BSFS Expansion Thread

[Kat Kid]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

Right.  There is also the Fitz'd up Mercury story.  But you're right.  Basically all of us agree that this should be done by the best, most capable firm and result in the best, most impressive structure possible given the generous budget.

So far, people have questioned whether the best firm was hired and then speculated as to why that may be.  This Tennessee company will have their day.  We'll all be there to judge the results.  Populous, dax, and countless EMAW Architects will be front row.

[Pete]

Is it possible that Heery simply had better "specs" (or whatever the lingo is) than Populous?

does it really rough ridin' matter? 

I think what matters is hooking up "your kin," all things being equal.  I now personally suspect that Currie also believes this. 

[Pete]

As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

In my experience, it's been exactly this sort of thing that lands deals as sizable as this for service firms.  The rough ridin' architects are making a pretty rough ridin' humble margain on this....most of that is labor and materials, isn't it?

[Pete]

As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

In my experience, it's been exactly this sort of thing that lands deals as sizable as this for service firms.  The rough ridin' architects are making a pretty rough ridin' humble margain on this....most of that is labor and materials, isn't it?

....It's why they are called "producers" or "partners" at that level, and not "salesmen."  Go ask a rough ridin' Accenture partner, or a KPMG Tax partner if he's ever got the "buddy" treatment from a client decision maker...he prolly wouldn't be in the chair if he hadn't. 

[Pete]

I mean do the "partners" at either of these firms even know where to locate a t-square in their office if a gun was to their head?  I doubt it.  They sell.  That's why they are "partners."

[chum1]

And do you think any of the people that worked on those stadiums would work on LHC Bill Snyder Family effing Stadium? Also, just because they get big jobs doesn't mean they do them well. Their quality has been slipping quite a bit. At least from what I have heard.

But hey, don't let me stop you guys from acting butt hurt. Carry on.

Heery is not in the same class in terms of sports architecture.  Period. 

For all of this bullsh*t about how “I heard they were slipping”, Arch Record just released their 2011 top 500 firms in the world and Populous claims the #1 ranking of all sports based practices in the world.  Poll anyone in the design community or look at any rankings over the course of the last 20 years in Arch Record or any legitimate publication for back-up. 

This isn’t about some shirt tuck being all bent about the local yokel architecture shop not getting their handouts.  According to their website they’ve done 1,000 sports projects globally and over $20 billion in construction value over the course of the last 27 years.  Oh yeah, and they’re EMAW to the core.

Heery is an engineering based firm that typically teams up with others to do some collegiate work in the mostly the SouthEast.  That’s their portfolio.  Look at it.  AECOM is a Los Angeles based conglomerate that bought out Elerbe when they were on the brink of collapse three years ago.

It’s water under the bridge, it’s over.  The reason people are upset is that many of us know people that work there and have put a lot of their lives into K-State and were excited to be involved with something transcendent for their alma mater.  If that’s not a cool thing to say, or shirt tuck, then whatever.  At the end of the day there was a lot more at play here with an AD that had a prior relationship he was tending from his UT days and a damaging newspaper article in the 11th hour that erroneously stated Populous had been hired that raised all sorts of ethics questions and they made the move they needed to.
 
As with most things in life, you get what you pay for.  K-State missed a big opportunity to do something world class.  And that’s not a “Butthurt” statement.  That’s reality.

It sounds pretty butt hurt to me.

Textbook butthurt move:  finish diatribe by insisting that you're not butthurt.

[wetwillie]

It's pretty obvious some sort of quid pro quo is in play here. Which IDGAF because it happens all the time in every industry but he really has hung himself if they do a less than satisfactory job and or they don't come through for him on what he wants in return.

[Pete]

It's pretty obvious some sort of quid pro quo is in play here. Which IDGAF because it happens all the time in every industry but he really has hung himself if they do a less than satisfactory job and or they don't come through for him on what he wants in return.

THIS.

That's all I'm saying.  If it's nice, we'll all suck his dick.  If not, we'll fly the banner.  Win-win, IMO.


....won't be hard to find "anonymous" donors for that campaign.   

