(06-20-2019 02:35 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  It WILL generate revenue. I think you mean it won't cover costs. What does in college athletics? Not the point of college athletics. It's a loss leader for academics. An attraction to come to the University to get a degree. I think we agree on this?

Participation declining:
Conflicting information.
Relative Participation
From a revenue as well as a University POV the issue is fans, not players?

I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

Accepting your quote of fewer players, the quality of those that are, rising or falling?

Issues regarding participation in the schools have to do with coach availability and of course the ubiquitous social media. But FAN particiption is the question regards the thread topic. The money was already spent on the field in nowhere. I think it's a build it, they will come. And even if they don't? You've not lost much. It's seating, concession stand and bathrooms. That's easy enough to multi-purpose. Creating a fan experience? That's sweat equity.

But have they land-locked their investment? This is the only question I raised. I still think 2000 should have been the minimum goal.

Details, details

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see. I'm not sure what HS games you're attending, but they seem relatively similar to what things were like back in the early-mid 00's to me.

The argument was posed in the Journal of Sport and Development in a submission I read about a year ago (roughly the same time the prior linked article in the NYT was published) that soccer is the most volatile attendance/viewership of all major sports, and it is far more heavily driven by participation. I don't have a paid subscription, but I'll try to find an abstract at least...

I couldn't agree more with your last statement though. The civil engineer in me screams when people don't design their plans with high effect contingencies in mind (ie. 200 year storm, 100 year snowfall, etc.) and in this case, UT have clearly just decided to take the path of least resistance instead of seriously considering if they may need more space for crowds. It has kind of been the MO with this administration, driven primarily by financial constraints, to do what needs to be done *right now* without much contingency being placed and worry about if something comes up at a later date when that may occur.

My sense is that getting the soccer team off Scott Park was the main driving factor, less thought as to considering how best to do it with improved facilities on main campus. Just find quick easy and cheapest way to get that done. UT is quickly moving to divest itself of Scott Park, soccer and HR are gone, Accounts Payable is next, and perhaps TPS ECHS is also on way out there. I would look for Scott Park to be up for sale in next few years.

Yep, the $750,000/year savings on maintenance that the University will get from divesting from that property (if they can find a buyer/taker, which at the moment looks to be the County for a new Family Services campus, or a partnership of TFD/TPD for a new in-city training facility) is more than worth the move. TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard...already have drawings for the cafeteria/renovations approved, and they'll be out by January of next year (2020). The biggest issue is that UT wants to sell at value, and all of the potential buyers know that they need to get out from under it. Look for this to be a $1 purchase by whomever takes it off our hands.

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see.

Those are cash ticket sales. They'd better track them or I'd believe they'd have someone with a warrant knocking on their AD's door. At least I seem to recall paying for a ticket....

(06-20-2019 07:44 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see.

Those are cash ticket sales. They'd better track them or I'd believe they'd have someone with a warrant knocking on their AD's door. At least I seem to recall paying for a ticket....

They probably just do bulk cash deposits after OHSAA and their respective conferences take their share. I cant remember the last time I had to pay to get into anything other than football, basketball or track meets.

UT could have save money by making that site multi-use facility. If WMU can combine football and swimming, we should be able to do more than track-soccer.

(06-22-2019 03:47 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  UT could have save money by making that site multi-use facility. If WMU can combine football and swimming, we should be able to do more than track-soccer.

Poor planning, however, led to three drownings during hockey spring training.

(06-20-2019 07:53 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 07:44 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see.

Those are cash ticket sales. They'd better track them or I'd believe they'd have someone with a warrant knocking on their AD's door. At least I seem to recall paying for a ticket....

They probably just do bulk cash deposits after OHSAA and their respective conferences take their share. I cant remember the last time I had to pay to get into anything other than football, basketball or track meets.

All of the Scott Park sports require paid admission.

