It's football vs. forest in Va. Tech sports facility controversy

[bigesse16]

And to play devil's advocate. How important is a practice facility really? It will help with recruiting but by how much? And it doesn't necessarily mean we will start winning championships, nor is it the missing piece to help us win a championship. And who it is important to? It will help the players, but it has no impact on anyone else in the community and won't help generate extra revenue directly.

And how important is it to place the facility there? It's not like these professors or students are against building the facility altogether. They believe there are better places to build, which is a fair point. There may be and the school and athletic department should include the community in their plans to ensure that the best decision is made. It shouldn't come down to trees and football. It should come down to what the community wants and believes is best.

 

[VTscores]

And to play devil's advocate. How important is a practice facility really?

If you're going to put it in those terms, I'd say more important than 6-8 old white oaks.

I'm strictly on the fence on this one. In the big scheme of things, I don't think those trees are particularly important, but I'm still maintaining that this is a case of a shrewd arborist who figured out a way to create a PR battle that is difficult for the administration to ignore.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[bigesse16]

If you're going to put it in those terms, I'd say more important than 6-8 old white oaks.

I'm strictly on the fence on this one. In the big scheme of things, I don't think those trees are particularly important, but I'm still maintaining that this is a case of a shrewd arborist who figured out a way to create a PR battle that is difficult for the administration to ignore.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I respect that, but I don't think a practice facility is that big of a deal for the university. It's a big deal for the football program, but I like to think of VT more than football oriented, even though it's a big deal.

While you may be right about the professor, I think Weaver and Steager put themselves in this position because they thought that football was above anything else in Blacksburg. Since the Stadium Woods was designated as a green zone, they should have known that there would be objection to building in that area. Instead, they are driven by the dollars football brings to the university and in their arrogance thought they were above it. It was really poor planning on their part and now need to do the right thing and avoid any bad press in this matter.

 

[bigesse16]

And sorry if I seem defensive, but I was in the Public and Urban Affairs program at VT, and John Richardson (who is quoted in the article) is a professor in that department and I agree with alot of what he has said. It's an issue I have with the way the United States has built itself. It all about building out rather than up, which I believe is a terrible way to plan a country. And I think Weaver and Steger have really messed this up so far. I understand there aren't a lot of places to build on the campus, but they could maximize more by expanding buildings up rather than putting up new buildings.

 

[HokieChamp]

And sorry if I seem defensive, but I was in the Public and Urban Affairs program at VT, and John Richardson (who is quoted in the article) is a professor in that department and I agree with alot of what he has said. It's an issue I have with the way the United States has built itself. It all about building out rather than up, which I believe is a terrible way to plan a country. And I think Weaver and Steger have really messed this up so far. I understand there aren't a lot of places to build on the campus, but they could maximize more by expanding buildings up rather than putting up new buildings.

Totally agree. I was sad to see some of the lawns between dorms disappear as the put in new buildings and started renovating others. I can understand wanting to make progress and update old buildings and the campus in general, but you don't have to take up every square inch of space to do it. Also, I think you can build down instead of up...and underground/above ground parking garage gives you even more space...and you can always build things off-campus, kind of like they did with the math emporium (hated that place).

 

[HoHumHokie]

You can't just take an existing building and expand vertically. This would have to have been taken into consideration with the original design of the structure. It is very difficult and expensive to upgrade an existing building to expand vertically. Most of the buildings on campus don't meet current codes as is, and current codes have to be met with any expansion.

Parking was a major issue when I attended VT and everyone was against parking garages....now there are 3 or 4 parking garages. My guess is the trees will come down....it may just be a long drawn out process.

 

[hokiegrad]

I agree with the whole building up thing to an extent... except that y'all do know that's A LOT more expensive, right? Funding is not unlimited. And there's the factor of moving everyone out while the existing structure is demolished to replace it with a larger one. And would a 15 story super dorm really be the best fit for Tech's campus? From an aesthetic perspective, for one thing. I'm just saying, you have to make tradeoffs. Have they found the right balance? Probably not. People usually err on the side of "screw the future", and they almost always err on one side or the other. I've seen things that were run a lot worse in this respect, though. But we're getting off topic again.

 

[bigesse16]

You can't just take an existing building and expand vertically. This would have to have been taken into consideration with the original design of the structure. It is very difficult and expensive to upgrade an existing building to expand vertically. Most of the buildings on campus don't meet current codes as is, and current codes have to be met with any expansion.

Parking was a major issue when I attended VT and everyone was against parking garages....now there are 3 or 4 parking garages. My guess is the trees will come down....it may just be a long drawn out process.

