New Athlete Center

BuzzDraft said:
I'm pretty surprised at the lack of informed responses here. This is no surprise, the designs and artist conceptions for the building have been online for a couple years and throughout the fundraising effort, with links to donate.

Also, this is a capital/facilities expense versus an operational expense. Do people understand the difference?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's been known about since AI2020 was announced. Not sure what you mean by capital vs operational in this context. Unless I'm misinformed, we still have debt service on our last major round of projects and that debt service impacts our operations budget. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
 
00Burdell said:
The design is awful, the perspective is off, the scale is off - these are not design development drawings - these are poorly done concept sketches by an illustrator who didn't put a lot of effort into it.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but I don't think it will be very much different than the renderings. Todd's vision for the building is 'commercial high tech office building'. He likes to promote the fact that his athletes can get a high paying job outside of sports and thinks this supports his message.
 
clapper said:
Maybe so, but I don't think it will be very much different than the renderings. Todd's vision for the building is 'commercial high tech office building'. He likes to promote the fact that his athletes can get a high paying job outside of sports and thinks this supports his message.
Click to expand...
I get that and I suspect you are correct. But the amateur hour character of the illustrations bothers me - no top shelf architectural firm would allow those illustrations to see the light of day.

I admit that having worked for top shelf arch firms in ATL back in the day, I'm a bit more observant and I understand that what concerns me might not be obvious to the general public but these illustrations are bush league and I hope they are not indicative of the effort/budget that goes into the finished product.
 
00Burdell said:
I get that and I suspect you are correct. But the amateur hour character of the illustrations bothers me - no top shelf architectural firm would allow those illustrations to see the light of day.

I admit that having worked for top shelf arch firms in ATL back in the day, I'm a bit more observant and I understand that what concerns me might not be obvious to the general public but these illustrations are bush league and I hope they are not indicative of the effort/budget that goes into the finished product.
Click to expand...

OK CAD Cop
 
ee8384 said:
When are they going to get around to doing anything to improve the stadium?
Click to expand...
Step 1: Copy the design of the cantilevered shade at the top of the rendering below.
Step 2: Make it twice the size. Angle it down ~30 degrees.
Step 3: Install it over the Upper East.
Step 4: Profit.

iu
 
gtleviathan said:
Step 1: Copy the design of the cantilevered shade at the top of the rendering below.
Step 2: Make it twice the size. Angle it down ~30 degrees.
Step 3: Install it over the Upper East.
Step 4: Profit.

iu
Click to expand...

looks much better from that angle than the ugly disjointed look it has from the outside.
 
ee8384 said:
When are they going to get around to doing anything to improve the stadium?
Click to expand...

What do you have in mind? They did a lot of aesthetic stuff in the last couple of years (painting walls and even the underside of upper east, signage, lighting, etc., plus the dubious “upgrade” to turf).

Short of tearing it down and starting over, there’s a limit to what they can do about some of the problem areas (like the narrow east concourses that are constrained by Techwood Dr., and the “if you touch it you’ll have to comply with ADA” status of the west stands).

There have been surveys in the last year or two about interest in upgrades that, quite frankly, seem focused on everything but the actual experience of watching a football game. I’m a dying breed, obviously, but that’s why I go to the stadium - not to eat, drink, or socialize except as incidental to watching the game.

JRjr
 
Last edited:
vapspwi said:
What do you have in mind? They did a lot of aesthetic stuff in the last couple of years (painting walls and even the underside of upper north, signage, lighting, etc., plus the dubious “upgrade” to turf).

Short of tearing it down and starting over, there’s a limit to what they can do about some of the problem areas (like the narrow east concourses that are constrained by Techwood Dr., and the “if you touch it you’ll have to comply with ADA” status of the west stands).

There have been surveys in the last year or two about interest in upgrades that, quite frankly, seem focused on everything but the actual experience of watching a football game. I’m a dying breed, obviously, but that’s why I go to the stadium - not to eat, drink, or socialize except ad incidental to watching the game.

