Siouxperfan7 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 what kind of bugs me about some of the ad's that have come and gone over the years is where is the long term planning on facility improvements? alerus-city paid rea-ralph paid betty-ralph paid kraft field-city/park board paid? choice-city/park board paid apollo-city/park board paid i don't think that und has paid anthing towards any of these building? so why don't we have some money somewhere set aside for future facilities? you would think in say 1965 that someone knew that somewhere down the line that memorial stadium was starting to show age so maybe set aside some revenue from home games for the next fourty years to fund a new football stadium? i still wonder how much cash rea is hiding in the "las vegas" room in the basement of the ralph...to the detriment of other programs imo (not hockey of course). Just banking it away for the new 25000 football stadium to begin construction in 2017!! Quote
ericpnelson Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I always heard there was a safety reason as why the Hyslop wouldn't go. Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I always heard there was a safety reason as why the Hyslop wouldn't go. wouldn't go where? Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 wouldn't go where? Wouldn't be torn down. 1 Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I heard some talk back during the (mercifully short) Buning regime that Hyslop may have outlived it's usefulness because The Betty had taken over housing several programs (VB, MBB, WBB), along with some talk about all the asbestos that would need to be removed if they renovated it. That is code for "tear it down". And that would be a big mistake; it's a perfectly good building. That isn't what you said though: But the standard operating procedure on this campus is to tear old buildings down and start over from scratch. If it is standard operating procedure, then I'd assume there are multiple examples of this. I'm asking what buildings you were talking about because I can't really come up with any. 1 Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 That isn't what you said though: If it is standard operating procedure, then I'd assume there are multiple examples of this. I'm asking what buildings you were talking about because I can't really come up with any. Good point. For the most part, at least with athletic facilities, it appears to be standard operating procedure to start over from scratch with a new facility and pretty much just abandon the old ones (Old Ralph, Memorial, Hyslop). 1 Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Good point. For the most part, at least with athletic facilities, it appears to be standard operating procedure to start over from scratch with a new facility and pretty much just abandon the old ones (Old Ralph, Memorial, Hyslop). Hyslop and Memorial are still both used quite a bit. Memorial got new turf and some updates to the locker room (that will be moved to the IPF) within the last few years. No clue if its anywhere near financially feasible, but renovating the Hyslop for basketball would be great and give the Betty to the VB team. 1 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 That isn't what you said though: If it is standard operating procedure, then I'd assume there are multiple examples of this. I'm asking what buildings you were talking about because I can't really come up with any. The first message I wrote is how they achieve the goal I described in the second message. They set up a logical explanation to give to the public in advance so that when the decision is made, there isn't as much backlash. It's PR 101 and all large organizations (public and private) practice it all the time. That is why I am so adamant about not always accepting every "official" statement at face value. Often times, there is more than meets the eye. Quote
the green team Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 In visiting with various friends, as we are all "so called" experts, we speculated that due to lead paint, asbestos etc..- that makes it impossible to renovate the Hyslop. UND can continue to use it...as long as it continues to do so undisturbed, for if they do disturb it ie.renovate etc... there is so much of it, the whole building would have to come down-due to the amount of hazardous materials. So UND/Athletics go on using it as is. Maybe this is incorrect, but who knows. I also find it odd, that a University- the flagship school in North Dakota, which has athletics, has not added any of it's own additional new buildings with the exception of the Indoor Performance Facility...since who knows when. That does seem a bit odd. Obviously there was time when the state did build athletic buildings.. Hyslop, Memorial...apparently those days are long past. Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The first message I wrote is how they achieve the goal I described in the second message. They set up a logical explanation to give to the public in advance so that when the decision is made, there isn't as much backlash. It's PR 101 and all large organizations (public and private) practice it all the time. That is why I am so adamant about not always accepting every "official" statement at face value. Often times, there is more than meets the eye. So are you saying it is or isn't standard operating procedure at UND to tear down buildings? Or just another baseless assumption/accusation similar to them taking all the student tickets away? Seems like you read between a lot of lines that aren't there. 