Invoices are posted

[HRE Otto IV]

Simply put, the money just wasn’t there.

Plus the daunting task of relocating a lot of season ticket holders

Ultimately they will switch to this I am sure

That is the genius of this season's price hikes. Relocation will be achieved ahead of the seat install.

 

[Chip]

What routes? I thought routes weren’t in the playbook.

The ones the QB draws on his hand in the non-huddle.

 

[donniesyracuse]

I still think it was a miss by the school on the Dome renovation when it comes to seating. They should have converted the bleachers to actual seats. It would have reduced capacity, but it would have made fans more comfortable, leading to a better overall experience and potentially increasing demand. Reduce capacity (lower supply), increase demand (better experience for the fan), justifies a higher price.

At a minimum they should have done it on the lower level.

View attachment 213484

Bleachers don't bother me. What I really want is legroom and not having to stand-up every time someone in my row goes to the bathroom. Of course, fixing that would probably require rebuilding the entire bowl, which is unlikely.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Bleachers don't bother me. What I really want is legroom and not having to stand-up every time someone in my row goes to the bathroom. Of course, fixing that would probably require rebuilding the entire bowl, which is unlikely.

We really need a new stadium. But that would cost $500M to build as one stadium (like Lille's) or two separate for FB (like Baylor's) and BBall (like Louisville's).

 

[sutomcat]

Simply put, the money just wasn’t there.

Plus the daunting task of relocating a lot of season ticket holders

Ultimately they will switch to this I am sure

The money for individual seating was there. SUAD has wanted replace the bleachers with individual seats for years. If they were allowed to just do that, they would done so a long time ago.

The issue is with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The dome was built before ADA went into effect and it therefore does not have to meet all the requirements ADA imposes on sports facilities.

When SUAD touched based with the feds about plans to replace the seating at the dome, they were told this would trigger a requirement for the dome to be fully ADA compliant.

SU has gotten estimates that updating the dome to be fully ADA compliant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They have made and continue to make major improvements to make it easier for handicapped fans to attend games but changes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are a big issue.

The feds are the ones who are preventing SU from making the seating more comfortable. I think at some point, SU and the federal government will get together and hopefully reach a more reasonable compromise on what can be done to make sure the dome is a great place for handicapped fans to go to games, and also is a place where everyone can sit in comfort and have a great time.

I am thinking SU decided to focus on other aspects of the renovation first, and will return to seating down the road. They are aware fans point to the uncomfortable benches as a big negative with the fan experience.

As you point out, there are other issues with moving to individual seats. Just about every season ticket holder will have their seat moved and just about all of them will be unhappy with their new seat location. It is going to be a major undertaking and they have probably taken on as much as they can handle right now.

I have the padded seats you can 'rent' for basketball, and find them a lot more comfortable than a bare bench. The ones they are using this year are new (I think) and locked in place better and more comfortable. The best thing about them is that it is clear where your seat is. For some games, before I had the padded seats, I kept finding people next to me sitting on most of my seat when I sat down (after cheering a good play) and it was common to be really uncomfortable. That largely goes away with the padded seats and they make almost no impact on leg room while trying to get to of get from your seat.

I am thinking it might not be a bad idea on the 3rd level to forgo the idea of traditional hard plastic individual seats and just do the whole level with the padded, locked in seats. It will look better (they are orange), fans will be more comfortable, there will be no little or no downside with the loss of legroom and we know the padded seats are ADA compliant.

And no headaches assigning new seats to everyone. Yay!

On the first and second levels, there is a lot more space for legs and adding individual seats might make more sense. Though a lot of the people affected would end up on the 3rd level, causing a domino effect I would prefer not to see.

What do people who sit on the 1st and 2nd level think? Would you be okay with the nice new padded seats that they are using today? I am not sure but I think they are using them in those levels today already.

 

[JRHEETER]

The money for individual seating was there. SUAD has wanted replace the bleachers with individual seats for years. If they were allowed to just do that, they would done so a long time ago.

The issue is with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The dome was built before ADA went into effect and it therefore does not have to meet all the requirements ADA imposes on sports facilities.

