(11-27-2013 05:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I took a look at the new UH Stadium a couple of weeks ago and wasn't impressed. It looks "Rinky Dink."

The Brick and Concrete of HRS makes a statement.

I think it'll look a lot less "rinky-dink" when it actually has the wrap on it. It's certainly a lot better than Robertson, at the very least.

You guys can't downsize, though; how are you going to make "ours is bigger" jokes about your stadium if you lose seats?

(11-27-2013 01:49 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  great post calliegh. Love giving the middle finger to the Man.

That Bleacher Report article was mostly inaccurate and terrible. We average 10,000-15,000 and have not put more than 21,000 since the NFL came to town??!! What a hack.

The one thing he said that was mildly intriguing was some large owl statues standing watch over the stadium. That actually sounds pretty cool. Without cutting the edges off the upper decks. That elegant curve (to borrow a phrase from Mr. McGinty) is a defining element of the stadium.

One other inaccuracy was the Super Bowl game which was in Jan. 1974 (I was at the game), and was the year after Miami's undefeated season. Miami did beat Minnesota though.

(11-27-2013 05:34 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 05:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I took a look at the new UH Stadium a couple of weeks ago and wasn't impressed. It looks "Rinky Dink."

The Brick and Concrete of HRS makes a statement.

I think it'll look a lot less "rinky-dink" when it actually has the wrap on it. It's certainly a lot better than Robertson, at the very least.

You guys can't downsize, though; how are you going to make "ours is bigger" jokes about your stadium if you lose seats?

You can put one of those multi-color, multi-hue "wraps" on a Nissan Cube, make it all pretty and special, and guess what...

It's still a Nissan Cube.

(11-27-2013 05:55 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 05:34 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 05:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I took a look at the new UH Stadium a couple of weeks ago and wasn't impressed. It looks "Rinky Dink."

The Brick and Concrete of HRS makes a statement.

I think it'll look a lot less "rinky-dink" when it actually has the wrap on it. It's certainly a lot better than Robertson, at the very least.

You guys can't downsize, though; how are you going to make "ours is bigger" jokes about your stadium if you lose seats?

You can put one of those multi-color, multi-hue "wraps" on a Nissan Cube, make it all pretty and special, and guess what...

It's still a Nissan Cube.

I disagree with your assertion that UH's new stadium is a Nissan Cube. But I guess that's your opinion and you're entitled to it - let's not make this thread about that.

For what it's worth, I do like a lot of the suggestions made in the article that the OP linked, though. I particularly like the idea of the grassy terraces in the end zones. I imagine this looking something like SMU's stadium, where people are sprawled out on the grass watching the game just because it's comfortable. Maybe you guys could even one-up them and emblazon some symbol of your school on said terrace, a-la Mizzou?

I disagree with the article. I would rather do away with football if the alternative would be to accept being small time forever. Either you find a way to play with the big dogs or you wind up being ignored playing Middle Tennessee.

(11-27-2013 01:38 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I think our current capacity is 47k, not 72k. An article in the Bleacher Report discusses the option of further reductions:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/28240...university

As many of you know, Tulane is going that route with its' new on campus stadium.

Caelligh - absolutely inspiring post. Seriously

T-Moar, you're taking it well, but I don't think the original comment was meant as a knock on you as much as a knock on current stadium building methods. The concrete and Brick of Rice, and knowing that it is concrete and brick from top to bottom is what makes it impressive. I'm sure your design is first rate and will look great. You have a 2014 Nissan and we have a 57 Chevy. You wouldn't want those two in a crash comparison, but there are still lots of people who would prefer the Nissan. What we need to do is "pimp" our chevy, but not just bolt on some Fender flares.

From a practical standpoint, I agree with Doc. The north end makes the most sense for lots of the facilities... and the east side is easy, but less practical for the athletes.

Personally, I would put the athletic needs at the north end and little else... mirror the R room with suites... Everything other than the suites (which would double as windows for a lounge/dining hall or something) that is part of the daily routine of football players would be here and nowhere else. When they pass the Music building, they are going to the north facility, period.