JRjr
Click to expand...

BDS is "quaint" but IMO needs to be replaced. I am aware of all the limitations due to being landlocked, etc. I was at Tech when the Edge Center was built. Here we are 40 years later rebuilding it, while the stadium has had relatively minimal and mostly aesthetic improvements. I have a suspicion that the long term plan is to move to MBS.
 
clapper said:
The rendering at the top looks nothing like the one at the bottom.
Click to expand...
Here are some observations after taking a closer look at the middle pic
bds_new_bldg.jpg


1. Where is the lower east stands?
2. That dude is like eleven feet tall
3. Nice light pole right in front of all the glass
4. Pretty sure that much light would set the turf on fire
5. Clipart people instead of the actual football field
6. What the hell is this?
7. Where is the goal post - the North stands don't look anything like that.

This is clip art crap.
 
ee8384 said:
BDS is "quaint" but IMO needs to be replaced. I am aware of all the limitations due to being landlocked, etc. I was at Tech when the Edge Center was built. Here we are 40 years later rebuilding it, while the stadium has had relatively minimal and mostly aesthetic improvements. I have a suspicion that the long term plan is to move to MBS.
Click to expand...
This might be the worst opinion ever uttered. BDS is in a league of its own in terms of history and setting. Trading that to play in GloboCorp Dome in the hood is insane.

What would you even realistically improve about BDS?
 
StraightFresh said:
This might be the worst opinion ever uttered. BDS is in a league of its own in terms of history and setting. Trading that to play in GloboCorp Dome in the hood is insane.

What would you even realistically improve about BDS?
Click to expand...

I mentioned it before when we were talking about the spring game - some high school coach or parent sittting behind me opined that BDS was the worst stadium he’d ever been in, an embarrassment in Atlanta, and we need to drop $xx million dollars and start over.

Maybe he was just afflicted with SEC “stadium = penis size” delusion, I dunno. Certainly BDS is old and not sexy like a modern stadium (in some ways part of the appeal, a la Wrigley or Fenway - we could do a better job of marketing that history). But when it’s full and rocking (it’s been awhile, admittedly) there’s no place better. Then again, I’m there for the game, not for the architecture and the amenities, so my criteria are probably different.

The funny thing is that when the Atlanta United borrowed the place for a while, people who had never been there before seemed to really like it.

JRjr
 
vapspwi said:
I mentioned it before when we were talking about the spring game - some high school coach or parent sittting behind me opined that BDS was the worst stadium he’d ever been in, an embarrassment in Atlanta, and we need to drop $xx million dollars and start over.

Maybe he was just afflicted with SEC “stadium = penis size” delusion, I dunno. Certainly BDS is old and not sexy like a modern stadium (in some ways part of the appeal, a la Wrigley or Fenway - we could do a better job of marketing that history). But when it’s full and rocking (it’s been awhile, admittedly) there’s no place better. Then again, I’m there for the game, not for the architecture and the amenities, so my criteria are probably different.

The funny thing is that when the Atlanta United borrowed the place for a while, people who had never been there before seemed to really like it.

JRjr
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are some dumbasses who fantasize about BDS being a giant pit surrounded by 4 square miles of parking lots in Nowhere, America, but they should be safely ignored. Only extremely tasteless boomer-ish types don't think Bobby Dodd is a fantastic stadium, it's absolutely the Wrigley Field/Fenway Park of CFB. It's not surprising that hipster-y United fans would like the stadium and I'd much rather have a place that appeals to cool 30 year-olds than 50 year olds who live in a Canton McMansion and drive a lifted truck.
 
StraightFresh said:
This might be the worst opinion ever uttered. BDS is in a league of its own in terms of history and setting. Trading that to play in GloboCorp Dome in the hood is insane.

What would you even realistically improve about BDS?
Click to expand...
Aw, c'mon. By the time we complete the Science Square, Financial Square, and Liberal Arts Circle, the campus will extend all the way down there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top