Architectural review of the new stadium

[New York Red]

Apologies if this has been posted already. I just nicked this from RAWK.

 

Review date: 10 September 2007

 

Lead designer: RyderHKS

 

Client: Liverpool Football and Athletic Club plc

 

Local authority: City of Liverpool

 

Location: Land at Stanley Park (including site of 47-71 Anfield Road and existing Liverpool FC stadium, Anfield Road).

 

Region: North West

 

Description: New 60,000 seat stadium to be constructed at Stanley Park, together with new mixed-use development on site of existing football stadium.

 

Summary

 

CABE continues to support the principle of locating a new stadium for Liverpool Football Club at the southern end of Stanley Park. The use of the Kop as the principal generator of the building diagram is a powerful idea and the resultant asymmetric UK stadium model is to be welcomed. However, in our view, the power of this diagram has yet to be carried through with the same clarity into the architecture. We warmly welcome the club’s intention with the local authority to jointly manage the historic park, and we fully support the integration of community sports facilities around the stadium itself; although, there is more to be done to generate a more elegant transition between the building and the park. It is essential that these issues are resolved before planning permission is granted. We urge the city council to work to ensure the regenerative impact of the proposals on the wider area is maximised.

 

The stadium in the park

 

We applaud the decision to pursue both a site and club specific response to the brief. The analysis of the UK asymmetric stadium combined with the use of the Kop as the principle design generator will lend this stadium a unique character and identity, both visually and experientially. Added to this, its setting is unique and we are encouraged by the aspirations expressed to ensure that the stadium takes full advantage of its location, both to create an architecture that responds to the park as well as a facility for the park. The decision to leave the corners open to expose the four main structural columns and allow for views into the stadium from the park will add considerable drama to the stadium and help integrate the stadium into its setting.

 

We are encouraged to see that public access is a key feature of the stadium throughout non-match days and the year. The skywalk will give welcome views over the city and the park. We also support the consolidation of the park’s MUGA and tennis courts and the inclusion of changing facilities within the building is also to be welcomed.

 

The integration of this large building into the park setting is a significant challenge. The historic park must be repaired and treasured and the interface between the stadium and the park carefully handled. We are pleased that the landscape design makes a conscious effort to address the park in a different manner to the more urban aspects to the south and east without resorting to a more traditional park design. The local planning authority should assure itself that the proposals fully anticipate movement and use patterns around the stadium on both match and non-match days, and that the landscape design can accommodate activities other than getting to and from the stadium. Supporters will be likely to approach the stadium from all directions, as they do now, and the proposals should recognise that its ‘front door’ onto the new Anfield Plaza will not be used by all fans. The local planning authority should also verify that the change in levels around the stadium is fully considered in this design, especially around the Kop end where the overhang of the building could create the need for railings or additional planting.

 

Architecture

 

Whilst this proposal has the makings of an exemplary scheme, we are disappointed that at this stage the design does not successfully achieve a cohesive and graceful architectural response to the generating idea relating to the Kop. Notwithstanding this, we acknowledge the efforts to work with the park’s topography and the work that has gone into understanding the local context.

 

We think that more work is required to investigate thoroughly the consequences for the architecture of the idea. The success of the stadium will be dependent on how this strong idea is resolved in detail. For example, the meeting of the Kop and the adjoining stands is far from convincing in its execution; the two come across as separate buildings each with their own identity. These two distinct elements should come together in a more convincing manner for the stadium to be read as a successful whole. The ‘wrap’ around and over the Kop projecting over the stadium is a compelling, if intimidating idea. We think that the elegance and power of this idea needs to be reinforced in the architecture rather than diluted through unnecessary complexity of detail and materials. For example the two roofs projecting either side of the wrap are less significant elements which should be reflected in the way the different components meet, the roof edge detail, and the material chosen. We also wonder whether the material of the wrap itself is right for the job; the choice of metal-cladding will create a faceted effect where perhaps a more cohesive, unified solution might be better.

 

A key challenge is to ensure the stadium sits lightly in the park. Our concern is that the weight and bulk of the stadium will be unduly emphasised by the dominant roofline and the approach to key elevations, particularly those facing the park and Anfield Plaza. Both threaten to obscure the main idea of the architecture and undermine efforts made elsewhere to ensure the building sits well in the park. The idea is strong enough to ensure that each elevation responds well to its specific relationship to the park. We would like to see further work done on the elevations to resolve the relationships. With a more rigorous approach to the architecture, we think that the weaknesses in the elevations can be resolved.

 

Internal match-day movement needs closer consideration. We are pleased that the public spaces in the stadium are to be designed to a high standard. We would hope that the quality of the circulation spaces within the stadium, especially with regards the food courts, can establish a new benchmark.

 

Wider regeneration

 

We are pleased that to note the proposed joint management of Stanley Park by the club and local authority, and consider it to be a much needed step in guaranteeing the restoration and future maintenance of this historic landscape for the benefit of the local community and the city at large. The considerable investment that is anticipated for this area, not just through this project, but also by the housing market renewal pathfinder programme should be considered holistically by the local authority to maximise the regeneration benefit and opportunity for the area.

 

For the reasons stated above, we do not believe the proposals should be granted planning permission until these issues are addressed.

[DecidedByPoll]

Do CABE actaully have any clout in regards to the planning process?

[Cobs]

15 words or less?

[honourablegeorge]

"We dunno if we like the look of it, we have nothing to suggest, please don't build it"

[muleskinner]

15 words or less?

 

They aren't too keen on the material proposed to clad the curved bit.

[matty]

Actually they do like it, think it's a really good concept, but have a problem with the way it relates to the park, and the materials for the roof.

 

The fact that they've asked for the planning permission not to be granted until the 'problems' are resolved is a bit worrying. However, CABE tend to be a bit high-handed so maybe shouldn't be too influential in LCC's decision.

 

Considering it's such a break from the boring design of recent stadia they ought to be more enthusiastic.

 

Wonder what they said about Ashburton Grove?

[Behind Enemy Lines]

CABE? who are they? and what do they want?

[Gomez]

Actually they do like it, think it's a really good concept, but have a problem with the way it relates to the park.

 

Not sure what that actually means though, seems very subjective.

[PLY]

It means "Yes that stadium design is very good but we would have done it better"

[Dan]

I wish they'd just f*ckin get on with it.

 

This has got to be biggest albatross known to man.

[matty]

CABE? who are they? and what do they want?

Commssion for Architecture and the Built Environment.

 

government funded body set up to advise on such matters, ensuring that the country isn't filled with big ugly buildings. Is it working? you decide.

[matty]

Not sure what that actually means though, seems very subjective.

 

I'd agree it's subjective, but it's about whether buildings fit into their environment, i.e. would you build a concrete tower next to St Paul's, would you build a brick building in the middle of a modernist development, etc. People who know about such things advise.

[Billy Dane]

Was it them that said the design of Echo's building sat well behind the three graces?

 

Now there's a carbuncle on the skyline!

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Commssion for Architecture and the Built Environment.

 

government funded body set up to advise on such matters, ensuring that the country isn't filled with big ugly buildings. Is it working? you decide.

So advise rather than control?

so although they ain't convinced it may or may not affect the planning proccess?

[trowie]

Wonder what they said about Ashburton Grove?

As skips go it's nice