I don't think message boards - any message boards - ever had the influence with the administration that some people think they did, with possibly one notable well-known exception.

have had a lot of the same thoughts myself.

but with regard to this particular issue, I have a hard time thinking that lots of the arguments advanced below have not already been heard by whoever is running this stadium project. The stuff they're doing simply goes straight into the headwinds of architecture and urban planning 101. If they are proceeding with the plan indicated by the rendering, it's probably for internal reasons that have been deemed to trump the contrary arguments that the hired consultants themselves must have put out (however tepidly).

Shit like you see in the Ziggurat Fresca reeks of bad leadership rather than bad thinking. At least shit like Stepan is ambitiously, even grandiosely bad. The swollen look above indicates, to me, at least, a directionless process.

I tend to give the University the benefit of the doubt on this, and I assume the renovations will be fine (all the recent construction has been great, I'd guess this will be the same).

But at this point, the anti-constructionists are seen as the same population that thinks we should fire Brian Kelly. And they're given just as much respect.

PS: HI ANDY!

The whole boy who cried wolf routine for every single imaginable topic related to ND basically shut off any legitimacy that the internet could have provided. And specifically, to the most popular ND internet forum.

But that was after much traction was made. I am not sure it'll ever work its way back.

I know it was presented to people on campus last week, but that's about it. I don't know if it was the only concept that was presented, whether it was the final version, etc.

I know the BOT Is meeting & voting this week. I suspect this is the design up for vote but I do not know that for sure.

design by committee is even in play here. ND has done plenty of building/renovating. Get your architects together, lay out a plan, get 90+% of the design done.

Once you have a near-final product, then you can show it to the fancy pants donors and see if they want in or not. Their input shouldn't matter in the slightest. ND certainly doesn't need their money, and the #1 reason they donate stacks of cash is their own ego.

Are the two concepts REALLY that different?

While I would agree that the initial concept is better, the second doesn't seem terribly different. It's at a different angle too, which might be making the buildings look a little bigger than they really are.

And the bigger buildings aren't necessarily worse are they? I mean, aesthetically they are worse than concept 1 but I'd like to know what is inside of the buildings because that could make this new concept better, perhaps. If we're talking some Lambeau type atrium business that's exciting, no?

All that said, I really really really hope they don't go through with having one large video board on the southern end of the stadium.

For in-game experience I don't think we can get this wrong. This re-design needs video boards in all 4 corners.

If it's one in the south and two in the north it's just dumb. Tons of people sitting in the south will have to crane all the way around to see the board and the two in the north appear too small to help many others.

1 in each corner allows everyone to simply glance into the nearest corner with barely moving their head away from the field.

--
-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix

1. I think it looks fine, but I am also taking into account what their goals are.

2. U-shaped. I think it has to be U-Shaped so you dont block the view of Touchdown Jesus.

3. Big buildings. The main design goal I heard (from my friend in the PR office) was that ND wants to make the stadium a year-round facility that students visit more than 6 or 7 times a seasons. If they are going to do that, how can they do that without adding buildings (ie making the stadium thicker)? So when I see the "blocky" designs I think, "Cool", I wonder what kind of facilities will be in that new space? Will it be student rec stuff? Will it be classroom stuff?

My main goal for this part of the design would be that I hope they make sure they use the right kind of brick to match the rest of campus. They also need to make sure they have an architecture/design firm that mandates the details correctly (the correct style of windows, overhangs etc), as even the current campus has certain eras of buildings where the classic ND campus style was NOT done very well.

4. Green roof tops. That's just smart design. Its eco and its going to become more and more common because it helps the design in multiple ways (conserves energy, green gases etc). I see that and think, "Well this is what the next century will see lots of" ... Also, ND could get some great learning experiences both as a business that has these types of facilities in their portfolio and also as a learning institution training young professionals on how to design (architecture) and maintain (civil engineering) advanced systems like this. I think its great that ND would go after a design that includes this kind of option.

BTW, that included drawing looks like one of many early design drawings. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if that concept was re-drawn another 20 times, because sometimes, that's how these types of projects go.

5. Design by committee. Yep, it definitely could be a design by committee result, but I've also seen the, "Well Im the rich guy and I'm donating most of the funds for this project, but I dont know exactly what I want ... so change X, no change Y, now wait a minute can you add back Y make X bigger and I was thinking we could really use a good ABC to go withit." Design demands by 1 client can be just as all over the place as design by committee. Some of these wealthy people that donate for this shit, don't have a clue what the design should be, but they make plenty of demands. Top notch design firms some times walk away from these projects because you'll go through 40 iterations and the one jackass is still trying to make up his mind on which design he likes best.

this has all the terrible hallmarks of the "Design by Committee" process. The increased bulk and more absurd features (green roofs!) probably come from not enough people being told that their idea is fucking stupid.

The best case scenario would be that this rendering is only one choice of several, and is not chosen.

The next best case scenario would be that this rendering/plan is a sacrificial lamb that was needed to achieve consensus, and "resource constraints" will be invoked to produce something less monstrous.

The worst case scenario is they build the damn thing too high and the Steeple of the Basilica is outstripped in height by the artifice of ND' Temple to Urkhutal

Putting aside broader issues, the execution of the Michigan Stadium renovation seems a lot better than this drawing. The big drawback of Michigan's version (other than it's Michigan) is their video board. It looks tacked on. If ND is going to do a board -- not my preference, but I don't really care -- doing a horseshoe might make sense. They could even have a scoreboard or two on the north ends of the boxes, then leave the north end zone open.

- No text -

...when Harrison Ford visits campus, he'll know where to go to find Mola Ram.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

- No text -

- No text -

I'd be amazed at how they were able to squeeze in a football stadium between three big old hospitals.

And I would assume the designers/builders had not one single other option on earth. This is ugly. Somebody didn't get past Lego-Stacking 101 in architecture school.

Is the giant hot tub outside the southwest corner gone from the previous rendering? Or just cut out from this picture? Inquiring minds want to know...

- No text -

Well, 3 of them, actually.

- No text -

(1) I'm glad they're keeping the Joyce separate and allowing people to walk through that area. Would have led to really weird foot traffic patterns on non-game day times and really weird foot traffic problems on game days.

(2) Appears they're going green by planting on rooftops. Want that LEED certification that badly, eh?

(3) No full horseshoe, but I can see where the massing at least would lead one to think that it was close.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

They are allocating money for new nets, and possibly new rims, in the Pit.

I did quick sun studies when I did my stadium renovation concept, and the field was largely unaffected until early/late November.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of SketchUp's sun modelling, but the shallow rake of the bowl kept the structures from making much of a difference in the summer, when the sun's altitude is higher.

Of course, I still think we'll see FieldTurf.

- No text -

The JACC walkway bugged me. You should be able to walk around the stadium without going inside.

The origial south endzone structure doesn't look big enough to accommodate much of a video board. They're going to want something that isn't visible from outside, like Michigan's eyesore:

So many of these things are just tacked on top of the stadiums, making them look even tackier. To build it into a brick/concrete frame would require a pretty big frame.

Is that a new wrinkle?

If done right, a ring/horseshoe should keep noise in more than would the design that Jay provided above.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

the BOT meeting is in Rome? Spending the UA money early I guess.

Are they giving Pope Francis his honorary letterman's jacket?