"The Dome roof"

[OrangeXtreme]

I think the school would have loved to get out of the business of owning and running a stadium and all the costs/headaches involved. They would have loved just being a tenant v. shelling out a few hundred million clams.

So SU can schedule basketball games around Disney on Ice?

 

[OttoMets]

Yep, misread the link. But according to the article, by 2010 the roof had been "deliberately deflated" at least 5 times as a safety measure due to snow load .

Yep, that was Roof #1. Love that photo, never saw that before. They had a lot of problems with the original roof in those last couple years (though obviously there were hiccups throughout its life). In addition to the photo you posted, it also shook its speakers loose during the Labor Day storm the next year and had a pretty severe hole during the tail end of basketball season (leaks on the court during the St. John's game) and SU ended up replacing the whole thing ahead of schedule that next summer.

This version's a little better than the 1980 one, but I think SU's maintenance has also come a long way. The local paper's sensationalism would have us believe it's day-to-day. It'll have to be replaced at some point, but it's a pretty good roof.

 

[xc84]

So SU can schedule basketball games around Disney on Ice?

No more than what Louisville does. SU would have been the main tenant and would have had a lease agreement specifying their needs. It's not going to happen now of course but I think SU would have done it if the deal was right.

 

[jgeorge322]

Meh, it wasn't a county proposal, I don't think, but a development charade cooked up by some crooked developers, Cuomo, and Joanie Mahoney. The school wasn't much interested in it because it wasn't on campus, and the city (Miner) was against it because the sketched out plan didn't have any plan to pay for the required city infrastructure improvements.

That "plan" was more or less DOA.

I think the state ear marked serious cash for it. I dont have all the info but i think miner shut it down moreso then the school.

 

[tipphill]

And you know this how? What changes are you basing this on?

history and administration performance.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I think the state ear marked serious cash for it. I dont have all the info but i think miner shut it down moreso then the school.

Miner had her nose bent out of shape because she wasn't part of the negotiations. She declined because there wasn't money for city infrastructure.
I happened to see Rep. Katko shortly after that. He said Miner showed her lack of sophistication by scuttling the deal. She could have squeezed money for improvements and she could have tacked on a city fee to every ticket sold and funded infrastructure improvements for decades.

 

[rrlbees]

history and administration performance.

Pony up money.

 

[CuseOnly]

Geez ... who would have thought that attempting an expedited, complex roof replacement for a combination basketball/football arena in a tight footprint would run into complications and cost issues.

They never should have backed themselves into a corner with self-imposed restrictions.

Maybe that was the idea all along...

 

[xc84]

Geez ... who would have thought that attempting an expedited, complex roof replacement for a combination basketball/football arena in a tight footprint would run into complications and cost issues.

They never should have backed themselves into a corner with self-imposed restrictions.

I don't really get it. What restrictions were self-imposed? The stadium already exists. It is a basketball/football facility. The roof replacement is complex. Those are not things that are under the control of anyone. The fact that they prefer to do it without interrupting basketball and football schedules is under their control and does add complexity but not sure who prefers they play basketball and football elsewhere during construction. Not sure how they backed themselves into a corner. If anything, they are where they are because that is where the dome is.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

...but not sure who prefers they play basketball and football elsewhere during construction.

Well, I wouldn't mind hosting a hoops season over my way at the Times Union Center if that would insure we get a fixed roof with ETFE features and air conditioning. I'd even sacrifice a season or two playing home "home" games at Michie Stadium to get that. Big of me, huh?

 

[UnknownOrange]

Pony up money.

Yeah cause that'll make a dent. There isn't even a focus on getting donations for the Dome so this post is silly

 

[rrlbees]

Yeah cause that'll make a dent. There isn't even a focus on getting donations for the Dome so this post is silly

Little gifts don’t get to $3-400m. I was encouraging him to make a major gift, maybe a naming gift. $10m would be great.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I don't really get it. What restrictions were self-imposed? The stadium already exists. It is a basketball/football facility. The roof replacement is complex. Those are not things that are under the control of anyone. The fact that they prefer to do it without interrupting basketball and football schedules is under their control and does add complexity but not sure who prefers they play basketball and football elsewhere during construction. Not sure how they backed themselves into a corner. If anything, they are where they are because that is where the dome is.