[wabash909]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

[Pete]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

Seems more likely to me that Currie would plant that crap with Manbeck, than it does that he'd feel "compelled" to choose "another" firm to save face from a transparency stand point. 

Can't see someone with Currie's power really feeling "compelled" to do anything that wasn't in his very specific best interests.   Maybe I'm wrong about powerful dudes and why they do stuff, though.  Could be.

[Dugout DickStone]

Good lord we are going to have to burn down Manbeck AND Currie.  Get the list out dax.

[WillieWatanabe]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

sounds like you have some insidery details. Not sure why Manbeck put that in the article...it was like 1 sentence, then never mentioned again if i remember correctly.

Also, why isn't GPC all over this??

[Pete]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

sounds like you have some insidery details. Not sure why Manbeck put that in the article...it was like 1 sentence, then never mentioned again if i remember correctly.

Also, why isn't GPC all over this??

'Cause everyone who ever used to be "all over" anything that even remotely mattered is over here.  Elwood is trying to nail down internet advertising schemes, however....that's there.

[Dugout DickStone]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

sounds like you have some insidery details. Not sure why Manbeck put that in the article...it was like 1 sentence, then never mentioned again if i remember correctly.

Also, why isn't GPC all over this??

GPC is absolutely infested with squawks.  You go over there enough and you will be one.

[WillieWatanabe]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

sounds like you have some insidery details. Not sure why Manbeck put that in the article...it was like 1 sentence, then never mentioned again if i remember correctly.

Also, why isn't GPC all over this??

'Cause everyone who ever used to be "all over" anything that even remotely mattered is over here.  Elwood is trying to nail down internet advertising schemes, however....that's there.

props to r-a-b i guess. Unless Currie fed him a lie.

[wabash909]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

Seems more likely to me that Currie would plant that crap with Manbeck, than it does that he'd feel "compelled" to choose "another" firm to save face from a transparency stand point. 

Can't see someone with Currie's power really feeling "compelled" to do anything that wasn't in his very specific best interests.   Maybe I'm wrong about powerful dudes and why they do stuff, though.  Could be.

You may be right.  If he really planted the info, Currie's much more deceitful that I could have ever fathomed.

[Dugout DickStone]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

Seems more likely to me that Currie would plant that crap with Manbeck, than it does that he'd feel "compelled" to choose "another" firm to save face from a transparency stand point. 

Can't see someone with Currie's power really feeling "compelled" to do anything that wasn't in his very specific best interests.   Maybe I'm wrong about powerful dudes and why they do stuff, though.  Could be.

You may be right.  If he really planted the info, Currie's much more deceitful that I could have ever fathomed.

Currie just picked his boys, and will expect a return favor i.e. "when I apply for the job in Knoxville, you WILL support me with all resources you got."

[Pete]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

Seems more likely to me that Currie would plant that crap with Manbeck, than it does that he'd feel "compelled" to choose "another" firm to save face from a transparency stand point. 

Can't see someone with Currie's power really feeling "compelled" to do anything that wasn't in his very specific best interests.   Maybe I'm wrong about powerful dudes and why they do stuff, though.  Could be.

You may be right.  If he really planted the info, Currie's much more deceitful that I could have ever fathomed.

I blame me.

I asked for a "Lew Perkins" type.  You take the good with the bad. 

[KITNfury]

Man, some real compelling pro-Populous arguments here. even after reading them, I can't make myself get upset without a shitty kstateo rendering or something. The render could be tits and that's all I care about.

[wabash909]

sounds like you have some insidery details. Not sure why Manbeck put that in the article...it was like 1 sentence, then never mentioned again if i remember correctly.

Also, why isn't GPC all over this??

Within hours of the Mercury story quoting sources saying Populous will be hired, the chief writer at the Sports Business Journal tweeted the below.  That's when this blew up.

@breakground: @Populous reportedly wins job, designed past upgrades RT @jason_m_ford: Stadium renovation key to KSU's image http://t.co/NSvWfPN

As far as GPC goes, somebody ought to clue those guys into the real news the other site is breaking.