When SUAD touched based with the feds about plans to replace the seating at the dome, they were told this would trigger a requirement for the dome to be fully ADA compliant.

SU has gotten estimates that updating the dome to be fully ADA compliant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They have made and continue to make major improvements to make it easier for handicapped fans to attend games but changes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are a big issue.

The feds are the ones who are preventing SU from making the seating more comfortable. I think at some point, SU and the federal government will get together and hopefully reach a more reasonable compromise on what can be done to make sure the dome is a great place for handicapped fans to go to games, and also is a place where everyone can sit in comfort and have a great time.

I am thinking SU decided to focus on other aspects of the renovation first, and will return to seating down the road. They are aware fans point to the uncomfortable benches as a big negative with the fan experience.

As you point out, there are other issues with moving to individual seats. Just about every season ticket holder will have their seat moved and just about all of them will be unhappy with their new seat location. It is going to be a major undertaking and they have probably taken on as much as they can handle right now.

I have the padded seats you can 'rent' for basketball, and find them a lot more comfortable than a bare bench. The ones they are using this year are new (I think) and locked in place better and more comfortable. The best thing about them is that it is clear where your seat is. For some games, before I had the padded seats, I kept finding people next to me sitting on most of my seat when I sat down (after cheering a good play) and it was common to be really uncomfortable. That largely goes away with the padded seats and they make almost no impact on leg room while trying to get to of get from your seat.

I am thinking it might not be a bad idea on the 3rd level to forgo the idea of traditional hard plastic individual seats and just do the whole level with the padded, locked in seats. It will look better (they are orange), fans will be more comfortable, there will be no little or no downside with the loss of legroom and we know the padded seats are ADA compliant.

And no headaches assigning new seats to everyone. Yay!

On the first and second levels, there is a lot more space for legs and adding individual seats might make more sense. Though a lot of the people affected would end up on the 3rd level, causing a domino effect I would prefer not to see.

What do people who sit on the 1st and 2nd level think? Would you be okay with the nice new padded seats that they are using today? I am not sure but I think they are using them in those levels today already.

You know, with the price increases they did…..they should put the padded seats on every single seat in the lower bowl. I personally “rent” them every season and do it for the sole purpose that I never have to worry about someone sitting in my seat. That was a major problem for my seats during the 2019 season.

I’m willing to bet that would calm every single season ticket holder down that is down there.

Also, now that you mention the ADA thing I remember them coming out and saying they weren’t doing it yet because of that. Not sure why I thought it was about money, but who knows.

 

[sendithome]

I’m wondering if/ hoping the donation portion of the ticket increase is earmarked for future renovation that would make the dome ADA compliant and replace benches with seats that contain cup holders in specific areas.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

The money for individual seating was there. SUAD has wanted replace the bleachers with individual seats for years. If they were allowed to just do that, they would done so a long time ago.

The issue is with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The dome was built before ADA went into effect and it therefore does not have to meet all the requirements ADA imposes on sports facilities.

When SUAD touched based with the feds about plans to replace the seating at the dome, they were told this would trigger a requirement for the dome to be fully ADA compliant.

SU has gotten estimates that updating the dome to be fully ADA compliant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They have made and continue to make major improvements to make it easier for handicapped fans to attend games but changes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are a big issue.

The feds are the ones who are preventing SU from making the seating more comfortable. I think at some point, SU and the federal government will get together and hopefully reach a more reasonable compromise on what can be done to make sure the dome is a great place for handicapped fans to go to games, and also is a place where everyone can sit in comfort and have a great time.

I am thinking SU decided to focus on other aspects of the renovation first, and will return to seating down the road. They are aware fans point to the uncomfortable benches as a big negative with the fan experience.

As you point out, there are other issues with moving to individual seats. Just about every season ticket holder will have their seat moved and just about all of them will be unhappy with their new seat location. It is going to be a major undertaking and they have probably taken on as much as they can handle right now.

I have the padded seats you can 'rent' for basketball, and find them a lot more comfortable than a bare bench. The ones they are using this year are new (I think) and locked in place better and more comfortable. The best thing about them is that it is clear where your seat is. For some games, before I had the padded seats, I kept finding people next to me sitting on most of my seat when I sat down (after cheering a good play) and it was common to be really uncomfortable. That largely goes away with the padded seats and they make almost no impact on leg room while trying to get to of get from your seat.

I am thinking it might not be a bad idea on the 3rd level to forgo the idea of traditional hard plastic individual seats and just do the whole level with the padded, locked in seats. It will look better (they are orange), fans will be more comfortable, there will be no little or no downside with the loss of legroom and we know the padded seats are ADA compliant.

And no headaches assigning new seats to everyone. Yay!

On the first and second levels, there is a lot more space for legs and adding individual seats might make more sense. Though a lot of the people affected would end up on the 3rd level, causing a domino effect I would prefer not to see.

What do people who sit on the 1st and 2nd level think? Would you be okay with the nice new padded seats that they are using today? I am not sure but I think they are using them in those levels today already.

Without knowing all of the details, I’m struggling to understand how it would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” to bring to ADA compliance. That’s practically the cost of a new stadium. Are the ADA compliance issue so horrendous at the Dome it’s a completely obsolete structure?

 

[sutomcat]

Without knowing all of the details, I’m struggling to understand how it would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” to bring to ADA compliance. That’s practically the cost of a new stadium. Are the ADA compliance issue so horrendous at the Dome it’s a completely obsolete structure?

I think the ADA requirements are well meaning and have a lot of empathy for disabled fans. Let me say that first. But I think some of the things they require are over the top and kind of unreasonable.

Example: as I understand it, ADA requires an entrance/exit within every 20 rows; something insane like that. Since the 3rd level of the dome has around 30 rows, this means entrances/exits need to be created at the top of the 3rd level. That means a whole new concourse needs to be built. A huge addition to the existing building needs to be added on. I believe I heard that the dome needs to add something like 12 elevators and 18 escalators to get into compliance. I think right now only 2 or 3 entrances are wheel chair accessible. That has to go way up. I believe the width of all concourses has to be extended, etc.

These kinds of requirements are, IMHO, not things that are truly needed. I am all for adding some elevators, some escalators, and making some more entrances wheelchair accessible. But I think you have to balance the requirements for a facility with what is truly needed and what could truly be used and strike a reasonable balance. If done right, a lot of the ADA requirements will not only help the disabled attend games, but will help everyone.

My biggest issue is the lack of reasonableness by the federal government deciding what constitutes a major renovation that triggers ADA and what does not. How can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA? It feels to me as though the government knows the university wants this and is trying to use it to get what they want. All that ends up happening is that everyone loses.

I give credit to SU for continuing to make ADA related improvements to the facility despite this major dispute. I hope at some point, their proactive actions will be taken into account and a compromise that benefits everyone can be reached.

 

[GoSU96]

I think the ADA requirements are well meaning and have a lot of empathy for disabled fans. Let me say that first. But I think some of the things they require are over the top and kind of unreasonable.

Example: as I understand it, ADA requires an entrance/exit within every 20 rows; something insane like that. Since the 3rd level of the dome has around 30 rows, this means entrances/exits need to be created at the top of the 3rd level. That means a whole new concourse needs to be built. A huge addition to the existing building needs to be added on. I believe I heard that the dome needs to add something like 12 elevators and 18 escalators to get into compliance. I think right now only 2 or 3 entrances are wheel chair accessible. That has to go way up. I believe the width of all concourses has to be extended, etc.

These kinds of requirements are, IMHO, not things that are truly needed. I am all for adding some elevators, some escalators, and making some more entrances wheelchair accessible. But I think you have to balance the requirements for a facility with what is truly needed and what could truly be used and strike a reasonable balance. If done right, a lot of the ADA requirements will not only help the disabled attend games, but will help everyone.

My biggest issue is the lack of reasonableness by the federal government deciding what constitutes a major renovation that triggers ADA and what does not. How can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA? It feels to me as though the government knows the university wants this and is trying to use it to get what they want. All that ends up happening is that everyone loses.

