BSFS Expansion Thread

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

The new lights are up! They've really got some work done the past few weeks

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think it's veneer, but only because I seem to recall seeing large pallets of stone in the photos.  I suppose they could have been pallets of veneer.   

Probably cinder block.

[ksucrcoop]

Folks, don't pay any attention to no nothings on this subject like Ubben.

:nerdalert

I've followed this stuff for years.   When you look at the scope of the WSC and compare it to other projects with similar scopes.  That being just pressbox/suites/clubs, ingress/egress, concessions and amenities on just one side of the stadium.   Not touching any other parts of the stadium or adding any new seating or redoing any of the existing seating in the seating bowl/decks.   WSC is one of the most expensive, if not THE most expensive project of its kind to date in the facilities arms race.   Yes, other projects have been more expensive but the scope of the project in every case has been much more expansive; rebuilding (or building new) entire stadiums, or renovating the entirety of a stadium.  WSC is just one side of the stadium, and because of the way BSFS is built there's not 10's of millions of dollars being poured into the mundane task of supporting the structure atop an above grade seating bowl.  Yet, that said, the projected cost is $75 million dollars. 

Stanford rebuilt it's entire football stadium, paying premium prices to have it completed in just one year for just $15 million dollars more than WSC.   CFU built a brand new 50,000 seat football stadium for $25 million less than WSC just a few years ago.   OU spent $125 million and that touched literally everything about their stadium, their "Vanier Complex" and other items.   TCU and Okie State literally rebuilt their entire stadiums so the scope of those projects is not comparable to WSC.    Texas Tech spent $84 million and basically re-did their entire stadium, and the WSC will cost $25 million more than the press box/suites and renovated restrooms/concessions they built.   Baylor is building an entirely new stadium from scratch. 

I've looked at, read the particulars etc on nearly every major facilities project at every D1 (FBS and FCS) school across the country over the last 20 years (and in some cases before) . . . WSC is as big time as it gets kids.   

Michigan basically built two WSCs and spent $226M...just saying. We're doing good, but not great.

[MadCat]

[meow meow]

Folks, don't pay any attention to no nothings on this subject like Ubben.

:nerdalert

I've followed this stuff for years.   When you look at the scope of the WSC and compare it to other projects with similar scopes.  That being just pressbox/suites/clubs, ingress/egress, concessions and amenities on just one side of the stadium.   Not touching any other parts of the stadium or adding any new seating or redoing any of the existing seating in the seating bowl/decks.   WSC is one of the most expensive, if not THE most expensive project of its kind to date in the facilities arms race.   Yes, other projects have been more expensive but the scope of the project in every case has been much more expansive; rebuilding (or building new) entire stadiums, or renovating the entirety of a stadium.  WSC is just one side of the stadium, and because of the way BSFS is built there's not 10's of millions of dollars being poured into the mundane task of supporting the structure atop an above grade seating bowl.  Yet, that said, the projected cost is $75 million dollars. 

Stanford rebuilt it's entire football stadium, paying premium prices to have it completed in just one year for just $15 million dollars more than WSC.   CFU built a brand new 50,000 seat football stadium for $25 million less than WSC just a few years ago.   OU spent $125 million and that touched literally everything about their stadium, their "Vanier Complex" and other items.   TCU and Okie State literally rebuilt their entire stadiums so the scope of those projects is not comparable to WSC.    Texas Tech spent $84 million and basically re-did their entire stadium, and the WSC will cost $25 million more than the press box/suites and renovated restrooms/concessions they built.   Baylor is building an entirely new stadium from scratch. 

I've looked at, read the particulars etc on nearly every major facilities project at every D1 (FBS and FCS) school across the country over the last 20 years (and in some cases before) . . . WSC is as big time as it gets kids.   

Michigan basically built two WSCs and spent $226M...just saying. We're doing good, but not great.

Michigan's pressbox looks like dogshit though

[sonofdaxjones]

Folks, don't pay any attention to no nothings on this subject like Ubben.

