This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/cr ... 718264.jpg


http://www.consultwebs.com/ncphotos/ima ... 50dswm.jpg


Awwwwwkwward . . .

I could see something like that working okay for WGS, though. It would have to be a huge, triple-story structure kinda like what the Stones had though.


http://www.hpm2racing.com/jpg%20Picture ... oncert.jpg

I'm a fan of the corner endzone jumbotron

To be honest I love the atmosphere at WGS but the stadium itself is starting to look like a cut&paste project. It all started with the north endzone "bat-wings" addition (great call on the bat-wings)..... now with the recent addition we have being so small in length it just looks out of place....Its almost like we do not have a MASTER PLAN for the stadium.....we just plop down some concrete bleachers here and there......I hope there is a Master Plan somewhere that will eventually make our stadium more uniform in appearance......but again that is nitpicking.....all that really matters is getting butts in seats and creating a great atmosphere

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Baller1 wrote:To be honest I love the atmosphere at WGS but the stadium itself is starting to look like a cut&paste project. It all started with the north endzone "bat-wings" addition (great call on the bat-wings)..... now with the recent addition we have being so small in length it just looks out of place....Its almost like we do not have a MASTER PLAN for the stadium.....we just plop down some concrete bleachers here and there......I hope there is a Master Plan somewhere that will eventually make our stadium more uniform in appearance......but again that is nitpicking.....all that really matters is getting butts in seats and creating a great atmosphere

Money Money Money ... get it in your pockets fast fast fast!

Patched circus tent is what it is going to look like in the end

WILD_CAT wrote:

Baller1 wrote:To be honest I love the atmosphere at WGS but the stadium itself is starting to look like a cut&paste project. It all started with the north endzone "bat-wings" addition (great call on the bat-wings)..... now with the recent addition we have being so small in length it just looks out of place....Its almost like we do not have a MASTER PLAN for the stadium.....we just plop down some concrete bleachers here and there......I hope there is a Master Plan somewhere that will eventually make our stadium more uniform in appearance......but again that is nitpicking.....all that really matters is getting butts in seats and creating a great atmosphere

Money Money Money ... get it in your pockets fast fast fast!

Patched circus tent is what it is going to look like in the end

As opposed to half empty pup tent in bozone?

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Well GB1, working with a timeline that predates Moos, I would have begun with a master plan that would have anticipated decades of expansion that would develop in some logical fashion. Actually, I would have proceded more slowly with the result that at the moment we might actually have had fewer seats than we do presently. But it would have been done right, not with knee jerk expediency.

Appreciating your acknowlegement that you always have to deal with student, regents et al, my approach would have spent no more total dollars, but they would have been used more efficiently.
Beginning with your starting point of the Hogan NEZ project, that was 4,000 seats costing $3.5 million according to Dave Guffey's Hogan resignation piece for 1-AA.org on 3/3/04. Jump forward to the present $5.5 to $6 (depending on who you quote) east side addition expansion of 2,000 seats. A master plan might have dictated a 5,000 to 6,000 seat east side expansion for less than $6 million. If Dennison couldn't get the full $7 million to construct all 4,000 seats, then quite simply, he should have waited and done it right. Some might argue that expansion occurs when funding and demand are present. Others might find it wise to delay a project that compromises future expansion. It's open to opinion.

Since 2003 almost $10 million will have been spent on WGS expansion. It is a point to argue, but factually end zone seating should be the last option open for a facility seating 30,000+. Interestingly, the architects rendering in the 1/27/85 Missoulian shows the stadium with modest - and matching - decks on both sides. So somebody obviously thought of it. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly dropped the ball in their willy nilly approach to expansion - beggining with the failure to monitor Hogan's creation. A good example was contained in the 4/10 email where I quoted the UM spokesman who said that west side expansion would be very limited because of the close proximity to the Adams Center and the rooms below the plaza. Well, duh! Wasn't there ample opportunity to anticipate that well in advance?

The pride of I-AA/ FCS is now a venue featuring four mismatched sides that will offer severe growth challenges for future administrations long after Dennison has left Main Hall. UM needed a strong hand at the tiller when the first addition was born less than a decade after WGS opened. It never happened.

