(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

(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.

What would it cost to build an updated replica of Rice Field?

To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

As at Stanford?

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

Baylor downsized their most recent stadium.

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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.

(09-03-2014 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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.

(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.

Tulane too. 30,000. $73MM. Sold out for the home opener.

But the "yeah but" on these are that Tulane played at the Superdome as a third tier tenant at best and UH, after playing at the dome for years was playing at an ancient upgraded high school stadium built in 1942, that never cam close to being the facility that HRS was/is. SMU was also a third tier tenant at Texas Stadium. With some TLC, the only real issue with HRS is overcapacity. Baylor is a whole other ballgame who struck gold after 20 years of basement dwelling in the Big howevermanyitisthisyear.

The 2010 Master Plan Study is rather absurd. How much did Rice pay Michael Graves & Associates to do the study? Notice that Autry/Tudor has been demolished as well, in a study performed less than two years after the major renovation of Autry/Tudor! You've got to expect Autry/Tudor to be around well beyond 2030. It's been replaced by some sort of new quad thingy.

I say good riddance to the entire T&F/soccer complex as it exists now. I am also intimately familiar with running those stadium steps, and there's nothing special about those stands. Given the proximity to TMC, the Track and Soccer Stadium sits on some valuable real estate. It should be completely redeveloped.

Rice can get much more bang-for-the-buck by rehabilitating HRS with new facility additions rather than spending an enormous sum on a brand new football stadium. Remember the economics of a football-only stadium are horrendous -- tens of $millions for 6-7 events a year -- so we might as well make the best use of the one we have. We are fortunate it was built and designed well in the first place. Endowing athletic scholarships is far more important than spending an enormous sum on a new, smaller football stadium.

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

(09-03-2014 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point that UH, SMU, and Tulane all had special circumstances where they each had previously abandoned their old, crappy on-campus facility decades ago. They either still used the off-campus pro facility or they had returned to the crappy on-campus one.

Rice has always had a great football stadium. It just needs updating.

Its capacity is not a reason to tear down HRS. It should be torn down if demolishing and replacing it is more economical than renovating it.

(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:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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.

Tarp the top 30 rows on both sides and force seating down and to the sidelines..... a whole lot cheaper than demolishing something. Build a newer press box and suites in front of the existing one. Again, cheap.

Build at the North end, gut/ refurbish the south end and extend the concourses to the sides (looking like what the University Street view of the old stadium looked like) for restrooms and concessions.

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.

The only reason I'd suggest razing hrs is if someone said the current concrete wouldn't last 20+ years. Everything else is an 'add-on' and has little to do with the bones.

(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:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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.

(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:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, there is something about downsizing that says 'We give up".

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:  

(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.

Notre Dame could sell out their stadium even if they mandated that people stand on each others shoulders.

They can go without a lot of things.

Also, Middle Ages - Thanks for the elaboration. I believe that I am in agreement with you now.

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?

(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.