Stadium and 2010 OCC schedule

[danefan]

I think the key is building something right away that is easily and seamlessly expandable. That was the one knock on Hofstra's stadium - it is completely piecemeal.

 

Anything is better than the status quo, but I just hope they are thinking 10-15 years down the road with this one.

[Ruler 79]

I would prefer an enclosed stadium with 5000 seast on each side, with room to expand. I like the enclosed stadium as opposed to the wide open variety. As long as they are breaking ground this spring there will be zero complaints from me!

 

I thought one of the OOC games was a home and home with Columbia, but as you know anything can change.

[UAFAN]

Looks like good news is coming...............

 

 

http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/documents/CaptialProjectSchedule12-09-09.pdf'>http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/documents/CaptialProjectSchedule12-09-09.pdf

 

Implement Various Athletics Improvements

Phased series of improvements to athletics facilities, to include a new multi-use athletic facility (possibly a phased project).

Spring 2010

 

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement

http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/

[danefan]

Maybe the rumors were all off:

 

http://www.albany.ed...s/SEQRCover.pdf

 

10,000 seats.

 

Reaching 89 ft tall (lights).

 

Additionally, Project No. 5, "Implement Various Athletics Improvements" includes the relocation and replacement of University Field. While it will not have additional seating capacity, an upgraded UAlbany multi-purpose stadium that includes modern seating and amenities will enhance the spectator experience and will likely draw larger crowds to UAlbany athletic events. The University is prepared to take the necessary crowd and management planning steps to ensure a safe and enjoyable fan experience, and to minimize event day impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Described more fully in section 3, additional security, careful scheduling during non-peak hours, and the potential of shuttle bus services to more distance parking lots are under consideration.

 

 

Jump right to PAGE 33!

[danefan]

At the present time, for the purpose of this DGEIS, the University is considering upgrades to the football facility to, in the future, emerge as a “multi-use athletic facility” (referred to in this DGEIS as such) (Heery 2008, Heery 2009). None of the options below are fully funded or in the design phase. They are instead in various stages of conceptual planning and could potentially be constructed. All of the concepts share the following features:

 Relocating University field to a location directly southeast of the P.E. building. The relocation area, circled in green, is shared as Figure 2.3-2.

 Targeting maximum spectator seating capacity to approximately 10,000, which is the same as current capacity. Seating, however, would be vastly improved through more modern grandstand construction and/or with more modern rented bleachers.

 Construction of a synthetic turf field as the playing surface.

 Installation of improved, code-compliant, permanent or temporary/rented press and coaches boxes.

 Construction of various utilities (water, power, sanitary, storm) improvements and connections.

The potential site on a location southeast of the P.E. building was identified and selected as an optimal site based on a thorough analysis of five alternates (Figure 2.3-2), more fully described in Section 2 of this document.

[danefan]

Track facilities improvements

The existing 400 meter track is in disrepair and can not be used for the competition needs of the existing varsity men’s and women’s track teams. It was originally constructed as a 440-yard track that was reconfigured to 400 meters. As a result, one turn is slightly shorter in length than the opposite

turn. The current track does not meet NCAA or IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federation) regulations, and has not hosted a sanctioned meet or a championship meet of any type since 1993. More specifically, the track suffers from the following deficiencies:

 Deteriorated surface conditions.

 Does not meet standards for NCAA or IAAF.

 Does not allow for throwing events in infield and only minimal capability for other field events.

 Does not have the minimum number of lanes required to meet NCAA or IAAF standards. There are only seven lanes on the turns and the backstretch.

 The turns are not symmetrical.

 Does not allow for current technological scoring and timing systems.

 No drainage system for the track, resulting in puddles and water build up.

Accordingly, similar to, and integrated with, the approach to football facility improvements, the University is contemplating improvements to the track facilities within the next five years. Various scenarios are being investigated but the work would retain the track in its current location and improve the facilities to meet NCAA and internationally accepted standards, which entails a 9-lane, 48-inch wide, durable, all weather track surface, multiple runways for field events and longer straightaways on both sides. The work, too, will likely add an artificial turf field to the infield location; and improve lighting, seating, and other amenities

[danefan]

Although the growth from a facility that can hold approximately 5,000 spectators in bleacher seating and an additional 5,000 in hillside lawn seating, to a facility with seating capacity for 10,000 spectators is not significant, it is likely that the new quality of seating at the proposed facility may be a more significant attraction and increase the number of attendees at events over that at present, regardless of the apparent similar capacities. The Multi-Use Athletic Facility is anticipated to host an increased number of events as compared to University Field, including those held by UAlbany athletic teams, area high school teams, and the New York Giants summer training events that are open to the public. In addition to increased use of the athletics facility, the new facility may be attractive for increased spectator capacity in comparison to the existing facilities.

 

[danefan]

http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/documents/DGEISfigures.pdf

 

Page 11 shows the location (current soccer field).

[UAFAN]

More on page 59

 

http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/documents/SEQRCover.pdf

[haggyland]

Seating, however, would be vastly improved through more modern grandstand construction and/or with more modern rented bleachers

 

Installation of improved, code-compliant, permanent or temporary/rented press and coaches boxes

 

It is nice to hear some news, and I will have to read up on this at home later, but those two statements caught my attention.

The possibility of rented bleachers and press boxes? I thought we were beyond that.

[danefan]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I am 99.999999999% sure that these are all FUNDED projects.

 

 

[danefan]

Seating, however, would be vastly improved through more modern grandstand construction and/or with more modern rented bleachers

 

Installation of improved, code-compliant, permanent or temporary/rented press and coaches boxes

 

It is nice to hear some news, and I will have to read up on this at home later, but those two statements caught my attention.

The possibility of rented bleachers and press boxes? I thought we were beyond that.

 

I believe that is referencing the "phases" of the project. We could be looking at 5,000 seats to start and a rented press box. I'm hoping that means there is a push to get something done in time to play on next season.

 

I can deal with 5000 permanent seats and a rented prress box for one season. Permanent press box and additional seating for 2011 season. I'm hoping that is what its talking about.

[danefan]

I also just want to say that sometimes I know things before they are public. In this case I have no clue. This is all pretty much news to me.

 

I'm anxiously awaiting the release of the timeline and phases.

[UAalum72]

From post #35 " None of the options below are fully funded or in the design phase" yet the plan is for construction to begin in Spring 2010.

 

I hope "Targeting maximum spectator seating capacity to approximately 10,000" refers only to the initial phases.

[danefan]

From post #35 " None of the options below are fully funded or in the design phase" yet the plan is for construction to begin in Spring 2010.

 

 

 

I read the draft DGEIS when it was posted a few months ago (prior to the public meeting) and I believe that language was present in the prior verison. Maybe they just didn't update that particular language?