I know it was voted on back during the fall/ summer, But does anyone know when they will begin construction on the new indoor facility? I feel like it is something we are missing that the recruits take notice on? Are they still in the planning phase? I would love to see them have it built with in a year but is that realistic?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Googling "Virginia Tech practice facility"...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/virginia-tech-gets-approva...
Let's hope we make better use of ours, than the Cavs did with their brand new one.
Here are all the options:
http://www.savestadiumwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IndoorAthleti...
Thanks for that.
It reflected what I thought the problems may be in site considerations.
I wonder if the donor parking problem couldn't be mitigated by placing the parking on the roof.
I suspect cost may be the primary concern there but, who wouldn't like to tailgate 80 ft above campus.
Heck of a view on gameday.
Lee Corso might argue against cars being elevated and exposed...
http://gosw.about.com/od/sportsandrecreation/ss/cardinalstadium_3.htm
Make the outdoor portion of the facility like this and put a parking lot for the donors underneath it since the practice fields shouldn't be needed for gamedays.
I say may it a true experience for donors... have them volunteer as tackling dummies!!!!
Who wants to tailgate underground.
Can't run a grill, dark, etc.
It wouldn't be underground. At Arizona, they roll the field inside the stadium and it exposes the parking lot underneath it which is where the players park on gameday. I am suggesting the outdoor fields roll inside the indoor practice facility, leaving open air parking lots for donors to tailgate in. This could also help to lessen the congestion at that entrance gate on gameday.
would need the roof to be peaked for height/visibility. an 80 ft high box would be too imposing.
Vehicle access will be tricky no matter what-
wouldve been more convenient in Option 5, south of the stadium, but making it less convenient for the team.
I am confident good decisions will be made.
I mean, we dont have to look too far for some great examples.
This will be a good measuring stick of how Whit will carry on Weaver's torch.
GO HOKIES!
Not to mention, recent events have shown why a large flat roof is bad in snow areas.
Plenty of parking garages survive huge snow.
Which creates more weight/sq ft, 100 cars parked in standard spaces or 4ft of snow in the same space?
I haven't done the math but, it bet it's the cars.
You'd be surprised at the weight of snow. For your parameters I'd be willing to bet that the snow weighs significantly more.
If we ever got 4ft of snow evenly spread over a parking lot sized space, it would be the light stuff at about 10 lb / ft3. X 4 ft tall = 40 lb. applied at surface that's 40 lb/ ft2.
Average pickup truck is about 5000 lb.
so with those parameters you are right, but we'd never build a parking garage to only take the bare minimum weight of a truck/car, which is where I was going.
Parking garages are designed for that kind of load.
Yep! Parking garages are a lot different than building roofs though - garages are large concrete structures with lots of heavy supports. The kind of roof on this building would not have room for vertical supports, and would be made of steel. Think the Blacksburg High School collapse.
Not trying to be argumentative - you just got a civil engineer going!
Unless you planned for it. Then, it could be designed that way.
Thank you. Understood about the difference, best friend is an architect, we've had this very discussion regarding building a brewery with rooftop beer garden.
Cost, cost, cost.
There is a difference between a roof and a parking garage. If you plan for it, great, if not you are going to have a heck of an issue.
The engineers are having locating the new building where it won't encroach on the trees or the existing fields too much. Still in design.
Last news I heard, the school had short listed the group of design-build groups for the project. Unfortunately, the company I work for didn't make the cut.
Those short listed firms are prepping their submittals.
Shortening the outdoor practice fields for an indoor facility is stupid. You're just creating more problems with the one you are solving, something you never do in master planning. I really wish VT could act like it was the top Arch school in the nation and go after world famous architects for new works. They should have had proper designers come up with solutions to this and propose how to accomplish the need for proximity with the current campus plan that wouldn't create new problems, instead of having administrators propose sites that are "feasible" only in their eyes. The good ol' boys routine strikes VT football once again.
Personally, I would have put the new facility on the south parking lot on the other side of Lane. They are worried you lose parking but you can easily design a facility that could compensate for parking and have the indoor facility together. I really hope that the actual design of the building makes up for this dumbassery.
To your point, All of the money that went into creating that awesome locker room, with the lounge that you could walk out onto the deck and look at Lake Stadium will not be looking directly into a large metal and/or hokie stone facility with no view of the stadium. When I got to tour the locker room, that outdoor deck was one of the coolest features of the whole thing. Well, I mean the pool tables and 60" tv's were pretty sweet too....
Not sure what you were trying to convey here. There is either a double negative, or a lack of commas. Are you saying the expensive porch is getting ruined, or preserved with this design? (did you mean to say "now" instead of "not"?)
By the looks of it, the view will probably get obstructed, but the deck's hardly get used from what I've seen. Overall I think this could end up looking pretty good and solves a lot of the problems. Having dual fields will allow the coaches to observe two different squads going at once, which they pretty much already do anyway. Revamping the driveway back there and the lighting on bike/walking paths is definitely a nice touch too.
From what I understand, they will begin once spring practice is over.
The yellow dotted line surrounding the two practice fields shows a 100 yd field which makes me think it will be configured where they can either be using the one 100 yd field, or the two shorter fields.
yes, but 2 100 yard fields are better than 2 short fields that need to be "converted" to be 1 whole field. I like the idea of two fields so why not have 2 full sized fields?
It actually is.
If you go N/S there are either 2 short fields and 1 inside full size field or, with doors open, 2 full fields part in and part out.
Go E/W there is one full size field outside and one inside.
Or you could simply have 2 full sized outdoor fields and 1 full sized indoor field. Thus 3 full sized fields operational at the same time. Again, this is just solving a problem they created themselves.
There is not enough room in the current practice field site for the configuration you mentioned without encroaching on the Stadium Woods, which, due to intense opposition, is not an option. The other option you mentioned, having the facility built in the parking lot, has the negatives of being far from the locker rooms and being significantly more expensive than the chosen option (due to construction of parking facilities).
