Another Stadium Reference Nt Daily

WIFE2HOT4U · April 25, 2008

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...e-3349607.shtml

"If you incorporate LEED in the construction process early on," he said, "it can be in almost any kind of building."

NT will have more 'green' buildings in the future, including the new stadium, he said, which would be one of the first in the country.

"Not only are we the Mean Green, but we are going to have a 'green' stadium," Kearby said, with a laugh.

Go_UTA · April 25, 2008

Getting LEED certification for buildings and "sustainability," in general, is spreading like wild fire. It's the big deal now.

SMU has the first LEED certified building among the DFW universities.

UT Arlington's engineering research building, which will break ground this summer, will be LEED certified. (I don't know at what level.) Also the campus just installed the metroplex's first "green roof" a few weeks ago on the existing Life Science Building. I'm talking about soil and plants. It will be the first of many, and is sort of an experiment to see what soils and plants work best for other projects. The new engineering research building will have a green roof, too.

In a few years, it will be so routine to have LEED certified buildings that I'm not sure if the rating will have a lot of meaning. It will be so standard.

Your new business building will almost certainly be LEED certified, and may even go after the green roof idea.

NT80 · April 25, 2008

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...e-3349607.shtml
"If you incorporate LEED in the construction process early on," he said, "it can be in almost any kind of building."
NT will have more 'green' buildings in the future, including the new stadium, he said, which would be one of the first in the country.
"Not only are we the Mean Green, but we are going to have a 'green' stadium," Kearby said, with a laugh.

What new stadium?? :blink:

Edited April 25, 2008 by NT80

UNTLifer · April 25, 2008

What new stadium??

Track and field.

UNTflyer · April 25, 2008

"It will cost a little bit more to build a green building," Kearby said, "but you will get that back in savings in just a few years."

For a building that is planned to be used only 5 days a year, why do we need to spend more money just for some meaningless LEED certification?

We had someone at my company propose a lot of "green" technologies, justifying it with promises of costs savings. When the numbers were crunched, it turned out the payback period was something like 14 years. As I understand it, the board soundly rejected the project proposal.

cdizzle86 · April 26, 2008

For a building that is planned to be used only 5 days a year, why do we need to spend more money just for some meaningless LEED certification?
We had someone at my company propose a lot of "green" technologies, justifying it with promises of costs savings. When the numbers were crunched, it turned out the payback period was something like 14 years. As I understand it, the board soundly rejected the project proposal.

Well the fact that it will be the first "Green" stadium could help us bring in more big donors. It's really a smart idea and makes sense.

SAGreenFan · April 26, 2008

Well the fact that it will be the first "Green" stadium could help us bring in more big donors. It's really a smart idea and makes sense.

14 years is a long time, but Fouts has been standing for half a century. Not to mention most other buildings on our campus, and some others will be reaching that age soon. Yes 14 years is a long time to wait for a monetary turn around, but in the long run Green Buildings will cost us less.

And being the first Green Stadium is a HUGE selling point.

adman · April 26, 2008

For a building that is planned to be used only 5 days a year, why do we need to spend more money just for some meaningless LEED certification?
We had someone at my company propose a lot of "green" technologies, justifying it with promises of costs savings. When the numbers were crunched, it turned out the payback period was something like 14 years. As I understand it, the board soundly rejected the project proposal.

Did you miss the part about it being "mixed use" I doubt it's used only 5 days a year. And so what if it takes 14 years to payback. If we keep this stadium as long as Fouts it will pay for itself 4-5 fold.

UNTflyer · April 26, 2008

I think you guys are delusional if you think having a "green" stadium will have any impact at all on donations.

UNTflyer · April 26, 2008

Did you miss the part about it being "mixed use" I doubt it's used only 5 days a year. And so what if it takes 14 years to payback. If we keep this stadium as long as Fouts it will pay for itself 4-5 fold.

Yeah... actually I did miss that part. The term isn't used in the article, and as far as I know this is a football stadium. We don't need a "mixed used" stadium, it's one of the things that makes Fouts so awful.

Plus, I think going to the BOR and saying "Yeah, we know it will cost 20% more, but think of how cool it will be. We'll make it back in a decade or so"... Just isn't going to fly.

Edited April 26, 2008 by UNTflyer

Green P1 · April 26, 2008

I think you guys are delusional if you think having a "green" stadium will have any impact at all on donations.

Gagree

SAGreenFan · April 27, 2008

I think you're equally delusional to think that a decade is a lifetime. I really don't care if it costs 20% more now, if it saves money in the long run. Its a stadium that can be expanded, and if anything we've learned from having our relic of a stadium now, the new one is gonna be in for the long haul too. And what the hell is wrong with having a multi-purpose stadium. They're not talking about having a track, baseball, football stadium. Whats wrong with it being a music venue, like a whole lot of buildings on campus already are. If a multi-purpose "green" stadium means adding revenue, saving money, and not having a $50,000,000 structure sit idle for the majority of the year, I'm all for it.

