I'm a big fan of summitry. Closing in the bowl looks good. I don't like the mismatched upper decks. The notches in the existing upper deck is for lighting. I don't think the proposed lighting would be very good. (Yes I realize it is a rendering). With just two sources on the side it would create hot spots.

I don't know if I would go as far as calling it stupid but I think Lou should wait to see what attendance is like with increased TV exposure in the ACC.

The lighting notches were never built.

(10-15-2013 12:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 04:25 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I don't like nor think the 2nd deck above the home side is a good idea. Put in more lower levels (premium dollar seating north end) probably with a few more suites there too, and then add the south end zone in conjunction with building the academic building below.

Expanding the south endzone would reduce parking and conject the entrance, two things that are already at a premium.

I don't see it designed to take up parking spaces. It would have columns in the ground, with the rest built off of the party deck. As for the entrance, I believe it would be just fine in its design walking up to it from the tunnel. We'd have the academic center sitting on the ground and then the raised south end zone with the big screen still mounted on it.

(10-13-2013 07:05 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  If I were Louisville I wouldn't touch the stadium until the program proved it could consistently win big/draw big. Expanding based on the success of a few good years would be a monumentally stupid decision, IMHO.

There are a few things I'd like to see them do with the stadium before they add more seats.

1. Widen the concourses beneath the stands by another 15 or so feet (where possible). I've been to substantially worse stadiums, but the congested concourses at PJCS are pretty bad.

2. Build the academic center (link).

3. Renovate and expand the Schnellenberger football complex.

#1 is a personal wish and probably isn't going to happen. The other two are being planned right now and are more important than adding more seats. Both the academic center and expansion of the football complex will help with recruiting and have been made priorities by Coach Strong.

(10-15-2013 10:39 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 12:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Expanding the south endzone would reduce parking and conject the entrance, two things that are already at a premium.

I don't see it designed to take up parking spaces. It would have columns in the ground, with the rest built off of the party deck. As for the entrance, I believe it would be just fine in its design walking up to it from the tunnel. We'd have the academic center sitting on the ground and then the raised south end zone with the big screen still mounted on it.

The columns to the party deck pretty much reach to the near end of the stadium grounds prior to the lot. If you built an upper deck above it, the support columns would require a larger area, thus removing some parking.

In any event, once expansion is needed again, the idea is asinine to build another upper deck before enclosing. Completely asinine, both in cost and the quality of seats. It makes absolutely no sense. Especially since an enclosure can easily incorporate the HSC into the front façade of the stadium, making it look like one complete building, and drastically improving the aesthetics of the complex.

(10-16-2013 12:20 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are a few things I'd like to see them do with the stadium before they add more seats.

1. Widen the concourses beneath the stands by another 15 or so feet (where possible). I've been to substantially worse stadiums, but the congested concourses at PJCS are pretty bad.

The issue here is one of design flaw. You have to remember that a full enclosed lower bowl of PJCS would seat close to 60,000, probably about 56,000 or so. I point this out because while you may see many stadiums that have that many seats in one "bowl," underneath the bowls often have multiple levels of entrances and concourses. Having only one concourse for the compressed equivalent of a 56,000 seat stadium in the lower bowl, is simply going to be packed no matter how wide it is. Consider that the upper concourse is quite a bit smaller, but never congested because there are far less people in that one area.

The only thing that would help is if the party deck had a concourse that went around the top of the bowl (and if the bowl is ever enclosed connected to the party deck on the other side) which would severely reduce congestion in the bottom (think the purpose of the Eastern Ohio River Bridge). However with the suites at the top of the bowl, and the PNC/B&W clubs, I don't see how that could be done.

(10-16-2013 01:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 12:20 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  There are a few things I'd like to see them do with the stadium before they add more seats.

1. Widen the concourses beneath the stands by another 15 or so feet (where possible). I've been to substantially worse stadiums, but the congested concourses at PJCS are pretty bad.

The issue here is one of design flaw. You have to remember that a full enclosed lower bowl of PJCS would seat close to 60,000, probably about 56,000 or so. I point this out because while you may see many stadiums that have that many seats in one "bowl," underneath the bowls often have multiple levels of entrances and concourses. Having only one concourse for the compressed equivalent of a 56,000 seat stadium in the lower bowl, is simply going to be packed no matter how wide it is. Consider that the upper concourse is quite a bit smaller, but never congested because there are far less people in that one area.

The only thing that would help is if the party deck had a concourse that went around the top of the bowl (and if the bowl is ever enclosed connected to the party deck on the other side) which would severely reduce congestion in the bottom (think the purpose of the Eastern Ohio River Bridge). However with the suites at the top of the bowl, and the PNC/B&W clubs, I don't see how that could be done.

I agree with you that we should enclose the lower bowl first before anything else.....and that IMO doesn't need to be done until we see ACC teams visit to see how many they travel and I'd say we'll see our ceiling of regulars to show up for ACC games in the next few years. We could be a 65k stadium soon and probably stop there. I think that lower bowl on north side could 10-12k, continue the lower level concourse under the seating, but it would either have to stop on each north side where the players walk into the stadium from football complex or figure out a way to continue on around (maybe a tunnel down/up)

Looking at the rendering, I would just stick with enclosing the north end with lower bowl, maybe a party deck/standing room only with the scoreboards moved to be in similar place as south end. That is a plenty big enough stadium for us at 65-68k.