[WillieWatanabe]

when you say "blew up"...what do you mean?

[DQ12]

It's pretty obvious some sort of quid pro quo is in play here. Which IDGAF because it happens all the time in every industry but he really has hung himself if they do a less than satisfactory job and or they don't come through for him on what he wants in return.

THIS.

That's all I'm saying.  If it's nice, we'll all suck his dick.  If not, we'll fly the banner.  Win-win, IMO.


....won't be hard to find "anonymous" donors for that campaign.   

I'm in this camp 100%.  I'll be the first to be pissed with Currie if the renderings or subsequent realization of said renderings are less than satisfactory.  But being outraged at this juncture just seems a bit premature.

[OB_Won]

Nobody is really anti-Populous.  Those who are being labeled as such are probably just willing to give Currie the benefit of the doubt.  As for me, I find highly unlikely that the decision to use Heery rather than Populous is as simple as Currie doing an 80 million dollar favor to some of his old chums.

You're right.  There was more at play here.

Most believe the bigger factor in this was the erroneous Mercury article and then subsequent national coverage in the Sports Business Journal stating Populous had been hired a week before the official interviews and an athletic director hyper-sensitive about his "transparency" image suddenly finding himself in a compromising position due to the possibility of allegations of ethical impropriety from the other competing interests.

It's not too hard to see the easy way out of this dilemma.

Seems more likely to me that Currie would plant that crap with Manbeck, than it does that he'd feel "compelled" to choose "another" firm to save face from a transparency stand point. 

Can't see someone with Currie's power really feeling "compelled" to do anything that wasn't in his very specific best interests.   Maybe I'm wrong about powerful dudes and why they do stuff, though.  Could be.

You may be right.  If he really planted the info, Currie's much more deceitful that I could have ever fathomed.

Currie just picked his boys, and will expect a return favor i.e. "when I apply for the job in Knoxville, you WILL support me with all resources you got."

Sorry to butt in, however, am I correct in thinking that the contributors here think that Currie acted autonomously in one of the largest facility upgrades in KSU history?   

[r-a-b]

.

[ew2x4]

This whole thread is full of  

Dax's statement about Populous "getting" KSU is laughable. It's not like it's a small office with the same team doing every job. They have hundreds of employees. Odds are they recommended a team for the job and the team's resume and portfolio sucked. It's happening more and more with Populous. Heery is more than capable and they're a good firm. Acting like Populous is the only way to go is a joke. They've been going down hill for a while now.

Speaking of laughable...  Go to their website. Look at their portfolio. It speaks for itself.

Going downhill?  Since Yankee Stadium, Mets Stadium and Wembley Stadium all in the past few years?  Yeah these guys are slipping..  

What press box renovations for college football teams have they done?

Other than the ones cited by dax, I'm not sure. Go to their website and look at their collegiate portfolio. Go look at AECOM collegiate portfolio. Compare and contrast. Both are solid firms. populous just seems more EMAW to me and that's a good thing.  

And ew2x4, I know you're enamored with your "butt hurt" phrase. It's clever. Seriously. But come on, what's wrong with pulling for the KSU guys when those same guys are some of the best sports architects in the world?  

I'm not a "sky is falling" guy.  I believe we're going to get a really nice structure from AECOM.  But I think we should bring in EMAW guys, especially if they're as good as it gets in he industry.

It would have been great for Populous to get the job, but it's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to think they're the only ones capable of doing a great job. Like I said, I'm pretty certain their team for this job was not that impressive. Just because they have "Populous" on their paycheck, doesn't mean they're the best they have to offer. They hire squawks too.

The others who think Heery is an engineering firm that teams up with "real architects" are pretty ignorant. They have a full architecture office that is more than capable. You're probably thinking that teaming up with an architect of record means they are just doing engineering. But nice wikipedia stats. "Engineering based firm" is also classic. Their offices dedicated to architecture have over 300 people. But go and tell them they're just engineers. The fact of the matter is it's not the architects who are going to determine what this thing looks like. Currie and the donors already has the aesthetics ready to go. That should be fairly obvious.