Edited April 27, 2008 by SAGreenFan

Green P1 · April 27, 2008

And what the hell is wrong with having a multi-purpose stadium.

Yea.... everyone loves having the track surrounding the field, right? It gives our cheerleaders plenty of room to hand out. Not to mention it being a perfect place for the guys with North Texas flags to run after scores....

UNTflyer · April 27, 2008

I think you're equally delusional to think that a decade is a lifetime. I really don't care if it costs 20% more now, if it saves money in the long run. Its a stadium that can be expanded, and if anything we've learned from having our relic of a stadium now, the new one is gonna be in for the long haul too. And what the hell is wrong with having a multi-purpose stadium. They're not talking about having a track, baseball, football stadium. Whats wrong with it being a music venue, like a whole lot of buildings on campus already are. If a multi-purpose "green" stadium means adding revenue, saving money, and not having a $50,000,000 structure sit idle for the majority of the year, I'm all for it.

I never said a decade was a lifetime, but it's a helluva long time for a payback period for something that is nothing more than a fad. And these folks have no idea if spending the extra money will result in cost savings... what if suddenly nuclear power becomes the solution for our electricity demand which would drive down the costs? Suddenly your payback is much farther out.

You may think it's no big deal for it to cost 20% more... but the BOR probably won't be that keen on the idea of spending an extra $10 million for a meaningless LEED certification, not to mention the extra interest tacked on to paying down the bonds. Would you apply that logic to the purchase of your next home? Probably not. I'm against anything that will drive up the cost of this stadium to the point where the BOR says, "Umm, no."

Edited April 27, 2008 by UNTflyer

greenminer · April 27, 2008

soccer, high school playoffs, exhibition games, ....

cdizzle86 · April 27, 2008

I think you guys are delusional if you think having a "green" stadium will have any impact at all on donations.

How would it not have a huge impact? Corporations love looking good in the public eye, and having their name on the first ever "Green" stadium would be great Marketing.

eulessismore · April 27, 2008

It seems strange enough to me that this thread has generated an opinion of nuclear energy solving our energy needs and against "mixed use" that I did both a yahoo and google search as to whether nuclear energy compares favorably with other forms of energy production or conservation. The best serious link I found was one stating that no objective conclusion has ever been reached as to nuclear energy costs. My favorite was that the "nuclear debate" will continue long after Israel and Hamas find a lasting peace. I hope I don't have to wait that long for a new (and I hope multi use-don't you UNT young folk like music?) FOOTBALL STADIUM!

NT80 · April 27, 2008

not having a $50,000,000 structure sit idle for the majority of the year

I would love for NT to have that $50,000,000 idle structure. I may even go up and watch it be idle, just to try to believe it's actually there, if it ever is....actually there. :blink:

Travis · April 27, 2008

I think we should destroy fouts and then build an exact replica of fouts right in its place.

FirefightnRick · April 27, 2008

soccer, high school playoffs, exhibition games, ....

Concerts and hosting co-events that coincide with the conference center connected to it.

And I laughed at the "Bare your soul" for the homeless on the right hand side. The girl in the article mentions participating bare-footed to show support. LOL!!!! The homeless don't lay around barefooted. In fact, they rarely ever remove their shoes at all. One in particular told me as I was cutting his shoes off trying to assist his injuries from an accident, that he hadn't had his shoes off in 3 years. And trust me brother when I say that afterward I believed him. :cry:

Rick

April 28, 2008

There is interest in hosting concerts and such at the facility. One very interesting idea was mentioned that included hosting an annual concert for students with a big name artist.

In considering the merit or value of a 'green' stadium, one must consider that the university as a whole has made a committment to going green. In fact, please note that UNT has recently signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. (Annoucement) In the announcement, Dr B states:

"Signing this commitment further demonstrates the University of North Texas' focus on being a green campus – something that has long been part of the UNT tradition. It also supports the array of sustainability efforts we already are undertaking and provides a path for our future green commitment plans," Bataille said. "And of course, being green is just natural at the home of the Mean Green."

Furthermore, the announcement also states that this certification is UNT policy:

UNT already has implemented extensive ecologically friendly and energy efficient standards, including a policy that any new buildings constructed on campus meet the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED standard.

So this isn't really negotiable. Buidling green is not a fad, Flyer, it is a fact of life in this century. Green building lowers energy costs and has other benefits as well, such as public relations. Building green is also often quite simple. For example, planting native plants that are used to the Texas climate is a smart decision because they require less water and maintenance than something that is not native to this area. Using rainwater and air conditioning condensation for watering is another method that could be used. Compact flouresent lights cost more to buy, but last MUCH longer and use less energy than conventional bulbs. So they pay for themselves in a relatively short period of time.

Sometimes you spend more upfront to save long-term. And this stadium is probably going to have to last us a while. Wouldn't you rather have them get it right the first time?

And sometimes, an environmentally sound building just turns out to be kind of cool. If you haven't spent any time in the Environmental Sciences buidling, do so. It is a really neat looking building. I hosted a conference there in 2001 and everyone loved it.

Edited April 28, 2008 by 97and03