Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Facilities Plans...

SuperiorBuff said:
I don't like the support pillars in the first one. There should be nothing structurally to obstruct the view of fans.
Click to expand...

I've always liked the old-style look of the columns. I liked how they allowed the upper levels to hang over closer to the field of play in the old-style baseball stadiums. I thought it was disappointing that columns were used in very few situations (right field at Ballpark in Arlington comes to mind) when they built the new round of throwback baseball stadiums around 15-20 years ago.

Having said that, I have never been to a true old-time stadium and sat in a seat with an obstructed view. :huh:
 
Design #A is a loser. It appears The Folsom remodel has the same designers, Populous, who built Camden Yards in Baltimore. Not only is it a beautiful stadium matching the 100 year old power plant brick buildings nearby, but it is a great place to watch a game. I've watched Cal Ripken from seats above both dugouts and from high priced suites munching chips and eating hot dogs. But I had almost as good a view and a better time with the real fans in the left and right outfield cheap seats. First season they screwed up and faced all the seats on the third based side away from the plate and towards left center. I got cheap discounted seats and a kinked neck. It was an easy fix by the next season. About every seat is now a perfect place to watch a game. Populous has a great track record creating modern fan friendly structures with character like Camden. Camden Yards replaced Memorial Stadium, where both the Orioles and Colts played. Memorial was a 2 tiered stadium with support columns that obstructed the view, aka design #A. Hated it. So did the Baltimore Colts. Memorial Stadium is why they're now the Indianapolis Colts. Camden was built because they didn't want to lose the O's too.
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
If Balch is on the National Register, it will not be coming down. Maybe they gut the interior and remodel. But I don't know what its "protected" status is. Anyone have an idea?
Click to expand...

There was a building in Miami that had that problem. Eventually, they got congress to remove the designation so it could be demolished.
 
CVBuff said:
Design #1 is a loser. It appears Folsom has the same designers, Populous, who built Camden Yards in Baltimore. Not only is it a beautiful structure matching the 100 year old power plant brick and architecture, but it is a great place to watch a game. I've watched Cal Ripken from above both dugouts and from high priced suites munching chips and eating hot dogs. But I had almost as good a view and a better time with the real fans in the left and right outfield cheap seats. First season they screwed up and faced all the seats on the third based side away from the plate and towards left center. I got cheap discounted seats and a kinked neck. It was an easy fix by the next season. Camden Yards replaced Memorial Stadium, a 2 tiered stadium with support columns that obstructed the view, aka design #1. Hated it. So did the Baltimore Colts. That's why they're now the Indianapolis Colts.
Click to expand...
?????????
 
MiamiBuffs said:
There was a building in Miami that had that problem. Eventually, they got congress to remove the designation so it could be demolished.
Click to expand...

DBT said:
If Balch is on the National Register, it will not be coming down. Maybe they gut the interior and remodel. But I don't know what its "protected" status is. Anyone have an idea?
Click to expand...

The National Register of Historic Places is basically just a list maintained by the National Park Service that designates building as having worthy historical significance. The federal government makes no attempt to regulate what can be done with these buildings - that falls on state and local governments. Because CU is the State of Colorado, it's also not subject to Boulder City or County regulations/laws. It's probably a good idea for the University to work with the community in most matters, but when push comes to shove, the state can do what it wants. This is why CU can build above Boulder's height limit. The city can complain, but if CU wants it enough, it will happen.

One recent example of a historical sports venue being renovated is Soldier Field in Chicago - it was on the National Historic Landmark list (more significant than the Register even) pre-rebuild, but it was changed so much, it was removed from the list. But nothing prevented it from being rebuilt.
 
Last edited:
GoBeers said:
The National Register of Historic Places is basically just a list maintained by the National Park Service that designates building as having worthy historical significance. The federal government makes no attempt to regulate what can be done with these buildings - that falls on state and local governments. Because CU is the State of Colorado, it's also not subject to Boulder City or County regulations/laws. It's probably a good idea for the University to work with the community in most matters, but when push comes to shove, the state can do what it wants. This is why CU can build above Boulder's height limit. The city can complain, but if CU wants it enough, it will happen.

Anyway, I also don't see Balch on this list of Boulder County historic places:
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/boulder-county
Click to expand...

Really? I heard something about wanting to make changes to Fenway before it made that list.
 
tante said:
Really? I heard something about wanting to make changes to Fenway before it made that list.
Click to expand...

Fenway is owned by the Red Sox, not the state or city, so if there are laws in Boston/Massachusetts, they'd have to follow them (or get an exception). I'm sure it was easier to build upgrades before the inclusion.

Another aside - The Red Sox play at home from Friday Sept 5th through Sept 10th. Great weekend to catch the CU game at Foxboro.
 