It's not as hard as we like to believe. Urban schools do this often because they are forced too. The problem is that it may mean the building is off limits during renovations, which hurts dorms and academic buildings by placing pressure on other units that have to compensate. But it's very doable.

 

[hokiegrad]

It's not as hard as we like to believe. Urban schools do this often because they are forced too. The problem is that it may mean the building is off limits during renovations, which hurts dorms and academic buildings by placing pressure on other units that have to compensate. But it's very doable.

I don't know about how feasible it would be to expand up Tech's existing dorms. But let's say it's doable. It would be EXPENSIVE. If you're forced to do it, well, you suck it up. If you have other options, you'd be stupid not to consider them.

 

[bigesse16]

I don't know about how feasible it would be to expand up Tech's existing dorms. But let's say it's doable. It would be EXPENSIVE. If you're forced to do it, well, you suck it up. If you have other options, you'd be stupid not to consider them.

I don't know if it would be more expensive than building a new building. It depends on the magnitude of the project and it may not necessarily mean demolishing the building. If they really want to use the tennis courts for a dorm, then they really what they should do it expand smaller dorms that would not be expensive to expand and should be anyway like Eggleston.

 

[hunzworth]

A lot of good points and good information in this thread. At first I said that the trees shouldnt stand in the way of the practice facility now im more or less on the fence.

a couple of things:

- I didnt realize that this area had been designated a green zone. The last time i walked through those woods they were littered with wind blown trash and stadium cups. That was years ago maybe its been cleaned up since then . Regardless of whether or not they choose to build the practice facility there, the university should build some trails so that people could more easily enjoy the forest.

- If they decide against building in the woods the tennis courts wouldnt be bad at all.

 

[slntkilla]

I respect that, but I don't think a practice facility is that big of a deal for the university. It's a big deal for the football program, but I like to think of VT more than football oriented, even though it's a big deal.

While you may be right about the professor, I think Weaver and Steager put themselves in this position because they thought that football was above anything else in Blacksburg. Since the Stadium Woods was designated as a green zone, they should have known that there would be objection to building in that area. Instead, they are driven by the dollars football brings to the university and in their arrogance thought they were above it. It was really poor planning on their part and now need to do the right thing and avoid any bad press in this matter.

The practice facility would be used by more sports than just football - soccer, lacrosse, and baseball would all have access to the facilities to use. Moreover, this new facility would allow the Rector Field House to be converted to a permanent indoor track facility which helps out track and field team as well.

This new facility helps a ton of sports other than football.

 

[hokiegrad]

I don't know if it would be more expensive than building a new building. It depends on the magnitude of the project and it may not necessarily mean demolishing the building. If they really want to use the tennis courts for a dorm, then they really what they should do it expand smaller dorms that would not be expensive to expand and should be anyway like Eggleston.

On what do you base your conclusion that it would not be expensive? That flies in the face of reason. And as for Eggleston, that's a 75+ year old building. Chances of being able to expand it upward at all are slim, and for cheap are basically none. Not to mention that you'd have more people up in arms about historical losses to the university than you do over these trees.

 

[awaz]

It's not as hard as we like to believe. Urban schools do this often because they are forced too. The problem is that it may mean the building is off limits during renovations, which hurts dorms and academic buildings by placing pressure on other units that have to compensate. But it's very doable.

how many students chose tech because it's NOT an urban school though? building towering buildings makes the area seem far more urban than it actually is.. and i'm not sure its all that doable, at least not without demolishing the current building.. most buildings aren't built with foundations and support structures planning for vertical expansion.. demolishing a building to build a new one is far more expensive then just building a new one.. if you want these new buildings to have some foresight and be larger buildings that's one thing (i'd still be against that because of point #1), but expanding vertically would be tricky

and nobody wants to defend the tennis courts! i played a lot of tennis there...... i'd rather be able to play tennis then walk in the woods.. but if they are planning a new set of courts (where? anybody know?) then i suppose that's ok

isn't there room over by the baseball field for a practice facility?

 

[hunzworth]

isn't there room over by the baseball field for a practice facility?

I like the idea of the practice facility being as short a walk as possible from the practice field. That way the day to day routine of getting ready and out to practice is changed as little as possible, its also good to be close so that if weather shuts down the outdoor practice they can quickly move indoors with as little interruption of practice as possible. If they dont build in "stadium woods" i hope they move no further than the tennis courts.

IMO there are tons of other places you could put the rec tennis courts and there is no real reason to have them near the athletic facilities. Maybe put them up near the tennis facility or down near the duck pond or something.

