(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot. When Godwin and the stadium where originally conceived, they were placed on the outer edge of campus, as we've expanded, mainly east, that area is now smack dead center. It's become perfect, however, using the land in close proximity for an IPF, is probably not the best decision for the school and students. I agree with what was thought out and planned over at the area of the old BB field is ideal.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker (regardless of what's in it) you're talking about demolishing a structure that's less than 20 years old, cost a fair amount of money, and will cost another bigger amount of money to replace somewhere else. All for the ability to put more people into a stadium 6 Saturdays a year. Unless those people are paying close to $1000 per Saturday per seat, the finances just aren't reasonable at all.

if you ever hear a city complain that building an NFL stadium is a bad deal, this is why. The math on a facility that gets used maybe 10 days a year is very challenging. At least a hockey/basketball arena can be used about 200 days a year for high school events, concerts and so on. But in this case, you're talking about a stadium that is otherwise sufficient, and has plans to go to 35-40k already without interrupting Plecker. Demolishing Plecker, as I'd mentioned, will only serve to add the last ~2500 seats to Bridgeforth. That marginal benefit is VERY small when compared to the cost of demolishing a building with at least 40 years of useful life in it.

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

(11-04-2023 01:19 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

Well, where I think I misunderstand is that you know there is already existing an IPF, and it's inside the Plecker center, right? If so, we agree on that part.

And while I don't really care about where the IPF is, I'm assuming that what's started this discussion is that the Plecker Center should be levelled to make more room for an expansion of Bridgeforth. Am I correct in reading your statement that way?

If so, then my issue is not with what is INSIDE of the Plecker center, or where the IPF winds up. My issue is with demolishing a relatively new building, that still functions at housing JMU facilities of any sort, to make room for a few more seats in the stadium.

If that were to happen, you'd be destroying a building (Plecker) and having to rebuild it somewhere else with the understanding that whatever that building does will have to be replicated somewhere else, presumably with new construction.

Am I reading correctly that this is what you have in mind?

(11-04-2023 10:49 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:20 AM)Purple Wrote:  I prefer mirroring the home side, adding additional seating in place of the press box, bowling in the D-Hall end zone, including an upper deck, and adding as much seating as possible and a beer garden over Plecker.

These sound reasonable at first glance. Deez, wasn't there an issue with adding an upper deck to the D-hall end zone? I'm not certain that the ground there (being the flood path for the creek) is capable of adding that. Maybe but I just don't know.

As far as I know, mirroring the home side CAN be done without touching Godwin. There was engineering money spent 10+ years ago to make sure that was the case.

If Plecker couldn't hold up the jumbotron, I think it's safe to assume it can't handle the weight of a party deck. Maaaaaaaybe you could build one over-but-not-upon (e.g. "around") Plecker? By that point, i think you might be better off just simulcasting the game in the AUBC if you really want to get another 8,000 people in on the fun without spending a big pile of money.

That is what I envision. If necessary, two or three columns through the Plecker roof could be installed to provide support (we would lose an office or two). With concrete and steel beams over the roof, I believe the load could be carried without touching Plecker. But I'm a builder, not an engineer. If they draw it and stamp it, I can build it!

(11-04-2023 10:44 AM)HMK Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:09 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Not sure what people expect. We don’t have anywhere near the donations we should have but conversations are all around us about building a IPF, bumping Cignetti’s contract substantially, building up the stadium and filling up the Montpelier Collective. It’s like champagne taste on a beer budget. Also not sure how we can we drop an IPF next to the stadium, there just isn’t enough room, they’d have to get rid of the parking lot in front of the bookstore to get it done. Ideally you want it close to the rest of the football facilities (office, field, weight room), but I just don’t see how it would fit in there and if it did it could be somewhat of an eyesore. We also want to increase stadium capacity by 5-15k, can’t do that with taking parking out, the ODU game proved what a mess things could by after the game as people that needed to be transported to parking lots were stranded.

I was on the Duke Club board over 20 years ago, at that time we decided to leave the stadium in the center of campus. We decided and with the help of consultants that the best way to encourage students to attend games was to keep the location near the student population. The plans for the stadium included being able to construct a 40,000 seat stadium leaving the parking deck and Godwin in place.

Parking at football games is a problem at almost every major college campus. I must have walked 2 miles at Chapel Hill and over a mile in Charlottesville. One has to remember, that the problem exists only 6 times a year, not considered a priority among all campus concerns. This is a fairly recent problem, and I am sure the administration will work to make it as convient as possible.

