好色先生TV

Introduction

In the wake of horrendous spectator tragedies at Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough in the late 1980s, Lord Justice Taylor鈥檚 report decreed that all premier league and first division football stadia had to be all-seater by August 1994.

All-seater stadia have since become the norm following major redevelopments by Britain鈥檚 leading clubs. In part, they have been assisted by funds from the Football Trust, but clubs have also had to find ways of expanding facilities to add to the income coming through the turnstiles.

Some major British soccer clubs are catching up with the European elite. But dwindling gate sales are affecting smaller clubs, as is competition from extensive live coverage on Sky television and from alternative leisure activities. Many clubs now realise that their facilities must produce revenue 365 days of the year.

While 24 hour hospitality services, banqueting and conference suites are being developed by the more ambitious clubs, others are opening their stadia on non-match days to attract revenue. The greatest successes have been clubs with large spectator bases, such as Manchester United, whic now generate as much revenue from back-of-house catering services and merchandising as from ticket sales. Future developments are likely to see an increase in associated facilities such as ten-pin bowling, multiplex cinemas and hotels, aimed at providing all-round all-day entertainment for the whole family.

Another trend, typical in the lower divisions, is for clubs to sell their existing stadia for housing or shopping developments and use the money to move to a new, out-of-town site.

Design considerations

The design of new facilities must take account of the organisation, arrangement and operation of existing facilities, site topography, access and interfaces with surrounding streets and residents. Other factors include the versatility and frequency of use of proposed new facilities, and whether they will generate the need for additional car parking provision.

The revenue-producing capacity of a scheme is dependent on:

• number of seats
• secondary functions such as shops, bars, food concessions, creches and video arcades in concourses
• tertiary multipurpose facilities providing hospitality entertainment and conference facilities
• associated facilities such as multiplex cinemas, restaurants and night clubs.

The inclusion of such facilities can have a considerable impact on how schemes are costed. The traditional method, based on cost per seat, is now of little use because of the wide discrepancies between gross areas per seat. For a single-terrace stand, an additional 15-25 % allows for separate toilet and concession facilities. With facilities included below stands, an addition of 60-75% is more appropriate. But for larger, two terrace schemes, an extra allowance of 80-150% is needed to take account of changing and management facilities. This could rise to 200% or more when additional private boxes, bar, banqueting and conference facilities are included.

The profile of any major stand development and its effect on te surrounding environment can have significant planning implications. Whether the pitch should be lowered or the surrounding landscape raised can have a dramatic effect on viewing standards and costs. The bulk, massing and quality of buildings are equally important, as are the way facades back on to surrounding streets or landscape. This is exacerbated by security fences and crowd control measures.

Consideration must be given to the corners of grouds between the stands. The options are:

• leave gaps, which is visually unsatisfying
• fill with towers, which increases capacity
• sweep stands and roofs around the corners, which is much more expensive.

Steel is generally the cheapest structural solution. It offers a slender structure that is fast to erect and has low foundation costs. But if stands are higher than 20m and include ancillary facilities below, fire officers are likely to require at least one-hour fire resistance, either with cladding or intumescent paint - unless a fire engineering solution can be found.

The quality and durability of finishes must also be considered. Tough finishes are required for heavy use and any period of disuse must be considered in relation to costs-in-use, cleaning and so on. Also, sufficient provision should be made, by way of ramps, lifts and toilet facilities, for disabled patrons.

Funding and finance

Funding for schemes can come from:

• sale of existing assets
• donations from benevolent supporters in exchange for a seat on the board
• the Football Trust, which will consider basic grants of up to 拢2m for premier and first division clubs. Supplementary grants of up to 拢250,000 are available for extra community, family and disability provision
• the Foundation for the Sports and Art
• local authorities and others in return for a shareholding in the stadium company
• concessionaires and franchisers associated with the development.

Clubs cannot obtain funding from the National Lottery Sports Unit. Aside from sponsoring a national stadium, most grants are targeted at national sports participation and development, rather than improving existing spectator facilities at club level.

Funders are likely to require security on their loan and a charge over the stadium as well as other financial guarantees, such as underwritten projected profit streams. The scope for future expansion is also an important consideration as it will affect the opportunity to create new income streams from increased capacity or additional revenue-earning facilities.

Procurement

In an effort to meet the August 1994 deadline for converting grounds to all-seater stadium, many schemes were procured on a design-and-build basis. This route tends to win favour because of the considerable pressures to complete projects either during the summer months or within tight deadlines.

The faster new facilities are in place, the less disruption is caused to existing facilities and the faster new revenues come on-stream.

Stadium costs

Cost comparisons for stadiums and grandstands are traditionally presented in the form of cost per seat. With the rising importance of hospitality areas, the cost/m2 of these facilities must now also be accounted for.

Cost per seat at today鈥檚 prices can vary from 拢250 for the cheapest, single-tier, basic stand, to 拢2000 for a fully-covered stadium with extensive concourse, hospitality areas and income-generating facilities. According to recent premier and first division schemes, basic, single-terrace stands plus toilets, changing and hospitality boxes cost 拢650-1100 per seat, with an average of 拢900.

One of the most interesting of recent schemes is Huddersfield Town鈥檚 Alfred McAlpine Stadium designed by the Lobb Partnership and engineered by YRM Anthony Hunt Associates. The stadium is based on Lobb鈥檚 Stadium for the Nineties design study for the Sports Council which recommended a parabolic shape to ensure that no spectator was more than 90m from the centre circle and minimum 鈥淐鈥� value of 90mm.

The stands, designed using arched 鈥渂anana鈥� roof trusses sprung from four quadrapd supports at the corners of the ground, cost 拢375-400 per seat for basic stands and 拢880 per seat (at August 1992 prices) for the main stand which housed all changing facilities, offices and hospitatlity areas.

Roof structure

The three main types of roof structure are:

• King truss (goal post, enabling girder or spanform). This is similar to beam-and-post constructions, but no intermediate columns are used between the end posts. Although frequently regarded as the cheapest solution, it is not appropriate for schemes where stands are swept around corners. Main truss depths often equate to one-12th of the length of the stand, and access for future painting and repair is always a problem. Trusses that use hollow sections can be considerably lighter than their solid couterparts, but the unit costs are usually higher - 拢3000/tonne compared with 拢1500/tonne.

• Cantilevered, either with a bulky, 鈥渉ocky-stick鈥� rear truss, which requires additional space and can impact adversely on surrounding areas, or prop or tree cantilevers where the geometry of the cantilever affects the structure beneath. Cantilever trusses are usually more expensive than king truss structures. Further costs can be incurred because access for cranes is often limited to the rear or end of a stand

• Tension structures, which are generally the most expensive, but lend a festive appearance to schemes. Other types of roofs are available, such as tensile-membrane roofs, but they are seldom used. Most isolated stands are designed using eithr king post trusses or cantilevers. The price of both systems is dependent on the square of their length. This means that short, fat stands are always cheapers using the king truss method, whereas long thin stands are cheaper cantilevered.

Cost model

The cost model has been developed to illustrate how a mixture of alternative functions, structures and specifications can affect costs. It reflects a range of current trends in stadia design from traditional solutions throught to higher-level hospitality schemes, with continuous cantilever roofs.

DL&E has assumed that the project is founded on a large flat site with no access difficulties, using a traditional procurement route, with costs at June 1995 prices, for a competitive tender in the South-east. Costs exclude VAT, consultants鈥� fees, furniture and fittings etc. For other schemes, model costs should be adjusted for time, location, alternative procurement routes and local site conditions.