Man, I'd love it if it were there. It makes sense on so many levels, I think.
Posted on 2/16 2:01 PM | IP: Logged
All it does is delay the start by a month. It will cost $40 mil more to build there and parking will be problematic.
We just wasted a month by bringing it back up.
Posted on 2/16 2:32 PM | IP: Logged
Traffic backup on the Freeway would be a disaster !!
Posted on 2/16 2:42 PM | IP: Logged
It's the one spot that has real vision, however.
Posted on 2/16 2:49 PM | IP: Logged
It doesn't delay the start if they choose the intramural location. It speeds it up. You could start tomorrow because you wouldn't have to wait for the 2012 season to end before you could break ground. And we wouldn't have to lose a season off campus.
Posted on 2/16 3:03 PM | IP: Logged
Not if you have to add another $40 million to the equation.
Posted on 2/16 3:05 PM | IP: Logged
Why not MacGregor Park near Wheeler Avenue and Martin Luther King Boulevard? Frenchy's could pay for the naming rights
Posted on 2/16 5:13 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by coachv1: All it does is delay the start by a month. It will cost $40 mil more to build there and parking will be problematic.
We just wasted a month by bringing it back up.
Article says it does not delay anything. But good effort.
Moving to the freeway location adds $15M to naming rights easily. Obviously we aren't having the easiest time securing them. It means our first season in the Big East is on campus and not across town.
A freeway stadium is a permanent billboard and marketing tool for the university that will be seen by 250,000 cars every day. No college football stadium in the country has that sort of day-in, day-out visibility.
Posted on 2/16 5:24 PM | IP: Logged
I think the freeway location would be a pain in the butt on many levels. I like the current stadium location.
Buy hey we are in Houston, where everything important has to be located on a freeway frontage road.
Posted on 2/16 6:36 PM | IP: Logged
The estimated cost differential between the current site and the proposed freeway site was $42-45,000,000.
The only way this would be brought back up is if there was an interested party in paying for that difference.
Personally, on the one hand, I think the freeway site would be great for general visibility. On the other hand, it would be more expensive. It is way more isolated from the rest of campus (especially the dorms). Game day traffic and parking would be an absolute nightmare with far fewer ways to get to the stadium. Lastly, tailgating would take a big hit. Sitting in the shadows of the freeway for hours doesn't have a whole lot of charm...
Posted on 2/16 9:41 PM | IP: Logged
Well stated !!
Posted on 2/16 9:50 PM | IP: Logged
Wow, reading the comments to Sam Khan's article...there are some wild theories on the new site.
Posted on 2/16 11:25 PM | IP: Logged
You can build a billboard for a lot less money if you want a billboard.
Bottom line, AD expected approval for the stadium at this regents meeting and then 2 of them throw a monkey wrench and make them retrace steps that have already been walked.
Posted on 2/17 9:05 AM | IP: Logged
The fact is they reviewed the site originally and found it not to be cost effective along with other mentioned issues.
Posted on 2/17 9:06 AM | IP: Logged
New regents. Hard to say they shouldn't be satisfied we're doing the right thing, in this case, location, when asked to authorize $120 million.
Especially when the freeway location is clearly a better spot if we could find a way to make it work.
Posted on 2/17 9:30 AM | IP: Logged
I am leaning Coach V's way on this one.
Personally, I am a bit disappointed because we worked pretty hard to swing a gift that was 3 times larger than we thought we could get to honor my Dad. A huge part of our success was being able to convince the University to sign over the academic space to the Moores School of Music since my Dad had played in the UH ROTC Band and spent his whole life in and around the Texas Music Industry. At the "Robetson" site, this would make perfect sense. The new band hall, recital hall, offices, and storage facilities would be located pretty much right across Cullen from the main music building. On the freeway site? Not so much. That classroom space would be very isolated from the rest of campus. Sure, it might give us better visibility, but it would not be as good of a deal for the students, faculty, and staff at the Moores School.
Posted on 2/17 9:56 AM | IP: Logged
I'd also like to add that we need to stop operating like typical UH.
We just spent the past year raising money to build the stadium in a particular spot. Every donor has access to the feasibility study which laid out exactly why the current location is the BEST and MOST COST EFFECTIVE place to build a new stadium. Heck, we even went to the students to pass a referendum on a very SPECIFIC plan. It's BUSH LEAGUE to look at changing things now. I am certainly hoping that when our family foundation meets in April, that the non-UH folks that sit on that board don't have reservations about how we are handling things out on Cullen.
The time to decide on I-45, the current site, or MacGregor Park was a year and a half ago...
Posted on 2/17 10:19 AM | IP: Logged
No, not necessarily. Why do we assume that everything is as it was 1.5 years ago? Is it possible that new data exists, perhaps some new $ that changes things? The BOR are some pretty intelligent people who want to make the best decisions for the UH.
