Playing home games at Whitten Oval

[Rocco Jones]

I don't want this thread to be either

1- All about emotional rah rah about how awesome it would be without any though about reality

2- Automatic dismissal of the thought without any real idea of the costings
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much would it cost for us to get Whitten Oval to minimum AFL standards? After all that was spent it would be annoying for it to be too much but I do understand that wasn't the purpose of the upgrade.

I am not saying making it a permanent home venue more a boutiqoue venue for 1-2 games a year against GWS, Suns and/or Freo.

Are we too locked in to deals at the Docklands and/or Darwin for there to be room for this to happen? Is it pretty much a straight profit for games at WO or do we need to pay council etc?

Once again I don't want this to all about emotion just that sometimes it's easy to simply discount good ideas without much thought.

[SlimPickens]

I don't think it is feasible. We have already had money spent on the facility for elite training purposes, community centres, administration etc.

The ground is no longer a viable option as the previous mentioned has taken up space for grandstands and standing area etc

At a pinch I'd say it would cost at least 100million to get it done(geelongs new grandstand cost 25 mil), considering we're struggling to demolish the debt we have, we would need major contributions from the AFL, governments and community.

AFL wouldn't be interested as they are getting Etihad for free in 12 years and will need teams to play there. Government already supported to help with the current redevelopment, and will be a while before we can head back to that well.

Pipe dream in my opinion

[SonofScray]

I'll try stay away from pie in the sky stuff, but it is hard not to dream a little on this topic. No idea where to start. But I'll throw a things out there, not costs or anything just how it might look:

EJ Whitten Stand would need serious work. Fire safety and exits etc at a bare minimum.

Other than that could it be done without permanent work? i.e:
introduce temporary 'bleachers' onto the far side of the ground, similar to Manuka.
Porta Loos, temporary fencing, that type of stuff.

To help that come within the realm of reality here is a very long shot fraught with danger:

Cap attendance. Priority given to specific membership packages i.e. Social Club gold etc. Force opposition fans attending to pay a premium. It would be a unique experience in Melbourne, a return to suburban footy. There is something about that which could swing it in favour of vein a winner.

[AndrewP6]

Cap attendance. Priority given to specific membership packages i.e. Social Club gold etc. Force opposition fans attending to pay a premium. It would be a unique experience in Melbourne, a return to suburban footy. There is something about that which could swing it in favour of vein a winner.

Just to encourage them to attend? :rolleyes:

[Eastdog]

If not the Whitten Oval to play these types of games, do you think the AFL in the future will build a third stadium for say games like us playing GWS, GC etc. AAMI Park obviously is not a footy ground so they won't play the games there.

[SonofScray]

Just to encourage them to attend? :rolleyes:

We have more members than could fit into the ground in the arrangement I threw out there. Basic concept of supply and demand would suggest that non members would have to pay a premium to get in. No need for the roll eyes and getting butt hurt about an idea.

[LostDoggy]

Do you think the AFL in the future will build a third stadium for say games like us playing GWS, GC etc. AAMI Park obviously is not a footy ground so they won't play the games there.

They've mooted this idea and I've suggested upgrading WO instead of building one from scratch...

[SonofScray]

They've mooted this idea and I've suggested upgrading WO instead of building one from scratch...

I have some memory of a development further down Footscray Road near where the fruit markets and docks are? Not sure if that was in formal media or just something thrown around on forums. 25k stadium would be handy.

[Eastdog]

They've mooted this idea and I've suggested upgrading WO instead of building one from scratch...

What would it cost do you think to get the Whitten Oval to AFL Standard?

[AndrewP6]

We have more members than could fit into the ground in the arrangement I threw out there. Basic concept of supply and demand would suggest that non members would have to pay a premium to get in. No need for the roll eyes and getting butt hurt about an idea.

I just don't get why we would want games where our supporters are the only ones there?

[azabob]

They've mooted this idea and I've suggested upgrading WO instead of building one from scratch...

What are you expanded thoughts on the upgrade? Did I read correctly you have written something previously on this topic?

[Eastdog]

I have some memory of a development further down Footscray Road near where the fruit markets and docks are? Not sure if that was in formal media or just something thrown around on forums. 25k stadium would be handy.

I think it was an idea thrown around of forums but a 25K stadium would be good to hold these games against interstate sides.

[Eastdog]

Ballarat as we played there in the pre season might be an option but I think North Melbounre were looking more into Ballarat.

[SonofScray]

I just don't get why we would want games where our supporters are the only ones there?

If there is a way to make more money than the current arrangement, that'd be one reason why. An almost entirely pro Dogs crowd would be brilliant for the spectacle and most likely give us an on field advantage, making it a stressful environment for the umpires and the opposition.

Geelong have a similar situation at home.

[Rocco Jones]

If there is a way to make more money than the current arrangement, that'd be one reason why. An almost entirely pro Dogs crowd would be brilliant for the spectacle and most likely give us an on field advantage, making it a stressful environment for the umpires and the opposition.

Geelong have a similar situation at home.

Totally agree.

Opposition fans should be catered for one reason and one reason alone, to make more money. What do we owe them?