I hope this is somewhat useful.

Yeah. Let's see who is talking about it looking like "patchwork" on Saturdays this fall, when the place is rocking.

Here is a newsflash. Not many stadiums that were not built in 1 phase look completely integrated from the outside. Hell even some that were built at the same time look like they are in different sections.

Does anyone really have a problem with how it looks on the inside, when it is full of people? I sure don't. I love it. In fact, look around the rest of the nation. For the size of our university, and our fanbase that supports it, I think it is incredible.

I think the Cat's stadium, if it really get's built, will be great also.

I think the people who are now down to bitching about it not looking seamless have too much time on their hands.

Don't be afraid to enjoy things every once in a while.

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Well GB1, working with a timeline that predates Moos, I would have begun with a master plan that would have anticipated decades of expansion that would develop in some logical fashion. Actually, I would have proceded more slowly with the result that at the moment we might actually have had fewer seats than we do presently. But it would have been done right, not with knee jerk expediency.

Appreciating your acknowlegement that you always have to deal with student, regents et al, my approach would have spent no more total dollars, but they would have been used more efficiently.
Beginning with your starting point of the Hogan NEZ project, that was 4,000 seats costing $3.5 million according to Dave Guffey's Hogan resignation piece for 1-AA.org on 3/3/04. Jump forward to the present $5.5 to $6 (depending on who you quote) east side addition expansion of 2,000 seats. A master plan might have dictated a 5,000 to 6,000 seat east side expansion for less than $6 million. If Dennison couldn't get the full $7 million to construct all 4,000 seats, then quite simply, he should have waited and done it right. Some might argue that expansion occurs when funding and demand are present. Others might find it wise to delay a project that compromises future expansion. It's open to opinion.

Since 2003 almost $10 million will have been spent on WGS expansion. It is a point to argue, but factually end zone seating should be the last option open for a facility seating 30,000+. Interestingly, the architects rendering in the 1/27/85 Missoulian shows the stadium with modest - and matching - decks on both sides. So somebody obviously thought of it. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly dropped the ball in their willy nilly approach to expansion - beggining with the failure to monitor Hogan's creation. A good example was contained in the 4/10 email where I quoted the UM spokesman who said that west side expansion would be very limited because of the close proximity to the Adams Center and the rooms below the plaza. Well, duh! Wasn't there ample opportunity to anticipate that well in advance?

The pride of I-AA/ FCS is now a venue featuring four mismatched sides that will offer severe growth challenges for future administrations long after Dennison has left Main Hall. UM needed a strong hand at the tiller when the first addition was born less than a decade after WGS opened. It never happened.

I hope this is somewhat useful.

Tip,

No offense but you are making a lot of assumptions it seems to me. How is it you would sell this plan? I don't think you understood what i am asking you. Anyone can say they would have a Master Plan, but what would you have based it on. Do you think you would have been able to project the explosion in interest, what the students would or wouldn't approve. How would you handle Dennison? I dont't think you really addressed the question.

Master plans are fine to use as a rough draft for the start of a design. But having worked with different govt. agencies and private entities, I have yet to see a plan that remained unchanged from the original master plan. Due to cost, change in personnel, and other unforeseen problems very rarely is a master plan followed from start to finish, in my travels. There is a saturation point and for now it might be 30 thousand fans.

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Well GB1, working with a timeline that predates Moos, I would have begun with a master plan that would have anticipated decades of expansion that would develop in some logical fashion. Actually, I would have proceded more slowly with the result that at the moment we might actually have had fewer seats than we do presently. But it would have been done right, not with knee jerk expediency.

Appreciating your acknowlegement that you always have to deal with student, regents et al, my approach would have spent no more total dollars, but they would have been used more efficiently.
Beginning with your starting point of the Hogan NEZ project, that was 4,000 seats costing $3.5 million according to Dave Guffey's Hogan resignation piece for 1-AA.org on 3/3/04. Jump forward to the present $5.5 to $6 (depending on who you quote) east side addition expansion of 2,000 seats. A master plan might have dictated a 5,000 to 6,000 seat east side expansion for less than $6 million. If Dennison couldn't get the full $7 million to construct all 4,000 seats, then quite simply, he should have waited and done it right. Some might argue that expansion occurs when funding and demand are present. Others might find it wise to delay a project that compromises future expansion. It's open to opinion.

