The Redevelopment of Wembley Stadium - Case Study Example

Construction Project Analysis The “redevelopment” of Wembley stadium Name University Module Instructor Date © 2011 Introduction The new Wembley Stadium is a complete facelift of the original one of 1923. It is located at Wembley Park in the Borough of Brent, London, England. It has been hosting the English national football and a host of other international events since 1923. The 1923 Stadium was demolished early 2003 to pave way for the new-look Wembley Stadium which became officially operational in 2007. Although the new Wembley Stadium is a state of the art building, it is estimated to have consumed a fortune. As reported by Belson (2010), the redevelopment of the Stadium is estimated to have cost some £798 million to date; making it one of the most expensive stadiums ever built in the world. It is classified as the second largest stadium in Europe and boasts of being a UEFA category four stadium according to reports by Belson (2010). Because of its more than 90,000-seat capacity, the Stadium has been made the home venue of the England national football team and the perennial host for the FA Cup competitions (Winter 2007). In spite of this, the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium has been considered a disaster by many observers. It is for this reason that this paper attempts to assess whether the said redevelopment has indeed been a fiasco. Management and organisation of the project Accessed information shows that Wembley Stadium is the property of Wembley National Stadium Ltd (WNSL), a subsidiary of The Football Association which governs the English football (Matthews 2006). The redevelopment of Wembley Stadium was therefore mooted and initiated by its co-owners, Wembley National Stadium Ltd and the Football Association in 2000. Philip (2003) observes that a number of organisations and companies took part in one way or the other in the redevelopment scheme. Architects Foster and Partners assisted by HOK Sport for instance were very crucial in the designing and construction phase. In addition, Philip (2003) reports that Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners was appointed planning consultants at the initial stages of the project to assist WNSL in preparing the scheme for a new Stadium. Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners further assisted in obtaining planning and listed building permission for the proposed project (Philip 2003). In addition to the foregoing, the Australian company Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd was appointed the General Contractor of the project but further subcontracted the construction work to specific Subcontractors. Subcontractors Cleveland Bridge was for instance the main steel contractor but was later replaced by Dutch firm Hollandia after falling out with Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd as highlighted by Jacobs and Lipscombe (2005). PC Harrington Contractors on the other hand were subcontracted to handle the carpentry work while Honeywell Network Services was the main IT services and controls contractor as noted by Philip (2003). In addition to these, Desso GrassMaster was subcontracted to handle the Stadium’s surface in laying the turf (Matthews 2006). From the outset, Mott MacDonald was appointed both the Structural and Services engineer to the project. Several stakeholders including Sport England; WNSL; the Football Association; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; and the London Development Agency funded the project of redeveloping Wembley Stadium into what it is today: “an iconic international stadium with the largest roof-covered seating capacity in the world” (Belson 2010). Cost and time escalation According to reports by Philip (2003), the initial plan for the reconstruction of Wembley was to be preceded by demolishing the Stadium before the end of 2000. But due to delays resulting from a succession of financial and legal difficulties, the demolition did not end until February 2003. A further delay occurred in December 2003 when steel subcontractors Cleveland Bridge withdrew from the project after differing with Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd over rising costs and delays on the steel job due to Multiplex design changes (Mitchell and Keith 2005). The replacement of Cleveland Bridge from the job further compounded the delay because the new firm, Hollandia had to start all over again. Similarly, the following year 2004 witnessed a fatal accident in which a carpenter named Patrick O’Sullivan was injured. Then again in 2006, sewers beneath the stadium buckled due to ground movement and people had to be evacuated to allow for repairs, further causing more delays. Although initial plans indicated that the Stadium was scheduled to open in 2003 at an estimated cost of £757 million, the unexpected delays in completing the project pushed the reopening date by several years. Belson (2010) report that 13 May 2006 was reset as the new date of opening the Stadium in time to host that year’s FA Cup Final. This was not to be because work on the Stadium was not yet complete. It was not until 9 March 2007 when Wembley Stadium was finally handed over to the FA and was opened for public viewing for local residents of Brent one week later as reported by Belson (2010). The Stadium was officially opened on Saturday 19 May 2007 with the staging of the FA Cup Final as illustrated by Winter (2007). These time escalations with the reopening of the new Wembley Stadium had unavoidable cost implications arising from increased material cost and legal fees as illustrated below. Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd for instance is reported to have made significant losses on the project. To cushion itself against these losses, the firm initiated a number of legal cases against its sub-contractors and consultants. Firstly, the company fined the construction firm PC Harrington Contractors for which the injured carpenter worked some £150,000 in relation to breaches of health and safety laws (Matthews 2006). Additionally, Multiplex instituted a legal claim for £253 million against the structural engineering consultants Mott Macdonald. This is cited by Belson (2010) to be the largest legal claim in UK legal history. Mott Macdonald on their part issued a counter-claim against Multiplex for unpaid fees of £250,000. The two architecture practices, Foster and Partners and HOK Sport who worked for Multiplex on the project estimated the costs of providing access and answering Multiplex’s queries as directed by the court at £5 million (Belson 2010). In consideration of the costs involved, Belson (2010) argues that this dispute was settled out of court in June 2010 after the judge warned that costs were likely to be more than £74 million. As if this was not enough, Multiplex took the original steel contractor, Cleveland Bridge to court in order to claim up to £38 million compensation for costs resulting from abandoned work. Cleveland Bridge in turn claimed up to £15 million from Multiplex unpaid dues. Belson (2010) explains that this case was resolved in September 2008 where Cleveland Bridge was found in the wrong to walk off the site and was thus ordered to pay £6.1 million in damages and 20% of Multiplex’s costs. Allowing the case to reach court increased the costs where Multiplex’s ultimate bill is estimated to be over £10 million and is expected to rise further if the company fails in contesting a claim of £13.4 million from its concrete contractor, PC Harrington (Belson 2010). Project’s interaction with the local economy The transformation of the old Wembley Stadium of 1923 into the new state-of-the-art home of football and venue of legends renowned the world over has no doubt spent a fortune. Analysts claim that the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium has been a major catalyst in the regeneration of the wider Wembley area that has been transformed into a 21st century destination (Days et al 1999). To do this, millions of pounds worth of investment has gone into regenerating this opportunity area of the West London sub-region as witnessed by the presence of improved infrastructure shown in appendix 1. The three stations serving Wembley Stadium for instance have already been modernised into 21st century public transport infrastructures as observed by Jacobs and Lipscombe (2005). In a nutshell, the regeneration area around the Wembley Stadium has been beneficial to the local community in a number of ways including provision of improved shops, services, new housing, transport, public realm and job opportunities (Bill and Sewell 1992). Significant public investment has made new road construction, widening of existing roads and pavement renewal possible. Road schemes are in place to ensure that there is business as usual on event days. Jacobs and Lipscombe (2005) hint that “the walking project” is about improving pedestrian environment in the town centre so as to ensure that pedestrians enjoy their walk from Wembley Central to the stadium. Wembley is also witnessing resurgence in its retail, leisure and housing offer through the £1 billion development of 42 acres of land around the stadium and £30 million redevelopment of Wembley Central Square as highlighted by Matthews (2006). Further redevelopments will further bolster this revival as underlined by (Matthews 2006). Jacobs and Lipscombe (2005) adds that a final piece to the jigsaw will be the redevelopment of Wembley West End that will help linkup the special Asian Jewellery Quarter in Ealing Road, the town centre, the Stadium and beyond. Additionally, the emerging café quarter of the town centre which operates on the policies of attracting more Restaurants, Bars and Public Houses has added to the diverse array of establishments already on offer in Wembley. The redevelopment of the Stadium has provided the opportunity to deliver the much needed regeneration of the Wembley area by acting as a catalyst for investment (Belson 2010). A number of large sites in the area, if appropriately developed, will further London’s position as a World City by providing major sporting, recreational and entertainment facilities and accommodation for visitors. This will be in addition to offering free parking onsite and probably make it the perfect location to enjoy concerts and sporting occasions (Belson 2010). In retrospect, it is in order to hold that the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium has impacted positively on the economy of the Wembley area due to the benefits it has brought. This is supported by the statement that “the reconstruction of the stadium is part of the wider regeneration of Wembley” (Belson 2010). In fact, the new Wembley is a significant part of the plan for the 2012 Summer Olympics to be held in London as revealed by Belson (2010) where the stadium will be the site of several games in both the men’s and women’s football tournaments, including the finals. The degree to which construction technology and innovation has impacted on the project In view of accessed literature, the redeveloped Wembley Stadium is considered to be the most expensive stadium ever built and has the second largest capacity in the whole of Europe (Winter 2007). To put technology and innovation to test, the new Stadium has an all-seated capacity of 90,000 protected from the vagaries of weather by a sliding roof. Additionally, the stadium boasts of the longest unsupported roof structure the world has ever seen and is alight with aircraft warning neon at the top as shown in Appendix 3. This has in