Also, I mentoned it would be for games against GWS, GC etc. Couldn't imagine too many anyway.

My thinking is a crowd of say 15-20k at Whitten Oval = what at ES $$$

[Greystache]

I'm not convinced there's any upside in trying to develop Whitten Oval over starting from scratch at an empty location. Half of the Whitten stand has been demolished, the other half is borderline a fire trap, the pound and new admin facilities take up a major seating area, as does the elite learning centre, and the old Hawkins wing is just empty space.

With the basketball stadium and the kids center out the back it's probably going to be more difficult and expensive to build at the Whitten Oval than elsewhere. It's a brilliant setup for training and supporters to watch training, and even for practice matches it's ideal, but that's it for me.

[SonofScray]

Totally agree.

Opposition fans should be catered for one reason and one reason alone, to make more money. What do we owe them?

Also, I mentoned it would be for games against GWS, GC etc. Couldn't imagine too many anyway.

My thinking is a crowd of say 15-20k at Whitten Oval = what at ES $$$

What is the current capacity, with no alterations? !5k maybe, or am I dreaming?

[Eastdog]

When they first had the idea to redevelop the Whitten Oval they only intended to improve it for training there and not to play actual matches. I suggested in a post on this thread that we could look into playing homes against GWS, GC etc in Ballarat where we played in the pre-season.

[bornadog]

Greater Western Sydney - New home ground.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/skoda-stadium.jpg

Cost $65 million, holds 25,000

This is what can be done at Melbourne's Showgrounds. I think its too late for Whitten Oval. Whitten Oval is now our training facility. We have spent $30 million on it.

[LostDoggy]

There has been talk of a booteak stadium as one option for the E-Gate site, on the railyards, closer in to Docklands. The state government says that a 'sports facility' could be part of the development. A heap of other things have been mooted there too though.

I think any future Dogs home ground will be built from scratch in another location. Probably a lot further west (which will still be closer to the city than VFL Park is/was).

[GVGjr]

Greater Western Sydney - New home ground.

Cost $65 million, holds 25,000

This is what can be done at Melbourne's Showgrounds. I think its too late for Whitten Oval. Whitten Oval is now our training facility. We have spent $30 million on it.

That's what we should be aiming for. A cost effective ground where we could play 3 or 4 home games. The Whitten Oval is a training facility not a playing venue.

[Eastdog]

Greater Western Sydney - New home ground.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/skoda-stadium.jpg

Cost $65 million, holds 25,000

This is what can be done at Melbourne's Showgrounds. I think its too late for Whitten Oval. Whitten Oval is now our training facility. We have spent $30 million on it.

Melbourne Showgrounds on forums has been rumoured as where the 3rd stadium would be located. It still will be in a pretty central location and close to the city.

[bornadog]

Melbourne Showgrounds on forums has been rumoured as where the 3rd stadium would be located. It still will be in a pretty central location and close to the city.

Also good access with parking, trains etc

[Eastdog]

Also good access with parking, trains etc

Etihad definitely struggles in the parking department.

[LostDoggy]

I could understand with daytime NAB Cup matches but not really AFL games , on Sunday we had 1,500 or so people and you could see that there was probably standing and seating room for 5 or 6 thousand but it would be tight and the facilities would need to upgraded , also the parking in not really adequate for more than 1,000 , any upgrades would require a traffic plan being submitted to council

In reality it would be more feasible to build a 40,000 seat stadium on the available land near Victoria University in Werribee , Wyndham City Council has already held discussions about the future use of the land and a multi use stadium was one of the items discussed , funding would a major issue due to debt loading , if it was possible the Council would approve it based on the economic impact and the sporting facilities needed for a major growth area with a current population of 180,000 , the ground could be used for Rugby and Soccer as well , if the funding was available to own the land and stadium the ongoing overheads would probably not make it viable

The available land is the darker grey

http://goo.gl/MUJuz

.

[AndrewP6]

There has been talk of a booteak stadium as one option for the E-Gate site, on the railyards, closer in to Docklands. The state government says that a 'sports facility' could be part of the development. A heap of other things have been mooted there too though.

I think any future Dogs home ground will be built from scratch in another location. Probably a lot further west (which will still be closer to the city than VFL Park is/was).

No offence, but I laughed.

[Eastdog]

Could reviving Waverley Park be another alternative or is that going backwards as Etihad was built as the alternative to Waverley. What do people think of playing games in Ballarat.

[bornadog]

Could reviving Waverley Park be another alternative or is that going backwards as Etihad was built as the alternative to Waverley. What do people think of playing games in Ballarat.

Have you seen Waverley? because if you have then you wouldn't post up that question.

Waverley would be a joke anyway for a Western Suburbs team.

Ballarat needs major work as well.

[Eastdog]

Have you seen Waverley? because if you have then you wouldn't post up that question.

Waverley would be a joke anyway for a Western Suburbs team.

Ballarat needs major work as well.

I haven't seen it lately but when it was around it was a ground where everyone would play a home game or two there during the season.

