Giuseppe Sala has commented on the recently submitted feasibility projects for new Milan stadium. Although San Siro would be partly preserved, there's still a major issue at hand.
On Thursday AC Milan and Inter have submitted their most up-to-date visions of the new stadium. Both variants include San Siro preserved in part, expected to become a year-round leisure centre.
As has been from the start, there are two visions competing for implementation, one by Manica/Sportium and one by Populous. The first consortium proposed to leave an asymmetric portion of the old stadium, including most of the east stand and the southernmost spiral tower of the existing structure. Populous went another way, offering a C-shaped outer shell of San Siro, with west side open towards the new stadium.
In both visions the interior would be filled with new leisure functions, accompanied by commercial spaces. Most of these would supposedly be open 365 days a year, for full and free public use. Also, every variation includes over 100,000 m2 of public green areas, while now the area around San Siro offers only half of that.
Early comments from the city are promising, as was expected (after all, initial renders of the plans were presented some time ago). “The new project saves the old stadium, which will host many other minor sports and for the most part free.” said mayor Giuseppe Sala and these words of his were largely pushed in the media.
However, the mayor has also said another part, which largely went unnoticed internationally. “My rigidity has always been only on two elements. The first, on the desire not to lose the Meazza. The second, on the desire to limit new buildings.” Sala said.
That second part matters, because Inter and Milan have always pushed for extensive commercial developments around the new stadium. Even within the new projects skyscrapers are planned, a feature not designated to be built in this part of the city. For the clubs it's largely a matter of financial viability, as the secondary uses would help offset stadium construction cost. But it seems the city isn't willing to budge and still insists on only a third of the area being covered by other uses.