HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 12:20 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
I really don't think it's going to end up a frankenstadium.

The south grandstand will match the north grandstand. They will eat into Section 1 and the other section on the east side (32?). Then they'll make the corner and have the stands straight across, closer to the back of the end zone. I don't know if it will be quite as close as the north end because they need room for Bevo and Old Smokey.

I'm assuming the luxury suites will also match so that it's a seamless transition. Instead of the upperdeck, they could use that space to put the jumbotron.

I do agree that I hope it doesn't end up with a 5 story stack of luxury suites that doesn't match the rest of the stadium. But if they added a 3rd level above the 2 levels of suites, and made it the football offices overlooking the stadium, that'd be cool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 7:58 PM
brando brando is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I really don't think it's going to end up a frankenstadium.

The south grandstand will match the north grandstand. They will eat into Section 1 and the other section on the east side (32?). Then they'll make the corner and have the stands straight across, closer to the back of the end zone. I don't know if it will be quite as close as the north end because they need room for Bevo and Old Smokey.

I'm assuming the luxury suites will also match so that it's a seamless transition. Instead of the upperdeck, they could use that space to put the jumbotron.

I do agree that I hope it doesn't end up with a 5 story stack of luxury suites that doesn't match the rest of the stadium. But if they added a 3rd level above the 2 levels of suites, and made it the football offices overlooking the stadium, that'd be cool.
Yea, DKR has become less and less of a frankenstadium in the last 20 years with the renovation projects. The stadium is officially 93 years old but every part of it has been worked on since then. More recently, the upper deck on the west side was added in the 60s/70s and the upper deck on the east side came in the 90s. Of course, the north end zone was a complete teardown/rebuild. The North and Eastside projects have helped bring a cohesion to the look of the stadium and the south end zone will build upon that. That west side facade though....


It is possible that the new south end zone seating bowl could be steeper than the other sections since it has much less of a footprint to play with because of the athletic offices right behind it.

I think multi-level suites under a huge scoreboard could look pretty cool. It would bother me more if it was on the longer east or west sides but the south end zone is smaller and it's already irregular because of the scoreboard.


TLDR: It'll look nice and make you wish there was a reason to re-do the west side of the stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:31 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by brando View Post
You know, it seems that whatever they do, there may be a chance to add the upper deck later. That would allow for some more symmetry with the upper deck going essentially three quarters around the stadium. The boxes, etc., underneath might not have that much of an impact at that point. I'm personally okay losing the board, but I know others have mixed feelings about that. I'd prefer a full bowl of the upper deck to a giant screen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 4:51 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
I think they need to get to a point where they're consistently filling the stadium they've got before they start talking about adding another 10-20k seats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 5:11 PM
Azul Azul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
I think they need to get to a point where they're consistently filling the stadium they've got before they start talking about adding another 10-20k seats.
I think your argument is a bit anecdotal. Attendance last year rose 8.7% and averaged 97,881 a game which is 97.8% capacity. It's in their interest to expand now so that they maximize on their profits when Texas Football hopefully rises back into the ranks. I bet the administration and coaching staff see it as a bad look to have other regional schools (Texas A&M and LSU) have a higher capacity and more recent major renovations.


https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...6-even-as.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 7:10 PM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azul View Post
I think your argument is a bit anecdotal. Attendance last year rose 8.7% and averaged 97,881 a game which is 97.8% capacity. It's in their interest to expand now so that they maximize on their profits when Texas Football hopefully rises back into the ranks. I bet the administration and coaching staff see it as a bad look to have other regional schools (Texas A&M and LSU) have a higher capacity and more recent major renovations.
I think a win over USC added to the positive buzz over the new TX coaching staff, mainly Coach Herman, we could see record attendance this year. Its amazing the support the Horns got last year despite their losing record. The sellout with ND didn't hurt. I don't think there would be a problem filling another 20K seats eventually. I hate seeing empty seats though, it doesn't look good on tv. But I think part of the reason for adding the extra seats is aesthetics to some degree. The bleachers behind the south end zone look rather high schoolish. Finishing the bowl will give the stadium a more completed look, albeit, a bit disjointed. It will always be a very old stadium with a bunch of add ons. The west side doesn't match the east side, and the south end will not math the north end. It will always be a stadium of 4 different sides. It succeeds in functionality, but falls a bit short in continuity and aesthetics. It reminds me of the expansion at the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 10:05 PM
Owlhorn Owlhorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,619
There's no reason the south endzone can't match the north. The football complex is going to be rebuilt along with the endzone. The lack of upper deck talk is the Capitol view corridor crap again. Again, there are plenty of ways to play with capacity. Adding capacity at all isn't even necessary no matter what structure is built. No reason any future video boards couldn't sit atop an upper deck. Why does everytime UT builds something, its like the first time something has ever been built as if there aren't countless examples in the world to how this project can be done. Unless they want the stadium to float or take off into orbit, pretty much anything regarding capacity or allowing views of downtown from the club sections or whatever weird requests are being asked can be done and still make the stadium look like one stadium. Why can't we have a beautiful stadium like Notre Dame just completed? Want the football complex and practice facility to be one? Build up. Light structure retractable roofs. Soccer clubs do this stuff, but can't at UT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 10:07 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owlhorn View Post
The lack of upper deck talk is the Capitol view corridor crap again.
Except that the stadium is exempt from capital view corridors.

