Dome Renovation

[rocklloyd]

It wouldn't surprise me if he was thinking of another project. That said, it's likely that cranes for a Dome renovation will require excavation. With the hillside location and small footprint, they're probably going to use tower cranes.

Tower cranes at 4 corners for the necessary reach is what I'm hearing

 

[rrlbees]

From the very little that I know if steel has been purchased it is not for the Dome but probably rather for another project that has been approved. I think more will become clear with the 3/2 announcement.

Very true. People are confusing buildings. The approved, and soon to be announced, project needs steel and will begin soon with the steel being placed starting at the end of the school year. Two year project that is part of phase I.

 

[KellySyracuse]

It wouldn't surprise me if he was thinking of another project. That said, it's likely that cranes for a Dome renovation will require excavation. With the hillside location and small footprint, they're probably going to use tower cranes.

he was talking about the dome although the info he got may have been in reference to other projects. I know he was in contact with Pete Sala to renew the company season seats and add Club 44 season tickets for basketball and football. He said that he wasn't sure how a crane could swing steel above the fabric roof without tearing it but the plan is to build a shell around the existing structure so they don't have to have games played anywhere else. With all the rumors floating around it will certainly be interesting when the real plan comes out in March.

 

[rrlbees]

he was talking about the dome although the info he got may have been in reference to other projects. I know he was in contact with Pete Sala to renew the company season seats and add Club 44 season tickets for basketball and football. He said that he wasn't sure how a crane could swing steel above the fabric roof without tearing it but the plan is to build a shell around the existing structure so they don't have to have games played anywhere else. With all the rumors floating around it will certainly be interesting when the real plan comes out in March.

The project that has been approved and will be using steel will also need some good sized cranes as an additional floor is built on top of an existing structure. My guy feeling is that some things are getting confused. But that's not to say what you're saying about the Dome is incorrect. Just the timing might be.

 

[xc84]

It will not be done in the summer only...Season's do overlap.

March to September is not the "summer only".

 

[orangecuse]

Naming rights should be worth at a minimum $5 million per year. Over 20 years, naming rights obviously pays for $100 million of a new stadium. Obviously the more they get for naming rights, more of the stadium gets funded by private investment. I cannot see $10 million a year but who knows. It would definitely be worth a whole lot more if SU football gets back to its winning ways.

For a national company name recognition is important for marketing purposes on both local & national television audiences - aka - "welcome to the carrier dome". ESPN and other stations actually do this well at the start, during and after broadcasts for many stadiums across the country.

Carrier got a steal on this one and by rights they could sue SU big time for lost advertising value and they can easily use in court what other stadiums get currently for this. Easy legal battle for Carrier to walk away with tens of millions of dollars.

In the long run, it makes sense for SU to build new especially if they can get part of that $250 million (over 10 years) back from Gov Cuomo - and as far as I know SU is in negotiations with the Gov's office on this. As a side note, the steel is for the new VA center being paid for by the state.

If SU proceeds with this huge overhaul, placing a shell around the existing building, new footprint, roof, etc., does that constitute enough for being deemed a new building? It's not just a cosmetic redo. An argument could clearly exist that it's not the same building. A possible legal ruling that the spirit and intent of said agreement is void/no longer enforceable due to its vast scope, transformation, etc., making it no longer recognizable as the original. I'm not aware of a precise/similar precedent, though it appears individually & separately, somewhat more complicated than simply a given/anticipated judgement on Carrier's behalf if they play hardball. Placing an advertising value (lost) is difficult from a tangible sense. I don't think a court would so easily rule against or hammer a non-profit university/institution for lost advertising dollars, especially when that corp. isn't paying an annual amount for such advertising, marketing, etc. as others are today. A probable better solution for both party's would be coming together to reach a new agreement/reasonable compromise vs. spending $$$ on litigation and all that that entails.

 

[Toga]

I'm sure this has already been touched on - but if the original agreement specifies the name Carrier Dome and it no longer is a dome ...

 

[Mr Peabody]

Yah, I don't understand the numbers at all. Carrier got huge value for a very limited investment. And if they were able to slip "perpetual" in the document, then I have to question whether it was worth it. We got $15M from the state, and probably could have increased that a little and/or made up the rest from private donations ... and told Carrier either "no thanks" or "rights are good for 10 years" for that money. Maybe now the company (if its truly committed to the area) will step up in a larger way.

