(09-04-2014 12:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That stadium is really ugly. I hope we retain the symmetric aspect of HRS going forward.

Especially in that one of our best features is how many of our seats are between the end-lines... as opposed to that one, where it looks like a huge chunk are 'bad' seats

(09-04-2014 11:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  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.

Track was a complete oval, rounded portion at far end was under stands, something that was done frequently by schools that wanted to keep track in football stadium.

Putting in a new track in Rice Stadium would be ridiculous. Besides having a poorly designed 1920s football stadium, Stanford wanted to precisely get rid of the track in their new stadium. HRS still has better design features than the new Stanford stadium: better concourses, better pedestrian flow, more seats on the yardlines.

To clarify, I think 69/70/75's basic idea is to expand the existing playing surface at the current level by scraping away into the first 10 rows of seating. Sightlines would be the same, but that would leave quite a drop-off between the 'new' edge of the seating and the widened playing field. It could prove to be a safety hazard and may look ugly, especially with the necessary safety fences and the like.

I thought this idea had some merit when the Dynamo were still looking for a new stadium, and Rice and the Dynamo could jointly fund the rejuvenation of Rice Stadium. Now, I don't think it makes any financial sense, because it will cost quite a bit of money. While it would be nice to host big-time soccer matches at Rice, I don't see how it is worth screwing up a stadium that already has good design aesthetics.

The idea should be to keep it simple and cost-effective. It really shouldn't take much to get HRS into better working order. The restrooms and the concessions, for instance, should be easy improvements. I don't think we need to tear apart HRS to make improvements, with the notable exception of the south endzone jumble of buildings.

I see, so the Iowa State track is an oval, and they built endzone seating over one end of the oval, so that track runners disappear under the stands for a while on each lap.

Let's not do that.

(09-04-2014 02:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I see, so the Iowa State track is an oval, and they built endzone seating over one end of the oval, so that track runners disappear under the stands for a while on each lap.

Let's not do that.

Indeed!

That "under the stands" photo shown above is apparently quite old. Here's what the Cyclone's track "stadium" looks like now: https://goo.gl/maps/el0T2

The small grandstand can probably hold a few hundred spectators. Here's a link to a picture gallery that (eventually) includes some closer-up photos of the track: http://www.cyclones.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?...M_ID=10700

Their football stadium has no track around it. But they do have a $13 million indoor facility with an 8-lane, 300-meter track.

(09-04-2014 02:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I see, so the Iowa State track is an oval, and they built endzone seating over one end of the oval, so that track runners disappear under the stands for a while on each lap.

Perhaps that's why the Iowa State Relays never caught on quite the way the Drake Relays did just down the road.

That's the thing...

A decade or more after our 'peers' are building indoor facilities, we're (on here... not the administration) talking about doing with less.

(09-04-2014 02:59 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 02:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I see, so the Iowa State track is an oval, and they built endzone seating over one end of the oval, so that track runners disappear under the stands for a while on each lap.

Let's not do that.

Indeed!

That "under the stands" photo shown above is apparently quite old. Here's what the Cyclone's track "stadium" looks like now: https://goo.gl/maps/el0T2

The small grandstand can probably hold a few hundred spectators. Here's a link to a picture gallery that (eventually) includes some closer-up photos of the track: http://www.cyclones.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?...M_ID=10700

Their football stadium has no track around it. But they do have a $13 million indoor facility with an 8-lane, 300-meter track.

Yes Clyde Williams Field (the stadium in the picture) was the old stadium which was replaced by Jack Trice in 1975. In 1966 the end zone section was erected creating the tunnel turn for the track. The stadium sat on the SW corner of the campus at Sheldon and the Lincoln Highway (first transcontinental highway). Dorms now sit where the stadium did.

(09-04-2014 02:10 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Putting in a new track in Rice Stadium would be ridiculous. Besides having a poorly designed 1920s football stadium, Stanford wanted to precisely get rid of the track in their new stadium. HRS still has better design features than the new Stanford stadium: better concourses, better pedestrian flow, more seats on the yardlines.