(06-22-2019 03:47 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  UT could have save money by making that site multi-use facility. If WMU can combine football and swimming, we should be able to do more than track-soccer.

Row the Boat

(06-22-2019 07:47 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 07:53 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 07:44 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see.

Those are cash ticket sales. They'd better track them or I'd believe they'd have someone with a warrant knocking on their AD's door. At least I seem to recall paying for a ticket....

They probably just do bulk cash deposits after OHSAA and their respective conferences take their share. I cant remember the last time I had to pay to get into anything other than football, basketball or track meets.

All of the Scott Park sports require paid admission.

I was referring to high school sports in that previous post...sorry about the confusion there.

(06-20-2019 03:22 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 02:35 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2019 11:33 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  It WILL generate revenue. I think you mean it won't cover costs. What does in college athletics? Not the point of college athletics. It's a loss leader for academics. An attraction to come to the University to get a degree. I think we agree on this?

Participation declining:
Conflicting information.
Relative Participation
From a revenue as well as a University POV the issue is fans, not players?

I know what I see as far as attendance in the local schools but that is anecdotal. Those are the numbers that should be found and used.

Accepting your quote of fewer players, the quality of those that are, rising or falling?

Issues regarding participation in the schools have to do with coach availability and of course the ubiquitous social media. But FAN particiption is the question regards the thread topic. The money was already spent on the field in nowhere. I think it's a build it, they will come. And even if they don't? You've not lost much. It's seating, concession stand and bathrooms. That's easy enough to multi-purpose. Creating a fan experience? That's sweat equity.

But have they land-locked their investment? This is the only question I raised. I still think 2000 should have been the minimum goal.

Details, details

I doubt any of the high schools or conferences track those numbers, but it would be interesting to see. I'm not sure what HS games you're attending, but they seem relatively similar to what things were like back in the early-mid 00's to me.

The argument was posed in the Journal of Sport and Development in a submission I read about a year ago (roughly the same time the prior linked article in the NYT was published) that soccer is the most volatile attendance/viewership of all major sports, and it is far more heavily driven by participation. I don't have a paid subscription, but I'll try to find an abstract at least...

I couldn't agree more with your last statement though. The civil engineer in me screams when people don't design their plans with high effect contingencies in mind (ie. 200 year storm, 100 year snowfall, etc.) and in this case, UT have clearly just decided to take the path of least resistance instead of seriously considering if they may need more space for crowds. It has kind of been the MO with this administration, driven primarily by financial constraints, to do what needs to be done *right now* without much contingency being placed and worry about if something comes up at a later date when that may occur.

My sense is that getting the soccer team off Scott Park was the main driving factor, less thought as to considering how best to do it with improved facilities on main campus. Just find quick easy and cheapest way to get that done. UT is quickly moving to divest itself of Scott Park, soccer and HR are gone, Accounts Payable is next, and perhaps TPS ECHS is also on way out there. I would look for Scott Park to be up for sale in next few years.

Yep, the $750,000/year savings on maintenance that the University will get from divesting from that property (if they can find a buyer/taker, which at the moment looks to be the County for a new Family Services campus, or a partnership of TFD/TPD for a new in-city training facility) is more than worth the move. TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard...already have drawings for the cafeteria/renovations approved, and they'll be out by January of next year (2020). The biggest issue is that UT wants to sell at value, and all of the potential buyers know that they need to get out from under it. Look for this to be a $1 purchase by whomever takes it off our hands.

"TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard...already have drawings for the cafeteria/renovations approved, and they'll be out by January of next year (2020)."

I have heard this rumor too, but not so sure it is a done deal as UT and TPS were still discussing the price, and there is no way the amount of extensive renovations needed inside current building to convert to classrooms, labs etc.. can be done in 6 months nor a mid school year move. And with an additional and also increasing parking lot will send the Old Orchard neighbors through the roof. Not saying it will never happen, but may not be there yet and would set off a huge campus and community outrage.