fact become the stadium’s new trademark in place of the “Twin Towers” of the former Wembley. To make the Stadium multipurpose, a retractable “platform system” has been designed to convert it for use in athletics and concerts. Unfortunately, Matthews (2006) indicates that these other uses reduce the stadium’s capacity to approximately 60,000. Technology and innovation has also enabled the Stadium to be linked with other parts of London via a series of intricate road network and passageways. Moreover, the Stadium has the most number of toilets in the whole world, thanks to technology and innovation. Looking at the playing surface of the new Wembley Stadium, it is evident that the latest technology was used. This was in line to keeping the tradition of the old Wembley where the playing surface has been its centrepiece according to views of Matthews (2006). Claims from Days et al (1999) indicate that the Stadium’s ‘fibre-sand’ pitch is made up of “an underlying web of heating and drainage pipes plus tonnes of crushed stone, gravel, grit, sand and a sand/soil and fibre blend”. Moreover, the grasses used to make the turf were selected from more than 250 different varieties as observed by Belson (2010). Close to 200,000 leaf blades of grasses were added to each square metre of turf in order to maintain diversity. To add to the mix of technology and innovation, the partially retractable roof is sometimes left open between events to allow the turf to be exposed to direct sunlight and ventilation. The same roof is also moved to line up with the touchline in order to ensure that all spectators are fully sheltered during an event. All this is crucial in helping to maintain the world-class pitch that Wembley Stadium has always been famous for as noted by Mitchell and Keith (2005). Technology and innovation was further employed in redeveloping the Wembley Stadium by integrating all the technical services onto a single network. In order to have the most technically advanced stadium in the world therefore, Honeywell Network Services designed and installed an IT network platform that is capable of supporting all the applications encountered in an intelligent building management solution. Accessed data indicate that this required the installation of 1,617 km of cabling, comprising 753 km of fibre backbone, 234 km of broadcast cabling and 630 km of horizontal structured and fire rated cabling which supports resilient backbones and ensures that IP communication is provided with the necessary bandwidth in all operational modes of the stadium (Winter 2007). The network links stadium operations to the internet as well as to the London Metropolitan Police and other emergency authorities (Belson 2010). Surprisingly, every detail has been found to be cost effective and sustainable. Conclusion The redevelopment of Wembley Stadium begs the question: “can the project be classified as a success or as a disaster? In view of the foregoing discussion, it becomes very difficult to state whether the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium has been successful or disastrous. One predicament in this decision emanates from the criticisms leveled against the project by its detractors. In fact the pitch has come into disrepute a number of times since the completion of the project in 2007. For example the pitch is said to have terribly cut up during a crucial game between England and Croatia in 2008 according to reports by Belson (2010). Furthermore, the grass in pitch is said to have been re-laid more than ten times since the stadium re-opened in 2007. The poor state of the pitch has been blamed for failures by some teams to qualify in a number of tournaments. The delays and cost escalations observed during the redevelopment phase of the Stadium adds up to these criticisms. In spite of all this, it is my informed opinion that the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium is a big success in our times. My argument is formed by the fact that industry players view the new Wembley Stadium as “an iconic international stadium and conference centre towering over the North London skyline” (Belson 2010). In their view, the Stadium is the “world’s leading sport and music venue that offers up to 90,000 fans unrivalled views of the action in state-of-the-art facilities while generating an unbeatable atmosphere”. Indeed, the new Wembley is a world class stadium that is safer, more secure and more productive as it houses four of the largest restaurants in London (Belson 2010). Reference list Belson, K 2010, “New Stadium, a Football Palace, Opens Saturday With Lacrosse”. The New York Times. Bill, B & Sewell, A 1992, News of the World Football Annual 1992/93. Harper Collins. Days, P, Hudson, J & Callaghan, B 1999, Sunderland AFC: The Official History 1879–2000. Business Education Publishers Ltd. p. 302. Jacobs, N & Lipscombe, P 2005, Wembley Speedway: The Pre-War Years. Stroud: Tempus Publishing. Matthews, T 2006, Football Firsts. Capella. Mitchell, V & Keith, S 2005, “Figure 51”. Marylebone to Rickmansworth. Midland Main Lines. Midhurst: Middleton Press. Philip, B 2003, “Wembley Stadium – An Olympic Chronology 1923–2003”. Journal of Olympic History. LA84 Foundation. Winter, H 2007, “Croatia end woeful England’s Euro 2008 dream”. The Daily Telegraph, London. Appendices Appendix 1: Transport connections A map of Wembley Stadium in relation to Olympic Way, Wembley Central, Wembley Stadium and Wembley Park stations and the A406 North Circular Road (bottom right) Appendix 2: Old and New Wembley Stadiums Old Wembley Stadium New Wembley Stadium looking south, December 2005 Appendix 3: The New Wembley Stadium showing exterior design Source: Wembley Stadium-case study Appendix 4: The New Wembley Stadium showing interior design Source: Wembley Stadium-case study Read More