"Sec. 3151.003. APPLICABILITY. This chapter does not apply to:
(1) the construction, renovation, or equipment of the Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium or to improvements related to the stadium, except that the height of the stadium or a related improvement may not exceed 666 feet above sea level;"

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...tm/GV.3151.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 1:28 PM
trilliondollarted trilliondollarted is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azul View Post
I think your argument is a bit anecdotal. Attendance last year rose 8.7% and averaged 97,881 a game which is 97.8% capacity. It's in their interest to expand now so that they maximize on their profits when Texas Football hopefully rises back into the ranks. I bet the administration and coaching staff see it as a bad look to have other regional schools (Texas A&M and LSU) have a higher capacity and more recent major renovations.


https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...6-even-as.html
I believe UT uses seats sold not seats filled for attendance numbers. So while that number leads you to believe the stadium was almost at capacity the actual number of seats vacant at many of the games was quite a bit higher. I wonder what percentage of seats are season ticket holders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 4:34 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
I think a win over USC added to the positive buzz over the new TX coaching staff, mainly Coach Herman, we could see record attendance this year. Its amazing the support the Horns got last year despite their losing record. The sellout with ND didn't hurt. I don't think there would be a problem filling another 20K seats eventually. I hate seeing empty seats though, it doesn't look good on tv. But I think part of the reason for adding the extra seats is aesthetics to some degree. The bleachers behind the south end zone look rather high schoolish. Finishing the bowl will give the stadium a more completed look, albeit, a bit disjointed. It will always be a very old stadium with a bunch of add ons. The west side doesn't match the east side, and the south end will not math the north end. It will always be a stadium of 4 different sides. It succeeds in functionality, but falls a bit short in continuity and aesthetics. It reminds me of the expansion at the airport.
The odds of Texas beating USC this year in L.A. are about those of winning the Powerball lottery.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 4:57 PM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
The odds of Texas beating USC this year in L.A. are about those of winning the Powerball lottery.
Well we were preseason unranked last year and we beat #10 Notre Dame. Sure, notre dame turned out to not be the team everyone thought they were before the season started, but what's to say USC isn't in the same situation? UT has a much better team this year, and a lot of hype going into this season
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 5:27 PM
Benhudd01 Benhudd01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
The odds of Texas beating USC this year in L.A. are about those of winning the Powerball lottery.
I know you're just using that comparison for dramatic effect, and I agree that it is likely that Texas loses this game, but we have no clue how big of a jump this team can make under Herman. If the D-Line and secondary are as improved as advertised then the outcome of this game may surprise a lot of people. Sorry for the tangent, back to the stadium... Whatever kind of expansion they do to the SEZ I hope it drives season ticket prices down a little so I can finally afford it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 7:11 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule View Post
Well we were preseason unranked last year and we beat #10 Notre Dame. Sure, notre dame turned out to not be the team everyone thought they were before the season started, but what's to say USC isn't in the same situation? UT has a much better team this year, and a lot of hype going into this season
That reflects the fact that the preseason polls vastly overrated ND. They didn't even finish with a winning record, did they?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 7:17 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benhudd01 View Post
I know you're just using that comparison for dramatic effect, and I agree that it is likely that Texas loses this game, but we have no clue how big of a jump this team can make under Herman. If the D-Line and secondary are as improved as advertised then the outcome of this game may surprise a lot of people. Sorry for the tangent, back to the stadium... Whatever kind of expansion they do to the SEZ I hope it drives season ticket prices down a little so I can finally afford it!
I doubt that's going to happen. My preference would be a simple rebuild of the SEZ bleachers so they don't look so much like bleachers. If they're hell-bent and determine to build in the SEZ, I hope they add the smallest # of seats possible. I don't live in Austin; haven't been in the stadium for nearly 40 years, but for the past several years, I've watched all the games on t.v. Last year, the only game I remember when there weren't visible empty spots in the stands was the ND game. I'm sure USC will sell out next year when they come to Austin; Ohio State and Michigan will likely sell out when they come to Austin in future seasons. But except for those, unless Texas starts playing WAY better I don't see a lot of sellouts. Nothing looks worse than a large, partially empty stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2017, 6:25 AM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
That reflects the fact that the preseason polls vastly overrated ND. They didn't even finish with a winning record, did they?
I don't know, but that's the point I was making. Who's to say that UT isn't vastly underrated this year at #22, or that USC isn't vastly overrated just the same was ND was last year? I just think we have more than a fluke chance to beat USC this year, that's all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2017, 6:50 PM
brando brando is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
You know, it seems that whatever they do, there may be a chance to add the upper deck later. That would allow for some more symmetry with the upper deck going essentially three quarters around the stadium. The boxes, etc., underneath might not have that much of an impact at that point. I'm personally okay losing the board, but I know others have mixed feelings about that. I'd prefer a full bowl of the upper deck to a giant screen.
They cannot add an upper deck to the south end zone without complexly bulldozing and re-locating their offices which they are not doing. They are planning to pour millions into renovating it. There also isn't really the footprint needed without closing San Jacinto street which they won't do. That's also why it likely won't be a continuous seating bowl with the east side. There isn't room to do a proper arc to connect the two.

