The dome... | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

The dome...

Clev04 said:
Maybe someone here can help me. Was a local fan, syracuse didn't have my major so I had to go somewhere else for college and therefore am not that familiar with the actual campus surroundings. If something were to be built on south campus, wouldn't that still be okay for students? Is there much housing on south campus or is it mostly on the main campus near the dome? And south campus is near Manley correct? Lastly, because iv always tailgated near Marshall and didn't go towards Manley much, how long does it take to get from the dome area or the majority of housing for students to south campus?
Expand...
I think both locations have pluses am minuses and both are certainly viable.
 
northacuse said:
View attachment 35384 ???
Expand...

Simpsons did it.

a_560x375.jpg
 
OrangeViking said:
It would not surprise me if a new roof for the Dome was constructed from the same clear lightweight EFTE material as the new Vikings stadium currently under construction. This material allows for lightweight structural support which is able to handle the snow load.


http://www.vikings.com/news/article...ear-Roof/dff31d45-bc82-41ec-b768-2ef03827bbe7

stadium-interior-2.jpg
Expand...
A retractable roof is a luxury... it's not needed similar to a convertible on a car. However, the real cost of the project is the structure that will support a new roof. That's where the money will be...$hundreds of millions to support whatever material they choose. In Minnesota, the extra cost to make the roof retractable was estimated at "only" $25 to $50M (relative to total budget of the project being $975M). Given how infrequent it would be open, they chose not to go that route. The clear material looks nice and would be good in a refurbished Carrier Dome as long as they add A/C or super ventilation. Otherwise we will bake on 75-85 degree sunny days.
 
xc84 said:
A retractable roof is a luxury... it's not needed similar to a convertible on a car. However, the real cost of the project is the structure that will support a new roof. That's where the money will be...$hundreds of millions to support whatever material they choose. In Minnesota, the extra cost to make the roof retractable was estimated at "only" $25 to $50M (relative to total budget of the project being $975M). Given how infrequent it would be open, they chose not to go that route. The clear material looks nice and would be good in a refurbished Carrier Dome as long as they add A/C or super ventilation. Otherwise we will bake on 75-85 degree sunny days.
Expand...
Good call. Like ants under a magnifying glass.
 
lummgr said:
Why isn't a roof different from the current one, but not retractable being looked at?
Expand...
Yeah...seems like an obvious option unless they really want something unusual/retractable.
 
I don't think SU views replacing the air-inflated roof system as an option but I've been wrong before.
 
IraSez said:
I don't think SU views replacing the air-inflated roof system as an option but I've been wrong before.
Expand...
It's the least expensive of the options by far. For that reason alone you can't count it out.
 
The air inflated roof is not sustainable anymore, especially in a city that on average has about 115 inches of snow a season. This type of roof could be compared to the modem, you know that gem that the old folks used to connect to AOL with? There aren't many of them left in the world. If SU wants to make that kind of dollar investment they're better off looking at all alternatives, even if it means paying more upfront to have something that will last more than the 17 years that the inflatable roof will give them.
 
KellySyracuse said:
The air inflated roof is not sustainable anymore, especially in a city that on average has about 115 inches of snow a season. This type of roof could be compared to the modem, you know that gem that the old folks used to connect to AOL with? There aren't many of them left in the world. If SU wants to make that kind of dollar investment they're better off looking at all alternatives, even if it means paying more upfront to have something that will last more than the 17 years that the inflatable roof will give them.
Expand...
people will want something new in 17 yrs anyway
 
xc84 said:
this just in:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._for_retractable_roof_by_end_of_semester.html

Drawings for retractable roof by end of semester

SU is still weighing three options for Carrier Dome improvements:



    • replacing the air-inflated roof pretty much as it is
    • building an off-site sports arena
    • replacing the inflatable roof with a retractable roof.
Expand...
Based on the Chancellor's comment, a new stadium is not high on his list:

"Replacing the dome's inflatable roof would cost north of $10 million," he said. "Building a new sports arena off-site stadium would be hundreds of millions of dollars. And I don't have hundreds of millions of dollars at the moment."
KellySyracuse said:
The air inflated roof is not sustainable anymore, especially in a city that on average has about 115 inches of snow a season. This type of roof could be compared to the modem, you know that gem that the old folks used to connect to AOL with? There aren't many of them left in the world. If SU wants to make that kind of dollar investment they're better off looking at all alternatives, even if it means paying more upfront to have something that will last more than the 17 years that the inflatable roof will give them.
Expand...
The inflatable roof is not state of the art, but it has sufficed for ~35 years, and could likely be used going forward (with some tweaks), despite the sky-is-falling pronouncements from Dome officials.
 
longtimefan said:
The inflatable roof is not state of the art, but it has sufficed for ~35 years, and could likely be used going forward (with some tweaks), despite the sky-is-falling pronouncements from Dome officials.
Expand...

The issue with the air-supported roof isn't so much if it will work, it's more that there aren't really any others out there any more. In the case of an emergency (think Minnesota a few years ago) the Carrier Dome would be out of commission for an extended period due to the lack of available repair panels. All these air-supported structures relied on each other for spare and replacement panels, I believe I've heard Pete Sala say before.

It's all about the acceptable risk of knowing that a major snowstorm could cause severe damage to the roof. The Minnesota thing woke many people up to how risky it is to keeping a roof like that operational in this climate.
 
if you stick with the inflatable model couldn't you build some replacement panels into the plan? if you have a major failure you would be in trouble but small issues should be able to be dealt with.
 
Millhouse said:
They could probably use more elevators too. wouldn't cost too much. having to go around the whole dome to get to the 1 elevator really sucks for disabled/injured people and for the people who work at the tome and have to waste so much time running around (I'm thinking of when I was a box runner in college - having to fight through the concourse with giant hot anti-refrigerator things when the elevator was as far away as it could be)
Expand...

I was a concessions runner back in my day on the hill. The elevator was always a pain.
 
How about the poor coaches, they have to run through the crowds at halftime and the end of the game. That's bush league. Gotta get them a secret elevator upstairs.
 
longtimefan said:
Based on the Chancellor's comment, a new stadium is not high on his list:

"Replacing the dome's inflatable roof would cost north of $10 million," he said. "Building a new sports arena off-site stadium would be hundreds of millions of dollars. And I don't have hundreds of millions of dollars at the moment."
Expand...
I don't think that statement says "it's not high on his list". It was high on his list when he had a potential few hundred million from the governor and he could just be saying that will be needed to go that route. If they go the cheap route and replace the current roof with new teflon, it's a stop-gap measure to get them to a more permanent decision in 5-10 years.
 
xc84 said:
I don't think that statement says "it's not high on his list". It was high on his list when he had a potential few hundred million from the governor and he could just be saying that will be needed to go that route. If they go the cheap route and replace the current roof with new teflon, it's a stop-gap measure to get them to a more permanent decision in 5-10 years.
Expand...

SU was not in favor of the off campus stadium proposed by Mshoney. Miner took the heat, but SU was letting people know that it wasn't moving its games there.
 
xc84 said:
It's the least expensive of the options by far. For that reason alone you can't count it out.
Expand...
The issue is that the system used is a dinosaur. Getting it fixed, replacement material, etc., are going to be an issue, if it isn't already. I think the administration views a new inflatable roof as a short term solution and realize the Dome needs some serious TLC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BillSU
    • Like
Did you know Doug Marrone is still our HC?
Replies
10
Views
1K
SuFTW
SuFTW
D
    • Like
Return of the slobbernocker
Replies
22
Views
2K
orangefog
orangefog
Consigliere
    • Like
    • Wow
Syracuse Sports Insiders
Replies
21
Views
2K
Qbobby
Qbobby
OrangeXtreme
    • Like
5-7 Format Confirmed for 12-Team Playoff
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
6K
Orangefan1
O
Hoov50
    • Like
    • Love
Coach Brown
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
shu 49
S

Forum statistics

Threads
167,733
Messages
4,723,490
Members
5,916
Latest member
FbBarbie

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
1,982
Total visitors
2,041
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom