Natural Light

[Eric15]

I don't have much of an opinion on this either way, but I always thought the natural light at Allen Fieldhouse was cool.

 

[Sudano]

Depending on who wins the bid there will be capabilities for some of this. I know bids needed to be revised to add fixtures that would be capable of putting orange light on the dome ceiling, where our guys come out of the tunnel, the bball court...and I believe a few more areas.

Here's even a better one. Can you imagine pregame graphics of all this plus replays of all the great games and great plays on a football field. Open air stadiums can't do this, need a roof to hold the projection clusters. Could be a game changer and is already sending chills down my back thinking about the possibilities. Very expensive but should be in the discussion. The cheap sometimes comes out expensive.

 

[Sudano]

There were 6 afternoon home basketball games and yes, I believe JB would prefer his players not be blind during them. Shame on him.

Are you assuming all were sunny days in Syracuse in the winter. Would be interesting to know.

 

[Toga]

One word - holograms

 

[Nick44]

Well the article does say there was a concern about glare and shadows. That’s why they did the modeling.

I realize that Vikings stadium also had work to do to prepare for the final for but I’m not saying the entire roof and external sides needs to be made of ETFE.

Having it be used for just the inner section of the roof is an entirely different scenario.

 

[rrlbees]

Are you assuming all were sunny days in Syracuse in the winter. Would be interesting to know.

You can’t use weather assumptions.

 

[Sudano]

You can’t use weather assumptions.

I know. That's my point.

 

[RandomGuy]

We were sold one bill of goods, yet we're getting another. You really think they would have completely thought the project through, before announcing it to the public. That's all. It's a big let down for those excited about a new dome experience.

 

[Sudano]

I don't have much of an opinion on this either way, but I always thought the natural light at Allen Fieldhouse was cool.

Since they have to raise the roof some significant amount it would be possible to add windows like Allen Fieldhouse at the top of the end of the building so it would add indirect natural light without shining directly on the court. We know where the sun is that time of year so they could be strategically be placed to eliminate glare impact.
Think Transom windows.

 

[Sudano]

We were sold one bill of goods, yet we're getting another. You really think they would have completely thought the project through, before announcing it to the public. That's all. It's a big let down for those excited about a new dome experience.

I think it will be a significant new dome experience with a much higher roof, new center scoreboard, new lighting and new sound. That's pretty big. I hope they do find a way to have some indirect natural light so it doesn't affect play but they have their budget and know architecture more than I. Even though I lived with alot of architecture students in Shaw a long time ago.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

For the past 40 years, fans have trekked through the worst weather any metro area in United States experiences, to watch football and basketball teams (sometimes not good ones) play in a concrete tomb shrouded with a parachute, while sitting on locker room quality benches.

Now people want to complain about natural light and draw negative comparisons with the Minnesota Vikings (who play in the most prestigious league in the world, have a billionaire owner, represent an entire State, and are situated in a metro area of 3.6 million people)?

I'm not entirely sure, but am mostly sure, that when the renovation is done, the "Dome" will be better, and the gameday experience will be better.

Edited for Sudano

 

[OttoMets]

Probably a silly question, but why does a private university need "public outreach" on a friggin roof/stadium renovation? All they gain from that is a bunch of suggestions from wannabe engineers.

Public outreach might not be the right term, but it's common for institutions to offer simple, specific capital improvements pages like this: About the NVRC - OVMA – Syracuse University

What they gain is an informed group of consumers. And this communication serves to obviate the need for dumb questions from the wannabe engineers.

 

[Atlcuse44]

My take (right or wrong) is that the university is basically just replacing the current air supported roof with the modern 2020 version, and trying to package that as a larger renovation than it really is. Someone at the University, or it could have been one of their early partners, made a huge mistake releasing the renderings of the Dome with an EFTE roof connected to the Arch. That visual got everyone excited, but I'm assuming it is what SU would have done on an unlimited budget. I'm fine with them replacing the roof and making a few small upgrades, but I think they're trying to oversell something this is not.

Agreed on the mistake of letting a proposed redesign leak (below):

Personally, I'm happy with the changes they are making. But I understand why some people are dissapointed when you compare the above picture with this:

 

[SUskibum]

Honestly...who cares?

Who the hell goes to a game and whines because they can’t see enough natural light?

Who goes to a game to “notice the roof”?

I don’t want to notice the roof. I just don’t want it to fall on me. I’m watching the game.

Yup.

The ENTIRE benefit of the new roof (beyond safety) is all the things we can accomplish because it doesn’t need to be pressurized.

Literally (not the millennial use of literal) thats it. Scoreboard, sound, concourse improvements etc, are all made easier because of not having to deal with a pressurized bubble.

EDIT: Also keeping some level of the sun out will actually benefit any cool stuff they have planned for lighting intros, halftime etc. not to mention making scoreboard easier to see / read etc etc etc

 

[OttoMets]

They don't.

Ugh, Bees, he's not above that kind of post but you are. You know that communications is important and that sharing design specs with the public is standard practice.

 

[RandomGuy]

I think it will be a significant new dome experience with a much higher roof, new center scoreboard, new lighting and new sound. That's pretty big. I hope they do find a way to have some indirect natural light so it doesn't affect play but they have their budget and know architecture more than I. Even though I lived with alot of architecture students in Shaw a long time ago.

Yeah. I guess it just feels like we were getting the latest greatest version of our current automobile. Seems like we're getting the same exact model, with a better stereo, a touch screen display, and the sunroof I was looking forward to, is no longer available.

