. A properly built 7,000/8,000 capacity ground to modern standards with the correct amount of space for that capacity would be bigger than the existing ground. a 12,000 capacity that your suggesting wouldn't even fit on the current footprint.

Also as Birdman has said a massive 12,000 capacity stadium would be awful if not at least half filled and would require areas of it to be kept shut anyway as it would not be cost effective to open all of it. 7,000/8,000 would be more than enough to satisfy our needs back in the football league.

[Ian Rust]

Nonsense Richard, read my post again. The five points I make are all thoroughly falsifiable, yet you make no attempt to address any of them.

[Joplings tash]

Surely the sensible development would be 3000 in new east bank, 2000 each in north and south stands, 1000 high street end ,8000 capacity. We could then re develop the high street end when the trees die or we sell out every week whichever happens first

[Birdman]

Nonsense Richard, read my post again. The five points I make are all thoroughly falsifiable, yet you make no attempt to address any of them.

Sorry, Ian, but I stand by my “12,000 is too big” comment. The big crowds of yesteryear are highly unlikely to be replicated. My “rattling around” comment simply meant that the ground wouldn’t look as ‘busy’ as it does now. Going by our current attendance levels (2,000 approx) 10,000 empty spaces against 5,000 empty spaces as at present would be a tad embarrassing. I will also remind you of my comment about our average attendance during our Conference winning season. Our attendances in L2 weren’t great either.
Do you remember when we played up at Millwall in the FA Cup back in 2009(10?). The attendance was about 5k and parts of the ground was closed off. Their capacity is currently 20k. I don’t know if it was that then. Our supporters were singing ‘Your ground’s too big for, your ground’s too big for you’. With a 12,000 capacity stadium that, I feel, is what the away supporters would be aiming at us. So for me, a stadium in the 7,000s would be more than enough.
Also what needs to be borne in mind by everyone is how much money will be made available and then what can be done with it.

[CH]

To be fair, I do see Mr Rusts point. The rec holds 7,100 comfortably and has held five figure crowds multiple times. Ok not by modern safety standards, but remember also large sections of the East Bank, away slab and HSE are now no go areas and modern 6000 capacity stadiums like those mentioned above do feel small compared to the rec.

If built properly it doesn't have to feel empty. With 2000 in the rec currently it feels busy and with a good atmosphere, and is in reality only 30% full (or 10% by 1970 standards).

[Ian Rust]

Nonsense Richard, read my post again. The five points I make are all thoroughly falsifiable, yet you make no attempt to address any of them.

Sorry, Ian, but I stand by my “12,000 is too big” comment. The big crowds of yesteryear are highly unlikely to be replicated. My “rattling around” comment simply meant that the ground wouldn’t look as ‘busy’ as it does now. Going by our current attendance levels (2,000 approx) 10,000 empty spaces against 5,000 empty spaces as at present would be a tad embarrassing. I will also remind you of my comment about our average attendance during our Conference winning season. Our attendances in L2 weren’t great either.
Do you remember when we played up at Millwall in the FA Cup back in 2009(10?). The attendance was about 5k and parts of the ground was closed off. Their capacity is currently 20k. I don’t know if it was that then. Our supporters were singing ‘Your ground’s too big for, your ground’s too big for you’. With a 12,000 capacity stadium that, I feel, is what the away supporters would be aiming at us. So for me, a stadium in the 7,000s would be more than enough.
Also what needs to be borne in mind by everyone is how much money will be made available and then what can be done with it.

Nonsense Birdy, read my post again. The five points I make are all thoroughly falsifiable, yet you make no attempt to address any of them.