McGuirk Upgrade

[McKinney]

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.

[photoman]

^ I think that's correct. You can't yell "down in front" to the players.

Way too much work went into these drawings. We just need to recruit shorter players and coaches!

[e_parade]

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]

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.

[photoman]

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

[minutefanjsf]

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]

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.

[minutefanjsf]

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]

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

[McKinney]

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.

[minutefanjsf]

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.

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]

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]

Next year you will have to stop by our tailgate. I’d like to meet you in person.

Likewise. You got a deal.

[sloves90_611]

Cool pics up there guys.
Some day.

[Berkman]

I know that when they built the stadium back in the 60's they did put in foundations to be able to expand the seating by adding a second deck. Don't know if they will meet present building requirements or will they have to be totaly replaced.