Wallace Wade Upgrades

[Bluedawg]

The renovations for Wallace Wade Stadium have been delayed because of difficulty in obtaining a permit from the city of Durham for the University's $5 million project, administrators confirmed this week.

Renovations delayed for Wally Wade (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/04/18/News/Renovations.Delayed.For.Wally.Wade-3335248.shtml)

Hopefully then bathrooms can be done by Football season!

[Shammrog]

Hopefully then bathrooms can be done by Football season!

Typical Durham BULL! What do restroom and concession improvements have to do with "sidewalk standards" anyway?

(And considering what a hellhole much of Durham is anyway, sidewalk issues related to new renovations should be the least of their worries.)

I got blasted for suggesting (as the lacrosse fiasco was starting to fall apart under scrutiny) that Duke secede from Durham. Why NOT secede? What benefit does Duke get by being part of incorporated Durham???

[Bluedog]

Hopefully then bathrooms can be done by Football season!

The article directly states, "the restrooms and concession stands at Wallace Wade Stadium will not be completed before the beginning of the next football season." Perhaps you were being sarcastic and I missed it.

[GopherBlue]

Typical Durham BULL! What do restroom and concession improvements have to do with "sidewalk standards" anyway?

(And considering what a hellhole much of Durham is anyway, sidewalk issues related to new renovations should be the least of their worries.)

Shammrog, I take exception to your blanket categorization of much of Durham as a "hellhole". It seems that you either do not know Durham very well, or have a very narrow view of what makes a city nice.

Sure, Durham, like any city, has it's warts. But good far outweighs the bad. The fact is, Duke always has been and always will be part of Durham. And just like every other citizen of Durham, Duke must comply with state and local building codes.

Frustrating? Absolutely. I am just as disappointed as the next person to have to frequent the troughs in WW again this fall. But the fact remains - Bassett Drive is a mess for cars and pedestrians alike (not to mention the physically handicapped) for any Duke athletic event. Perhaps the project planners and city can put their heads together and find a reasonable solution for pedestrian traffic without calling on the lumberjacks. Let's take the time necessary to do this thing right!

[Huh?]

Obviously the horseshoe isn't giving us any good luck, lets just make it a standard bowl.

[Bluedawg]

The article directly states, "the restrooms and concession stands at Wallace Wade Stadium will not be completed before the beginning of the next football season." Perhaps you were being sarcastic and I missed it.

Actually slightly sarcastic. I'm hoping they are downplaying expectations. I had read earlier that they were still planned to have them finished.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

The primary source of any mild frustration I feel about such delays of the project revolve around wondering why those charged with planning the project didn't check out the local codes more thoroughly prior to the submission of an application for a permit. Having been involved in a variety of construction projects in Durham over the years, I suspect there are some good ways to comply with such requirements while preserving the character and essence of the desired design.

[Shammrog]

Shammrog, I take exception to your blanket categorization of much of Durham as a "hellhole". It seems that you either do not know Durham very well, or have a very narrow view of what makes a city nice.

Sure, Durham, like any city, has it's warts. But good far outweighs the bad. The fact is, Duke always has been and always will be part of Durham. And just like every other citizen of Durham, Duke must comply with state and local building codes.

Frustrating? Absolutely. I am just as disappointed as the next person to have to frequent the troughs in WW again this fall. But the fact remains - Bassett Drive is a mess for cars and pedestrians alike (not to mention the physically handicapped) for any Duke athletic event. Perhaps the project planners and city can put their heads together and find a reasonable solution for pedestrian traffic without calling on the lumberjacks. Let's take the time necessary to do this thing right!


Whoa - hold on. When I said "parts" are a hellhole, I was deliberately avoiding a blanket categorization. There are, however, far bigger building travesties in Durham than a lack of sidewalks near Wally Wade.

And, the renovations have nothing to do with that anyway. Now, the way building codes work this may or may not be a requirement to do anything unrelated - just as this bureaucratic hassle may or may not have anything to do with the fact that it is Duke that is applying to make them. The lacrosse scandal should have shown us that Duke is a convenient lightning-rod for many in Durham to base their problems on; one that probably is not ignored by local politicians.

