[Mark Umansky]
Virginia Tech's indoor practice facility is scheduled to be completed on July 1, 2015. You can watch the Hokies' beautiful new indoor home go from nothing on July 28, 2014 to stunning on April 6, 2015 thanks to the time lapse video below.
At the end of March, the inside was covered in dirt and machinary. As of Thursday, the turf seems to be in place. It's an artificial surface similar to the one at at English Field.
Making progress... pic.twitter.com/bO33MCHr2a— Beamer Ball (@Beamer_Ball) May 8, 2015
Section:
Comments
very cool
Very neat to watch the progress, but couldn't they have picked some more exciting music than that at least?
That was my first thought. Put on "Tech Triumph" or something. Come on, brand identity!
I mean, even Enter Sandman, while it can be overplayed at times, would have been appropriate. Play the Superman theme song, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or something with a little bit of excitement involved and a build to the finish.
Agreed. Let the video play and just watch this:
I can't stop laughing.
We should petition Whit to have them play "Stick It In" for the video...
I mean, Carmina Burana is fine and all... but a piano rendition, of a part that's NOT the O Fortuna? Seems odd.
Looks like they took your suggestion
That is outstanding.
SO MUCH BETTER
Look out for the bee at :02.
Horsefly or housefly?
That is much more VT. Love the pic with lights on at the end.
Whit Babcock to TKP...
Very cool but I had a thought as I was watching it:
Why didn't we cover the roof in solar panels?
No idea why this was my first thought as I saw the maroon roof being installed.
Logic, money, blame weaver....pick your poison.
I heard Weaver is mean to old people and hates kids and dogs.
Yeah, we should always remember to acknowledge his better attributes.
With an engineering/technical school like ours, you would have thought that would be a high priority.
Maybe they were afraid the reflection would hurt the trees?
The problem with that line of thinking is logic does not always dictate what happens around here. Because if that was the case, they would have found a way to add some office space for the ever growing football staff, but alas, that did not happen.
Solar panels would have been a fairly significant increase in cost, not just for the panels but for the structural support. Since it's a single span structure the cost benefit of that is probably pretty low. What I would be looking for is a near perfect passive solar efficiency using automated louvers, ventilation, fans and solar gain to moderate heat levels inside, along with a geothermal heat regulation system and a mullioned heating array. You could do all of this in less than half the cost it would take to buy solar panels and get better building efficiency.
I would also love to see runoff water captured into a below ground reservoir that could have been used to water the exterior fields. given Blacksburg's ever changing weather with plenty of rain and snow you could have housed enough water in an Atlantis array for the entire summer.
I love this kind of design engineering creativity and had the exact same thoughts about some sort of passive climate control system. And the runoff capture is a very nice touch. The array of achievable design solutions these days using simple, inexpensive technology is amazing.
Thanks. Honestly that is the tip of the iceberg of where I would have taken this had I been given the project to run with. But that's all easily achievable. The building could have been LEED certified fairly easily as well.
THIS is what I'm talking about! Althought, I would have probably thought that we should have replaced the roof panels with solar panels, maybe that would allay some of the concern about additional weight had we been able to remove a bunch of weight from the current roof. I'm certainly no CE.
We should have taken a page from Stanford's book on sustainable infrastructure and just dove in. Better solar panels will come in the future, so I think we should have just added whatever scaffolding we would have needed to install the best we could get now, then upgrade the panels themselves when they're better. I wonder how much electricity a roof of that size would be able to produce.
Yeah it would cost a bunch. Don't care, build sustainable. We should be leading in this.
I love the water R-U-N-N-O-F-T idea. Fernley, what's your profession? Do you work in sustainable infrastructure?
Technically I was educated as an Urban Designer, but I have designed loads of buildings, landscapes, some interiors and yes some infrastructure. So I just call myself a "designer" and tell people I design cities, when they ask. I've designed a few bridges, building facades, event structures, and been on teams designing super high rise towers including the world's tallest.
I now own a design company and am currently moving into doing some development work on my own. Design build projects that I hope are going to blow some minds once they are done.