2 Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The first message I wrote is how they achieve the goal I described in the second message. They set up a logical explanation to give to the public in advance so that when the decision is made, there isn't as much backlash. It's PR 101 and all large organizations (public and private) practice it all the time. That is why I am so adamant about not always accepting every "official" statement at face value. Often times, there is more than meets the eye. what i don't get about the asbestos/lead paint theory is that you would have to believe that similar buildings built in the same time frame like cameron, williams, or allen fieldhouse never had lead paint and or asbestos in it ever??? 1 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 So are you saying it is or isn't standard operating procedure at UND to tear down buildings? Or just another baseless assumption/accusation similar to them taking all the student tickets away? Seems like you read between a lot of lines that aren't there. I said it seems to be standard operating procedure to me; I never said I was 100% right. And I gave you a specific example. Same thing with the student hockey tickets; Kupchella reportedly mentioned to a season-ticket holder in an e-mail that the last resort to bad student behavior would be to abolish the student section (I really wish I had saved the source or wrote down where I saw it). Sometimes these things end up being true, sometimes not. I simply believe in keeping one's ears and eyes open for nuggets of information that don't show up in the official press releases. Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 what i don't get about the asbestos/lead paint theory is that you would have to believe that similar buildings built in the same time frame like cameron, williams, or allen fieldhouse never had lead paint and or asbestos in it ever??? The booster money behind those schools is in a completely different universe than what UND deals with. Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I said it seems to be standard operating procedure to me; I never said I was 100% right. And I gave you a specific example. Same thing with the student hockey tickets; Kupchella reportedly mentioned to a season-ticket holder in an e-mail that the last resort to bad student behavior would be to abolish the student section (I really wish I had saved the source or wrote down where I saw it). Sometimes these things end up being true, sometimes not. I simply believe in keeping one's ears and eyes open for nuggets of information that don't show up in the official press releases. Actually no you didn't. Seems pretty cut and dry to me what you said. Maybe not what you meant, but definitely not what originally implied. But the standard operating procedure on this campus is to tear old buildings down and start over from scratch. And what was your specific example? The only building I can think of off the top of my head that was taken down in recent memory was the Old Ralph. And while there are a lot of memories in that building, taking it down for the IPF was the right choice and it is not even close. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 In visiting with various friends, as we are all "so called" experts, we speculated that due to lead paint, asbestos etc..- that makes it impossible to renovate the Hyslop. UND can continue to use it...as long as it continues to do so undisturbed, for if they do disturb it ie.renovate etc... there is so much of it, the whole building would have to come down-due to the amount of hazardous materials. So UND/Athletics go on using it as is. Maybe this is incorrect, but who knows. I also find it odd, that a University- the flagship school in North Dakota, which has athletics, has not added any of it's own additional new buildings with the exception of the Indoor Performance Facility...since who knows when. That does seem a bit odd. Obviously there was time when the state did build athletic buildings.. Hyslop, Memorial...apparently those days are long past. It isn't impossible to renovate a building with asbestos or with lead paint. However, it is more costly. Sometimes it is much more costly. Both lead paint and asbestos have to be contained. Even the dust can be dangerous, especially if breathed. Workers need to have the proper protection. They need to use the proper masks or breathing apparatus, and also need to wear protective coverings. They should wear disposable shoe coverings so they don't track the dust out of the work area, and normally would wear some kind of suit that is either disposable or cleaned on a regular basis. The easiest way to deal with both asbestos and lead paint is to keep them intact and covered. If they are covered and aren't damaged they normally aren't dangerous. That's why it is easier to just make cosmetic changes to the building rather than making any major physical changes. I don't know for sure, but there may also be some rulings that would force them to remove the asbestos from the entire building if they renovate part of the building. I believe that Hyslop is still used for a lot of Physical Education classes. Part of the reason for building new facilities and moving Athletics out of Hyslop was to make room for Phy Ed classes. Hyslop was way over booked for many years. 2 Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Perhaps had UND not used the asbestos abatement funds it received from the state years ago on projects that didn't have any asbestos they would still have money left over to do some of the work necessary on the Hyslop..... 2 Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The booster money behind those schools is in a completely different universe than what UND deals with. why would boosters have to pay for a state facility to be up to state codes in terms of saftey to the fans?? seems odd to me... also seems like fuzzy math when you compare asbestos and lead abatement on a historical and structurally safte building instead of acquiring land, architects to design a new building, and then the cost of buildinga comparable building? seems like one would be a better option cost wise but when the gf/und gogc get going you seem to see the same architect, contractors, and whatnot salivating about new better projects around town... Quote