At the south, leave the visitors locker room there... and storage... maybe room for the MOB. Gut it, pressure wash it, seal it and let them have the space. No real point in spending money knocking down useful concrete, unless someone with more discerning taste thinks less is more. We can copy UH's facade treatment and put a prettier wrap on it where we need to. The rest would be a nice facility for visitors and/or Rice families/Tailgating HQ/the mob, turn the weight room into pre-game food service for students or an amazing book store extension. There are so many things we can do with that space other than tear it down.

As we won't need it to host dinners anymore, turn the R room into more of a sports bar feel. Seating at the windows, CC-TV on the back walls with the tv feed when we have it and our own feed when we don't.

LOTS of landscaping, though obviously oaks and not palm trees (sorry UH)

AND on the east side, as doc suggests... anywhere from a 100 to 300 foot wide building inspired by Lovett hall with a variety of purposes.

1) create an amazing view from campus showing that our architecture extends all that way and that the stadium IS part of the campus... plus, I think it could be AMAZING looking
2) create an impressive primary entrance to the facility
3) create an extension to the concourse with bathrooms and concessions, particularly if it also creates what amounts to a balcony to look back to the campus. You could put a 100 ft wide, 30 foot deep building in the middle, but then have 12 foot wide arched covered walkways extending 100 feet to either side with a viewing balcony on top. You know how some people like to go to the top of the stadium and look back? Like that, but for chickens
4) a PUBLIC access museum/visitors center including both athletic and non-athletic tributes to the entire campus. Make it part of any visit to Rice to see this facility. The Rice historical society should manage this. Banners are nice, but we can't possibly honor all of our achievements with banners, and most of our other spaces are only open to us, and not even ALL of us, but generally the athletic us
5) non-football office space as needed to avoid cluttering the north end.

MOST of this could bolt on/augment the bones without having to tear them down. The only area in question would be the seating at the north end/making a tunnel from the lockers to the field. Personally, if we have to tear them down, I'd want to replace it with a grass berm... but I don't think we'd really need to do that.

Finally, build a nicer/better press box (with suites as and if we can) in front of the existing press box. Keep the existing elevator for service, bolt a NEW elevator column (that can go to the ground as needed) to the outside of the stadium.

Oh, and out a parking garage in the south End Zone parking lot, back against the street. Put grass on the roof to make it "green" construction and let the mob use that as a game day practice field.

Where's my checkbook?

And add an additional locker room so that it is easier to rent out the stadium and not have to disturb the locker room that Rice uses. The Cougars passed on Rice Stadium for the Cincy game because they could not have a locker room.

It will be interesting to see if Jack McGinty's view of the proposed alterations to Rice Stadium gains any traction. Certainly the McGinty family has a long history and association with Rice, but I don't have any idea if that gives him any leverage to influence the design process. Also, I have no idea what the current design process has produced (other than a location). Jack must have seen some drawings and decided to weigh in.

(11-28-2013 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have a 2014 Nissan and we have a 57 Chevy. You wouldn't want those two in a crash comparison, but there are still lots of people who would prefer the Nissan.

A minor point, but I'm not sure crash comparison is the example you were looking for, because in that respect the 2014 Nissan would be overwhelmingly the superior model. The sedans of the 1950s are absolute deathtraps for their occupants compared to even the subcompacts of today. Mass counts, but the design of that mass to not impale, trap, crush, slash or incinerate the occupants counts even more.

(11-28-2013 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Caelligh - absolutely inspiring post. Seriously

T-Moar, you're taking it well, but I don't think the original comment was meant as a knock on you as much as a knock on current stadium building methods. The concrete and Brick of Rice, and knowing that it is concrete and brick from top to bottom is what makes it impressive. I'm sure your design is first rate and will look great. You have a 2014 Nissan and we have a 57 Chevy. You wouldn't want those two in a crash comparison, but there are still lots of people who would prefer the Nissan. What we need to do is "pimp" our chevy, but not just bolt on some Fender flares.