[LostDoggy]

We may have 30k plus members midway through a season, but we rarely get over 20k people at a game unless it's against top sides. I'd love to be back at the home of Whitten, but in reality, it will never happen unless the admin, the EJ, and the Mission centre are demolished and a complete stadium is built from scratch. With Parking

[AndrewP6]

I haven't seen it lately but when it was around it was a ground where everyone would play a home game or two there during the season.

Last time I was there, it had houses built around it.

[bornadog]

Last time I was there, it had houses built around it.

yes and the land is owned by Hawthorn. They were given the land for the total sum of $1.

Building that ground was the biggest mistake the VFL ever made. I hated going out there for a game.

[Eastdog]

Last time I was there, it had houses built around it.

Of course. Once again it is a training facility used by Hawthorn and will never host AFL matches again. Don't know what I was thinking there. :o Melbourne Showgrounds idea as bornadog suggested would be a very good alternative.

[Eastdog]

yes and the land is owned by Hawthorn. They were given the land for the total sum of $1.

Building that ground was the biggest mistake the VFL ever made. I hated going out there for a game.

Quite right come to think of it. You used to be so far away from the action from where you sat.

[Greystache]

This is what Waverly looks like today

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/14/144019/MGR_1H12_Property_Compendium/images/portfolio/waverley-resi.jpg

[LostDoggy]

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head summary of what I've said before, but innovative stadium design for the 21st century has to take a couple of things into account:

1. Boutique stadiums have to do more than one thing. The phenomenon of giving over large tracts of very expensive urban land to a structure that is used only on weekends is largely becoming a thing of the past. So, the multi-purpose aspect of the WO that everyone is currently already talking about is a plus, not a minus. The problem is a design problem, which will also need a design solution. Not saying this is 'easy', but it's why good designers are worth their weight in gold.

2. In the past (as recently as 10 years ago), boutique stadiums meant fancy, high-tech designs and much higher ticket prices and a worse deal for fans, generally speaking. This is a bad business strategy in a time where people are saving more and spending less. The Dogs especially, have to be really smart about how much we spend and how much we want to recoup from the redesign. It will require a level of business model innovation, stakeholder management, design thinking, advocacy to the AFL etc. that is -- to be frank -- far beyond the capacity currently present within the club.

--

Basically, the brief for a redevelopment of the WO to become a 21st century boutique stadium would require it to be a very cost-effective, innovative use of space and levels to create a good crowd atmosphere, create space for commercial use (offices and a small shopping centre with an Aldi etc.), multi-level and underground parking as you would find at any shopping centre, etc.

This means that the boundary between the club and the public is completely blurred, the boundary between 'sporting facility' and 'week-round community hub' is also blurred, much more so than currently occurs (which is mainly through the Pound), ensuring that the Bulldogs brand becomes an organic part of the community. If you look at all our good sporting facilities in Melbourne, they are graveyards during the week. The typology of the stadium that we're used to is a 19th century concept, when land was plentiful and relatively cheap, and stadiums were a matter of national pride. This type of model is already obsolete (see the latest stadium designs for the past two Olympic games), and many, many smaller teams in the US have already moved to a multi-use facility.

It will never happen in the AFL, but this paradigm shift has already happened in smaller competitions around the world, especially with teams that have to be smart and innovative about their facilities.

[SlimPickens]

Also good access with parking, trains etc

Trains yes, parking no....went to a baseball game there and the parking was chockers with a 1000 people in the crowd.

Viable option but would need some serious thought into car parking ie some sort of arrangement with the VRC.

[Mantis]

Trains yes, parking no....went to a baseball game there and the parking was chockers with a 1000 people in the crowd.

I would have trains as a NO too.

Having access to just one train line means getting away from this precinct is a nightmare when reasonable sized crowds are involved.

[w3design]

I would have trains as a NO too.

Having access to just one train line means getting away from this precinct is a nightmare when reasonable sized crowds are involved.

In any effort to efficiently move out a crowd of between 20-50,000 people in a reasonable time, any new venue would require as a minimum:
1. Good sized car parking, with multiple exits to more than one road.

2. Close proximity to freeway/s.

3. Adjacent train station.

4. Significant bus terminal.

In other words you would need to cater to different peoples needs.
These folks that think that every patron/fan could or should be forced onto public transport simply do not live in the real world. Come down out of cloud cuckoo land for a change.

If I attend Docklands by car, I am faced with a 2-2 1/2 hour trip home.
If I rely on the train that escalates to a minimum 3 1/2 to 4 1/2, and has taken up to 5 hours on at least two or three occasions, which for night games has meant both getting to bed in the wee small hours of the morning, and being on cold wet and windy lonely train stations in the dead of night.

So some of you folks, get realistic, please.

If the AFL is to create a new venue for matches, it needs to be no further out from the CBD than Footscray or Essendon, as crossing from one side of Melb. to the other can and often is a nightmare. A must is to have top rate access for all customers.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Could reviving Waverley Park be another alternative or is that going backwards as Etihad was built as the alternative to Waverley. What do people think of playing games in Ballarat.