Why would you prefer to look at blurry people instead of a giant video board where you can see replays? It seems like a worse fan experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
The west side doesn't match the east side, and the south end will not math the north end. It will always be a stadium of 4 different sides. It succeeds in functionality, but falls a bit short in continuity and aesthetics. It reminds me of the expansion at the airport.
Match how? From the outside, a person who sees the stadium for the first time would think that the north, east and new south sides were all built at the same time. No one would think they were built separately by comparing them inside the bowls. Football stadiums are highly diverse in how the sides of their seating bowls are arranged. http://football.ballparks.com Some have continuous seating bowls, some don't. Some are mostly giant arenas like NRG and others have more independent structured sides and shapes.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Owlhorn View Post
There's no reason the south endzone can't match the north. The football complex is going to be rebuilt along with the endzone. The lack of upper deck talk is the Capitol view corridor crap again. Again, there are plenty of ways to play with capacity. Adding capacity at all isn't even necessary no matter what structure is built. No reason any future video boards couldn't sit atop an upper deck. Why does everytime UT builds something, its like the first time something has ever been built as if there aren't countless examples in the world to how this project can be done. Unless they want the stadium to float or take off into orbit, pretty much anything regarding capacity or allowing views of downtown from the club sections or whatever weird requests are being asked can be done and still make the stadium look like one stadium. Why can't we have a beautiful stadium like Notre Dame just completed? Want the football complex and practice facility to be one? Build up. Light structure retractable roofs. Soccer clubs do this stuff, but can't at UT.
I have not seen anything about the football complex (Montcrief) being re-built. Just renovated.

You mean bulldoze the stadium and build from scratch? Notre Dame has a new stadium? How does UT not know how to build projects? They did a good job with the north end zone. They demolished it and built the lower deck in an offseason and built the upper in the following offseason. It also looks great from the outside and inside.

You could put a video board on top of an upper deck but it just makes for a worse fan experience. It's really nice how low the current sideboard is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule View Post
I don't know, but that's the point I was making. Who's to say that UT isn't vastly underrated this year at #22, or that USC isn't vastly overrated just the same was ND was last year? I just think we have more than a fluke chance to beat USC this year, that's all.
USC isn't overrated. I thought UT would beat Notre Dame last year but they don't have a chance this year. They lost 3 games last year but that was before they found their starting QB. They could have made it to the championship game if they snuck into the playoffs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 2:30 AM
brando brando is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2018, 4:47 AM
Benhudd01 Benhudd01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
Finally some news on this project! This will be fun to watch over the next few football seasons.

https://www.burntorangenation.com/20...ne-renovations
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2018, 5:26 PM
Austin1971 Austin1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 827
Document reveals Texas officials’ $140-million vision for Royal-Memorial Stadium expa

B

Last edited by Austin1971; Jan 25, 2020 at 6:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2018, 3:13 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
I'm just hoping that if my wife drags me to another UT game, we can buy terrible cheap seats, then they will let us move to some of the many empty better seats, at least after the 1st quarter when they know they won't be filled for the rest of the game.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.