(06-24-2019 09:46 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  "TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard... Not saying it will never happen, but may not be there yet and would set off a huge campus and community outrage.

This has smell of sweet heart deal with no return. University wants to unload that building and they find a local tax fund to buy it? Will the Foundation be funding the remodel?

I don't think neighborhood disturbance will be much of an issue unless they plan on buying up that vacant land to the west for expanded parking and another point of egress. Remodels will not be restricted to inside the building. There's no drop off point (parents, busses) without modifying both University and Bancroft or buying that land I give it three years max before we have a kid run-over.

They'll need a single point entrance. Mandatory for public school now I think. Number of emergency exits? Different standards for schools I imagine. They'll go from single floor to multi-floor, which will be higher operating costs for monitoring student "activities." Cameras, alarm systems....

Nice building but I'm not seeing an upside. TPS claims money woes. I think operating costs alone will go up significantly, let alone remodel.

(06-24-2019 10:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:46 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  "TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard... Not saying it will never happen, but may not be there yet and would set off a huge campus and community outrage.

This has smell of sweet heart deal with no return. University wants to unload that building and they find a local tax fund to buy it? Will the Foundation be funding the remodel?

I don't think neighborhood disturbance will be much of an issue unless they plan on buying up that vacant land to the west for expanded parking and another point of egress. Remodels will not be restricted to inside the building. There's no drop off point (parents, busses) without modifying both University and Bancroft or buying that land I give it three years max before we have a kid run-over.

They'll need a single point entrance. Mandatory for public school now I think. Number of emergency exits? Different standards for schools I imagine. They'll go from single floor to multi-floor, which will be higher operating costs for monitoring student "activities." Cameras, alarm systems....

Nice building but I'm not seeing an upside. TPS claims money woes. I think operating costs alone will go up significantly, let alone remodel.

Yep, that's kind of what I'm thinking as well...also, the fact that the State BOR requires any "Early College High School" within the state to be provided instructional space within the partner institution of higher learning means that they will find space somewhere, and Driscoll is the easiest place for it. The Foundation did not own that building (that's a UT structure), just the land underneath it...from what I've heard, the cost would be shared. Most of the needs are outlined pretty well in your post outside of one...they would need a cafeteria space with full foo prep, which is where the build-out would be (immediately North of the western entrance in that little annex lot with 8 spaces). The positive here is that there was significant damage done to the building right after the Foundation moved out by a broken main, meaning that they would likely be able to fund most of it through an insurance claim.

The vacant lot is already owned by UT (and was actually mentioned as being the new home to some intramural fields for a spell), but they actually will not need to expand into that space at all...and parking would not be added. The only community issue would be the OO folks not wanting a high school with enrollment of 150 total students (most of whom are the best and brightest within the district) being inside their neighborhood borders, which just screams of...something.

(06-24-2019 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:46 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  "TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard... Not saying it will never happen, but may not be there yet and would set off a huge campus and community outrage.

This has smell of sweet heart deal with no return. University wants to unload that building and they find a local tax fund to buy it? Will the Foundation be funding the remodel?

I don't think neighborhood disturbance will be much of an issue unless they plan on buying up that vacant land to the west for expanded parking and another point of egress. Remodels will not be restricted to inside the building. There's no drop off point (parents, busses) without modifying both University and Bancroft or buying that land I give it three years max before we have a kid run-over.

They'll need a single point entrance. Mandatory for public school now I think. Number of emergency exits? Different standards for schools I imagine. They'll go from single floor to multi-floor, which will be higher operating costs for monitoring student "activities." Cameras, alarm systems....

Nice building but I'm not seeing an upside. TPS claims money woes. I think operating costs alone will go up significantly, let alone remodel.