All that aside, the question remains - I can see that Duke brings a lot to Durham including being its single largest benefactor, employer, etc. What does being in Durham bring to Duke (that Duke wouldn't have were it separately incorporated or unincorporated in Durham County)?

[arnie]

Whoa - hold on. When I said "parts" are a hellhole, I was deliberately avoiding a blanket categorization. There are, however, far bigger building travesties in Durham than a lack of sidewalks near Wally Wade.

And, the renovations have nothing to do with that anyway. Now, the way building codes work this may or may not be a requirement to do anything unrelated - just as this bureaucratic hassle may or may not have anything to do with the fact that it is Duke that is applying to make them. The lacrosse scandal should have shown us that Duke is a convenient lightning-rod for many in Durham to base their problems on; one that probably is not ignored by local politicians.

All that aside, the question remains - I can see that Duke brings a lot to Durham including being its single largest benefactor, employer, etc. What does being in Durham bring to Duke (that Duke wouldn't have were it separately incorporated or unincorporated in Durham County)?

IMO living near and working in and around Durham, Shammrogs description of Durham is fairly accurate and No, except for Duke, I don't think the good outweighs the bad when comparing to other cities in the US. Compared to areas of Outer Mongolia or Sudan or Mexico, you may have a point.[/I]

[Duvall]

Should this thread be merged with one of the discussions of why everyone seems to hate Duke?

[watzone]

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/blog/Photos/WallaceWade/_archives/2008/4/18/3647288.html

P in it while you can!

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/blog/Photos/WallaceWade/_archives/2008/4/18/3647291.html - scenic!

[DU82]

Whoa - hold on. When I said "parts" are a hellhole, I was deliberately avoiding a blanket categorization. There are, however, far bigger building travesties in Durham than a lack of sidewalks near Wally Wade.

And, the renovations have nothing to do with that anyway. Now, the way building codes work this may or may not be a requirement to do anything unrelated - just as this bureaucratic hassle may or may not have anything to do with the fact that it is Duke that is applying to make them. The lacrosse scandal should have shown us that Duke is a convenient lightning-rod for many in Durham to base their problems on; one that probably is not ignored by local politicians.

All that aside, the question remains - I can see that Duke brings a lot to Durham including being its single largest benefactor, employer, etc. What does being in Durham bring to Duke (that Duke wouldn't have were it separately incorporated or unincorporated in Durham County)?

Wouldn't matter, at least from a development standpoint. There's a unified development ordinance for Durham City and County, and the university must meet those standards. Duke is pretty bad when it comes to meeting these standards, or trying to get out of them. Pedestrian facilities probably top the list. (And I do have some background on the subject.) Had I reviewed these plans, I would have had the same recommendations.

A simple question: how do pedestrians get to the new facilities (yes, these renovations are new facilities, for a public meeting place) from the surrounding road/pedestrian network? Walk against traffic down Bassett Drive. Not a real good, safe solution. Walking to Cameron from the Fuqua lot, one of the Iron Duke lots, and the one I park at, is embarrasing, given the mud, potholes, etc., on the "paved" path between Science Drive and the soccer stadium (where the walkways are much better.) Forcing Duke to spend a little money on basic facilities to meet simple standards is not a bad thing. (Similar to the threads about the basic facilities in WW that brought all this up.)

[Bluedawg]

Wouldn't matter, at least from a development standpoint. There's a unified development ordinance for Durham City and County, and the university must meet those standards. Duke is pretty bad when it comes to meeting these standards, or trying to get out of them. Pedestrian facilities probably top the list. (And I do have some background on the subject.) Had I reviewed these plans, I would have had the same recommendations.

A simple question: how do pedestrians get to the new facilities (yes, these renovations are new facilities, for a public meeting place) from the surrounding road/pedestrian network? Walk against traffic down Bassett Drive. Not a real good, safe solution. Walking to Cameron from the Fuqua lot, one of the Iron Duke lots, and the one I park at, is embarrasing, given the mud, potholes, etc., on the "paved" path between Science Drive and the soccer stadium (where the walkways are much better.) Forcing Duke to spend a little money on basic facilities to meet simple standards is not a bad thing. (Similar to the threads about the basic facilities in WW that brought all this up.)

