Dome Renovation

[Jake]

I think, if there was a do over, connecting the stadium, inner harbor, mall and Armory would make great sense. Lets go to the game from Albany, Roch, Buff. Catch a train, No driving, stay over in downtown and return by train.

As long as putting the baseball stadium downtown is part of the do over.

No train. It'd cost more than a new stadium.

 

[Jake]

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.

My opinion: Ainsley Drive.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

As long as putting the baseball stadium downtown is part of the do over.

No train. It'd cost more than a new stadium.

It would have involved locating the train station in a different area. Tracks are already nearby.

 

[xc84]

What's the basis for that statement?

The cost of a new stadium on a TBD and to-be-acquired site will be much higher than a renovation. The basis is relatively similar renovations and new stadium builds.

 

[cuseguy]

To think that we thought we might be paying in Buffalo this season.

This project appears to be several years away from happening.

 

[GoSU96]

The cost of a new stadium on a TBD and to-be-acquired site will be much higher than a renovation. The basis is relatively similar renovations and new stadium builds.

Yikes, who knew a new stadium would cost more.

Here's the thing a refurb doesn't expand the use in the facility, what additional revenue are you going to get other than marginal increase in football attendance?

The core issue is that the location is about as awful as possible for the cost that is being projected for the most ambitious update. I find it very hard to justify from both a taxpayer perspective and as a business case to drop a couple of hundred million on the dome.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

The cost of a new stadium on a TBD and to-be-acquired site will be much higher than a renovation. The basis is relatively similar renovations and new stadium builds.

But the question then becomes what to do with the Dome site. Does it become an income source as well. If so, does it do enough to offset the cost difference.

 

[reedny]

But the question then becomes what to do with the Dome site. Does it become an income source as well. If so, does it do enough to offset the cost difference.

The new stadium proponents don't have an answer for your question, as far as I can tell. Community interests are important; they support the programs. But one thing lost in this discussion is that the community historically bought tickets in large numbers for FB, and still does for BB. There's no reason they won't return (for FB) when we re-do the Dome and put a good product on the field.

Abandoning the Dome and Choosing a new destination because of a highway (I-81's next to campus) or a parking lot (South campus capacity could be increased) seems like the tail wagging the dog. The Dome's allure, and it's value to SU, is as an on-campus facility. Accessibility is not a trivial issue, but at the end of the day, they came before and they'll come again. We just have to make the Dome a destination worth visiting. And I think we can do that for half the price of an off campus field house owned by some regional authority ... without having to deal with all the public financing and access issues that go along with it.

 

[xc84]

Yikes, who knew a new stadium would cost more.

Here's the thing a refurb doesn't expand the use in the facility, what additional revenue are you going to get other than marginal increase in football attendance?

The core issue is that the location is about as awful as possible for the cost that is being projected for the most ambitious update. I find it very hard to justify from both a taxpayer perspective and as a business case to drop a couple of hundred million on the dome.

Relocating does not expand its use. However, if you invest twice as much, you do need to generate a heck of a lot more income on a new site to breakeven. Whether on the hill or near he mall, they can book the same events.

 

[xc84]

But the question then becomes what to do with the Dome site. Does it become an income source as well. If so, does it do enough to offset the cost difference.

It's not a question that I think will need to be answered. A new stadium on a new site isn't feasible given the cost and other factors.

 

[sutomcat]

The cost of a new stadium on a TBD and to-be-acquired site will be much higher than a renovation. The basis is relatively similar renovations and new stadium builds.

Not true. To my knowledge, there has never been a renovation like the one we are discussing, where a major dome would be built over an existing dome while that facility stayed in use...

If they opt to play elsewhere for football and/or basketball for a season or two, I think completing the project on budget and on time is still highly unlikely and then there will obviously be major financial implications.

If the decision is made to renovate and the renovation includes meaningful changes, the university better get protection against cost overruns and delays. I think it is very naive to think that kind of a renovation is going to finish on time and within the budget.

When the roof was replaced at BC Place, it cost $563 million. It was initially projected to cost $100 million. It was initially expected to take 8 months to do. It took 16. The facility was shut down totally while the renovation was done.

That is the closest thing to what is being discussed for the Carrier Dome. They widened the concourses, replaced revolving doors with normal ones, added wider individual seats, more private suites, etc.

If the renovations there were that much more costly and lengthy to do working on a site that was shut down for renovation, what will happen when they try and work around a facility in use?

List of renovations done to BC Place.

