Ashton Vale - bullet dodged?

[WTMS]

16 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I've never understood this obsession with criticising 'bowls' as sterile/unatmospheric or whatever. 

As if four independent stands with daylight between them somehow makes for a better atmosphere. 

The atmosphere is generated by the fans in the stadium. Put our fans in any type of structure and we're poor in terms of atmosphere compared to a lot of places. 

Surely from a purely technical point of view, a bowl would help 'keep the noise in' rather than separated stands which must offer more opportunity for sound to be lost? 

It does the opposite. The Ashton Vale architect had a view that sound should not be retained.

An acoustician visited Ashton Gate during the Ashton Vale planning, Stand with best acoustics? The Eastend (great was his description). It kept the sound in. Things like C differentials (views) mean stands with similar acoustics are no longer built.

Put our fans in any type of structure and we're poor in terms of atmosphere compared to a lot of place .. Totally disagree. There was a view that our support was very good. Now? It is hardly noisy, that compares to modern norms.

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, WTMS said:

It does the opposite. The Ashton Vale architect had a view that sound should not be retained.

An acoustician visited Ashton Gate during the Ashton Vale planning, Stand with best acoustics? The Eastend (great was his description). It kept the sound in. Things like C differentials (views) mean stands with similar acoustics are no longer built.

Put our fans in any type of structure and we're poor in terms of atmosphere compared to a lot of place .. Totally disagree. There was a view that our support was very good. Now? It is hardly noisy, that compares to modern norms.

Leicester play in a bowl, it wasn't a problem keeping the noise contained there,

The fans make the noise not the ground 

[WTMS]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Leicester play in a bowl, it wasn't a problem keeping the noise contained there,

The fans make the noise not the ground 

Yes.

A point made is that stadiums can accentuate the efforts of fans. Supporters who visited Filbert Street will almost certainly feel that the flaccid Walkers has failed to retain that intensity. 

[Aipearcey]

33 minutes ago, bs3 said:

Where did you get that info from?

Not sure that is a fact unless you know something the rest of us don't.

I think it was Martin Kelly said at one of the stadium consolation meeting that the dolman had to be be replace within 20 years and also stated that the way it's built it would never pass building regulations as it hasn't got proper foundations

[BRISTOL86]

14 minutes ago, WTMS said:

It does the opposite. The Ashton Vale architect had a view that sound should not be retained.

An acoustician visited Ashton Gate during the Ashton Vale planning, Stand with best acoustics? The Eastend (great was his description). It kept the sound in. Things like C differentials (views) mean stands with similar acoustics are no longer built.

Put our fans in any type of structure and we're poor in terms of atmosphere compared to a lot of place .. Totally disagree. There was a view that our support was very good. Now? It is hardly noisy, that compares to modern norms.

Interesting, thanks. Surprised to learn that 'separate' stands are noisier than enclosed ones ('bowl'), all else being equal (i.e. roof height, stand design etc).

I'm no 'acoustician' but I think even I could have concluded that the east end was noisy given the roof was about 8ft high and surrounded by breeze blocks! 

With regards to the overall atmosphere at the gate, it's library-esqe in most parts. Comparing the atmosphere now with the 07/08 season as an example and its night and day different. 

[BRISTOL86]

8 minutes ago, Aipearcey said:

I think it was Martin Kelly said at one of the stadium consolation meeting that the dolman had to be be replace within 20 years and also stated that the way it's built it would never pass building regulations as it hasn't got proper foundations

Where did moving away from AG when that time comes, come from? That would be lunacy given the investment in the stadium, surely? 

[BRISTOL86]

17 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Leicester play in a bowl, it wasn't a problem keeping the noise contained there,

The fans make the noise not the ground 

Dortmund's stadium is also a 'bowl', in that it is completely enclosed on all sides. 

Fair to say there is an atmosphere there!

[Fat Cigar]

Ashton Vale looked impressive on paper but, in my view, the main reason the club started to explore the redevelopment of AG instead was less to do with external opposition and endless challenges in court, and more to do with the form of the team on the pitch. With every year the fight for AV dragged on, our form plummeted. I may be wrong about this, but surely Steve Lansdown et.al realised that by the time AV got built, we could have been stranded in League One, playing to 10,000 people, if lucky. It would have made a loss from day 1. Now, we may not have been in L1 long, but it would have been a disaster to have spent any longer than 5 years in a brand new 30,000 capacity stadium in the 3^rd tier of English football.