Heavens, if everything remained the same, then we should just go ahead and build the EZF like we planned 2-3 years ago. That would have been typical UH.
This is a big deal for the UH. Let the BOR do its job.
This post was edited on 2/17 10:44 AM by MadCoog
Posted on 2/17 10:37 AM | IP: Logged
If the new freeway site included the exact same facilities as the Robertson site, then the new band facilities would be just across Elgin instead of Cullen. The distance to those facilities would actually be close2 by 100-200 yards
Posted on 2/17 10:58 AM | IP: Logged
The freeway site would be adjacent to the old fine arts building and the Moores Opera House. Sounds like a more logical spot for a new band hall to me.
That said, I'm dubious that anything will come of this because of the additional cost, but I've always thought that the freeway location was the right one.
Posted on 2/17 11:02 AM | IP: Logged
I liked the freeway idea as well but that ship has sailed. To start having them revisit this issue because we have new board members is simply another delay as we are going to end up on the current stadium footprint.
Posted on 2/17 12:23 PM | IP: Logged
Suppose someone has come forward with $40M for naming rights if built at the 45 site. Would this make a difference?
Posted on 2/17 1:45 PM | IP: Logged
You want to deal in hypotheticals? Fine go ahead. I don't.
Posted on 2/17 1:48 PM | IP: Logged
How about someone pay only $30 million in naming rights and go with the plan to build at the Rob's current location where the cost to build is $45 million less.
Posted on 2/17 2:25 PM | IP: Logged
I can't believe somebody is serious about coming in at the 11th hour to drop $45M on this. It sounds more like a zillionaire wanting to put on a dog and pony show in front of the BOR, with probably nothing more than just a "private study" in his briefcase.
Posted on 2/17 3:42 PM | IP: Logged
Nobody said that.
What happened was that two of the new regents wanted to make sure that we're doing the right thing before we commit to $120 million. I can't fault those guys for that.
Posted on 2/17 3:52 PM | IP: Logged
As long as the "new" BOR persons do not have any interest in said move. After all, BOR members are political appointees.
When the original plans were studied, we also had BOR members.
Posted on 2/17 4:24 PM | IP: Logged
Uh, last time I checked, there was a LARGE parking lot between The Moores School and Elgin @ Cullen. Additionally, most music students and staff use the rear entrance of the current building to go to and from the current stadium and pavilion.
However, asking the kids to walk further isn't the larger issue. My main problem is the fact that every piece of literature that I had to show family members, board members, and other trustees to donate to UH, shows the stadium at the Robertson site. Every meeting that my uncle from Rice sat in on, the location had been settled upon. We worked long and hard to secure a donation that is FOUR times larger than any other gift in our foundation's history and it is complete garbage to change things now. I am assuming a location switch wont affect the donation size, but that isn't a guarantee.
We've raised over $60 million. Papers and contracts have been signed. It's a bad public relations move to slow things down now and possibly change the name of the game.
Posted on 2/17 4:55 PM | IP: Logged
"No college football stadium in the country has that sort of day-in, day-out visibility."
Huh?
Posted on 2/18 5:52 AM | IP: Logged
I gather that no other college stadium sits on a freeway that has as much daily traffic as the freeway location would. Few cities are bigger than us. Few freeways are more travelled than that one. And of those that are bigger and more travelled - I can't think of any colllege stadiums that sit on them or in them.
Posted on 2/18 9:12 AM | IP: Logged
What a bunch of hooey - concern about the traffic being blocked up on game days if the stadium is nearer I-45. To begin with, we play on Saturday afternoon, not at 5 PM on Fridays. And the traffic would block up anyway, even if the stadium was still 3 or 4 blocks off the freeway.
Meanwhile, the increased visibility would be worth a fortune in publicity for our athletics program, the school itself, and for whoever ends up with the naming rights!
And - look at that 500-pound gorilla sitting in the corner over there: the value to the university of gaining roughly 1/4 the additional space for academics, as compared to the rest of the campus used for that purpose - and in the perfect location for future expansion!!!!!!!
Move the General Services operations elsewhere, and let's get on with the program!
Posted on 2/18 2:36 PM | IP: Logged
Boy, I am sure glad that we are arguing about where to build the stadium, impact on traffic, how big it should be, impact on other buildings, etc.
Not long ago, the consensus seemed to be that we would never build anything.
Let's do it right. Let the BOR do its job and make sure that what we do is the best for the University.
And please don't say that you already know what is best, unless you sit on the BOR and have all the data available to you.
Posted on 2/18 3:14 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by coachv1: You can build a billboard for a lot less money if you want a billboard.
Bottom line, AD expected approval for the stadium at this regents meeting and then 2 of them throw a monkey wrench and make them retrace steps that have already been walked.