Yep, that's kind of what I'm thinking as well...also, the fact that the State BOR requires any "Early College High School" within the state to be provided instructional space within the partner institution of higher learning means that they will find space somewhere, and Driscoll is the easiest place for it. The Foundation did not own that building (that's a UT structure), just the land underneath it...from what I've heard, the cost would be shared. Most of the needs are outlined pretty well in your post outside of one...they would need a cafeteria space with full foo prep, which is where the build-out would be (immediately North of the western entrance in that little annex lot with 8 spaces). The positive here is that there was significant damage done to the building right after the Foundation moved out by a broken main, meaning that they would likely be able to fund most of it through an insurance claim.

The vacant lot is already owned by UT (and was actually mentioned as being the new home to some intramural fields for a spell), but they actually will not need to expand into that space at all...and parking would not be added. The only community issue would be the OO folks not wanting a high school with enrollment of 150 total students (most of whom are the best and brightest within the district) being inside their neighborhood borders, which just screams of...something.

Talked to my source with TPS and yes this is a done deal. Staff at UT that currently park in the Driscoll lot will be upset and yes the neighbors in OO, who watch any potential UT development north of Bancroft-including recent purchase and demo of two homes next to Driscoll-like a hawk and will be livid I assure you. I still don't see the finances behind a move that will require extensive renovations inside the building that has one large lecture and offices-will need labs and classrooms (plus additional building needed). And how parking and traffic onto and off University Hills will not be an issue for hundreds of staff and students-plus any events that would draw in parents. Sounds like a really bad idea to me (as well as folks at TECHS that work there), but guess like the women's soccer team, getting out of Scott Park means finding any quick fix to new location on campus.

(06-24-2019 01:01 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:46 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  "TECHS will be heading to Driscoll from what I've heard... Not saying it will never happen, but may not be there yet and would set off a huge campus and community outrage.

This has smell of sweet heart deal with no return. University wants to unload that building and they find a local tax fund to buy it? Will the Foundation be funding the remodel?

I don't think neighborhood disturbance will be much of an issue unless they plan on buying up that vacant land to the west for expanded parking and another point of egress. Remodels will not be restricted to inside the building. There's no drop off point (parents, busses) without modifying both University and Bancroft or buying that land I give it three years max before we have a kid run-over.

They'll need a single point entrance. Mandatory for public school now I think. Number of emergency exits? Different standards for schools I imagine. They'll go from single floor to multi-floor, which will be higher operating costs for monitoring student "activities." Cameras, alarm systems....

Nice building but I'm not seeing an upside. TPS claims money woes. I think operating costs alone will go up significantly, let alone remodel.

Yep, that's kind of what I'm thinking as well...also, the fact that the State BOR requires any "Early College High School" within the state to be provided instructional space within the partner institution of higher learning means that they will find space somewhere, and Driscoll is the easiest place for it. The Foundation did not own that building (that's a UT structure), just the land underneath it...from what I've heard, the cost would be shared. Most of the needs are outlined pretty well in your post outside of one...they would need a cafeteria space with full foo prep, which is where the build-out would be (immediately North of the western entrance in that little annex lot with 8 spaces). The positive here is that there was significant damage done to the building right after the Foundation moved out by a broken main, meaning that they would likely be able to fund most of it through an insurance claim.

The vacant lot is already owned by UT (and was actually mentioned as being the new home to some intramural fields for a spell), but they actually will not need to expand into that space at all...and parking would not be added. The only community issue would be the OO folks not wanting a high school with enrollment of 150 total students (most of whom are the best and brightest within the district) being inside their neighborhood borders, which just screams of...something.

Talked to my source with TPS and yes this is a done deal. Staff at UT that currently park in the Driscoll lot will be upset and yes the neighbors in OO, who watch any potential UT development north of Bancroft-including recent purchase and demo of two homes next to Driscoll-like a hawk and will be livid I assure you. I still don't see the finances behind a move that will require extensive renovations inside the building that has one large lecture and offices-will need labs and classrooms (plus additional building needed). And how parking and traffic onto and off University Hills will not be an issue for hundreds of staff and students-plus any events that would draw in parents. Sounds like a really bad idea to me (as well as folks at TECHS that work there), but guess like the women's soccer team, getting out of Scott Park means finding any quick fix to new location on campus.