Are you in construction? Go get a quote for a building on an open parcel with no schedule restrictions and get one for renovating an arena that includes a severe timeline for completion, periodic interruptions, AND it's located in a difficult to access area with space restrictions on three sides. The basketball/football comment is that there will be a lot of wishlist items that will pop-up during planning & design to make things better for both when the dome was originally designed to accommodate one. "Well, we're already doing A, doing B will only cost a few more million ... etc.). All of that leads to lots of openings for budget expansion. It may be $200m to start, but can be 30% more easily.

The school can't really complain about the costs because they want it done right and fast (which = $$$). Build it off campus (or on south campus) and their self-imposed problems go away, but the overall cost goes up because they'd be building new (but again it's for college sports, it doesn't need to be the Barclay's Center and South Campus isn't NYC). So while it's more expensive to build new, it alleviates a lot of their self-imposed restrictions and would most definitely result in a better building that could be greener, more accessible and accommodating.

 

[jgeorge322]

Miner had her nose bent out of shape because she wasn't part of the negotiations. She declined because there wasn't money for city infrastructure.
I happened to see Rep. Katko shortly after that. He said Miner showed her lack of sophistication by scuttling the deal. She could have squeezed money for improvements and she could have tacked on a city fee to every ticket sold and funded infrastructure improvements for decades.

Right. People act like the offcampus stadium is a big deal too. Not when its a 5 minute drive though. The university is so close to downtown.

 

[xc84]

Are you in construction? Go get a quote for a building on an open parcel with no schedule restrictions and get one for renovating an arena that includes a severe timeline for completion, periodic interruptions, AND it's located in a difficult to access area with space restrictions on three sides. The basketball/football comment is that there will be a lot of wishlist items that will pop-up during planning & design to make things better for both when the dome was originally designed to accommodate one. "Well, we're already doing A, doing B will only cost a few more million ... etc.). All of that leads to lots of openings for budget expansion. It may be $200m to start, but can be 30% more easily.

The school can't really complain about the costs because they want it done right and fast (which = $$$). Build it off campus (or on south campus) and their self-imposed problems go away, but the overall cost goes up because they'd be building new (but again it's for college sports, it doesn't need to be the Barclay's Center and South Campus isn't NYC). So while it's more expensive to build new, it alleviates a lot of their self-imposed restrictions and would most definitely result in a better building that could be greener, more accessible and accommodating.

Who cares if I am in construction. I asked you how they painted themselves in a corner. Reading you answer, it seems like your rationale is that they did so by deciding to renovate rather than build from scratch. Do you realize that building from scratch would probably mean they need >$500M (or 30% more cushion as you say) including construction of the stadium and infrastructure? Also, I have not heard SU "complain" about what they are doing...just saying it is a challenge. Building in another site has its own challenges besides the incredible task of raising at least $300M more. Neighbors don't want it...which is why it is where it is now. Not sure what will be done but my guess is the challenges to build new on South Campus (neighbors and an additional $300M) far exceed those that they face with a modest and "affordable" renovation.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Who cares if I am in construction. I asked you how they painted themselves in a corner. Reading you answer, it seems like your rationale is that they did so by deciding to renovate rather than build from scratch. Do you realize that building from scratch would probably mean they need >$500M (or 30% more as you say) including construction of the stadium and infrastructure? Also, I have not heard SU "complain" about what they are doing...just saying it is a challenge. Building in another site has its own challenges besides the incredible task of raising at least $300M more. Neighbors don't want it...which is why it is where it is now. Not sure what will be done but my guess is the challenges to build new on South Campus (neighbors and an additional $300M) far exceed those that they face with a modest and "affordable" renovation.

You've completely missed the point.

 

[xc84]

You've completely missed the point.

That's what some people say when someone disagrees with them.

 

[bnoro]

Right. People act like the offcampus stadium is a big deal too. Not when its a 5 minute drive though. The university is so close to downtown.

Students don't go now when the games are on campus. You think they're going to take a bus or drive to an off campus stadium? Come on.

 

[shandeezy7]

Students don't go now when the games are on campus. You think they're going to take a bus or drive to an off campus stadium? Come on.

To play devil's advocate, it sounds like you are making the case that the students don't care that it's on campus, because they still don't go. If that's the case, then why should the school care about whether or not it's on campus if it's not going to have much of an effect on the student experience?

 

[RF2044]

Students don't go now when the games are on campus. You think they're going to take a bus or drive to an off campus stadium? Come on.

