UMassHoops.com

McKinney wrote: Thu Dec 11, 2025 6:12 pm



I'm still happy they're doing something to pretty up the place. It is lipstick on a pig, and it's not cheap. But it's something obvious that needed to be done. Let's plant some grass and trees, and make the place lit well, green, and a nice place to walk around. Great. I think the facade refresh actually fits the mid-century modern look better than I expected.

But let's not pretend this is a "vision". I'm somewhat confused why it's being presented in "3 Phases". And ultimately it just feels like relatively minor (and to some degree required) site-improvement. This is the full thing? This feels like a Phase 1.

Yet again, it feels like we’re being asked to lower our expectations for what UMass football can be.

Also, UMass might want to consult their official colors now being Maroon & Black before they paint it white and hang 200 white panels up.

An elitist view……how we considered how the pig views it….lol

I just want to know if their vision for concessions includes 10-12 food trucks scattered around the stadium, why can't we do that now. Does that require the lipstick?

McKinney wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:40 pm I just want to know if their vision for concessions includes 10-12 food trucks scattered around the stadium, why can't we do that now. Does that require the lipstick?

No, and the gravel is probably better for that situation anyways.

InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:44 pm

McKinney wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:40 pm I just want to know if their vision for concessions includes 10-12 food trucks scattered around the stadium, why can't we do that now. Does that require the lipstick?

No, and the gravel is probably better for that situation anyways.

Gravel sucks for people on crutches or in wheelchairs.

I’ve always had a soft spot for mid-century modern architecture, so revisiting McGuirk’s background changed how I looked at this.

McGuirk is a SOM building from the early 1960s, and it reflects that era’s thinking clearly: expressive concrete, strong horizontality, and a stadium conceived as a freestanding object rather than knitted more into campus (although I guess Southwest was built around the same time or shortly after).

I don’t know if this is explicitly what they’re going for here, but seen through this lens the refresh makes more sense to me than I initially reacted to it a few days ago.

The sort of sculptural work with the facade and the "park" feel of the landscaping and pedestrian space feels consistent with mid-century modern principles: clarity of form, structure doing the visual work, and the influence of Le Corbusier’s idea of buildings as free objects in a park, shaped by landscape rather than enclosed by it.

McGuirk already sits this way, and this update reads like a continuation of that logic.

LS71 wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 2:31 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:44 pm

McKinney wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:40 pm I just want to know if their vision for concessions includes 10-12 food trucks scattered around the stadium, why can't we do that now. Does that require the lipstick?

No, and the gravel is probably better for that situation anyways.

Gravel sucks for people on crutches or in wheelchairs.

No shit, sherlock.

Those drawings have to be a joke. I wouldn’t waste one penny on anything in those sketches. Are they ever going to be adults about this stadium or just keep dicking around?

Quann wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 2:54 pm Those drawings have to be a joke. I wouldn’t waste one penny on anything in those sketches. Are they ever going to be adults about this stadium or just keep dicking around?

They are legit drawings and not chat gpt/AI. I was wrong. Apparently these are the type of things architects produce as rough sketches. From my understanding, Bamford had many more and much better to choose from and he chose the worst to share.

Any updates in the real world on a McGuirk project besides Bamford's sweet renderings?

Except the Capital Planning, don't know were to look. The current planning document is the same as it's the same report from September 25, 2025.
https://www.umassp.edu/budget-office/re ... l-planning