I hear you on the walking part, as it currently is we have it nice. People need to be ok with walking, but I’m talking more about the bus lines jacked up and elderly and/or those unable to walk long distances being left stranded. I guess as long as you have shuttles set up for them it wouldn’t be too hard, it’s just the able-bodied but lazy people waiting in those lines in front of them.

(11-04-2023 10:44 AM)HMK Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:09 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Not sure what people expect. We don’t have anywhere near the donations we should have but conversations are all around us about building a IPF, bumping Cignetti’s contract substantially, building up the stadium and filling up the Montpelier Collective. It’s like champagne taste on a beer budget. Also not sure how we can we drop an IPF next to the stadium, there just isn’t enough room, they’d have to get rid of the parking lot in front of the bookstore to get it done. Ideally you want it close to the rest of the football facilities (office, field, weight room), but I just don’t see how it would fit in there and if it did it could be somewhat of an eyesore. We also want to increase stadium capacity by 5-15k, can’t do that with taking parking out, the ODU game proved what a mess things could by after the game as people that needed to be transported to parking lots were stranded.

I was on the Duke Club board over 20 years ago, at that time we decided to leave the stadium in the center of campus. We decided and with the help of consultants that the best way to encourage students to attend games was to keep the location near the student population. The plans for the stadium included being able to construct a 40,000 seat stadium leaving the parking deck and Godwin in place.

Parking at football games is a problem at almost every major college campus. I must have walked 2 miles at Chapel Hill and over a mile in Charlottesville. One has to remember, that the problem exists only 6 times a year, not considered a priority among all campus concerns. This is a fairly recent problem, and I am sure the administration will work to make it as convient as possible.

Parking is an easy solution. You just need frequent shuttles after the game to parking lots and announce at the end of the game when the last shuttle will leave. Just another reason why the transit parking lot needs to stick around.

That and encouraging bikers and walkers to the stadium (wonder if tent based tailgating on the Quad has ever been considered).

(11-04-2023 02:03 PM)Dukes_Royals Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:44 AM)HMK Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:09 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Not sure what people expect. We don’t have anywhere near the donations we should have but conversations are all around us about building a IPF, bumping Cignetti’s contract substantially, building up the stadium and filling up the Montpelier Collective. It’s like champagne taste on a beer budget. Also not sure how we can we drop an IPF next to the stadium, there just isn’t enough room, they’d have to get rid of the parking lot in front of the bookstore to get it done. Ideally you want it close to the rest of the football facilities (office, field, weight room), but I just don’t see how it would fit in there and if it did it could be somewhat of an eyesore. We also want to increase stadium capacity by 5-15k, can’t do that with taking parking out, the ODU game proved what a mess things could by after the game as people that needed to be transported to parking lots were stranded.

I was on the Duke Club board over 20 years ago, at that time we decided to leave the stadium in the center of campus. We decided and with the help of consultants that the best way to encourage students to attend games was to keep the location near the student population. The plans for the stadium included being able to construct a 40,000 seat stadium leaving the parking deck and Godwin in place.

Parking at football games is a problem at almost every major college campus. I must have walked 2 miles at Chapel Hill and over a mile in Charlottesville. One has to remember, that the problem exists only 6 times a year, not considered a priority among all campus concerns. This is a fairly recent problem, and I am sure the administration will work to make it as convient as possible.

Parking is an easy solution. You just need frequent shuttles after the game to parking lots and announce at the end of the game when the last shuttle will leave. Just another reason why the transit parking lot needs to stick around.

That and encouraging bikers and walkers to the stadium (wonder if tent based tailgating on the Quad has ever been considered).

Then where do you suggest the IPF gets squeezed into?

Does anyone know what this Godwin renovation will look like? I’m wondering if there are plans to use the gym for an indoor practice facility? That seems like the most likely area for that type of things close to the stadium? Maybe the area inside isn’t big enough?

(11-04-2023 02:08 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 02:03 PM)Dukes_Royals Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:44 AM)HMK Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:09 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Not sure what people expect. We don’t have anywhere near the donations we should have but conversations are all around us about building a IPF, bumping Cignetti’s contract substantially, building up the stadium and filling up the Montpelier Collective. It’s like champagne taste on a beer budget. Also not sure how we can we drop an IPF next to the stadium, there just isn’t enough room, they’d have to get rid of the parking lot in front of the bookstore to get it done. Ideally you want it close to the rest of the football facilities (office, field, weight room), but I just don’t see how it would fit in there and if it did it could be somewhat of an eyesore. We also want to increase stadium capacity by 5-15k, can’t do that with taking parking out, the ODU game proved what a mess things could by after the game as people that needed to be transported to parking lots were stranded.