They will not go back to Waverley and Ballarat simply wouldn't suit the majority of fans. I would suggest that for convenience and location we are stuck with Etihad. The big challenge is to dramatically increase our membership base in an attempt to get a better deal like Essendon and Carlton. The Bulldogs also need to become a more consistent competitive unit to enable it to take advantage of the huge growth in the western region.
Hawthorn's success on the field has enabled it to really grow its membership base in the eastern suburbs.

[LostDoggy]

I'll just keep talking to myself and anyone else who is interested in the trend of stadia throughout the world now. Recent design literature has discussed the various phases of stadium design over the last 150 years, and I'll just touch on them briefly here:

1. The 'classic' park/ballpark/oval. Suburban VFL grounds still follow this model, which was pretty much how all sports were watched 100-150 years ago.

2. The 'super-stadium' era, when the big cathedral stadia of the world (like the MCG) was built, which coincided with the relocation of the middle-class of urban centres into the suburbs. With the proliferation of cars and large roads and highways being built, it no longer made sense to nestle small sporting fields in urban areas, but to create an iconic singular location for the masses to drive to. This was the dominant model for many years and created the template for 'stadium' in the layperson's mind -- symmetrical design etc. These were built with public money as governments saw them as national monuments.

3. The 'boutique' stadium era, where instead of having centralised huge stadia holding 80-120,000 people, smaller, specialised grounds that held 20-25,000 people became the vogue. This trend accelerated as teams became privatised entities and wanted their own arenas and profit streams. These were generally built with a mix of public and private funding.

4. The 'regenerated classic' model -- this is the era we are in now. The trend of creating single-use arenas has been acknowledged as a largely unsustainable, especially where a lot of 'boutique' stadia have either been unprofitable or become white elephants. There is a recognition (as I said in my previous post) that urban, suburban or peri-urban land is becoming far too expensive for single-use, largely vacant sporting facilities, and from a design perspective, many of these high-tech so-called boutique stadiums have proven to be cold, soulless entities. As such, there is a very large movement, mainly in the US and UK but also in Asia and Europe, to reclaim the old 'classic' parks and sporting grounds (such as the Whitten Oval) and regenerating them with private money (ie. corporate investment), by converting these old grounds into vibrant commercial hubs with shops, cinemas, museums, galleries etc.

(Seating design also does not have to be symmetrical -- seating can only be to one side of the playing area, which can even be sunken somewhat to create room for super-structures over it. Asymmetry will be the biggest change to spectator's expectations of seating areas, but the playing area will remain an oval.)

The business model is transformative -- we've all mentioned needing to rely on the government to give us money to build stadiums (ie. the $30m upgrade to our training facilities etc.), but the 'regenerated classic' model relies on the corporate dollar and a sustainable profit model. For example (and this is just shooting the breeze), let's say we get Westfield to become the main developer for the W.O site. They would design a 'Shoppingtown' of sorts, with a major tenant like Aldi or Myer, cinemas etc., with multi-level carparking, and simple multi-tiered seating for maybe 15-20,000 that overlooks the oval, as well as incorporating corporate booths. I've been to WO quite a few times the last year, and I can just see it in my head -- I know a lot of posters have mentioned how small the area is, but that's by traditional standards.. there are a lot of cities in the world that make do with far smaller areas, and it really just requires an innovative design solution.

The end result could be both a great boost for the club, but also a really cool user experience for every different customer group that uses the facility -- the entire project will be self-sustaining as it would be a profitable commercial centre, you can have viewing areas from various vantage points to watch training during the week, seats can be accessed from a higher floor from inside the shopping centre (like entering a cinema), tickets and stadium food no longer have to be prohibitively expensive as the majority of the profit comes from the other businesses on the premises, and so increases patronage to games (and encourages people to 'drop-by' to watch a game while doing their Saturday shopping etc.). The corporate box experience also becomes multi-dimensional as you're not just limited to a sporting experience but can also incorporate other activities in the commercial hub.

A key to the venue would be designing the human traffic flows to ensure that the different user groups aren't getting in each other's way, but plenty of other building typologies deal with this problem (I've worked on various courts and tribunal buildings, for example, and there you design traffic flows so people like the judge, jury, public, accused etc. all travel around the building without running into each other).

Pie in the sky stuff I suppose, but plenty of cities around the world are doing it.

[LostDoggy]

The public transport issue is the big one, but any redesign of the entire precinct would have to incorporate a redesign of the train access (and a revamp of the entire West Footscray station). When Docklands was envisioned, the big design challenge was actually Southern Cross station and tram access from various directions. Clearly this would also have to be the case for any new stadium design, although crowds of 10-20,000 are a lot easier to manage than the 55,000 capacity of Etihad (double that for the G).

[bornadog]

The public transport issue is the big one, but any redesign of the entire precinct would have to incorporate a redesign of the train access (and a revamp of the entire West Footscray station). When Docklands was envisioned, the big design challenge was actually Southern Cross station and tram access from various directions. Clearly this would also have to be the case for any new stadium design, although crowds of 10-20,000 are a lot easier to manage than the 55,000 capacity of Etihad (double that for the G).

All these architects in the world and the things they always get wrong are:

* Toilets are too small.

