The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(06-14-2015 08:11 AM)Monarch Blue Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 07:43 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  The article didn't address keeping the stadium at the existing site. It only addressed whether or not the existing structure could be renovated. The idea of tearing down the old structure and rebuilding on the existing site has not yet been addressed.The article mentioned ODU officials want to keep the City of Norfolk logo ,the general feel of FF and other iconic features of Foreman Field. For me, best case scenario has the new stadium, named of course FF, built on the existing site incorporating some of the "old" features and look of the current FF. I love they want to keep the brick logo's.
One thing in the article struck me as ironic. It says the concrete workmanship was "generally poor". This for a structure that is around 80 years old.

I didn't realize anybody was really serious about renovating the existing stadium. Building a new one in stages on the same site has always been my first option presuming it doesn't limit future capacity to something less than 40K. If it does I would opt for a different site. My second choice would be the vacant property where Norfolk Radio presently resides. That would require a buyout that may not be feasible at the moment. Given the proper facilities I think the sky is the limit for ODU football. This is a huge sports area and there's no other game in town.

Build the stadium around it. They'll move then!

(06-14-2015 09:42 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  I've posted a link before that outlines the footprint of Alabama's stadium over Foreman. It's not as tight as you would believe.

Found here.

(06-14-2015 08:52 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  ODU tried to get that property via eminent domain. We ALMOST had it, but then Virginia changed the laws surrounding that method. That radio store hates ODU and I doubt they'd ever sell to us.

The issue was using eminent domain for the school to build commercial retail property. However, if they use eminent domain to build an educational building, it would work. I don't think they're too concerned with that lot at this point. They will just continue building around him.

(06-14-2015 11:09 PM)ODUAlumni2015 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:42 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  I've posted a link before that outlines the footprint of Alabama's stadium over Foreman. It's not as tight as you would believe.

Found here.

Thanks. That's over 101,000 capacity in a footprint not that much bigger than ours.

(06-15-2015 07:52 AM)Cr8n Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:09 PM)ODUAlumni2015 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:42 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  I've posted a link before that outlines the footprint of Alabama's stadium over Foreman. It's not as tight as you would believe.

Found here.

Thanks. That's over 101,000 capacity in a footprint not that much bigger than ours.

details

(06-15-2015 08:00 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 07:52 AM)Cr8n Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:09 PM)ODUAlumni2015 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:42 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  I've posted a link before that outlines the footprint of Alabama's stadium over Foreman. It's not as tight as you would believe.

Found here.

Thanks. That's over 101,000 capacity in a footprint not that much bigger than ours.

details

Click the link and you will see there's essentially enough land where FF is now to build Bryant Denny Stadium if we need to.

(06-14-2015 04:56 PM)TedHead Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 04:13 PM)odubum Wrote:  I just don't think there is enough space where Foreman Field is to build a new stadium that is expandable to 40K without acquiring more land and I don't see tat happening. The other problem would be, where does the team play while Foreman is torn down and the new stadium is built?

I think the idea would be to build in stages. Taking a year to complete one phase at a time. Much like JMU did with Bridgeforth. My guess would be the north end zone first. The next year one of the clams would come down, the next year the other clam. After three seasons the stadium would be complete.

If we do go this route, I think we would have to replace the west clamshell the first year, providing the updated, state-of-the-art pressbox from the get-go. Perhaps they could then do the east clamshell and north end zone at the same time, completing the new stadium in just two stages instead of three.

Interesting image. A top-notch 33k stadium should certainly fit on the site if it comes to that.

(06-15-2015 12:40 PM)ODUAlumni2015 Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:00 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 07:52 AM)Cr8n Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:09 PM)ODUAlumni2015 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:42 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  I've posted a link before that outlines the footprint of Alabama's stadium over Foreman. It's not as tight as you would believe.

Found here.

Thanks. That's over 101,000 capacity in a footprint not that much bigger than ours.

details

Click the link and you will see there's essentially enough land where FF is now to build Bryant Denny Stadium if we need to.

The reality must not be as simple as that. I'm guessing the water table in Tuscaloosa is quite a bit lower than it is at ODU, for example.

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/06/renovate...ve-history

(06-16-2015 03:53 PM)mac Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2015/06/renovate...ve-history

Don't you love editorials without a name attached? The stadium may be historic. But it's also unsafe, outdated and a certain money pit.

I agree. Start fresh. If they preserve FF and try to bring it up to modern day standards and something really bad happens, are those people that want to preserve it going to help pay for the bill? I think not. Start fresh ODU, don't make a stupid move to please non paying people!

(06-16-2015 04:07 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 03:53 PM)mac Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2015/06/renovate...ve-history

Don't you love editorials without a name attached? The stadium may be historic. But it's also unsafe, outdated and a certain money pit.

My first thought after reading that is to wonder which color crayon it was written in. (perhaps orange and/or maroon)

Seriously though, if the writer had bothered to read the first report Populous issued they are either woefully lacking in reading comprehension, or trying to stir the pot. My guess is the latter.

Follow the $$$$, a lot of old Norfolk money in Larchmont and the folks there want us to keep our quaint, little, stadium as it is and where it is.

the same viewpoint was shared by the Pilotless, when Harbor Park was proposed; imagine their commentary today if a plan like the 70s came out: Scope, Hampton Coliseum, Richmond Mausoleum and the Salem Civic Center all for the Squires...the Pilotless doesn't like light rail, reading previous studies nor offending Larchmont

Love FF, but the old girl has got to go. Anybody here miss the Field House?

Heavens, make a freaking decision and move on. Stop studying every option under the sun. I'm not getting any younger and I want seats in the new stadium. Tear the old girl down and let's build a 21st century stadium we would ALL be proud of. Just get on with it, please. Geeeez.

(06-16-2015 04:58 PM)paintedblue2 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 04:07 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 03:53 PM)mac Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2015/06/renovate...ve-history

Don't you love editorials without a name attached? The stadium may be historic. But it's also unsafe, outdated and a certain money pit.

My first thought after reading that is to wonder which color crayon it was written in. (perhaps orange and/or maroon)

Seriously though, if the writer had bothered to read the first report Populous issued they are either woefully lacking in reading comprehension, or trying to stir the pot. My guess is the latter.

+1
Any sane person who reads that article couldn't possibly come away with any other thought but that the editorial board is either dominated by other alumni (VT, UVA, W&M, JMU, etc.) or might be championing the interests/views of a special interest group (Few Larchmont Residents, Preservationists, etc.)

I say tear it down and build a state-of-the-art stadium.
Do not let haters derail this great opportunity.
Go Monarchs!

It's a non-sports unsigned editorial. They're more likely to fall in love with the "historic" nature of FF, even though it doesn't really have much in the way of historic impact (it was a WPA project, it hosted some football games, and for more than 10 years in the 1990s and 2000s it was used solely for field hockey and lacrosse). If they renovated Foreman Field, they'd be sending their intent to leave CUSA with it, and at best, they'd go back to the CAA (at worst, the Southern or Big South if the bridges are too crisply burnt).

It was one anonymous editorial. I don't think it represents that much to get worked up about. We are on course to have ground broken on a new 30K (or more) seat stadium within the next year or so. President Broderick and the BOV is fully behind the stadium project and it is going to happen.

It is also going to be AWESOME!