Future Campus Framework Discussion

[AAM62]

Still determining which roof - or determining what roof they can afford?

Both points have to be related - what they can afford is a big factor in the decision

 

[SU68]

Still determining which roof - or determining what roof they can afford?

Which roof they can afford. If money wasn't a factor, we'd be getting a retractable roof.

 

[Cusefan78]

Which roof they can afford. If money wasn't a factor, we'd be getting a retractable roof.

Yup this is going to be destiny 2.0. Leak some cool drawings and end of with the bare minimum.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Still determining which roof - or determining what roof they can afford?

Wish we never saw the leaked renderings. So depressed.

 

[orangecuse]

Wish we never saw the leaked renderings. So depressed.

What do the Academy Awards and the SU brass have in common? They both momentarily made us believe it was la la land.

 

[Cusefan78]

What do the Academy Awards and the SU brass have in common? They both momentarily made us believe it was la la land.

In the end we will get another bubble, some led lights and some paint on the walls. Typical su fashion of not giving your teams the tools to succeed.

 

[xc84]

In the end we will get another bubble, some led lights and some paint on the walls. Typical su fashion of not giving your teams the tools to succeed.

What's typical is the negativity displayed here when there is simply not enough information do make an informed judgement. The roof is very complex. They want to do it without disrupting schedules. The type of re-roofing has never been done before at this scale and adding the goal of not disrupting schedules makes it more complex.

 

[Cusefan78]

What's typical is the negativity displayed here when there is simply not enough information do make an informed judgement. The roof is very complex. They want to do it without disrupting schedules. The type of re-roofing has never been done before at this scale and adding the goal of not disrupting schedules makes in more complex.

I'm not normally negative it's just watching Syracuse do these projects to a bare minimum standard for years and years wears on you and you can see this going the same way. Honestly if they expand the locker rooms and bring them up to date then I can careless what they do. In the end to get better recruits you need to give these coaches all the tools necessary to sell the players on coming here.

 

[xc84]

I'm not normally negative it's just watching Syracuse do these projects to a bare minimum standard for years and years wears on you and you can see this going the same way. Honestly if they expand the locker rooms and bring them up to date then I can careless what they do. In the end to get better recruits you need to give these coaches all the tools necessary to sell the players on coming here.

Which projects did they do at a "bare minimum"? Certainly the IPF was well done and once ground was broken, done quickly too.

 

[Noexcuse]

I drive past that big open space in the Inner Harbor adjacent to Destiny every day. Seems like enough space to build a new stadium and have plenty of parking. Tie it in to the 81/690 revisions and call it a day. (Use the money that's saved by not building the tunnel).

 

[Cusefan78]

Which projects did they do at a "bare minimum"? Certainly the IPF was well done and once ground was broken, done quickly too.

Manley is the first thing to come to mind. Also the Ipf is nice but look at what others are building and it's not on the same page.

 

[NJCuse97]

I'm not normally negative it's just watching Syracuse do these projects to a bare minimum standard for years and years wears on you and you can see this going the same way. Honestly if they expand the locker rooms and bring them up to date then I can careless what they do. In the end to get better recruits you need to give these coaches all the tools necessary to sell the players on coming here.

I thought you said the design was done and the steel in fabrication? Why are you down now? SU is no different than almost every institution. The IPF was done on the cheap, less than anyone wanted to acknowledge. That said, Princeton with all their endowment money is looking at a Rutgers/BC style bubble and Yale is being very "efficient" with research labs, but spends thousands per sf on housing. Why? A major reason is donors. Princeton got a $100,000,000 gift and built one of the more extravagant lab buildings I've seen on a college campus because that's what the donor wanted it spent on. That is VERY typical. Everyone keep that in mind before complaining when SU spends more on a new research center or student center. IPF's donor came on after the construction was well underway. That's one reason it was done inexpensively, unlike the Melissa center for example.
*Melo Center. Didn't even notice that autocorrect