Since 2003 almost $10 million will have been spent on WGS expansion. It is a point to argue, but factually end zone seating should be the last option open for a facility seating 30,000+. Interestingly, the architects rendering in the 1/27/85 Missoulian shows the stadium with modest - and matching - decks on both sides. So somebody obviously thought of it. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly dropped the ball in their willy nilly approach to expansion - beggining with the failure to monitor Hogan's creation. A good example was contained in the 4/10 email where I quoted the UM spokesman who said that west side expansion would be very limited because of the close proximity to the Adams Center and the rooms below the plaza. Well, duh! Wasn't there ample opportunity to anticipate that well in advance?

The pride of I-AA/ FCS is now a venue featuring four mismatched sides that will offer severe growth challenges for future administrations long after Dennison has left Main Hall. UM needed a strong hand at the tiller when the first addition was born less than a decade after WGS opened. It never happened.

I hope this is somewhat useful.

Tip,

No offense but you are making a lot of assumptions it seems to me. How is it you would sell this plan? I don't think you understood what i am asking you. Anyone can say they would have a Master Plan, but what would you have based it on. Do you think you would have been able to project the explosion in interest, what the students would or wouldn't approve. How would you handle Dennison? I dont't think you really addressed the question.

GB1

Your argument charging me with having made certain "assumptions" has no basis in fact. You cite wrestling with "funding mechanisms (and the ) reluctance of students, fee increases, the budget deficit, etc. "- all things difficult to address or control. However, I deal with the realities of what we have today - a $13 to 15 million dollar stadium that got built in spite of all the obstacles you presented. There is, as you say, no selling of the plan - none is needed - unless you think achieving a better result for the same money is a plan that won't be accepted by rational minds. What I suggested differs not one whit materially from what we have today. The key word is execution. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

You asked how I would have master planned in the face of "an explosion in interest.?" To which I say, So what? That's been the lingering problem all along, stop gap measures that addressed immediate needs, the future be damned. Again, I might have fewer seats at this point, but I wouldn't have hamstrung future administrations with willy nilly add-ons that will frustrate Main Hall long after Dennison departs. If the adminstration hadn't been in such a hurry think how the approximately $9+ million spent on the NEZ and the east side might have been better utilized.

It wouldn't have required anything more than thoughtful planning to have been successful.

I thought that it was made clear by the powers at the U that if they wanted to do another expansion on the east side, that a future east side expansion could essentially complete what they indented to do with the original east side expansion plan prior to it's current scaleback.... If that's the case, the east side upper deck should look a bit more in place with the rest of the stadium once extended to the Northeast corner" batwing"......or was I watching the Green Hornet?

No matter what the kitties do, or how much they like to pretend they are going to spend. They will always have a pile of metal in a hay field. it's just a fact.........

grizpack wrote:Yeah. Let's see who is talking about it looking like "patchwork" on Saturdays this fall, when the place is rocking.

Here is a newsflash. Not many stadiums that were not built in 1 phase look completely integrated from the outside. Hell even some that were built at the same time look like they are in different sections.

Does anyone really have a problem with how it looks on the inside, when it is full of people? I sure don't. I love it. In fact, look around the rest of the nation. For the size of our university, and our fanbase that supports it, I think it is incredible.

I think the Cat's stadium, if it really get's built, will be great also.

I think the people who are now down to bitching about it not looking seamless have too much time on their hands.

Don't be afraid to enjoy things every once in a while.

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Well GB1, working with a timeline that predates Moos, I would have begun with a master plan that would have anticipated decades of expansion that would develop in some logical fashion. Actually, I would have proceded more slowly with the result that at the moment we might actually have had fewer seats than we do presently. But it would have been done right, not with knee jerk expediency.