Like the amazing initial design, it's no longer available. The only Aesthetic feature I was looking forward to on the redesign, was the clear section. Again, not available. Just another let down. Wish they had finalized plans before announcing.

 

[rrlbees]

Ugh, Bees, he's not above that kind of post but you are. You know that communications is important and that sharing design specs with the public is standard practice.

I commented on public outreach, not communication.

 

[SUskibum]

Yeah. I guess it just feels like we were getting the latest greatest version of our current automobile. Seems like we're getting the same exact model, with a better stereo, a touch screen display, and the sunroof I was looking forward to, is no longer available.

Like the amazing initial design, it's no longer available. The only Aesthetic feature I was looking forward to on the redesign, was the clear section. Again, not available. Just another let down. Wish they had finalized plans before announcing.

How do you know the amazing initial design wasn’t scrapped because we couldn’t engineer enough extra supporting structure outside of the current footprint because of space/logistics considerations.

Also maybe the original wasn’t possible after further due diligence because if we did it, then we would have sacrificed potential concourse improvements or other add-ons down the road.

There is a cost benefit trade off structure to everything and it’s not always about just money.

 

[rrlbees]

Agreed on the mistake of letting a proposed redesign leak (below):
View attachment 160206

Personally, I'm happy with the changes they are making. But I understand why some people are dissapointed when you compare the above picture with this:
View attachment 160207

serious question because i don't really remember since we've had so much discussion on this board with so many ideas and input, but was that first pic something SU put out or something someone leaked or someone here found on an engineering site?

 

[OttoMets]

I commented on public outreach, not communication.

Semantics, or careless wording by me if you want to argue that. But it's customary for this information to be made public in a concise manner, especially when we're talking about a private institution that would very much like the broader public to donate a few dollars toward this and other initiatives. They've allegedly broken ground but aren't willing or able to a) share a current design rendering or b) offer discrete details about the project.

Compared to how they handled Archbold and the new IVMF building, this is clumsy. And there's so much more popular demand for information about this that syracuse.com is running fairly long articles with an old rendering and jumbled quotes from administrators. It's odd. I recognize that some on here love to pile on those known as complainers, but the handling of communications about this project has been unusual.

 

[RandomGuy]

How do you know the amazing initial design wasn’t scrapped because we couldn’t engineer enough extra supporting structure outside of the current footprint because of space/logistics considerations.

Also maybe the original wasn’t possible after further due diligence because if we did it, then we would have sacrificed potential concourse improvements or other add-one down the road.

There is a cost benefit trade off structure to everything and it’s not always about just money.

Sure. The leaked and announced versions both followed with a lowering of expectations. That's all.

 

[721Comstock]

Agreed on the mistake of letting a proposed redesign leak (below):
View attachment 160206

Personally, I'm happy with the changes they are making. But I understand why some people are dissapointed when you compare the above picture with this:
View attachment 160207

So, they should have leaked a butt-ugly rendering, so the real one looks "better" by comparison?
Ok, got it.

I'm no engineer, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd be willing to bet that the reasons the design changed so dramatically, were:
the issues with the very tight spaces on all sides of the Dome, and also getting it done in a timely manner, so as not to overly impact too many athletic seasons.

Clean slate starting off in an empty field?
The top rendering, all day, every day.

But when all is said and done, does it really matter what it looks like?
As long as it:
A - doesn't collapse
B - keeps the show and rain out
C - allows for AC to be added in the future

then it will be Mission Accomplished.

 

[OttoMets]

serious question because i don't really remember since we've had so much discussion on this board with so many ideas and input, but was that first pic something SU put out or something someone leaked or someone here found on an engineering site?

That specific one (with the roof) was lifted from the engineer's website but the massing and connection to Archbold is identical to the one depicted in the Campus Framework plan that SU commissioned from Sasaki.

 

[rrlbees]

Semantics, or careless wording by me if you want to argue that. But it's customary for this information to be made public in a concise manner, especially when we're talking about a private institution that would very much like the broader public to donate a few dollars toward this and other initiatives. They've allegedly broken ground but aren't willing or able to a) share a current design rendering or b) offer discrete details about the project.

Compared to how they handled Archbold and the new IVMF building, this is clumsy. And there's so much more popular demand for information about this that syracuse.com is running fairly long articles with an old rendering and jumbled quotes from administrators. It's odd. I recognize that some on here love to pile on those known as complainers, but the handling of communications about this project has been unusual.

I think it's been made difficult because this is such a difficult job with lots of moving parts and a whole lot of other things to consider including the lack of space in the immediate area. I think a lot of thought is going into this and they want to get it right. as to making things public, if they do it too much before everything is done and signed, you see by these threads what we get. people complaining something isn't exactly what they had first hoped. any engineering effort like this is gong to go thru many changes.

 

[Atlcuse44]

So, they should have leaked a butt-ugly rendering, so the real one looks "better" by comparison?
Ok, got it.

I'm no engineer, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd be willing to bet that the reasons the design changed so dramatically, were:
the issues with the very tight spaces on all sides of the Dome, and also getting it done in a timely manner, so as not to overly impact too many athletic seasons.

Clean slate starting off in an empty field?
The top rendering, all day, every day.

But when all is said and done, does it really matter what it looks like?
As long as it:
A - doesn't collapse
B - keeps the show and rain out
C - allows for AC to be added in the future

then it will be Mission Accomplished.

I think the leak was a mistake and was never meant to get out. I assume that was the "if we could have everything we want" rendering. Just looking at the aesthetics, the initial rendering looks way better than the current truss design. That said, I am good with the truss design - it is not hideous.

I think looks do matter to a minor degree - you don't want a butt-ugly building showcasing the University and the city.