 

[Cusefan78]

I thought you said the design was done and the steel in fabrication? Why are you down now? SU is no different than almost every institution. The IPF was done on the cheap, less than anyone wanted to acknowledge. That said, Princeton with all their endowment money is looking at a Rutgers/BC style bubble and Yale is being very "efficient" with research labs, but spends thousands per sf on housing. Why? A major reason is donors. Princeton got a $100,000,000 gift and built one of the more extravagant lab buildings I've seen on a college campus because that's what the donor wanted it spent on. That is VERY typical. Everyone keep that in mind before complaining when SU spends more on a new research center or student center. IPF's donor came on after the construction was well underway. That's one reason it was done inexpensively, unlike the Melissa center for example.

Are you comparing Princeton and Yale athletics to su. Not on the same page. Also my comments was from two years before that drawing was released and it was pretty much what that drawing was so my source was pretty close

 

[xc84]

Manley is the first thing to come to mind. Also the Ipf is nice but look at what others are building and it's not on the same page.

I agree. The IPF is nice. From a cost standpoint, it was middle of the road.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Are you comparing Princeton and Yale athletics to su. Not on the same page. Also my comments was from two years before that drawing was released and it was pretty much what that drawing was so my source was pretty close

I think the major point he was making was that donors often are the decision makers on what and where they want their money spent. Trust me NJCuse97 knows of what he speaks.

 

[Jeepers]

Kind of random, but isn't it weird the Carrier logo is so prominent on the court? Is Carrier paying them for that? Because that should (?) have nothing to do with the original naming rights.

 

[FrancoPizza]

What's typical is the negativity displayed here when there is simply not enough information do make an informed judgement. The roof is very complex. They want to do it without disrupting schedules. The type of re-roofing has never been done before at this scale and adding the goal of not disrupting schedules makes it more complex.

Here's a crazy thought - put the roof options up to a referendum. Maybe STHs would be ok losing a season if it means getting more bells and whistles in the longer term. Heck I'd be ok losing 2 seasons if we can make the dome the premier place that every 5 star wants to play in.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Kind of random, but isn't it weird the Carrier logo is so prominent on the court? Is Carrier paying them for that? Because that should (?) have nothing to do with the original naming rights.

Good question. Funny I was thinking the same thing wondering why we had 2 prominent Carrier Logos on the bench side of the court, hoping they paid extra for it. I forgot about it because my mind is a sieve.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Good question. Funny I was thinking the same thing wondering why we had 2 prominent Carrier Logos on the bench side of the court, hoping they paid extra for it. I forgot about it because my mind is a sieve.

My understanding is that Carrier pays for their logo to be displayed.

 

[CuseOnly]

What's typical is the negativity displayed here when there is simply not enough information do make an informed judgement. The roof is very complex. They want to do it without disrupting schedules. The type of re-roofing has never been done before at this scale and adding the goal of not disrupting schedules makes it more complex.

It has been done before, BC arena in Canada.

The not losing games does make it more complex but not converting to a retractable roof makes it less complex than what we are doing.

 

[NJCuse97]

It has been done before, BC arena in Canada.

The not losing games does make it more complex but not converting to a retractable roof makes it less complex than what we are doing.

The shape is different, the real estate is different, and they lost a season, so not quite the same, but your point is a good one.

 

[orangecuse]

Which projects did they do at a "bare minimum"? Certainly the IPF was well done and once ground was broken, done quickly too.

Those pathetic little league granite bases/script on those beautiful bronze statues is certainly a minimum.

 

[NJCuse97]

I think the major point he was making was that donors often are the decision makers on what and where they want their money spent. Trust me NJCuse97 knows of what he speaks.

