New Stadium

[ADLER]

UConn also has a pretty nice setup at 40000 but it's fully in-closed instead of a horseshoe I could go either way on this as long as we don't have two separate grandstands that reminds me two much of a high school stadium.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictu...entschler.shtml

nice

[Zeke]

nice

One thing I like about the far endzone, is that it is a small section. Think of how often the endzones are shown on TV. That being said, I would like for the endzone seats to be VERY close to the action to where it is a desirable seat and can be a "sold out" area easily.

[NT80]

nice

That is a nice stadium but it cost a cool $90 million too. We're thinking $50-60 mil range, less the expense of a home locker room, and video scoreboard.

[NT80]

The stadium issue is HUGE for the success of athletics here at North Texas. This is an isse that has been put on RV's back burner for quite sometime with no updates or even mention. We have donors lined up and sponsors who I am sure would love to get a piece of this action.

There was a stadium marketing/fundraising group hired last year, and an online survey from them in December to fans. It was mentioned they will compile results and submit recommendations about the stadium and other projects in mid-January, then a Capital Campaign in the spring.

[ADLER]

Well anything is better than the Make You Vomit stadium concept that the Sparks group of Tulsa tried to push on North Texas in 2003.

The Sparks group design did virtually everything wrong that could be done. After a 60 year wait, we were presented with something that was actually worse than Fouts. One poster dubbed the abomination as "Craptacular" and that was putting it mildly.

Thank goodness that the horrific design was scrapped before the new Stadium Campaign was started.

[good_ken]

Well anything is better than the Make You Vomit stadium concept that the Sparks group of Tulsa tried to push on North Texas in 2003.

The Sparks group design did virtually everything wrong that could be done. After a 60 year wait, we were presented with something that was actually worse than Fouts. One poster dubbed the abomination as "Craptacular" and that was putting it mildly.

Thank goodness that the horrific design was scrapped before the new Stadium Campaign was started.

It has been posted that RV has indicated that the stadium plans are on his desk waiting for funding. Has anyone actually asked to make sure that the Sparks concept is not what has been drawn up?

[megagreen]

It has been posted that RV has indicated that the stadium plans are on his desk waiting for funding. Has anyone actually asked to make sure that the Sparks concept is not what has been drawn up?

I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the Tulsa design. If it is upper decks that we are opposed to, I disagree. I think upper decks give us the look of a major league stadium and it provides extra seating with potentially good sight lines. I remember watching the video and liking the luxury suites and other amenities.

Somebody please tell me everything wrong with this design? (seriously, I need to know if I just disagree with you guys or if there are things that I am overlooking.)

Thanks.

GMG!

[ColoradoEagle]

The majority of the seats are far away from the field (in the upper decks or endzone).

[PlummMeanGreen]

That is a nice stadium but it cost a cool $90 million too. We're thinking $50-60 mill range, less the expense of a home locker room, and video scoreboard.

..........................................................

Don't Read This Post: I've Been Iced In All Day & I've Got No Sunshine On A Cloudy Day. (OK, I fore-warned you who read this).

You know, the part that frustates me (and has for decades as an NT alum) is why every other school (Troy U recently & for starters?) can "gitter' done"while we go bazonkas at NT over a jumbotron being built in the south endzone and get ready to crown the one who got most of the pocket change for that project as Rick V's successor? We settle for so little at UNT and rarely question those who have delivered all that , that is, uh, so "little."

For instance, dare anyone look at the W/L records over the last 10 years of all UNT varsity sports teams and then wonder why most of the MG Nation hasn't demanded from top UNT officials a complete cleaning of the house as to give us a fresh start with some new ideas that might work among more than just 15,000 per home game? You know why that doesn't happen in Denton? Because we have some smooth talkers up there and good beer buddies up there (among other things), that's why. And they have wondered why out of 5.7 million population in DFW we have had a staff who could still only excite most of 15,000 per home game? And then some of that group probably all just got pay raises for our annual Bottom 25 co-existance ? And now some of this very same veteran group will all jump on the Todd Dodge Bandwagon to buy themselves even more time in Denton to tell us how lucky we are to have them at our alma mater? Pretty cushy deal for some up there you might say, eh?

