Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 120 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·





The architecture company helping CSU design a possible on-campus football stadium is offering plans for a 42,000-seat venue a block north of Prospect Road, flanked by new parking garages, student housing and an alumni center.

Architects from Denver-based Populous offered the details of the plan to Colorado State University boosters in Denver and Fort Collins this week, and then made the presentation public on Thursday. The plan calls for highlighting the university’s Plant Environmental Research Center, which would be adjacent to the new stadium.

Stadium supporters at the meeting came away excited and energized after hearing more specifics of the plan.

“They are working hard to showcase PERC as a place of CSU excellence and are crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s to make sure this stadium represents everything that makes CSU great,” said pro-stadium group Be Bold CSU spokesman Tyler Shannon. “It was very obvious based on the passionate speech that Coach (Jim) McElwain gave supporting the stadium that this stadium will absolutely revolutionize the atmosphere of CSU on game day.”

He added: “It’s really getting us excited — this isn’t just putting a concrete stadium in the middle of CSU. This is about recreating what CSU looks like.”

Specifically, the plan by Populous suggests:

• A north-south oriented stadium immediately west of Whitcomb Street between Lake and Pitkin Streets.

• A new university gateway entrance at Whitcomb Street and Lake Street.

• An alumni center immediately to the west of the Gifford Building.

• A new parking garage on Pitkin Street north of the Plant Environmental Research Center site and west of the stadium

• A new parking garage on the west side of the Aggie Village apartments, which are already slated to be knocked down and replaced with higher-density housing.

Read more...
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20120511/NEWS01/305110009/-1/NEWS0801/Architect-details-plans-42-000-seat-CSU-stadium?nclick_check=1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
As an urban development fan, I hope it comes out nicely...

And as a CU grad, I hope it then promptly burns to the ground :D
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
CSU is a sizable and reputable school, and one that's been sadly left adrift amidst the recent realignment dances. As an institution CSU is in line with many of the schools within current BCS AQ conferences, one which harbors greater appeal as a research and educational partner than, say, Boise State or SMU. Alas, their meager track record as a media brand has hindered their efforts to move up the ladder. I, for one, would welcome them into the folds of, say, the Big XII based on the merits used to define conference member schools to date.

And while I traditionally side on the idea of on campus venues and feel this design could re-energize the Rams fanbase, I have to question the value of this investment. Hughes isn't that far away for an off campus venue, and Fort Collins is compact enough that (from the maps, anyway) it shouldn't hinder attendance whether the stadium is on the western edge of town or some 2 miles east on campus.

Unless CSU is poised to make a move up the conference pecking order I don't know that this new stadium would have the impact desired. Not on a cost value basis, anyway. And if the Rams are serious about bidding for future BXII potential then they'll need to 1) show it in the stands first and 2) continue to upgrade the campus and academics so that they can truly bring the Colorado market to their conference home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
I attended a football game at their current stadium last year and thought it was quite alright actually. Only downside was probably that it was off campus, but! it allowed them to sell alcohol right?

I just don't really see the point unless they get better and can maintain being better for a few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,020 Posts
I attended a football game at their current stadium last year and thought it was quite alright actually. Only downside was probably that it was off campus, but! it allowed them to sell alcohol right?

I just don't really see the point unless they get better and can maintain being better for a few years.
There is a point. College athletics (mainly football) is also a business. And as much as you'd see in a fast food chain or a bank, you see upgrades, and this is no different.

Baylor, TCU, U of H, Tulane, Florida Atlantic, Minnesota, Washington, North Texas, Cal, Akron... all those schools have or are currently in the process of getting brand new stadiums (technically Washington and TCU's stadiums aren't 100% new) because they're basically needed. Don't be surprised if you start seeing more and more of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,912 Posts
CSU is a sizable and reputable school, and one that's been sadly left adrift amidst the recent realignment dances. As an institution CSU is in line with many of the schools within current BCS AQ conferences, one which harbors greater appeal as a research and educational partner than, say, Boise State or SMU. Alas, their meager track record as a media brand has hindered their efforts to move up the ladder. I, for one, would welcome them into the folds of, say, the Big XII based on the merits used to define conference member schools to date.

And while I traditionally side on the idea of on campus venues and feel this design could re-energize the Rams fanbase, I have to question the value of this investment. Hughes isn't that far away for an off campus venue, and Fort Collins is compact enough that (from the maps, anyway) it shouldn't hinder attendance whether the stadium is on the western edge of town or some 2 miles east on campus.