See Andy Bitter's article, which provides the document with the multiple options for the location of the facility. Interestingly, the location you support did score the highest; however, the two categories which put it on top are "stormwater management" and "tree impact". I'm not familiar with the differences between the two sites in stormwater management, but according to the rendering it appears the current plans will result on the destruction of just one tree.
Just some food for thought :)
No, I am definitely not for building on the woods site. I am 100% pro-protection of old growth forests. Obviously though, Beamer wanted the building on the forest site because he wanted the existing full sized practice fields to remain intact. Short fields is not what he wanted at all.
Yes, building on an existing parking lot would be more expensive, however if you actually had a design you could use it to raise funds with. Now they are simply raising funds off of a summary report and this location plan.
Of the options that the steering committee selected I prefer the Cassell Lot. It scored 42.5 points which tied it with several other options, but let's look at why it received negative marks:
1) Pedestrian Safety/Lightening Protection: Argument is that Spring Road has lots of traffic. My response is a) players already cross to Rector Field House, though not ideal, is existing conditions so cannot be marked down. b) As mentioned in another comment, could connect locker room and Cassell via covered pedestrian bridge over Spring Road that could create an Iconic gateway to Lane Stadium.
2) Significant Parking Loss that is difficult to mitigate: Agreed. This is the one negative. Would need to add parking structure resulting in significant additional cost, but costs that I support.
3) Compliance with Master Plan: Only Option 2 was actually in compliance. All other options, including the Cassell Lot, did not so it's a wash with everyone losing points.
4) Building Creates Poor Entry Sequence into campus: This is absolute bullshit. a) there is no design to review so how do we know it creates a poor entry sequence? This is why administrators shouldn't decide these things without going through a design process to actually see options. b) The argument then is that a parking lot is a GOOD entry sequence? No way. I would prefer to see a beautifully designed building with Hokie Stone and perhaps "HOKIES" on the north elevation over looking at a parking lot when I enter campus from this road.
I have designed 100's of projects all over the world and have raised millions of dollars for projects that started with nothing to get them built. Deciding the solution before a design process is just stupid.
Those that say a parking structure would cost more money are correct, however if they had a brilliant design with renderings, animation and a spirit that conveyed the "dream" then raising money would be a hell of a lot easier. At the moment they only have this location plan and are saying it's going to be tough to raise all the money. No shit Sherlock. You had a bunch of non-professionals make a huge design decision based simply on an evaluation matrix that the same people scored. That's a ridiculously poor decision making process.
If they had been smart they would have created a design competition. Got world class architects to design solutions and then show that to everyone, and select from real solutions. Could have put it online with the Hokie Club to seek donations kick starter style as well as traditional fund raising efforts. Thus energizing the fan base and boosters. Instead we have a steering committee report with no visuals and a decision to place the building in a location that compromises the existing outdoor practice fields, which Beamer did not want to happen in the first place.
Interesting points! I particularly noted your support of the Cassell Lot option, which, all things considered, I agree would be the best location for the indoor facility. A quick comparison of the footprint of the new(ish) Perry St. garage and the footprint of the Cassell lot shows that the area would be able to support both a new parking garage and the indoor facility, with two entrance/exit points for the garage on Washington St and Spring Rd.
What I think is the biggest advantage of the chosen location is having the outdoor and indoor fields right next to each other, and being able to open some big retractable doors and have players run in and out. The overall site plan is probably not optimal, but I can see why it was chosen and why it was laid out the way it is.
I agree about the practice fields being next to each other as being the biggest advantage. I understand why this was what was selected. My main gripes are the method in which it was selected and that it creates a problem that didn't previously exist.
have a turkey leg for being rational in the face of my ranting. haha
Are you going to pay each of those architects to create a solution? Or are you expecting each of them to do it on their own dime in the hopes of getting the job?
Really don't like design build projects.
Here is a great question. Do we need to pay all these companies?
And here's the secret. No, you do not. Not even a little bit.
The reality of today's design world is that the very best companies in the world are involving themselves in any real competition that is of substance. My company was involved in a museum competition last year in Australia. It was an open competition, meaning unpaid. hell, we had to pay them to register and get the information. More than 70 companies world wide were accepted to join. Of the 70+ only 20 were selected to submit.
Normally, the top tier design companies avoid these competitions but since the global downturn in 09/10 started these companies have been forced to join these as well. And they are getting more an more involved in them. For that museum project my office placed 5th. Behind 3 companies that are considered top 10 in the design field globally and a local Australian firm.
In the end only the winner of the competition is paid anything. I also am not a fan of design build projects.
Yeah, my company has also been forced to participate in these somewhat in this global market. We lose money on almost all of them. Design build ends up saving maybe 3 months (the bidding process) over the life of a multiyear project and there is no actual evidence that the owner ends up saving money on them either. The only one that makes out in the end is the contractor.
Exactly. Everyone thinks design build will automatically save time and money but it doesn't just happen this way. It can but the norm is usually not this way. And the contractor wins no matter what.
Okay- So this will be my 2nd post ever, but it has gotten me riled up enough to finally say something.
1st- Design Build projects do cost Architects, that competition is hard - in this case 3 firms (Design build firms / Contractors who partnered with an Architect) were short listed to provide designs and costs for their ideas. Just to let everyone know, things have been going ahead and there is a design team/contractor selected but the designs are going through a Value Engineering process so we can't post anything about the design, etc.
I have to add a note to design build projects costing Architects money, consider the GC's out here - our office, to remain nameless because I don't want to get in trouble or say more than I am allowed, puts out bids for projects every week and we miss the majority of them, as do most contractors. We constantly are spending lots of money putting estimates and proposals together for owners/architects and a successful company gets somewhere between 30%-60% of the proposals they submit. So I do have sympathy for costing time and money of architects, but welcome to the life of a Contractor or a Construction Management group. Secondly, from a contractors perspective Design Build and CM at Risk projects make life a million times easier on the contractor, we are able to give the owner exactly what they want and can afford. Design-Bid-Build's (from a contractors perspective) promote cuts, change orders, and all around trying to do something for nothing/trying to do something as cheap as possible to try and win a job. When we get a client as a design-build/CM at Risk, we negotiate absolutely everything with an open-book and an open fee so they know exactly what we are making and exactly what they are getting. I wish there was a better way that would be more cost effective for Architects - but CM / Design-Build projects are our favorite to work on.
