The future of the Dome...

[dundundun]

Are they going to do away with the troughs? Personally, it's not like I ever really took issue with them but they just seem so incredibly outdated. I'm surprised they've lasted this long.

 

[DoubleDee]

Are they going to do away with the troughs? Personally, it's not like I ever really took issue with them but they just seem so incredibly outdated. I'm surprised they've lasted this long.

Notre dame still has porcelain troughs. Look up an article called "yuck of the Irish"

 

[xc84]

Are they going to do away with the troughs? Personally, it's not like I ever really took issue with them but they just seem so incredibly outdated. I'm surprised they've lasted this long.

"outdated" but very efficient

 

[NJCuse97]

Because the question was asked about a page back, the challenges with "adding" a rigid roof to the Dome is in large part (OK entirely) due to the structural design of the facility. I am not a structural engineer, and I am only familiar with the design as an alum who attended as many football, basketball, and lacrosse games (heck I've even gone ot a few soccer games there) as well as a Pink Floyd concert in the mid 90s (summer 1994?). I lived in Lawrinson, so I guess I've seen a lot of it from a lot of angles. Anyway, the idea is this... the bottom bowl is essentially self supported. The structure of the outer walls is there to help support the upper tier, and to support themselves as there is a lateral or cantilever load that a wall standing up 40-50 feet unsupported needs to handle. That load is one of the reasons the design employs the use of tilted up pre-cast concrete double Ts. (think Dome stomp). These are typically used as a floor or roadway structure. The other I am sure was for speed of erection. They are brought in on a truck and craned into place. Once they are in place, they are done. They are pre-cast, so while that allows them to be made in a warehouse, and shipped, saving precious time (concrete takes time to dry, or cure) it is very difficult to imagine altering their structural capacity using more concrete and rebar. As we all know from being pushed out of the Dome while leaving, the roof is primarily held up by air pressure and should exert very little load (downward force anyway) onto the walls of the building (and therefore they aren't likely to have been designed to handle any such load).
The only way I can imagine adding a rigid roof (no matter the roof material) is to add structure to the outside. Think buttresses, or the much cooler flying buttresses, and if that didn't do it, look up a picture of a medieval cathedral, like Notre Dame. The problem with that as a prospect is the density of the site. As I said, I've walked around the Dome a fare share of times. The space along three sides is very tight (Archibald is very close on the east side, Steele and the law complex on the north side, and there is a road on the south side that along with all those other spaces, will most likely need to be maintained for emergency access (fire trucks and possibly even code required fire separation). This was one of the reasons the IPF is not built right next to Manley. Other thoughts they will need to consider include snow load, and removal. The current roof is teflon coated so that the snow never really sticks. This is a big reason the life of the roof is 20-25 years, the teflon wears off. If a rigid roof is put in, it may have different caracteristics that will shed snow differently or could build up ice in a way the currentl convex roof does not and that would impact design/available space around the building too. sheets of ice sliding off a roof is a real concern, and even if addressed with melting (energy costs) or ice breaking devices, there is still a material dump (snow or ice) that could be very different from today's scenario. The west side of the Dome is the most open, but also the tallest span. That will only serve to significantly increase the cost of any exoskeleton or built enclosure, as there is a longer structural span, and/or more building material to be considered.

 

[xc84]