Unless CSU is poised to make a move up the conference pecking order I don't know that this new stadium would have the impact desired. Not on a cost value basis, anyway. And if the Rams are serious about bidding for future BXII potential then they'll need to 1) show it in the stands first and 2) continue to upgrade the campus and academics so that they can truly bring the Colorado market to their conference home.
I think you're forgetting about the impact that a new, on-campus stadium could have on recruiting. Trust me on this, very few schools can pull off an off-campus stadium, especially one like Hughes, which is on the outskirts of town in a dusty field. If you want them to "show it in the stands", building a nicer stadium on campus and getting better recruits, and hence giving the alumni a better product, is the best way to do this. You want something that will energize both your fan base and recruits. And while they may not "need" a new stadium from a pure facilities standpoint, a new stadium could give the football program a much needed reboot. It would be a great thing for CSU.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
There is a point. College athletics (mainly football) is also a business. And as much as you'd see in a fast food chain or a bank, you see upgrades, and this is no different.
Yes, but...

This business is in a very orchestrated market, and the participants are wise to manage their ambitions when dealing with such huge dollar amounts. Plus, the primary mission of these universities should remain their academic and economic development roles. Often that's last in the appeal for sporting glory.

... all those schools have or are currently in the process of getting brand new stadiums (technically Washington and TCU's stadiums aren't 100% new) because they're basically needed. Don't be surprised if you start seeing more and more of this.
Need is relative, and several of those models you mentioned were/are decidedly smaller in scale than proposed here or feature much wealthier institutions.

I think you're forgetting about the impact that a new, on-campus stadium could have on recruiting.
Not at all, I'm simply wanting CSU to be sure about their return on investment with public dollars. If this is all privately funded then have at it and no doubt it will improve recruiting and attendance. But this alone won't yield large media dollars, lure regular games vs. Michigan or an invite from the BXII, so will the marginal increase in gameday receipts offset the cost? If they follow through with this then hopefully so. Even Boise St. and their more (for now) popular program has had to compromise their ambitions due to costs, and they've much more revenue to pull from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,020 Posts
Need is relative, and several of those models you mentioned were/are decidedly smaller in scale than proposed here or feature much wealthier institutions.
The much wealthier part I get..... and this stadium will be bigger? (I don't really follow Colorado State much, even though they were a past conference rival)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
The much wealthier part I get..... and this stadium will be bigger? (I don't really follow Colorado State much, even though they were a past conference rival)
Hughes seats about 34k and the past few years CSU has averaged about 21-23k. I don't doubt that with a new venue and some better conference playmates they could draw 30-35k, but the latter option isn't on the table and this dream house is projected at 40k+. I'm sure it's expandable to that amount and they could start at something lower, though.

Of the other programs mentioned with new/renovated stadiums, MN, Cal and Washington aren't comparable due to being huge, wealthy flagship schools in the B1G and the PAC 12. Baylor and TCU have BXII money and wealthy donors, and at least UH will have BE money and the Texas economy and populace. The rest are all comparable scenarios to CSU, however, and all of them are projected/at or below the 30k mark and arguably have/had much worse options to begin with compared to Hughes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
There is a point. College athletics (mainly football) is also a business. And as much as you'd see in a fast food chain or a bank, you see upgrades, and this is no different.

Baylor, TCU, U of H, Tulane, Florida Atlantic, Minnesota, Washington, North Texas, Cal, Akron... all those schools have or are currently in the process of getting brand new stadiums (technically Washington and TCU's stadiums aren't 100% new) because they're basically needed. Don't be surprised if you start seeing more and more of this.
I understand that it's a business, it's a huge business. My point was simply is it really needed for a team that's gone 9-27 the last 3 years? That doesn't scream, "we need a new stadium!" I think they've had 3 winning seasons since 2002. and 1 .500 season.. 6 losing seasons, probably going to be 7 after 2012. Just seems like the $ could be used on a coach, paying players (cheating), or.. updating other things. Just seems like I waste.

Yes, I understand how much it could help recruiting, but, simply winning helps a lot more. Why go to a team that has won like 3 MWC conference games in 3 years just because of a new stadium? "you guys can't win, but man I love that new stadium! I'm sold!".. I'm not saying it isn't going to happen, but you know..
 

·
with a capital G
Joined
·
265 Posts
CSU is a weird school, like one of those urban commuter schools that none of the students care about like Georgia State or Cleveland State, but it's on an isolated campus.

The stadium looks brilliant though and I have no doubt their athletic department aims to build things up and get into the Big 12. Would wind up CU too no doubt.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
I wouldn't say it's that bad. CSU has about 2-3x the on campus housing as GSU, and they harbor a deeper and more established graduate program beyond simple MBA's. I liken it more to Temple, Memphis or South or Central Florida with regards to culture. Don't know about Boise or Utah St, but they also seem to share conditions and perceptions comparable to CSU.