Agreed -- an off campus facility is a terrible idea. There are other P5 schools who utilized that model, and their example should be instructive vis a vis how bad of an idea it is.

 

[reedny]

Are you in construction? Go get a quote for a building on an open parcel with no schedule restrictions and get one for renovating an arena that includes a severe timeline for completion, periodic interruptions, AND it's located in a difficult to access area with space restrictions on three sides. The basketball/football comment is that there will be a lot of wishlist items that will pop-up during planning & design to make things better for both when the dome was originally designed to accommodate one. "Well, we're already doing A, doing B will only cost a few more million ... etc.). All of that leads to lots of openings for budget expansion. It may be $200m to start, but can be 30% more easily.

The school can't really complain about the costs because they want it done right and fast (which = $$$). Build it off campus (or on south campus) and their self-imposed problems go away, but the overall cost goes up because they'd be building new (but again it's for college sports, it doesn't need to be the Barclay's Center and South Campus isn't NYC). So while it's more expensive to build new, it alleviates a lot of their self-imposed restrictions and would most definitely result in a better building that could be greener, more accessible and accommodating.

Many of us have pushed for a new building. And, you're right, re-doing an old building in a tight location adds cost. But with a new build, costs explode - $400-500M - making fundraising difficult or impossible. That involves the State, which in turn adds pressure to build the facility off campus with SU as a tenant. Control is sacrificed. The project is no longer student-centered. And SU winds up wasting the significant brand value of having both its FB and BB teams playing in an iconic ON CAMPUS facility.

Moreover, SU would still be the owner of a 38 year-old structure (presumably basketball only) that needs to be re-roofed and rendered (ADA) accessible. So the minute you embrace the new build concept, you're not just purchasing a facility, you're still spending $210M to keep the Dome running.

No wonder it's taking a while.

 

[jgeorge322]

Students don't go now when the games are on campus. You think they're going to take a bus or drive to an off campus stadium? Come on.

based on your logic, then it doesn't matter, so you come on.

winning games and having a successful team brings people to games. plus, students are a small % of fan attendance. so come on.

 

[NJCuse97]

based on your logic, then it doesn't matter, so you come on.

winning games and having a successful team brings people to games. plus, students are a small % of fan attendance. so come on.

A lot of you miss the point of the team and the stadium is for the students. That's how the school views it and in all likelihood always will.

 

[Cusefan0307]

They did their homework on this. More people associated with the university wanted the stadium on campus than off campus.

 

[NJCuse97]

Everyone would love a new building. And, no doubt, re-doing an old building in a tight location adds cost. But with a new build, costs explode - $400-500M - making fundraising difficult or impossible. To bring in enough money you have to have State help and that tends to drive the facility off campus and makes SU a tenant. There's significant brand value in keeping both FB and BB in an iconic ON CAMPUS facility that SU controls.

The other "cost" you're forgetting (with a new build) is dealing with the existing Dome (presumably basketball only). It would still need to be renovated ... re-roofed and rendered (ADA) accessible. So the minute you buy into the new build concept, you're not just purchasing the new building, you're still spending $210M on a renovation to keep the Dome running.

No wonder it's taking a while.

Northwestern University Opens Ryan Fieldhouse, Multi-Sport Training Facility

So this has no state money, but has a VERY deep pocketed donor. The Ryan Family also donated a substantial amount to a downtown hospital at the same time, so the money is in a different stratosphere. This project has all the infrastructure needs that a new building project would have as well as sight related design challenges that required a team of 3 different major architecture firms. Not yet included in this is the "Athletics Center" that is a cross between Manley and the Arch. To put some of this in perspective, programmatically I would bet we have covered the same ground a little while back. Lampe, Melo Center, Einsley, and other Manley renovations are probably comparable program. The cost on the other hand is probably 10%-15% of the cost for this Northwestern complex. I would be the first to say the aesthetic value of the expense is evident, but will the output be? Will NW suddenly start winning NC's in hoops and football to justify spending 600% more? Will their enrollment increase as a result of this facility? They will use this for other functions, primarily for graduation ceremonies, but we do that with the Dome. To the point above, are we to spend $150 million to keep the Dome running for hoops, and graduation AND $500 million on a new open air off campus stadium (roof it and that cost will go up)? Won't we still have the added costs related to "since we're doing this" as well as the hand wringing of "we should have done more" after?