Full Speed Ahead

Architorture23 said:
I am not totally sure of the ADA ramifications. It would need a full survey of the existing facilities, which I'm sure someone has done. You are correct that not every area or aspect has to be compliant but on a place that big, it is a big exercise to figure out. Obviously, the big bathrooms in the lower west are not accessible due to the ramp and that would be very difficult to make them compliant. But building new toilets might not be all that hard. The upper north is fully compliant, I believe, but the ADA has requirements that different tiers or levels of experience need to be equally accessible. For instance, if you have Suites in a hotel, some of them must be compliant, not just standard rooms. Same with tiers of seating in a theater.

Also big to note is that the ADA is not a building code but a federal law and the consequences for getting it wrong are potentially large and it is a big target for litigious entities.
Click to expand...
The reason the North stands and West stands are disconnected is because when the built the North they would have had to bring the West fully up to ADA compliance.
 
BigDanT said:
I suppose so. Prob gonna have to play in the Benz while they fix it tho. And I know how much yall love that :facepalm:
Click to expand...
I was thinking Georgia State's Center Parc Stadium could be an option, but I see capacity listed at both 22,00 and 49,000. Not sure which is correct.

CSB: The field is named after Tech grad, Pete Petit, who got his MBA at GSU.
 
clapper said:
I was thinking Georgia State's Center Parc Stadium could be an option, but I see capacity listed at both 22,00 and 49,000. Not sure which is correct.

CSB: The field is named after Tech grad, Pete Petit, who got his MBA at GSU.
Click to expand...
Think that depends if the upper levels are tarped or untarped.
 
JJacket said:
The reason the North stands and West stands are disconnected is because when the built the North they would have had to bring the West fully up to ADA compliance.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know. What people are asking is does this proposal also require the west to be fully ADA compliant and, if so, what does that actually mean in terms of the work being done and it's cost.
 
Architorture23 said:
I am not totally sure of the ADA ramifications. It would need a full survey of the existing facilities, which I'm sure someone has done. You are correct that not every area or aspect has to be compliant but on a place that big, it is a big exercise to figure out. Obviously, the big bathrooms in the lower west are not accessible due to the ramp and that would be very difficult to make them compliant. But building new toilets might not be all that hard. The upper north is fully compliant, I believe, but the ADA has requirements that different tiers or levels of experience need to be equally accessible. For instance, if you have Suites in a hotel, some of them must be compliant, not just standard rooms. Same with tiers of seating in a theater.

Also big to note is that the ADA is not a building code but a federal law and the consequences for getting it wrong are potentially large and it is a big target for litigious entities.
Click to expand...
There is something called "reasonable accommodations" process? The accommodations we made in the UN were more than likely made using this process and were deemed acceptable back in the day and I don't think any changes have been made to the law that would require more than what's there. We have an ingress path designated that leads to elevators with braille touch pads, cabs with laser beam door controls and that ding at each floor, that lead to more accessible pathways to accessible seating areas which are then served by accessible restrooms.

If the general public requests access to see an event inside the stadium we are set. The only unknown might be the numbers of seats that are required.
 
LongforDodd said:
There is something called "reasonable accommodations" process? The accommodations we made in the UN were more than likely made using this process and were deemed acceptable back in the day and I don't think any changes have been made to the law that would require more than what's there. We have an ingress path designated that leads to elevators with braille touch pads, cabs with laser beam door controls and that ding at each floor, that lead to more accessible pathways to accessible seating areas which are then served by accessible restrooms.

If the general public requests access to see an event inside the stadium we are set. The only unknown might be the numbers of seats that are required.
Click to expand...
Since the amount of seating required as being accessible is likely a percentage of the total, this would make it another reason why total capacity is lowered...
to keep the budget from ballooning due to falling into a compliance issue hole

But I do agree that various amenity options be available to mobile impaired, like which deck, also suites, and such. Not ridiculous, but reasonable
 
The biggest ada issues in the lower west used to be are steep, obviously non-compliant ramps down to the seating areas. However there is already an accessible path to the crossaisle (where wheelchair seating is located) via a ramp at the NW corner and probably one at SW as well. The ramps into the toilets are the other issue. Nothing else screams ada issue to me. The suites are all accessible via elevator and entrances through the building in the west. Not sure if there is HC seating in the upper west or if there would need to be, given the accessibility of the upper north.
 
Architorture23 said:
The biggest ada issues in the lower west used to be are steep, obviously non-compliant ramps down to the seating areas. However there is already an accessible path to the crossaisle (where wheelchair seating is located) via a ramp at the NW corner and probably one at SW as well. The ramps into the toilets are the other issue. Nothing else screams ada issue to me. The suites are all accessible via elevator and entrances through the building in the west. Not sure if there is HC seating in the upper west or if there would need to be, given the accessibility of the upper north.
Click to expand...
The SW entrance off North Avenue seems to me one of the most accessible entrances bc it is a straight, even, relatively short distance right off North. From there there is a ramp to some areas where wheelchairs can be accommodated, at leas that what I remember from when my seats were in LW, on the south end.
 
