Football’s building homes: on an under-discussed source of brownfield land

England manager Gareth Southgate is a man, we reckon, who would favour building more bloody houses. Image: Getty.

The whole of England is convinced that Football’s Coming Home. We at CityMetric are more interested in the “home” bit than the football, of course – but don’t worry lads, I’ve found a link.

For much of my teens and twenties I followed Hull City around the country. The football was miserable, but the trains, beer and friendships were great, and more than compensated for the inevitable defeat in Burnley or Brighton.

The event that stopped me going was Hull City’s move to a shiny new stadium. All my mates got season passes grouped together in an all-seater stadium. I couldn’t face that level of commitment, and quickly drifted away.

Hull is far from the only football club to have upped sticks from a dilapidated ground to swanky stadium – so I’ve started to wonder what has happened to the former sites of the national game. Researching this turned out to be simple, mainly because football attracts geeks in much the same way transport does, and so there are plenty of helpful websites.


My first task was to pick a cut-off date, so I didn’t have to go all the way back to 19th century. Fortunately football transformed itself in 1992 when the structure of the game was changed with the creation of the Premiership. Following this, money poured into the game: for many teams this was the catalyst for the recent trend for teams to move to new homes.

Of the 92 teams in the Premiership and Football League in the 1992-93 season, 29 have since left their grounds. Here’s what has happened to the abandoned stadia.

Premiership

Off the 22 teams that were in the inaugural Premiership, five have moved on to pastures new.

First to leave were Middlesborough, abandoning Ayresome Park in 1995 for The Riverside. This move was designed to kick-start the redevelopment of the town’s docks area. It didn’t. The old ground, like many, was in a residential district. Homes now stand where Brain Clough once scored for fun. I’m sorry to say that The Turnstile and The Midfield are the actual street names here.

A new development in Middlesborough within a sea of back to backs. Image: Google.

In 2001 Southampton left The Dell for St Mary’s Stadium, a similar dockside location to The Boro. The Dell is still The Dell. It is a rather impressive apartment block, which follows the footprint of the old stands.

The pitch is a car park, and the stands are homes at the Dell. Image: Google.

Manchester City were attracted to the shiny new stadium which had been built for the Commonwealth Games. The club moved out of Maine Road in 2003. The site has since been redeveloped into rather attractive terrace housing.

More terracing has been replaced by terraced housing at Maine Road. Image: Google.

Coventry City ditched Highfield Road for the out of town Ricoh Arena in 2005. The scene of too many years of topflight football is now the Signet Square Children Park, which is surrounded by modern high density housing.

Coventry’s compact ground has been replaced by tall housing. Image: Google.

Arsenal was the last of the original Premiership teams to relocate, moving a couple of hundred meters from Highbury to The Emirates Stadium adjacent to the East Coast Mainline. Listed building status means that two of the stands at Highbury remain: they’ve been repurposed and now house apartments.

Highbury Square, still recognisably an ex-football stadium. Image: Google.

All housing so far – a trend that will continue as we descend down the leagues.

Division 1

Millwall left The Den for The New Den (now The Den) in 1993. The pitch has been replaced by a distribution warehouse and a London Overground depot. I wonder if South East London wasn’t in much demand for housing in the early 1990s? a housing estate (sorry, we got this bit wrong).

No evidence of the old den in south east London. Image: Google.

Derby County left The Baseball Ground in 1997. It’s now housing, with a large green. Derby was one of few teams with its own railway station, and it’s still there. Opened in 1990 and closed in 1997, only 4 trains ever stopped at the Ramsline Halt.

The modern housing that has replaced the baseball ground. Image: Google.

Sunderland also relocated in 1997. Roker Park has been replaced by a housing development.

In 2001 Oxford United left The Manor Ground. It has been replaced by The Nuffield Manor Hospital, which is different.

With a central atrium, the hospital in Oxford follows the lines of the football ground it replaced. Image: Google.

Leicester City abandoned Filbert Street in 2002. Most of the site appears undeveloped apart from a large block of Halls of Residence, these days called “Unite Students – Filbert Village”. Things have changed since I was at Leicester Poly.

There’s still plenty of room for more student accommodation at Flibert Street. Image: Google.

West Ham United left Upton Park last year. It’s already been levelled: the developer has plans for 838 new homes, retail outlets and leisure facilities.