If that was the case, "Reliant Energy" would of did that ....
Making the stadium on I-45 would definitely convince a company to pay even more to have their name on the stadium.
Posted on 2/18 6:53 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by GatoRojo: I gather that no other college stadium sits on a freeway that has as much daily traffic as the freeway location would. Few cities are bigger than us. Few freeways are more travelled than that one. And of those that are bigger and more travelled - I can't think of any colllege stadiums that sit on them or in them.
University of Texas in Austin
Posted on 2/18 6:56 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by jawgemo:
Originally posted by GatoRojo: I gather that no other college stadium sits on a freeway that has as much daily traffic as the freeway location would. Few cities are bigger than us. Few freeways are more travelled than that one. And of those that are bigger and more travelled - I can't think of any colllege stadiums that sit on them or in them.
University of Texas in Austin
I hope you're not saying 35 in Austin has more traffic than 45...
Posted on 2/18 9:28 PM | IP: Logged
I don't claim to have checked thoroughly, but comparable ones might be the already mentioned UT (THE major freeway in a smaller city vs. one of several in Houston), as well as Ga Tech in Atlanta, and there are several other big city schools. LA Memorial Coliseum appears to be within about 1000' of a freeway although I don't know how that distance or the view would compare with our option.
Posted on 2/18 10:09 PM | IP: Logged
Where did you get that info?
Posted on 2/19 12:06 AM | IP: Logged
And a few negative Nellies have posted that building on the freeway would make it impossible to preserve the view of downtown.
NOT TRUE! I drove down Elgin, heading west, on the way to the basketball game last night and took notice of the view. The downtown skyline looks like it is going to hit you right in the windshield!
Posted on 2/19 2:25 PM | IP: Logged
If having the new stadium near the freeway enhances the value of the naming right, and the 2013 games can be played at Robertson instead of Reliant, would that help offset the additional costs?
As for the new stadium taking over a parking lot, wouldn't that be temporary? Coudln't a lot or garage be built where Robertson currently stands?
Posted on 2/19 8:46 PM | IP: Logged
Come on guys. This is simple math.
The cost to build is 120 million. We want naming rights to CLOSE the gap between what we have raised and what we need. If we only get 10 million for the naming rights on the Robetson site---then we still need to raise 110 million from other sources. If we move the stadium the cost goes to 165 million. We would need to get $55 million for the naming rights just to break even with the much lower 10 million dollar Robertson site naming rights. Put a sign on the freeway for the naming rights sponsor if thats what he wants, but I doubt there is any way for us to come out ahead by moving the stadium. Besides, the roar of the freeway in the background would completely ruin the game day atmoshphere.
This post was edited on 2/21 12:29 AM by caffienatedCoog
Posted on 2/19 9:56 PM | IP: Logged
Besides, the roar of the freeway in the background would completely ruin the game day atmoshphere.
Not to argue with your math, but the above is not significant. When we play our games, the roar of the stadium completely dominates the wimpy sounds from the freeway.
Posted on 2/20 6:59 AM | IP: Logged
For real.
Posted on 2/20 8:29 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by dinkywinky: If having the new stadium near the freeway enhances the value of the naming right, and the 2013 games can be played at Robertson instead of Reliant, would that help offset the additional costs?
Help, but only a fraction. It's real money to move the GS building.
I favor the freeway location, but I'm not blind to the costs.
Posted on 2/20 8:30 AM | IP: Logged
Extrapolating from these facts: Fertitta was the proponent of the review. Fertitta is a new regent.
Posted on 2/20 9:14 AM | IP: Logged
Much smaller town. And a town where UT is one of the two largest employers.
Posted on 2/20 9:15 AM | IP: Logged
When all is said and done, Fertitta will be a major donor to the stadium, regardless of where it is built.
Posted on 2/20 9:31 AM | IP: Logged
The LA Coliseum is just west of the Harbor Freeway as you leave downtown. While it's USC home field, it doesn't belong to USC.
And USC isn't trying to make itself LA's team, like we want to be Houston's team.
Boddy Dodd Staium at Georgia Tech is about a block off I 85.
Posted on 2/20 9:45 AM | IP: Logged
I was refering to the tailgating.
Posted on 2/20 10:12 AM | IP: Logged
I think the review is irritating but makes sense if the BOR has questions. I'd rather a review to get the BOR fully on board rather than having a member with questions. A question for the legal folks. Does Fertta's position on the board preclude him from having an outside interest in where the stadium is built? It doesn't bother me if he does. One of his theme parks would work. The city or the state will need to improve the access to the stadium. I don't believe the current setup will work. You'll have people stuck in their cars up on I45 watching the game. We can't have free loaders like that. ET
Yahoo! Sports