You get to the "new facilities" from the stadium concourse. Why does access from parking lots for all over campus make any difference?

[DU82]

You get to the "new facilities" from the stadium concourse. Why does access from parking lots for all over campus make any difference?

How do you get to the concourse from Science Drive? Drive? Walk all the way to TowerView and enter there? Not reasonable for pedestrians, especially when Duke directs patrons to the lots on Science Drive (the lot next to 751 for instance.)

My comment about the path along the turf field heading to Cameron is from my inviting my former boss to the NC State game (not to mention every game after it's rained.) He needs a wheelchair to get around, and I park in the 751 lot. Trying to get from that lot to the soccer stadium was a challenge, because of the lack of proper pedestrian facilities, he had to travel in the street, with traffic going both ways. There's no sidewalk from the 751 lot to Science Drive, so he had to be in the ingress driveway, while cars are entering (there were cars/parking bumpers in the way to get to the egress driveway.) Then he had to go up a driveway to the path next to the turf field, which is asphalt and a mess. All this money, and Duke can't spend a little money to do something simple and necessary. It's a basic need to connect all public facilities with proper paths.

The article mentioned Duke trying to circumvent the process. That's absolutely right, and unfortunately a typical attitude of the Duke administration in these areas.

(As an aside, yes, we could have parked in the handicapped parking area, however the carts used provided no ability to put my boss's wheelchair up on the cart so that he wouldn't have to wheel up the steep hill at Whitford, which, after you're up the hill, you're dropped into the street/parking area as well.)

While on this rant, those heading to Cameron from the soccer stadium (those of us who parked in the 751 lot, or on Bassett Drive) who were following the pedestrian paths provided were usually confonted by having the visiting team's bus parked on the asphalt path connecting the soccer stadium to Whitfield. Really good planning there, too.

(Mods, let me know when to take this to the public policy board, I know it's getting close.)

[-jk]

How do you get to the concourse from Science Drive? Drive? Walk all the way to TowerView and enter there? Not reasonable for pedestrians, especially when Duke directs patrons to the lots on Science Drive (the lot next to 751 for instance.)

My comment about the path along the turf field heading to Cameron is from my inviting my former boss to the NC State game (not to mention every game after it's rained.) He needs a wheelchair to get around, and I park in the 751 lot. Trying to get from that lot to the soccer stadium was a challenge, because of the lack of proper pedestrian facilities, he had to travel in the street, with traffic going both ways. There's no sidewalk from the 751 lot to Science Drive, so he had to be in the ingress driveway, while cars are entering (there were cars/parking bumpers in the way to get to the egress driveway.) Then he had to go up a driveway to the path next to the turf field, which is asphalt and a mess. All this money, and Duke can't spend a little money to do something simple and necessary. It's a basic need to connect all public facilities with proper paths.

The article mentioned Duke trying to circumvent the process. That's absolutely right, and unfortunately a typical attitude of the Duke administration in these areas.

(As an aside, yes, we could have parked in the handicapped parking area, however the carts used provided no ability to put my boss's wheelchair up on the cart so that he wouldn't have to wheel up the steep hill at Whitford, which, after you're up the hill, you're dropped into the street/parking area as well.)

While on this rant, those heading to Cameron from the soccer stadium (those of us who parked in the 751 lot, or on Bassett Drive) who were following the pedestrian paths provided were usually confonted by having the visiting team's bus parked on the asphalt path connecting the soccer stadium to Whitfield. Really good planning there, too.

(Mods, let me know when to take this to the public policy board, I know it's getting close.)

