SUFC: The Future The regeneration of Roots Hall

[Sherif H]

I know that Bristol folk are proud that Archie Leitch became Hollywood superstar Cary Grant, but replicating his truss is going a bit far....

They won't get my support.

Very good!

For those interested, the Archibald Leitch in question here was a Scottish architect famed for some of his intricately detailed stadium designs from the late 19th through to the early 20th century.

One of his hallmarks was the inclusion of so-called 'criss-cross' steel beams in a distinctive pattern, usually at the front of a seating deck/acting as a front barrier to a seating deck.
You can see this most notably at grounds like Ibrox, Goodison Park, and now that we have opened them back up again, Fratton Park.

Ironically, given some of the recent posts above, Leitch was often criticised for delivering quite utilitarian design solutions by some of the public, but his work has since been valued by those involved in modern stadium design.

Also, rather ironically, he worked on too many stadium projects to put a number against, but was still criticised by his peers who didn't have any background in this specialist field.

 

[RHB]

So @Sherif H I also value your input. As someone who has been here virtually since it's inception, although dormant for some years until recently, I sometimes think that SZ now is more SZ Lite compared with the original SZ Gold.

I make you right @Hooly, but we are what we eat when it comes to SZ now.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I sometimes think that SZ now is more SZ Lite compared with the original SZ Gold.

I think we all miss Homer’s insights.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hi @Sherif H - thanks for the posts about your work with Bristol Rovers and Portsmouth. The Rovers stand looks fine to me, if a little basic but that will be very much due to budget I’m sure, as you said. I think the main thing that would disappoint me if the new North Bank was exactly like the Rovers stand is the posts obscuring the view of the pitch. I don’t have any knowledge of construction but from what you’ve said it sounds as though space and cost constraints led to Rovers choosing that option.

I think the below design for roof supporting steelwork might have been able to fit in the space available, but perhaps cost was prohibitive? Might this have worked, and if so what might the cost difference have been please? Very very roughly just for an idea, noting that a million factors would impact specific costs but just assuming for a moment the stands were plonked on open land with no unusual issues? I could certainly live with a Rovers stand as is, but with this type of steelwork supporting the roof.

Beggars can’t be choosers of course, but while we’re discussing options this would be my tuppence worth as a preference (if other support types which avoid the vertical posts are more expensive - another assumption by me!).

 

[Piledriver]

I'd replace and move back the East stand a few metres with a stand similar to Gillinghams 2 tier job, and also if the North bank was being returned to the Voice then Gills covered end stand looks pretty good to me as well. The west would most likely be at less than 50% capacity most games so only a facilities upgrade needed ..

 

[Hadleigh-shrimper]

Anyway, if anybody has any sensible questions they can PM me.
There is little point sharing information for reference, and then having it critiqued over 5 pages of the thread - given people are still talking about moving the pitch it is clear that many don't bother reading the posts properly.

I’ve found all your posts really interesting please carry on .

 

[Seaside Shrimper]

Anyway, if anybody has any sensible questions they can PM me.
There is little point sharing information for reference, and then having it critiqued over 5 pages of the thread - given people are still talking about moving the pitch it is clear that many don't bother reading the posts properly.

Your posts are, for me, the most interesting things on the Zone

 

[Sherif H]

Hi @Sherif H - thanks for the posts about your work with Bristol Rovers and Portsmouth. The Rovers stand looks fine to me, if a little basic but that will be very much due to budget I’m sure, as you said. I think the main thing that would disappoint me if the new North Bank was exactly like the Rovers stand is the posts obscuring the view of the pitch. I don’t have any knowledge of construction but from what you’ve said it sounds as though space and cost constraints led to Rovers choosing that option.

I think the below design for roof supporting steelwork might have been able to fit in the space available, but perhaps cost was prohibitive? Might this have worked, and if so what might the cost difference have been please? Very very roughly just for an idea, noting that a million factors would impact specific costs but just assuming for a moment the stands were plonked on open land with no unusual issues? I could certainly live with a Rovers stand as is, but with this type of steelwork supporting the roof.

Beggars can’t be choosers of course, but while we’re discussing options this would be my tuppence worth as a preference (if other support types which avoid the vertical posts are more expensive - another assumption by me!).

View attachment 30060

The problem with a goalpost truss approach as shown in your Leicester Tigers example is that it is massively costly, and those truss sections are probably 2-3 metres deep, so you'd kill off any opportunity to link up with the West and East Stands. This is only really necessary where you have a massive roof span and limited space at the rear to employ the typical cantilever support steelwork.
The North Bank could just end up being a simple cantilevered stand with a modest number of rows.

 

[shrimpled]

The problem with a goalpost truss approach as shown in your Leicester Tigers example is that it is massively costly, and those truss sections are probably 2-3 metres deep, so you'd kill off any opportunity to link up with the West and East Stands. This is only really necessary where you have a massive roof span and limited space at the rear to employ the typical cantilever support steelwork.
The North Bank could just end up being a simple cantilevered stand with a modest number of rows.

Hi Sherif, I'm another who greatly appreciates your professional insight, thanks for continuing to post.

How would you describe the difference between the example you have shown at Bristol Rovers and the most recent addition at Bournemouth? I note they have 2 pillars at Bournemouth, as opposed to the 4 at Rovers. Would there be a massive cost difference here (assuming all other conditions are the same) and would something like that stand at Bournemouth be possible at the Hall?

 

[Smiffy]

The problem with a goalpost truss approach as shown in your Leicester Tigers example is that it is massively costly, and those truss sections are probably 2-3 metres deep, so you'd kill off any opportunity to link up with the West and East Stands. This is only really necessary where you have a massive roof span and limited space at the rear to employ the typical cantilever support steelwork.
The North Bank could just end up being a simple cantilevered stand with a modest number of rows.