And now you also have the Dallas Cowboys building a billion dollar stadium over in Arlington and even in this weeks sports news, you have the soccer phenom who just signed a quarter of a "freakin" billion dollar contract to play for the Los Angeles team, but here we are at UNT, our dear ol' alma mater located in one of America's Fortune 500 meccas that cannot find $50-60 million? Hellsbells! The Texas Rangers would pay that much for a good starting pitcher and with a 3 year contract to boot. Why is it we have allowed ourselves at UNT to be left behind in the modern sports world is one question many might ask?

The Todd Dodge Era cannot happen soon enough and there are some other new eras at UNT that need to begin (probably) even sooner.

Edited January 14, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[ADLER]

It has been posted that RV has indicated that the stadium plans are on his desk waiting for funding. Has anyone actually asked to make sure that the Sparks concept is not what has been drawn up?

Well, Sparks has removed the abomination from their website. I suppose that the shortcomings of the design were probably damaging their reputation and that the concept was removed.

Either that, or the whole thing was just an elaborate April Fools joke.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could seriously consider that design.

Sparks Architecture

[NT80]

I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the Tulsa design. If it is upper decks that we are opposed to, I disagree. I think upper decks give us the look of a major league stadium and it provides extra seating with potentially good sight lines. I remember watching the video and liking the luxury suites and other amenities.

Somebody please tell me everything wrong with this design? (seriously, I need to know if I just disagree with you guys or if there are things that I am overlooking.)

Thanks.

GMG!

I think there are two main complaints in the Tulsa firm's design, from the drawings anyway. First having upper decks to start with (add a small deck later if needed), plus the size of the upper decks (it's larger than the lower, more desirable level). Second, the quantity of unwanted endzone seats, also upper decked! It's seen as suite-holders getting a premium location, like where the portals are now in Fouts, vs. a majority of 50-yard line season ticket holders being bumped to the upper deck.

Question, if you walked into Texas Stadium, the Cotton Bowl, or TCU's stadium and could sit anywhere on the 50 yard line what level would you choose? Not the upper deck, and why? Too high and far away? Yes. Plus, upper decks split crowds, noise, and a feeling of "oneness" as a group of fans. You can't see them, they can't see or hear you; are they really there??

A single-level horseshoe design, with large sideline seating areas and a small endzone area, pressbox/suite level at the top is the desired plan favored by most fans here. See Utah's stadium as example. If deck's are needed (should not be with a 35-40K seat facility) then add smaller ones later, and only on the sidelines, not endzones. Carry on.

[Zeke]

A single-level horseshoe design, with large sideline seating areas and a small endzone area, pressbox/suite level at the top is the desired plan favored by most fans here. See Utah's stadium as example. If deck's are needed (should not be with a 35-40K seat facility) then add smaller ones later, and only on the sidelines, not endzones. Carry on.

Bingo. I do like the idea of some suites though, and I am sure it could be done.

I would think something like Baylor, but with the endzone seats closer to the action by squaring the stands off instead of curving them.

[kj86]

I kinda think the idea of that design was that the upper level WAS the main seating area. The lower level was simply necessary in order to get things up to grade, where the suites/press box would be. I don't think they viewed it as separating the fans because most of them would be upstairs anyway.

Note: I'm not endorsing the design.

[runt96]

Well, Sparks has removed the abomination from their website. I suppose that the shortcomings of the design were probably damaging their reputation and that the concept was removed.

Either that, or the whole thing was just an elaborate April Fools joke.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could seriously consider that design.

Sparks Architecture

We wonder why the DFW area does not support our teams. Then we go to Tulsa( of all places ) for consultation and/or ideas for our new stadium. Get off the reservation and come back to big Dfw for the ideas. We're 20 minutes north of Dallas or Ft. Worth and we're "livin on tulsa time"

[NT80]

I kinda think the idea of that design was that the upper level WAS the main seating area. The lower level was simply necessary in order to get things up to grade, where the suites/press box would be. I don't think they viewed it as separating the fans because most of them would be upstairs anyway.

Note: I'm not endorsing the design.

I think that was the main reason so many are balking at it...most fans are again away from field level and the action.

[Green to the Bone]

I think that was the main reason so many are balking at it...most fans are again away from field level and the action.

Yes. Closer is always better. That's why the multipurpose pro stadiums (Major League Baseball and NFL) of the 1960s were such failures for both sports. Everybody was always far, far away. It's why the Ball Park in Arlington is good park and why Dr Pepper Park in Frisco is so much fun.

Make sure there's no track, and get everybody on the same incline.

That said, terrific football is still the main goal. I'd rather fill Fouts than have the sorry attendance that SMU has in their nice brick home.