BC Place renovations summary[edit]

• New retractable roof is the largest cable supported retractable roof in the world.[36][37]
• Revolving doors replaced with clear glass doors, which allows the stadium to be accessed much more easily.[38]
• Old brown glass around building replaced with light green glass which lets more light in and makes stadium brighter.[38]
• BC Lions locker room completely expanded and refurbished: Old lockers were taken out, sanded down, refinished, and put back in. New cubicles were also put in with individual lighting for players. Locker room also sports a new floor called "sport floor".[38]
• New synthetic turf, called Polytan LigaTurf RS+, was installed as the new playing surface. Turf has a 11⁄4 inches (32 mm) thick shock pad underneath the turf and special eco-friendly BionPro infill.[39]
• A centre-hung high-definition scoreboard measuring 68 by 38 feet (21 m × 12 m).[39]
• Around the stadium is a new 51 inches (1.3 m) electronic ribbon board, with a circumference of 2,200 feet (670 m).[36]
• Added 1,140 new HDTV screens. Screens work through a system called Stadium Vision. Each screen runs on a separate video source, allowing menu boards at concourse concession stands to show game updates to fans as they order from concession stands.[40]
• All concourses widened and refurbished.[38]
• Added 140 additional portable concession stands. Storage of food and supplies will be in concession stands.[40]
• 50 fully refurbished private suites and 1,300 newly refurbished premium Club Seats.[41][42][43]
• Wheel chair seating now at every price point and level of the stadium.[36]
• New upgraded washrooms, and access ramps with new lighting.[44]
• New state of the art sound system.[36]
• New wider seats: seats or 20 inches (51 cm) wide with cup holders on every seat.[36]
• New sport lighting in stadium; 10% of lighting is called hot strip lighting. Hot strip lighting gives instant on and off.[36]

 

[xc84]

Not true. To my knowledge, there has never been a renovation like the one we are discussing, where a major dome would be built over an existing dome while that facility stayed in use...

If they opt to play elsewhere for football and/or basketball for a season or two, I think completing the project on budget and on time is still highly unlikely and then there will obviously be major financial implications.

If the decision is made to renovate and the renovation includes meaningful changes, the university better get protection against cost overruns and delays. I think it is very naive to think that kind of a renovation is going to finish on time and within the budget.

When the roof was replaced at BC Place, it cost $563 million. It was initially projected to cost $100 million. It was initially expected to take 8 months to do. It took 16. The facility was shut down totally while the renovation was done.

That is the closest thing to what is being discussed for the Carrier Dome. They widened the concourses, replaced revolving doors with normal ones, added wider individual seats, more private suites, etc.

If the renovations there were that much more costly and lengthy to do working on a site that was shut down for renovation, what will happen when they try and work around a facility in use?

The entire renovation for BC Place cost $563M...not just the roof. The BC Place roof is retractable. SU said they would not build a retractable roof. BC Place was the first and made a lot of mistakes. SU can learn from them and not make the same mistakes. BC Place is a notorious example of cost overrun. Good that you cited it so the same mistakes are not made at SU. Municipalities tend to spend money in a less cost-effective way than a private university. Look at the Carrier dome as an example. On time and on budget. Cost overruns can certainly happen when you build from scratch too so contrary to your inference, there is no difference in that respect v. building on a new site. In any case, building new on a new site will cost more (larger investment).

SU will know the numbers better than you or I. If I were a betting man, I'd say they look at all the factors and decide to renovate and not try to buy land somewhere else and build a brand new stadium and all that entails. Now, if a knight in shining armor rides in with a free few hundred $mil or so, I may change my bet. Until then, the odds are better for a renovation and it's likely the safest and most feasible investment.

 

[sutomcat]

The entire renovation for BC Place cost $563M...not just the roof. The BC Place roof is retractable. SU said they would not build a retractable roof. BC Place was the first and made a lot of mistakes. SU can learn from them and not make the same mistakes. BC Place is a notorious example of cost overrun. Good that you cited it so the same mistakes are not made at SU. Municipalities tend to spend money in a less cost-effective way than a private university. Look at the Carrier dome as an example. On time and on budget. Cost overruns can certainly happen when you build from scratch too so contrary to your inference, there is no difference in that respect v. building on a new site. In any case, building new on a new site will cost more (larger investment).

SU will know the numbers better than you or I. If I were a betting man, I'd say they look at all the factors and decide to renovate and not try to buy land somewhere else and build a brand new stadium and all that entails. Now, if a knight in shining armor rides in with a free few hundred $mil or so, I may change my bet. Until then, the odds are better for a renovation and it's likely the safest and most feasible investment.