Depends on your objectives. Stanford has a competitive football program in a P5 conference. We don't. Stanford has more room than we do. Needs are different. The approach I'm talking about would preserve every one of the advantages you mention.

Unless there is a quick ticket to P5, and I don't see one, I think we may need to look at Olympic sports as an obvious place to make a name for ourselves. My Rice Stadium would be the best track and field facility at any university in the country, and that should help recruiting. Obviously, this approach made more sense before the Dynamo went another direction, but a world class soccer and rugby facility could give us a venue with a chance to host a lot of world-class events.

The other thing I'm looking at is that we need serious upgrades to fan amenities. Notre Dame gets by without a lot, but 1) they are Notre Dame and we aren't, and 2) they are moving in that direction big time, if you look at their plans. I'm thinking that getting the money to do those things is a long shot until somebody writes the check. But what if we could solve some other problems at the same time? Putting the track in Rice Stadium frees up a fairly large area on a campus that is starting to run out of room (another difference from Stanford, at least in the short run). I think we could do suites in the between-decks area on both sides, where the boxes are now. And on both sides, go outside the current footprint and build from the ground up. Run a building on both sides from one of the large brick supporting towers to the other. On the two concourse levels, put upgraded concessions and rest rooms (since you are outside the current footprint, you dodge a lot of plumbing, electrical, and other problems as Hambone mentions), take it up to the top of the upper deck and put expanded press box and suites on the west side and two levels of suites on the east side. The floors between the concourse and the top could be offices, classrooms, and/or other athletic facilities. Take a page from Texas Tech and make it look like Lovett Hall to blend in architecturally with the rest of the campus. Maybe even have a Lovett Hall archway entrance on the 50 yard line on both sides, to emulate Reckling.

(09-04-2014 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...Stanford has more room than we do...

Per wiki

Stanford 8,180 acres
Rice 295 acres

I had no idea it was that big a difference.

(09-05-2014 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...Stanford has more room than we do...

Per wiki

Stanford 8,180 acres
Rice 295 acres

I had no idea it was that big a difference.

Well, we could take back Hermann Park...and the Village....and the land that Johnson Space Center sits on...and we still wouldn't come close.

I wonder just how much of that 8,180 acres is actual university space?

(09-05-2014 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...Stanford has more room than we do...

Per wiki

Stanford 8,180 acres
Rice 295 acres

I had no idea it was that big a difference.

Other comparisons
Duke 8470 acres
Vanderbilt 330 acres
Northwestern 240 acres
Tulane 110 acres (for twice as many undergrads as we have!)

I drove by the Stanford campus this summer for the first real time (I've been there for a few sporting events but mostly at night and just the sports complexes only). I was surprised how unattractive the Stanford campus actually is. Maybe it's because of the bad drought, or maybe just because I had been by the much prettier (IMO) California-Berkeley campus earlier in the week, but Stanford's massive grounds just don't seem to have rhyme or reason to the layout. It just seems to have a lot of trees (very little landscaping) and every now and then, they threw in a few campus buildings.

Duke's campus seemed much nicer to me but it's been well over 20 years since I've been there last.

IMO, I'm not sure if anyone can touch Air Force or Army for campus beauty and history.

(09-03-2014 10:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:46 AM)Grungy Wrote:  Go ahead and demolish the north stands.
Then rebuild the south stands, with modern technology.
It has long been my opinion that they tore down the wrong set, long ago.

+1000

Agreed. Especially since the "north" stands are actually more like northeast, meaning for a 7 p.m. Friday night game during Daylight Savings Time, you're looking into the sun for at least the first half.

(09-03-2014 11:12 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:32 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:55 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  This plan was one of several that were floating around during the CDC/Sayler period. After very preliminary studies of upgrading HRS the question was raised would it be wise to put $50+M into HRS or would it make more sense to put that money towards a new stadium. Also with the plans to build Gibbs there was interest in moving as many athletic facilities to the area around HRS (or the new stadium) as possible recognizing that Tudor and Reckling would be exceptions.