What I heard years ago was the state offered roughly half of the $29M if SU could come up with the other half via private donors and Carrier got the ball rolling with their donation. It was great publicity at the time for both parties.

 

[DomeStranger]

I'm sure this has already been touched on - but if the original agreement specifies the name Carrier Dome and it no longer is a dome ...

It seems like it would most likely still be a dome though. Just not with an air supported roof. None of the other stadiums that traded their bubble for a hard shell changed their names from dome to stadium. Unless they built a flat top roof (which would probably not be possible) it'll still be a dome.

 

[retro44]

March to September is not the "summer only".

"The documents mentioned a shutdown period of about eight months would be needed to install the roof following the Olympics; it actually took double that time, from the May 2010 deflation of the original Teflon-coated fibreglass covering until the reopening of the stadium under a German-engineered retractable setup for the Lions' game against the Edmonton Eskimos on the last Friday of September 2011."

" Today, BC Place’s roof is, at over four hectares, the largest cable-supported, fully retractable, fabric roof in the world. The design allows the roof to retract into the center node of the roof opening, hidden above a suspended, four-sided electronic video board."

It cost anywhere from $514 -563 million for a still fabric roof along with the other bells&whistles..

I have worked on bigger jobs than this and the footprint around the Dome will not allow for March to September to be completed. Common sense here.

Someone made mention that they could play most the football games on the road in the beginning and the real consultants laughed that one off as an option.

 

[RoysRunts]

"The documents mentioned a shutdown period of about eight months would be needed to install the roof following the Olympics; it actually took double that time, from the May 2010 deflation of the original Teflon-coated fibreglass covering until the reopening of the stadium under a German-engineered retractable setup for the Lions' game against the Edmonton Eskimos on the last Friday of September 2011."

" Today, BC Place’s roof is, at over four hectares, the largest cable-supported, fully retractable, fabric roof in the world. The design allows the roof to retract into the center node of the roof opening, hidden above a suspended, four-sided electronic video board."

It cost anywhere from $514 -563 million for a still fabric roof along with the other bells&whistles..

I have worked on bigger jobs than this and the footprint around the Dome will not allow for March to September to be completed. Common sense here.

Someone made mention that they could play most the football games on the road in the beginning and the real consultants laughed that one off as an option.

4 Hectares = 9.88421524 Acres

 

[NJCuse97]

he was talking about the dome although the info he got may have been in reference to other projects. I know he was in contact with Pete Sala to renew the company season seats and add Club 44 season tickets for basketball and football.

Pete Sala is now the director of campus planning. He is involved in any and all project work that SU does.

 

[SU68]

Naming rights should be worth at a minimum $5 million per year. Over 20 years, naming rights obviously pays for $100 million of a new stadium. Obviously the more they get for naming rights, more of the stadium gets funded by private investment. I cannot see $10 million a year but who knows. It would definitely be worth a whole lot more if SU football gets back to its winning ways.

For a national company name recognition is important for marketing purposes on both local & national television audiences - aka - "welcome to the carrier dome". ESPN and other stations actually do this well at the start, during and after broadcasts for many stadiums across the country.

Carrier got a steal on this one and by rights they could sue SU big time for lost advertising value and they can easily use in court what other stadiums get currently for this. Easy legal battle for Carrier to walk away with tens of millions of dollars.

In the long run, it makes sense for SU to build new especially if they can get part of that $250 million (over 10 years) back from Gov Cuomo - and as far as I know SU is in negotiations with the Gov's office on this. As a side note, the steel is for the new VA center being paid for by the state.

I suspect you're correct about the governor's office but it won't happen until Syracuse elects a new mayor. Stephanie Miner killed the last attempt.

 

[NJCuse97]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Blue_Crane_collapse
http://failures.wikispaces.com/Big+Blue+Crane+Collapse
My brother worked for the CM/GC of this project (Clark) at the time. It is my recollection/understanding that despite the "settlement" the pick was cleared with OSHA and in fact was being witnessed by them and filmed because it was one of the largest picks of its kind at the time. Having lived in Lawrinson, I can assure you that 20-25 mph winds are commonplace there. Needless to say, there is no way they will be cavalier with this, and it is VERY unlikely they will do it with the building in use during a season... any season.