I'll second this sentiment (and also vouch for DU82's professional credentials in this area). For basketball games, I park in the 751 lot. My wife frequently walks with a cane but doesn't have a handicap plate. The path - more dirt, puddles, and roots than asphalt - along Frank Bassett is very difficult for her. She either stumbles along that path or she dodges cars on the road. Neither is terribly pleasant for someone with difficulty walking. And there is no sidewalk along Whitfield, so it's all car-dodging.

(And I think we're nowhere close to moving this to PP; it's still very much an on-topic discussion of the Duke athletics experience.)

-jk

[Bluedawg]

How do you get to the concourse from Science Drive? Drive? Walk all the way to TowerView and enter there? Not reasonable for pedestrians, especially when Duke directs patrons to the lots on Science Drive (the lot next to 751 for instance.)

That was based on the fact that all that is being changed is inside the stadium. The entire "facility" is not being changed.

Later on when the make more whole scale facility upgrades them yes, i can see the fuss about sidewalks leading up to the stadium, but all that is being changed are the bathrooms and concessions which are accessible from the concourse.

I agree that access to the stadium is bad and changes really need to be made. however, this looks more like a power struggle between Durham and Duke than anything else. that need to wait until after the restrooms are upgraded. That falls under a sanitary/health issue that you would think the Durham County Dept of Health would want done.

[Inonehand]

and I have a mostly love/partial hate relationship with both. Honestly, I'd have to say this is the usual Duke arrogance that has held up this project. Some people in the Allen Building will NEVER learn...because they simply think they're always the smartest people in the room, even though that's been proven to be false many, many times.

[allenmurray]

IMO living near and working in and around Durham, Shammrogs description of Durham is fairly accurate and No, except for Duke, I don't think the good outweighs the bad when comparing to other cities in the US. Compared to areas of Outer Mongolia or Sudan or Mexico, you may have a point.[/I]

You could always move.

[DU82]

and I have a mostly love/partial hate relationship with both. Honestly, I'd have to say this is the usual Duke arrogance that has held up this project. Some people in the Allen Building will NEVER learn...because they simply think they're always the smartest people in the room, even though that's been proven to be false many, many times.

Obviously, from previous posts, I concur.

One comment on the Allen Building crowd, didn't we hear earlier this year that the renovations were already underway? Sure didn't look like it yesterday. Why couldn't they say that the plans have been submitted, and then later said that the improvements were under construction.

[DU82]

That was based on the fact that all that is being changed is inside the stadium. The entire "facility" is not being changed.

Later on when the make more whole scale facility upgrades them yes, i can see the fuss about sidewalks leading up to the stadium, but all that is being changed are the bathrooms and concessions which are accessible from the concourse.

I agree that access to the stadium is bad and changes really need to be made. however, this looks more like a power struggle between Durham and Duke than anything else. that need to wait until after the restrooms are upgraded. That falls under a sanitary/health issue that you would think the Durham County Dept of Health would want done.

No, it's a development/construction permit, not a health issue (they're bad, but not so far gone to be considered unhealthy, and that's only the bathrooms, not the concession stands, which are not in question of being sanitary as far as I can tell. Although I must admit I haven't noticed a sanitary rating hanging on the wall in the past.)

All businesses doing renovations need a building permit, and in some instances a development site plan approval. This includes Duke, and in particular includes these renovations. Regarding your comment, at what stage do the upgrades need to provide the access to the facility? All the other improvements planned are "inside the stadium" (broad definition, at least, of being inside the gates). It was these upgrades that came first, and Duke is now being required to bring the facility up to code. (This isn't maintenance or repair, these are new facilities for the stadium.)

Duke is very bad at following the regulations. As the Chronicle article mentioned, Duke tried to circumvent the process by submitting a pedestrian plan. A pedestrian plan that had no detail, nor any timetable associated with projects. That is not acceptable under Durham ordinances (nor would it be under just about any jurisdiction.) I doubt it meets the standards agreed to between the City and University last year, either, on development/zoning.

It's really Duke trying to bypass the process, and getting caught. Weren't we saying the same thing about two years ago on the flip side, that certain entities inside the city (and county) were bypassing the proper process? Both sides need to follow the proper processes. In this particular case, in my review, the City is following the process, Duke isn't.