I give credit to SU for continuing to make ADA related improvements to the facility despite this major dispute. I hope at some point, their proactive actions will be taken into account and a compromise that benefits everyone can be reached.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[MSOrange]

I think the ADA requirements are well meaning and have a lot of empathy for disabled fans. Let me say that first. But I think some of the things they require are over the top and kind of unreasonable.

Example: as I understand it, ADA requires an entrance/exit within every 20 rows; something insane like that. Since the 3rd level of the dome has around 30 rows, this means entrances/exits need to be created at the top of the 3rd level. That means a whole new concourse needs to be built. A huge addition to the existing building needs to be added on. I believe I heard that the dome needs to add something like 12 elevators and 18 escalators to get into compliance. I think right now only 2 or 3 entrances are wheel chair accessible. That has to go way up. I believe the width of all concourses has to be extended, etc.

These kinds of requirements are, IMHO, not things that are truly needed. I am all for adding some elevators, some escalators, and making some more entrances wheelchair accessible. But I think you have to balance the requirements for a facility with what is truly needed and what could truly be used and strike a reasonable balance. If done right, a lot of the ADA requirements will not only help the disabled attend games, but will help everyone.

My biggest issue is the lack of reasonableness by the federal government deciding what constitutes a major renovation that triggers ADA and what does not. How can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA? It feels to me as though the government knows the university wants this and is trying to use it to get what they want. All that ends up happening is that everyone loses.

I give credit to SU for continuing to make ADA related improvements to the facility despite this major dispute. I hope at some point, their proactive actions will be taken into account and a compromise that benefits everyone can be reached.

As someone in a wheelchair, I agree completely with your thoughts. I was born in 1976 so I grew up and was trained to live in a non-ADA world. The law has made my life so much easier in many ways. But you are absolutely right that the requirements have impeded progress in many situations.

 

[donniesyracuse]

The money for individual seating was there. SUAD has wanted replace the bleachers with individual seats for years. If they were allowed to just do that, they would done so a long time ago.

The issue is with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The dome was built before ADA went into effect and it therefore does not have to meet all the requirements ADA imposes on sports facilities.

When SUAD touched based with the feds about plans to replace the seating at the dome, they were told this would trigger a requirement for the dome to be fully ADA compliant.

SU has gotten estimates that updating the dome to be fully ADA compliant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They have made and continue to make major improvements to make it easier for handicapped fans to attend games but changes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are a big issue.

The feds are the ones who are preventing SU from making the seating more comfortable. I think at some point, SU and the federal government will get together and hopefully reach a more reasonable compromise on what can be done to make sure the dome is a great place for handicapped fans to go to games, and also is a place where everyone can sit in comfort and have a great time.

I am thinking SU decided to focus on other aspects of the renovation first, and will return to seating down the road. They are aware fans point to the uncomfortable benches as a big negative with the fan experience.

As you point out, there are other issues with moving to individual seats. Just about every season ticket holder will have their seat moved and just about all of them will be unhappy with their new seat location. It is going to be a major undertaking and they have probably taken on as much as they can handle right now.

I have the padded seats you can 'rent' for basketball, and find them a lot more comfortable than a bare bench. The ones they are using this year are new (I think) and locked in place better and more comfortable. The best thing about them is that it is clear where your seat is. For some games, before I had the padded seats, I kept finding people next to me sitting on most of my seat when I sat down (after cheering a good play) and it was common to be really uncomfortable. That largely goes away with the padded seats and they make almost no impact on leg room while trying to get to of get from your seat.

I am thinking it might not be a bad idea on the 3rd level to forgo the idea of traditional hard plastic individual seats and just do the whole level with the padded, locked in seats. It will look better (they are orange), fans will be more comfortable, there will be no little or no downside with the loss of legroom and we know the padded seats are ADA compliant.

And no headaches assigning new seats to everyone. Yay!

On the first and second levels, there is a lot more space for legs and adding individual seats might make more sense. Though a lot of the people affected would end up on the 3rd level, causing a domino effect I would prefer not to see.