Thank you CL, you are as usual very correct. The point I was trying to make was not that our AD is on par with Ivy League schools, but rather that donations are everything to almost any new building on any college campus and the donors decide where and how their money is spent. For the record Princeton's football stadium is newer than ours, and holds about 28,000 and given the rest of their facilities, I'd say their AD is pretty well outfitted, but every single piece has a name on it. Very little is built from their substantial endowment. When the school is forced to pay for needs without donors, the funding is not the same and the result is "bare minimum standard".

 

[NJCuse97]

Are you comparing Princeton and Yale athletics to su. Not on the same page. Also my comments was from two years before that drawing was released and it was pretty much what that drawing was so my source was pretty close

A post from you in response to someone questioning your facts as speculation about 18 months ago:
So I was just wondering... are you sticking by your proclamation and timeline for announcement? Lots of different opinions voiced but your "information" sounded the most definitive and caused the thread to go viral, so to speak. Not trying to put you on the spot, but I also don't want to get too excited and have that balloon pop if the only real "news" is that SU is still in the conceptual phase mulling their options.

I have no problem replying to this. I have a friend that has seen the plans for a renovation to the dome. Now to be fair my friend isn't very smart. I was told the roof was retractable obviously he was wrong. I was also told the it was either going into the law building or tearing it down obviously the law building was actually archibald. so do I have a few points wrong, yes but hey the wrong info I was fed entertained everyone.

So first, let me apologize to you. I reread my post and I see how I may have come off wrong, as a jerk. I didn't mean to sound like a jerk, but you are very up and down and flitter back and forth between knowing things as fact and getting angry because people don't immediately believe you (some of them with information too) and then this latest one where you've gone to the opposite polarity and not only were your facts now guesses, but also you can't see how the University will do anything good, which you see as the norm. Something will get done. It has to. It may not be a new stadium, or a renovation of a scale to make the place feel new, but it will be a substantial change (again, it has to be) and will bring good attention to the University's AD. Donors are the key in determining what it will ultimately be. That said, they genuinely are still in the very early stages. The simple irony is that while "we want the world and we want it now", the less we do, the faster it is likely to happen. The University needs to strike a balance, and I believe many will be disappointed because we've all built such grand images in our heads of professional multi-billion dollar facilities in Dallas and Minnesota. I only hope the majority of people will be pleased and see it as a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Toga]

A post from you in response to someone questioning your facts as speculation about 18 months ago:
So I was just wondering... are you sticking by your proclamation and timeline for announcement? Lots of different opinions voiced but your "information" sounded the most definitive and caused the thread to go viral, so to speak. Not trying to put you on the spot, but I also don't want to get too excited and have that balloon pop if the only real "news" is that SU is still in the conceptual phase mulling their options.

I have no problem replying to this. I have a friend that has seen the plans for a renovation to the dome. Now to be fair my friend isn't very smart. I was told the roof was retractable obviously he was wrong. I was also told the it was either going into the law building or tearing it down obviously the law building was actually archibald. so do I have a few points wrong, yes but hey the wrong info I was fed entertained everyone.

So first, let me apologize to you. I reread my post and I see how I may have come off wrong, as a jerk. I didn't mean to sound like a jerk, but you are very up and down and flitter back and forth between knowing things as fact and getting angry because people don't immediately believe you (some of them with information too) and then this latest one where you've gone to the opposite polarity and not only were your facts now guesses, but also you can't see how the University will do anything good, which you see as the norm. Something will get done. It has to. It may not be a new stadium, or a renovation of a scale to make the place feel new, but it will be a substantial change (again, it has to be) and will bring good attention to the University's AD. Donors are the key in determining what it will ultimately be. That said, they genuinely are still in the very early stages. The simple irony is that while "we want the world and we want it now", the less we do, the faster it is likely to happen. The University needs to strike a balance, and I believe many will be disappointed because we've all built such grand images in our heads of professional multi-billion dollar facilities in Dallas and Minnesota. I only hope the majority of people will be pleased and see it as a huge step in the right direction.

Hopefully so. One thing heading in the right direction is revenues from the ACC. One thing that is not heading in the right direction is interest rates.