* exits are too small

* Food outlets - access in and out - too hard

At Eithad, The exits to Southern Cross are not great either, especially if you are at the Footscray end of the ground and need to walk around. This has improved recently with the new office tower build, but there is still a jam when the two walkways merge. Another architectural blunder. (let alone the ground facing the wrong way)

[Maddog37]

I'll just keep talking to myself and anyone else who is interested in the trend of stadia throughout the world now. Recent design literature has discussed the various phases of stadium design over the last 150 years, and I'll just touch on them briefly here:

1. The 'classic' park/ballpark/oval. Suburban VFL grounds still follow this model, which was pretty much how all sports were watched 100-150 years ago.

2. The 'super-stadium' era, when the big cathedral stadia of the world (like the MCG) was built, which coincided with the relocation of the middle-class of urban centres into the suburbs. With the proliferation of cars and large roads and highways being built, it no longer made sense to nestle small sporting fields in urban areas, but to create an iconic singular location for the masses to drive to. This was the dominant model for many years and created the template for 'stadium' in the layperson's mind -- symmetrical design etc. These were built with public money as governments saw them as national monuments.

3. The 'boutique' stadium era, where instead of having centralised huge stadia holding 80-120,000 people, smaller, specialised grounds that held 20-25,000 people became the vogue. This trend accelerated as teams became privatised entities and wanted their own arenas and profit streams. These were generally built with a mix of public and private funding.

4. The 'regenerated classic' model -- this is the era we are in now. The trend of creating single-use arenas has been acknowledged as a largely unsustainable, especially where a lot of 'boutique' stadia have either been unprofitable or become white elephants. There is a recognition (as I said in my previous post) that urban, suburban or peri-urban land is becoming far too expensive for single-use, largely vacant sporting facilities, and from a design perspective, many of these high-tech so-called boutique stadiums have proven to be cold, soulless entities. As such, there is a very large movement, mainly in the US and UK but also in Asia and Europe, to reclaim the old 'classic' parks and sporting grounds (such as the Whitten Oval) and regenerating them with private money (ie. corporate investment), by converting these old grounds into vibrant commercial hubs with shops, cinemas, museums, galleries etc.

(Seating design also does not have to be symmetrical -- seating can only be to one side of the playing area, which can even be sunken somewhat to create room for super-structures over it. Asymmetry will be the biggest change to spectator's expectations of seating areas, but the playing area will remain an oval.)

The business model is transformative -- we've all mentioned needing to rely on the government to give us money to build stadiums (ie. the $30m upgrade to our training facilities etc.), but the 'regenerated classic' model relies on the corporate dollar and a sustainable profit model. For example (and this is just shooting the breeze), let's say we get Westfield to become the main developer for the W.O site. They would design a 'Shoppingtown' of sorts, with a major tenant like Aldi or Myer, cinemas etc., with multi-level carparking, and simple multi-tiered seating for maybe 15-20,000 that overlooks the oval, as well as incorporating corporate booths. I've been to WO quite a few times the last year, and I can just see it in my head -- I know a lot of posters have mentioned how small the area is, but that's by traditional standards.. there are a lot of cities in the world that make do with far smaller areas, and it really just requires an innovative design solution.

The end result could be both a great boost for the club, but also a really cool user experience for every different customer group that uses the facility -- the entire project will be self-sustaining as it would be a profitable commercial centre, you can have viewing areas from various vantage points to watch training during the week, seats can be accessed from a higher floor from inside the shopping centre (like entering a cinema), tickets and stadium food no longer have to be prohibitively expensive as the majority of the profit comes from the other businesses on the premises, and so increases patronage to games (and encourages people to 'drop-by' to watch a game while doing their Saturday shopping etc.). The corporate box experience also becomes multi-dimensional as you're not just limited to a sporting experience but can also incorporate other activities in the commercial hub.

A key to the venue would be designing the human traffic flows to ensure that the different user groups aren't getting in each other's way, but plenty of other building typologies deal with this problem (I've worked on various courts and tribunal buildings, for example, and there you design traffic flows so people like the judge, jury, public, accused etc. all travel around the building without running into each other).

Pie in the sky stuff I suppose, but plenty of cities around the world are doing it.


Very informative and interesting Lantern. Thanks.

[Rocco Jones]

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head summary of what I've said before, but innovative stadium design for the 21st century has to take a couple of things into account:

1. Boutique stadiums have to do more than one thing. The phenomenon of giving over large tracts of very expensive urban land to a structure that is used only on weekends is largely becoming a thing of the past. So, the multi-purpose aspect of the WO that everyone is currently already talking about is a plus, not a minus. The problem is a design problem, which will also need a design solution. Not saying this is 'easy', but it's why good designers are worth their weight in gold.

2. In the past (as recently as 10 years ago), boutique stadiums meant fancy, high-tech designs and much higher ticket prices and a worse deal for fans, generally speaking. This is a bad business strategy in a time where people are saving more and spending less. The Dogs especially, have to be really smart about how much we spend and how much we want to recoup from the redesign. It will require a level of business model innovation, stakeholder management, design thinking, advocacy to the AFL etc. that is -- to be frank -- far beyond the capacity currently present within the club.