I don't have time to argue on this, but simply put, I respectfully disagree. Attempting to do a renovation of the scope being discussed while the facility is in use most of the year will dramatically complicate matters compared to the BC Place renovation. Perhaps some in construction can comment.

The bottom line is that unique major renovations are harder to do than builds from scratch. It is far easier to build a domed stadium when there is nothing already there blocking access. What is proposed is extremely ambitious, unprecedented and extremely risky. It is not likely to go well. IMHO.

 

[maxxyz]

The bottom line is that unique major renovations are harder to do than builds from scratch. It is far easier to build a domed stadium when there is nothing already there blocking access. What is proposed is extremely ambitious, unprecedented and extremely risky. It is not likely to go well. IMHO.

And add the incentive of freeing up the footprint of the dome for future academic use. My guess is that the BOT is looking at a new site very strongly.

 

[OttoMets]

My opinion: Ainsley Drive.

This isn't crazy. (It's not on the table, from what I understand.)

Potential future train service, adjacent both the future I-81 and the downtown expressway stub, not far from existing campus infrastructure, near the population center. It's underutilized land, so the city could probably get behind it.

A lot of different land owners, though, and the ever-present NIMBY obstacle (but not as strong as for Skytop).

 

[OttoMets]

Yikes, who knew a new stadium would cost more.

Here's the thing a refurb doesn't expand the use in the facility, what additional revenue are you going to get other than marginal increase in football attendance?

The core issue is that the location is about as awful as possible for the cost that is being projected for the most ambitious update. I find it very hard to justify from both a taxpayer perspective and as a business case to drop a couple of hundred million on the dome.

I guess it's subjective - a large portion of the fanbase thinks that this location is the best one possible, far from awful.

And those opinions really don't matter. SU's board has a fiduciary responsibility to the institution (and community) to do what's in its best interest. That's what it'll do.

 

[NJCuse97]

There is not much sense arguing it. I believe without any fact or backup that they've decided to stay on campus. That said, I think both options would have their challenges and cost issues. Tomcat is correct in assuming a renovation can and will have its own challenges that can cause cost creep to a scale comparable to a new build, and that is only exacerbated if they try to keep the building in use during construction. XC is correct in the assertion there is additional costs for a new build (land acquisition costs, permitting concerns, run off and waste water environmental impact studies, traffic pattern change studies, unforeseen issues in prep and foundation work, etc.). It may be fair to say that when you factor in Dome time lost to construction, they even out (fair to assume a new build leaves the existing in operation during construction). One thing is certain, this is a huge decision and then a bigger undertaking and to those who thought we'd be playing in a construction site this fall were not really listening to others here. A shovel in the ground is still likely two years away. No steel is in fabrication. No design exists. No funding is in place to even pay for such efforts. No architect has actually been hired to design and document any stadium solution. We hired a firm to do a study. Out of that has come several concepts I am sure. That is where we are in this process.

 

[reedny]

I don't have time to argue on this, but simply put, I respectfully disagree. Attempting to do a renovation of the scope being discussed while the facility is in use most of the year will dramatically complicate matters compared to the BC Place renovation. Perhaps some in construction can comment.

The bottom line is that unique major renovations are harder to do than builds from scratch. It is far easier to build a domed stadium when there is nothing already there blocking access. What is proposed is extremely ambitious, unprecedented and extremely risky. It is not likely to go well. IMHO.

Some great points here and in your prior post, Tom. Since I don't live in the area, I appreciate your perspective. No doubt the construction, either way, will be expensive and could run over budget and/or time. Those factors are there regardless of which option the U chooses. I'm still wondering if the Drumlins option involves a new building, or is that a parking option? Is Drumlins University-owned? (It's close to South Campus and I-81, correct?).

At any rate, the BC Place example (which seats +/- 55k) is an interesting parallel. It has about the same capacity as SU's facility, and it involves the renovation of an existing Dome'd arena. However, it's also a crown facility in a Canadian province built for public use. From your list, it appears that the Crown spared no expense ... including a highly complex retractable roof with all the cabling, mechanicals and structural support needed to get this done.

If we're to learn a lesson from BC place, it might be this: Public dome'd stadium renovations involving retractable roofs are complicated and expensive, especially when (Canadian) taxpayers are footing the bill.

Here in upstate NY, the "re-do" proponents are talking about a much more scaled down project for private/semi-public use. For example, I don't think the U is giving serious consideration to a retractable roof. That would, as you point out, be very expensive and complicated, and would probably outstrip any State funding assistance we could obtain for a private facility ... even if public events were occasionally held there (as is the case with the Dome).

