(12-02-2010 11:34 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  I'm hoping in a few years the school replaces the bubble with a permanent practice building encompassing the field. It's probably pretty far down the list after renovations to Nippert and overall balancing the budget.

Nice idea though. It still kills me that money was raised, money was spent, the fields put in, the bubble put on (with C-paw), and the team is still practicing in the rain in Nippert.

(12-02-2010 11:34 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  I'm not sure how much the bubble portion of the project actually cost but I think it was a cheaper way for the school to claim, "Hey, we have an indoor practice facility!" I'm not sure how much an official indoor practice building would have cost ($10 - $20 million maybe?), but I bet it was a way for the school to 'strike while the iron was hot', by taking advantage of the football team's success by building practice fields as quickly as possible.

I'm hoping in a few years the school replaces the bubble with a permanent practice building encompassing the field. It's probably pretty far down the list after renovations to Nippert and overall balancing the budget.

x2

Is the cost of construction that much more in Cincinnati vs. Toledo?


Fetterman Training Center Facts
• Total Square Feet: 90,400 (71,400 sq. ft. for the practice field, 7,470 sq. ft. for the basketball court and 3,545 sq. ft. for the golf practice area)
• Dimensions of practice field: 100 yards long by 220 feet wide. 65 feet high at its highest point.
• Expected Cost: $9 million
• Funding: The project was funded through a combination of University and community commitments.
• Named For: Hal and Susan Fetterman, long-time supporters of the University of Toledo. The Fettermans donated $1 million toward the cost of the facility.
• Architects: SSOE
• Contractor: Rudolph/Libbe

Hey it is a bubble, not supposed to look like an architectural gem. Massive deal for the program to
have an indoor practice facility. Long overdue.

Someone can always find something to criticize and whine about. Hey, we have an indoor practice facility, and when it's cleared to be safe for our athletes to use it will a great benefit, and unlike a permanent structure, it can be taken down so the field can be used for other activities when the weather is more favorable. I think the price tag relative to toledo reflects that a lot of earth moving had to be done on that site before the facility itself could be built, and we have the big cooling tank which will save money in the long run for the whole main campus.
A permanent structure is a less desirable option when land on campus is at such a premium. Plus, if some of them are built like the one Dallas had, it might just fall down and paralyze a few people.

These practice facilities have been a momentous step in our program. I actually think once phase 2 is completed, the entire complex will be very easy on the eyes, with seating for people to watch a game, concessions, and the other finishing touches. In the winter, though, that bubble is a definite eye-sore. If they decided to nix the bubble and just build the permanent building, I doubt they would be able to incorporate those stands, concessions, etc.

(12-02-2010 12:35 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Someone can always find something to criticize and whine about. Hey, we have an indoor practice facility, and when it's cleared to be safe for our athletes to use it will a great benefit, and unlike a permanent structure, it can be taken down so the field can be used for other activities when the weather is more favorable. I think the price tag relative to toledo reflects that a lot of earth moving had to be done on that site before the facility itself could be built, and we have the big cooling tank which will save money in the long run for the whole main campus.
A permanent structure is a less desirable option when land on campus is at such a premium. Plus, if some of them are built like the one Dallas had, it might just fall down and paralyze a few people.

Good post Jackie. Too often Universities build projects to are very user specific and with the thought that we can use this as it is built for 50 years.
Things change, technology changes, and truth be told "flexible" buildings and projects are more the way the to go. Now State Universities in Ohio have had to use a prime bid contractor method, as opposed to the more recent Design / Build (which I like and I think they got an exemption for the practice facility / Bubble) method. When applicable you want to design on how something is used on the inside then work your way out.
UC did a good job with limited space and resources.

(12-02-2010 12:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Hey it is a bubble, not supposed to look like an architectural gem. Massive deal for the program to
have an indoor practice facility. Long overdue.

My point is that the University spent all sorts of money on high falutin' architects and got itself named one of the most beautiful campuses in the world by Forbes magazine...

How did this pass muster with university architects?

Listen, I know the importance of getting the indoor practice facility - I personally gave to the effort. But like Seniorbearcat said, how is that that lowly Toledo can get a more permanent facility for $9mm but we had difficulty raising money for...a bubble, and why does that bubble cost more?

I'm just not seeing $11mm worth of effort here.

(12-02-2010 12:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Hey it is a bubble, not supposed to look like an architectural gem. Massive deal for the program to
have an indoor practice facility. Long overdue.

My point is that the University spent all sorts of money on high falutin' architects and got itself named one of the most beautiful campuses in the world by Forbes magazine...

How did this pass muster with university architects?

Listen, I know the importance of getting the indoor practice facility - I personally gave to the effort. But like Seniorbearcat said, how is that that lowly Toledo can get a more permanent facility for $9mm but we had difficulty raising money for...a bubble, and why does that bubble cost more?