jdub27 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 why would boosters have to pay for a state facility to be up to state codes in terms of saftey to the fans?? seems odd to me... You have a point on the first part, but it has been multiple decades since the state spent significant funds on a sports facility for UND or NDSU. The last one the state paid for in Fargo was in 1970 (Bison Sports Arena) and it has taken NDSU over a decade to raise the funds for the remodel of it. If you made a list similar to UND's on who owns their facilities, it would be pretty similar to UND's, either city owned or done by the state decades ago with any recent renovations funded by donations. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 why would boosters have to pay for a state facility to be up to state codes in terms of saftey to the fans?? seems odd to me... also seems like fuzzy math when you compare asbestos and lead abatement on a historical and structurally safte building instead of acquiring land, architects to design a new building, and then the cost of buildinga comparable building? seems like one would be a better option cost wise but when the gf/und gogc get going you seem to see the same architect, contractors, and whatnot salivating about new better projects around town... UND hasn't paid for land for any of the new projects for years. The land where the REA is and the new med school was all donated many years ago. It has been quite a while since they bought the property where the Aviation building is going up and where the Center for Innovation is located. You need to hire an architect whether you are building a new building or doing a major remodeling project on an existing building. Asbestos and lead abatement are definitely a significant cost. But many times it is cheaper to tear down a building and replace it than remodel. That's why you see McDonalds and other companies tear down existing buildings and start over rather than just remodel. It takes a lot more time to work around the constraints of a current structure than it does to get rid of it and build something new. That time adds up. If cost is going to be one of the major deciding factors, then they will replace rather than remodel in many cases. Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Tear down the Hyslop, Buiild a new 7000 seat basketball arena, build a new 25,000 seat football stadium where Memorial stadium is, and build a parking ramp on the east side of University with skyways connecting all of them. Hey, a guy can dream right?!! Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Tear down the Hyslop, Buiild a new 7000 seat basketball arena, build a new 25,000 seat football stadium where Memorial stadium is, and build a parking ramp on the east side of University with skyways connecting all of them. Hey, a guy can dream right?!! Sans the basketball arena, I believe the other items are included in UND's long-range master plan (dream). Quote
darell1976 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Tear down the Hyslop, Buiild a new 7000 seat basketball arena, build a new 25,000 seat football stadium where Memorial stadium is, and build a parking ramp on the east side of University with skyways connecting all of them. Hey, a guy can dream right?!! Dream? I thought that was going to be done at the end of the decade when we go FBS. Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Does anybody really dispute that long-term, a slightly-over-3000 seat basketball arena isn't going to work for a division I program? It seems to me that there has to be some sort of plan, even if it may not come to fruition any time soon. Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 UND hasn't paid for land for any of the new projects for years. The land where the REA is and the new med school was all donated many years ago. It has been quite a while since they bought the property where the Aviation building is going up and where the Center for Innovation is located. You need to hire an architect whether you are building a new building or doing a major remodeling project on an existing building. Asbestos and lead abatement are definitely a significant cost. But many times it is cheaper to tear down a building and replace it than remodel. That's why you see McDonalds and other companies tear down existing buildings and start over rather than just remodel. It takes a lot more time to work around the constraints of a current structure than it does to get rid of it and build something new. That time adds up. If cost is going to be one of the major deciding factors, then they will replace rather than remodel in many cases. i don't disagree with you on most of this other than you comparing hyslop to a crappy big box fast food joint like mcdonalds.... Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Tear down the Hyslop, Buiild a new 7000 seat basketball arena, build a new 25,000 seat football stadium where Memorial stadium is, and build a parking ramp on the east side of University with skyways connecting all of them. Hey, a guy can dream right?!! Sans the basketball arena, I believe the other items are included in UND's long-range master plan (dream). https://hlc.und.edu/Shared%20Documents/CHAPTER-6-Resources-Planning-Institutional-Effectiveness/Cr5-065-Athletics-Master-Plan.pdf Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.