What do people who sit on the 1st and 2nd level think? Would you be okay with the nice new padded seats that they are using today? I am not sure but I think they are using them in those levels today already.

Wider concourses would be amazing!

 

[Consigliere]

I think the ADA requirements are well meaning and have a lot of empathy for disabled fans. Let me say that first. But I think some of the things they require are over the top and kind of unreasonable.

Example: as I understand it, ADA requires an entrance/exit within every 20 rows; something insane like that. Since the 3rd level of the dome has around 30 rows, this means entrances/exits need to be created at the top of the 3rd level. That means a whole new concourse needs to be built. A huge addition to the existing building needs to be added on. I believe I heard that the dome needs to add something like 12 elevators and 18 escalators to get into compliance. I think right now only 2 or 3 entrances are wheel chair accessible. That has to go way up. I believe the width of all concourses has to be extended, etc.

These kinds of requirements are, IMHO, not things that are truly needed. I am all for adding some elevators, some escalators, and making some more entrances wheelchair accessible. But I think you have to balance the requirements for a facility with what is truly needed and what could truly be used and strike a reasonable balance. If done right, a lot of the ADA requirements will not only help the disabled attend games, but will help everyone.

My biggest issue is the lack of reasonableness by the federal government deciding what constitutes a major renovation that triggers ADA and what does not. How can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA? It feels to me as though the government knows the university wants this and is trying to use it to get wh they want. All that ends up happening is that everyone loses.

I give credit to SU for continuing to make ADA related improvements to the facility despite this major dispute. I hope at some point, their proactive actions will be taken into account and a compromise that benefits everyone can be reached.

Another one that would be problematic deals with the rise and pitch of stairways, including in seating areas. As Iunderstand it we do not meet those standards and we would basically need to blow out the entire bowl and rebuild. Honestly don't see that ever happening. Far more likely that we will apply for and be granted some waivers that would enable seating to be replaced without coming into full compliance.

 

[GreekFreak]

My biggest issue is the lack of reasonableness by the federal government deciding what constitutes a major renovation that triggers ADA and what does not. How can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA? It feels to me as though the government knows the university wants this and is trying to use it to get what they want. All that ends up happening is that everyone loses.

Unfortunately I have some real world experience in this area. To provide an answer to the question Tom posed…replacing a roof is a maintenance item. The roof was at the end of life and required replacement for the facility to remain functional. Replacing the seating is not a maintenance item; the seats are still capable of performing their intended function. Putting in new seating would be an upgrade and a Major renovation. Like everything, there is a lot of subjectivity to how these things get interpreted but there are some actual rules.

I also very much appreciate MSOrange’s perspective on the facility as he deals with it in a manner that I don’t.

I just hope that I’m my lifetime the University can somehow work through this because upgraded seating would go a long way to improving the fan experience.

 

[GoSU96]

Another one that would be problematic deals with the rise and pitch of stairways, including in seating areas. As Iunderstand it we do not meet those standards and we would basically need to blow out the entire bowl and rebuild. Honestly don't see that ever happening. Far more likely that we will apply for and be granted some waivers that would enable seating to be replaced without coming into full compliance.

rational decision making, what a concept. Instead we’ll get the standard spend 50% of construction cost to accommodate 5% of the population.

 

[SUskibum]

The money for individual seating was there. SUAD has wanted replace the bleachers with individual seats for years. If they were allowed to just do that, they would done so a long time ago.

The issue is with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The dome was built before ADA went into effect and it therefore does not have to meet all the requirements ADA imposes on sports facilities.

When SUAD touched based with the feds about plans to replace the seating at the dome, they were told this would trigger a requirement for the dome to be fully ADA compliant.

SU has gotten estimates that updating the dome to be fully ADA compliant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They have made and continue to make major improvements to make it easier for handicapped fans to attend games but changes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are a big issue.

The feds are the ones who are preventing SU from making the seating more comfortable. I think at some point, SU and the federal government will get together and hopefully reach a more reasonable compromise on what can be done to make sure the dome is a great place for handicapped fans to go to games, and also is a place where everyone can sit in comfort and have a great time.