I'm just not seeing $11mm worth of effort here.

And UC got a ton of debt with these overpriced projects. The practice facility is about 210,000 sq. ft. so $11 Million cost equals $52 per sq. ft. That is tremendous value. I remember Purdue's indoor practice facility was $10 Million and that was in the early 1990's.

As an example the CARE/Crawley building cost about $750 per Sq. Ft. (185 Million) to complete. It has a 9 story Atrium, massive waste of space. The new Great American Skyscraper in Downtown Cincy will cost about $350 per Sq. ft.

Surprised at some of the reactions on here. What did you think a bubble was going to look like? They are hardly all that beautiful but it beats the hell out of the landfill and storage that it replaced. The bubble not being permanent allows the field to be dedicated to other things in warm months, like an actual women's lacrosse game field.

(12-02-2010 12:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Hey it is a bubble, not supposed to look like an architectural gem. Massive deal for the program to
have an indoor practice facility. Long overdue.

My point is that the University spent all sorts of money on high falutin' architects and got itself named one of the most beautiful campuses in the world by Forbes magazine...

How did this pass muster with university architects?

Listen, I know the importance of getting the indoor practice facility - I personally gave to the effort. But like Seniorbearcat said, how is that that lowly Toledo can get a more permanent facility for $9mm but we had difficulty raising money for...a bubble, and why does that bubble cost more?

I'm just not seeing $11mm worth of effort here.

Lowly Toledo? While some on here think UT is small potatoes, their athletic complex is very nice regardless of conference affiliation. Nice having Million dollar donations...you want to contribute 1 million for naming rights to the Jefferson complex? I think Toledo has the best sports facilities in the MAC (I've been to 3/4's or more of the stadiums over the years in FB and BB).

Bottom line, the Jeffeson Complex is awesome and long overdue...after phase 2 is complete it will look very nice. I still think a permanent facility should be on the 100 yard field instead of the Bubble though.

Personally, I think the bubble is pimpin'-jiggy (or is it jiggy-pimpin'?). Especially given the fact that it can be removed given the season.

I'm not feelin' it for the Iron-On C-Paw.

I wonder if the punter can hit the roof?

It's way nicer than anything Mike Brown has....

I look forward to reading about how the Bengals have to bus up to Wall to Wall soccer still....

Bubble Bowl 2010. UC vs Pitt. Seating is limited. Be there.

I agree that the bubble is not all that aesthetically pleasing. However, I do think we got a major bump to the curb appeal on Jefferson Ave. as a result of this project. My fiance (non-UC grad) commented on how much nicer that side of campus looks now with the fence along Jeff. Ave. and once the walkway between the two fields is completed it will become an actual 'entrance' to campus there.

(12-02-2010 12:05 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 11:34 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  I'm hoping in a few years the school replaces the bubble with a permanent practice building encompassing the field. It's probably pretty far down the list after renovations to Nippert and overall balancing the budget.

Nice idea though. It still kills me that money was raised, money was spent, the fields put in, the bubble put on (with C-paw), and the team is still practicing in the rain in Nippert.

Rag - No need to practice indoors this week. We are playing an outdoor/inclement weather game on Sat. Why would we practice in ideal conditions, if the game time conditions are not going to be ideal?

Gotta love the bubble, baby!

(12-02-2010 02:52 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:05 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 11:34 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  I'm hoping in a few years the school replaces the bubble with a permanent practice building encompassing the field. It's probably pretty far down the list after renovations to Nippert and overall balancing the budget.

Nice idea though. It still kills me that money was raised, money was spent, the fields put in, the bubble put on (with C-paw), and the team is still practicing in the rain in Nippert.

Rag - No need to practice indoors this week. We are playing an outdoor/inclement weather game on Sat. Why would we practice in ideal conditions, if the game time conditions are not going to be ideal?

You don't have to practice being miserable. The purpose of a practice field (bubble) is to get your work in and be reasonably comfortable.

I always thought you would practice in the conditions you expect to face on gameday. The exception being if weather is too great to cancel practice - you always have the indoor option to get the time worked in.

(12-02-2010 02:56 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  I always thought you would practice in the conditions you expect to face on gameday. The exception being if weather is too great to cancel practice - you always have the indoor option to get the time worked in.

While I believe that has a certain amount of validity, I also believe that it was espoused by a coach who had no other choice of where he was going to practice, therefore making the best of a bad situation or making himself sound like Vince Lombardi. If you have the choice between practicing in bone chilling, hand-numbing weather like the past couple days (and Saturday) or to get all your necessary work in in relative comfort, which makes the most sense?

Again, some people much smarter than me have said, "You don't have to practice being miserable".

Sounds good. Just wondering out loud.