I was thinking that if the solution to the problem of 20K crowds looking small is to build a 20K stadium, that is giving up.

If all we care about is how the crowd looks, we could put some cameras on the opposite side cheaply.


Cost should be the overriding factor though.

1) conflicting priorities.
2) ADA issues
3) ancient plumbing and electrical issues

One of the reasons I support expanding the concourses to the sides is that as essentially free-standing buildings with a short step-over from the stadium, I THINK we could dig new sewer and electrical service lines as opposed to having to retro-fit/become compliant with the existing areas. There just isn't much you can do to fix a 50 year old, 8 inch sewer line buried in 15 feet of concrete that NEEDS to be 24 inches. My suggestion is to turn the existing restrooms into 'low volume' restrooms like family bathrooms or the like, and then build new ones slightly external to the stadium. Replicate the south stands at the old stadium, or even lovett hall to make it not appear to be an 'add-on'.

I think the press box is more important than we think... but it's not THE most important thing... hence it comes after many other upgrades... but seriously... if we just built aluminum and glass boxes with good chairs, desks and air conditioning... it would be an upgrade in many ways.

(09-03-2014 06:07 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 06:03 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  When talking about a brand new stadium, keep in mind that just demolishing HRS would cost about $10 million. Yes, $10 million. That's what tearing down the old Giants Stadium cost. Yankee Stadium was torn down for $22 million.

This is money Rice Athletics just can't throw away. The costs of a new football stadium would sour the Administration on the whole idea of D1 football. It's also still nice to have the 70k seat capacity flexibility to host UT, A&M, and LSU one day again. A 30k capacity stadium would scare off consideration by a P5 conference, dooming Rice to being a mid-major program forever.

As far I know, HRS is structurally sound, which means renovation should not cost too much. Updating bathrooms? Should be easy and cheap. Why aren't they done already??? Plenty of room for new concession services. Just bring in some foodtrucks, frankly. Putting in a new electrical system for certain features shouldn't cost too much if you are value-engineering the plan. I don't know if much can be done about the press box on the cheap, but how important is that, really?

If renovation were that simple....then why hasn't it been done? Makes me wonder if it is that simple.

An absolute lack of consistent and quality leadership.

Rice has had a business renting portable chairbacks for those who want them for at least the 55+ years I have been going to Rice games. The box seats are available for more money and an Owl Club membership. If we are not relevant anymore, maybe it will become time to consider whether Rice should continue to spend money on football. Either we need to get relevant in football or we need to spend the money in an area where the university is relevant.

The schools that have built new stadiums have had good reason to do so.
UH-used to play at Rice Stadium and then the Astrodome before they moved on campus to Robertson. Robertson was finished in 1942 as a high school stadium. UH found it made sense to build new than continue to update it. The new stadium is larger than Robertson.

SMU-also decided to move back on-campus after playing in the Cotton Bowl Stadium. Ownby on campus was small and way outmoded since it was built in the 1920s.

TCU-decided to completely rebuild their stadium in the same place with about the same capacity. The old Amon Carter lower stands were built in 1929.

Baylor decided to build a new stadium on campus instead of updating Casey which was about three miles south of campus. The new stadium has less capacity than the old stadium which turned out to be a mistake because the Bears are winning now and selling out the new stadium.

Tulane-had an old stadium which got condemned soon after Tulane moved to the Superdome. Now, they are building a small on-campus stadium.

Stanford-had a large 1920s stadium with a track around it. They built a new smaller stadium because the old one had bad sight lines.

UT-has added on to their 1924 stadium over the years. The old yard line seats had decent sight lines.

A&M-will have pretty much replaced all of the old stadium at the same location by the time the project is finished in 2015. All of the old west stands will be imploded in December 2014 and rebuilt. The bottom deck on the east side has already been replaced. The second and third levels were built in 1966 and will be retained. The east side is used for student seating. The 1927 and 1929 stands being removed were not good because they did not rise enough between rows.

My opinion is that HRS is well designed and should be renovated to fit our needs. More of the bathrooms and concession stands need to opened back up. Maybe we get a new press box with some luxury suites.

(09-03-2014 04:29 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 04:26 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:25 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  More like 'Right sizing'. HRS is an inappropriate size for Rice, and building something smaller is simply acknowledging that and building something better suited for us.

The only thing we would give up is the illusion that we are still relevant, but that is probably for the best.

Honestly I think it would have the exact opposite effect.

Could you elaborate?

I'm not saying we should tear down HRS. However, we should not spend more (or close) to building a new and better stadium holding out the hope that someday we will fill a 70k stadium weekly.

Well, honestly I would first like to see what the cost difference would be in a true/ full renovation of HRS (take what Hambone has suggested, and then upgrade bathrooms, concessions, electrical, scoreboards, seating (seatbacks?), and of course the necessary repairs to comply with ADA guidelines) and building a brand new 35k-45k seat stadium with all of the bells and whistles. I have no idea how that comparison would come out, but if the cost to renovate HRS was even close to the same as a smaller new stadium then I would say build the new one.

