Cassell renovations
I know we have been told the project is on hold, but curious what happens to donations tagged for this project? Do they remain segregated and if so at what point does VT determine that the difference between increasing construction costs outweigh the rate of return on any deposits?
65 Replies
I hope the exterior renovation goes through - Cassell needs it
I can live without the party decks on the interior, but the exterior and concourse needs a upgrade ASAP
(In response to this post by Hokiestock)
2y
Cassell's shelf life? At least I think at some point VT will have to consider whether it makes sense to continue renovating Cassell vs. building Cassell 2.0 somewhere on campus.
(In response to this post by kingofcassell)
R
RJHokie
2y
The original renovation project costs significantly escalated during and after the pandemic.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
it's an interesting debate
cant beat the vintage feel of old arenas - there's not many left - but can also see where a modern arena would could help VT and the NRV (i.e. events/concerts)
I was hoping they'd just renovate the exterior and concourses. I was not a fan of the party decks that the concept drawings had.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2y
For me, I don't care what the outside looks like. If I'm there, I'm spending all my time in my seat, getting food, or going to the bathroom. That's the fan experience and what needs to be the focus.
But overall, yeah I wonder if it's just time to start fresh. My last visit to Tech this year, both Cassell and Lane just seemed old and outdated in a lot of ways. Yes they still function. But if money is going to be spent, then Cassell especially is probably better to demo and build new.
With the requirement that it goes in the exact same spot on campus and within the athletic buildings footprint. And must use Hokie stone and must have some nod to the Cassell arch design somewhere for a nod to the past.
(In response to this post by kingofcassell)
R
RJHokie
2y
probably asbestos imbedded in some of the building materials. U Va delayed razing U Hall for quite a while because of the demo costs and asbestos.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
2y
fellowship” to the DEQ and other folks concerned about airborne asbestos….😁.
(In response to this post by Brewing_Hokie)
2y
operations South and rent the building. Problem solved.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
Students and band.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2y
could be removed and replaced with seats to complete the upper deck if the demand was ever there. I would hope that VT would approach the design of Cassell 2.0 and Lane 2.0 with that same vision even if the facility doesn't initially start out at its potential max capacity.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
B
bghokie
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Quite a bit. For sold out games it’s nearly impossible to navigate the corridors at halftime. Having concourse/lobbies out toward tennis courts on one side and Beamer Way on the other could allow for additional/renovated restrooms and better concessions too. Only thing I’m jealous of UVA is the JPJ arena which is very nice especially the concourses
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
same spot is it will force VT to relocate all the sports that play in Cassell to another facility for 1-2 years. What impact will it have on the programs impacted by the decision? How much additional money would VT need to spend on lease(s)?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
home, or just shut it down.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
R
RJHokie
2y
attendance, recruiting, etc. for both basketball teams and volleyball.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
but reality of running practices and matches for multiple sports is that they need a place to be.
It's a tough scenario. But unfortunately there are not really any other great spots to put it on campus. At least nothing close to where it currently sits.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
R
RJHokie
2y
built on Chicken Hill.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
the height of structures in the path of the runway? If so, then that could limit VT's options if it wishes to expand that way.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2y
At some point a hard decision will have to be made. My pure fantasy approach (and assuming all the money and regulatory issues can be solved) would be the following:
remove the current airport
use some land outside bburg/cburg to build a replacement airport
then play a game of shuffle with multiple areas
- rec fields move (replace with new Lane)
- chicken hill keep?
- remove parking services (replace with new rec fields)
- old airport land (replace with parking services and whatever those other buildings are next to it)
- tear down Lane (replace with new Cassell and new tennis center)
- tear down Cassell (replace with new Athletics offices and team spaces)
- tear down old tennis center
- use the space to put in a new aquatic center for swim/dive (maybe over by old Lane/Cassell)
- step 3...profit
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
consider adding seats to the stadium to meet the new requirements. A SEZ-like structure in the north end zone may not be possible because the road that runs between the practice field and stadium is considered an access road for fire and safety. If the road has to stay for that reason, then that would limit VT's options for the north end zone. Given that the East Stands, West Stands, and SEZ were built at different times and were subject to different building codes, VT may find it is more costly to connect the structures now and bring everything up to today's building codes. Also, the fact that the 3 structures were built at different heights and not angled so they could easily join each other could add onto the cost because it likely would mean part of the structures would need to be torn down so they could be reshaped for the proper angle.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2y
Bezos decides he loves VT!! A Lot!!!
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
when Lane is still a perfectly functioning stadium. Lost in all the discussions is the fact that a NCAA committee, with representatives from all 3 division levels, is still meeting to discuss the re-org of the association. If the committee is truly looking to overhaul the system, then the decisions made should be on par with what were made back in 1970 when the NCAA announced the creation of 3 division levels and 1977 when the NCAA announced the creation of 2 subdivisions for DI football. FWIW some DI schools were legally fighting the decision to be placed in the DI-AA (now DI-FCS) subdivision all the way up to the mid to late 80s. Assuming the committee does a complete overhaul of the system, I would expect a similar type of fight because everyone won't be happy with all the decisions.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2
2hhoop3
2y
unlikely requirement. Where did you get that idea?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
suggested as a potential change to make it more difficult (and selective) for schools to compete at the top level. Based on how things are shaking out that would mean at the P2 level.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
suggested as an out for the B10 and SEC schools to jettison some unwanted conference deadweight but, it is a laughable suggestion that it would ever pass or be a requirement for new conference members. Look at the current stadium sizes in both the B10 and SEC. That type requirement is unlikely to ever be added for a variety of reasons both fiscal and operationally related.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
was too low of a minimum in order to compete in DI-FBS for football. Some schools thought the minimum should be raised to 50,000. Others thought it should be raised to 70,000 or 75,000. If the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to compete in DI-FBS for football so they can have a home for their other sports at the DI level, then it is likely the minimum requirements issue could resurface again. Even if they decide to form a new division level, the issue should come again as they establish the bylaws for the new division level.
