puck Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Did he offer any kind of possible timeline on this proposed plan? He said as a builder, he would like to have shovels in the ground tomorrow, but this is still in the idea stage but could be done within 5 years or sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Something doesn't add up. Either he got the size of the track wrong or the size of the field wrong...but I know for a fact you can not fit a regulation football field inside a 200m track. You can almost fit one inside a 300m track, I know Akron did this for their fieldhouse and the track just nips off the corners of the endzones. And obviously a full size 400m track you can fit a football field plus more inside, but I don't know any indoor tracks that are full size. Almost all are 200m (some fancy ones at big schools have banked turns) and a couple are 300m. I think the key is they are different levels. The track would be on the concourse level and the football field down on the lower level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 He said as a builder, he would like to have shovels in the ground tomorrow, but this is still in the idea stage but could be done within 5 years or sooner. Thanks. The idea is growing on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I think the key is they are different levels. The track would be on the concourse level and the football field down on the lower level. Right! The track would overhang part of the field below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I thought that I had read that the Old Ralph had structural issues. I know that it would cost far less than building a new facility, but is renovating a 40 year old building investing the money wisely? How would this fit into the overall master plan for athletics? I'm not trying to poo-poo the whole plan, I'm just tossing thoughts out there. The old regime (Roger Thomas and Charles Kupchella) made their mind up that the Old Ralph would be torn down, period. I honestly believe that no other options were considered. Around the time that our hockey program moved out of the old REA in 2001, I saw a quote that the cost of renovating the old arena was about the same as tearing it down. But all I heard from the Administration during that same time was how old the building was and how it wasn't safe and how it was "cost prohibitive" to renovate it and so on. How it can go from being our home ice to being unsafe in a very short period of time is beyond my understanding. I think this recent development proves that the safety concerns raised about the Old Ralph were overblown to support tearing it down. I also think leaving it there all those years unused to allow further deterioration was an attempt to obtain more justification to tear it down. But it looks like it was built to last and it has withstood whatever the elements (or the bureaucrats) have thrown at it. I say if we can turn it into something useful and save some money, then we should do it. It would benefit our whole athletic department and the campus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Right! The track would overhang part of the field below. No it would literally be floating entirely above and within the boundary of the field, if what you are describing were actually built. I think from what you describe obviously he meant to say that the area within a 200m standard indoor track would have fieldturf and could be used for practices. It's still a significant area to practice on, but probably 1/3 to 1/2 the sq. ft. of a regulation football field. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 No it would literally be floating entirely above and within the boundary of the field, if what you are describing were actually built. I think from what you describe obviously he meant to say that the area within a 200m standard indoor track would have fieldturf and could be used for practices. It's still a significant area to practice on, but probably 1/3 to 1/2 the sq. ft. of a regulation football field. I don't have the exact dimensions of the old Ralph, but the rink is 200' x 85' ft. Taking 15 rows of seats around from every side gets a playing field of around 290' x 175' (conservatively). That's enough space for nearly an 80 yd long by 53.5 yd wide practice field. If the indoor track would be on the concourse level, what is being referred to has to be at least a 300 m track. A 400 m track is almost 240 ft wide (with lanes extending that to 280 ft), which almost certainly exceeds the width of the old REA. For a practice facility, a 300 m track and a nearly 80 yd long field would be decent, especially since the building would be more than a bubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Map of Old Ralph Looking at an aerial of the Old Ralph next to Memorial you get the perspective of how large an indoor field could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Map of Old Ralph Looking at an aerial of the Old Ralph next to Memorial you get the perspective of how large an indoor field could be. Right. To me that looks like a 200m track and then the field space inside that, which is probably 1/3 to 1/2 of a regulation football field by area. Still a good investment until something larger can be built. What really gets me is that Saint Cloud State....yeah...SC freakin' state....has a bubble over their whole football field in the winter. A dinky little regional undergrad school has bested both flagship research universities of North Dakota on indoor practice facilities. Pretty sad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Right. To me that looks like a 200m track and then the field space inside that, which is probably 1/3 to 1/2 of a regulation football field by area. Still a good investment until something larger can be built. What really gets me is that Saint Cloud State....yeah...SC freakin' state....has a bubble over their whole football field in the winter. A dinky little regional undergrad school has bested both flagship research universities of North Dakota on indoor practice facilities. Pretty sad. I'm not in agreement that a bubble is better. Look what happened in Dallas with some high winds. Government investigators began sorting through the Dallas Cowboys' flattened practice facility Monday, trying to figure out why fierce winds sent the tentlike structure crashing down during a rookie workout session. Twelve people were hurt, including Cowboys special teams coach Joe DeCamillis, who underwent surgery Monday to stabilize a fractured vertebrae in his neck. The most seriously injured was Rich Behm, the team's 33-year-old scouting assistant who was permanently paralyzed from the waist down after his spine was severed. Assistant athletic trainer Greg Gaither, 35, had surgery on his fractured right leg. Both DeCamillis and Gaither are expected to get out of the hospital this week. North Dakota is kind of known for wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 My point is that why is SCSU able to get something done yet the flagship universities of the entire state of ND can't? Neither NDSU nor UND has an indoor practice fieldhouse that they own (some practice is done in the Fargodome and I would assume the Alerus). In this climate an indoor field is utterly a requirement. Take a look at the commitment made by schools like BYU to indoor field space. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 My point is that why is SCSU able to get something done yet the flagship universities of the entire state of ND can't? Neither NDSU nor UND has an indoor practice fieldhouse that they own (some practice is done in the Fargodome and I would assume the Alerus). In this climate an indoor field is utterly a requirement. Take a look at the commitment made by schools like BYU to indoor field space. I didn't look up numbers, but if I'm not mistaken St. Clown is about the same size student pop. so I don't know how much flagship has to do with any of it. Some Twin Cities high schools have bubbles like Academy of Holy Angels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I didn't look up numbers, but if I'm not mistaken St. Clown is about the same size student pop. so I don't know how much flagship has to do with any of it. Some Twin Cities high schools have bubbles like Academy of Holy Angels. Enrollment has nothing to do with it. NDSU and UND get vastly more money from the state of ND than SCSU gets from MN. They both spend many times more on research and overall budgets, including athletic budget. The fact that they both lack not only adequate...but lack any indoor field space is pathetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Here's an example of a 300m indoor track with an almost complete football field in the middle: http://ysusports.com/facilities/WATTS.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Pumped about GF wellness center - Is a UND indoor training center imminent under this proposal? Would be interesting to hear more details. I am referring to the proposed Grand Forks Area Health and Wellness Center. The proposal is so much more than just another exercise club. With the involvement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Human Nutrition Lab, Altru Health Systems and, I hope, UND, the proposal will include elements of exercise, nutrition research and applied sciences that will address serious health problems facing our nation, especially obesity and diabetics. And after reviewing the proposal, what I believe is that this proposal is both exciting and fundamentally sound. In fact, given the current state of the local economy, I think this may be one of the most important community projects Grand Forks has been involved with in some time. Although the proposal totals nearly $30 million, none of the money will come from property taxes or any form of dedicated tax revenues or appropriations. Furthermore, if the center and UND can create a working agreement involving the construction of certain required athletic facilities for UND’s Division I athletics, those new facilities could and should attract more students and fans to UND and Grand Forks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Pumped about GF wellness center - Is a UND indoor training center imminent under this proposal? Would be interesting to hear more details. On KNOX radio yesterday, Faison eluded to new tennis facilities at the new GF wellness center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 On KNOX radio yesterday, Faison eluded to new tennis facilities at the new GF wellness center. that was some of the talk I heard but my understanding was that it was going to be built way out by Target so not sure if that is still the case with UND's involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 that was some of the talk I heard but my understanding was that it was going to be built way out by Target so not sure if that is still the case with UND's involvement. I am sure that the location is not changing. That is part of the appeal for having the YMCA and Park District working together, having facilities in the south part of town and downtown to cover the north end. Besides, UND has been using the tennis facilities at Center Court on 32nd Avenue South for years. The new facility will be approximately the same distance from campus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4siouxnow Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 that was some of the talk I heard but my understanding was that it was going to be built way out by Target so not sure if that is still the case with UND's involvement. Location shouldn't preclude UND from being involved, with the huge benefit of not having to fund the whole project this out ways the inconvience of not being on campus. Iowa State just built a new basketball training facility about 5miles from campus because of donors donating land there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I am sure that the location is not changing. That is part of the appeal for having the YMCA and Park District working together, having facilities in the south part of town and downtown to cover the north end. Besides, UND has been using the tennis facilities at Center Court on 32nd Avenue South for years. The new facility will be approximately the same distance from campus. The city desires more traffic and more destination type facilities on 42nd to attract more retail and development: why couldn't this facility be built as an addition to the Alerus? Parking is already there, HVAC and utilities are there, more convenient for a higher percentage of people with greater visibility. For the few events that the Alerus parking lot is full, no big deal. Instead of exacerbating a north/south division, a 42nd street would seem to be a more equitable east/west solution and be in keeping with city goals. The ability for this facility to host regional events, like weekend tennis competitions that would bring nearly 1000 people or other similar indoor competition would only be enhanced by locating right next to or attached to a major arena space that includes convention and hotel facilities. Government agencies - even local ones like the park board, school boards, city governments - are notorious for not being synergistic with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The Park District already owns property south of Super Target for a new park. I believe that the new facility will be built on this property. I don't think that the Wellness Center would be a good fit with the Alerus/Canad facility. It would be great for people staying at Canad. Access for every day users would be hampered on a regular basis because of activities at the Alerus. The parking lot may not be full, but there are a lot of days that the Alerus has activities and Wellness Center patrons would have to park quite a ways from the facility. I believe that it would keep people from using the facility. Especially during the winter which I am sure is the busiest time for fitness facilities. It may sound silly, but people still want to park close to the facility even if it is an exercise facility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moser53 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Close the Y. Put it downtown with the proposed UND campus. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Close the Y. Put it downtown with the proposed UND campus. Just a thought. I don't think there is room downtown for what they want to put up and to have parking for the facility. One of the problems they noted about the Y is that it is landlocked, they don't have room to grow. But they have a good facility so it would be a shame to close it if they can make use of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 The Park District already owns property south of Super Target for a new park. I believe that the new facility will be built on this property. I don't think that the Wellness Center would be a good fit with the Alerus/Canad facility. It would be great for people staying at Canad. Access for every day users would be hampered on a regular basis because of activities at the Alerus. The parking lot may not be full, but there are a lot of days that the Alerus has activities and Wellness Center patrons would have to park quite a ways from the facility. I believe that it would keep people from using the facility. Especially during the winter which I am sure is the busiest time for fitness facilities. It may sound silly, but people still want to park close to the facility even if it is an exercise facility. Consider this: attach the wellness center to the south side of the Alerus. A large area between the arena and the main part of the wellness center could be roofed, but keep it open space while gaining a huge area that could be used for basketball, tennis courts, volleyball. Further south would be the main wellness facilities, with it's own entrance. If the Alerus arena ever needed expansion, the roofed area between the two buildings could be converted to south end seating (if only temporarily with some modular features). Planning this now would save now and in the future. The wellness center itself would have it's own entrance well away from the arena entrance. The Park Board could earn a lot of money by selling the lot south of Target (to a private developed who would pay taxes on that land) and paying the city for the smaller plot of land that the Wellness Center sits on. The city in turn purchases more land for parking. The utilities and infrastructure are already there: saving money. An attached complex saves both money in heating and cooling (less surface for heat transfer). Both the Wellness Center and Alerus would benefit by having more athletic events each could host or co-host, helping both financially. Visitors to the city would be much more aware of a wellness center if it was a the Alerus rather than behind Target, so they'd be more likely to pays fees to use it. Everybody wins financially. There are just to many synergies for this not to be looked at. The only requirement is that the Park Board and City would actually have to work with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Consider attaching the wellness center on the south side of the Alerus. A large area between the arena and the main part of the wellness center could be roofed, but mostly undeveloped and gaining a huge area that could be used for basketball, tennis courts, volleyball. Further south would be the main wellness facilities, with it's own entrance. If the Alerus arena ever needed expansion, the roofed area between the two buildings could be converted to south end seating (if only temporarily with some modular features). Planning this now would save now and in the future. The wellness center itself would have it's own entrance well away from the arena entrance. The Park Board could earn a lot of money by selling the lot south of Target (to a private developed who would pay taxes on that land) and paying the city for the smaller plot of land that the Wellness Center sits on. The city in turn purchases more land for parking. The utilities and infrastructure are already there: saving money. An attached complex saves both money in heating and cooling (less surface for heat transfer). Both the Wellness Center and Alerus would benefit by having more athletic events each could host or co-host, helping both financially. Visitors to the city would be much more aware of a wellness center if it was a the Alerus rather than behind Target, so they'd be more likely to pays fees to use it. Everybody wins financially. There are just to many synergies for this not to be looked at. The only requirement is that the Park Board and City would actually have to work with each other. The Park District is going to develop a park on the site they own whether they put a new Wellness Center there or not. They get so much land from developers out of each development to put in a park. I think they already have a sponsoring organization to help support the park, I don't remember for sure but I think that it might be the Lion's Clubs. Several of the newer parks are supported by local service clubs. They supply money to help develop the park and help maintain it. Sertoma Park is one example. So they will use most of the space for a regular park and would not have much land, if any, to sell to support a move to the Alerus. Putting the facilities together would be great for the Alerus Center as you described. I think parking would still be a major issue. People in Grand Forks want to park as close as possible and adding to the building is going to move them even further away. Room on the site may become a problem in the future. Canad may want to add on to their facility which would take room to the north (and could increase the need for parking). And if the Alerus does need to expand the arena then you would have to rebuild the Wellness Center even further south. The group working on the Wellness Center may have there own concerns. For one thing, they have spent a lot of time pulling partners together to make it work at the current site. Will they want to add another major player, like the city, and try to find a way to please them also? It could backfire and pull the whole deal apart. They have a majority of the money raised already. I don't think they will upset the apple cart by trying to add to the mix unless they absolutely have to. They seem to have a plan in place that makes sense. They may be better off just going with what they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.