Dome Renovation

[IthacaBarrel]

The last time the university looked at this, the targeted location was Drumlins West.

Makes a ton of sense.

 

[OttoMets]

Makes sense but will generate a lot of NIMBY noise (as any new site will). The big benefit of the current site is that it's already there and no need for site approvals and all that it entails (fights and possible delays). It will probably come down to cost and funding.

Correct. Neighborhood groups prevented a Skytop stadium plan from proceeding in the '70s and there are thousands more DeWitt neighbors these days who would spend years litigating any attempt to build up there. They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium.

It's very unlikely that that will ever happen.

 

[jr4750]

Correct. Neighborhood groups prevented a Skytop stadium plan from proceeding in the '70s and there are thousands more DeWitt neighbors these days who would spend years litigating any attempt to build up there. They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium.

It's very unlikely that that will ever happen.

Too bad, because the South Campus idea for a new stadium is in line with all specifications and desires, that I have heard. Namely, the University wanting to bring students back on to main campus, phase out south housing, and expand the area around the dome. That space, if demo'd, creates a ton of room for new dorms, another priority with the campus wide plan, as well as academic development space. The new stadium on south keeps athletics "on campus," closer to the practice facilities, albeit just slightly, etc. It basically creates an academic campus and an athletic one.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Too bad, because the South Campus idea for a new stadium is in line with all specifications and desires, that I have heard. Namely, the University wanting to bring students back on to main campus, phase out south housing, and expand the area around the dome. That space, if demo'd, creates a ton of room for new dorms, another priority with the campus wide plan, as well as academic development space. The new stadium on south keeps athletics "on campus," closer to the practice facilities, albeit just slightly, etc. It basically creates an academic campus and an athletic one.

Makes sense. South Campus already has the Ice Rink, the Softball stadium, and the new T& facility.

 

[sutomcat]

Makes sense but will generate a lot of NIMBY noise (as any new site will). The big benefit of the current site is that it's already there and no need for site approvals and all that it entails (fights and possible delays). It will probably come down to cost and funding.

It will but the fact of the matter is, the area between Drumlins West and I-481 is an abandoned quarry. Most of the access to the site would be through an area that is unused.

People have been parking at Skytop and Manley for football and basketball games for many years. This would not cause a major impact.

I personally agree with GoSU96 and retro44.

It sounds like the following things are objectives:

A multipurpose facility that delivers state of the art features like wider concourses, room for better eating, easier access, better parking, better tailgating and a reliable roof.

Migrate to that facility without losing a season or two of home games for football or basketball.

Maximize the massive investment by moving the facility to a place where many more events could be held without disrupting the main campus/major medical complex for the CNY area.

I would rather invest $600 million and end up with a new facility designed from scratch for the needs of the community, that can be leveraged all the time and is a huge step forward for the area than to invest $300 million dollars, get a slightly better facility for football and basketball but have little bottom line impact on the area the facility serves.

Trying to do substantial upgrades to the Dome like we are talking about while still using it is not a good idea. It will end up being a nightmare, there will be huge cost overruns and delays and in the end, we will end up spending the same amount of money, but will get a much worse facility and have to wait for it a lot longer.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[SU68]

Correct. Neighborhood groups prevented a Skytop stadium plan from proceeding in the '70s and there are thousands more DeWitt neighbors these days who would spend years litigating any attempt to build up there. They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium.

It's very unlikely that that will ever happen.

They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium. I disagree about the comparison. A stadium would have impact for 6-8 hours (including tailgating) 6 or 7 days a year. An inland port would have impact for 24 hours/365 days a year.

 

[xc84]

It will but the fact of the matter is, the area between Drumlins West and I-481 is an abandoned quarry. Most of the access to the site would be through an area that is unused.

People have been parking at Skytop and Manley for football and basketball games for many years. This would not cause a major impact.

The abandoned query is where the inter-modal/inland port is proposed. The plan is for it to be used. While people have been parking at Skytop and Manley for years, there has not been a stadium there. If you really think a stadium at Drumlins will not generate huge NIMBY protests, we have to agree to disagree. I am not against it, but I don't think it will be easy to do. Frankly, it's why the dome is where it is now.

 

[OttoMets]

They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium. I disagree about the comparison. A stadium would have impact for 6-8 hours (including tailgating) 6 or 7 days a year. An inland port would have impact for 24 hours/365 days a year.