Architorture23 said:
The biggest ada issues in the lower west used to be are steep, obviously non-compliant ramps down to the seating areas. However there is already an accessible path to the crossaisle (where wheelchair seating is located) via a ramp at the NW corner and probably one at SW as well. The ramps into the toilets are the other issue. Nothing else screams ada issue to me. The suites are all accessible via elevator and entrances through the building in the west. Not sure if there is HC seating in the upper west or if there would need to be, given the accessibility of the upper north.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I entered thru the NW but are these ramps 1:11 with a flat spot "landing" every 25 horizontal feet?
 
I was just there at the game with my buddy (and alum) who is in a wheelchair. He says there’s no chance the ramps to the bathroom are 1:12. They do have flat landings. The ramp to the seats is also not 1:12 with no flat spot until you reach the seating area.

He was fine with it though, but could see others might have a challenge.

The main issue Tech has with ADA stuff is knowledgeable staff, and a way to see the tickets on the dang website and not have to call the ticket office.
 
Chair backs really needed to happen. High school stadiums across the state have those at this point. I do worry about spacing… I already drive my knees into the back in front of me.
 
They could basically do this by making the Stinger seats mandatory and charge for them as part of the ticket price, but I guess they will put in something more durable to leave in place year round.
 
For the amount of money we are spending we really need to recast the stands with greater space between rows. To spend the money to put in chair seats you will certainly have to take codes into consideration. That means our steep and narrow steps with no handrails will unlikely be up to code. If we are going to do this, do it right. Make it last. Even if we have to play one season in Mercedes Benz, let's get a comfortable, accessible, and up to date stadium we can enjoy for years. Capacity might reduce down to about 45,000, but that is no great problem. If the stadium is nice we can sell it out to Tech fans and not have to discount so many tickets.
 
Here's the plan:

Remove bleachers. Come in with concrete and fill in the entire West stands. Trowel it all into a slope that covers the existing concrete. Then, set up forms with the new row spacing, say 2 rows where there were 3 so you get 50% more leg room. Pour new concrete into the forms over the afformentioned slope and, viola, new concrete stands for the new seats!

Benefits? Seats will be higher and closer to the field.

CEs, check my work here.
 
Don't have a problem with a smaller stadium if it is a comfortable great place to watch a football game. Heck, the Braves went smaller when they built Truist, and no one is complaining about the smaller size. I'd rather have 45,000 Tech fans filling up the stadium than 45,000 Tech fans and 10,000 empty seats or worse, 10,000 Clemson or UGA fans. If it limits the number of FSU or Miami fans, so much the better.
 
ee8384 said:
Here's the plan:

Remove bleachers. Come in with concrete and fill in the entire West stands. Trowel it all into a slope that covers the existing concrete. Then, set up forms with the new row spacing, say 2 rows where there were 3 so you get 50% more leg room. Pour new concrete into the forms over the afformentioned slope and, viola, new concrete stands for the new seats!

Benefits? Seats will be higher and closer to the field.

CEs, check my work here.
Click to expand...
I went to SPSU. It checks out.
 
Yellow Britches said:
Don't have a problem with a smaller stadium if it is a comfortable great place to watch a football game. Heck, the Braves went smaller when they built Truist, and no one is complaining about the smaller size. I'd rather have 45,000 Tech fans filling up the stadium than 45,000 Tech fans and 10,000 empty seats or worse, 10,000 Clemson or UGA fans. If it limits the number of FSU or Miami fans, so much the better.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Keep the stands close to the field. Better site lines. Improve concessions. Improve every part of the stadium, not just seating. Get rid of Peter's Parking Deck, put a park in. Pregame stuff there, not on North Avenue. The North Avenue thing is an unnecessary blockage of traffic and is just a stupid place to have pregame stuff.
 
Y’all are crazy with your pipe dreams of more comfortable seats. Every stadium setup I’ve been in for the past few decades is packed in way too tight. I’m 6 feet tall and my legs are jammed into the seat in front of me.

I like the bench seating because you can spread out when no one shows up, which is always going to be the case at GT. Attendance sucked at the Duke game because no one wanted to be at an 8 PM game.
 
coit said:
I like the bench seating because you can spread out when no one shows up, which is always going to be the case at GT. Attendance sucked at the Duke game because no one wanted to be at an 8 PM game.
Click to expand...
And yet I was hemmed in with people (not regulars) in seats all around me, including a guy to my left manspreading me into oblivion.

As much as I like a good crowd, I did get spoiled by the empty stadium Collins gave us. A somewhat crowded game with no particular reason to stand gets pretty uncomfortable on the benches. I’m willing to give the chairbacks a try.

JRjr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top