I have thought that if expansion becomes necessary, enclosure similar to Centurylink field in Seattle would be optimal.


If I had any photoshop skills I would do this properly


In my design, the bowl would full enclose, with the suites that are above the bowl on the east and west side, wrapping round just like the above, complete with scoreboard in the middle ( I love the lower in bowl scoreboard. It just has an awesome look to it.). The upperdeck seating on the east side would wrap around the turn just like above, which appears to be about 8 degrees more than the initial upper deck set up was supposed to be, and not too much more overall when you account for the cropped portion of the other side. It even seems fitting since it has an almost identical sized section of club like seating in the upper deck that we have. I would even build a small upper deck extension on the west side like you see above, that would end where the roof over the B&W deck is now (visitor's seats could be moved to this section in the upper and lower bowl). And above the scoreboard, where you see a small section of club seating, and a view of the Seattle skyline, I would have another party deck which connects via concourse all the way around to the deck on the other side, although this one would be level height wise with the upper concourse, as opposed to the flight deck which is level with the top of the lower bowl).

As for the player tunnel, remember that the lower concourse is somewhat elevated above ground level anyway. The entrance could essentially be a real tunnel below the concourse coming out right on the field.

(10-15-2013 07:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The lighting notches were never built.

That's what I get for looking on google images.

News comes out today from one of our fellow posters on here. UL has sent a RFP for a feasibility study to expand the north endzone.

http://www.cardchronicle.com/2013/11/20/...tadium-rfp

Well, I have heard that it is being done by at least 10,000 seats. Their will be more corporate boxes added as well. So all that is really required is an agreement on where to add them in the stadium and whether it will be 10,000 or as much as 20,000. Also, I also heard that the expansion will touch both sides of the Schnellenberger Complex and funding is not the issue. It will be done by the start of the 2017 season.

Go Cards!!!

Better get on the train or get left behind!

(10-12-2013 11:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ewwwwwwww. That looks hideous.

Closing in the endzone is good. Whatever it is they did with the upper deck opposite the press box though is awful.

Jake, from State Farm: Not pleased.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

(10-13-2013 08:46 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  If there is a lot of demand then perhaps they should be increasing ticket prices. As the pro teams tend to do they raise the ticket prices to match the demand. At some point you balance out the demand versus price and you maximize revenue. If there is still a lot of demand after increasing the ticket prices then perhaps stadium expansion is in order.

This is the type of attitude by athletic departments that kills fan support. You raise prices until you stifle demand down to match you capacity. We have family package tickets in lots of 4 or more for 124 dollars each for the season. I hope we don't loose our mission of keeping our tickets within the budget of families on limited budget. Many people including me, attend football games who rarely if ever attend a basketball game at Yum center. Season tickets are over 1000 dollars each and there is a waiting list. With future expansions it is just a matter of time before football passes basketball in terms of ticket and donation revenue.

(11-21-2013 10:25 PM)Cody6003 Wrote:  With future expansions it is just a matter of time before football passes basketball in terms of ticket and donation revenue.

Wouldn't get carried away with that. The basketball team makes more money than all but 19 current football programs as it stands now. That is a tall order. If that happened it would put Louisville as a top 5 revenue producing team, which quite frankly is "too much" since most of that money is coming from a finite sized fanbase. Means you are gouging people.

(11-22-2013 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 10:25 PM)Cody6003 Wrote:  With future expansions it is just a matter of time before football passes basketball in terms of ticket and donation revenue.

Wouldn't get carried away with that. The basketball team makes more money than all but 19 current football programs as it stands now. That is a tall order. If that happened it would put Louisville as a top 5 revenue producing team, which quite frankly is "too much" since most of that money is coming from a finite sized fanbase. Means you are gouging people.

Not talking about total basketball money. Only ticket sales and donations necessary for right to buy certain tickets. Think on it. Total season tickets available for sale. Basketball < 20,000. Football 45,000 to 65,000 in the future.

Louisville can't support an 80k stadium. I can see topping out at 65k similar to Va Tech.

80,000 would be too big, but 70,000 would not be. Likely a 70,000 stadium would see many games get about 65,000 people with the bigger games filling up. Enclosing the lower bowl, which is what they are investigating now, if completely enclosed would get to between 65,000 - 70,000 depending on if any area is left open or not. It's a lot easier to sell the extra seats when the extra seats are lower level or premium seats.

(11-22-2013 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  80,000 would be too big, but 70,000 would not be. Likely a 70,000 stadium would see many games get about 65,000 people with the bigger games filling up. Enclosing the lower bowl, which is what they are investigating now, if completely enclosed would get to between 65,000 - 70,000 depending on if any area is left open or not. It's a lot easier to sell the extra seats when the extra seats are lower level or premium seats.

I would like to fill it in but build around and Over the Schnellenberger complex. Leave the entrance way in full view as it's so cool when the players come on to the field from there, 65- 70,000 is plenty for the next 10 years or so. You will have turnover through out the stadium anyway.