 

[reedny]

Whether you care or have sympathy for Carrier is irrelevant to the legal part of this. They paid for something. They own it now. If SU wants it back, they need to pay Carrier what it is worth. If I sell an investment to someone and it then goes up in price, I can't say, "You owe me some of your gains."

For sure I have zero sympathy for Carrier. But this isn't about emotions. You've posted 10x that they "own" it, but you don't know that without seeing the gift deal. From a "legal" standpoint, that's a threshold you're totally guessing on.

Even if you're guess is right and Carrier paid for "perpetual" rights, my question is to what? If the reno winds up like BC Place, the "Dome" is going away. So on your theory, Carrier paid (almost nothing) to put their name on a Dome'd building that isn't going to be there anymore. If the renovation is not (as BC Place was) a gut, then it would be a fact question whether Carrier's rights run to the new building or not. From my seat, if the place is gutted and the walls, seats, turf and roof are all eliminated and replaced, it's not the same building and Carrier's claims go away. Almost certainly they didn't buy perpetual rights to the dirt? At any rate, there are many questions here (and facts) you're glossing over. Good thing you're not repping the University.

 

[xc84]

For sure I have zero sympathy for Carrier. But this isn't about emotions. You've posted 10x that they "own" it, but you don't know that without seeing the gift deal. From a "legal" standpoint, that's a threshold you're totally guessing on.

Even if you're guess is right and Carrier paid for "perpetual" rights, my question is to what? If the reno winds up like BC Place, the "Dome" is going away. So on your theory, Carrier paid (almost nothing) to put their name on a Dome'd building that isn't going to be there anymore. If the renovation is not (as BC Place was) a gut, then it would be a fact question whether Carrier's rights run to the new building or not. From my seat, if the place is gutted and the walls, seats, turf and roof are all eliminated and replaced, it's not the same building and Carrier's claims go away. Almost certainly they didn't buy perpetual rights to the dirt? At any rate, there are many questions here (and facts) you're glossing over. Good thing you're not repping the University.

I have no sympathy for Carrier either...but it is irrelevant. I know that SU has said on multiple occasions that they have looked into it and there is nothing they can do. That's not a guess on my part. I have already said there is likely a threshold of renovations where the building becomes a different building. I don't know what that threshold is. If you read my posts, you will see I didn't gloss over that. Carrier didn't pay "close to nothing". At the time, everyone thought it was a great deal because "naming rights", especially on college-owned facilities, was not in vogue. Carrier was lauded for the generous donation. Many of the counter "arguments" have indeed been emotional. "Carrier has made enough money" ...as if there is something illegal about making what turned out to be a good business deal.

 

[reedny]

I have no sympathy for Carrier either...but it is irrelevant. I know that SU has said on multiple occasions that they have looked into it and there is nothing they can do. That's not a guess on my part. I have already said there is likely a threshold of renovations where the building becomes a different building. I don't know what that threshold is. If you read my posts, you will see I didn't gloss over that. Carrier didn't pay "close to nothing". At the time, everyone thought it was a great deal because "naming rights", especially on college-owned facilities, was not in vogue. Carrier was lauded for the generous donation. Many of the counter "arguments" have indeed been emotional. "Carrier has made enough money" ...as if there is something illegal about making what turned out to be a good business deal.

Well we agree on this (red). As to the rest, not so much. If the building's gutted, there's obviously an argument that any gift contract is void.

If the reno is a face-lift instead of a re-build, then the validity of the contract (which we haven't seen) will become an issue. Once that happens, scope, reasonableness, equity, public policy and other issues will be argued. Since this contract involved a novel concept at the time (rights to a college sports facility), many consequences (including the financial ones) were not foreseeable. Carrier will likely advance your theory (a deal's a deal), but SU has a compelling argument that the contract's terms are impeding repair of the building and are unenforceable. I would also expect the U to point out that the donor has recovered its investment many times over and that its revenues are far beyond any reasonable expectations at the time of the gift. The decision would then weigh each position. SU might lose. But neither would it surprise me if the Court reformed or voided the deal. One thing is for sure: the litigation would not be as simple as looking up "perpetual" in websters. Hopefully it won't come to that and the stakeholders can find a middle ground (if Carrier's willing to re-up). If not, gut it and move on.