If you've ever spent any time at TECHS, you'll know that parking won't be an issue in the Driscoll lot if it is strictly for TECHS Students and Faculty...there are MAYBE 40 cars at the highest of highs on the TECHS side of Scott Park. Most of the kids are bussed in, and those that aren't are simply dropped off.

The parking issue is two fold-taking spots that UT staff are currently using, and having enough space for parents to park during events at the school. From the TECHS contact I have, that could be a problem, thus need to expand parking lot?? UT staff from U Hall could park in lot 1, but could be pressure/interest for new lot (shared with TECHS??) in the field at Bancroft/Cheltenham? Plus getting in and out of existing lot onto University Hills Blvd is not very easy (haven done so many times myself) for cars or buses as traffic from Bancroft and Douglas can come through there pretty fast and in high volumes at times. Even after recent road improvements Bancroft/University Hills intersection is still very accident prone already. Needs new entrance/exit onto Cheltenham? Not saying moving TECHS into Driscoll can't be done but its a little like forcing a square peg into a round hole there.

(06-24-2019 01:57 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  The parking issue is two fold-taking spots that UT staff are currently using, and having enough space for parents to park during events at the school. From the TECHS contact I have, that could be a problem, thus need to expand parking lot?? UT staff from U Hall could park in lot 1, but could be pressure/interest for new lot (shared with TECHS??) in the field at Bancroft/Cheltenham? Plus getting in and out of existing lot onto University Hills Blvd is not very easy (haven done so many times myself) for cars or buses as traffic from Bancroft and Douglas can come through there pretty fast and in high volumes at times. Even after recent road improvements Bancroft/University Hills intersection is still very accident prone already. Needs new entrance/exit onto Cheltenham? Not saying moving TECHS into Driscoll can't be done but its a little like forcing a square peg into a round hole there.

I'm thinking there will be a very easy way to solve all of this with a one way thoroughfare through the land space from UHills Blvd. over the Cheltenham. UT staff and students will have to suck it up, as always, because the parking lot has already been proposed and shot down a few times in that open lot.

BearcatMan Wrote Wrote:The only community issue would be the OO folks not wanting a high school with enrollment of 150 total students (most of whom are the best and brightest within the district) being inside their neighborhood borders, which just screams of...something.

That is an argument I would estimate that TPS/UT would NOT want to throw out.

It smacks of discrimination, that the only reason this is acceptable is because they only permit students with some predescibed behavior patterns. Then there's the issue of who and how "best and brightest" gets selected and how internal politics plays into that.

The thing with these TPS magnet schools they don't exactly throw out are the retention rates, statistics and demographics. They score great on state tests, numbers that otherwise would have gone to their district schools. But ACT? SAT? Smart is smart but value added? It's a glorified tracking.

Arguments and concerns that were not an issue at Scott Park will be brought up here, rightly so.

As well there is the cost to TPS in both the remodel and operation, poorly proportional to the size of the student body. This wasn't mentioned before the levy. As I said, it smacks of deceit and sweetheart deal. If the Foundation and the state want to take the entire remodel costs, other than the increased operating costs, most of the near term economic costs to TPS go-away.

The neighborhood will have to deal with it from their perspective but they'd be mistaken to think this school is going to bring in any less disruption than any other school. They should either accept or fight. But as has been said, done deal (behind closed doors?).

There's no way it should have gotten to this step as a "done-deal." Not even an article in the paper?

I think there's more unused space with easy remodel on the Engineering campus.

Palmer is still up, no? It already has classrooms and tech wiring. Was remodeled not that long ago.