The type of roof replacement system you are talking about isn't quite there yet technology wise. There are a lot of issues with something like that: water/weather proofing, insulation/heat loss ratio being high on that list. The other issues are that panels themselves are not designed to be load bearing so with something like snow/ice you have multiple problems. The first being if it's too much it will simply block the sun from generating any electricity. The second being that the cost and danger it would take to have someone go up and scrap or knock it off. Lastly, is the damage they take. Solar panels breakdown and require maintenance and outright replacement, which if you have a roof solely made out of solar panels would be a) stupid expensive and b) stupid time consuming.
there are new systems like photovoltaic glass and solar shingles that are gaining popularity but again expense and maintenance is a real issue. Plus these are fairly new to market and you probably wouldn't want to be the test case for such a large expanse of roof. And they still require a roof layer or additional structural supports that results in additional expenditure on construction. The other issue here is the roof pitch. To create that using some solar technology would be a significant issue, and most likely a completely different design.
Blacksburg gets plenty of sun so solar panels could be a great thing, but it would be a more efficient and cost effective use if it was something like a solar array over the top level of the parking structure to both generate electricity and offer weather/shade protection. Something like that.
If you have a lot of interest in solar rates on campus you can check out this sweet website:
http://www.3dblacksburg.org/index.php/78-explore-3d-blacksburg/98-solar-...
and the mapped data onto google maps:
http://arcgislab.cntrlsrvs.w2k.vt.edu/geog5984/solar/index.html
I'll take "GIS Totally Kicks Ass" for a 1000, Alex.
Awesome, thanks Fernley
Yes. Yes it does. I've never dreaded work a day in my life due to that fact.
Long story short: It's just not worth it to put solar panels on a 21 million dollar barn.
It's Chicago Maroon and everything
Because the cost would outweigh the savings in electricity usage.
Well, at least it looks nice.
Let's hope it plays as well.
Let's hope it pays too.
In recruits.
Good. No fires.
Can't view the video - was it taken down?
I think this is a great building awesome potential but a horrible location for it. Tech lost an outside field for it and the views from the balcony near the football facility is of the side of a building now. Some of the concept art with it on the other side of Lane, with a new entrance to Lane and a small parking garage was a much better option IMO. I really wish some compromise about stadium woods could have been made.
Edit: Southgate option is the one I think was the best.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/06/closer-look-proposed-sites-virginia-tech...
absolutely agree. And the way the site was selected was piss poor. I was never for removing the forest but I don't see how this was the best solution. They should have had designed solutions to give them options to consider and not decide by having administrators making a matrix.
I think we've had this discussion before, but I don't mind the location. You basically still have those two fields, just one of them is going to be in the shade. I expect we will see a good bit of indoor/outdoor practice this August.
That said, part of what I liked about the siting was the ability to mask the volume of the space in the hillside. Now, the maroon roof highlights the volume and counteracts that advantage. I'm not sure who their Design Review Committee is, but I gotta figure out how much money I need to give to get on that committee.
They could have had three full size fields, a small underground parking garage, a new entrance to Lane with fan experiences, new offices for the expanded athletic dept staff and still had an awesome view for players to have while eating a meal or having a team cookout.
Edit. The fields outside are now cut down in size, is it 60 or 75 yards I didn't see the final numbers.
Yeah, I guess I'm not designing all that space (which fundraising still hasn't adequately supported) and making it a lot more expensive just so there is a better view for the occasional barbeque.
yeah, we have.
Not sure how the building would have been able to have been masked into the hillside. no matter the color of the roof the height and length of it pretty much obliterates any view to the woods except those from aerial vantage points.
Besides the actual selection, I think the building itself has not taken full advantage of the position it is in. For example, the gap between it and the locker rooms, players lounge/deck is just... well, let's be polite and call it a missed opportunity. What purpose does that serve? And how in the world is that responsive design? At the very least, connect the buildings and make a sky lounge or something. Fill out the space below with some additional office space or equipment space, or team rooms, or something. And still have a tunnel for people and vehicles to move underneath it. If you are going to make a selection then that selection should have mitigated the obvious negatives and that's a big one.
And this is no criticism to the company that did this building. I am 100% positive that they worked within the frame they were given and they did a wonderful job on the construction. But this is another reason why you should have designed solutions to review before letting administrators make decisions.
Bash Fernley, bash away. You're among friends here.