That's fair and I thought of that distinction when I posted. Port would produce steadier traffic, stadium's would be of higher intensity (~30,000 cars in a small window) less frequently.

 

[xc84]

That's fair and I thought of that distinction when I posted. Port would produce steadier traffic, stadium's would be of higher intensity (~30,000 cars in a small window) less frequently.

And now we are talking here of having both! We are talking years of debate and push-back.

 

[xc84]

They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium. I disagree about the comparison. A stadium would have impact for 6-8 hours (including tailgating) 6 or 7 days a year. An inland port would have impact for 24 hours/365 days a year.

Won't the stadium host basketball games too? And many other events that currently won't work in the current dome?

 

[baggerbob]

It will but the fact of the matter is, the area between Drumlins West and I-481 is an abandoned quarry. Most of the access to the site would be through an area that is unused.

People have been parking at Skytop and Manley for football and basketball games for many years. This would not cause a major impact.

I personally agree with GoSU96 and retro44.

It sounds like the following things are objectives:

A multipurpose facility that delivers state of the art features like wider concourses, room for better eating, easier access, better parking, better tailgating and a reliable roof.

Migrate to that facility without losing a season or two of home games for football or basketball.

Maximize the massive investment by moving the facility to a place where many more events could be held without disrupting the main campus/major medical complex for the CNY area.

I would rather invest $600 million and end up with a new facility designed from scratch for the needs of the community, that can be leveraged all the time and is a huge step forward for the area than to invest $300 million dollars, get a slightly better facility for football and basketball but have little bottom line impact on the area the facility serves.

Trying to do substantial upgrades to the Dome like we are talking about while still using it is not a good idea. It will end up being a nightmare, there will be huge cost overruns and delays and in the end, we will end up spending the same amount of money, but will get a much worse facility and have to wait for it a lot longer.

It just doesn't make sense.

A well thought idea, which would benefit not just the University, but all of Central New York. This fits right in with the new chancellors ideas on helping the veterans, and others.

 

[SU68]

Won't the stadium host basketball games too? And many other events that currently won't work in the current dome?

I don't know but I take your point. Add another 20 or so days a year at 4 hours each (no tailgating) for basketball. And -- what? -- another 50 days/year for the other sports that currently use the Dome. They would not have that much impact since they don't have that many fans watch them now. Still way less impact than an inland port.

 

[xc84]

I don't know but I take your point. Add another 20 or so days a year at 4 hours each (no tailgating) for basketball. And -- what? -- another 50 days/year for the other sports that currently use the Dome. They would not have that much impact since they don't have that many fans watch them now. Still way less impact than an inland port.

The neighborhood is already edgy about the university encroachment. Adding more parking and a new stadium along with the additional traffic will ignite protest.

When you say no impact from other events, you need to consider things like concerts and non-SU events too. Sure, a women's basketball game will be low impact...but how about 2-3 nights of Springsteen. An indoor stadium would have a huge impact there. Again, I am not against it but I know the obstacles that will be presented. And Drumlins contains unique geological formations (drumlins) that may also ignite protests. There will be no shortage of opposition. With the current stadium, there is no change of use...and nothing to work through.

Agree there will be less impact than an inland port but no one is saying that a stadium means no inland port. it may in fact mean 2 large changes to the area. A port and a stadium.

 

[OttoMets]

And now we are talking here of having both! We are talking years of debate and push-back.

Even if trends favored SU developing the periphery of campus, I think Kent is savvy enough to recognize the hardship that litigation will cause and steer clear of this location. As you say, those years that would be lost to court battles are valuable to SU. Too valuable to waste on doing anything but designing and constructing a modern stadium.

 

[jr4750]

Even if trends favored SU developing the periphery of campus, I think Kent is savvy enough to recognize the hardship that litigation will cause and steer clear of this location. As you say, those years that would be lost to court battles are valuable to SU. Too valuable to waste on doing anything but designing and constructing a modern stadium.

Otto, outside of the current location, and the south campus option, would you say the next best spot to build something new is downtown, Loguen Crossing, or by the Mall? I would think downtown to capitalize on this renewed urbanization of Syracuse, and keep it close by for students. However, I can't imagine there being room for a football sized stadium at that spot.

