IF the Big 12 comes calling, much discussion has taken place on what and where to add seats to Nippert.

This is simply a couple of rough sketches… But it does illustrate what COULD be done if the ole girl needs enlarged once again.

[attachment=8218]

(08-26-2016 03:23 PM)Bearcats_Forever Wrote:  IF the Big 12 comes calling, much discussion has taken place on what and where to add seats to Nippert.

This is simply a couple of rough sketches… But it does illustrate what COULD be done if the ole girl needs enlarged once again.

And sorry for the size… Exceeded bandwidth.

And sorry for the soccer pic… Tis all that was available from that point of view!

I'm convinced the architects and engineers could find a way to do exactly what your illustration shows. What is uncertain is if it would require a closure for another season. I would think a pavilion on that scale must have similar structural support in the lower bowl just like the western expansion.

If this must be done we probably all agree, the quality of our problems has improved dramatically.

I think they would sacrifice capacity for more high dollar club and suite seating.

The version shown here would diminish Nippert's character, though I appreciate the effort to demonstrate what added capacity may look like.

Nice job BF! That would look so sweet.

I like it. The issue may be a need for more luxury seating. However, I do agree with the concept of giving H/S Pavilion a steeper rake and cantilevered forward a bit more. It's the only way to practically add rows of seating. The footprint still stays so compact that the crowd noise would become beyond ridiculous.

Looks nice, but even with the increased rake, does it allow for the close fit next to Lindner on the north end?

(08-26-2016 04:16 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Looks nice, but even with the increased rake, does it allow for the close fit next to Lindner on the north end?

I'm no architect but Lindner is VERY close to Nippert. That would be one steep slope!

(08-26-2016 04:57 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 04:16 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Looks nice, but even with the increased rake, does it allow for the close fit next to Lindner on the north end?

I'm no architect but Lindner is VERY close to Nippert. That would be one steep slope!

The solution is pretty simple, actually... You don't have a clean, straight edge where the deck meets up to Lindner, but rather slope the edge of Reed-Shank along with the contour of Lindner building. You might not be able to have seats behind the "ripple," but that's a small issue...

looks great!!! Lets get this going!

Awesome work . The logo is even replaced: )

(08-26-2016 03:23 PM)Bearcats_Forever Wrote:  IF the Big 12 comes calling, much discussion has taken place on what and where to add seats to Nippert.

This is simply a couple of rough sketches… But it does illustrate what COULD be done if the ole girl needs enlarged once again.

Do you know what the capacity on this sketch is? Thanks.

Nooooo! You can't cover up our signature triangles!

But seriously, I don't know if it could work. Lindner is really close to the far left edge of Shank Pavilion, probably no more than 15 feet of clearance. To get up above Lindner, the stands would actually have to be over the building which I don't think is feasible.

(08-26-2016 04:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I think they would sacrifice capacity for more high dollar club and suite seating.

The version shown here would diminish Nippert's character, though I appreciate the effort to demonstrate what added capacity may look like.

I think you are right that any expansion would include a large amount of suites and club seats. Look at the economics. A prime Club Seat is $2,500 a year. I think they dropped the less desired area to $1,800. The next best seat is $750. So a Club generates about 2.5 to 3.3 as much per seat added. Most of the Reed Shank are $250-275 and thus the multiple is as much a 10.

Increasing the capacity by 3,000 Club and Suite seats and a couple thousand cheaper seat is the way to go.

...assuming there is a market for this. Are the big spenders/corporations in town willing to pay for more luxo boxes? They did for the most recent improvements. If we want into the Big12, there better be demand. This is more of a devil's advocate question - I think the demand/market is here.

Byrd Stadium in Maryland is almost a carbon copy of Nippert.

Here is their upper deck:



I suppose something like this could be done at Nippert but it could be a challenge getting a support structure for such a large expansion.

I'm sorry, but can you imagine trying to manage the flow of so many more people in-and-out of the stadium???

It's not just about the sheer number of seats...even if we could fill them. It's also about being able to accommodate all those people. An engineering study was done ten years (or so) back which concluded that the max number of people the Nippert footprint could hold was around 55k. The biggest limitations that study cited (if memory serves) was not the physical number of seats (which, the study said was mostly limited by the expense and aesthetic issues) but the surrounding infrastructure of the campus: parking, movement of people, etc.

I agree - an expansion would not have to be that large.

IF UC gets selected for the B12, and IF, there is a need to expand - I think somewhere in the 45,000-47,500 range max would be plenty of capacity for UC.

I like 50k and it is doable