I am thinking SU decided to focus on other aspects of the renovation first, and will return to seating down the road. They are aware fans point to the uncomfortable benches as a big negative with the fan experience.

As you point out, there are other issues with moving to individual seats. Just about every season ticket holder will have their seat moved and just about all of them will be unhappy with their new seat location. It is going to be a major undertaking and they have probably taken on as much as they can handle right now.

I have the padded seats you can 'rent' for basketball, and find them a lot more comfortable than a bare bench. The ones they are using this year are new (I think) and locked in place better and more comfortable. The best thing about them is that it is clear where your seat is. For some games, before I had the padded seats, I kept finding people next to me sitting on most of my seat when I sat down (after cheering a good play) and it was common to be really uncomfortable. That largely goes away with the padded seats and they make almost no impact on leg room while trying to get to of get from your seat.

I am thinking it might not be a bad idea on the 3rd level to forgo the idea of traditional hard plastic individual seats and just do the whole level with the padded, locked in seats. It will look better (they are orange), fans will be more comfortable, there will be no little or no downside with the loss of legroom and we know the padded seats are ADA compliant.

And no headaches assigning new seats to everyone. Yay!

On the first and second levels, there is a lot more space for legs and adding individual seats might make more sense. Though a lot of the people affected would end up on the 3rd level, causing a domino effect I would prefer not to see.

What do people who sit on the 1st and 2nd level think? Would you be okay with the nice new padded seats that they are using today? I am not sure but I think they are using them in those levels today already.

We have the comfy seat backs in the lower bowl and think they are great, actually prefer them over individual seats so our family can use the length of the section.

Also, we buy 1 extra seat (think of it as a donation) to give us the extra elbow room we crave.

We may be in the minority but other than missing club options midfield like most stadiums (similar to club 44), its our most comfortable stadium seating.

 

[orangecuse]

Unfortunately I have some real world experience in this area. To provide an answer to the question Tom posed…replacing a roof is a maintenance item. The roof was at the end of life and required replacement for the facility to remain functional. Replacing the seating is not a maintenance item; the seats are still capable of performing their intended function. Putting in new seating would be an upgrade and a Major renovation. Like everything, there is a lot of subjectivity to how these things get interpreted but there are some actual rules.

I also very much appreciate MSOrange’s perspective on the facility as he deals with it in a manner that I don’t.

I just hope that I’m my lifetime the University can somehow work through this because upgraded seating would go a long way to improving the fan experience.

Yes.

Redirecting…

www.ada.gov

Renovating, remodeling, or altering an existing building:

Businesses renovate, remodel, or alter their spaces all the time. The ADA uses the term “alteration” to mean any change to an existing building or facility that affects usability. This includes remodeling, renovation, rearrangements in structural parts, and changes or rearrangement of walls and full-height partitions. The ADA does not consider normal maintenance, reroofing, painting, wallpapering, asbestos removal, or changes to electrical and mechanical systems to be alterations unless they affect usability.

The standards for alterations are not always as strict as the standards for new construction. The section of the ADA Standards that discusses alterations describes many situations where less stringent provisions are allowed. In addition, the ADA recognizes that sometimes existing structural conditions cannot be modified without removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structure or sometimes an existing physical or site constraint prohibits modification or addition of accessible features that comply fully with the ADA Standards. In these cases, a business must comply with the provisions of the ADA Standards to the “maximum extent feasible.”

The route and amenities that serve a primary function area:

When a primary function area is altered, the path of travel to the altered area and the amenities serving the altered area must be made accessible, unless the costs for these changes are disproportionate. The costs for the added alterations are considered disproportionate if they exceed 20 percent of the cost of the overall alteration. In this case, you should make as many of the changes as you can without going over the 20 percent limit.

The 'hundreds of millions' just seems so crazy unreasonable. No one in their right mind would ever consider such a thing, especially based upon the ADA's own 20% threshold limit. That would reflect a project where its total cost was at or above 1 billion dollars.

