$150-250 million for infrastructure upgrades, concourse/bathroom upgrades, 30000+ full seats, etc. makes sense.
Given the design of our stadium, one side at a time is easily do-able from a technical standpoint. It would probably be three-four phases: one side, the other side, and then the end zone area and interior connectivity between the sides (assuming they only do one). Mississippi State just finished a major end zone in-fill without missing a home game. Our problem is lay-down area. MSU had more room around their stadium to block off for construction activities. We would have our parking lot access - which is already less than stellar - become even more difficult and lose spaces during the construction periods.
Yeah, it's probable that the building plan will be designed in such a way as to allow us to continue to play at home.
watch out they may just leave it at that reduced capacity. Then they can switch conferences. Maybe the MAC would like NU because of their seating numbers in both basketball and football.
Good, 25000 is way better than 75000 when 50000 of them come dressed in Red or as empty seats.
Correct? Why confuse things with "correct.". This is a message board. We don't worry about "correct" on the Rant Board.
Ok, well, it's time to scrap that nasty stadium we have. It sucks. I mean just bulldoze it already and build a new one like Minny has. or maybe a cheaper model llike Baylor. Redoing things is retarded. If anything, just keep the towers if that keeps the old timers happy.
Quit futzing around with a renovation. This old concrete structure is 100 years old.
Seats instead of benches, immediately. Completely redo the interior of the west stadium, which may mean some expansion. Tear down the east and south stands and rebuild larger to match at least the west stands to a standard well beyond the 1930's. With new seats, the west stadium would be very cool--it is large enough and has a scale appropriate to NU football.
Why? While I personally favor renovation because I am a traditionalist, this is a very valid viewpoint and completely appropriate to the thread.
I think his right arm and both legs are. The bionic money man.Hey, Pat Ryan isn't made of money, you know. Er . . . . .
I put this in the "Be careful of what you wish for'" category. People wanted new parking lot improvements for the West lot. Got them but with it came 40 % reduction in spaces and far bigger donations to get in. Wanted new BB arena got it and again reduction in seating, increased prices and long time ST holders lose their spots and huge donations required to get good seats. What will happen with a facility improvement plan for the FB stadium? PSLs? Other big donation requirements, higher prices, reduced seating?
It is not just inflated costs because it is Chicago but also because we experience a little thing called winter. Also we would have to remove the existing facility before we could even start and a guarantee that would not be cheap. My guess is the cost would be closer to $700 mill
I would guess today it would be closer to $400-450 mill. in MN And since that was not the site of where they played likely much less than having to raze a site. Also since it is not where they played, they did not have to make arrangements including costs for playing elsewhere . Overall I would guess something like that for us would be closer to $750 mill. and depending on when it would actually be done (10 years in the future?), it is not hard to imagine the cost exceeding $1B
For what NU would build, cost of a new facility would likely not exceed $500,000,000. They would scrimp down and start skipping things to make sure it stayed under that. Given it is a few years in the future, you would probably start off with architect's renderings showing beautiful landscaped outdoor sitting areas which would never make it to actual construction. And you would probably end up with some fewer and less luxurious VIP boxes in the final version.
In Chicago, payoffs alone would be more than that. That aside, it is not Chicago and has no winter to deal with. Remember the cost of Soldier Field?
That was a fairly amazing achievement which I honestly feel the construction company must have pitched in some money. Also, they had much simpler foundations and structure than we would have. Using a bowl is a cool functional design and also helped them to minimize the impacts of seismic requirements on their costs. I don't think we have that option. The bowl requires more land area for the same seating and/or a low water table.
Not a whole lot less. Might dodge some environmental or grading permits. But a major overhaul would require gutting the electrical system and bringing everything up to code. That alone would be a major pain and would require as much coordination with the electric company as new construction. Given how much of the structure is concrete would make using the existing foundations challenging but not impossible. A lot of Chicago structures are built on piles or caissons and they would definitely want to use those. It would be a fascinating pain in the butt. A project that is awful to live through but great to remember and take pictures of.