:nerdalert

I've followed this stuff for years.   When you look at the scope of the WSC and compare it to other projects with similar scopes.  That being just pressbox/suites/clubs, ingress/egress, concessions and amenities on just one side of the stadium.   Not touching any other parts of the stadium or adding any new seating or redoing any of the existing seating in the seating bowl/decks.   WSC is one of the most expensive, if not THE most expensive project of its kind to date in the facilities arms race.   Yes, other projects have been more expensive but the scope of the project in every case has been much more expansive; rebuilding (or building new) entire stadiums, or renovating the entirety of a stadium.  WSC is just one side of the stadium, and because of the way BSFS is built there's not 10's of millions of dollars being poured into the mundane task of supporting the structure atop an above grade seating bowl.  Yet, that said, the projected cost is $75 million dollars. 

Stanford rebuilt it's entire football stadium, paying premium prices to have it completed in just one year for just $15 million dollars more than WSC.   CFU built a brand new 50,000 seat football stadium for $25 million less than WSC just a few years ago.   OU spent $125 million and that touched literally everything about their stadium, their "Vanier Complex" and other items.   TCU and Okie State literally rebuilt their entire stadiums so the scope of those projects is not comparable to WSC.    Texas Tech spent $84 million and basically re-did their entire stadium, and the WSC will cost $25 million more than the press box/suites and renovated restrooms/concessions they built.   Baylor is building an entirely new stadium from scratch. 

I've looked at, read the particulars etc on nearly every major facilities project at every D1 (FBS and FCS) school across the country over the last 20 years (and in some cases before) . . . WSC is as big time as it gets kids.   

Michigan basically built two WSCs and spent $226M...just saying. We're doing good, but not great.

That's not the point, here's a little news flash, if the scope of work at KSU, were equal to the scope of work at Michigan, than you're looking at $200 million easy at K-State.    Building 2 WSC has about a $150 million dollar price tag, then touch all the other parts of the stadium like Michigan did and  you're looking at $40 to $50 million dollars more.

K-State is spending $75 million on a pressbox. 

[scottwildcat]

Folks, don't pay any attention to no nothings on this subject like Ubben.

:nerdalert

I've followed this stuff for years.   When you look at the scope of the WSC and compare it to other projects with similar scopes.  That being just pressbox/suites/clubs, ingress/egress, concessions and amenities on just one side of the stadium.   Not touching any other parts of the stadium or adding any new seating or redoing any of the existing seating in the seating bowl/decks.   WSC is one of the most expensive, if not THE most expensive project of its kind to date in the facilities arms race.   Yes, other projects have been more expensive but the scope of the project in every case has been much more expansive; rebuilding (or building new) entire stadiums, or renovating the entirety of a stadium.  WSC is just one side of the stadium, and because of the way BSFS is built there's not 10's of millions of dollars being poured into the mundane task of supporting the structure atop an above grade seating bowl.  Yet, that said, the projected cost is $75 million dollars. 

Stanford rebuilt it's entire football stadium, paying premium prices to have it completed in just one year for just $15 million dollars more than WSC.   CFU built a brand new 50,000 seat football stadium for $25 million less than WSC just a few years ago.   OU spent $125 million and that touched literally everything about their stadium, their "Vanier Complex" and other items.   TCU and Okie State literally rebuilt their entire stadiums so the scope of those projects is not comparable to WSC.    Texas Tech spent $84 million and basically re-did their entire stadium, and the WSC will cost $25 million more than the press box/suites and renovated restrooms/concessions they built.   Baylor is building an entirely new stadium from scratch. 

I've looked at, read the particulars etc on nearly every major facilities project at every D1 (FBS and FCS) school across the country over the last 20 years (and in some cases before) . . . WSC is as big time as it gets kids.   

Michigan basically built two WSCs and spent $226M...just saying. We're doing good, but not great.

That's not the point, here's a little news flash, if the scope of work at KSU, were equal to the scope of work at Michigan, than you're looking at $200 million easy at K-State.    Building 2 WSC has about a $150 million dollar price tag, then touch all the other parts of the stadium like Michigan did and  you're looking at $40 to $50 million dollars more.

K-State is spending $75 million on a pressbox.

[Gooch]

The new lights are up! They've really got some work done the past few weeks

East side?

[Belvis Noland]

can't we all just be happy with our Castle?  sheesh. 