I am so looking forward to when the plans and models are released (which I have seen the initial which got us selected) - the design firm we are working with is world renowned and the plans will blow our alum, players socks off. Trust me when I tell you that this facility will be heads and tails above 95% of any other programs indoor facility. LOLUVA's facility will be a pre-fab metal storage building standing next to what has been proposed. Our company is flooded with Tech grads and there is not a company more excited and dedicated to VT to complete this project. This is not just a company looking for a buck but a company who loves VT and will provide a superior project.
As soon as we are allowed to I will get a rendering up here/link to project/link to A/E/link to our Contractors site.
I have a lot of pride in the company I work for and while I don't get to work on this project specifically, I am proud to know our company got a chance to bid on it, and assuming things keep going this direct we will get to build this for VT.
I don't think either one of is saying that this is not the case. But we are obviously sitting on either side of the fence. To be honest I would not use design build contracts for anything other than infrastructure projects. I personally believe that there is a design process that must be followed to achieve the best results. Designers design project. Engineers construct project. Contractors build projects.
I have seen the work of brilliant engineers and contractors, and have seen first hand how much they can contribute to any project. But I think these 3 skill sets achieve the best results when they are left separate and not housed together under one contract.
Inherently there is a need for these sides to conflict so that different perspectives come to bear. The weight of the separate contracts ensures that the various sides will push the other to be better. I believe that this is the only way to get the best finished product, no matter how frustrated I sometimes get at the weekly meetings.
My company bid on the project too...but didn't get it. I wanted it so bad...
if you make it a competition, the time is on the architect.
If they get the job they work in design time to the contract.-
If they dont get it - they get nothing.
Do they need 3 full size fields? We know they need 2, now they have two and one if them is shaded and they are still adjacent. Win-win.
^^^^ Bingo
"It actually is.
If you go N/S there are either 2 short fields and 1 inside full size field or, with doors open, 2 full fields part in and part out.
Go E/W there is one full size field outside and one inside."
Just curious, but what "administrators" are you blaming for what you believe to be a bad design?
I should correctly say bad planning at this point. I am blaming the steering committee who was responsible for selecting the options deemed feasible for review. They should have had qualified designers come up with solutions to a problem that could be reviewed based on the master plan conditions and requirements of the indoor facility. Instead a bunch of administrators selected sites and then appraised them on their own.
Do you think it's possible CFB had some major input on where he wanted his indoor football facility to be built?
I think you may be creating an issue where none exists.
As I mentioned above, if this were true then Beamer wouldn't have been trying to locate the new building on the forest and precisely not on the existing fields.
However, even that is true there should still have been a process to design solutions prior to making a final decision. That's just practically smart to do.
"Instead a bunch of administrators selected sites and then appraised them on their own."
Incorrect.
I'm another Hokie architect and I really like this location. Keeps all the uses together and they will be able to use the indoor facility everyday. The adjacency if the indoor facility allows breakout groups to use it or for it to be used in any weather. Think of the use during extreme heat. I think this better integrates the indoor facility to daily use instead if relegating it to only rainy, cold days.
And at $20k+ for structured parking, that's just adding cost you don't need. VT has too much land to justify much structured parking.
I like this argument over others but still disagree. Proximity is better for weather, true. I just don't like to compromise one thing for the benefit another when I design. It's a personal issue I have when designers choose a path that is only about one goal. In this case locating the indoor practice field as closely to the locker room as possible. I think there are many solutions to this problem if you allow for a design process to come up with said solutions. For example, weather and traffic was used as a reason why the Cassel Lot shouldn't be used, however you could design an amazing indoor bridge from the locker rooms to the practice field over the road, and eliminate the weather argument. If designed well that bridge could be an icon gateway to Lane Stadium from the northern intersection (campus side).
I understand why the proximity is ideal but I don't think selecting a location based simply on an evaluation matrix gives you the best solution. Going through a design process does that because you can actually see the solution.
I disagree about your parking comment though. Just because they have open land shouldn't mean that they shouldn't build structured parking. I would rather that land remain open rather than more on grade parking. There is a cost that is not dollar signs when you just pave everything for cars. this is why VT is building the new parking structure.
Bridges, structured parking......you must work with a lot of deep pocketed clients. This is effectively my money, I appreciate the restraint demonstrated in this site selection.
Within great parameters comes great design. If I set the program for this design process, it would have started with the efficiency of layout to benefit Coach Beamer and all future Head Coaches.
This is correct. I am just using a bridge a structure parking for the Cassell Lot option as an example of one solution that could have been made if actually designed. It was off the top of my head and not necessarily what I think should be done. My point is that they had already set the parameters by creating the short list of sites, have the campus master plan and the needs of the football program. So they should have given those to a design process to find solutions prior to making the final decisions. Who knows what great design could have come from those great parameters? We'll never know now because that opportunity is lost.
haha... obviously I am standing apart on the issue and that's fine. I just think making the decision without seeing what that decision is going to look like, or other viable options may look like, is poor decision making.
At the end of the day Fernley, the players get a limited amount of practice time. Having the indoor field as close as possible to the outdoor fields and locker room is obviously the correct priority in order to maximize practice time.
Moving 100+ players and support staff across the street to an indoor practice facility from the outside practice fields, literally, makes no sense. Your arguments are from the perspective of a designer and are more concerned with the aesthetic but do not consider the operational needs of the football organization.
Have you ever watched a football practice? Player X particpates on offense, then moves over to the punt coverage team, and perhaps the personnel protection team for field goals. What if the offense was practicing indoors, but special teams were practicing outside? You honestly think that player should have to walk across a bridge or across the street to get to the indoor facility? What about the coaches and support staff / film team? Oh shoot...now player X is over in the indoor field and we need him back outside for special teams. Do you call him on his radio? It's not THAT close and is an absolute waste of precious minutes to have to coordinate having separate practice areas.
