Press

[Duke of York]

It was good to see Medders letter about the Dartford stadium in this weeks Enfield Advertiser. Keith Smith also talked about the Darts new stadium in his Enfield Gazette column but his report mentioned that some of the supporters of Dartford had negative comments about the development. Spill the beans DHT. What is it about the place that the Dartford fans don't like?

[townerboy]

it was good to se the letter, especially as it was the first time i have sen the advertiser in about two years. wonder if it will make anyone think?

[Squadron Leader]

Originally Posted By: enfield_paul

it was good to se the letter, especially as it was the first time i have sen the advertiser in about two years. wonder if it will make anyone think?

Very much doubt it!!!!

[Gazza]

I bet Jose O'Ware will!

[lovely stuff]

Maybe if we all wrote a letter to O'Ware,pointing out her two-faced hypoctitcal anti-sport attitude over the last two decades, and requesting that she breaks the habit of a lifetime and refains (just for once) from wrecking sporting progress or sporting development in the borough.

 

If you don't know her details,just address the letter to 'That half empty curtain shop near The Beefeater'.I'm sure it will get there.

 

[Hawkeye Pierce]

As a stadium with atmosphere it is on first inspection impressive.

 

With the multiple bars and toilet facilities it would not take too long to sort out segregation when required.

 

But scalability is the big issue - it is half full with 1,000 people watching so I don't know what their permitted capacity is but looking round and being generous I'd say 2,000 comfortably and 2,500 at a push with the current mix of terrace and seats. If it had to go all seater the gate would reduce wouldn't it? So a game against Wimbledon or Aldershot segregated limits the amount of away supporters / income. The ground of course can expand on 3 sides but the overall wooden "oval" pretty design concept is then ****ed forcing toilets, shops and first aid rooms to relocate at either end to include more terracing. On the long opposite side you may be able to build out a bit but are limited by hill and the oval pretty concept again with limited business scalability without further redesign. But in nonleague football who gets gates of over 2,000? In it's day didn't the old club @ Southbury host almost 9,000 for a game against Yeovil and that was what was owned up to? And when Arsenal came down for PSF we had 5,000 there so how could host a preseason with a major club without hiking the price in order to limit take up of tickets - throwing our community embracing philosophy.

 

Where was the sponsors suites for the next level of football. I remember going on a number of occasions to Cardiff Devils Ice hockey as the company I worked for sponsored matches. There was about a dozen boxes for up to 20 people each with their own food table, bar and toilet facilties. To fund the next level you can't just do it on gate, bar and programme takings alone.

 

The fans don't like the design limitations forcing the need for clear gangways. There is probably another 500 capacity wasted - yellow zigzagged off all round for safety puposes. Don't forget they came from a nomadic existence at Gravesend which has greater (spit and sawdust) capacity. So they can see the capacity limitations.

[lovely stuff]

If Dartford modified the very wide walkway around the top of the stadium,they could easily increase their capacity by another 1000+

[Hawkeye Pierce]

One for the Fire Brigade. Can't see them relaxing new Fire and Safety regs!

[lovely stuff]

Fire and safety doesn't include the need for a fifth of the terracing (and thus capacity) to be out of bounds as a emergency walkway.That sums up modern Britain.Dartford could have easily built a ground with double the capacity for the same price.But as the council paid the bill,you have to pander to local councils pet projects and their right-on PC rules and requirments.As such,half the money was wasted on arty farty designers and architects.Solar paneling,eco-energy saving,statues and ridiculously over cautious health and satety requirements..etc.

[Bitch]

I was at Oxford Utd v Angels yesterday. On first sight a fantastic looking stadium. But, on entry it is blooming awful.

 

Funnily enough, while i was sitting watching the game, Dartford's stadium came to mind. There i was freezing to death. Lamenting the lack of seated bar area. I likened their facilities to an underground carpark with hatches selling beer, hot drinks and programmes.

 

I was sat in the top tier with fond memories of attending Dartford. Darts have food sellers coming around to you! A good warm bar and accessible food outlets.

 

The only thing they had almost in common is no smoking within the ground. At Dartford you can pop out and re enter. At Oxford, if you go out you cant come back in.

