so was i. there has been discussions in europe about switching to a more MLS like schedule. these conversations existed before qatars win of the WC. i agree on the money and sarcastic SOB points.
There's the minor detail of the extra $200 million it took to make the stadium amenable to MLS, enough to render such a course of action absurd on its face. That figure is larger than most of the league's SSSes cost, so it's deeply dubious that we should be treating it any differently than we treated them from a financial aspect. They may be wrong, aesthetically--maybe coming to an NFL stadium with 'downsizing technology' will still be teh suxxorz. But economically, just covering the variable costs makes no sense, considering the extra capital involved. He'd have to be not so much cynical as extremely stupid. Sheer personal humility should have been reason enough.
$200m on what? Sorry but I have to see the source because if true that's absolutely absurd. I support Spurs and Roma, the cost for the stadium portion of both projects aren't that far off that figure. Maybe their giving a overall figure for all convertible event capabilities, i.e. not just soccer, other things like concerts.
Actually, following the NDP closely I've seen architects come up with estimates on making the stadium convertible for American football which is less then that. I'm just confused where they are spending that money.
Yeah, $200m on what? We've already established there won't be any fancy pull-out trays for real grass, and the FieldTurf being used will be for both sports. That leaves... $200m for some curtains on ropes? Who are they hiring to make those curtains, Versace? Maybe Christo?
The seats in the corners are retractable. I have no idea what that costs, but I presume it's a non-zero cost. I am also in Alabama, a devoted Bama football fan, and a Founder's Club member in ATL. I plan to be a full-season ticket holder, and drive to all the games (mid-week may be tough). All of the other people I know who are Founders or considering it are University of Alabama alumni, huge Bama football fans, and currently living in the Great State of Alabama. SEC football and MLS soccer are not mutually exclusive, though it would be wise for ATL to have SEC football on the televisions in the club seating area and in the concourses during the fall.
Well that's that settled then...... . . . . . The architects I'm talking about have no connection to the NDP. They are simply fans or interested parties looking to estimate the costs of what it would cost to make it convertible for NFL games. So that would be like saying a contractor is unsuited to estimate the cost of a friends home project.
This Huntsville resident is looking forward to 2017 already. I'm not even sure why anyone thinks a 2 1/2 to 3-hour drive is going to be an issue for anyone. You'd do that to get to ATL whether there was a league or not, and unless you live in one of maybe three towns in Alabama or one in South Carolina, you're always driving somewhere to have a life anyways.
Architects do consult with the client to know whether their scheme is viable, it would be a waste of time if they didn't. So I would like to think they know. I'm not an architect but I have family/friends connected to Olympic and NDP, also I'm a member of an independent group which deals with the developments in Haringey, London (though I don't live there anymore). One person I know was on the panel which reviewed Tottenham and West Ham's schemes for redeveloping Olympic. The entire redevelopment which is more costly and labor intensive than Atlanta's scheme bringing the whole 80k stadium down to 55k will cost $250m-ish. They're doing more than setting up a tarp system, their knocking stuff down and rebuilding. I just wanted to know why it supposedly cost $200m to make Atlanta's stadium capable of hosting MLS matches. What exactly did they do that made it cost so much? They could have built this and still and saved around $50 million.
Funny how engineers don't particularly uphold that credo. They kinda find that knowing the engineering helps in understanding the economics, and that knowing the economics help inform the feasible engineering...but, heck, they sure could learn a thing or two from the perfect divide of ignorance that you would maintain between architects and estimators.
Neither do Architects. What? You don't think cost estimating is a part of my job? You're a smart guy, is there something wrong with you?
Mostly we find out how much money they're willing to spend, then help them manage expectations My brother in law is a A&P mechanic/planner, but I don't make comments on what it costs to upgrade a C-130 Most likely there are a lot of variables that are not common between the projects that are affecting the cost. There are huge labor & material differences between various markets in the US, so the same would apply to England vs. US. Not to mention what infrastructure and property acquisition costs are involved. Sorry, you're not really qualified or informed enough to make that statement and I don't have enough information about BOTH projects to explain it to you.