Also, i have rarely seen football teams use all 100 yards of practive field. You're argument that we should have preserved x3 separate 100 yard football practice fields is frankly a waste of space when the majority of your practice time is spent in position drills and situational stuff that takes up probably less than 20 yards of space.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if they weren't already walking across the street to Rector to practice indoors. I understand about proximity but that doesn't mean it literally needs to be next door or even on top of the existing fields. Also, locating the building at the tennis courts was the other option Beamer wanted and it's actually further away than the Cassell Lot option. I would say Beamer knows a hell of a lot more than you do about how he wants his football team to practice and what distance he is willing to accept.
yes. I played football. Both of my brothers played DII football. A close family friend of mine played at Navy. I used to watch VT practice when I had time. Sarcasm doesn't make an argument.
but I think perhaps you haven't seen football practice before. Let me show you
here they are using 2 full length fields for running plays and special teams.
you can see how 1 field is being used to its extent and the other not. However, the field still must be repaired and maintained and neither of us knows which part of the field is effectively closed right now or how much of it.
here again using 2 full length fields for position drills all over them. It's good to have space so that they are not on top of each other and that they can hear their coach clearly without hearing the other coaches.
and another of position drills all over the fields
To answer your question about indoor/outdoor the preference is to practice outdoors almost all the time, except in the case of inclement weather or high winds.
I clearly said I do not know if they actually need so many fields but I doubt you do either. I seriously doubt that almost all D1 universities have multiple fields to NOT use them or because they are extremely unnecessary. I also seriously doubt that all of these university donors have been OK to waste millions of dollars on "wastes of space". The reality clearly shows what you say is wrong.
Why would you point to Rector Field House as an example? The fact that the team practices there is a joke and is extremely inconvenient. It has been publicly stated as such on many occasions. The fact that the team practices across the street now, in Rector Field House nonetheless, obviously does not support continuing to do so.
With the exception of kick off coverage..none of your photos show 100 yards being used. Most of your photos show people standing around observing. You still havn't convinced me that we need x3 100 yard football fields.
You also pointed to how several big schools have multiple 100 yard fields, but not all of the major programs do. Yes, you're right, larger, southern schools, with lots of real estate, tend to have lots of football fields. What you failed to mention is that every school with multiple fields has located them all directly adjacent to one another. That is not a coincidence my friend. It is a necessity to hold efficient football practices.
All of Alabama's fields are directly adjacent to one another.
All of Auburn's fields are directly adjacent to one another.
All of LSU's fields are directly adjacent to one another.
Texas, has 3 small fields, and an indoor field, and they are all directly adjacent to one another.
Oregon has 1 full size outside field, 2 tiny outside fields, and a full size indoor field. All directly adjacent to one another.
I will also comment on how many of these bigger programs practice fields are further away from their stadiums. In my opinion, VT's particular arrangement, although relatively "light"on real estate, is pretty cool. I like how the practice fields, locker room, weight room, etc are all in the shadow of Lane Stadium. I like how the "Home of the Hokies" on the back of the score board is a prominent visual for the entire football footprint. LSU, as another example, has 4 full length football fields but they practice in the middle of fields across a busy street from their central campus. Texas' practice facilities are located adjacent to and under a busy highway.
"I seriously doubt that almost all D1 universities have multiple fields" - False. Most D1 universities do not have multiple 100 yard outdoor practice football fields. Most SEC schools with more real estate do.
What is factual is that almost all D1 universities have multipel fields directly adjacent to one another. VT made the correct choice to do the same.
I never said Rector was the solution. I said they walk there now, therefore the distance is accommodating. You are trying to argue something I didn't say.
I also never said that they use the whole 2 full length fields. What I said was that the two fields provided the space they needed and used the images to show that.
In addition to the big schools I also mentioned small schools like Boise St and ECU that have multiple fields. So it's not just SEC level schools nor is it only schools in the south with the real estate. Boise State is knocking down a building to add a 3rd practice field. BC is converting Shea field into 2 and 1/2 outdoor fields, plus exploring an indoor facility not on top of those fields. Duke has two plus a indoor I believe.
Yes all are directly adjacent to each other, which is why Beamer wanted the building to be adjacent to the existing fields. Not on top of them. that's a point I think you are missing.
Oregon may have "tiny outside fields" but they are full length and next to a full sized field, and all without an indoor facility on top of them.
This is better than the proposed building for VT.
I agree about the location. I love that it is next to Lane and not somewhere else entirely. It makes it unique. Having 2 full sized practice fields was also unique so I don't buy that the time it takes to walk or jog to the tennis court location or across the street to Cassell Lot would have impacted practice as much as you claim it would. I didn't fail to mention that they were all adjacent though, as I am obviously advocating for the fields to remain intact and located next to each other sans the huge building straddling them.
What I said was that the schools that have them didn't get them to not use them. that was the part of the sentence that you didn't include in your quotations.
Incorrect. VT is not the same. They have two fields with a buildings over top them not adjacent them. There is a reason you don't see this anywhere else.
Maybe I'm imagining something but I could have sworn they said something about maybe making it so that they could open up the side of the indoor facility and extend both fields to 100yd if they wanted?
**Edit: Item 9 on the document calls out field length overhead doors
It's a good innovation to solve the problem, however it's a problem they themselves created. that's the part I don't like.
So you're telling me we're going to have something like this? (smaller scale though)
Because that would be awesome, just not sure how they would get the grass to grow indoors, I know our game field is on palates and can be moved. Maybe the same idea so grass could grow outside and be put inside? Or just turf outside since you can't be switching between surfaces mid-field, but I know I wouldn't want to practice on turf and play on grass.
I'd certainly hope it'd be smaller scale... the VAB is large enough to form its own weather inside the building.
Get off my damn lawn.
There were 15+ sites studied all factoring in master plan, athletic facilities, views, parking- you name it. The practice field site was not even on the radar until football realized it was their only option to get the facility close to the outdoor fields without impacting the woods (and the university was not going there). Bottom line is that it goes where where athletics wants it.
Architects ain't planners, no matter how famous and they can't magically solve the complex land development issues in play here.