Because the question was asked about a page back, the challenges with "adding" a rigid roof to the Dome is in large part (OK entirely) due to the structural design of the facility. I am not a structural engineer, and I am only familiar with the design as an alum who attended as many football, basketball, and lacrosse games (heck I've even gone ot a few soccer games there) as well as a Pink Floyd concert in the mid 90s (summer 1994?). I lived in Lawrinson, so I guess I've seen a lot of it from a lot of angles. Anyway, the idea is this... the bottom bowl is essentially self supported. The structure of the outer walls is there to help support the upper tier, and to support themselves as there is a lateral or cantilever load that a wall standing up 40-50 feet unsupported needs to handle. That load is one of the reasons the design employs the use of tilted up pre-cast concrete double Ts. (think Dome stomp). These are typically used as a floor or roadway structure. The other I am sure was for speed of erection. They are brought in on a truck and craned into place. Once they are in place, they are done. They are pre-cast, so while that allows them to be made in a warehouse, and shipped, saving precious time (concrete takes time to dry, or cure) it is very difficult to imagine altering their structural capacity using more concrete and rebar. As we all know from being pushed out of the Dome while leaving, the roof is primarily held up by air pressure and should exert very little load (downward force anyway) onto the walls of the building (and therefore they aren't likely to have been designed to handle any such load).
The only way I can imagine adding a rigid roof (no matter the roof material) is to add structure to the outside. Think buttresses, or the much cooler flying buttresses, and if that didn't do it, look up a picture of a medieval cathedral, like Notre Dame. The problem with that as a prospect is the density of the site. As I said, I've walked around the Dome a fare share of times. The space along three sides is very tight (Archibald is very close on the east side, Steele and the law complex on the north side, and there is a road on the south side that along with all those other spaces, will most likely need to be maintained for emergency access (fire trucks and possibly even code required fire separation). This was one of the reasons the IPF is not built right next to Manley. Other thoughts they will need to consider include snow load, and removal. The current roof is teflon coated so that the snow never really sticks. This is a big reason the life of the roof is 20-25 years, the teflon wears off. If a rigid roof is put in, it may have different caracteristics that will shed snow differently or could build up ice in a way the currentl convex roof does not and that would impact design/available space around the building too. sheets of ice sliding off a roof is a real concern, and even if addressed with melting (energy costs) or ice breaking devices, there is still a material dump (snow or ice) that could be very different from today's scenario. The west side of the Dome is the most open, but also the tallest span. That will only serve to significantly increase the cost of any exoskeleton or built enclosure, as there is a longer structural span, and/or more building material to be considered.

This is the only conversion of a major stadium from air-supported to fixed structure that I have ever heard of. This dome (BC Place) used to be very similar to the Carrier dome before it was renovated to remove the air-supported roof to one that is supported by these towering "masts".

Here is what it looked like prior:

 

[ssmorol]

BC place has a retractable roof too...
https://www.bcplacestadium.com/index.php/retractable-roof-113.html

The before and after pictures of the place look awesome! But, keep in mind the renovations cost upwards of $500 million!

 

[TexanMark]

Vancouver averages only about 18 inches of snow a season...

 

[xc84]

Vancouver averages only about 18 inches of snow a season...

Yeah...and that BC Place architecture may not work because of that... I have no idea. I just wanted to post the only conversion I know of from a dome like ours to one that is not air-supported. I think the obvious conclusion, either way, is it won't be cheap.

 

[Crusty]

Looks like something from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

 

[MadNY3]

Sports management just seems like one of those majors that is way too specific and way too appealing to your average sports crazy knucklehead kid. Instead of taking more general courses that would still allow you to work in that field if you're lucky and in some other field if you're not lucky, these kids will be putting all their eggs in one tiny little basket with poor employment prospects

this is the type of stuff i want SU to get away from.

While many kids have naive aspirations - no matter what field they want to get into - the business of sports is extremely viable and there are many areas where there is a craving of talent. That's why the program does indeed focus on interdisciplinary skills gained from taking courses within the I School, Whitman and Newhouse.

 

[Millhouse]

While many kids have naive aspirations - no matter what field they want to get into - the business of sports is extremely viable and there are many areas where there is a craving of talent. That's why the program does indeed focus on interdisciplinary skills gained from taking courses within the I School, Whitman and Newhouse.

we'll see. i think some fields have more kids with naive aspirations than others. the talented kids in that program could learn the sports side on the job after learning economics or finance or something else

 

[dundundun]

What would be the benefit of converting to a 'hard' roof?