Based on what you say they would know how much facets of the design would cost roughly and whether it's feasible or they should go another direction. THFC's new stadium initially was designed by KSS. A lot has happened between the orginal design and where the project stands right now. There have been doubts that KSS scheme is feasible financially, which is why Tottenham obtained the services of Populous to give a second opinion and provide a second scheme under budget. So clearly they would have some idea of how to keep costs down. I'm part of a pressure group which was formed when Tottenham were considering leaving N17. The club and politicians have involved us in the process. As I said I have family and friends who are connected to the projects and we have talked about them for years. Knowing them doesn't make me more qualified to estimate on facets of a design, but we have talked about similar issues with the project in Haringey and Olympic stadium. Actually during the time of the OLPC bid, the "retrofitting" issue was arguable the most contested portion of the bid and Tottenham took the OLPC to court after failing for reasons connected to this. Say there was ever a situation on the board which for some reason someone said it would cost $200m to upgrade a similar size military transport to a C-130. For some reason you talked about upgrades on a C-130 with someone in the field, military enthusiast perhaps. It's something you've taken an interest with over years. If the estimate is far above other comparable situations you've seen in the past, you might have the same questions. It just didn't make sense to me. I'm aware of that, which is why I wanted to know exactly what would drive up the costs to $200m. It seems quite high considering, clubs have literally built whole stadiums for less, like Juve's stadium. It doesn't stop you from being smug and condescending apparently. Listen, I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I'm interested in the development not being talked down to simply because I'm confused about something. Stan offered a counter opinion to my post, which is fine. I just think the figures which he cited are fairly large considering other projects which I've followed over the past 5 years or so. I've seen people estimate the costs of making stadiums multipurpose that are far less than $200m. That's all, it's just a question. If you don't have anything to add then what's the point of all this?
It's rather simple, really... you are not taking into consideration any political kickbacks and/or other forms of corruption, like, you know, good'oll corporate accounting.
Ironically, the psychologist that I had to see so I could get back into architecture school thought I was just fine, much to the enjoyment of the dean and much to the chagrin of my accuser. A story for another time
If they're competent. Yeah, you start cutting back on every thing and/or reducing the finish level from "posh" to "not-so-posh, but still nice" as I believe chaps like you would say. To be fair to you, you're asking a question in a forum where few, if any, people have any direct knowledge of the stadium design, A&E fees, geotechncial conditions of the site, ownership of the proposed site, acquisition of adjacent property and development thereon, new infrastructure, retractable roof, demolition & removal of the existing structure, negative business impact & relocation costs for adjacent landowners & tenants, roof loading for wind/weather, whether the project would be union built or not, if there are any federal monies involved or not, which require a labor wages to be paid at the prevailing union rates, rather than as cheap as you can get it, whether the project will be hard by by GC's or a CM will be selected on a guaranteed maximum price and on and on and on and on. That information is above your pay grade, and mine. But suffice to say, without knowing many of the same items from above from any of these stadia, no exact comparison can really be made between them. One would need to know all of those variables for all of those structures in order to make that comparison. Shit, if you know you're going to be dealing with a needy client that likes to change things every 30 days, cost be damned, you and your consultants will add a few % to your fee to cover the headache. Few things do. Red hair, a nice ass and tits mostly. Apparently nothing stopped you from asking a question of people that don't have the information to respond to you in a way to make a comparison between these projects and then getting your dick bent out of shape because your demand to know what's causing the inflation isn't satisfied. Did you think you'd find the guy who had the spreadsheet for the project on here? You can't really do a $$$$/SF or $$$$/Seat comparison, given that projects of this nature are so site/market/design specific. See above. So you're saying that my clarification of possible cost variables and information on why Stadium X can't just be compared to Stadium Y isn't educating you and adding to the discussion? Should I type slower?
Blank fits the profile of some of the most over the top people I've known in youth soccer. They spend gobs of money recruiting coaches and players to make the team their kids played on best team in the area. The more marginal the kid (and 1 start as one of the oldest players on the team doesn't fit the profile of future super star), the more over the top the big walleted parent acted. I guess the unstated dynamic was that if the kid and all the other things that come with him are a big benefit, everyone will be more than OK with having the kid on the field from time to time. Some of them were unbelievably passionate in the support of the team and their desire to win.