The Rams' fault has simply been one of company kept, it appears. The Buffs went east with other land grant schools for the Big 8, while CSU stuck with the Rockies and the WAC/MWC, which couldn't muster the same appeal once the Arizona schools left. Which is a shame because I've often thought the west could use a second power conference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Boise is a total commuter school. A little less than 2000 live on campus, should jump to about 2200ish in the fall when the new townhouses they built open. 2200 out of I think 15000ish full time students? roughly 4,000 part timers. So total listed enrollment is over 19k. Boise's campus is dead on weekends unless there is a football game. So, 6 weekends out of the year, other than that that campus might as well have no one on it. The newer dorms are really nice though. I'd say Boise's academics are regarded as being lower than CSU's. Which is something I think hurts Boise a lot. Whether it is or isn't a bad academic school isn't my place to say, but I know people tend to talk down on it pretty hard.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
Boise isn't, and likely won't be for a long time, a bastion of higher academic or research regimen. The University of Idaho is the flagship and they and Idaho State command the university systems priority research and graduate programs, meaning Boise St is always going to be regarded as, even at some level, a step down in most programs.

Sadly this will likely always work against the state in the current metrics for sporting popularity. The power conferences consist mainly of flagships and prestigious private schools. The only urban research universities readily welcomed into the fold are much larger and stronger schools like Pitt, Cincy, USF, etc. The PAC 12 will never embrace BSU as a peer, but BSU's location and ability to handle larger enrollments will always make it the most viable collegiate sports program in the state. It's part of why the MWC didn't embrace them before it was too late for the conference, and why the BXII is hesitant to take them on now despite the rankings of the football program.

Kind of like a new grad trying to get experience, but all the employers are looking for experience.

- - - - - - -

As for CSU, I reached out to the native Coloradan and Buffs fan who lives two doors down. (Simple enough as my kids are playing down there every day!) They say CSU is regarded well enough in the state that an evolution is highly possible. The school may never reach the heights of UoC, considered one of the better schools in the country, but it does have near free reign of graduate programs and support for expansion in many majors. The State is pretty progressive about linking education and economic development and apparently has stated before a desire to see both institutions among the nations best. It's that kind of talk that has likely spurred the visioning we're seeing with this proposed venue.

To wit, with the first 1A playoff structure now supposedly devised many pundits expect the respective power conferences to see how this begins to play out before we see any end-game moves in realignment. BSU and SDSU could still conceivably remain with the MWC (they should) and I'd wager the BXII will hold at 10 for a few years or longer. Thus CSU has an opportunity to make their case as a program on the rise and pitch themselves to Texas and co. Colorado is familiar territory to them, a sizable market and with a fair number of BXII alumni and fans. As an accessible market I'm sure the BXII would rather go there than hop the Rockies or take a flier on non-flagships. Maybe this is what CSU is thinking? Maybe they have the resources to match their vision?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Boise isn't, and likely won't be for a long time, a bastion of higher academic or research regimen. The University of Idaho is the flagship and they and Idaho State command the university systems priority research and graduate programs, meaning Boise St is always going to be regarded as, even at some level, a step down in most programs.
actually now the University of Idaho can't claim it's the "flagship". the Board of Education made them remove it from their mission statement. haha.

Other stuff you've said is the type of stuff I try to explain to people about why Boise can't "just join a new conference".. It's not that simple. There are a lot of factors at play. Boise is pretty much all by itself in location, roughly 5-6hrs from any other major city. The population, although fairly decent in Boise, besides those people, there isn't anyone. The academic factor is huge IMO on why Boise hasn't been offered to join by other conferences unless they are really desperate, MWC/Big East. Although Boise is trying to get their academics to be of higher quality/standard. It takes time. Even if they could do it overnight it would still take time for others to truly recognize it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,474 Posts
Didn't know that about U Idaho. But whether or not that term is in the mission statement doesn't change the order of where and how the System coordinates its higher research and instruction, and I've yet to see any state system move its premier programs from an established land grant university to something that has historically been an urban service institution. (CA and NY have essentially shared flagship roles among their membership but they also have inordinate population and budgetary scales.)

Bottom line, BSU hasn't the economic market nor the academic directive to match the typical pedigree of the current power conferences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,553 Posts
What if they only come up with something like $80 million? Is the university really going to turn it's back on that much money?
 
1 - 20 of 120 Posts
Top