AG redevelopment has cost half what AV was forecast to cost. The designs (from memory) of AV did make it look less generic than others.

If I’d have had to choose which option to go for, I would have gone for the existing one.

Re: the future, I just cannot see us leaving AG full stop. Why? Unless we’ve established ourselves in the Premier League, (like a Southampton. Not a Hull or Burnley type yo yo existence), AG will remain our home for the long term.

What I can see happening, (assuming all fine with planning permission) is the Atyeo being knocked down and made in to a new North Stand. That might increase capacity from 27,000 to 32,000 (give or take the odd thousand). But, that won’t happen any time soon. And won’t even be considered unless we’re in the top flight. For more than a season.

Southampton play in a 32,000 stadium. Hull and West Brom play to 25,000 – 27,000 capacity crowds. Swansea stuck on 21,000, but you’d expect them to increase that soon. Not sure what their plans are though. Palace’s ground is also around 27,000.

Just found this on the Liberty Stadium: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36873983

I can’t see anything being done with Dolman. And the Lower Dolman (where I sit) is obviously brand new. There’s no way the club are going to knock down the Dolman and build a new stand. That would also mean knocking down the Lower Dolman which would be nuts. Be it a complete waste of money. It does mean that Upper Dolman misses out in terms of more leg room and other comforts but I can’t see anything being done with that.

[Offside]

I was fully behind AV and thought the design looked pretty good. I'm sure that moving to AV would have been good for the club.

However, with the benefit of hindsight the traditionalist in me is overjoyed that we have stayed in our home of 100+ years. Even though it would only have been a short distance away AV might have felt like it was stuck out on a limb whereas Ashton Gate still feels like it's in the heart of the community.

[Aipearcey]

7 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Where did moving away from AG when that time comes, come from? That would be lunacy given the investment in the stadium, surely? 

That's only my personal opinion, if they were to knock it down then,  that would be the time to decide whether to invest big again on the dolman or ateyo or build else where. If it was going to cost say £50 to knock down, house/flat wickes etc. Or spend £60 on a band new stadium complex that would offer more revenue the club may look at the other options 

[WTMS]

3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Dortmund's stadium is also a 'bowl', in that it is completely enclosed on all sides. 

Fair to say there is an atmosphere there!

Signal Iduna Park is not fluid symmetry, similar traits yes, but even if it was it would be some leap to compare one of the Worlds best supported clubs, with Europe's largest terrace (not acceptable in the UK) to the more humble Ashton Vale design.

 

[BRISTOL86]

9 minutes ago, WTMS said:

Signal Iduna Park is not fluid symmetry, similar traits yes, but even if it was it would be some leap to compare one of the Worlds best supported clubs, with Europe's largest terrace (not acceptable in the UK) to the more humble Ashton Vale design.

 

My point is that people trot out the old 'it's a bowl, it'll have a crap atmosphere' line which is fundamentally inaccurate. 

Yes, I accept that stadium design can either enhance or reduce the effects of the atmosphere but only marginally. 

The actions of fans is still the single most important determinant, and as I say, AG is like a library in the majority of places, save for the odd couple of minutes here or there. 

[pongo88]

I think the new Ashton Gate looks fantastic, but Ashton Vale would have been much better.  The South and West stands are modern but the upper Dolman is over 40 years old and the legroom and seat width is not to modern standards. The Atyeo is far too small for home and away fans combined which means that it's limited to only 1,000 home fans who want to stand. Plus they are stuck in the corner with the worse facilities. At Ashton Vale everyone would have had a good seat, if they wanted to sit, and more capacity could have been allocated to those who want to stand.

[WTMS]

31 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

My point is that people trot out the old 'it's a bowl, it'll have a crap atmosphere' line which is fundamentally inaccurate. 

Yes, I accept that stadium design can either enhance or reduce the effects of the atmosphere but only marginally. 

The actions of fans is still the single most important determinant, and as I say, AG is like a library in the majority of places, save for the odd couple of minutes here or there. 

Stadium design does have a significant impact on the way fans support the team. It is not always marginal and officious stewarding with other variables often make once boisterous fans passive.

The actions of clubs are the single most important factor to address this.  At Middlesbrough despite the disadvantage of that maligned stadium pro active fans have made an impact, with the assistance of the FC.  Ashton Vale or Ashton Gate the attitude of Bristol Sport - the FC to fans will be paramount.