Well I am a urban planner. I am also a registered architect and will be a registered landscape architect in about 8 months. I also own an award winning planning and design practice. I've planned entire new cities, designed portions of the world's tallest building and raised millions of money for wildlife conservation projects. All of these were solutions to complex land development issues.
You don't have to be magical to be good, or know that you need to actually see options to be able to evaluate them. And if you are in the planning/design field and not solving complex land development issues then you should go work for a better office. Finding solutions to planning issues is precisely what good design should be about. Not even attempting to create solutions is failure from the beginning.
I saw the report. I saw the evaluation matrix, I saw who was on the steering committee, and this site wasn't on the radar because the intent was to keep the outdoor practice fields in tact and not compromised.
I get that "it goes where athletics wants it" (except that it doesn't because they wanted it in the forest) but plain and simply it is extremely poor judgement to make a final decision without actually seeing any of the options they put forth. Every decision they made on those 15 sites was subjective because it relied on what each individual personally saw in their own mind. That's never a good way to solve complex land development issues no matter they are administrators or world famous designers.
Ok- being "in the business" (all I'm saying at this point) I just see too many poor planning efforts by architects and not enough process leading by planners and LA's so I agree with you...
We may know each other after reading your post...
And your last sentence is spot on...
Oh, don't get me wrong. I am not the be all of design and planning. And I personally have seen design from world famous architects get absolutely ripped for planning issues. I totally agree with what you said.
I simply believe that once the steering committee had chosen the short list of locations there should have been a design process. This is a logical step by step procedure to ensure planners plan and designers design.
I should say also that in the end I very well could love the building on this site. I just don't like the decision process that led to it because I think we lost the opportunity to see creative solutions to the problem.
maybe we do know each other... but if you graduated in 1985 then perhaps not. I graduated in 1999.
The thing is, they have said that there is no need for 2 full sized outdoor fields. During practice, they don't even use the whole 100 yards. Any long plays get whistled dead before they're finished. The only thing it hinders are kick returns which aren't often practiced at full speed I believe. Even so, they would just kick from one end of the field to the other. Or they just move indoors and use that new facility. It's not as big of an issue as you are making it out to be.
Yeah, but just because they don't NEED 100 yards for practice doesn't mean they shouldn't have 100 yards for practice. If we go down that route, every single recruit we try to get will have opponents in their ear saying "how are you going to develop into the player you want to be when you won't even practice on a full sized field?" Now, that might be a fools argument, but it will be an easy sell to recruits, and it will work, because they simply won't know any better at that age. We'd be putting a bullseye on the biggest negative recruiting tactic to use against VT, even after Beamer retires, and I just don't see how that can be a good thing.
I'm sure if they find they need a full sized field, they will repaint the lines to give them a field. Reality is that in practice, they are broken down in positional drills for most of the time. So they are in small groups all across the field. If you've ever seen the team practice, you'll notice that they don't use even half of the space they currently have. So it's not going to impact them. You can negatively spin anything you want. To say that it will be used as a negative recruiting tactic is really stretching it.
Well, again I really don't know. But for reference Alabama has 3 full length outdoor fields plus a 130 yard indoor practice facility. So that's 4.
VT now has 1 indoor and 1 convertible.
EDIT: BAMA also has 1 full length artificial turf field outdoors as well (with only one end zone though, pfft, losers). So that's actually 5.
Find me evidence that shows the relation of full-sized practice fields to on-field gameday performance. Some schools build things, like Bama with their 5 outdoor fields, just to say they have them.
This is same argument people have against the indoor practice facility.
I just did a whole bunch of googling and every team that beat us the past 3 years has more than 1 full length outdoor field, many with an artificial field as well. And most have indoor practice facilities.
Is that evidence. No. You could probably say the same for the teams we beat. But it's interesting.
The indoor practice facility makes sense though considering it has a clear purpose that is not covered by anything else currently at Tech. It offers an indoor, sheltered environment for the team to practice in the event of inclement weather. The Rector Fieldhouse doesn't belong to the Football team so that's not an alternative. That belongs to the Track & Field team, despite the fact that Football often kicks them out when they need it because money talks. Having more outdoor practice fields when ones already exist on the other hand doesn't serve any purpose that isn't already being served.
I have to agree. Honestly, if anyone is getting into a pissing match over the exact dimensions of practice facilities, the whole recruiting process is doomed.
Get a great education. Get great coaching. Win championships through hard work. Prepare yourself for the pros or whatever career you want. If we can't win a recruit on these things, I don't know what we can do.
Alabama has the most locker room waterfalls in the FBS. Oregon has the most plasma TVs per square foot of wall space in the entrance to their sports complex. I guess everyone else loses.
I could understand that argument if you were talking about the difference between fields of 120 yards (full length including endzones) and maybe 110 yards. But we're not doing that. We're talking about the difference between 120 yards and 65 yards. At 65 yards, you can't practice kickoffs with the kicker putting his leg into it.
Also for reference Boise State has 1 full length grass, 1 artificial and is building a 2nd grass all out door. They also have indoor facility.
Arkansas State has 2 full length outdoor fields and building an full length indoor facility.
And ECU has 2 grass and 1 artificial and is also currently undergoing planning for indoor facilities.
seems like most programs, big and small, need more than 1 outdoor field. Just saying.
Do they really "need" all those fields? The problem I have is that I cannot see any correlation or causation between "more practice fields equals more success." Boise (the last few years), Ark St., and ECU are all decent teams, but they're not top-notch.
I think this whole practice field issue comes down to how you use it. Our coaching staff will do whatever they want with whatever space they are given. If, for some reason, they run into a problem that is not met by the facilities, it will be fixed. But I strongly suspect that the plan got the OK from the guys who will be using it and they already know how their coaching styles will be affected.
UVA has a beautiful practice facility. They won zero ACC games last year and have been a joke for the better part of a decade. Their facilities are eye candy. What they "need" is better coaching.
No
I'm not sure this is just an arms race issue. I am not arguing to have fields for recruits but I am also not going to say that recruits are not impressed with the arms race.
