The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-17-2016 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 04:33 PM)BlazerHam Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 04:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  In regards to parking, how about shuttles to & from various spots - UAB/Southside, Fultondale, etc.?

Parking in that area is always a pain, would be good to think about it now along with this potential project.

Or shuttles to city area parking decks (McWane, Boutwell, 4th ave N, etc) -- should be plenty of room in them on Saturdays I would think.

The BJCTA is working on redoing the downtown circulator. Birmingham needs ways to get around downtown in general without having to drive. Shouldn't be BJCC centered.

(08-17-2016 04:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  In regards to parking, how about shuttles to & from various spots - UAB/Southside, Fultondale, etc.?

Parking in that area is always a pain, would be good to think about it now along with this potential project.

Fultondale?

Couldn't think of any other place north of town, but just in general several drop off spots north, south, east, & west of the area.

Football stadium drawing looks like 2/3 of all seating is in the end zones. Surely there could be a much better design?

(08-17-2016 10:06 PM)bigdunks Wrote:  Football stadium drawing looks like 2/3 of all seating is in the end zones. Surely there could be a much better design?

Yeah the press box/suites need to be elevated for sure. The ratio of sideline to end zone seats seems off.

from the drawing, it appears the end zone areas on the field are very small so the sideline seats are "only" about 120 yards making the end zone & corner seating areas larger.

(08-17-2016 10:37 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:06 PM)bigdunks Wrote:  Football stadium drawing looks like 2/3 of all seating is in the end zones. Surely there could be a much better design?

Yeah the press box/suites need to be elevated for sure. The ratio of sideline to end zone seats seems off.

The "home" side of the stadium does indeed look awkward. Definitely not Populus' best work. However this is just the initial proposal, changes can and likely will be made. One change that will have to occur from the concept - the playing surface will have to be wider (by 20-30 yards) than depicted to accommodate FIFA field requirements as the news stories mentioned the stadium being capable of hosting soccer matches.

Publicly funded stadiums are just terrible investments.

Yet, all major cities invest in the and will continue to.


A facilities impact on the community is more than simply dollars and cents.

(08-18-2016 12:07 PM)uabblazer2012 Wrote:  Publicly funded stadiums are just terrible investments.

If UAB had built it, it would have been publicly funded too.

Snark aside, there's a difference between building something like this and giving a handout to the Atlanta Falcons or the Braves.

And the comments section from Al.com are ALWAYS a jewel

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

I like the design. More end zone seats hopefully means we can at least fill the sidelines to create a good atmosphere.

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that these are concept drawings. schematics. The project has not even been designed yet. Remember we told you the football building would not look like it's original drawing?

Let's be thankful that this project is getting closer to being a reality and when it is time to design it all the bugs and kinks will be worked out. yes there is talk of a parking deck as well. There is a mind boggling amount of logistics to be worked out with this project.

(08-17-2016 10:06 PM)bigdunks Wrote:  Football stadium drawing looks like 2/3 of all seating is in the end zones. Surely there could be a much better design?

According to the B'ham Park Board letter (of prior mention) this is about the ratio of Legion Field with 26,000 sideline seats between the goal lines - BOTH east & west stands combined - which means that almost 50,000 are at each end behind the goal lines. BTW, There were 35,000 sideline seats when it had the upper deck.

So, if the judge doesn't rule in favor of using the sales tax to fund the project, do we go back to the on campus stadium idea?

(08-19-2016 12:06 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  So, if the judge doesn't rule in favor of using the sales tax to fund the project, do we go back to the on campus stadium idea?

I believe the lawsuit is a technicality over how the legislature authorized the tax so we could go back to the legislature and get them to clarify the bill.

(08-19-2016 01:24 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:06 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  So, if the judge doesn't rule in favor of using the sales tax to fund the project, do we go back to the on campus stadium idea?

I believe the lawsuit is a technicality over how the legislature authorized the tax so we could go back to the legislature and get them to clarify the bill.

So how much opposition will there be in the legislature I wonder?

The on campus stadium is dead until the BOT is purged of slime.

The law suit illustrates the severe limits in Alabama's Constitution on local home rule. What possible justification is there to giving the state legislature control of a stadium being built entirely at local expense?

No wonder the part time legislature is so ineffective since it must manage all the state's financial and legal problems and then manage every city's and county's day to day business as well, and do it all in 3 months per year. Welcome to the results from Alabama's 19th century Constitution (yes, I know it was written in 1901 to take advantage of the 1896 "Plessy Decision".) Kind of explains all those expensive "special sessions" like the one right now.

(08-19-2016 01:24 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:06 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  So, if the judge doesn't rule in favor of using the sales tax to fund the project, do we go back to the on campus stadium idea?

I believe the lawsuit is a technicality over how the legislature authorized the tax so we could go back to the legislature and get them to clarify the bill.

The Judge has already ruled against the tax...the county has appealed to the state Supreme Court and is awaiting its decision.

If the Supreme Court lets the ruling stand, the Legislature will simply re-introduce the legislation in next years session and pass it following the correct procedure. The was little opposition last year as this was not a new tax and there is expected to be no problem getting it passed again according to Hatton Smith.

(08-19-2016 04:06 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 01:24 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:06 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  So, if the judge doesn't rule in favor of using the sales tax to fund the project, do we go back to the on campus stadium idea?

I believe the lawsuit is a technicality over how the legislature authorized the tax so we could go back to the legislature and get them to clarify the bill.

The Judge has already ruled against the tax...the county has appealed to the state Supreme Court and is awaiting its decision.

If the Supreme Court lets the ruling stand, the Legislature will simply re-introduce the legislation in next years session and pass it following the correct procedure. The was little opposition last year as this was not a new tax and there is expected to be no problem getting it passed again according to Hatton Smith.

Based upon past rulings by the all Republican Alabama Supreme Court, if they believe their decision might help a Democratic city gov't, they are likely to uphold the lower court's ruling.

This belief is based upon their decision on the Alabama Accountability Act where the lower court judge - elected as a Democrat - cited chapter and verse of how the methods used to pass the AAA violated the State Constitution and the legislature's own procedural rules, but since the Republican party wanted the law, it was unanimously upheld. That is how politics works in one party Alabama.