WRT the existing Big Ten and SEC members, I would think they would be/could be grandfathered if the minimum requirements were to ever change. At least I can't think of a legal reason why the Big Ten or SEC couldn't do it. Plus, I think there are examples of where that has happened in sports for one reason or another.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
tilting at that windmill. Given attendance trends VT's stadium size would be adequate for any school participating at the P2 level and grandfathering original members in only adds a point of contention should there ever be a move to institute such a requirement.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
using MSG as model and build multiple venues on top of each other with a good chunk of it underground.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Probably the easiest solution of all is to move all the non-rev sports into a new complex where the golf course sits by the duck pond. Then take the existing track/softball/baseball/soccer space to build Lane 2.0 so that it stays on Beamer Way. And Cassell 2.0 either fits in there also or takes the spot of old Lane.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Also, VT has a plan to build a big new quad of dorms on the golf course site. The new quad would also have a dining hall and student center.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
what I suggested in another post. I'm not sure there is any other option for VT if it doesn't want any of the existing programs to suffer while the new facility is being built. One question that popped into my head which could bring the the site of the track into play is this, does the practice arena and basketball arena need to be next to each other? I ask because I thought VT had a specific reason for building it near Cassell and that same logic should probably apply to Cassell 2.0.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
They could potentially redo the soccer stadium by moving the bleachers back and add a track around the outside of the field. VT's track currently doesn't have any seating to host outdoor meets, so it it is the easiest thing to move in the athletic complex.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
(In response to this post by UpperQuad)
2y
about 10 years ago. Keep it where it is, which is close to the athletes' dorm.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
else. I would think whatever the logic was used there would also apply to Cassell 2.0 too.
(In response to this post by UpperQuad)
R
RJHokie
2y
facility would be constructed which would include an attached practice facility similar to what we have now, and converting the current basketball practice facility to an athletic administration building. Cassell could continue to be used for wrestling and volleyball matches, the SPC, enhanced football administration and locker room, and other uses as deemed necessary and appropriate.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
R
RJHokie
2y
sufficiently lower than such requirements and far enough away from the airport. A better location would probably be down near the Vet School where the old Southgate entrance from 460 was located. A buddy of mine thinks a new arena would best be placed where the track is located and rebuild the track elsewhere.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
The current track location is the obvious answer.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2y
crazy how much debate that got for what is relatively a small patch of trees.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
2y
Administration not going to venture that route for a long time!
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
billion years from now. The Sun will go through its red giant phase and either consume the Earth or turn the Earth into Mercury before it enters the final stage (white dwarf).
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2y
the blink of an eye!!
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
blame because leadership over the years made the conscious decision to expand like a patchwork quilt instead of leaving space in between the facilities. Football would be faced with the same issue if it tried that with Lane Stadium. It is possible that VT maybe have to decide that only 1 facility could go in its current location. Although I probably would build Lane 2.0 somewhere else on campus so the football team could continue using Lane 1.0. Demo Lane 1.0 and possibly some other nearby facilities so Cassell 2.0 and Practicie Facility 2.0 could be built there. Then use the space where Cassell 1.0 and Practice Facility 1.0 for something else.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
VT spent a few hundred million dollars during the past 25 years expanding it and financed it with long-term bonds. It only gets used about 10 times each year. Spending a few hundred million to replace it would be a terrible return on investment.
A new Cassell could at least also be used for concerts and other revenue-generating events. However, it's still tough to justify a $200M arena when that amount gets you a few dorms and academic buildings. Men's & women's basketball together break even. We're not selling out many games. The only way a new arena could be justified is with it producing additional revenues, like rentals for concerts and other outside events or rental fees for luxury boxes.
What the university needs more than a stadium or arena is more parking, dorm room capacity, and on-campus dining capacity. It also needs a large general purpose events facility, because Squires and the Inn aren't big enough anymore for conferences, job fairs, and other large events.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
No HS tournaments, no concerts, nothing. There are dining facilities and a bar in Lane that get used year-round. However, the field and seats collect dust in the off-season, except for graduation.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
to get more use out of Lane than it is now.
(In response to this post by UpperQuad)
2y
Other parts of VT would LOVE to have use of those facilities. Job fairs, for example, could be done in the barn instead of cramped Squires, where they have to spread them out over multiple days due to lack of space.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
functions. I am assuming there is a logical explanation, even if people may not agree with it, for the decision particularly since VT is okay with wrestling holding a match in the Moss Art Center.
(In response to this post by UpperQuad)
R
RJHokie
2y
or changed significantly. Then they contact the donors to see if they will allow a reallocation of the funds to a different or amended project.
(In response to this post by Hokiestock)