The dome... | Page 10 | Syracusefan.com

The dome...

This. Syverud is dead set against it.
I am certainly handicapped here because I only know what is quoted in the papers. It seems clear, based on their certainty, that we have some insiders here who work for SU or talk to the Chancellor (or people inside his group) and are privy to info we don't have. Do you consider yourself someone who has inside information? It would be good to know who is speaking as an insider and who is just giving their opinion.
 
Jake said:
This. Syverud is dead set against it.

The difference between Cantor and Syverud is that Cantor was expanding the number of students and thus would need more classrooms and academic buildings. Syverud is doing contraction so land isn't as valuable for academic purposes.
 
The difference between Cantor and Syverud is that Cantor was expanding the number of students and thus would need more classrooms and academic buildings. Syverud is doing contraction so land isn't as valuable for academic purposes.
doubly great news

moving the dome off campus would've been a shame. cantor doing it to cram in a couple thousand more students who can't do the work would've been another shame
 
Free She-Wee with your ticket. No more waiting in the ladies room!
Shewee500x500.jpg
 
Good for him.
I guess. SU has to figure out what the hell they want. If it's more revenue out of athletics, they're going to have to make gamedays more enjoyable. Putting up another three or four parking garages isn't the answer. The hill is full of enough of them as it is.
 
I don't know what a transparent ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) membrane roof would cost, but it would be a huge improvement and IMO make a retractable rook unneeded.

Anything substantial would be a real boost for the program. It doesn't have to be a Taj Mahal since it would still be a dome and unique to CFB.
 
Can be used in the summer and spring too. Right now, with the heat, the summer is out.

It's used currently in the summer for various SU sports camps.
 
I don't know what a transparent ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) membrane roof would cost, but it would be a huge improvement and IMO make a retractable rook unneeded.

Anything substantial would be a real boost for the program. It doesn't have to be a Taj Mahal since it would still be a dome and unique to CFB.
I have no idea what ETFE has to do with a retractable roof decisions. If you built a car with a ETFE roof, would that be a replacement for sunroofs or convertibles? I don't think so.

I think most of the attraction it is to be in the "open air"...not just get some extra light in.

The ETFE is pretty cool...but so is open air when a retractable roof is open. Yeah, "pretty cool" is not necessary but "necessary" is not what anyone thinks about when make a roof retractable.

Sounds like it is all moot now and SU is not considering a retractable roof.
 
I have no idea what ETFE has to do with a retractable roof decisions. If you built a car with a ETFE roof, would that be a replacement for sunroofs or convertibles? I don't think so.

I think most of the attraction it is to be in the "open air"...not just get some extra light in.

The ETFE is pretty cool...but so is open air when a retractable roof is open. Yeah, "pretty cool" is not necessary but "necessary" is not what anyone thinks about when make a roof retractable.

Sounds like it is all moot now and SU is not considering a retractable roof.
My simple point is that the ETFE roof gives the benefit of natural light and open feeling without the cost of a retractable roof. If its wind you want I am sure we can get some blowers cheaply.

EDIT:
stadium-hp-jan-2014.jpg
 
Last edited:
My simple point is that the ETFE roof gives the benefit of natural light and open feeling without the cost of a retractable roof. If its wind you want I am sure we can get some blowers cheaply.
I am just saying they are two different things.

A glass roof (with blowers as you suggest) may give the benefit of natural light but it does not satisfy someone's desire for a convertible roof. Different thing altogether. One has little to do with the other.

Also, in the Vikings example, making the roof retractable would have added only about 5% cost to the project.
 
I am just saying they are two different things.

A glass roof (with blowers as you suggest) may give the benefit of natural light but it does not satisfy someone's desire for a convertible roof. Different thing altogether. One has little to do with the other.

Also, in the Vikings example, making the roof retractable would have added only about 5% cost to the project.
5% of a lot is a lot
 
5% of a lot is a lot
True... and why Minnesota went away from that option for that reason but people think the retractable nature is what makes a dome so expensive. Relative to the support structure itself (needed for retractable or not), it's cheap.
 
Yes...just as $26M was enough for the original. It's not going to be an NFL stadium.
Let's wait and see what the numbers are when the university makes a formal report on the options, and their respective costs. Assuming that starting from scratch is an option they consider.
 
If they can't afford or simply don't want a retractable roof, I hope they can afford something like the ETFE roof. Either way it would jump us to a different class and be great for the program.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,876
Messages
4,734,650
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
21
Guests online
1,384
Total visitors
1,405


Top Bottom