I have come full circle on this issue. I think we should build a new stadium. I would hate to lose HRS, but it is clearly too big for us now. Look at the hype/press UH and Baylor have gotten for their new stadium. Is there any reason we couldn't build something new, seating 35k-40k, that would be as architecturally pleasing as HRS?

That was pretty much where the debate was headed when RG was hired. At the time they were looking at SMU's Ford stadium but as you point out the UH and Baylor new stadium response would have added ammunition. I pretty much agreed with the argument at the time and still do.

Doesn't seem very compelling to me. Five of SMU's six home games last year drew crowds under 20k.

I don't expect the Baylor/UH hype/press to last long.

(09-05-2014 01:44 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:12 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:32 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:55 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  This plan was one of several that were floating around during the CDC/Sayler period. After very preliminary studies of upgrading HRS the question was raised would it be wise to put $50+M into HRS or would it make more sense to put that money towards a new stadium. Also with the plans to build Gibbs there was interest in moving as many athletic facilities to the area around HRS (or the new stadium) as possible recognizing that Tudor and Reckling would be exceptions.

I have come full circle on this issue. I think we should build a new stadium. I would hate to lose HRS, but it is clearly too big for us now. Look at the hype/press UH and Baylor have gotten for their new stadium. Is there any reason we couldn't build something new, seating 35k-40k, that would be as architecturally pleasing as HRS?

That was pretty much where the debate was headed when RG was hired. At the time they were looking at SMU's Ford stadium but as you point out the UH and Baylor new stadium response would have added ammunition. I pretty much agreed with the argument at the time and still do.

Doesn't seem very compelling to me. Five of SMU's six home games last year drew crowds under 20k.

I don't expect the Baylor/UH hype/press to last long.

Agree with UH, not so with Baylor

(09-05-2014 11:21 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...Stanford has more room than we do...

Per wiki

Stanford 8,180 acres
Rice 295 acres

I had no idea it was that big a difference.

I wonder just how much of that 8,180 acres is actual university space?

Here's an overhead view of the Stanford campus with its boundary marked in red:



Stanford says it's main campus, including the hospital, student dorms and faculty housing, occupies about 1,700 acres. That's generally in the top-middle of the photo.

Other Stanford land uses include:

• Stanford Shopping Center (70 acres, the very top-middle corner)
• Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory (425 acres, top-left)
• Stanford Research Park (700 acres, right side)
• Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve (1200 acres, left-middle)
  

This accounts for about half of Stanford's total acreage. The rest (lower-middle) is undeveloped, some leased for grazing/agriculture.

(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.

No.

Here are the decision factors as In see them:

1. We are not members of a P5 football conference.
2. But we would like to be.
3. To get there we need a serious upgrade in facilities, sustained excellence in at least part of the intercollegiate sports spectrum, and most importantly increased fan support.
4. We can expect reasonable help but not blank checks from the BOT. They will probably support a plan that makes business sense. We're probably going to have to give something to get anything big.

Because of 1, we don't need 70,000 seats for football today. But downsizing doesn't fit with 2. What we do need is a much nicer and more fan friendly facility, particularly if we are to attract the 2014 sports fan. That costs money that we don't have. But if the upgrade could be part of a plan that solves other problems--such as a multi-purpose stadium freeing up needed space elsewhere--we have more leverage to negotiate a deal with the BOT. And if a top-flight multi-purpose stadium gives us a significant recruiting edge in track and field and cross-country, which have traditionally been relatively strong at Rice, that helps with the resume. If Rhoades does what we think he can with basketball, and Bailiff keeps football at the top of CUSA, and Wayne keeps baseball where it has been, then we start to have enough on the field. And an improved facility plus actual marketing should bring the crowds up, which is what we really need to address.

That's really the strategic thinking behind my multi-purpose Rice Stadium idea. If you prefer a different approach, how do you fit it into a strategy?

I'm still 150% convinced that the future of sports for schools that don't have 40,000 students is multi-media.... mobile entertainment... multi-tasking.