 

[BRISTOL86]

4 minutes ago, WTMS said:

Stadium design does have a significant impact on the way fans support the team. It is not always marginal and officious stewarding with other variables often make once boisterous fans passive.

The actions of clubs are the single most important factor to address this.  At Middlesbrough despite the disadvantage of that maligned stadium pro active fans have made an impact, with the assistance of the FC.  Ashton Vale or Ashton Vale the attitude of Bristol Sport - the FC to fans will be paramount.

 

Hmmm, take your point to a degree, but if 9 out of every 10 fans wants to sit and watch the game quietly - which was my observation last season - then it makes not a jot of difference what shape the stands are. 

Also without wishing to reopen old debates, if we can't stop 5,000 fans starting streaming out at 4.30 every other Saturday, even with £45m of investment in the facilities, then it's going to be like pushing water uphill. 

The actions of fans is surely the number one factor in the amount of noise generated. Success on the pitch will naturally improve things, however even through 14/15 it was poor.

Ill give the last two seasons a free pass as we've been sat in a construction site, but I fear we're still going to feel like we are sat in a library for the majority of each game!

[WTMS]

25 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Hmmm, take your point to a degree, but if 9 out of every 10 fans wants to sit and watch the game quietly - which was my observation last season - then it makes not a jot of difference what shape the stands are. 

Also without wishing to reopen old debates, if we can't stop 5,000 fans starting streaming out at 4.30 every other Saturday, even with £45m of investment in the facilities, then it's going to be like pushing water uphill. 

The actions of fans is surely the number one factor in the amount of noise generated. Success on the pitch will naturally improve things, however even through 14/15 it was poor.

Ill give the last two seasons a free pass as we've been sat in a construction site, but I fear we're still going to feel like we are sat in a library for the majority of each game!

 

I would suspect 9 out of every 10 fans wants to sit and watch the game quietly is accurate enough. However ground design would make a difference collectively to the remainder. Ashton Gate is now formed and the idea of mini Kops and ends are gone.

Atyeo aside (a big + mark)  there are things which could be done to alter the homogenised look and feel of stands. There are huge white spaces (Dolman) evident, these could be filled by fans for ninety minutes on match day. Things like flag policies could be formulated with supporters in each stand to change that flat pack aesthetic when the football club is using the stadium. Ideas like this were suggested to Bristol Sport in 2014, 2015 and 2016. They were looking into it / we will get back to you / we are painting in three months we'll see then … The number one factor there is missing. And yes they have a lot on, are busy with better things to do, but hopefully you will understand the point made.

 

 

[ChippenhamRed]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Leicester play in a bowl, it wasn't a problem keeping the noise contained there,

The fans make the noise not the ground 

Absolutely agree with this.  I am entirely convinced that the supposedly poor atmosphere in modern "bowl" stadiums has much less to do with modern stadium design and much more to do with modern football supporters.  When Wales played Belgium in their Euro qualifier at the Cardiff City Stadium, the atmosphere was phenomenal.

[EnderMB]

I would have preferred Ashton Vale. It offers more room for expansion, the potential for more infrastructure, and the chance for Lansdown to monetise the area further than he can do at the Gate.

We've done well with the new Ashton Gate. We've gone from having a stadium a lot of fans mocked to a worthy stadium for a Championship/League 1 team. I think Lansdown should be praised for what he's managed to accomplish.

With that being said, the real loser here is the city of Bristol. The years of battling, only for Lansdown to effectively lose the land he already owned, became more than just a local football club not being able to build a new stadium. It showed the rest of the country, and the rest of the world that Bristol is not capable of improving its infrastructure. Since we lost that battle, endless articles have been written about how Bristol is behind dozens of other cities. Our road system is a joke, it's taken us countless decades to build an arena, our public transport system is a joke, and since appointing mayors we've had a candidate that pointed all of these problems out without a viable solution, and one that is yet to have an impact on anything.

 

[shelts]

I was very happy to go to Ashton Vale but now I see Ashton Gate then staying works. 

[Cowshed]

Mr Lansdown may not have dodged a bullet, but gained one. He still has the opportunity to develop part of Ashton Vale.

