721Comstock
2022 Iggy Awards: Leading Scorer/Game/Buddy 3s
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 25,183
- Like
- 105,822
Man, they sure do plan on growing some huge-ass tomatoes in there, huh?
Put some grow lights in there and you've got the makings of the next great Cheech and Chong movie.Man, they sure do plan on growing some huge-ass tomatoes in there, huh?
Someone was a bad boy or girl posting this. Cool.
If you don 't believe in architects and engineering, you could probably use this to get some numbers.
ImageMeter - photo measure
imagemeter.com
How much money would you have liked this project to cost?I wish SU believed in architecture vs. outright engineering on this project as I remain guarded that the finished product will look aesthetically pleasing. Similar to an non-streamlined addition on a residential dwelling that exemplifies the appearance of an obvious afterthought.
Awesome images, gives a little more perspective on how large those arcs are against the size of the ring truss.I was in town today and took thirty minutes to walk around and try and get a good vantage point. Enjoyed seeing everything up close, or as close as I could get. Here’s a couple shots including some of the crew. The site won’t let me upload the others, file size is too large.
It is really impressive both from the highway and up close, there’s a really nice mix of contemporary and older architecture on campus now and it’s a fun look you won’t find in most of this country. Seeing it in person was something, Im excited to see s game there now!!
I wish SU believed in architecture vs. outright engineering on this project as I remain guarded that the finished product will look aesthetically pleasing. Similar to an non-streamlined addition on a residential dwelling that exemplifies the appearance of an obvious afterthought.
It’s clearly more then a roof. It’s what everyone sees coming down 690 and 81. Your eyes automatically are drawn to the roller coaster on top. Why is having an opinion on the look of a project the entire city sees such a big deal. Everyone is quick to defend su and make snarky rebuttals. I will say So far I do think it looks better then I thought it would but su should do more. Outside lighting is a must doIt’s a roof
You posted said opinion on a public message board opening it up to other opinions.It’s clearly more then a roof. It’s what everyone sees coming down 690 and 81. Your eyes automatically are drawn to the roller coaster on top. Why is having an opinion on the look of a project the entire city sees such a big deal. Everyone is quick to defend su and make snarky rebuttals. I will say So far I do think it looks better then I thought it would but su should do more. Outside lighting is a must do
This is a long thread. Along with a couple of other threads on here, it covers the different solutions that have been considered and the costs associated with said options. The final choice was made based on myriad factors, mainly, but not limited to, the cost and the ability to break the project down into phases that would minimize the disruption of SUs sports teams, which was a major consideration.I wish SU believed in architecture vs. outright engineering on this project as I remain guarded that the finished product will look aesthetically pleasing. Similar to an non-streamlined addition on a residential dwelling that exemplifies the appearance of an obvious afterthought.
i wondered the same thing. It makes sense if the initial plan of a see through section had gone through. But since it will essentially not be see through, why not just do the same material over the whole structure?Here's a question that I'm not sure has been asked: why did SU or Geiger decide that half of the roof would be a hard shell? Was there some advantage to this (aside from cost) versus using PFTE to cover the entire surface?
This is a long thread. Along with a couple of other threads on here, it covers the different solutions that have been considered and the costs associated with said options. The final choice was made based on myriad factors, mainly, but not limited to, the cost and the ability to break the project down into phases that would minimize the disruption of SUs sports teams, which was a major consideration.
Finally, aesthetics are subjective. What you may consider unsightly may be attractive to others.
Can you cite whatever source had the rendering at $105 mil?It is...a long thread. And, I've been present in it throughout its duration, along with the other dome renovation threads on here, including the Campus Framework thread. I'm aware of what you mentioned as I have been quite interested in this dating back to May 16, 2016 when it was announced that $255 million Dome/Arch undertaking was planned. At that time, $205 million was stated to be for the Dome, with approximately $105 million of that specifically for the roof.
Interestingly, a week or so later, May 24, 2016 to be exact, the Walter's Group rendering was leaked along with other specifics. That rendering was very attractive in my opinion, and, also in my opinion, superior pleasing from an architectural/aesthetic and streamlined perspective versus the one SU ultimately decided to go with/currently being built. With that roof cited at approximately $105 mil and the one under construction at $118 mil (I realize the later includes the new scoreboard and lighting) the costs would appear to be in the realm relative to same. Unless the lighting & scoreboard substantially exceeds $13 mil. I presume the remaining improvements, as with the current project, could've also been done in phases too.
Yes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, although "unsightly" are your words not mine. So, perhaps that's your sentiment relative to the aesthetics here.
Can you cite whatever source had the rendering at $105 mil?
The specific rendering you cited was not the one quoted here though.Carrier Dome to get permanent roof as part of $255 million campus upgrade
Syracuse announced on Monday that it will proceed with a plan to put a fixed roof on the Carrier Dome.www.syracuse.com
Simple thing to do, it's called Google.
I'm ambivalent as to the attractiveness of the project, so no, it's not my sentiment. Incidentally, unsightly is an antonym of aesthetic, which was your word. I didn't need to Google that.It is...a long thread. And, I've been present in it throughout its duration, along with the other dome renovation threads on here, including the Campus Framework thread. I'm aware of what you mentioned as I have been quite interested in this dating back to May 16, 2016 when it was announced that $255 million Dome/Arch undertaking was planned. At that time, $205 million was stated to be for the Dome, with approximately $105 million of that specifically for the roof.
Interestingly, a week or so later, May 24, 2016 to be exact, the Walter's Group rendering was leaked along with other specifics. That rendering was very attractive in my opinion, and, also in my opinion, superior pleasing from an architectural/aesthetic and streamlined perspective versus the one SU ultimately decided to go with/currently being built. With that roof cited at approximately $105 mil and the one under construction at $118 mil (I realize the later includes the new scoreboard and lighting) the costs would appear to be in the realm relative to same. Unless the lighting & scoreboard substantially exceeds $13 mil. I presume the remaining improvements, as with the current project, could've also been done in phases too.
Yes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, although "unsightly" are your words not mine. So, perhaps that's your sentiment relative to the aesthetics here.