Divison 2

Counterintuitively, teams lower down the football ladder in 1993 are more likely to have moved to new stadiums. For many down in Division 2, the new location has been a springboard to a big upturn in their fortunes: 8 of the 9 teams with new stadiums have made it into the top flight, whereas only six of the 15 teams who have kept there traditional homes have achieved that.

  • Huddersfield Town left Leeds Road in 1994: it is now a B&Q.
  • Bolton Wanderers left Burnden Park in 1997: it has become the Burden Park Shopping Centre.
  • Brighton and Hove Albion left The Goldstone in 1997: it quickly became the Goldstone Retail Park.
  • Stoke City left The Victoria Ground in 1997. The site is undeveloped, but earmarked for housing.
  • Reading left Elm Park in 1998, and it has been developed for housing.
  • Wigan Athletic left Springfield Park in 1999: it is now housing.
  • Hull City left Boothferry Park in 2002: that is also housing.
  • Swansea City left Vetch Field in 2005. This one is odd. It is earmarked for a housing development with “safe streets”, but currently hosts allotments. The centre circle of the pitch will not be built upon, because people have had their ashes spread there.
  • Rotherham United left Millmoor in 2008. The ground is still there. It’s still in use with an Under 18’s team playing their home fixtures there.

The Victoria Ground, Stoke, will be 2, 3 & 4 bedroom homes, soon. Image: Google.

Division 3

Lots more housing from the lower league. Darlington (2003), Doncaster Rovers (2006), Shrewsbury Town (2007), Colchester United (2008), Cardiff City (2009) and Chesterfield (2010) have all become residential developments. Barnet (2013) appears to be joining that group as demolition started this year. Scarborough (2007) now hosts a Lidl.

Northampton Town left their traditional home for pastures new in 1994 but the County Ground is still going strong. The Cobblers shared the ground with Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, and First Class cricket continues to be played there, on the odd occasion it’s not raining in Northampton.

Cricket remains in the county ground Northampton, taking up a big chunk of land. Image: Google.

In Summary

Some 29 teams have relocated. Two grounds continue to host sport. One is a hospital; four are retail outlets. The remaining 22 are, or will shortly be, providing homes.

It’s hard to calculate how many people now live in these developments. Some of them have produced a lot of homes: Highbury Square contains 650 flats. So do 10,000 people live on these sites? 20,000? More?

Whatever the figure, they have been a significant supply of brownfield sites in many towns and cities. Yet it is a very limited supply of land.

If only there was another sport that could deliver land for housing? Anyone up for re-classifying all golf courses as brownfield sites?

 
 
 
 

Uncertainty is the new normal: the case for resilience in infrastructure

Members of the New York Urban Search and Rescue Task Force One help evacuate people from their homes in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in September 2018. Image: Getty.

The most recent international report on climate change paints a picture of disruption to society unless there are drastic and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. And although it’s early days, some cities and municipalities are starting to recognise that past conditions can no longer serve as reasonable proxies for the future.

This is particularly true for America’s infrastructure. Highways, water treatment facilities and the power grid are at increasing risk to extreme weather events and other effects of a changing climate.

The problem is that most infrastructure projects, including the Trump administration’s infrastructure revitalisation plan, typically ignore the risks of climate change.

In our work researching sustainability and infrastructure, we encourage and are starting to shift toward designing man-made infrastructure systems with adaptability in mind.

Designing for the past

Infrastructure systems are the front line of defense against flooding, heat, wildfires, hurricanes and other disasters. City planners and citizens often assume that what is built today will continue to function in the face of these hazards, allowing services to continue and to protect us as they have done so in the past. But these systems are designed based on histories of extreme events.

Pumps, for example, are sized based on historical precipitation events. Transmission lines are designed within limits of how much power they can move while maintaining safe operating conditions relative to air temperatures. Bridges are designed to be able to withstand certain flow rates in the rivers they cross. Infrastructure and the environment are intimately connected.

Now, however, the country is more frequently exceeding these historical conditions and is expected to see more frequent and intense extreme weather events. Said another way, because of climate change, natural systems are now changing faster than infrastructure.

How can infrastructure systems adapt? First let’s consider the reasons infrastructure systems fail at extremes:

  • The hazard exceeds design tolerances. This was the case of Interstate 10 flooding in Phoenix in fall 2014, where the intensity of the rainfall exceeded design conditions.