 

[GoSU96]

They're berserk about the inland port proposal, and that's relatively low-impact compared to a stadium. I disagree about the comparison. A stadium would have impact for 6-8 hours (including tailgating) 6 or 7 days a year. An inland port would have impact for 24 hours/365 days a year.

6 or 7 days a year? You have to build a 365 facility to cover the cost.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[cpatrocks]

I'll personally take a bulldozer to Drumlins West.

That Drumlins rumor was going around for years. I assumed that Traffic/Parking were the biggest reasons this never went anywhere.

 

[retro44]

The last time the university looked at this, the targeted location was Drumlins West.

Lots of solid bedrock so when the dome is rockin'....

 

[OttoMets]

Otto, outside of the current location, and the south campus option, would you say the next best spot to build something new is downtown, Loguen Crossing, or by the Mall? I would think downtown to capitalize on this renewed urbanization of Syracuse, and keep it close by for students. However, I can't imagine there being room for a football sized stadium at that spot.

Well, I'm not an urban planner, though I play one on this board.

Seriously, each has positives and negatives. Kennedy Square is probably better for SU (six blocks - easy downhill walk - from Marshall Street). But it'd be bad for the city in the long-term and there really isn't enough space to build it big enough.

The harbor could better accommodate a stadium and offers better freeway access. There's also compatible development in the immediate area. Again, this would contravene the city's long-term planning goals for the neighborhood, but the effect wouldn't be as negative as it would be in Kennedy Square, because the land is already vacant and broken up into industrial superblocks. In reality, students wouldn't come out here for games (think Pittsburgh, in a smaller city) and this fact isn't lost on SU. It'd be a decent site for a professional-type stadium or arena, but Central New York isn't in the market for one of those.

Potential environmental liability would be a concern and potential obstacle at both sites. SU would never assume an ownership stake in such a project for a number of additional reasons, and this arrangement would surely a) turn off certain SU decision-makers and b) prolong the design and development timeline.

There's probably no other spot close to downtown, given the prohibitive land acquisition costs and the disruption to the city. Both of those are close enough that some synergy could be generated between the two neighborhoods, though.

My money's still on an extensive Dome renovation - both from what I hear and from what common sense suggests.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Well, I'm not an urban planner, though I play one on this board.

Seriously, each has positives and negatives. Kennedy Square is probably better for SU (six blocks - easy downhill walk - from Marshall Street). But it'd be bad for the city in the long-term and there really isn't enough space to build it big enough.

How far a walk is it from Lawrinson or the Mount?

 

[OttoMets]

How far a walk is it from Lawrinson or the Mount?

Far. Uphill both ways, too.

 

[reedny]

With the IPF and Melo the teams that use the dome don't need it as a practice facility any more. If the school wants to do a limited renovation on the dome that fine. But to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a facility up on a hill tucked inside a campus with limited access and parking is crazy. You will never generate the revenue necessary to support that investment. To hold the number and scale of events to support that investment will either entail constant disruption to student residents and/or smaller than needed attendance.

If it was up to me and I'm looking at spending that kind of money, I'm building from scratch, in a spot that has enough parking already in place, is in already in a hub that has multiple points of exits in every direction that feed into 81 and 690 in both directions.

You can't discount ease of access, robust parking, flat terrain for an aging local population, if you want to increase the attendance of marginally interested fans.

Also allows for constant use to generate the cash flows needed in a non disruptive way. A configurable facility that can host full field (FB, Lax, Soccer), hoops, and hockey, along with concerts and other events is the way to go if you are spending that much money in a community this size. You need almost 365 days of use.

It will but the fact of the matter is, the area between Drumlins West and I-481 is an abandoned quarry. Most of the access to the site would be through an area that is unused.

People have been parking at Skytop and Manley for football and basketball games for many years. This would not cause a major impact.

I personally agree with GoSU96 and retro44.

It sounds like the following things are objectives:

A multipurpose facility that delivers state of the art features like wider concourses, room for better eating, easier access, better parking, better tailgating and a reliable roof.

Migrate to that facility without losing a season or two of home games for football or basketball.

Maximize the massive investment by moving the facility to a place where many more events could be held without disrupting the main campus/major medical complex for the CNY area.

I would rather invest $600 million and end up with a new facility designed from scratch for the needs of the community, that can be leveraged all the time and is a huge step forward for the area than to invest $300 million dollars, get a slightly better facility for football and basketball but have little bottom line impact on the area the facility serves.

