http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/186m-facelift-for-the-grand-old-lady-of-sport-20120102-1pifd.html

There's been some talk about this for a while now, but it seems we have an official announcement at last. It will be interesting (and challenging) to see how they manage the visual link between the Members Pavilion and the new stand.

Well overdue in my opinion.

they were going to announce it tomorrow, maybe the PM was available for today after all...the proposed members stand is different from the VT stand in section, I believe as part of a larger master plan the Churchill / Brewongle will be of similar appearance so that the ladies and members are bookended by similar buildings and so Cricket / AFL get their required functions in the right place...which leaves the O'reilly stand as the problem child, most likely to be replaced with a similar section as the VT stand....there are also potential upgrades for the SFS in the wind too...exciting times for the trust and Sydney.



its a very similar section to the proposed Adelaide Oval with 4 tiers, it looks like people are alot closer to the ground than the existing members stands (although higher.)

Not sure I like the open look. Prefer the coliseum like / cauldron atmosphere generated by closed-in grounds.

Will just have to wait and see I guess.

I notice that the bitching has started here in SA over the PM "dudding" her 'home' state with the Feds finding only 5% of the total cost of the AdOval redevelopment, but approx 30% of the monies required for the new SCG Northern Stand. How much of the money for the SCG trust will go towards a much needed lick of paint for the SFS? I remember when we thought we were a chance for the 2022 World Cup, there were artists renderings showing an improved roof structure(extending the drip line) and other minor improvements.

http://www.sydneycricketground.com.au/news/video-gallery/

link to video on SCGT website

http://www.sydneycricketground.com.au/venues/capital-works/
http://issuu.com/kaitlyndavies/docs/stage_2_finalnocropssgl?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage

link to more details and images on SCGT Website.

Is this the same proposal that was supposed to be done before the past ashes series?

If I remember correctly, there were plans to lengthen the playing field...

The playing field was lengthened when the Trumper Stand was built.

This part of the redevelopment plan has been in the works for a while - it's taken quite some time to get the respective governments to cough up the required cash. Then it's on to the O'Reilly Stand and then to finish up with re-doing the Brewongle and Churchill Stands. As I understand it that's a 10-20 year plan.

Firstly, I agree with Boba Fett. Long overdue.

In some ways the MA Noble stand, and later also the Bradman Stand, were ahead of their time. The incline of the tiers, the overarching roof structures and general layout still look good on TV. To think how dated other stadium structures of their era (VFL Park, Footy Park) look now is a credit to their original design.

As far as the new 'pavillion' - just a few questions.

Why do we need a number of different stand designs when all the roof lines will be roughly the same? In other words, if a ground is going to have a number of different stands, shouldn't they also differ with respect to height as well as design?

The new 'stand' seems to have a gap in the top tier to differentiate between the MA Noble and Bradman. What's the point of this? Particularly if this is the prime view straight down the pitch where the best seats in the house would be?

Otherwise I like it.

I'm more interested in the notion of SFS upgrades. Shortened, squared up pitch, better roof, steeper bottom tier, repositioning of corporates (so middle of camera shot isn't 200 empty open boxes). Capacity is no problem, aesthetics and amenity on the other hand...

Agree that the playing field needs to be shortened - it's long even for rugby. But it's the positioning of the boxes is the real problem for this stadium. The main issue was that the SFS was built just before corporate revenue became so important to stadiums. Which is why all the suites are at the ends and corners, rather than in the middle in the prime viewing positions.

In my view it would be far better to pull the whole thing down and build a new stadium in its place. As far as I'm aware, the swooping design of the roof was partly necessitated by height restrictions at the northern end. Something like Dublin's Aviva Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviva_Stadium) could work nicely, although my view is that a capacity of 40-45k is about right.

Yes, I agree - this looks very odd. I'm hoping that it's a detail in the artist's impression that is not accurate.

Hopefully. Although I notice the gap features in a few of the renditions, though not in others.

Well, i'm going to say it. It looks sh*t. Individually, the stands look great. But next to each other they look ridiculous. It's like if they built Federation Square as an add-on to Captain Cook's cottage. Both buildings are fine, but they shouldn't be built together.

If you want a modern stadium, then build one. If you want a historical looking stadium, then build one of those. If you want both, then it's going to look terrible. The MCG understood that.

Actually you're right. Made me think about whether I like it or not. The artists impression above gives it a bit of a 'Lords' look. But I think we know it's going to look more like the SFS than Lords.

I was watching the cricket last night from Cape Town and every angle, every view, every profile of the ground looked picturesque.

I think you're right. The SCG needs to choose, as you say, between being a stadium or getting the most out of the ladies (don't we all) and the members.