--

Basically, the brief for a redevelopment of the WO to become a 21st century boutique stadium would require it to be a very cost-effective, innovative use of space and levels to create a good crowd atmosphere, create space for commercial use (offices and a small shopping centre with an Aldi etc.), multi-level and underground parking as you would find at any shopping centre, etc.

This means that the boundary between the club and the public is completely blurred, the boundary between 'sporting facility' and 'week-round community hub' is also blurred, much more so than currently occurs (which is mainly through the Pound), ensuring that the Bulldogs brand becomes an organic part of the community. If you look at all our good sporting facilities in Melbourne, they are graveyards during the week. The typology of the stadium that we're used to is a 19th century concept, when land was plentiful and relatively cheap, and stadiums were a matter of national pride. This type of model is already obsolete (see the latest stadium designs for the past two Olympic games), and many, many smaller teams in the US have already moved to a multi-use facility.

It will never happen in the AFL, but this paradigm shift has already happened in smaller competitions around the world, especially with teams that have to be smart and innovative about their facilities.

Awesome post mate.

This is the type of thinking I want us to at least look at.

[Desipura]

I'll just keep talking to myself and anyone else who is interested in the trend of stadia throughout the world now. Recent design literature has discussed the various phases of stadium design over the last 150 years, and I'll just touch on them briefly here:

1. The 'classic' park/ballpark/oval. Suburban VFL grounds still follow this model, which was pretty much how all sports were watched 100-150 years ago.

2. The 'super-stadium' era, when the big cathedral stadia of the world (like the MCG) was built, which coincided with the relocation of the middle-class of urban centres into the suburbs. With the proliferation of cars and large roads and highways being built, it no longer made sense to nestle small sporting fields in urban areas, but to create an iconic singular location for the masses to drive to. This was the dominant model for many years and created the template for 'stadium' in the layperson's mind -- symmetrical design etc. These were built with public money as governments saw them as national monuments.

3. The 'boutique' stadium era, where instead of having centralised huge stadia holding 80-120,000 people, smaller, specialised grounds that held 20-25,000 people became the vogue. This trend accelerated as teams became privatised entities and wanted their own arenas and profit streams. These were generally built with a mix of public and private funding.

4. The 'regenerated classic' model -- this is the era we are in now. The trend of creating single-use arenas has been acknowledged as a largely unsustainable, especially where a lot of 'boutique' stadia have either been unprofitable or become white elephants. There is a recognition (as I said in my previous post) that urban, suburban or peri-urban land is becoming far too expensive for single-use, largely vacant sporting facilities, and from a design perspective, many of these high-tech so-called boutique stadiums have proven to be cold, soulless entities. As such, there is a very large movement, mainly in the US and UK but also in Asia and Europe, to reclaim the old 'classic' parks and sporting grounds (such as the Whitten Oval) and regenerating them with private money (ie. corporate investment), by converting these old grounds into vibrant commercial hubs with shops, cinemas, museums, galleries etc.

(Seating design also does not have to be symmetrical -- seating can only be to one side of the playing area, which can even be sunken somewhat to create room for super-structures over it. Asymmetry will be the biggest change to spectator's expectations of seating areas, but the playing area will remain an oval.)

The business model is transformative -- we've all mentioned needing to rely on the government to give us money to build stadiums (ie. the $30m upgrade to our training facilities etc.), but the 'regenerated classic' model relies on the corporate dollar and a sustainable profit model. For example (and this is just shooting the breeze), let's say we get Westfield to become the main developer for the W.O site. They would design a 'Shoppingtown' of sorts, with a major tenant like Aldi or Myer, cinemas etc., with multi-level carparking, and simple multi-tiered seating for maybe 15-20,000 that overlooks the oval, as well as incorporating corporate booths. I've been to WO quite a few times the last year, and I can just see it in my head -- I know a lot of posters have mentioned how small the area is, but that's by traditional standards.. there are a lot of cities in the world that make do with far smaller areas, and it really just requires an innovative design solution.

The end result could be both a great boost for the club, but also a really cool user experience for every different customer group that uses the facility -- the entire project will be self-sustaining as it would be a profitable commercial centre, you can have viewing areas from various vantage points to watch training during the week, seats can be accessed from a higher floor from inside the shopping centre (like entering a cinema), tickets and stadium food no longer have to be prohibitively expensive as the majority of the profit comes from the other businesses on the premises, and so increases patronage to games (and encourages people to 'drop-by' to watch a game while doing their Saturday shopping etc.). The corporate box experience also becomes multi-dimensional as you're not just limited to a sporting experience but can also incorporate other activities in the commercial hub.

A key to the venue would be designing the human traffic flows to ensure that the different user groups aren't getting in each other's way, but plenty of other building typologies deal with this problem (I've worked on various courts and tribunal buildings, for example, and there you design traffic flows so people like the judge, jury, public, accused etc. all travel around the building without running into each other).

Pie in the sky stuff I suppose, but plenty of cities around the world are doing it.
This a fantastic post with alot of thought put into it. Imagine a DFO type scenario at the Whitten Oval, that would attract large numbers.

