Playing home games at Whitten Oval

[AndrewP6]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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. Melbourne Showgrounds idea as bornadog suggested would be a very good alternative.

[Eastdog]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

This is what Waverly looks like today

[LostDoggy]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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.

[GVGjr]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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]

Re: Playing home games at Whitten Oval

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.