The area could be used as a base for the Community trust to extend its activities. It is within an easy walking distance of Ashton Gate and offers more scope than the hirerite building did and the renting of others facilities at Keynsham, Knowle, Whitchurch etc
does.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Lansdown may not have dodged a bullet, but gained one. He still has the opportunity to develop part of Ashton Vale.

The area could be used as a base for the Community trust to extend its activities. It is within an easy walking distance of Ashton Gate and offers more scope than the hirerite building did and the renting of others facilities at Keynsham, Knowle, Whitchurch etc
does.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that SL has said whatever he does with AV won't be linked to BCFC.

[North London Red]

I've met fans of countless clubs on my England travels, many of which have moved stadium over the last 25 years. I'm still yet to meet a single one who prefers their new stadium to their old stadium. A common observation is 'you don't know what you've got until it's gone', and I would have felt the same way about leaving Ashton Gate. For those reasons alone I think we've dodged a bullet.

[Cowshed]

Merrick's Marvels - I'm sure I've read somewhere that SL has said whatever he does with AV won't be linked to BCFC.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/ashton-vale-compromise-deal-approved-bristol/story-21737462-detail/story.html

Ashton Vale is of course Mr Lansdowns asset. It is easy to spend somebody else's money here, but I would like to see a community serving sports facility linked to BCFC, or Bristol Sport. Much has been made of Bristol Sport being an umbrella organisation for various sports partners, Bristol Sport can also be a partner of the community.

[nebristolred]

7 hours ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Dortmund's stadium is also a 'bowl', in that it is completely enclosed on all sides. 

Fair to say there is an atmosphere there!

As someone who has an unhealthy obsession with football stadiums I have to pipe up I'm afraid! No way is that ground a 'bowl'.

[BRISTOL86]

11 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

As someone who has an unhealthy obsession with football stadiums I have to pipe up I'm afraid! No way is that ground a 'bowl'.

To be clear, I'm using the term 'bowl' to refer to a stadium that is enclosed in all four corners, as opposed to 4 separate stands which are not connected. 

I.E you don't see the sky unless you look up  

One of the main objections on here IIRC to the proposed move was that we'd have a 'soulless generic identi-kit bowl' stadium without separate stands...

[Up The City!]

35 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

To be clear, I'm using the term 'bowl' to refer to a stadium that is enclosed in all four corners, as opposed to 4 separate stands which are not connected. 

I.E you don't see the sky unless you look up  

One of the main objections on here IIRC to the proposed move was that we'd have a 'soulless generic identi-kit bowl' stadium without separate stands...

Apart from the Atyeo end isn't this exactly what we do have.

[TBW]

I don't get the people who wanted to stay at the current site so much. Just reminds me of Trigger, replace everything but it's still the same ground? No... it's not. Would've preferred Ashton Vale.

And "bullet dodged" would indicate by moving away something bad would have happened? Is there something about the site that's come to light that we didn't know at the time?

[pongo88]

To me a "bowl" is a stadium where all the corners are joined and, more importantly, the four stands are basically the same design and height. There are plenty of clubs that have developed their grounds and filled in the corners, but don't have a bowl - e g WBA. To me, Ashton Gate falls into this category as all the stands are different  (and the corners aren't joined at the Atyeo end.) What's even more important is the fact that City's ground is not stuck in the middle of nowhere. Even Ashton Vale would have been fairly close to civilisation. If only we could have some decent parking and public transport. 

[BRISTOL86]

57 minutes ago, Just Red said:

Apart from the Atyeo end isn't this exactly what we do have.

Yep, although I guess we've tried to somewhat negate the 'look' of the bowl-type stadium with the two tiers of the west stand. 

[BRISTOL86]

24 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

To me a "bowl" is a stadium where all the corners are joined and, more importantly, the four stands are basically the same design and height. There are plenty of clubs that have developed their grounds and filled in the corners, but don't have a bowl - e g WBA. To me, Ashton Gate falls into this category as all the stands are different  (and the corners aren't joined at the Atyeo end.) What's even more important is the fact that City's ground is not stuck in the middle of nowhere. Even Ashton Vale would have been fairly close to civilisation. If only we could have some decent parking and public transport. 

From a purely aesthetic point of view, the Atyeo completely ruins the visual appeal of the ground. 

In a perfect world the Dolman and Atyeo stands would be a seamless continuation of the South Stand. 

I appreciate we are constrained for space at that end though