I would almost guarantee this would be in the plans going forward. Whit is a guy who completely gets 'it', and has surrounded himself with a bunch of people who get it as well. I am really looking forward to when we go through a little bit of rebranding in a season or two to make ourselves a little more modern and cutting edge, which would align with the research endeavors of the academic side. The conceptual designs on the overhaul of Merryman look fantastic, and cannot be done soon enough. And I believe there are plans to do some work in the locker rooms and players lounge at that time, which is when I would suspect the issue of the practice facility blocking the view of Lane to be addressed (and to have that area elongated and moved so that its overlooking a view of the practice field, the indoor facility, Merryman, and Lane... That would be a 'wow' factor for sure.
anything online to look at?
Student Affairs and Athletics Committee - Open Session
The main section begins on Page 44.
Pages 44 through 70 highlight what is going on at other schools, which we are looking to emulate.
Pages 70 through 95 are how our facilities currently look.
Pages 95 through 120 show the Architectural Concepts by CannonDesign
Interesting to note... Pages 121 to 124 show the changes that will be made to Cassell with the just announced ADA and Press seating, as well as how the courtside seats will be located, as well as how Whit is looking to add in luxury suites in the future.
sweet, thanks!
This is awesome, thank you, Alum.
Needs more solar panels though
I also completely agree. I'm guessing the reason came down to money. That option would have been much more expensive it looks like. I think it would have been a much better option, but it always comes down to money.
I could never find a cost comparison for the Southgate option.
I never did the Southgate option because my preference was actually using the Cassell Lot. Option 4 in this presentation: http://www.savestadiumwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IndoorAthleti...
If you look at this matrix they used to make the decision you see that option 4 has the following "issues":
1) Pedestrians Safety: In my opinion can be easily mitigated with a design solution.
2) Significant Parking loss: I actually came up with a solution that increased parking numbers. Again a design solution, and without heavy infrastructure costs such as building a multilevel car park.
3) Site does not comply: Moot point as all options didn't comply
4) building creates poor entry sequence: Complete bullshit because there was no design to look at to make this assessment. had this been done properly architects would have designed 3D models and images of the building and entry sequence to review. I personally think it could be a really iconic entry.
In my cost calculation, I have the building at the same size, increased parking numbers and added a tunnel under the road from the practice fields to the building for quick access on rainy days right at 30 Million. All the while retaining the existing practice fields in their full glory.
Sitting in the SEZ for the spring game, it literally took me until the 4th quarter to notice that it had been finished (most of it anyways). I really like the backdrop of Cassell in one corner and the new practice facility in the other. By the way, does this massive building have a name yet? All I've heard anyone ever call it is the new practice facility.
I'm guessing its going to be the Frank Beamer Practice Facility or the "insert highest bidders name here" practice facility.
Maybe we can raise funds to name it "TheKeyPlay.com Center"
We are calling it the Terror Dome. End of discussion.
I thought we'd already settled on Beamer's Garage.
Love that we have the building. Clearly expertly built. The designer in me wishes it was A LOT more sexy.
Anyway, they did a great job constructing it and in that timeframe. Really well done.
You and I are in the same business, my first thought was about the Chicago Maroon roof. That's strong, and not in a good way. I'm looking forward to seeing how it reads not only from Lane but from Washington St as well.
Me too. I do tend to agree with you on the roof, but I guess I am giving it a pass because without it the building is fairly nondescript. As you say it may not be so bad visually in the end, but it does make it stand out.
I think it's an inside building, and inside it's going to be spectacular with all that daylight.
From the outside, that roof is a clear reference to Merryman....which isn't a great building to reference in the first place. I would say that I haven't been that impressed with much of the athletics architecture, but it occurs to me that I have loved very few of the buildings they have done since my time there. I need to get back this summer/fall to see a few of the new ones. For instance, I haven't seen the Performing Arts Building since its been up.
Too much globbing on Hokie Stone and not enough good design, for my taste.
Agreed. It clearly is a "form follows function" building but that doesn't mean it can't look phucking sexy. Actually I have no issue with Hokie Stone being used but use it in contemporary architecture not trying to replicate the old. I think the Moss Arts Center does this well and should be the direction for future endeavors. Push the envelope even more actually.