[Mofra]

4. The 'regenerated classic' model -- this is the era we are in now. The trend of creating single-use arenas has been acknowledged as a largely unsustainable, especially where a lot of 'boutique' stadia have either been unprofitable or become white elephants. There is a recognition (as I said in my previous post) that urban, suburban or peri-urban land is becoming far too expensive for single-use, largely vacant sporting facilities, and from a design perspective, many of these high-tech so-called boutique stadiums have proven to be cold, soulless entities. As such, there is a very large movement, mainly in the US and UK but also in Asia and Europe, to reclaim the old 'classic' parks and sporting grounds (such as the Whitten Oval) and regenerating them with private money (ie. corporate investment), by converting these old grounds into vibrant commercial hubs with shops, cinemas, museums, galleries etc.
Given the ongoing gentrification of Footscray, this isn't as fanciful as it seems - in your development exprience, how does the fact the council owns/controls the land rather than club help or hinder the planning process?

[bornadog]

Given the ongoing gentrification of Footscray, this isn't as fanciful as it seems - in your development exprience, how does the fact the council owns/controls the land rather than club help or hinder the planning process?

I think hinder the process. As an example: The club had a plan to try and build low cost housing at the Geelong Rd end, but the council stopped it. I believe the plan was for medium density, and aimed at homeless people. Link to Story (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/westernbulldogsnewsfeatures/newsarticle/tabid/4112/newsid/85990/default.aspx)

[LostDoggy]

I'll just keep talking to myself and anyone else who is interested in the trend of stadia throughout the world now. Recent design literature has discussed the various phases of stadium design over the last 150 years, and I'll just touch on them briefly here:

1. The 'classic' park/ballpark/oval. Suburban VFL grounds still follow this model, which was pretty much how all sports were watched 100-150 years ago.

2. The 'super-stadium' era, when the big cathedral stadia of the world (like the MCG) was built, which coincided with the relocation of the middle-class of urban centres into the suburbs. With the proliferation of cars and large roads and highways being built, it no longer made sense to nestle small sporting fields in urban areas, but to create an iconic singular location for the masses to drive to. This was the dominant model for many years and created the template for 'stadium' in the layperson's mind -- symmetrical design etc. These were built with public money as governments saw them as national monuments.

3. The 'boutique' stadium era, where instead of having centralised huge stadia holding 80-120,000 people, smaller, specialised grounds that held 20-25,000 people became the vogue. This trend accelerated as teams became privatised entities and wanted their own arenas and profit streams. These were generally built with a mix of public and private funding.

4. The 'regenerated classic' model -- this is the era we are in now. The trend of creating single-use arenas has been acknowledged as a largely unsustainable, especially where a lot of 'boutique' stadia have either been unprofitable or become white elephants. There is a recognition (as I said in my previous post) that urban, suburban or peri-urban land is becoming far too expensive for single-use, largely vacant sporting facilities, and from a design perspective, many of these high-tech so-called boutique stadiums have proven to be cold, soulless entities. As such, there is a very large movement, mainly in the US and UK but also in Asia and Europe, to reclaim the old 'classic' parks and sporting grounds (such as the Whitten Oval) and regenerating them with private money (ie. corporate investment), by converting these old grounds into vibrant commercial hubs with shops, cinemas, museums, galleries etc.

(Seating design also does not have to be symmetrical -- seating can only be to one side of the playing area, which can even be sunken somewhat to create room for super-structures over it. Asymmetry will be the biggest change to spectator's expectations of seating areas, but the playing area will remain an oval.)

The business model is transformative -- we've all mentioned needing to rely on the government to give us money to build stadiums (ie. the $30m upgrade to our training facilities etc.), but the 'regenerated classic' model relies on the corporate dollar and a sustainable profit model. For example (and this is just shooting the breeze), let's say we get Westfield to become the main developer for the W.O site. They would design a 'Shoppingtown' of sorts, with a major tenant like Aldi or Myer, cinemas etc., with multi-level carparking, and simple multi-tiered seating for maybe 15-20,000 that overlooks the oval, as well as incorporating corporate booths. I've been to WO quite a few times the last year, and I can just see it in my head -- I know a lot of posters have mentioned how small the area is, but that's by traditional standards.. there are a lot of cities in the world that make do with far smaller areas, and it really just requires an innovative design solution.

The end result could be both a great boost for the club, but also a really cool user experience for every different customer group that uses the facility -- the entire project will be self-sustaining as it would be a profitable commercial centre, you can have viewing areas from various vantage points to watch training during the week, seats can be accessed from a higher floor from inside the shopping centre (like entering a cinema), tickets and stadium food no longer have to be prohibitively expensive as the majority of the profit comes from the other businesses on the premises, and so increases patronage to games (and encourages people to 'drop-by' to watch a game while doing their Saturday shopping etc.). The corporate box experience also becomes multi-dimensional as you're not just limited to a sporting experience but can also incorporate other activities in the commercial hub.

A key to the venue would be designing the human traffic flows to ensure that the different user groups aren't getting in each other's way, but plenty of other building typologies deal with this problem (I've worked on various courts and tribunal buildings, for example, and there you design traffic flows so people like the judge, jury, public, accused etc. all travel around the building without running into each other).

Pie in the sky stuff I suppose, but plenty of cities around the world are doing it.