GoBeers said:
Fenway is owned by the Red Sox, not the state or city, so if there are laws in Boston/Massachusetts, they'd have to follow them (or get an exception). I'm sure it was easier to build upgrades before the inclusion.

Another aside - The Red Sox play at home from Friday Sept 5th through Sept 10th. Great weekend to catch the CU game at Foxboro.
Click to expand...

Found this

The register listing means changes to Fenway are subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

I wish you hadn't posted that about the Sox playing. I am trying to find reasons to not go on that trip and that makes it even harder.
 
If you are going to the CU game, you HAVE to catch a game at Fenway. I love the rockies, but I went to a Yankees Red Sox game in 09 and it topped any game I have been to at Coors. That includes every playoff game in 2007. I am just in love with Fenway as a whole and the fans are great. They aren't like the moronic fans that show up to Red Sox Rockies games at Coors Field.
 
I don't think the field house is on any registry. The Norlin Quadrangle is the only place on campus with that designation.
 
Ringo mentioned in his chat yesterday that donations for the facilities project have reached 35mil. I have been guardedly optimistic, even as some on this board explained the significance of each of the planning steps, but money talks-George looks like he will get this done. Kudos, RG, bring it home.
 
SteelCity Buff said:
Ringo mentioned in his chat yesterday that donations for the facilities project have reached 35mil. I have been guardedly optimistic, even as some on this board explained the significance of each of the planning steps, but money talks-George looks like he will get this done. Kudos, RG, bring it home.
Click to expand...
Is that going to be his new allbuffs name: "Money-Talks George?" Because that would be allsome.
 
I love what RG is doing for the facilities. I just wish he'd find somebody to pay a little attention to the game-day fan experience and getting the students buy-in. We really seem to have taken a big step backward in that area. I get that RG is probably too busy right now to concentrate on those issues, but would it be too much to ask *somebody* in the AD to look after that stuff?
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Here is the schedule

[strike]FIRST Advertisement 1/6/14
RFP Document Release 1/14/14
SECOND Advertisement 1/13/14
Mandatory Pre-Submittal Meeting 9:00 am 1/16/14
Written Requests for Clarifications Due 4:00pm 1/24/14
Written Responses Issued 1/28/14
Submittals (Prequalification: Step I) Due 4:30pm 2/4/14
Submittal Review 2/5/14
Interview Short List Announced 2/6/14
Submit Subconsultant Qualifications 2/6/14
Oral Interviews 2/11/14
Selection Announced 2/12/14 [/strike]
Design Review Board Initial Presentation 3/13/14
Design Review Board Concept Presentation 4/10/14
Design Review Board Schematic Design Presentation 6/12/14
Design Review Board Design Development Presentation 10/9/14
Start Construction (Anticipated) 5/12/14
Substantial Completion 8/1/15

http://www.colorado.edu/facilitiesm...n/documents/AthleticsComplexDBRFP01-10-14.pdf
Click to expand...

Updated to show progress. 2 weeks until we likely see first true design renderings.
 
should have some big announcements around corp funding and moves here in short order.
 
Lots of positive momentum. Whay we might lack in size, we are going to make up for it in technology. Sports science.

From phone
 
I really don't want to get too excited about this stuff until I see real dirt being moved. I know it sounds like we're getting real close, and maybe closer than we've ever been before. I just can't get past the thought that we've been down this road before.
 
[MENTION=8]sackman[/MENTION], I get the reluctance to be excited until we see them moving dirt. However, we have contracted a GM and a world class architect. This thing is on its way unless something drastic happens to the funding that RG was anticipating.
 
Reluctance is more than appropriate considering the many times we have been left with blue balls over the years. Received an email yesterday with some dates that I initially read as .....**** here we go again. I immediately went to the negative, but thankfully it was my failed basic math skills at work.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
@sackman, I get the reluctance to be excited until we see them moving dirt. However, we have contracted a GM and a world class architect. This thing is on its way unless something drastic happens to the funding that RG was anticipating.
Click to expand...
The RFP does say "subject to funding." If funding doesn't come through the A/E would be paid for services rendered and the contract terminated for convenience.
 
Florida State's facility plans, to begin construction next month

[video=youtube;4t_y-kN-JxU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t_y-kN-JxU#t=151[/video]
 
Super smart to get the new facilities underway right away after a NatChamp, but none of the renderings or ideas they mentioned seemed very cool to me. It doesn't look very sleak or modern
 
Their video team sucks compared to ours. CU should put out a promo video that will blow away people and make them want to not only give but believe.
 
Paid my season-tix yesterday. When I called to do so I asked about groundbreaking at the Spring Game. I was told that is the plan and that the $50mil has to be raised prior to that ceremony. Apparently the $50mil is the cost of the steel which has to be purchased at the onset of the project. Does that make sense to those of you in construction?
 
And as I understand we are very close to that mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top