I do think there are legitimate reasons for having more than 1 field. For example, the reason you don't see the team practice everywhere on the field is because they have to maintain the field as well. They will practice on one part for several days then move to another part to allow the previous part to be maintained and repaired. With 2 full size fields that means they could conceivably run full length scrimmage on one field and then use the other for position drills. That way neither gets too worn down at one time.
Obviously teams are having an artificial turf for the case that they play in a dome and they need the extra practice for it.
I do think the argument could also be made that there is some correlation to winning when you also consider what Ballein had said about having the smallest coaching staff in the ACC. More of these "personnel development coaches" that other programs seem to have mean more one-on-one coaching with players at all depths, which means you need more space, which means you need more fields. Do you need 5? Again I have no idea, but after actually looking into what other programs have I believe now that we do indeed need more than 1.
In the end, I think the question is simply, will this help coaches improve players to be better? thus making the Hokies better. If the answer is yes, then we need them. If you're the only program that does not have these facilities does that mean you are right and in fact don't need, and everyone else is wrong? or that you actually do need them and you've compromised?
I'll have to go back to the Ballein interview to read it again, but I didn't think he was saying other ACC teams have more coaches (because there's an NCAA limit), rather academic development staff, which is irrelevant here.
On the basis of your final paragraph, we certainly agree. I'm sick of everyone making an argument along the lines of, "well the other school has [shiny thing], why don't we?" It's not the tools, it's how you use them. I want Beamer & Co. to have what they need to produce a winning team. If they need more, yes, give it to them (provided we can do so in a financially sensible manner). If they can produce winners under this system, we're good to go.
Yeah, I think people didn't read what Ballein said correctly as I've seen this misinterpreted a several times:
What he is talking about is not academic and not GA's. He is talking about hired staff that are there for developing players football skills. A staff in which we have the least of and something in which he feels we should invest in, more so than the indoor practice facility.
I definitely misinterpreted it the first time, but the development personnel still cannot do any actual coaching. That would be a violation. The developmental personnel do a lot of work behind the scenes; they're a support staff with no on-field player contact.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1207744/index...
Great minds. I was 30 seconds away from posting that same article.
Agreed on on-field coaching but when you consider the time they save coaches with off field duties it's quite a significant advantage. Which could mean the full time coaches have more time to spend coaching players.
True enough. Let's hope Babcock can raise enough money to elevate our program's current standing.
And the scratches this reason from the need of multiple fields. I am still trying to find an actual maintenance schedule in regards to college football practice fields and/or how a typical rotation for field use is done at schools with more than 1. Still no luck, though I did find many sources on the necessity to let practice fields be maintained and repaired. This is why we had 2 fields. Do we need more? that's the issue.
Maybe Andy can go interview some coaches and find out if having 3, 4 or 5 is necessary...
Is having two full size fields nice? Definitely. Is it absolutely needed? No. It is always nicer to have a lot of space to spread out on but in this case it is not necessary to have two outdoor fields along with the indoor facility the way they are planning for it. Right where the football fields are we have run out of space. As for the negative recruiting part (mentioned somewhere in this thread), it is going to have a much larger effect on any recruit to see those doors open up. Just like the reaction in Jurassic Park to the gates opening or to pretty much anyone's reaction to the VAB. when a rocket rolls out. People like to see big things move.
As for running full scale special teams, the highest punting average over a season was by Chad Kessler (LSU) in 1997 at 50.3 yds/punt Having a 75 yd field is enough to compensate for this and if AJ decides he wants to break that record, we have Worsham still and the fields can be changed. Special Teams are never practiced at game speed, so the field won't be torn up and kickers/punters already practice in Lane except for warming up.
Ideally, Athletics would've coughed up some money to build a new roller hockey rink and tennis courts before destroying the current ones and built the indoor facility there.
The only thing i can think of that having multiple fields would benefit is youth camps
Who said that? Honestly I don't know if they need 2 or 3 fields. I am definitely not a football coach. I just remember reading that Beamer wanted it in the forest because he wanted to keep the two outdoor fields.
I think one of the issues is that for the most part you play outdoors so you should practice out doors. On 2 full sized fields I imagine they can run 1rst/2nd team practices, position coaching for lower depth, and all manner of kicking. That may be limited with 2 short fields. Not sure.
But I don't think you want to always be practicing indoors though, so while the whole side opening up is pretty damn cool from a design point of view maybe not ideal in terms of football practice.
Like I said though, I really don't know. I just remember Beamer saying he wanted to keep the 2 outdoor fields full sized.
I can't remember the exact source, but it was in the presentation when they had the various options. Might have been Ballein.
The firms that designed this facility are actually top notch architectural firms that have impressive portfolios of collegiate sports related designs, including Clemson's and Auburn's indoor practice fields. One of the firms also designed Tech's basketball practice facility. So we have the combination of a firm that has worked with Tech in the past, and therefore is well aware of the long term campus plan, and a firm that has already designed impressive sports facilities. So in my opinion the administrators actually did a pretty good job of selecting the design team.
My comments are not meant to disparage the firm that was selected. I just wanted to see design solutions to the problem prior to picking the final compromise location and spending 20 million it.
Your concerns are valid, but exhaustive efforts were made planning this facility. The worlds best architects would not have come up with anything significantly better than what was propsed. All ten options were posted on a page that I cannot locate now. All bets were off for a reasonable solution once the 'save the woods' campaign was underway. When I first saw the version that was agreed upon, the 'half court' field make little sense, but I am not familiar with how practices are organized. Then I thought why not make lage opening s in the indoor facility and create two regulation indoor outdoor fields. (obviously limiting kicking and passing). I hope some version of this concept will be realized.
Strongly disagree with this. You think administrators who have zero experience designing something is going to come up with a better design solution than designers with 20 - 30 years in the business? No way man. That's like being on trial for murder and hiring a janitor to represent you.
I don't think this is right either. The problem is everyone is predetermining in their own head that the whole thing is phucked and this is the ONLY soultion. But that's precisely why you need to get designers to design solutions to propose outside thinking to the problem, because you are biased in the way you see things. People coming at it from a creative problem will see it completely different than you. The "save the woods" campaign was the right thing to do. The "well we have no other option so let's compromise and create more problems" solution is the wrong way to do things.