'The business model is transformative.' Hmmm I'd swear a consultant wrote this...!:)

Joking. I agree with a lot of this, though I think you don't credit the dominant paradigm of property development in this city. The most profitable and likely use of E-Gate, Fishermans Bend and any other inner suitable inner city site you want to mention, including the Whitten, is medium density housing, small commercial and retail. It takes a site with considerable heritage value or public affection to stop this, and the Whitten Oval doesn't have that.

Peri-urban land is cheap as. Tabcorp Park, the new trotting track at Melton, is an example of what I think the Club would do -- outer suburban greenfields site, ideally surrounded by new housing, highway access, possible train access, gaming facilities for during the week, potential for other uses/tenants. Sounds awful to me, but that is the cheapest, least difficult and most likely solution if the club was wanting its own stadium.

[LostDoggy]

Lantern, can you link to some of these new types of stadiums? Particularly the Asian examples. I know of a baseball stadium in the US redeveloped with a much larger workday retail offering. Its an interesting topic and well worth a bit of dreaming...

[LostDoggy]

http://www.soccerway.com/venues/china-pr/huizhou-olympic-stadium/

The outside ( as they were building it )

THE DAMN JPEG FILE EXPLODED , I CAN,T FIND A REPLACEMENT ( damn caps lock )

Now just imagine it all grass

http://www.huizhou.cn/2010/provincialsm_cgpic/201006/W020100608569912346307.jpg

.

[Sedat]

.......Pie in the sky stuff I suppose, but plenty of cities around the world are doing it.
Brilliant post Lantern, and thanks for sharing these insights with us.

My question is why would this be pie in the sky stuff? It was probaby considered pie in the sky for Campbell Rose to ask the federal and state govts for $18+ million in funding for the redevelopment of the Whitten Oval but he got it through (this was well before it became common-place for such funding requests to even be considered let alone approved). There is a glaring need for a boutique stadium to cater for overflow matches in Melbourne (the AFL have admitted as much and even explored venue options), and I would love our admin to explore this option with the AFL and associated stakeholders (fed, state and council govts, residents, local businesses, local community groups, etc...). These are the sort of game-changing opportunities that could set our club up for the next 100 years.

[Guido]

My question is why would this be pie in the sky stuff?
It was a great post and I was certainly picturing how awesome such a development would be while reading it, but the $200-$300 odd million of private investment required would be #1 on a list of reasons why it would be almost impossibly difficult. How any design could find room for 5000-10000 car spaces (absolute minimum required to accommodate weekend shoppers/footy game attendees at the same time) whilst maintaining/rebuilding the elite learning centre, function room and other areas on the site would be #2. Losing control of the site and it possibly becoming another Telstra Dome scenario (private companies will not invest hundreds of millions to build the stadium component and allow us to control it in a similar manner to which Geelong controls Siddons) would be #3.

But of course it always comes down to cash. What company would front up that kind of money on an untested (in Australia at least), high risk project with direct competitors 2km north (one of the country's largest retail precincts), 1km west ("local" shopping centre on Ashleigh street) and 1km East (one of the most thriving central activity districts in the country).

There's precious few retail developers at the moment who a) have access to that kind of capital, and b) have the balls to take on this kind of project when half the country is in a technical recession (with some sectors in retail bordering on depression). It's easy for us as stary eyed supporters (looking at it with that undying hope for a "final solution" to the club's financial issues) to see it as a good plan, it's quite another for the corporates to give the thumbs up to risking their money, especially when at least $50 million would be a minimum as a return on investment to make this kind of thing a goer.

When I was reading Lantern's post, I immediately thought of Victoria Gardens in Richmond with a footy field attached. But the reality of that was that IKEA wasn't the global shopping draw-card they thought it would be, and for the first few years at least (things may have improved), the development was haemorrhaging money, having to offer all tenants significant cuts in rent just to keep businesses afloat, which in turn affected the owner's margins. Had an additional $50-$100mil been attached to the original plans to incorporate a 20,000 seat stadium that hosted approx 20 games a season, the business model for that development would have been even worse and may have resulted in it teetering on the edge of collapse.

Lastly, you'd have the issue of there being no such thing as a free lunch - the club would have to chip in at least 5%, possibly 10% ($20-$30million) of any such development. Where would that come from? More debt. A couple of cost blowouts, council gets involved (according to Smorgon, the non-issuing of a permit almost saw us go under), a contributing company goes bust, another US/Euro/global funding crisis hits, any one of these things and suddenly this wonderful life-saving "game changer" can quickly become a "club killer". The task of tackling the club's current >$13million in liabilities is next to an impossible challenge as it is, what happens if that becomes nearly $50 million?

We'd be best off with the AFL building, owning and operating the E-gate stadium, and if that doesn't come, tough it out until they get full ownership of Telstra Dome. Would love to say that we should take things by the scruff of the neck and do something bold, make our own path etc etc, but the majority of dirt poor to millionaire stories are based around the boring, mundane and low-risk - minimise debt, save as much as you can, as often as you can, invest across a number of platforms. Rarely do the "risk everything" stories end with a happily ever after.