: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:43 pm  

af wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/osv2009

I'm a bit confused. Which one is the one that's got the green light?

Edit: nevermind, I've bothered to read the report. It's the left one.

Bit of a shame as I like the curve of the stand on the other one. But the corners are open on the selected scheme so I'm sure there's room to expand should we need it

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:43 pm  

Asim wrote:

The second option would at least mean the stadium retained some sense of individuality.

I agree, but either will do.

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:57 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Which one is the one that's got the green light?

The one on the left, which requires about 4 million tonnes of infill.

The one on the right uses the same space as at present, you can see the hospitality place still there

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:44 pm  

As long as it actually happens this time, I'll be happy

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:53 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

The one on the left, which requires about 4 million tonnes of infill.

Interesting, & I'm not being flippant. But there is a big demand for holes in the ground to deposit spoil*. It's shame they got rid of the pile in the city centre.

*Landfill tax currently £40 per tonne (plus landfill charge itself).

Given Council Approvaol for £75m Redevelopment of their Odsa : Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:41 pm  

Given Council Approvaol for £75m Redevelopment of their Odsal Ground

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:51 pm  

I am doing a better job than you.

AP for Newsman

: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:24 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I have no knowledge of the scheme or the procedures the council has in place for employing consultants or contractors but some indication of what is usually involved & why there is no chance of it being ready for 2012;
Advertise in the Euroepean Journal for expressions of interest from architects, engineers etc interetsed in the scheme.
Send out a pre-qulaifcation questionnaire to all applying.
Read through the hundreds (& there will be) of responses, score them all in accordance with pre-published criteria, shortlist.
Send out invitations to tender to shortlisted consultants.
Read through numerous 3" thick submissions, each going to hundreds of pages, score them all etc.
Arrange interviews for all disciplines.
Interview.
Notify all unsuccessful consultants, giving them time to legally challenge the decision if any of them feel they have been dismissed unfairly.
After that appoint consultants.
Prepare schemes.
Cost.
Value engineer back to budget. Repeatedly.
Submit planning application.
Decide on procurement strategy for appointing contrcators.
Advertise project in European Journal for contractors (any in Europe can submit).
Go through the same process as for consultants.
Get tenders.
Value engineer.
Value engineer.
Redesign.
Appeal against onerous planning conditions/refusal.
Value engineer redesign.
Talk to favoured contractor.
Redesign.
Argue for a year over costs of 'provisional' items.
Start on site.
Discover asbestos & other contaminants in ground.
Stop job.
Notify HSE (14 days each time).
Remove contaminants.
Value engineer as already over budget.
Contractor goes into liquidation.
Retender.
Repeat above.
Appoint new contractor.

.............
Complete in 2020 with the popular side only half covered & portakbins for a hotel.

All of that. But then again Yorkshire Water won't be running it so it may get done quicker.

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:09 am  

If they dont have the funding sorted now how do they expect to plug the gap? Havent they exhausted all of the likely sources?

: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:07 am  

Maybe the council are in a win / win situation here, they are seen to be a "good council" by giving the go ahead of OSV. Knowing deep down it will be highly unlikely to happen.
Speaking personally, something similar but far less ambitious than this, should have been undertaken at the time of the last development.