After the steering committee had short listed the viable location there should have been a design process to see which built solution would have been best within said options. At the moment there is not a single real option to even look at and consider. Only locations. Who does that? No developer I know would ever do this and commit serious money for it.
Yeah, I never got the impression there was a whole lot of creative outside input into the whole process. I could be wrong though.
It was the typical Jim Weaver move. Why hire someone from the outside when you can save money and do it yourself? The down the hall hiring and designing was a staple of his late career moves, and thankfully, this seems to be the last one.
Could this have gone better had we outsourced it to a true architectural firm? Absolutely, and we were stupid to not do so. There were numerous problems to address, and our solution ended up being shoving a square peg into a round hole.
I ask you... What happens in the future if we decide that the space we have for football isn't enough? What if only having half sized outdoor fields becomes a major hurdle to get past when trying to hire a new coach post-Beamer? What happens if the NCAA passes rules allowing for more practice time and space, including more coaches on the staff, and we just don't have the room to utilize it? What happens if we decide we need to further expand something, be it the practice facilities, the lockerrooms, or the North Stands of Lane? At this point, there just won't be the room to do so, and we've only brought it upon ourselves.
how exactly is this all being handled internally?
The problem is precisely this. They have already decided the location is to be on the practice fields without seeing any design options for any other location. So they have created a problem that didn't exist previously without having the benefit of having others present ideas on how to avoid that. These architects and builders are only showing options for this one location that was picked by the steering committee. That's not finding a solution. That's putting lipstick on a pig.
look, i'm no architect, but isn't location often determined prior to a design? i own this land, need to build this type of building, please submit design. i think location based on operational need/available space is FAR more important than anything else (including the trees, but that issue has passed).
all that has been determined is the available footprint and budget. let the creative outside firms wow us with a proposal to make the most of it. seems perfectly normal to me.
yes and no. With straight forward projects where there are no real outside variables impacting the solution then yes. Location is predetermined. I am building hotel on this land. done. However where there are multiple variables that impact that solution with multiple viable options you generally want to explore a few at least in model stage to know you have the planning correct. For example, if you are a developer that owns a land that will have a mixed-use development of a hotel, shopping mall and residential apartments then you would want to see at least a few options on how to maximize the options for how to use the land. You wouldn't say this is the only place to put the hotel, and here the shopping mall. You want the designers to find a creative solution to give you more than what you are asking for.
When it comes to institution's with a master plan and limited land it becomes even more important to see what you are evaluating first because there is always a knock on effect. Indoor facility on practice field creates issue of shortened fields. Indoor practice fields on tennis courts mean they need to move. Indoor facility on Cassell lot means parking mitigation. Everything has its problem but that's why you want to see solutions prior to making your final decision on location.
There are plenty of projects where there is only one option for location. This isn't one of them. Not exploring how to solve these issues prior to making the final decision on location was a failure in my opinion.
but they DID explore the other options. they viewed like 12 different locations/footprints, weighed multiple variables including everything from operational impact to environmental impact and everything in between. they finally determined that this option was the best for the university and the football program within their master plan.
it's not like Frank Beamer is pissed that his fields are shorter. if that were his major concern, the fields wouldn't be shorter. everyone had input on all of the variables, and this is the compromise that was reached.
i don't think there is any negative in all of this. i think we'll see the side of the field house almost completely opened up on nice weather days creating a massive open practice facility every bit as large as what we have today, only now we'll have shade from the sun and a turf field to practice for games played on artificial turf.
i think you are downplaying the importance to be close to the locker rooms and coaching offices while over playing the importance of having 3 100 yard fields. we have 2 100 yard fields and Warsham field (which we use occasionally for light drills today) all within a short walk of the team club house. we're not missing out on anything.
They explored locations. Not design solutions. I appreciate the determination of these locations was made by people that know the university better than anyone and why they felt they were the ones to be considered. After doing that though, they scored those locations on an Evaluation Matrix and made a final decision when it should have gone through a design process first. As I stated with regards to the Cassell Lot option, one of it's biggest negatives was that it "created a poor entry sequence". How would anyone know this without seeing a design solution? the are assuming something in there mind that frankly they are not experienced enough to do. Once the steering committee got it down to, for example, top 3 (or even 5) options for locations it should have gone to a design process. maybe someone could have come up with something for another option that would be a better solution than compromising the 2 existing practice fields. How could you know without seeing it? Instead they choose a final option that created a problem that didn't exist previously.
And who said Frank isn't pissed. He all but begged for it to be in the woods and not on the existing fields. His second option was the tennis courts. perhaps he was told that the logistics and cost of moving them was too much to bear so backed Frank into a corner where he had to compromise. Did that happen? I don't know. But no one here does. If the choice was 'well Frank, we can put it on Chicken Hill or Sterrett Complex, because we won't spend to do anything else" and Beamer compromised does that mean he is not pissed about it? Just because he doesn't come out publicly and say "i'm pissed" doesn't mean he isn't. I'm not saying he is or isn't. Quite simply he wanted it to be somewhere other than on the existing fields. He didn't get it. Do you think he is happy about that?
Again I may end up loving the building but I absolutely do not like how the decision was made.
Also I don't really know any team that practices on fields that are half grass and half turf. The idea of garage like doors is novel but what are the practical issues of these two converted fields. Do players bring both sets of cleats to practice and when they are running a route stop and change cleats before continuing into the indoor facility? When they break into position drills on those nice weather days with the doors open do QB's change cleats after the opening talk to go practice in the indoor facility? And then again to go run plays back on the grass? Seems like as much of a time waster as walking across a street, especially for anyone with an ankle/foot injury that requires taping.
I don't mean to downplay the proximity issue. I know it's the primary "want" of the project but without at least exploring options for alternate solutions and really seeing them you may not know what is really acceptable to you in terms of distance. And as I said Beamer was good for the distance to the tennis court option, which is at least the same distance if not more to the Cassell Lot option. So if he was OK for one why not the other?