I disagree about WMD Owl's intent - while it's possible that his words came off differently than he intended, "Rinky Dink" is pretty clearly pejorative, as is the Nissan Cube comparison.

I can't speak from experience about Rice Stadium - I've never actually been inside. Hopefully that will change this weekend. That being said, it seems to me that another thing to consider is the aesthetic vibe of the stadium. The Robertson replacement is on a portion of the campus where everything surrounding it is extremely new and looks the part. The dorm, the dining hall, the parking garage, and the various classroom buildings around the stadium are all basically brand-new. Given that information, it makes sense that UH would build the stadium that they did. It looks a lot like BBVA Compass Stadium, and that's for a reason - both stadiums want to be inextricably tied to the city at large around them.

On the other hand, Rice Stadium, much like the rest of Rice University, seems to be going for a more classical look. Rice wants to portray itself as a bastion of academic superiority, and having a stadium that looks like it has been there forever fits that mission. Whereas UH's new stadium wants to evoke mental imagery associated with downtown Houston, it seems to me that Rice Stadium wants to be viewed not only as the stadium of Rice University, but also as a peer to stadiums like DKR and Kyle Field.

I think the car comparison is flawed in that it implies that the newer one is disposable, and I don't like to think of stadiums that way. I think the better way to put it would be to say that UH's new stadium is the swanky downtown loft to Rice Stadium's two-story house in the suburbs. Again, there are reasons to prefer either one, but they serve two entirely different purposes.

75src - I'm not sure having an extra locker room in HRS would do you guys any good. I mean, it's not like there's going to be a plethora of homeless football teams running around the city in the near future. Sure, you guys host HS football games every now and then, but HS teams seem okay with getting dressed before they travel. TSU is locked into a contract at BBVA, and HBU's going to have their own stadium, too. It would have been nifty a few months ago, but I can't imagine that situations like that are common enough to warrant that kind of renovation.

Analogies are always flawed by the different perceptions of both the writer and the reader. I could take major exception to your analogy as well... Based on size, location and design, we have the 1950's River Oaks mansion, not the 2 story suburban house.

While not intending to speak for WMD, I took the original comment to be "convenient" rather than pejorative in that the audience it was delivered to is 99% owls, until you responded, in which case the nissan cube comment WAS an jab. I don't know where the term originated, but I've heard some newer stadium designs described as tinker toys or erector sets. Ours could probably be described as caveman construction... built like a bunker... etc etc etc. Rinky dink to me means small, not necessarily "bad".... but no sense in arguing over semantics.

George, you're right... what I intended was referring to was the vehicles themselves... not the occupants. With aluminum, plastic and crumple zones designed to absorb the impact, newer cars are designed to "take the punishment" while older cars and their steel are more likely to deliver it. The focus of vehicle design in the 50's was far different, just like stadium design.

I think we could keep or simply redesign the locker rooms at the South. One for visitors and one as an "extra". Keep the north EZ for Rice only, no matter what else.

I think our stadium can be extraordinary because we already have the number one commodity... Space. We don't need to find a way to add 10,000 seats like most stadiums of our ilk.. in fact, we can afford to LOSE 10,000 seats, making things very comfortable and STILL be over 60,000. Even if we lost 10,000 seats between the goal lines by adding extra-wide chair backs, we would STILL have more seats than most places and it would be cool. We can probably learn from airline design in terms of front to back seating, but without the "narrow-a**" problem... or movie theater design.

I wonder if Recaro would want to sponsor our seats? Unlike every other stadium, we wouldn't be worried about width which probably means more people would be comfortable in ours than anywhere else... and Recaro would get the pub for that.

(11-28-2013 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Analogies are always flawed by the different perceptions of both the writer and the reader. I could take major exception to your analogy as well... Based on size, location and design, we have the 1950's River Oaks mansion, not the 2 story suburban house.