I do hope they keep steaming ahead in this crap economy.  Imagine what the price tag for this stuff would've been 5-10 years ago.

[Pete]

can't we all just be happy with our Castle?  sheesh. 

I do hope they keep steaming ahead in this crap economy.  Imagine what the price tag for this stuff would've been 5-10 years ago.

Economy isn't crap, bro.  It's humming.  Leading indicators are great.  Work in my biz has been robust, and we are leading indicator.

[GoodForAnother]

according to my 401(k) the economy is doing badass

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, perception hasn't caught up with reality on the economy. We should still be pretty proud of ourselves for fundraising this thing in an awful economy, though.

[p1k3]

according to my 401(k) the economy is doing badass

I'd thank Ben Bernanke for that

[Katpappy]

Yeah, perception hasn't caught up with reality on the economy. John Currie We should still be pretty proud of ourselves for fundraising this thing in an awful economy, though.

FYP 

[Emo EMAW]

can't we all just be happy with our Castle?  sheesh. 

I do hope they keep steaming ahead in this crap economy.  Imagine what the price tag for this stuff would've been 5-10 years ago.

Economy isn't crap, bro.  It's humming.  Leading indicators are great.  Work in my biz has been robust, and we are leading indicator.

Western Europe leading indicators disagree. 

[Belvis Noland]

when I say economy is crap, i'm more referring to the commercial construction industry.  I'm not a rocket surgeon, but I know KSU had very good timing when it began all of this stuff, BSFS, BBTF.  labor and material costs were low, as were GC's profit margins.  We are building this Castle for a fraction of what it would've cost 5-10 years ago.   

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

The new lights are up! They've really got some work done the past few weeks

East side?

West

[Big Sam]

Maybe what Ubbs thinks we're missing are some trees and a limestone wall?

I think what Ubbs is missing is that this is Phase 2.5 of 6.

I believe his panties are in a bunch because he is worried that Currie won't float some extra cash for a booster seat for him in the pressbox.  Without it he fears he won't be able to see over the work counter top to watch the game.

[ArchE_Cat]

when I say economy is crap, i'm more referring to the commercial construction industry.  I'm not a rocket surgeon, but I know KSU had very good timing when it began all of this stuff, BSFS, BBTF.  labor and material costs were low, as were GC's profit margins.  We are building this Castle for a fraction of what it would've cost 5-10 years ago.

I'm a consulting structural engineer and we are freaking busy. material costs aren't down. the gc's we work with have pretty thin margins sometimes. Then main difference we are seeing now is heavier coordination and much more accurate pricing, and also faster delivery times. basically people are saving money on construction because all the monkey business wiggle room has been removed. if a gc wants a job the price and time better be on, clients aren't paying up front for what if scenarios that never happened and end up as huge profit margins for gc's (and "value engineering bonuses" for consultants from the gc.

[GoodForAnother]

you can see some dudes moving around on the sideline from the north cam!   

[GoodForAnother]

[ew2x4]

I don't think it's veneer, but only because I seem to recall seeing large pallets of stone in the photos.  I suppose they could have been pallets of veneer.   

It's not structural, hence it is veneer. Seaton and Anderson are the only buildings on campus that aren't fully veneer. Just not how it's done these days.

[Kat Kid]

I don't think it's veneer, but only because I seem to recall seeing large pallets of stone in the photos.  I suppose they could have been pallets of veneer.   

It's not structural, hence it is veneer. Seaton and Anderson are the only buildings on campus that aren't fully veneer. Just not how it's done these days.

Why?

[GoodForAnother]

Seaton and Anderson aren't the two oldest buildings on campus, so why are they the only two that aren't veneer?

[ew2x4]

I don't think it's veneer, but only because I seem to recall seeing large pallets of stone in the photos.  I suppose they could have been pallets of veneer.   

It's not structural, hence it is veneer. Seaton and Anderson are the only buildings on campus that aren't fully veneer. Just not how it's done these days.

Why?

Monolithic stone doesn't drain, and isn't insulative. And it's much much much more expensive. Just not worth it.

GFA- Should have said the only ones I've been in or know about. Stuff like Kedzie, I've never been in. Not sure if Fairchild is or not.