Appreciating your acknowlegement that you always have to deal with student, regents et al, my approach would have spent no more total dollars, but they would have been used more efficiently.
Beginning with your starting point of the Hogan NEZ project, that was 4,000 seats costing $3.5 million according to Dave Guffey's Hogan resignation piece for 1-AA.org on 3/3/04. Jump forward to the present $5.5 to $6 (depending on who you quote) east side addition expansion of 2,000 seats. A master plan might have dictated a 5,000 to 6,000 seat east side expansion for less than $6 million. If Dennison couldn't get the full $7 million to construct all 4,000 seats, then quite simply, he should have waited and done it right. Some might argue that expansion occurs when funding and demand are present. Others might find it wise to delay a project that compromises future expansion. It's open to opinion.

Since 2003 almost $10 million will have been spent on WGS expansion. It is a point to argue, but factually end zone seating should be the last option open for a facility seating 30,000+. Interestingly, the architects rendering in the 1/27/85 Missoulian shows the stadium with modest - and matching - decks on both sides. So somebody obviously thought of it. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly dropped the ball in their willy nilly approach to expansion - beggining with the failure to monitor Hogan's creation. A good example was contained in the 4/10 email where I quoted the UM spokesman who said that west side expansion would be very limited because of the close proximity to the Adams Center and the rooms below the plaza. Well, duh! Wasn't there ample opportunity to anticipate that well in advance?

The pride of I-AA/ FCS is now a venue featuring four mismatched sides that will offer severe growth challenges for future administrations long after Dennison has left Main Hall. UM needed a strong hand at the tiller when the first addition was born less than a decade after WGS opened. It never happened.

I hope this is somewhat useful.

Tip,

No offense but you are making a lot of assumptions it seems to me. How is it you would sell this plan? I don't think you understood what i am asking you. Anyone can say they would have a Master Plan, but what would you have based it on. Do you think you would have been able to project the explosion in interest, what the students would or wouldn't approve. How would you handle Dennison? I dont't think you really addressed the question.

GB1

Your argument charging me with having made certain "assumptions" has no basis in fact. You cite wrestling with "funding mechanisms (and the ) reluctance of students, fee increases, the budget deficit, etc. "- all things difficult to address or control. However, I deal with the realities of what we have today - a $13 to 15 million dollar stadium that got built in spite of all the obstacles you presented. There is, as you say, no selling of the plan - none is needed - unless you think achieving a better result for the same money is a plan that won't be accepted by rational minds. What I suggested differs not one whit materially from what we have today. The key word is execution. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

You asked how I would have master planned in the face of "an explosion in interest.?" To which I say, So what? That's been the lingering problem all along, stop gap measures that addressed immediate needs, the future be damned. Again, I might have fewer seats at this point, but I wouldn't have hamstrung future administrations with willy nilly add-ons that will frustrate Main Hall long after Dennison departs. If the adminstration hadn't been in such a hurry think how the approximately $9+ million spent on the NEZ and the east side might have been better utilized.

It wouldn't have required anything more than thoughtful planning to have been successful.

Like I said, you never addressed my questions, oh well. Looks to me all you really intended to do was take another shot at Dennison and O' Day. I honestly thought you might take a shot at answering the questions, rather than repeat what you say time after time.

EverettGriz wrote:

Kabooom wrote:I thought that it was made clear by the powers at the U that if they wanted to do another expansion on the east side, that a future east side expansion could essentially complete what they indented to do with the original east side expansion plan prior to it's current scaleback.... If that's the case, the east side upper deck should look a bit more in place with the rest of the stadium once extended to the Northeast corner" batwing"......or was I watching the Green Hornet?

That was my understanding as well, Ka.

I thought the same thing, but realize that the upper deck on the east side doesn't align with the bat-wings.



So it won't be possible to bowl in the stadium in the future unless they tear down the entire north endzone (batwings and all) and then replace it with a true two-tiered structure where the uppder deck of the end zone section is aligned with the extended upper deck of the east-side expansion.

If they don't want to bowl it in, then they could always just fix the north endzone so that it is a true upper and lower deck all the way across. I actually brought this up a long time ago on here: http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic22491.php#274972 and assumed they would eventually do the same thing in the south endzone. Mind you this was before the current design was finalized and reduced from 4,000 to 2,000, but this is what I came up with:





My rough math at the time put seating capacity at ~37,000. That was a while ago though. If I had my way today, we'd sit down with an architectural firm and create a plan so in 20 years WaGriz is basically a smaller version of the new Stanford stadium:



That would be awesome!!!