While not intending to speak for WMD, I took the original comment to be "convenient" rather than pejorative in that the audience it was delivered to is 99% owls, until you responded, in which case the nissan cube comment WAS an jab. I don't know where the term originated, but I've heard some newer stadium designs described as tinker toys or erector sets. Ours could probably be described as caveman construction... built like a bunker... etc etc etc. Rinky dink to me means small, not necessarily "bad".... but no sense in arguing over semantics.

George, you're right... what I intended was referring to was the vehicles themselves... not the occupants. With aluminum, plastic and crumple zones designed to absorb the impact, newer cars are designed to "take the punishment" while older cars and their steel are more likely to deliver it. The focus of vehicle design in the 50's was far different, just like stadium design.

I think we could keep or simply redesign the locker rooms at the South. One for visitors and one as an "extra". Keep the north EZ for Rice only, no matter what else.

I think our stadium can be extraordinary because we already have the number one commodity... Space. We don't need to find a way to add 10,000 seats like most stadiums of our ilk.. in fact, we can afford to LOSE 10,000 seats, making things very comfortable and STILL be over 60,000. Even if we lost 10,000 seats between the goal lines by adding extra-wide chair backs, we would STILL have more seats than most places and it would be cool. We can probably learn from airline design in terms of front to back seating, but without the "narrow-a**" problem... or movie theater design.

I wonder if Recaro would want to sponsor our seats? Unlike every other stadium, we wouldn't be worried about width which probably means more people would be comfortable in ours than anywhere else... and Recaro would get the pub for that.

There are lots of great ideas coming out of this thread. Better seating is "unconventional wisdom". I am completely sold on the new EZF being on the north end. Hope Dr K and the "powers that be" are paying attention.

(11-27-2013 04:31 PM)owl95 Wrote:  ...Caelligh, and why aren't you coming in for the Tulane game?

Conflicting obligations. :( A trip to the championship game is a possibility, but we must beat Tulane, of course.

But an extra locker room would still be good for high school games and there are circumstances that college teams might need to rent a stadium. The Aggies are running a tight schedule is redoing Kyle Field and they needed to use Rice Stadium for a game in 1979 when they were putting a third deck on Kyle. A new locker would improve conditions for Rice and the old locker room could be held in reserve.

Rice Stadium was still the best stadium in the SWC when I was a student in the early 1970s. The basic design was great but we have not done the renovations or rebuilding that other schools have done The newer stadiums have luxury boxes and more chairback seats which is different form what was needed in the old days.

As someone who went to UH Law School, I do not thing UH is all that interested in connecting to the city across Scott Street. I remember UH as being an island surrounded by industrial and ghetto properties and usually most people would come in the Gulf Freeway and not go anywhere in the surrounding neighborhood. The main consideration for UH is that the stadium needed to be on-campus to bring alumni back to the campus. When the Cougars played in the Astrodome, there was not that connection.

(11-28-2013 03:36 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Caelligh - absolutely inspiring post. Seriously

T-Moar, you're taking it well, but I don't think the original comment was meant as a knock on you as much as a knock on current stadium building methods. The concrete and Brick of Rice, and knowing that it is concrete and brick from top to bottom is what makes it impressive. I'm sure your design is first rate and will look great. You have a 2014 Nissan and we have a 57 Chevy. You wouldn't want those two in a crash comparison, but there are still lots of people who would prefer the Nissan. What we need to do is "pimp" our chevy, but not just bolt on some Fender flares.

I disagree about WMD Owl's intent - while it's possible that his words came off differently than he intended, "Rinky Dink" is pretty clearly pejorative, as is the Nissan Cube comparison.

I can't speak from experience about Rice Stadium - I've never actually been inside. Hopefully that will change this weekend. That being said, it seems to me that another thing to consider is the aesthetic vibe of the stadium. The Robertson replacement is on a portion of the campus where everything surrounding it is extremely new and looks the part. The dorm, the dining hall, the parking garage, and the various classroom buildings around the stadium are all basically brand-new. Given that information, it makes sense that UH would build the stadium that they did. It looks a lot like BBVA Compass Stadium, and that's for a reason - both stadiums want to be inextricably tied to the city at large around them.