Trying to do substantial upgrades to the Dome like we are talking about while still using it is not a good idea. It will end up being a nightmare, there will be huge cost overruns and delays and in the end, we will end up spending the same amount of money, but will get a much worse facility and have to wait for it a lot longer.

It just doesn't make sense.

You both make good arguments for starting fresh. But there are some issues with the new stadium option that I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

1. The University needs support from the central NY community to run successful FB and BB programs. Making our facility accessible to the public is obviously an important concern. That said, Syracuse University's first responsibility is to its own sports programs, students and alumni. The Dome is a unique part of SU campus life, and (to my mind) a big part of SU's sports brand. The U has spent millions to build and project this image to the public (and potential recruits), to the point where SU sports and the Dome are joined at the hip. All that would be lost by moving to an off-campus building (especially at the Mall), even though doing so might be more convenient in the short term. However, your mention of Drumlins (which I think is very close to campus, if not right on its border) is intriguing. Were you suggesting this as a building site, or parking?

2. Go's arguments seem to be centered on the use of public funds. And I get that. A huge investment by taxpayers would (and should) entail State (or authority) ownership and heavy community access and use. With that, obviously, comes sacrifice. Not only would SU be just a tenant, it would have to compete with a variety of other public uses for the space, from local semi-pro sports to concerts and other events. Louisville tried this with the Dumb center and for a number of years the facility hemorrhaged money. So on top of the fact that a public (off-campus) facility would deprive SU of access and control for practices and other needs, it's quite possible that a public facility would lose money and need ongoing taxpayer support.

3. Following the "money" a little further, I've never heard any suggestion for a new stadium accompanied by a viable solution for what to do with the Dome. It's not going away, even if we build new. Unless SU plans to bulldoze it, it's going to need a multi-million dollar roof and a bunch of improvements to remain viable. Therefore, any new stadium investment must be considered ON TOP OF many millions invested in the Dome. This seems impractical and unnecessary -- why spend so much on a new facility when we could re-do the existing one at half the price (or less).

4. Tom's arguments seem to be centered on parking, convenience and disruption. All good points. However, parking on South campus has been working fine for years and I can't envision bussing SU's teams to a NYS field house somewhere just because of parking. Other solutions are available and can be worked through -- Tom and O-Extreme (and T-Mark) know these options better than I. As far as disruption, no doubt this is an issue, but again temporary.

 

[GoSU96]

The harbor could better accommodate a stadium and offers better freeway access. There's also compatible development in the immediate area. Again, this would contravene the city's long-term planning goals for the neighborhood, but the effect wouldn't be as negative as it would be in Kennedy Square, because the land is already vacant and broken up into industrial superblocks. In reality, students wouldn't come out here for games (think Pittsburgh, in a smaller city) and this fact isn't lost on SU. It'd be a decent site for a professional-type stadium or arena, but Central New York isn't in the market for one of those.

In reality students aren't coming out for football games as it is and all many of them have to do is walk a couple of hundred yards. In the mean time you have many multiples of long time residents of this region, not transients, who form your long term ticket base, not wanting to deal with the PITA location and instead watch it on TV.

The inner harbor location is the same distance to the Dome by car as the back end of Skytop and almost a mile closer than Drumlins.

Heintz Field is around 4.5 miles from Pitt through a much denser city and across a major river.

Miami and SFla play 20 miles away from campus. UCLA is over 20 miles from the Rose Bowl.

The inner harbor location is about 3 miles by car from the middle of campus.

And yes SU would be out of the stadium business, but they would be the anchor tenant as opposed to other schools that use pro stadiums.

 

[shandeezy7]

3. Following the "money" a little further, I've never heard any suggestion for a new stadium accompanied by a viable solution for what to do with the Dome. It's not going away, even if we build new. Unless SU plans to bulldoze it, it's going to need a multi-million dollar roof and a bunch of improvements to remain viable. Therefore, any new stadium investment must be considered ON TOP OF many millions invested in the Dome. This seems impractical and unnecessary -- why spend so much on a new facility when we could re-do the existing one at half the price (or less).

In a scenario where a new stadium is built, the Dome would be demolished. Others in this thread have said that it would be replaced by academic buildings and dorms. A scenario where a new stadium is built and the Dome remains standing is not an option.