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Silvertip wrote:This is a distillation of an email exchange over April 9 and 10 with a UM official who you would expect to be "in the know" on the subject. My query in the Q&A section on the stadium expansion website inquired as to how capacity would ever be increased to 30,000 or 35,000. I've paraphrased from yesterday's more lengthy effort that vanished with a press of the Submit button. Dratit!

UM 4/: He first said we could add 1,000 or so seats to the (east) expansion if funds and demand are there then would look to the south end zone "where we could probably add 4000 to 5000 seats."

As for the west side, "it would be more of a remodel to improve the press box (improve, not replace?) and suites and probably not have a substantial number of new seats..would also have to figure what to do with GrizVision? ...however the cost and feasibility of all this has not been reviewed at all yet."

I responded that in MHO the 5,000 seats would better be placed atop the west stands with a new press box ABOVE the addition and that a quick calculation shows that 11,000 of the current 25,000 seat total would be behind the goal lines. Another 5,000 seat south end addition would increase that number to 16,000.

As for past additions, while the Moos expansion in 1995 broke the symmetry of the original design it made sense economically being able to install the seats on the exisiting earthen berm. It was the Hogan project however, with its extensive engineering, elevated batwings and extravagant use of concrete that defied logic. Given the cost then and the increases that have occurred over five years the money should have been invested on the east side where a notably smaller expansion is now underway. I'm guessing the cost differential would have been minimal.

UM 4/10: "We have done preliminary asessments on the west and due to the space constraints (the Adams Center) and the fact that we have a locker room and weight room under the plaza, any building we do on the west side is going to coast a bundle." (Planning an foresight would have ben helpful). He went on to say that south end construction would be about a third of the cost of anything on the west. "A 10 to 12 million dollar project... is more likely (becoming) a 30 million dollar project."

But here is the capper! "Another option...is to add seating on the south, as mentioned... [/u]then put the press box on top. Moving the press to the end zone is a growing trend"

I'd like to think that my chain was being pulled on that one. In summary, WGS is a very nice facility, but it could have been a whole lot nicer. What's obvious is that the stadium was built without benefit of any master planning to accomodate sensible growth. Instead it has been by fits and starts as the administration has seen the need to grow the cash cow. As a result any future expansions will become problematical and unnecessarily expensive while achieving less than optimal results.

If anybody can produce a photo of an end zone press box please share it with us.

Tip,

This is not an attack on you so please do not take it as such. You have identified what you and others consider problem areas, along with comments based almost entirely on hindsight. I can't say I disagree with you, however; it is so much easier to critique than it is to offer solutions. You seem to have put a LOT of thought into it, so maybe we can all learn from you on this.

My question to you is: Tell me how, given the funding mechanisms that were available at the time, the reluctance of students to accept fee increases, the budget deficit, etc, how you, as AD, would have done a better job on WGS expansion. Please don't rely soley on what was done wrong by the admin, that is easy. Please tell us from the time Moos left, what you would have done, and how you would have convinced the students, regents, donors, etc. Thank you.

Well GB1, working with a timeline that predates Moos, I would have begun with a master plan that would have anticipated decades of expansion that would develop in some logical fashion. Actually, I would have proceded more slowly with the result that at the moment we might actually have had fewer seats than we do presently. But it would have been done right, not with knee jerk expediency.

Appreciating your acknowlegement that you always have to deal with student, regents et al, my approach would have spent no more total dollars, but they would have been used more efficiently.
Beginning with your starting point of the Hogan NEZ project, that was 4,000 seats costing $3.5 million according to Dave Guffey's Hogan resignation piece for 1-AA.org on 3/3/04. Jump forward to the present $5.5 to $6 (depending on who you quote) east side addition expansion of 2,000 seats. A master plan might have dictated a 5,000 to 6,000 seat east side expansion for less than $6 million. If Dennison couldn't get the full $7 million to construct all 4,000 seats, then quite simply, he should have waited and done it right. Some might argue that expansion occurs when funding and demand are present. Others might find it wise to delay a project that compromises future expansion. It's open to opinion.