On the other hand, Rice Stadium, much like the rest of Rice University, seems to be going for a more classical look. Rice wants to portray itself as a bastion of academic superiority, and having a stadium that looks like it has been there forever fits that mission. Whereas UH's new stadium wants to evoke mental imagery associated with downtown Houston, it seems to me that Rice Stadium wants to be viewed not only as the stadium of Rice University, but also as a peer to stadiums like DKR and Kyle Field.

I think the car comparison is flawed in that it implies that the newer one is disposable, and I don't like to think of stadiums that way. I think the better way to put it would be to say that UH's new stadium is the swanky downtown loft to Rice Stadium's two-story house in the suburbs. Again, there are reasons to prefer either one, but they serve two entirely different purposes.

75src - I'm not sure having an extra locker room in HRS would do you guys any good. I mean, it's not like there's going to be a plethora of homeless football teams running around the city in the near future. Sure, you guys host HS football games every now and then, but HS teams seem okay with getting dressed before they travel. TSU is locked into a contract at BBVA, and HBU's going to have their own stadium, too. It would have been nifty a few months ago, but I can't imagine that situations like that are common enough to warrant that kind of renovation.

(11-29-2013 01:54 AM)75src Wrote:  But an extra locker room would still be good for high school games and there are circumstances that college teams might need to rent a stadium. The Aggies are running a tight schedule is redoing Kyle Field and they needed to use Rice Stadium for a game in 1979 when they were putting a third deck on Kyle. A new locker would improve conditions for Rice and the old locker room could be held in reserve.

The question has to be raised, though - what's the likelihood that the extra locker room brings in more than it costs? I don't think that's very likely, especially given that every school in the city has a home now.

Quote:As someone who went to UH Law School, I do not thing UH is all that interested in connecting to the city across Scott Street. I remember UH as being an island surrounded by industrial and ghetto properties and usually most people would come in the Gulf Freeway and not go anywhere in the surrounding neighborhood. The main consideration for UH is that the stadium needed to be on-campus to bring alumni back to the campus. When the Cougars played in the Astrodome, there was not that connection.

For the record, I wasn't talking about the stadium looking like the places that are across Scott Street. I was talking about the areas across Cullen, that are part of campus, as well as downtown. That being said, though, the stadium could also help in the Third Ward gentrification efforts, not that I think it necessarily will.

T-Moar

As the space at the south end already exists, the cost of that extra locker room would be minimal. If Rice coaches, trainers, laundry, meeting and weights was all moved to the north, we have LOTS of space at the south to "waste".... and even if we couldn't salvage/repurpose ANY of the existing locker rooms, you can't be talking about very much money.

(11-30-2013 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  T-Moar

As the space at the south end already exists, the cost of that extra locker room would be minimal. If Rice coaches, trainers, laundry, meeting and weights was all moved to the north, we have LOTS of space at the south to "waste".... and even if we couldn't salvage/repurpose ANY of the existing locker rooms, you can't be talking about very much money.

Do you even need to build one in the south end? Wouldn't you be talking about taking the existing ones and making them visitor 1 and visitor 2, like if you had 3rd party game like UH/Cincy or high school playoffs? Probably would aim to make them more equal in set up, but that's what you could have.

Sure, there is a lot of work to probably get them fixed up, but the space and infrastructure is largely there.

That's what I meant, sloth. It seems that we need to remodel the south.... Seal walls, exterminate, replaster,, recarpet, retile and repaint. I don't know if you move things around or not, or if you can disassemble the lockers and then reinstall them... MOSTLY take the pressure off of it... much less water and far fewer people traipsing through it. It can be clean and functional, but doesn't need to be particularly fancy. We aren't recruiting our opponents or other colleges that might use our facilities, and the high schools can get a tour of the GOOD stuff without us having to lock up our entire locker room.

Dredging up old thread, but has there been any word on the stadium renovations?

I've been wondering the same thing. I would think that this would be the time to announce something.