Olympic Way alterations

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, TedsHeadIs Red said:

If the current Wembley had existed since 1923 and then they recently knocked it down to build the old one, what would you say?

The new one isn’t as good, even as The Millennium Stadium. New Wembley could be a lot better than it is, as I said Proper Wembley had its faults but that’s no excuse to build something that is not as good as it could be. 

[exAtyeoMax]

Did the new Wembley have to be built up that high that it needed so many steps? Or is Olympic Way too low?

[Bedred31]

I prefer the new Wembley to the old, which until Euro 96 had hideous fences all around the playing area. But the surrounding area has been undermined in the last 5 years by an almost hysterical level of residential development, so that the ground is now surrounded ( almost literally at touching distance) by blocks of flats. I never minded the ramps, which seemed fine to me for access, including wheelchairs. I think this part of the redevelopment is driven by FA empire builders looking at grandiose plans and artists impressions. Those steps are going to be murderous at the end of a match when 70000 fans try and leave at once.

[TedsHeadIs Red]

4 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

The new one isn’t as good, even as The Millennium Stadium. New Wembley could be a lot better than it is, as I said Proper Wembley had its faults but that’s no excuse to build something that is not as good as it could be. 

All part of the increasing sanitisation of football I guess. Something always goes missing when things are “improved”.

[Cowshed]

On 21/11/2020 at 08:57, Tinmans Love Child said:

It says “The current pedway is not suitable for wheelchair users due to the gradient of the ramp, which is also challenging for a number of other spectators including those with a range of other access requirements and our older guests”.  Therefore no choice really

Yes there is as somebody who works for a disabilities charity I will state there is always a choice. There is a choice to do the bare legal requirement or there is also an alternative here to be truly inclusive and involve individuals in the whole experience v making wheelchair users a handful of lifts. 

The design increased not decreased in height by nineteen metres. The design increased its inaccessibility.  

A alternative choice could have been easily differing gradients and lifts. Unfortunately disabled people are not worth that consideration.

[Tinmans Love Child]

15 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes there is as somebody who works for a disabilities charity I will state there is always a choice. There is a choice to do the bare legal requirement or there is also an alternative here to be truly inclusive and involve individuals in the whole experience v making wheelchair users a handful of lifts. 

The design increased not decreased in height by nineteen metres. The design increased its inaccessibility.  

A alternative choice could have been easily differing gradients and lifts. Unfortunately disabled people are not worth that consideration.

I posted so long ago I can’t even remember what the thread was about!

[BS2 Red]

47 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes there is as somebody who works for a disabilities charity I will state there is always a choice. There is a choice to do the bare legal requirement or there is also an alternative here to be truly inclusive and involve individuals in the whole experience v making wheelchair users a handful of lifts. 

The design increased not decreased in height by nineteen metres. The design increased its inaccessibility.  

A alternative choice could have been easily differing gradients and lifts. Unfortunately disabled people are not worth that consideration.

Well said.