Since 2003 almost $10 million will have been spent on WGS expansion. It is a point to argue, but factually end zone seating should be the last option open for a facility seating 30,000+. Interestingly, the architects rendering in the 1/27/85 Missoulian shows the stadium with modest - and matching - decks on both sides. So somebody obviously thought of it. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly dropped the ball in their willy nilly approach to expansion - beggining with the failure to monitor Hogan's creation. A good example was contained in the 4/10 email where I quoted the UM spokesman who said that west side expansion would be very limited because of the close proximity to the Adams Center and the rooms below the plaza. Well, duh! Wasn't there ample opportunity to anticipate that well in advance?

The pride of I-AA/ FCS is now a venue featuring four mismatched sides that will offer severe growth challenges for future administrations long after Dennison has left Main Hall. UM needed a strong hand at the tiller when the first addition was born less than a decade after WGS opened. It never happened.

I hope this is somewhat useful.

Tip,

No offense but you are making a lot of assumptions it seems to me. How is it you would sell this plan? I don't think you understood what i am asking you. Anyone can say they would have a Master Plan, but what would you have based it on. Do you think you would have been able to project the explosion in interest, what the students would or wouldn't approve. How would you handle Dennison? I dont't think you really addressed the question.

GB1

Your argument charging me with having made certain "assumptions" has no basis in fact. You cite wrestling with "funding mechanisms (and the ) reluctance of students, fee increases, the budget deficit, etc. "- all things difficult to address or control. However, I deal with the realities of what we have today - a $13 to 15 million dollar stadium that got built in spite of all the obstacles you presented. There is, as you say, no selling of the plan - none is needed - unless you think achieving a better result for the same money is a plan that won't be accepted by rational minds. What I suggested differs not one whit materially from what we have today. The key word is execution. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

You asked how I would have master planned in the face of "an explosion in interest.?" To which I say, So what? That's been the lingering problem all along, stop gap measures that addressed immediate needs, the future be damned. Again, I might have fewer seats at this point, but I wouldn't have hamstrung future administrations with willy nilly add-ons that will frustrate Main Hall long after Dennison departs. If the adminstration hadn't been in such a hurry think how the approximately $9+ million spent on the NEZ and the east side might have been better utilized.

It wouldn't have required anything more than thoughtful planning to have been successful.

Like I said, you never addressed my questions, oh well. Looks to me all you really intended to do was take another shot at Dennison and O' Day. I honestly thought you might take a shot at answering the questions, rather than repeat what you say time after time.

Your problem, GB1, is that you would like (maybe insist is a better word ) my approach to be far more complicated than it really is. Sorry it doesn't meet your expectations, but maybe a reread on your part would be helpful.

MiningCityGrizFan wrote:

EverettGriz wrote:

Kabooom wrote:I thought that it was made clear by the powers at the U that if they wanted to do another expansion on the east side, that a future east side expansion could essentially complete what they indented to do with the original east side expansion plan prior to it's current scaleback.... If that's the case, the east side upper deck should look a bit more in place with the rest of the stadium once extended to the Northeast corner" batwing"......or was I watching the Green Hornet?

That was my understanding as well, Ka.

I thought the same thing, but realize that the upper deck on the east side doesn't align with the bat-wings.



So it won't be possible to bowl in the stadium in the future unless they tear down the entire north endzone (batwings and all) and then replace it with a true two-tiered structure where the uppder deck of the end zone section is aligned with the extended upper deck of the east-side expansion.

If they don't want to bowl it in, then they could always just fix the north endzone so that it is a true upper and lower deck all the way across. I actually brought this up a long time ago on here: http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/topic22491.php#274972 and assumed they would eventually do the same thing in the south endzone. Mind you this was before the current design was finalized and reduced from 4,000 to 2,000, but this is what I came up with:





My rough math at the time put seating capacity at ~37,000. That was a while ago though. If I had my way today, we'd sit down with an architectural firm and create a plan so in 20 years WaGriz is basically a smaller version of the new Stanford stadium:



That would be awesome!!!

Nice! That might be the closest anybody will get in turning our lemon into lemonade.

That is a nice rendition MiningCity, I think you should email it to O'Day.

o'dayjm@mso.umt.edu