I was on the Duke Club board over 20 years ago, at that time we decided to leave the stadium in the center of campus. We decided and with the help of consultants that the best way to encourage students to attend games was to keep the location near the student population. The plans for the stadium included being able to construct a 40,000 seat stadium leaving the parking deck and Godwin in place.

Parking at football games is a problem at almost every major college campus. I must have walked 2 miles at Chapel Hill and over a mile in Charlottesville. One has to remember, that the problem exists only 6 times a year, not considered a priority among all campus concerns. This is a fairly recent problem, and I am sure the administration will work to make it as convient as possible.

Parking is an easy solution. You just need frequent shuttles after the game to parking lots and announce at the end of the game when the last shuttle will leave. Just another reason why the transit parking lot needs to stick around.

That and encouraging bikers and walkers to the stadium (wonder if tent based tailgating on the Quad has ever been considered).

Then where do you suggest the IPF gets squeezed into?

If you want it close to the stadium, Long Field/Mauck Stadium (old baseball stadium). If you don't care about close, then near or in Sentara park or John Carr field near AUBC.

(11-04-2023 01:31 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:19 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

Well, where I think I misunderstand is that you know there is already existing an IPF, and it's inside the Plecker center, right? If so, we agree on that part.

And while I don't really care about where the IPF is, I'm assuming that what's started this discussion is that the Plecker Center should be levelled to make more room for an expansion of Bridgeforth. Am I correct in reading your statement that way?

If so, then my issue is not with what is INSIDE of the Plecker center, or where the IPF winds up. My issue is with demolishing a relatively new building, that still functions at housing JMU facilities of any sort, to make room for a few more seats in the stadium.

If that were to happen, you'd be destroying a building (Plecker) and having to rebuild it somewhere else with the understanding that whatever that building does will have to be replicated somewhere else, presumably with new construction.

Am I reading correctly that this is what you have in mind?

First, isn't the IPF (indoor practice facility), that we have, is not in the Pleckler. It's a temporary tent set staged at Sentara. It is serving it's purpose well, but there will be a time to build a "for real" one. There was some planning done to eventually have a permanent one built where the old BB field was. I'm sure there is not a high priority on this. Maybe we haven't been talking about the same thing. Nevertheless, I never have indicated anything about the Athletic Performance Center at the stadium, never. I also believe about 35K for a stadium will serve JMU well for a very long time.

(11-04-2023 02:09 PM)DUKES NOW Wrote:  Does anyone know what this Godwin renovation will look like? I’m wondering if there are plans to use the gym for an indoor practice facility? That seems like the most likely area for that type of things close to the stadium? Maybe the area inside isn’t big enough?

Yes!! This is my vision but bigger and more grand than the gym. Gut it and make it an IPF right there!

(11-04-2023 01:31 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:19 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

Well, where I think I misunderstand is that you know there is already existing an IPF, and it's inside the Plecker center, right? If so, we agree on that part.

And while I don't really care about where the IPF is, I'm assuming that what's started this discussion is that the Plecker Center should be levelled to make more room for an expansion of Bridgeforth. Am I correct in reading your statement that way?

If so, then my issue is not with what is INSIDE of the Plecker center, or where the IPF winds up. My issue is with demolishing a relatively new building, that still functions at housing JMU facilities of any sort, to make room for a few more seats in the stadium.

If that were to happen, you'd be destroying a building (Plecker) and having to rebuild it somewhere else with the understanding that whatever that building does will have to be replicated somewhere else, presumably with new construction.

Am I reading correctly that this is what you have in mind?

Oh, wait a minute. The APF (not IPF) is in Plecker. That's the Athletic Performance Facility, which is weights, training rooms, etc. The IPF (e.g. practice bubble) is elsewhere and doesn't have to be anywhere near the stadium, you're right.

However, any plan to expand Bridgeforth that involves demolishing Plecker is a non-starter.

As for adding to its structure to support weight, I think an engineer would have a heart attack at the idea, but if someone's slide rule says it's okay, I'm on board.

(11-04-2023 06:30 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:31 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:19 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

Well, where I think I misunderstand is that you know there is already existing an IPF, and it's inside the Plecker center, right? If so, we agree on that part.

And while I don't really care about where the IPF is, I'm assuming that what's started this discussion is that the Plecker Center should be levelled to make more room for an expansion of Bridgeforth. Am I correct in reading your statement that way?

If so, then my issue is not with what is INSIDE of the Plecker center, or where the IPF winds up. My issue is with demolishing a relatively new building, that still functions at housing JMU facilities of any sort, to make room for a few more seats in the stadium.

If that were to happen, you'd be destroying a building (Plecker) and having to rebuild it somewhere else with the understanding that whatever that building does will have to be replicated somewhere else, presumably with new construction.

Am I reading correctly that this is what you have in mind?

Oh, wait a minute. The APF (not IPF) is in Plecker. That's the Athletic Performance Facility, which is weights, training rooms, etc. The IPF (e.g. practice bubble) is elsewhere and doesn't have to be anywhere near the stadium, you're right.

However, any plan to expand Bridgeforth that involves demolishing Plecker is a non-starter.

As for adding to its structure to support weight, I think an engineer would have a heart attack at the idea, but if someone's slide rule says it's okay, I'm on board.

Now, you see we are on the same page.

(11-04-2023 06:30 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:31 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:19 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 10:43 AM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 08:38 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Please realize I'm not saying don't have an IPF, I'm saying it needs to be in a different spot.

Sure, but if the idea here is to expand the stadium and therefore to knock down Plecker

Are we not on the same page? Everything you just stated I agree with. Maybe you didn't read what I said very close, and you added a few thoughts, but nothing contrary to me.

Well, where I think I misunderstand is that you know there is already existing an IPF, and it's inside the Plecker center, right? If so, we agree on that part.

And while I don't really care about where the IPF is, I'm assuming that what's started this discussion is that the Plecker Center should be levelled to make more room for an expansion of Bridgeforth. Am I correct in reading your statement that way?

If so, then my issue is not with what is INSIDE of the Plecker center, or where the IPF winds up. My issue is with demolishing a relatively new building, that still functions at housing JMU facilities of any sort, to make room for a few more seats in the stadium.

If that were to happen, you'd be destroying a building (Plecker) and having to rebuild it somewhere else with the understanding that whatever that building does will have to be replicated somewhere else, presumably with new construction.

Am I reading correctly that this is what you have in mind?

Oh, wait a minute. The APF (not IPF) is in Plecker. That's the Athletic Performance Facility, which is weights, training rooms, etc. The IPF (e.g. practice bubble) is elsewhere and doesn't have to be anywhere near the stadium, you're right.

However, any plan to expand Bridgeforth that involves demolishing Plecker is a non-starter.

As for adding to its structure to support weight, I think an engineer would have a heart attack at the idea, but if someone's slide rule says it's okay, I'm on board.

Having the IPF as close as possible to the stadium would be very convenient and save on additional costs if you don’t have to duplicate support services offsite. If you are able to use the same weights, training room, locker rooms and showers, put it close than having to jump in a car and drive even 5 mins away (dealing with parking, etc). Plus having all of the football equip in both spots. You could move things around a lot easier if it’s in the same stadium vicinity. Logistically, it’s definitely ideal to have them located as close as possible.

It’s also not a luxury, it’s a need for year round work and improvement. Having a space to workout early in the mornings in offseason would be a nice boost and recruiting tool. Pro Days could be held inside. Practicing in all weather during the season is more likely to take place on the field. But imagine having space for the MRDs to practice too or other groups on campus. The other current IPF could be given to soccers and other Olympic sports to practice in cold/inclement weather. It wouldn’t be just for football practice. It would hold all sorts of events during the cold winter months or during inclement weather the rest of the year.

If it’s a no go on demo’ing Godwin, then maybe gut the gym and extend the length and width in Godwin and drop the floor to the basement locker rooms so there would be plenty of height.

Keep it close and integrate Hart School with a state of the art facility. Not sure $40 million is going to improve Godwin enough. You could probably build a $40 million hart school building on the grass practice fields/old baseball field and achieve more.

We’ll see.

Godwin is not coming down....

With that in mind...if you move the transit station (Hanson field? By the convo tunnel? Goodby Mr Chips?)....I think you can just barely get an IPF in - between the tracks and edge of Godwin (essentially an addition)

(11-05-2023 02:58 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Godwin is not coming down....

With that in mind...if you move the transit station (Hanson field? By the convo tunnel? Goodby Mr Chips?)....I think you can just barely get an IPF in - between the tracks and edge of Godwin (essentially an addition)

I’m very curious to see what the village footprint will look like with the new buildings. Extremely expensive to move roads but wonder if that changes how space can be reallocated in that area. Does it allow them to reshuffle the deck in that area as you suggested?

Just a draft, and haven't seen anything but this...but it could work...