Sounds good to me. I think there are 17 rows in the North Bank, so scope to increase that a little if the space behind is utilised, with decent food/drink/toilet facilities underneath?

Safe-Standing would be perfect in the North Bank as well, if we really wanted to give it that "home end" feel that has been missing since it was turned all-seater.

Something like the away stands at Barnet, Daggers, Woking etc (with safe-standing) would do fine I think. But guess it all depends on budget, space and planning and how it could sweep round to the West seemlessly. I wonder if the home owners behind the North Bank would kick off as well, if we tried to add some height?

 

[Sherif H]

Sounds good to me. I think there are 17 rows in the North Bank, so scope to increase that a little if the space behind is utilised, with decent food/drink/toilet facilities underneath?

Safe-Standing would be perfect in the North Bank as well, if we really wanted to give it that "home end" feel that has been missing since it was turned all-seater.

Something like the away stands at Barnet, Daggers, Woking etc (with safe-standing) would do fine I think. But guess it all depends on budget, space and planning. I wonder if the home owners behind the North Bank would kick off as well, if we tried to add some height?

The other option is that we simply overlay a new terrace over the existing North Stand concrete, and convert to safe-standing with safe and consistent dimensions across the terracing. That has been suggested already...

 

[Smiffy]

The other option is that we simply overlay a new terrace over the existing North Stand concrete, and convert to safe-standing with safe and consistent dimensions across the terracing. That has been suggested already...

That'll do me. In my opinion the NB as it is just doesn't work seated. It's too cramped and the sight lines are ****. So if we can transform it into a safe-standing area, that will win a lot of peoples hearts I think and it will prove to be a popular and very noisy addition to Roots Hall.

 

[Strykr]

That'll do me. In my opinion the NB as it is just doesn't work seated. It's too cramped and the sight lines are ****. So if we can transform it into a safe-standing area, that will win a lot of peoples hearts I think and it will prove to be a popular and very noisy addition to Roots Hall.

Would be interesting to see how that would pan out. Im guessing all the blue voice section would go into the north bank, but how many others would leave the seats and better view of the east and west?

When it was ours bitd were the north bank standing tickets much cheaper than the rest?

 

[Sherif H]

Hi Sherif, I'm another who greatly appreciates your professional insight, thanks for continuing to post.

How would you describe the difference between the example you have shown at Bristol Rovers and the most recent addition at Bournemouth? I note they have 2 pillars at Bournemouth, as opposed to the 4 at Rovers. Would there be a massive cost difference here (assuming all other conditions are the same) and would something like that stand at Bournemouth be possible at the Hall?

The difference is relatively simple. The example at Bournemouth is the same kind of hybrid approach (traditional roof structure mated to a modular seating system beneath), but it holds around 1200 less people, so the depth is shallower, and the rake is pretty low which serves to reduce the reduce the height of the structure. This all means that the roof structure becomes lighter and less reliant on supplementary support.

We did something similar at Ross County many years ago, but smaller, and therefore with a cantilevered roof...

 

[shrimpled]

The difference is relatively simple. The example at Bournemouth is the same kind of hybrid approach (traditional roof structure mated to a modular seating system beneath), but it holds around 1200 less people, so the depth is shallower, and the rake is pretty low which serves to reduce the reduce the height of the structure. This all means that the roof structure becomes lighter and less reliant on supplementary support.

We did something similar at Ross County many years ago, but smaller, and therefore with a cantilevered roof...

Thanks Sherif, see I think that looks great, though the above idea to overlay a new terrace over the existing North Stand concrete sounds even more perfect to me.

 

[Sherif H]

Thanks Sherif, see I think that looks great, though the above idea to overlay a new terrace over the existing North Stand concrete sounds even more perfect to me.

This is exactly what we have just finished at Pompey - both the North lower and the Milton End (away end) were re-profiled with in-situ concrete pours. New seats fitted to the North and safe-standing fitted to the Milton End. Both now back up to 100% capacity on the safety certificate.

This is what I have suggested previously for both the West and the North Bank,

 

[SouthendSpence]

Great thread! Really is so interesting.

Also of interest is Barnet’s “66” (away) stand. Good size, rake, facilities, and no pillars. Also, relatively speaking, doesn’t appear to have broken the bank.





That Ross County stand is cool.

But my new favourite is the Pompey style concrete pour and re profile for west and north.

 

[Sherif H]

Great thread! Really is so interesting.

Also of interest is Barnet’s “66” (away) stand. Good size, rake, facilities, and no pillars. Also, relatively speaking, doesn’t appear to have broken the bank.

View attachment 30065



That Ross County stand is cool.

But my new favourite is the Pompey style concrete pour and re profile for west and north.

Yep. I did Barnet at my old company. We did both new stands.
The old terrace ended up at Exeter City I believe.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yep. I did Barnet at my old company. We did both new stands.
The old terrace ended up at Exeter City I believe.

Can I put in a bid for the Barnet 66 stand on the North Bank please Appreciate though it’s unlikely especially if the consortium opt for overlaying the terrace, which is a great suggestion to save money (not ideal from an access / facilities angle though).

 

[BriggBlue]

Sherif, is there a chance to overlay the half the north bank, north west corner and part of the west to enable safe standing?

This would provide a bit more flexibility in the numbers of away supporters as the segregation can be internal?

When I work in Germany I often go and Watch Monchengladbach from the nordkurve and the standing makes the atmosphere so much better