  • During these times there is less extra capacity across the system: When something goes wrong there are fewer options for managing the stressor, such as rerouting flows, whether it’s water, electricity or even traffic.

  • We often demand the most from our infrastructure during extreme events, pushing systems at a time when there is little extra capacity.

Gradual change also presents serious problems, partly because there is no distinguishing event that spurs a call to action. This type of situation can be especially troublesome in the context of maintenance backlogs and budget shortfalls which currently plague many infrastructure systems. Will cities and towns be lulled into complacency only to find that their long-lifetime infrastructure are no longer operating like they should?

Currently the default seems to be securing funding to build more of what we’ve had for the past century. But infrastructure managers should take a step back and ask what our infrastructure systems need to do for us into the future.


Agile and flexible by design

Fundamentally new approaches are needed to meet the challenges not only of a changing climate, but also of disruptive technologies.

These include increasing integration of information and communication technologies, which raises the risk of cyberattacks. Other emerging technologies include autonomous vehicles and drones as well as intermittent renewable energy and battery storage in the place of conventional power systems. Also, digitally connected technologies fundamentally alter individuals’ cognition of the world around us: consider how our mobile devices can now reroute us in ways that we don’t fully understand based on our own travel behavior and traffic across a region.

Yet our current infrastructure design paradigms emphasise large centralized systems intended to last for decades and that can withstand environmental hazards to a preselected level of risk. The problem is that the level of risk is now uncertain because the climate is changing, sometimes in ways that are not very well-understood. As such, extreme events forecasts may be a little or a lot worse.

Given this uncertainty, agility and flexibility should be central to our infrastructure design. In our research, we’ve seen how a number of cities have adopted principles to advance these goals already, and the benefits they provide.

A ‘smart’ tunnel in Kuala Lumpur is designed to supplement the city’s stormwater drainage system. Image: David Boey/creative commons.

In Kuala Lampur, traffic tunnels are able to transition to stormwater management during intense precipitation events, an example of multifunctionality.

Across the U.S., citizen-based smartphone technologies are beginning to provide real-time insights. For instance, the CrowdHydrology project uses flooding data submitted by citizens that the limited conventional sensors cannot collect.

Infrastructure designers and managers in a number of U.S. locations, including New York, Portland, Miami and Southeast Florida, and Chicago, are now required to plan for this uncertain future – a process called roadmapping. For example, Miami has developed a $500m plan to upgrade infrastructure, including installing new pumping capacity and raising roads to protect at-risk oceanfront property.

These competencies align with resilience-based thinking and move the country away from our default approaches of simply building bigger, stronger or more redundant.

Planning for uncertainty

Because there is now more uncertainty with regard to hazards, resilience instead of risk should be central to infrastructure design and operation in the future. Resilience means systems can withstand extreme weather events and come back into operation quickly.

Microgrid technology allows individual buildings to operate in the event of a broader power outage and is one way to make the electricity system more resilient. Image: Amy Vaughn/U.S. Department of Energy/creative commons.

This means infrastructure planners cannot simply change their design parameter – for example, building to withstand a 1,000-year event instead of a 100-year event. Even if we could accurately predict what these new risk levels should be for the coming century, is it technically, financially or politically feasible to build these more robust systems?

This is why resilience-based approaches are needed that emphasise the capacity to adapt. Conventional approaches emphasise robustness, such as building a levee that is able to withstand a certain amount of sea level rise. These approaches are necessary but given the uncertainty in risk we need other strategies in our arsenal.

For example, providing infrastructure services through alternative means when our primary infrastructure fail, such as deploying microgrids ahead of hurricanes. Or, planners can design infrastructure systems such that when they fail, the consequences to human life and the economy are minimised.

The Netherlands has changed its system of dykes and flood management in certain areas to better sustain flooding.

This is a practice recently implemented in the Netherlands, where the Rhine delta rivers are allowed to flood but people are not allowed to live in the flood plain and farmers are compensated when their crops are lost.

Uncertainty is the new normal, and reliability hinges on positioning infrastructure to operate in and adapt to this uncertainty. If the country continues to commit to building last century’s infrastructure, we can continue to expect failures of these critical systems, and the losses that come along with them.

The Conversation

Mikhail Chester, Associate Professor of Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering, Arizona State University; Braden Allenby, President's Professor and Lincoln Professor of Engineering and Ethics, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, and Samuel Markolf, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network, Arizona State University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.