Which design do you prefer?

[Barrel of Fun]

Number one?

[/QUOTE]



Number two?

 

[Spider]

Is number 2 not going to have 2 tiers in the main stand?

Have to say that the first one looks MUCH better, but it's always difficult to tell from those virtual images. I like the fact we've got rid of the grass covering half the stadium though.

 

[Sam]

much prefer number one with the grass on the roof. Both look pretty decent though, planner have done well. We could so easily have had a "four blocks on each side of the pitch" kind of stadium.

 

[7:18]

number one looks like a better design, but number two is a much better quality visual and I like how you can see more of what will be around the stadium such as the train lines etc. is the new design not going to have the bridge and building on the left of the stadium then?

oh, and which one is the north stand? (which direction is north, is it the one on the left?)

 

[7:18]

and in terms of shadow on the pitch, the second one looks awful compared to the first

 

[withdeanwombat]

I like the grass roof,but the pitch looks a lot greener in numero dos (clever,unfair to taint it by calling it number two!)

 

[Icy Gull]

Option 3, I'm past caring what it looks like

 

[JJ McClure]

As much as I like'd the architecture of the teletubby hill thing I can live without it. The stadium is the main thing and the new design still looks bloody good to me, a lot better than most stadia that get thrown up nowadays. If it looks like that I'll be one happy chappie.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

I like the idea of us being part of the community, not consistently annoying it (which I know will never happen but No1 could lessen the impact).

 

[Sam]

OK, first home game will be a sell out - surely.

But what do you think the average attendances will be throughout the season in 2010/11 (if all goes to plan)?

will it spiral down from 22,500 to sit at about 10,000 per game?

 

[Gazwag]

I have never really noticed the arches before, I hope they are going to be lit up at night like wembley, that would be ace

 

[Hercules Rockerfeller]

Option 3, I'm past caring what it looks like

Option 4, I will like whatever one I am siting in around 2011.

 

[newhaven seagull 85]

number2 there appears to be a horrible crease down the middle of number one

 

[scooter1]

Option 3, I'm past caring what it looks like

I'd go along with that. As long as it gets built and we can get 10,000 in there per game then i'll be satisfied. Then we can build on that. If the board expect to build the stadium and magically its full every other week then I think they're in for a rude awakening. After all look at Colchester, they have a new ground and still manage to get less than we do at Withdean

 

[Uncle C]

I love the way the newly planted trees have now started to grow up and get established. Should be a forest by the time we move in.

 

[Winker]

I see the pikeys have moved into car park number one, so I'll go for two, otherwise it's more delays to get them out!

 

[Billy the Fish]

The new design hasn't really changed much at all has it.

Does anyone actually think that having those green bits on the end is going to make it blend into the surroundings? I know I don't.

The best thing that they could do is approve the teletubbies building, that will block the view of the stadium from the road.

 

[Hercules Rockerfeller]

I stil can't believe it is going to fit in what appears to be a tiny space. I suppose they have done their homework though..... haven't they?!?!

 

[Knotty]

I'd go along with that. As long as it gets built and we can get 10,000 in there per game then i'll be satisfied. Then we can build on that. If the board expect to build the stadium and magically its full every other week then I think they're in for a rude awakening. After all look at Colchester, they have a new ground and still manage to get less than we do at Withdean

The board have never said they expect to fill it - I think they said 12,000 was budgetted for.

They have to show some ambition, though. If they had proposed a 12,000 seater stadium they would have been slated by everyone for having no ambition.

As far as the design is concerned, there is so little difference in the two - just the loss of a few square metres of grass is the only significant external change I can see. How the objectors can build a new case on that, I have no idea. And whatever changes are made internally are surely irrelevant as far as they are concerned.

 

[Trufflehound]

Why has the new roof now got a Coronation Street style row of chimney pots on it? Is that to make visiting fans from "oop north" feel more at home?