To your request for elaboration- I think that Rice building a new, modern stadium, regardless of the fact that we'd be reducing capacity, would generate significant buzz around the program and would show that we are actually trying to remain relevant. It might even be seen as an indication that we are actively trying to regain relevance that we have lost over the years.

No seatbacks. If Notre Dame can got without, then HRS can. And if folks really want seatbacks, bring ur own.

(09-03-2014 04:29 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  No seatbacks. If Notre Dame can got without, then HRS can. And if folks really want seatbacks, bring ur own.

Yes!

(09-03-2014 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you really want... go back to Owl69/70's suggestion and fill in the lower 10 rows or so with dirt which gives us room for AT LEAST futball if not also track. Changes sight-lines a bit, but not horribly... and would be far cheaper than a new stadium.

How would it change the sight lines? The field would still be in exactly the same place. The seats that would be left would still be in exactly the same place. The intervening visuals would be different, but that doesn't change the sight lines.

The seats that would be gone are seats that used to be great seats when everyone sat on the bench on the sideline, but now with so many people up and about you can't really see the game from there.

(09-04-2014 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you really want... go back to Owl69/70's suggestion and fill in the lower 10 rows or so with dirt which gives us room for AT LEAST futball if not also track. Changes sight-lines a bit, but not horribly... and would be far cheaper than a new stadium.

How would it change the sight lines? The field would still be in exactly the same place. The seats that would be left would still be in exactly the same place. The intervening visuals would be different, but that doesn't change the sight lines.

The seats that would be gone are seats that used to be great seats when everyone sat on the bench on the sideline, but now with so many people up and about you can't really see the game from there.

But then the next ten rows - what were rows 11 through 20 - would be just as low and the view from them would still be obstructed by people on the sidelines, and worse for being farther back.

(09-03-2014 06:07 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 06:03 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  When talking about a brand new stadium, keep in mind that just demolishing HRS would cost about $10 million. Yes, $10 million. That's what tearing down the old Giants Stadium cost. Yankee Stadium was torn down for $22 million.

This is money Rice Athletics just can't throw away. The costs of a new football stadium would sour the Administration on the whole idea of D1 football. It's also still nice to have the 70k seat capacity flexibility to host UT, A&M, and LSU one day again. A 30k capacity stadium would scare off consideration by a P5 conference, dooming Rice to being a mid-major program forever.

As far I know, HRS is structurally sound, which means renovation should not cost too much. Updating bathrooms? Should be easy and cheap. Why aren't they done already??? Plenty of room for new concession services. Just bring in some foodtrucks, frankly. Putting in a new electrical system for certain features shouldn't cost too much if you are value-engineering the plan. I don't know if much can be done about the press box on the cheap, but how important is that, really?

If renovation were that simple....then why hasn't it been done? Makes me wonder if it is that simple.

$$$ and lack of leadership on both ends of campus??

(09-04-2014 08:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you really want... go back to Owl69/70's suggestion and fill in the lower 10 rows or so with dirt which gives us room for AT LEAST futball if not also track. Changes sight-lines a bit, but not horribly... and would be far cheaper than a new stadium.

How would it change the sight lines? The field would still be in exactly the same place. The seats that would be left would still be in exactly the same place. The intervening visuals would be different, but that doesn't change the sight lines.

The seats that would be gone are seats that used to be great seats when everyone sat on the bench on the sideline, but now with so many people up and about you can't really see the game from there.

But then the next ten rows - what were rows 11 through 20 - would be just as low and the view from them would still be obstructed by people on the sidelines, and worse for being farther back.

I don't think they're proposing that the field be raised with the removal of the rows, hence the sightlines don't change one iota. It just creates extra space at field level, and it's a much bigger drop from the new front rows to the field level.

"Fill the lower rows in with dirt" is part of the proposal.

Since I'm referencing Owl, and he's questioning me... perhaps I misunderstood his proposal

Here is what I was referring to with the dark lines the existing wall and field and the dotted ones the new ones




The point of interest is (for the sake of argument) the football sideline.

I guess arguably you have the same view of the soccer sideline or the inside edge of the track as you used to have of the football sideline.

It's still not bad and I suppose as you go higher, the angles are less different... or the view from old row ten is the same as the view from new row 10, but new row 10 is 20 feet further from the sideline than old row 10

(09-04-2014 09:12 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Fill the lower rows in with dirt" is part of the proposal.

But fill the lower rows with dirt does not change the playing field itself in relation to any seat staying behind.

Notre Dame stadium has flower beds in front of many of its front row seats. It doesn't change the view; just "moves" the front rows back.

(09-04-2014 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Since I'm referencing Owl, and he's questioning me... perhaps I misunderstood his proposal
Here is what I was referring to with the dark lines the existing wall and field and the dotted ones the new ones

The point of interest is (for the sake of argument) the football sideline.

Field stays where solid lines are. Dotted line removing stands extended down to field level. Track at same level as field. Build in portable stands that could be extended over track down to field level (like Stade de France, for example). So the solid sightline remains exactly the same.