However, if the roof is fixed, as I understand the latest proposal, the complexity, structural improvements and construction time would be substantially less. That doesn't mean it won't take 2 years, or that it won't be hell for a while. But unless SU is prepared to bulldoze the Dome, a renovation is going to be necessary. We don't know enough about the cost figures to compare the two options at this point. But one thing I know is, something has to be done with the Dome either way ... and if it's to be preserved and used, it's going to be expensive. If that line of thinking is correct, the "new stadium" proponents are actually suggesting that we do both ... renovate the Dome to keep it relevant AND build a new public facility through NYS that caters to regional interests.

 

[shandeezy7]

I'm still wondering if the Drumlins option (new stadium) is open, or is that a parking option. Is Drumlins University-owned? (It's close to South Campus and I-81, correct?).

Drumlins would have zero chance of happening. Too many wealthy homes within earshot (and sight) of that location.

 

[TexanMark]

I don't have time to argue on this, but simply put, I respectfully disagree. Attempting to do a renovation of the scope being discussed while the facility is in use most of the year will dramatically complicate matters compared to the BC Place renovation. Perhaps some in construction can comment.

The bottom line is that unique major renovations are harder to do than builds from scratch. It is far easier to build a domed stadium when there is nothing already there blocking access. What is proposed is extremely ambitious, unprecedented and extremely risky. It is not likely to go well. IMHO.

I tend to agree...but I wanna hear from the engineers/construction guys first. Rather keep it on campus...but Drumlins Area, Downtown and Destiny all have pluses.

Reed, Drumlins is owned by SU. A 36 hole golf course...most ideas suggest taking Drumlins West (18 holes) and use that land.

 

[GoSU96]

The new stadium proponents don't have an answer for your question, as far as I can tell. Community interests are important; they support the programs. But one thing lost in this discussion is that the community historically supported SU at Dome events in large numbers. They still do for BB. And I think they will again for FB when we re-do the Dome and put a good product on the field.

Choosing the destination because of a highway (I-81's next to campus) or a parking lot (South campus capacity could be increased) is the tail wagging the dog. The Dome's allure, and it's value to SU, is as an on-campus facility. Accessibility is not a trivial issue, but at the end of the day, they came before and they'll come again. We just have to make the Dome a destination worth visiting. And I think we can do that for half the price of an off campus field house owned by some regional authority ... without having to deal with all the public financing and assess issues that go along with it.

The school can do whatever they want, if they want to free up that area for academic use. If it's not necessary then replace the roof. But since football is a going to be a sell out regardless with the new offense, slap on a new roof using ETFE and call it a day. There's no need to do anything else.

 

[GoSU96]

Relocating does not expand its use. However, if you invest twice as much, you do need to generate a heck of a lot more income on a new site to breakeven. Whether on the hill or near he mall, they can book the same events.

Your kidding, right.

 

[xc84]

I don't have time to argue on this, but simply put, I respectfully disagree. Attempting to do a renovation of the scope being discussed while the facility is in use most of the year will dramatically complicate matters compared to the BC Place renovation. Perhaps some in construction can comment.

The bottom line is that unique major renovations are harder to do than builds from scratch. It is far easier to build a domed stadium when there is nothing already there blocking access. What is proposed is extremely ambitious, unprecedented and extremely risky. It is not likely to go well. IMHO.

We had a governor offer $200M to help build a stadium. The mayor flat-out rejected it. She didn't say "Good idea but bad location...let's negotiate". She said "no". That's just the tip of the iceberg of uncertainty & complexity for an off-campus facility which will require municipal and private funding as the university would just be a regular tenant. If history is a guide, the university will control its own destiny (no pun intended) and renovate on the current site. A similar situation & decision resulted in arguably the most significant and successful structure built in Syracuse over the last 50-100 years.

 

[xc84]

Your kidding, right.

Are you kidding with that question?

 

[GoSU96]

I guess it's subjective - a large portion of the fanbase thinks that this location is the best one possible, far from awful.

And those opinions really don't matter. SU's board has a fiduciary responsibility to the institution (and community) to do what's in its best interest. That's what it'll do.

If it's 100% their own money, abso--loutly.

But that location is awful for a $250M investment in an entertainment facility that is HEAVILY dependent on outside attendance.

 

[xc84]

The school can do whatever they want, if they want to free up that area for academic use. If it's not necessary then replace the roof. But since football is a going to be a sell out regardless with the new offense, slap on a new roof using ETFE and call it a day. There's no need to do anything else.

They can't just slap a non-air supported fabric up there with no structure that can support it. In addition, the overall goal is a better experience and updates. It's not just to fill the dome. Geez...even Michigan does upgrades and they don't have a problem filling their seats.