 

[xc84]

What would be the benefit of converting to a 'hard' roof?

Could last longer (material used in Vikings stadium is said to last at least 30 years), be more durable, and be more efficient for heating and cooling.
Some here don't care about this but if a teflon panel in the current dome ruptures badly, they are screwed for a while because the entire roof deflates until it is fixed. It would happen most likely in the winter under adverse conditions like it did for Minnesota in their old dome.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Holds the record at the Times Union Center in Albany.

the Grateful Dead??

thought they had it.

i lost track how many times i saw them there, got to be over 10.

 

[Toga]

the Grateful Dead??

thought they had it.

i lost track how many times i saw them there, got to be over 10.

Billy Joel - 9 straight sell outs. On the other hand ... in 1990, The Grateful Dead recorded their 1996 release, Dozin' at the Knick, at the arena.

 

[CU44SE]

Syracuse fans are definitely more like pro fans then college fans in both basketball and football. I believe that is because a lot of the fans are locals and not alumni but I could be wrong. Due to this, I believe people care less about tailgating on campus and would prefer a big open parking lot like many NFL stadiums. I believe this could increase attendance, an easy in and out. I personally like tailgating on campus, but I understand the hassles of it. I just believe with better access and a more open environment more locals would come to the games.

 

[CuseOnly]

BC place has a retractable roof too...
https://www.bcplacestadium.com/index.php/retractable-roof-113.html

The before and after pictures of the place look awesome! But, keep in mind the renovations cost upwards of $500 million!

More than half the cost of that entire renovation was not the roof.

The original quote for the renovation was only $100 mil, wonder what happened to the guy that quoted that job 400% over budget.

They added 2 video screens for a total of 4, 2 of which are 2nd only to the new Cowboys stadium in size. Among about 40,000 things that we don't need including a complete redo of the exterior.

 

[Orangepace]

Sports management just seems like one of those majors that is way too specific and way too appealing to your average sports crazy knucklehead kid. Instead of taking more general courses that would still allow you to work in that field if you're lucky and in some other field if you're not lucky, these kids will be putting all their eggs in one tiny little basket with poor employment prospects

this is the type of stuff i want SU to get away from.

Agreed. Unless a school is located in/near a large metro area with pro sports teams, it doesn't seem like a worthy investment. PE Teachers don't make a ton of coin, so your return on investment is limited. Not to mention that very few of these majors actually rise to the level of C-Suite in major professional sports without some other connection getting them pushed ahead. Only thing I can fathom is that Falk wanted to put his name and money into a program at his alma mater in an effort to boost the overall athletic profile of the University. I read somewhere (looking for link, but can't find it) that something like 22% of incoming scholarship athletes major in Sports Management.

The quickest way to improve the overall college academics perception is not through "research" but to turn the College of Law into a Top 50 school in that area. Which is, again, the main reason why I believe the new Chancellor was hired.

This here seems like a much better ROI. Lawyers typically earn more than Sports Management majors over their lifetime, allowing for a higher likelihood of reinvestment through contributions to the University. Being a private institution, this has to be a large factor in their decision making process.

 

[Crusty]

Agreed. Unless a school is located in/near a large metro area with pro sports teams, it doesn't seem like a worthy investment. PE Teachers don't make a ton of coin, so your return on investment is limited. Not to mention that very few of these majors actually rise to the level of C-Suite in major professional sports without some other connection getting them pushed ahead. Only thing I can fathom is that Falk wanted to put his name and money into a program at his alma mater in an effort to boost the overall athletic profile of the University. I read somewhere (looking for link, but can't find it) that something like 22% of incoming scholarship athletes major in Sports Management.

This here seems like a much better ROI. Lawyers typically earn more than Sports Management majors over their lifetime, allowing for a higher likelihood of reinvestment through contributions to the University. Being a private institution, this has to be a large factor in their decision making process.