The VT facility has the most aesthetically pleasing exterior of any indoor football practice facility I've seen. Michigan's is the only one I've seen that is even remotely close.
The rest are just big barns...and that's probably an insult to barns.
Agreed. I'm also in the architecture game and I'm just glad that they actually thought about how it would look. I mean, compared to Rector, the new field house is the Louvre
We are going to disagree here. I am not saying it's bad by any means. I just think it could be better.
A lot of this is how the process of design was carried out. Too much emphasis on it's function without surrounding context or site mitigation. TylerVT makes an excellent point that there were design intents like the barrel roof that is meant to provide context, but no matter how much it's designed to look like some other building it doesn't make up for the fact that the space between it and the locker rooms/deck is left as just that, dead space.
Again, had the entire process been done correctly the design process would have been done in options for the site selection committee to view and assess. Rather than having them try to envisage something they are not able to in their minds and make a qualitative judgement. In the end, once the site was selected the push to achieve the project in execution leaves extremely little time to go through a proper design process. This is not the fault of the design consultant but of the school.
But in regards to just the aesthetic design contrast the architecture on football barns with the barns for another sport, such as soccer. Most European clubs have one or multiple indoor fields, and many cities across Canada, Europe, Asia and Australia are starting to build municipal ones.
Here are a few examples of ones that push the envelope more than encapsulating it's function:
and a new concept for one in Montreal:
This is a beautiful design IMO. It's just a concept at the moment but I can see how this can be built well and be visually stunning in real life. I don't see any reason why VT buildings, even a barn housing an indoor sports field, couldn't do the same.
Like I said, I am not trying to be critical of the consultant. I know exactly how dumb clients can be and how much what you first propose and get approved gets watered down. That is the same everywhere in the world, but I think the design could have looked a lot more sexy and more individually iconic while still being contextually relevant to VT.
Sorry to reply so late, but have you seen the new Corps of Cadets residence hall going up on the north side of Alumni Mall? It's not finished yet, but it looks like it's going to be beautiful, incorporating Hokie stone and touches of the old "collegiate gothic" architecture into a solid design.
Mr. Lawson is a legend for doing this.
My first thought was "Do we want to show the recruits how often it's cloudy?"
Wonder how much it cost to accelerate the schedule to 30 seconds
Solar panels weren't used on this building because:
1) Cost
2) Solar panels in Blacksburg would never come close to recouping their entire cost over their approximate 20 year life span
3) Additional weight would have significantly increased the load on the building, which would call for an enhanced structural steel package and significant cost increase
4) Aesthetic Reasons. The maroon barrel vaulted metal roof matches the same arc as Cassell while also matching the same color as Merriman's roof. A solar panel roof would be an eyesore from the stadium, wouldn't mesh with the design, or mesh with the surrounding buildings.
This indoor practice facility will be the nicest in the entire country, hands down. With an 86' interior ceiling height from the center of the field, it will also have the highest of any interior clearance in the country (the "standard" interior ceiling height is typically 45-65' in most other facilities)
I recommend taking a look at these two articles to compare our facility to other facilities around the country.
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/gym-fieldhouse/designing-the-modern-college-football-practice-facility.html
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/college-football-indoor-practice-facilities/
so apparently Oregon lets fans tailgate in their indoor practice facility. Think Whit will do this any time soon? I'm sure that parking pass would be pricey, but you'd never have to grill in the rain again
One of the proposals had the indoor facility open to the public as a revenue generator on game day. Don't know if that's still on track.
Just a guess, but I'd think that they will likely restrict access on game days in order to treat recruits to a nice tour. Perhaps select donors will get a tour, too.
They have already said you can get tours as Hokie Club members. But opening up the facility before a game this year to tailgate would be HUGE, IMO.
I have to believe they would consider hosting the Hokie Village inside here if the weather was poor. At least they should.
And This^. Makes sense. If it had been ready they could have done this at the Spring Game and showed it off to a wider range of VT alumni/stakeholders/recruits/etc. and showed the facility off at the same time.
This^
They will do this (or a version of this) to generate $$$. (someone linked an article with a picture of a recruit visit and a donation raising party in their facility). I think those examples (and others) are what we are alluding to here.