Going for the Lexus when a Focus will do? I think of my alma-mater creating a new high school for Indianapolis in a deserted ware house in one of the poorest sections of town. After one year, Indy asked them to create another. TPS needs Driscoll? Doesn't make sense. This issue will be raised in future levy campaigns but heck, voters passed the last one even with some of the gross news that hit regards TPS Administrators, who are still on payroll.

Because this school is "exclusive" not for everyone, everyone should be pissed. The politics are bad. Scott Park took minimal effort to adopt. Driscall, major. This is not good optics for either TPS or UT.

And then again, there's those stats they do not publish, like retention. Best High Schools shows minority population at 45% but does not break that down by retention. They could mostly be Freshman to make the end-number look good. It lists economically disadvantaged at 30%, while other high schools are running 70-80%. Shown time and again the coorelations between home economics and school performance. And again, those could be Freshman/Sophs that never graduate from the school. If they are going to be part of the University, they should have the same disclosure requirements and standards.

There are no special needs for this school. It's not Tech Academy or one of the other equipment specific schools. Palmer or a section in N. Engineering or whatever would work with little remodel. There's an overflow of parking. Neighborhoods wouldn't be disturbed. Kids are far away from distracted traffic (which abounds around Universities). The kids would be close to recreational facilities, presuming they partake.

My presumption would be that this came about because UT wants to unload Driscoll and they talked to a buddy in TPS to get it done. The closure of Scott Park gave a reason. But there are better and cheaper options than Driscoll.

(06-24-2019 05:02 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  There's no way it should have gotten to this step as a "done-deal." Not even an article in the paper?

I think there's more unused space with easy remodel on the Engineering campus.

Palmer is still up, no? It already has classrooms and tech wiring. Was remodeled not that long ago.

Going for the Lexus when a Focus will do? I think of my alma-mater creating a new high school for Indianapolis in a deserted ware house in one of the poorest sections of town. After one year, Indy asked them to create another. TPS needs Driscoll? Doesn't make sense. This issue will be raised in future levy campaigns but heck, voters passed the last one even with some of the gross news that hit regards TPS Administrators, who are still on payroll.

Because this school is "exclusive" not for everyone, everyone should be pissed. The politics are bad. Scott Park took minimal effort to adopt. Driscall, major. This is not good optics for either TPS or UT.

And then again, there's those stats they do not publish, like retention. Best High Schools shows minority population at 45% but does not break that down by retention. They could mostly be Freshman to make the end-number look good. It lists economically disadvantaged at 30%, while other high schools are running 70-80%. Shown time and again the coorelations between home economics and school performance. And again, those could be Freshman/Sophs that never graduate from the school. If they are going to be part of the University, they should have the same disclosure requirements and standards.

There are no special needs for this school. It's not Tech Academy or one of the other equipment specific schools. Palmer or a section in N. Engineering or whatever would work with little remodel. There's an overflow of parking. Neighborhoods wouldn't be disturbed. Kids are far away from distracted traffic (which abounds around Universities). The kids would be close to recreational facilities, presuming they partake.

My presumption would be that this came about because UT wants to unload Driscoll and they talked to a buddy in TPS to get it done. The closure of Scott Park gave a reason. But there are better and cheaper options than Driscoll.

Engineering currently has to schedule classes on main campus because they dont have enough classroom space in Palmer and North...there is absolutely no space there. Remember, while the rest of the University's enrollment was falling off a cliff, Engineering had 9 straight years of 4%+ growth.

I always thought Driscoll would be an incredible Admissions/Welcome Center, but alas, that's not to be. At the end of the day, they needed the space, and there was no other space to be had. I bet the cost of renovations will be made up in two years by the decrease in maintenance costs of SP Campus.

(06-25-2019 07:06 AM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

We have a photo! Looks like the jumping pits are gone. Not sure if there is room at each end. HJ, yes. LJ,PV and TJ maybe? What are the white areas on the north side? Runways and pits???