Anyway, my main gripe is on how the made this decision. I dislike that it took away the opportunity to at least see creative solutions to the problem. I also dislike that the compromise they made created a problem for the football team that did not exist previously.
i wasn't talking about the "completion of 2 fields using the indoor turf" as other have alluded to. i was simply talking about having a 100 yard grass field running parallel to the 100 year turf field in the opened up field house.
i think that is what is being lost on people. we still have a 100 yard field outside. i think the drawings were just showing that if we wanted to have 2 outdoor fields, neither would be 100 yards. The coaches will have the flexibility to have the fields lined either direction to accommodate their needs.
Yeah, I understand we still have 1 full length outdoor field. Again I dislike how the compromise location created problems that did not exist previously for these fields and think there may have been a solution that no one thought about if they had gone through a design process. I have seen it happen too many times where a designer has come up with something genius that no one had considered. I've also seen them fail, but IMO it's always better to see them and know you are right.
But the short fields converting to full length fields brings up another logistics issue. Which way do yard lines get painted? The short field or full length field direction? Can't have both.
we could do like Michigan. they have 110 yard field (only 1 end zone) running parallel to the field house and then a full width, much shorter field perpendicular to one end of the full length field used for "Red Zone" only type drills or anything else that only requires ~25 yards.
Sure, just have the lines projected on by Harris like they do the 1st down line on TV. Then the players just have a HUD added to their helmet...
Ok, that won't work.
We'll have the lines projected down by satellite...
No, we'll have the agriculture school design trees that grow leaves so the shadows throw the proper lines and numbers down on the fields. Now that would be something.
How about grass that can be programmed to show either the light or dark side of the leaves.
Wait, what was the question?
Fiberoptic lighting filaments might be something that could be integrated into a turf or astrograss type field.
Something like this, but integrated into the field materials, so with the flip of a switch you could change the directions. Not sure how well that would work on a grass field, and the durability-repair aspect could be a significant challenge but I am sure it could be done.
you could tell from pics of the practice fields in the past that we would often just rotate the direction of the fields. i'm assuming it was done to prevent wear patterns, but it also could have been done for wind, sun, etc. washing the old lines off and putting new lines down isn't that big of a deal for the grounds crews.
That would be damn cool, but I think they would be constantly repairing them from damage or cleats ripping them out. You have some big hoss like MANBEARPIG up against Teller and they're gonna rip the earth to shreds.
that's the beauty of being a 'tech' school. It's a great opportunity for recent grads to test out (donate) their products/inventions. Besides.... ~ we're talkin' bout PRACTICE!!!~
regarding your concerns about the fields. In terms of creating regulation indoor/outdoor fields, the plan could be that the outdoor fields are to be artificial to match the indoor. This is a legitimate possibility, artificial fields have come a long way from 'astro-turf' and Mike Brady's backyard. GO HOKIES!
EDIT: I saw this stuff in person - http://xgrass.com/artificial-turf-athletic-fields/artificial-turf-for-ou...
I was walking on it for 5 minutes before realizing it wasn't real grass.
Some of the pitches where I played rugby imbedded with glass so, I'm not a good one to talk about playing surfaces.
Is it ok to cuss about spell check in this thread?
Actual PDF here:
http://hokieclub.com/forms/practicefacility.pdf
Interesting.
I saw the side 'drives' with the examples of permeable pavers, and I started thinking:
"What about Hokie Stone pavers?"
I had that same exact thought. I think that'd be an awesome detail that would make this even more of a uniquely-VT design. And that's what fancy facilities are all about - setting yourself apart from everyone else (see Bama's locker room fountains. Zero practical purpose there).
Gobble-Stone streets!
i for one am merely excited about the "breaking ground later this year" part of this
I am intrigued by the 2 full sized doors that is in the proposal. If that means we have 2 floor to ceiling field width doors that can open up the structure and have 2 full sized fields, then that could be a HUGE recruiting sell. If not, then this could end up being a pretty large blunder, as I don't see how having 2 half sized fields, which wouldn't allow you to effectively practice special teams due to the field simply not being long enough for kickoffs, is a good idea.
Well, the main thing Beamer wanted was an indoor facility that had a roof high enough to allow for punting practice, so if all else fails, they can just head inside for kickoff practice.
But then you won't allow for a kicker to practice for judging things like wind direction and speed, which would make all the kicking practice good, but we would still see issues on gamedays.
Pretty sure worsham field is usable for that sort of thing. The kickers practice there all the time
so we'll have a 75 yard and a 65 yard outdoor field which are both more than enough room for anything the coaches would do in practice other than kickoffs and MAYBE punts (depending on the situation focus). If they want to practice kickoffs and/or punts on a 120 yard field with 2 end zones, they will still have 2 options. one indoor option and one outdoor option because they will still have the markings and room for the full sized field running across the 2 shorter fields. it's not like we're ever running 2 full field scrimmages simultaneously. and even if we did, we have one indoor and one outdoor full sized field side by side!
this set up doesn't get in the way of a functional practice in any way, and having it immediately adjacent to the outdoor fields, club house and stadium gives maximum flexibility to the coaches for breakouts and for weather concerns.
Also a big part of the location is the time it takes to get everyone there. The coaches are only allowed so much practice time with the players as team organized activities. They stated that walking to and from the field counts towards that time especially if they have to move in the middle of practice. Having the facility immediately next door makes it a 30 second trip vs having 100 guys trying to move to the south lot or tennis courts. It eats practice time. The 75 yard and 65 yard fields plus the 100 yard indoor field is enough. They aren't going to be running special teams and position drills at the same time. They can practice 100 E/W outside or inside for kick offs, etc.
Bama may have 5 fields but that is nothing more than a giant waste of money and resources. If a recruit decides on one school over another because the number of outdoor practice fields, I don't think that kid would qualify for VT anyways.
The NE gates are going to be a mess.
Darn it. They're already frustrating unless you just walk through everyone like you own the place.
Depends what you consider a mess...
when I was a student in the early 90s that area wasn't even paved.
This is my first post to the site however I've been reading it for 2 years or more. I'm exited to see what impact this new facility has on recruiting!
welcome!....