For many, Old Trafford warrants no introduction—Manchester United’s hallowed home base was completed in 1910 by Scottish architect Archibald Leitch, and later helmed by legendary socialist manager Matt Busby.
The “theatre of dreams” was bombed in World War II, stayed standing, hosted Georgie Best, and survived 1974 relegation. The “Reds” chant: We are the Busby Boys; I belong, To Old Trafford; and We shall not be moved inside and outside the arena walls on match day.
All of this history may soon go by way of the wrecking ball, however.
Manchester United has released renderings of a new $2.6 billion stadium designed by Foster + Partners. Old Trafford currently seats 75,000 people; the proposed one by Lord Norman Foster would host 100,000.
Not only would there be a new stadium, but the area surrounding Old Trafford would be revamped. A new central plaza, according to Foster, could measure “twice the size of Trafalgar Square,” accompanying the alternative venue.
Foster + Partners is behind both the replacement stadium and masterplan. Writing in Tribune Mag, George Baker, founding member of FC United of Manchester, a coalition of fans who oppose Old Trafford’s demolition, rightfully noted the club owners have racked up exorbitant debts, leaving many to wonder: Can Manchester actually afford this?
“A Corporate Theme Park”
Today, Old Trafford is bound by a highway to its north, and a rail yard to its south. Its east and west are flanked by parking lots and light industry. Fans often pour in from pubs and residential neighborhoods beyond from Sir Matt Busby Way, the Metrolink, or Salford Quays.
Renderings by Foster + Partners show the new Manchester United stadium defined by three spires that rise up far into the sky, strung together with an umbrella membrane. These spires, Foster said, will ascend over 650 feet and be visible from 40 miles away. Immediately beyond the new stadium would be 17,000 new homes, in addition to office and retail spaces.
Old Trafford’s demolition is backed by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and the Glazer family, who has had a stake in Manchester United since 2003. They’ve since made enemies; tickets typically go for “£66 a pop,” making games out of reach for many in the fast gentrifying city.
Not only that, but Manchester United today flat out stinks; it hasn’t been this bad since 1974, when they were relegated. “[Manchester United] has been lucrative for the Glazers, but their off-field profitability has been overshadowed by on-field futility,” ESPN columnist Mark Ogden said last month.
George Baker shares Ogden’s ire: “The proposed demolition of Old Trafford to build a corporate theme park that could have been designed by Homer Simpson is another sad example of billionaires kidnapping football—and destroying something special about Manchester—in the name of profit,” he lamented after the renderings were shared.
The Other Side
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Manchester United co-owner, said the project is needed because “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, Ratcliffe added, “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.” Norman Foster shares Ratcliffe’s enthusiasm, despite fan pushback.
“This has to be one of the most exciting projects in the world today, with incredible regional and national significance,” Foster said. “It all starts with the fans’ experience, bringing them closer than ever to the pitch and acoustically cultivating a huge roar.”
Foster pointed to his own family’s history and relationship to the site when describing his design: “My father was a factory worker at Metropolitan-Vickers,” he said, a factory just across the way from Old Trafford.
Foster said the new stadium can be built in five years, so by 2030. He noted this fast turnaround can happen by prefabricating stadium elements off site, and then transporting them to the grounds through the Manchester Ship Canal in “160 component pieces.” Ratcliffe added this strategy would cut construction time in half.
Ratcliffe, however, didn’t give a specific project timeline. He said: “It depends how quickly the Government get going with their regeneration. I think they want to get going quite quickly. I assume that will go well.”