I think with that kind of facility we could both 1) recruit at the absolute highest level in track and field and other Olympic sports, and 2) attract international athletic events of the highest order, generating additional revenues.

(09-04-2014 11:01 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 09:12 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Fill the lower rows in with dirt" is part of the proposal.

But fill the lower rows with dirt does not change the playing field itself in relation to any seat staying behind.

Notre Dame stadium has flower beds in front of many of its front row seats. It doesn't change the view; just "moves" the front rows back.

One variation of the proposal is to raise the playing surface by adding dirt to the height of row ten to make the playing surface wider for soccer and whatnot. That results in roughly the same angle from the new front row to the football sidelines.

For the ends of the track oval, the stadium would have to be lengthened in each direction. Massive amounts of demolition and facilities relocation required.

(09-04-2014 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Since I'm referencing Owl, and he's questioning me... perhaps I misunderstood his proposal
Here is what I was referring to with the dark lines the existing wall and field and the dotted ones the new ones

The point of interest is (for the sake of argument) the football sideline.

Field stays where solid lines are. Dotted line removing stands extended down to field level. Track at same level as field. Build in portable stands that could be extended over track down to field level (like Stade de France, for example). So the solid sightline remains exactly the same.

I think with that kind of facility we could both 1) recruit at the absolute highest level in track and field and other Olympic sports, and 2) attract international athletic events of the highest order, generating additional revenues.

(09-04-2014 11:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  For the ends of the track oval, the stadium would have to be lengthened in each direction. Massive amounts of demolition and facilities relocation required.

(09-04-2014 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Since I'm referencing Owl, and he's questioning me... perhaps I misunderstood his proposal
Here is what I was referring to with the dark lines the existing wall and field and the dotted ones the new ones

The point of interest is (for the sake of argument) the football sideline.

Field stays where solid lines are. Dotted line removing stands extended down to field level. Track at same level as field. Build in portable stands that could be extended over track down to field level (like Stade de France, for example). So the solid sightline remains exactly the same.

I think with that kind of facility we could both 1) recruit at the absolute highest level in track and field and other Olympic sports, and 2) attract international athletic events of the highest order, generating additional revenues.

Or used the approach Iowa State did with their old stadium.

(09-04-2014 11:42 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 11:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  For the ends of the track oval, the stadium would have to be lengthened in each direction. Massive amounts of demolition and facilities relocation required.

(09-04-2014 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Since I'm referencing Owl, and he's questioning me... perhaps I misunderstood his proposal
Here is what I was referring to with the dark lines the existing wall and field and the dotted ones the new ones

The point of interest is (for the sake of argument) the football sideline.

Field stays where solid lines are. Dotted line removing stands extended down to field level. Track at same level as field. Build in portable stands that could be extended over track down to field level (like Stade de France, for example). So the solid sightline remains exactly the same.

I think with that kind of facility we could both 1) recruit at the absolute highest level in track and field and other Olympic sports, and 2) attract international athletic events of the highest order, generating additional revenues.

Or used the approach Iowa State did with their old stadium.

Geesh-that one (Iowa St) looks about like Rice Field, which is what started this whole thread.......

What was the "before" of Iowa State? How much demolition was required to get there?

I have to say, the Iowa State stadium is ugly. Misshapen, lopsided, and the track's versatility is limited if not a complete oval.

Okay, I'm differing from your proposal then Owl and I apologize. I'm filling in the bowl, raising the floor... and you're taking out the first ten rows

My suggestion is to raise the field probably by 15 feet to make the 'playing' surface larger to accommodate the track. It's not as if we need the seats.

And Frizzy, demolishing the north and south ends have both been proposed... Since we aren't using the stands there anyway, I think it could be done.

Again, this isn't my first or even third preference... It's merely preferable to me (based on what I know now) to demolishing the whole place and building a new facility.

I just can't imagine that even demolishing both ends and trucking in (SWAG) 150,000 cubic feet of dirt isn't cheaper than demolishing the entire thing.... or that rehabbing both sides isn't cheaper than building a whole new facility, including stands and field and parking. Heck, the BASE layer could be the demolished end-zones.

Maybe I'm wrong... wouldn't be the first time... but as this is merely people voicing their impassioned (which is the BEST part of these conversations) but only modestly informed opinions (particularly with regard to costs)... I'm explaining my position.




MAYBE we could get REALLY innovative in that while you need an oval for track, there is nothing magical about the middle of the straight-away in track as in other sports... In fact, it is far more often the end of the straightaway (near the goal/end line) where the excitement takes place. Maybe you seriously offset the track somehow without hurting soccer. Maybe as you have 15 feet below the surface to play with, we put in some sort of 'tray' system like Reliant. Maybe one end-zone comes out and is replaced by track when necessary. Of course this will cost far more... but it would also be ground-breaking... and as Owl suggests, bring in all sorts of other events (potentially)

(09-04-2014 11:42 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Or used the approach Iowa State did with their old stadium.

That stadium is really ugly. I hope we retain the symmetric aspect of HRS going forward.