The whole "They cannot touch the stadium because it is out of code" myth.

Well in fact the new renovation will indeed address bringing the stadium up to code, and all new stadium structures will indeed be built ON the stadium (in other words touching it).

Being up to code has to do with but not limited to:

-updated wiring
-more restrooms
-handicap access
-more accessible entry/exits

Not sure about wireless access, but I would think that will be part of the overall plan as well as upgraded concessions, since that is more revenue for the College.

I only bring this up because sometimes people on here act like there are a bunch of bozos running these projects at WM, and that is the furthest thing from the truth. That said, WM does have its share of bozos, but no more or less than anywhere else.

Stadium is going to be TIGHT when its completed for 2016.

The point being made by many was that due to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) you could not upgrade part of the stadium. You had to make it all ADA compliant. Several million dollars of the 27M is for ADA compliance. And then you have other state code compliance needs.

We are from the government and here to help you :>)

That is the reason The Laycock Center did not "touch" Zable

(01-18-2015 12:27 PM)3xTribe Wrote:  65, can you be more specific regarding the several million of the 27 million that is to comply with the ADA? Certainly there will be wider walkways, elevators, and compliant bathrooms, but exactly how much would be spent on the renovation in the absence of the ADA? Do you count the entire cost of all bathroom renovations as ADA compliance, or only the compliant fixtures? Would there be no elevators in the complex in the absence of the ADA? How much less would new walkways cost in the absence of the ADA? If we're going to blame federal government overreach for the high costs associated with the renovation, I want to know exactly how outraged to be. What would the final reno cost be in a more free market, less rights conscious world?

Seriously?

Yes, 100% seriously. Can you tell me what the cost would be in the absence of the ADA or not?

(01-18-2015 12:47 PM)3xTribe Wrote:  Yes, 100% seriously. Can you tell me what the cost would be in the absence of the ADA or not?

It is not several million, (well depending on your definition of several), from my understanding it is under 3 million.

The stadium is located in a unique location, I used to think doing what Richmond did would make sense, but then you in all liklehood would be looking at an off-campus facility, and that would lose a lot of the gameday experience (yes there is one!).

My point was, the stadium will be brought up to code and the new structures will indeed be a part of it, not separate structures.

Another note there are 25 different seat positions at Zable, the average stadium for its size has around 17, so there is a plan to reduce that number as well to improve site lines.

I really don't mean to be bomb throwing here. I, and my disabled in-laws, will be very pleased to have a more accessible facility. I know that many posters here are quite conservative, and opposed in principle to government intervention. I'd just rather not see inaccurate figures tossed around, along with the old "government here to help you" line. Compliance isn't cheap, but I am happy that it will be easier to bring my in-laws to games.

(01-18-2015 12:04 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  The point being made by many was that due to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) you could not upgrade part of the stadium. You had to make it all ADA compliant. Several million dollars of the 27M is for ADA compliance. And then you have other state code compliance needs.

We are from the government and here to help you :>)

That is the reason The Laycock Center did not "touch" Zable

Not entirely. They'd have to spend a percentage on top of what they were originally spending (usually around 10-20%) and use that towards ADA compliance.

(01-18-2015 11:22 AM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  Stadium is going to be TIGHT when its completed for 2016.

Alright ... I'll bite. What are you referring to? Loss of seats? Smaller seats? Cozier and noisier?

Really wish they would move the track prior to the renovation and alter the west stands accordingly to improve sight lines

(01-18-2015 02:14 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 11:22 AM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  Stadium is going to be TIGHT when its completed for 2016.

Alright ... I'll bite. What are you referring to? Loss of seats? Smaller seats? Cozier and noisier?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What has been "blown up" is the new myth that ""we can't touch the stadium" because of Government meddling and mandates is, in fact, a myth.

(01-18-2015 12:47 PM)3xTribe Wrote:  Yes, 100% seriously. Can you tell me what the cost would be in the absence of the ADA or not?

No, but it's nice to have all those questions wrapped nicely into one.

TIGHT is what the younger generation refers to as COOL.

15-20% on ADA is right, hence my 3 mill price tag.

Is ADA compliant bad? Really?

Finally I need to find out the deal on the endzone, if the bleachers stay (can't get a straight answer on that) hopefully the boxes stay and maybe we can grab them for the QB club to make some extra $$

"Tight" equals "cool"?