It wouldn't surprise me (based upon how SU has typically and historically rolled regarding capital improvements, things of this nature, etc.) that it's an excuse (for lack of better word) to kick the can down the road so to speak. The issue dealing with season tickets holders, rearranged seating, impacts from the Covid pandemic, etc. may be the greater genuine present deterrent and obstacle here, as this has always been secondary to its main expensive priority item, the fixed roof replacement.

 

[upperdeck]

we had and ADA issue with a building down here.. they had to add building access with a ramp.. So they moved a bunch of stuff around and added a whole nice ramp into the building from the back. Now people can get into a 10x10 space thats inside the building that only has access to a huge flights of stairs..

ADA solved.

 

[sutomcat]

Yes.

Redirecting…

www.ada.gov

Renovating, remodeling, or altering an existing building:

Businesses renovate, remodel, or alter their spaces all the time. The ADA uses the term “alteration” to mean any change to an existing building or facility that affects usability. This includes remodeling, renovation, rearrangements in structural parts, and changes or rearrangement of walls and full-height partitions. The ADA does not consider normal maintenance, reroofing, painting, wallpapering, asbestos removal, or changes to electrical and mechanical systems to be alterations unless they affect usability.

The standards for alterations are not always as strict as the standards for new construction. The section of the ADA Standards that discusses alterations describes many situations where less stringent provisions are allowed. In addition, the ADA recognizes that sometimes existing structural conditions cannot be modified without removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structure or sometimes an existing physical or site constraint prohibits modification or addition of accessible features that comply fully with the ADA Standards. In these cases, a business must comply with the provisions of the ADA Standards to the “maximum extent feasible.”

The route and amenities that serve a primary function area:

When a primary function area is altered, the path of travel to the altered area and the amenities serving the altered area must be made accessible, unless the costs for these changes are disproportionate. The costs for the added alterations are considered disproportionate if they exceed 20 percent of the cost of the overall alteration. In this case, you should make as many of the changes as you can without going over the 20 percent limit.

The 'hundreds of millions' just seems so crazy unreasonable. No one in their right mind would ever consider such a thing, especially based upon the ADA's own 20% threshold limit. That would reflect a project where its total cost was at or above 1 billion dollars.

It wouldn't surprise me (based upon how SU has typically and historically rolled regarding capital improvements, things of this nature, etc.) that it's an excuse (for lack of better word) to kick the can down the road so to speak. The issue dealing with season tickets holders, rearranged seating, impacts from the Covid pandemic, etc. may be the greater genuine present deterrent and obstacle here, as this has always been secondary to its main expensive priority item, the fixed roof replacement.

This is perhaps the worst take in the history of this message board.

It looks like you are referencing ADA rules for normal buildings. No link was provided but I see no references to sports facilities in the text you have copied and pasted from somewhere.

The dome is a sports facility that hosts spectators. There are special rules for these kinds of buildings to ensure disabled fans have access to watch events in these buildings. These rules are markedly more onerous than the rules for normal buildings.

This said, if you do any research on ADA for sports facilities, you will find that the laws are not clear. There are inconsistencies and some sections of the law are poorly written and can be interpreted in different ways. A bunch of sport facilities have seen lawsuits after undergoing a renovation because some thought the renovated faculties were not ADA compliant. At least one sports facility won their lawsuit by arguing that the laws were not clear and were subject to different interpretations. Perhaps someday SU will do the same thing.

SUAD isn’t stupid. They want fans in the stands. They regularly ask for feedback from fans regarding the fan experience and the most common compliant is the uncomfortable seating. It is in their best interest to address fan concerns, especially when the cost to address the concern is relatively low. And the cost to install individual seat is relatively low. Assuming the only cost was to change the type of seating used.

No offense to you, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about here. Appreciate your attempt to contribute but you are completely off base here. I still think the feds took an extreme position in their response to an SUAD inquiry and that has driven this standoff. I believe in time, SUAD will revisit this and eventually more reasonable people will get involved and a compromise will be reached. But the feds responsible for ADA inquiries gave SUAD gave a crazy answer and that has derailed this project. This is a fact.

