Started By
Message
re: South End Zone Update
Posted on 4/15/19 at 12:00 pm to navynuke
Posted on 4/15/19 at 12:00 pm to navynuke
quote:
What you are suggesting would have been a complete waste of concrete and would have resulted in more empty seats. adding a structure comparable to what is at the end of Boone Pickens on the available footprint would have pushed capacity back over 70k. Focusing on team amenities was absolutely the correct decision.
It was going to still reduce the capacity, just like this project did. The only difference would have been a few more luxury suites and more office space for football operations.
Settle down francis.
1
Posted on 4/15/19 at 1:05 pm to notsince98
The original plan was to build around the old south structure, which would have resulted in expanded capacity. The only reduction would have been during construction. Sterk made the decision to start from the footings up which was why the project went from $75 million to over $100 million, requiring revenue bonds for final funding.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 2:09 pm to navynuke
quote:
The original plan was to build around the old south structure,
That was absolutely never the plan. The structure couldn't support any changes in the concourse for amenities. All versions have required tearing down a portion or all of the previous existing south endzone.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 2:21 pm to notsince98
You are incorrect, but what's new.
LINK
quote:
Mizzou decided it will take down the current south bowl of the stadium rather than build around it,
LINK
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 3:25 pm to navynuke
Since your reading comprehension has failed you, that article in no way says the original plan was to leave the south bowl as is.
The original plan was (like I already said) to remove a portion of the top of the south bowl and build up against it for the new parts (structurally speaking). it would mildly reduce capacity but it was going to be very expensive trying to tie two different structures together and make it work well.
This was the preferred initial plan because the architects and school officials liked the continuity it offered (looks wise) compared to other options.
The original plan was (like I already said) to remove a portion of the top of the south bowl and build up against it for the new parts (structurally speaking). it would mildly reduce capacity but it was going to be very expensive trying to tie two different structures together and make it work well.
This was the preferred initial plan because the architects and school officials liked the continuity it offered (looks wise) compared to other options.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 5:43 pm to notsince98
You have a wonderful imagination.
Carry on.
Carry on.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 7:23 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
Yeah, it’s really pretty awesome. I’ve seen it from the outside at a few hoops games, but seeing it from inside the stadium (near completion)...it’s a great addition. I don’t understand the complaints
Myself as well.
Posted on 4/27/19 at 9:26 pm to Trumansfangs
Posted on 4/29/19 at 9:02 am to navynuke
Thanks for posting this. I'm always on the lookout for pics from inside the stadium.
That video board is freaking huge. Looks great.
That video board is freaking huge. Looks great.
Posted on 4/29/19 at 9:51 am to ZOUtiger
That is a 100ish ton crane and the main boom is 38' long, for comparison. There may be a little parallax error with the camera angle but it's a nice installation.
Posted on 5/1/19 at 9:29 am to navynuke
quote:
ou have a wonderful imagination.
Carry on.
I actually got to see the initial conceptual renderings that never went public and discuss it with both the architect and MEP firms. Did you?
This post was edited on 5/1/19 at 9:30 am
Posted on 5/1/19 at 9:39 am to notsince98
quote:
I actually got to see the initial conceptual renderings that never went public and discuss it with both the architect and MEP firms. Did you?
lol wut
Posted on 5/1/19 at 9:44 am to mizslu314
quote:
lol wut
Exactly. He also invented the question mark.
This post was edited on 5/1/19 at 9:46 am
Posted on 5/1/19 at 10:00 am to mizslu314
quote:
lol wut
So how these projects come about is the AD goes to an Arch firm. They start producing some high level conceptual design renderings. They bring in whichever MEP firm they want to use just to make sure there are no fatal flaws.
At the time, I had contacts at both companies (I work in the industry, and worked at the involved MEP firm at one time) and was able to pick their brains and see the renderings. They were great but the price was just too much.
Posted on 5/1/19 at 11:24 am to notsince98
Did they make you pinky swear not to divulge what you saw? You may be in breach of that committment by sharing such detailed information with us.
Posted on 5/1/19 at 11:57 am to Trumansfangs
quote:
I don’t understand the complaints
It's Mizzou....we'd bitch if you hung us with a new rope
Posted on 5/1/19 at 4:15 pm to notsince98
quote:
I actually got to see the initial conceptual renderings that never went public and discuss it with both the architect and MEP firms. Did you?
Bravo.
Posted on 5/1/19 at 6:08 pm to notsince98
quote:
I actually got to see the initial conceptual renderings that never went public and discuss it with both the architect and MEP firms. Did you?
In other words, you empty their trash every night and stole a glimpse at the drawings they threw away?
Posted on 5/2/19 at 7:37 pm to navynuke
I drove by it yesterday while doing some work in COMO. It is freakin' huge in real life. I was taken by surprise. 
Posted on 5/2/19 at 9:41 pm to moloz
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News