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut ... age is showing!

Also, at least with regards to the ADA, you can do work that's "touching" the stadium but anything that impacts accessibility has to include plans to bring the facility into compliance. This is why W&M could add lights about a decade ago without any problems.

I apologize if I misread 65's comments as being less than supportive of ADA regs being applied to Zable.

(01-18-2015 03:50 PM)3xTribe Wrote:  I apologize if I misread 65's comments as being less than supportive of ADA regs being applied to Zable.

No problem. I am pleased we are finally upgrading the place to include all people. I believe there are less expensive ways to make things usable for everyone rather than using a one size fits all law.

But let's get it done :>)

(01-18-2015 03:05 PM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  TIGHT is what the younger generation refers to as COOL.

15-20% on ADA is right, hence my 3 mill price tag.

Is ADA compliant bad? Really?

Finally I need to find out the deal on the endzone, if the bleachers stay (can't get a straight answer on that) hopefully the boxes stay and maybe we can grab them for the QB club to make some extra $$

------------------------------------------------------------------
The End Zone bleachers are definitely NOT ADA "compliant" and should be discontinued in the interest of safety and comfort, should they not????

(01-18-2015 03:37 PM)Rocco Wrote:  Also, at least with regards to the ADA, you can do work that's "touching" the stadium but anything that impacts accessibility has to include plans to bring the facility into compliance. This is why W&M could add lights about a decade ago without any problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was OK to add the stadium lights because the lights were NOT PART of the physical stadium [NOT because the lights did not "Impact accessibility"]

Likewise, for the past 30 years a "temporary Press Box" made of canvas and plywood has been erected behind the West stands at the beginning of each football season and taken down after the end of the season. This temporary Press Box was not attached to the stadium and literally did not "touch" the stadium. In fact, until very recently the only way to get into or out of the "Press Box" was by means of a temporary ladder made of two by fours which went from the Press Box down to the top row of the West stands.

The fact that the Press Box was "temporary" and not a permanent alteration to the stadium was a loophole in the ADA regulations that W&M was able to exploit.

(01-18-2015 10:55 PM)62Indian Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 03:37 PM)Rocco Wrote:  Also, at least with regards to the ADA, you can do work that's "touching" the stadium but anything that impacts accessibility has to include plans to bring the facility into compliance. This is why W&M could add lights about a decade ago without any problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was OK to add the stadium lights because the lights were NOT PART of the physical stadium [NOT because the lights did not "Impact accessibility"]

Likewise, for the past 30 years a "temporary Press Box" made of canvas and plywood has been erected behind the West stands at the beginning of each football season and taken down after the end of the season. This temporary Press Box was not attached to the stadium and literally did not "touch" the stadium. In fact, until very recently the only way to get into or out of the "Press Box" was by means of a temporary ladder made of two by fours which went from the Press Box down to the top row of the West stands.

The fact that the Press Box was "temporary" and not a permanent alteration to the stadium was a loophole in the ADA regulations that W&M was able to exploit.

http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lesson33.htm

"When passed in 1990, the ADA did not require that all existing buildings be retrofitted for accessibility immediately. Instead, it relies on planned alterations (discussed here) and barrier removal (discussed in lesson 4) to improve accessibility in older buildings over time. It says that when a business alters an existing facility in a way that affects usability, the areas or elements being altered must comply with the ADA Standards."

The press box and lights don't affect usability/accessibility at large- those are mostly cosmetic.

(01-18-2015 10:34 PM)62Indian Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 03:05 PM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  TIGHT is what the younger generation refers to as COOL.

15-20% on ADA is right, hence my 3 mill price tag.

Is ADA compliant bad? Really?

Finally I need to find out the deal on the endzone, if the bleachers stay (can't get a straight answer on that) hopefully the boxes stay and maybe we can grab them for the QB club to make some extra $$

------------------------------------------------------------------
The End Zone bleachers are definitely NOT ADA "compliant" and should be discontinued in the interest of safety and comfort, should they not????

I'm not sure this is true. Aren't the walkways in the end zone bleachers currently the widest in the stadium, in addition to having a large ramp and (maybe?) an elevator to the luxury boxes? ADA compliance doesn't require that everyone can use every seat.