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

No track. Square the seats around the field; there is no reason to try to make it an elliptical curved bowl shape. Make the stands kind of steep so the higher ones are not too far away. Don't build it up too high. I would like a stadium where you could feel the fan presence from the field even if it is not a very large seating capacity. Then go bonkers promoting to make sure it is pretty full every time even if it's losing money for a while. It's an investment so you have to get through the tough part.

[LAZER]

I think the Michigan stadium is freaking awsome and we should copy that design.

[greenminer]

I think the Michigan stadium is freaking awsome and we should copy that design.

Welcome to the board!

Not sure if I'm on board with a Michigan stadium, but to each his own.

[trud1966]

We wonder why the DFW area does not support our teams. Then we go to Tulsa( of all places ) for consultation and/or ideas for our new stadium. Get off the reservation and come back to big Dfw for the ideas. We're 20 minutes north of Dallas or Ft. Worth and we're "livin on tulsa time"

Yeah I'm lost on that concept too as to why UNT went to Tulsa. Im sure someone didnt just grab the yellow pages, probably some relationship there. They should go to someone local like HKS, who is doing the cowboys stadium. HKS for years have done stadiums, stadium renovations, etc. They werent the lead architect on The Ballpark in Arlington, but they we're pretty involved in it from what I remember. They're also the group that have come up with the ideas how to renovate the Cotton Bowl. That Tulsa idea looks like student work at best.

http://www.hksinc.com/

[houstonmeangreen]

I like the idea of an upper deck. I think if you evaluate it you will find an upper deck is just about as close as the back part of a larger lower seating area, just higher. I was say we need at least a upper deck on the student side, like TCU or split the seating into quads on both sides (10k x 4)for the seating with 2 upper decks. I have been in the upper decks of UT (front row of upper deck last 2 years and I like it, just remember the upper deck at UT is far back because the size of the stadium. Still the seats at the front row area great.

The upper deck gives class and a "big Stadium" feel to the place. If you want the upper deck closer to the field, build fewer seats on the lower seating.....say 20,000 seats on the main side with one level and the 10,000 lower and 10,000 upper on the student side.

[MeanGreenSig]

the only ones that will complain about upper deck are the ones that can't donate-be careful your wish of big time football is coming true

I wonder how lower deck seats at tiger stadium or dkr cost?

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

[NT80]

the only ones that will complain about upper deck are the ones that can't donate-be careful your wish of big time football is coming true

I wonder how lower deck seats at tiger stadium or dkr cost?

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

There are several BCS programs that have no upper deck and do just fine. I'll say the ones that like upper decks haven't sat in them very often.

[ADLER]

That Tulsa idea looks like student work at best.

http://www.hksinc.com/

Yeah, that Tulsa idea looks like student work, from a student that wasn't a college football fan.

Under certain circumstances there is nothing wrong with upper deck (third class) seating, but not at the cost of eliminating the premier seating. Upper decks should only be added when all the desirable seating areas can no longer be expanded.

What I can't figure is why people continue to be enamored by an incredibly crappy stadium design. Folks, North Texas is starting with a blank slate, it should be built right.

And, if it's not the crappiest design ever, I challenge anyone to find a division 1 stadium that is worse, or has as few premium seats.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I guess this proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

For the most part, I like the design. Remember, this is an artist's drawing. It is not drawn to scale. The amount of rows in the lower section may not be accurate. Now if it had said that there are 20 rows in the lower section and forty rows in the upper section, then I agree that we have a problem.

To reach capacity there are going to have to be X total number of rows. Whether they are up or down can differ with a lot of people. If the upper section is behind the lower, it's going to put you further away from the field. If it's above the lower (so to speak) you will be looking through your legs at the plays. Either way, it is not the most desirable way to watch a football game but I'd still rather be there than at home.

One year I attended the Rose Bowl (which has no upper deck) and sat near the top. Back then, I had almost perfect vision and I still couldn't tell who made the tackle most of the time. On another occasion I sat in the upper deck at DKR. I have a touch of acrophobia so I was uneasy at first. But, once I got used to it, I actually enjoyed the game more because I could see the play develop better.

The key to me is having the luxury boxes in the middle. These are the people who will be the primary movers in the building and maintaining of the new stadium and deserve choice seating. I liked the artist's concept of the club area and luxury boxes and I hope that they keep something similar in the final construction.