McGuirk Upgrade

Ringing the Bell on a new era of UM Football.
McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by McKinney » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:32 pm

McKinney wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:53 am
Could definately take out some rows. Could also reduce the riser from 7" and 8" to 5.5" and 6.5" respectively. 5.5" selected since that's the minimum riser I've seen that can support stadium bucket seats (it's a concept, might as well leave it as an option ya know?). That'd leave the first row's floor something like 2.5' off the ground.
I might reduce the number of rows on the sidelines from 17 to 15. That'd give you nice and roomy rows, about one yard of seat pitch per row. And combined with a riser height of 5.5" would leave the first-row's floor just over a yard above the ground. There's also some nice balance in having half as many the number of rows as the upper grandstands (30). Rough estimate capacity: 28,500.
Ryan McKinney - Class of 2019 - @mckinney2019

photoman
Senior
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Attleboro

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by photoman » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:11 pm

69MG wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:30 pm
^ I think that's correct. You can't yell "down in front" to the players. :lol:
Way too much work went into these drawings. We just need to recruit shorter players and coaches!

User avatar
e_parade
Sophomore
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: Boston

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by e_parade » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:50 pm

However, watching from the sidelines at ground level really isn't that bad (as a person who watched a ton of games from that position while at UMass).


Also, wasn't there talk at some point about lowering the level of the field by a few feet so that we'd be able to fit more seats in there?

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by McKinney » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:23 pm

e_parade wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:50 pm
Also, wasn't there talk at some point about lowering the level of the field by a few feet so that we'd be able to fit more seats in there?
There was. That was the concept made public by McCutcheon in April 2011.
https://www.masslive.com/sports/index.s ... _on_c.html

I know some folks have mentioned the issue with the high water table/swampland. You'd have to build a slurry wall down below the water table. And then you'd need to upgrade the drainage system.

Two examples of such installations are Ohio State in 1998 the University of Washington in 2013. Both were part of larger renovation projects ($194M and $280M respectively). I'm not sure specifically what lowering the field cost.
Ryan McKinney - Class of 2019 - @mckinney2019

photoman
Senior
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Attleboro

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by photoman » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am

Why do I have a feeling that raising stands would be a lot cheaper than lowering fields?

minutefanjsf
Senior
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by minutefanjsf » Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:20 am

photoman wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am
Why do I have a feeling that raising stands would be a lot cheaper than lowering fields?
Raising stands would mean building new stands @ McGuirk. Could easily do more seating in front without going as low as McKinney is proposing, with fewer seats probably 4 rows fewer, so less of an increase in capacity, for now. I assume there will be seats put in front at some point, probably before going up. the space between stands and field is too far, especially when concessions are removed and housed in permanent buildings (most likely behind south endzone and current stands.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by McKinney » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:38 am

minutefanjsf wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:20 am
photoman wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am
Why do I have a feeling that raising stands would be a lot cheaper than lowering fields?
Raising stands would mean building new stands @ McGuirk. Could easily do more seating in front without going as low as McKinney is proposing, with fewer seats probably 4 rows fewer, so less of an increase in capacity, for now. I assume there will be seats put in front at some point, probably before going up. the space between stands and field is too far, especially when concessions are removed and housed in permanent buildings (most likely behind south endzone and current stands.
That was along the lines of my thinking as well. I think it made more sense to raise the stands when UMass first looked at expansion options back in 2012. At that time the target capacity was something like 35k and there hadn't been any work done on the existing stadium.

Now the stated target capacity is in the mid-20ks, I believe, and there's work to get the stands up to code.

From an aesthetics point: With the current space between the stands, you might be able to fit a track around the field. Maybe, I haven't looked into it. Either way, I think that definitely plays a role in the "high school" vibe some have remarked.
Ryan McKinney - Class of 2019 - @mckinney2019

minutefanjsf
Senior
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by minutefanjsf » Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:06 pm

McKinney wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:38 am
minutefanjsf wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:20 am
photoman wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am
Why do I have a feeling that raising stands would be a lot cheaper than lowering fields?
Raising stands would mean building new stands @ McGuirk. Could easily do more seating in front without going as low as McKinney is proposing, with fewer seats probably 4 rows fewer, so less of an increase in capacity, for now. I assume there will be seats put in front at some point, probably before going up. the space between stands and field is too far, especially when concessions are removed and housed in permanent buildings (most likely behind south endzone and current stands.
That was along the lines of my thinking as well. I think it made more sense to raise the stands when UMass first looked at expansion options back in 2012. At that time the target capacity was something like 35k and there hadn't been any work done on the existing stadium.

Now the stated target capacity is in the mid-20ks, I believe, and there's work to get the stands up to code.

From an aesthetics point: With the current space between the stands, you might be able to fit a track around the field. Maybe, I haven't looked into it. Either way, I think that definitely plays a role in the "high school" vibe some have remarked.
Those early drawings had what looked like additional seating above the current seats using the current stadium as a foundation of sorts. Artist renderings are tough to decipher. The original plan for McGuirk was seating in between the steps up to the current seats. Temporary bleachers were brought in I believe. Before my time. During the early 2000s temporary bleachers were brought in to the end zone by the FPC. (Before it was built obv).

photoman
Senior
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Attleboro

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by photoman » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:15 pm

It'll be an incredible feat to see attendance average 13,000.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by McKinney » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:25 pm

minutefanjsf wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:20 am
Those early drawings had what looked like additional seating above the current seats using the current stadium as a foundation of sorts. Artist renderings are tough to decipher.
Definitely hard to decipher. I thought they were using the current stadium as a foundation as well. Upon closer inspection, I think they've replaced the existing east stands. The east stands shown in this photo go farther down towards field level than the existing stands and the first level has ~50 rows. I think they're raked a bit higher as well, or at least they appear that way since they remove the curved wall. And the entrance tunnels would have to be drilled out halfway up the existing stands, and somehow connect them to a concourse.

Image

Image
Ryan McKinney - Class of 2019 - @mckinney2019

minutefanjsf
Senior
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by minutefanjsf » Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:47 pm

McKinney wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:25 pm
minutefanjsf wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:20 am
Those early drawings had what looked like additional seating above the current seats using the current stadium as a foundation of sorts. Artist renderings are tough to decipher.
Definitely hard to decipher. I thought they were using the current stadium as a foundation as well. Upon closer inspection, I think they've replaced the existing east stands. The east stands shown in this photo go farther down towards field level than the existing stands and the first level has ~50 rows. I think they're raked a bit higher as well, or at least they appear that way since they remove the curved wall. And the entrance tunnels would have to be drilled out halfway up the existing stands, and somehow connect them to a concourse.

Image

Image
Nice job. Yeah I couldn’t figure it out and still can’t. We will see. Next year you will have to stop by our tailgate. I’d like to meet you in person.

Berkman
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5323
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC
Contact:

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by Berkman » Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:45 pm

Have any of you guys ever gone to the FB building to see the 3 potential sketches of the stadium? I think they are still there and if they are I would suggest you go there and check them out.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: McGuirk Upgrade

Post by McKinney » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:11 pm

minutefanjsf wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:47 pm
Next year you will have to stop by our tailgate. I’d like to meet you in person.
👍Likewise. You got a deal.
Ryan McKinney - Class of 2019 - @mckinney2019

Post Reply