 

[Hawkeye Pierce]

The only way I could see it scaled up to allow in more people is to get civil engineers in to calculate the stresses and strains and provided they gave the green light get some very big cranes and lift the whole roof in order to retain the essential design concept but then build outwards. Not sure that it would be cheap though!

 

Can't really smoke with all that wood around - Including their mascot sculpture - Whatever it signifies!

[The Invisible Man]

I take it you have never designed a building. One does not pander to anyone, one complies with the relevent legislation at the time. I doubt very much if architect's fees were 50% of the construction cost.

[lovely stuff]

Well the architect (whatever his fee) paid scant consideration to capacity or the spectator in his designs and costings.Having the entrances at the top of the ground meant a fifth of the already small capacity was lost to a massive safety exit walkway.(although i accept he may have been compromised by site location).I also noticed plenty of filled in holes on the terracing,obviously where more safety barriers were planned (The wooden jolly green giant probably cost more than first thought).

 

The architect may have pandered to his own eco-green ideals.He may have pandered to Dartford councils requirments in their brief.Or maybe (as you suggest) he just had to pander to this governments thousands of planning,safety and environmental rules and regulations.

 

It wasn't all bad.I liked the wooden struts and roofing along most of the ground (apart from the main stand),and the ground had a nice atmosphere,but it was obvious that the architect has more passion for design flare and fashionable ideals,than he had for the game of football.

 

 

[The Invisible Man]

Basically LS, you just dont like the stadium! Obviously the architect did not "pay scant regard to capacity", this would have been a key part of the brief from the client (presumably Dartfod council). The architect could not possibly have just made it up, it just doesn't and cannot work like that. I don't know what you mean by "pander" to the client's brief: of course he had to fulfil the client's requirements, you can't just tell him no, I want to do it this way! The capacity seems perfectly adequate at present, as there were over 1000 at our game and the ground was no more than half full. Similarly I do not know what "eco-green" ideals you are referring to, I did not see anything unusual in that respect. I have previously questioned the ability for extension or enlargement on another thread but it is difficult to tell what if any the intention is just by looking at it.

 

All football grounds have walkways. Dartford's may appear more obvious because it is at the rear (top) of the terrace. Lower level grounds usually have the walkway at the bottom, between the terrace and the pitch rail. Either way takes up teh same amount of space.

 

I'm not sure what "this" governments thousands of rules and regs are that you refer to. The building regulations and the Sports Grounds regs were in place before this government took office, and I do not recall any particularly onerous additions or alterations since then in this respect. However, no architect "panders" to them, they are there to be complied with.

 

I'm not sure how the "game of football" has suffered from the design of the stadium or how scant considerationm has been paid to the spectator. Nor am I sure what excess of "design flare" you mean, as you say you like the timber roof structure and you also liked the atomsphere created.

[Gazza]

Well I thought the stadium was the dogs bollox!

(Thats a technical term by the way!)

[lovely stuff]

There must have been a specific budget allocated by dartford council to build a stadium.6-12 million depending on who you believe.

 

Did the club get the largest capacity stadium they could have got for the money??? Massive wooden sculptures cost money.Wooden struts and roofing panels (sourced from sustainable managed forests) cost at least twice as much as traditional prefabricated building materials.Solar paneling would have taken quite a few thousand out of the initial budget.The non traditional roofing structure on the main stand would have been a lot more expensive than a flat roof...etc.It all adds up to over-design and fashionable thinking over substance.A simpler version of the same size ground could have been built for a lot less money.(Or a much bigger ground for the same money) So whoever did give the nod or 'brief' for the design and costing DID put style and 'materials' over capacity and future expansion.Saying that,it is the best 4000 capacity ground i've ever seen.

 

 

 

PS..If New Labour haven't created more petty rules,regulations and targets in the construction business,it will probably be the only sector in the whole county not be have been hit by deludge of tax, red tape and regulations.

 

[MbrunoB]

Nice to know that the chip on your shoulder NEVER slips!

[lovely stuff]

And judging by your comments under the photo you took of the 'Built by a conservative council' sign at Dartford,i would say that the chip you have on your own political shoulder is a match for anyones.

 

 

 

[Mr Happy]

Calm down Malcolm!!

[theabbeyabbott]

Fight Fight!