 

[David332]

I’m not familiar with all the nuances of ADA and it’s impacts on building codes, but I imagine it’s just as much about egress as it is access. Egress is not something anyone wants to mess around with. That’s not about convenience, it’s about life safety. Just my 2 cents.

 

[orangecuse]

This is perhaps the worst take in the history of this message board.

It looks like you are referencing ADA rules for normal buildings. No link was provided but I see no references to sports facilities in the text you have copied and pasted from somewhere.

The dome is a sports facility that hosts spectators. There are special rules for these kinds of buildings to ensure disabled fans have access to watch events in these buildings. These rules are markedly more onerous than the rules for normal buildings.

This said, if you do any research on ADA for sports facilities, you will find that the laws are not clear. There are inconsistencies and some sections of the law are poorly written and can be interpreted in different ways. A bunch of sport facilities have seen lawsuits after undergoing a renovation because some thought the renovated faculties were not ADA compliant. At least one sports facility won their lawsuit by arguing that the laws were not clear and were subject to different interpretations. Perhaps someday SU will do the same thing.

SUAD isn’t stupid. They want fans in the stands. They regularly ask for feedback from fans regarding the fan experience and the most common compliant is the uncomfortable seating. It is in their best interest to address fan concerns, especially when the cost to address the concern is relatively low. And the cost to install individual seat is relatively low. Assuming the only cost was to change the type of seating used.

No offense to you, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about here. Appreciate your attempt to contribute but you are completely off base here. I still think the feds took an extreme position in their response to an SUAD inquiry and that has driven this standoff. I believe in time, SUAD will revisit this and eventually more reasonable people will get involved and a compromise will be reached. But the feds responsible for ADA inquiries gave SUAD gave a crazy answer and that has derailed this project. This is a fact.

Jeez. I don't know what to make of your 'perhaps the worst take in the history of this message board' while you also allege sincerity with your, 'no offense to you.' Really, the history of this message board? Sure, okay. Hopefully, your take there granted you the fulfillment & satisfaction you seemingly were seeking.

I provided the link in my post, it's from the ADA website. I copied and pasted from it, and highlighted what I thought may be pertinent. Perhaps, it doesn't apply to "sport facilities" and that is indeed a different category all together.

GreekFreak stated in his post that roofs are considered routine maintenance, so that's why relative to your inquiry; "how can replacing a roof not be a major renovation but replacing the seating be considered so major the building suddenly becomes subject to ADA?" Since it appeared here, under existing commercial buildings that undertake renovations, alterations, etc., and the Dome is a commercial building with a roof on it, I thought there was some relevance.

Maybe I am off base, I'm certainly not claiming to be in expert in the field, etc. I just find it beyond unreasonable that it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars related directly, consequentially, or what have you for seating improvements.

You stated yourself that the Feds are "unreasonable" and "over the top" here, and have taken an "extreme" position, and gave the SUAD a "crazy" answer. If that's the case, along with the acknowledgement of such considerable ambiguity in the applicable laws, especially when it comes to "existing" buildings vs. "new" construction and having to be at "full" compliance, etc., it would appear SU would have some pretty solid ground to argue such in a court of law if so desired.

For what it’s worth, I found this article on a recent "stadium" renovation that had to meet the applicable ADA standard. It appears the $3.9 million cost fell in line with the up to 20% threshold requirement.

Mackay Stadium's $3 million ADA-compliance renovation reaches finish line

The Mackay Stadium renovation, which began in December 2015, has reached the finish line after a couple of required further renovations aimed to make the stadium ADA compliant. Wolf Pack athletic director Doug Knuth told Nevada Sports Net last week the finishing touches are being put on the...

nevadasportsnet.com

 

[TexanMark]

Bleachers don't bother me. What I really want is legroom and not having to stand-up every time someone in my row goes to the bathroom. Of course, fixing that would probably require rebuilding the entire bowl, which is unlikely.

Better legroom in the 100s
Upper Deck is worse