Nationally, lawyers as a group make around $75,000 according to PayScale. Attorneys at larger firms average about $130,000. Goldman BS associates get around $70,000 and MBA's start at about $125,000. Clerks on a trading desk earn six figures. Lawyers also cap out at a fairly low level. Unless you become a partner is a big city firm or are a successful PI attorney it is hard to make big money. The point of this is that those alum don't earn a lot and are not traditionally big givers. I am pretty sure the money is in the business schools and medical schools.

 

[Orangepace]

Other options being a different roof that won't need replacing or a different roof that needs replacing less often you mean. They still own the building, they just need to bring it into the modern era. The other option (which was shot down) is to rent from the state, own nothing and have zero control over the facility.

The University wouldn't have "zero control". They'd be the largest user of a new facility. If the Dome is maintained as a basketball venue, they would actually have more control over the new facility. If the Dome is just torn down or not maintained minimally, at least in the short term, then you are mostly correct that they'd have no leverage.

 

[Orangepace]

Nationally, lawyers as a group make around $75,000 according to PayScale. Attorneys at larger firms average about $130,000. Goldman BS associates get around $70,000 and MBA's start at about $125,000. Clerks on a trading desk earn six figures. Lawyers also cap out at a fairly low level. Unless you become a partner is a big city firm or are a successful PI attorney it is hard to make big money. The point of this is that those alum don't earn a lot and are not traditionally big givers. I am pretty sure the money is in the business schools and medical schools.

I'm a CPA in a major metropolitan area, so I fully understand/agree with what you're saying because I've grown up professionally in that environment. That said, if the law school is ranked highly, the University isn't typically turning out a ton of alumni that stall out so fast.

 

[AZOrange]

Nationally, lawyers as a group make around $75,000 according to PayScale. Attorneys at larger firms average about $130,000. Goldman BS associates get around $70,000 and MBA's start at about $125,000. Clerks on a trading desk earn six figures. Lawyers also cap out at a fairly low level. Unless you become a partner is a big city firm or are a successful PI attorney it is hard to make big money. The point of this is that those alum don't earn a lot and are not traditionally big givers. I am pretty sure the money is in the business schools and medical schools.

I don't know where these numbers come from. Big firms in nyc have starting first year comp significantly higher than 130k. If you're comparing to Goldman, you have to compare to white shoes nyc firms.

As to overall, I think numbers for lawyers are skewed low. A PPP at a big firm in PHX is prob 400-500k. Lots of partners here make mid 6 figs

 

[Crusty]

I don't know where these numbers come from. Big firms in nyc have starting first year comp significantly higher than 130k. If you're comparing to Goldman, you have to compare to white shoes nyc firms.

As to overall, I think numbers for lawyers are skewed low. A PPP at a big firm in PHX is prob 400-500k. Lots of partners here make mid 6 figs

There are over 1.2 million lawyers in the US. Most work in small firms.
Compared to Wall Street even the "partners" make a fraction of what better traders and bankers make at just about every WS firm.

 

[AZOrange]

There are over 1.2 million lawyers in the US. Most work in small firms. Compared to Wall Street even the "partners" make a fraction of what better traders and bankers make at just about every WS firm.

again you're not exactly comparing apples here (nor am I sure where you are getting your info like "most"). That said it just seems like a silly point that lawyers don't generally make a lot nor give a lot. I mean guys like falk, lampe, Barclay have all given a lot. How much did they just raise for dineen? Sucol is vital to the overall prestige of SU.

 

[Millhouse]

again you're not exactly comparing apples here (nor am I sure where you are getting your info like "most"). That said it just seems like a silly point that lawyers don't generally make a lot nor give a lot. I mean guys like falk, lampe, Barclay have all given a lot. How much did they just raise for dineen? Sucol is vital to the overall prestige of SU.

lawyers in podunk towns don't make nearly as much as mbas at goldman

mbas in podunk towns don't make nearly as much as mbas at goldman