 

[upperdeck]

how creative could they get with not having a cover over the dome for an extended period of time? i would think you could figure out a way to handle drainage issues for the field since it has no drains but the rest of the dome is concrete and water would tend to flow down and simple to stop it from going down the ramps i would think. even moving basketball could be done. 20K crowds in buffalo perhaps like they do at the regionals.. if you moved the bball pre acc schedule on the road it would suck but also buy you 2 months, you could play Lax as well off site, play a couple in the IPF with no crowds if they have to and you could start late Feb if they had the right weather. can you do enough from april-Sept to not mess with fball and then play with it open and finish the next year?

 

[upperdeck]

is the big issue time or budget? can they do things with more crews and thus do it faster? i know some of our projects have gotten creative with work times to have less effect on people?

 

[Cuse'91]

is the big issue time or budget? can they do things with more crews and thus do it faster? i know some of our projects have gotten creative with work times to have less effect on people?

John Arrillaga donated $100M AND his own construction company to work 3 shifts around the clock to build Stanford's stadium from last football game to first football game. All it takes is money...

 

[Whitey23]

John Arrillaga donated $100M AND his own construction company to work 3 shifts around the clock to build Stanford's stadium from last football game to first football game. All it takes is money...

That's nuts

 

[KellySyracuse]

the Empire State building was built in 1 year and 45 days

 

[retro44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Blue_Crane_collapse
http://failures.wikispaces.com/Big+Blue+Crane+Collapse
My brother worked for the CM/GC of this project (Clark) at the time. It is my recollection/understanding that despite the "settlement" the pick was cleared with OSHA and in fact was being witnessed by them and filmed because it was one of the largest picks of its kind at the time. Having lived in Lawrinson, I can assure you that 20-25 mph winds are commonplace there. Needless to say, there is no way they will be cavalier with this, and it is VERY unlikely they will do it with the building in use during a season... any season.

If you watch this film you will see the death of two workers in a crane man basket in the background.

 

[reedny]

how creative could they get with not having a cover over the dome for an extended period of time? i would think you could figure out a way to handle drainage issues for the field since it has no drains but the rest of the dome is concrete and water would tend to flow down and simple to stop it from going down the ramps i would think. even moving basketball could be done. 20K crowds in buffalo perhaps like they do at the regionals.. if you moved the bball pre acc schedule on the road it would suck but also buy you 2 months, you could play Lax as well off site, play a couple in the IPF with no crowds if they have to and you could start late Feb if they had the right weather. can you do enough from april-Sept to not mess with fball and then play with it open and finish the next year?

Tomcat makes some good points about this issue up-thread ... the disruption and time it could take to re-do the building, at the scale that's being discussed, will be substantial.

No doubt the design team will try to phase this to minimize disruption. BC Place took 4 years -- we don't have that long. Hopefully, the retracting roof they built for $200M accounts for half the construction time as well has half the cost.

 

[NJCuse97]

Tomcat makes some good points about this issue up-thread ... the disruption and time it could take to re-do the building, at the scale that's being discussed, will be substantial.

No doubt the design team will try to phase this to minimize disruption. BC Place took 4 years -- we don't have that long. Hopefully, the retracting roof they built for $200M accounts for half the construction time as well has half the cost.

On May 16, 2008, it was announced that over $150 million in major renovations would be carried out on BC Place Stadium. These included seating replacements, washroom and concessions renovations, and replacement of the ETFE roof with a new retractable roof.[25] The work was done in two phases. The first phase involved upgrades to seating, washrooms, concessions, and luxury suites, as well as the reinforcement of the existing ring beam at the top of the building[26] and was completed in October 2009, in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

An announced budget of $150 million. An ETFE roof. New seats and concessions. Sound familiar?

Lets not forget this original design is essentially a scaled up version of the Carrier Dome. The same contractor/developer. That firm was used as the structural engineer for the renovation, so they were plenty familiar with the building design. Announced in May 2008, it took a little under a year and a half to do the design and construction of the non-roof related renovations. An additional year to do the roof. (2009-2011) A cost overrun of almost 4x the budget. The second phase (the roof) took out the 2010 season for soccer and football. Expect pain and inconvenience and expect a season away from home.