Manchester United have confirmed their intention to build a new 100,000-capacity stadium in the Old Trafford area, leaving their home of 115 years.
The news was celebrated by United as a potential driving force for renewal in the area as they revealed plans which, officials claim, will create as many as 92,000 jobs and 17,000 new homes in Greater Manchester.
[ ‘Not good enough and overpaid’: Jim Ratcliffe’s attack on United playersOpens in new window ]
United estimate the cost of building the stadium to be £2bn and are aiming to complete the build within five years, with the architects, Foster + Partners, hoping to begin work this year.
“With a regeneration project of this scale, it needs to have a catalyst or a nucleus, otherwise it just becomes a new housing estate or a shopping centre,” Jim Ratcliffe said. “The more iconic or the more extraordinary that the stadium is, the more successful the regeneration scheme will be.
Donnarumma proves the big man for the big occasion again as PSG beat Liverpool on penalties
William Saliba ‘really happy’ at Arsenal and thinking big in Champions League
Brilliant Barcelona performance is just what the doctor would have ordered
Manchester United to build new 100,000-capacity stadium next to Old Trafford
“I think a really good example is the Eiffel Tower. Everyone around the world knows the Eiffel Tower: you go to Paris, you stay in Paris, you spend money. We have one billion people around the world who follow Manchester United. I think everybody in the world who’s interested in football will want to visit Old Trafford.”
The United co-owner said the project would deliver “the world’s greatest football stadium”. Ratcliffe said: “Our current stadium has served us brilliantly for the past 115 years, but it has fallen behind the best arenas in world sport. By building next to the existing site, we will be able to preserve the essence of Old Trafford, while creating a truly state-of-the-art stadium that transforms the fan experience only footsteps from our historic home.
“Just as important is the opportunity for a new stadium to be the catalyst for social and economic renewal of the Old Trafford area, creating jobs and investment not just during the construction phase but on a lasting basis when the stadium district is complete.”
Ratcliffe has said government money will be needed for the regeneration scheme. He said United “don’t need any government funding” for the stadium and that the plans were consistent with the government’s strategy of improving economic growth. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said in January she backed plans for the regeneration of the Old Trafford area, though she did not explain how the government would support it.
Norman Foster, the architect behind the plans, described a “vast umbrella” over the stadium that would harvest rainwater and a new public plaza “twice the size of Trafalgar Square”.
“The outward-looking stadium will be the beating heart of a new sustainable district, which is completely walkable, served by public transport, and endowed by nature,” Foster said. “It is a mixed-use miniature city of the future – driving a new wave of growth and creating a global destination that Mancunians can be proud of.”
The mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, also put his weight behind the plans. “If we get this right, the regeneration impact could be bigger and better than London 2012,” he said. “Manchester United could, and indeed should, have the best football stadium in the world.
“To me, that means a stadium that is true to the traditions of the club, affordable to all, with nobody priced out, and a stadium that sets new standards in the game globally. I believe this vision can be realised, and if so, the benefits for Greater Manchester, the north-west and the country will be huge.”
The Manchester United Supporters Trust said the plan begged more questions than it gave clear answers. “Whilst investment is much-needed and welcome, fans remain anxious about what it means and what the consequences will be,” a statement said.
“Will it drive up ticket prices and force out local fans? Will it harm the atmosphere, which is consistently fans’ top priority in the ground? Will it add to the debt burden which has held back the club for the last two decades? Will it lead to reduced investment in the playing side at a time when it is so badly needed? We look forward to further consultation with supporters and discussing these vital questions with the club.” — Guardian