 

[hokiegrad]

http://blogs.roanoke.com/andybitter...r-report-about-stadium-woods-issue-on-monday/

 

[bigesse16]

On what do you base your conclusion that it would not be expensive? That flies in the face of reason. And as for Eggleston, that's a 75+ year old building. Chances of being able to expand it upward at all are slim, and for cheap are basically none. Not to mention that you'd have more people up in arms about historical losses to the university than you do over these trees.

I said I did not know if it would be more expensive. I doubt there would be any objection to renovating Eggleston because historical buildings are updated all the time and their historical preservation and integrity is still maintained through renovation. Even so, there are numerous buildings that were built within the last twenty years that could be expanded (Harper, Peddrew-Yates, Payne). This is possible, as GWU has implemented strategies for the next twenty years to help renovate existing buildings since they do not have space to build new. New construction or renovations are going to be expensive no matter what, but I don't think it would be more expensive to build on existing buildings because campuses are doing it. Demolishing would be expensive, but if it makes sense then they should do it. To me, building a dorm on the tennis courts make no sense because even though it is close to Pritchard and Lee, it's still on the outside of everything else. I'd rather see them improve other dorms than develop a new building awkwardly in alignment with the rest of the campus.

how many students chose tech because it's NOT an urban school though? building towering buildings makes the area seem far more urban than it actually is.. and i'm not sure its all that doable, at least not without demolishing the current building.. most buildings aren't built with foundations and support structures planning for vertical expansion.. demolishing a building to build a new one is far more expensive then just building a new one.. if you want these new buildings to have some foresight and be larger buildings that's one thing (i'd still be against that because of point #1), but expanding vertically would be tricky

and nobody wants to defend the tennis courts! i played a lot of tennis there...... i'd rather be able to play tennis then walk in the woods.. but if they are planning a new set of courts (where? anybody know?) then i suppose that's ok

isn't there room over by the baseball field for a practice facility?

Building up doesn't make VT an urban community. Does Slusher or Pritchard make VT look like a city? I do not know the details of VT's building structure, so they may be demolished, but it should be an option to look into.

Please defend the tennis courts, but at least with tennis courts, they can be replaced and moved.

 

[awaz]

I like the idea of the practice facility being as short a walk as possible from the practice field. That way the day to day routine of getting ready and out to practice is changed as little as possible, its also good to be close so that if weather shuts down the outdoor practice they can quickly move indoors with as little interruption of practice as possible. If they dont build in "stadium woods" i hope they move no further than the tennis courts.

IMO there are tons of other places you could put the rec tennis courts and there is no real reason to have them near the athletic facilities. Maybe put them up near the tennis facility or down near the duck pond or something.

the baseball field isn't THAT far away.. i think college athletes can handle walking a 1/4 mile to their practice facility? if it was across campus i'm with you, but the baseball field is just down the hill?

 

[awaz]

Building up doesn't make VT an urban community. Does Slusher or Pritchard make VT look like a city? I do not know the details of VT's building structure, so they may be demolished, but it should be an option to look into.

Please defend the tennis courts, but at least with tennis courts, they can be replaced and moved.

having one or two doesnt (or 3 if you wanna count mcbride too).. but if you build loads of them it makes it seem more urban.. i think a lot of VT's draw is the fact that its a pretty large school that doesn't seem like it, which i think is partly because aside from the 3 we mentioned, no building is really over 5 stories or so.. gives the school kind of a low profile.. maybe that's just my opinion, i dno.. i just think a bunch of taller buildings would decrease the coziness of the campus to me.. though i suppose the same argument could be made in regards to a lack of courtyards and open areas, just tougher to argue that one w/ the drill field and all

and on the tennis courts, ya i know, i was mostly being sarcastic because they are relatively easy to move/make new ones.. those courts get a lot of use though, so having tennis courts on campus is pretty important IMO

 

[hokiegrad]

Well it sounds like your definition of important is based on practicality, while those who want to preserve them feel they are important because of their historical significance. I think both are good evaluations of importance, but differ on perspective.

What is historically significant about these trees? Everything that happened in the past is historical, but not everything is significant. If someone wiped their ass under one of these trees in the fall of 1798, that's quite historical... but also quite insignificant. It's not like a famous treaty was signed there or something.

I think what you really mean by historical significance is actually significance based on the uniqueness of their age, which is something different. That is a case that can be made. But I would counter that unless there is some immediate usefulness (are we going to start having a bunch of scientists come here to study these trees for some reason?) that is not terribly important. You don't preserve something old just because it's old. Especially when there are a whole lot of other trees of this type in SW VA and so forth that are aging every day... if we discover some useful study of 300 year old white oaks 100 years from now, well, by then there will be more somewhere else (besides the ones that they're not talking about cutting down in this case).