[GopherBlue]

IMO living near and working in and around Durham, Shammrogs description of Durham is fairly accurate and No, except for Duke, I don't think the good outweighs the bad when comparing to other cities in the US. Compared to areas of Outer Mongolia or Sudan or Mexico, you may have a point.[/I]

Yeah, good one - Durham should be compared to a developing country.

I'm really not sure whether to believe the Durham haters in the crowd are uninformed, unwilling to explore and form their own opinions, or are truly as arrogant and superior as they come off.

A bit of objective data supporting the notion that Durham is not such a bad place:


Durham ranked #3 small market in US for 'Best Cities for Relocating Families' (Worldwide ERC & Primacy, 2007) - interestingly, Raleigh-Cary ranked #3 in US in medium-sized market category; Greensboro #11 (medium), and Asheville #23 (small)
Durham ranked #12 city in US for Business & Careers (Forbes, 2008) - Raleigh ranked #1
Durham ranked #20 'Top City to Educate Your Child' (Forbes, 2008) - the only metro area in NC to make this list
Durham ranked #15 in US 'Best Places to Live' (Sperling & Sander, Cities Ranked and Rated, Wiley Press, 2007)
Durham named one of top-100 cities in US for young people (Alliance for Youth, 2007)
Durham ranked #16 in US for Best Green Cities (Country Home, 2007) - top-ranked NC city, Asheville is #25
Several Durham public high schools ranked in top 5% in US (Newsweek, 2007) - Jordan, DSA, Riverside, Northern
Durham ranked #22 most affordable US city in Cost of Living index (ACCRA, 2007)


These rankings reflect the many positive qualities about Durham that are often overlooked by the press and naysayers, including but not limited to:

Affordable cost of living
Arts & Culture: ADF, FullFrame, Nasher, Centerfest, Bimbe Cultural Arts Festival, Eno River Festival, Bull Durham Blues Festival, Taste of Durham, developing Durham Center for Performing Arts, etc.
Athletics & exercise: 2 Div I athletics programs (Duke and NCCU), Durham Bulls, many excellent youth athletics programs, ATT, etc.
Jobs & Business: Duke and DUHS, RTP, GSK, Merck, Quintiles, RTI, etc, etc.
Education: Duke, NCCU, DA, Duke School, many excellent public schools, NC Museum of Life & Science, etc.
Health Care: DUHS and affiliated practices
Shopping & Eating: tobacco district, redeveloping downtown area, Ninth Street,Southpoint area, many regionally and nationally recognized restaurants, etc.


So yeah, marginally better than Outer Mongolia, Sudan, or Mexico . . . and other local 3rd world communities.

(probably overdue for moving to PP forum):rolleyes:

[Jim3k]

That was based on the fact that all that is being changed is inside the stadium. The entire "facility" is not being changed.

Later on when the make more whole scale facility upgrades them yes, i can see the fuss about sidewalks leading up to the stadium, but all that is being changed are the bathrooms and concessions which are accessible from the concourse.

I agree that access to the stadium is bad and changes really need to be made. however, this looks more like a power struggle between Durham and Duke than anything else. that need to wait until after the restrooms are upgraded. That falls under a sanitary/health issue that you would think the Durham County Dept of Health would want done.

I know it's not quite the same, and I'm not a building codes expert by any means, but when you decide to remodel a home, put on a new roof, add some rooms, etc., there are a number of routine things you must do to satisfy a minimum level of safety matters.

About ten years ago, I replaced the old shake roof -- a real fire hazard, BTW -- with a 50 year composite shingle. One of the things we had to do to pass the final inspection was to demonstrate that each bedroom had a working smoke detector. Those are entirely unrelated to the roof (which was now safer than before). While a bit irrational on its face -- your point about the bedrooms being unrelated to the roof construction -- the fact is that safety is the only reason for the requirement. The smoke detectors are cheap but the safety they provide is invaluable. Same with the sidewalks. They are cheap and provide safety to the users who are at risk if they must walk in the streets. In addition, the sidewalks probably are required anyway to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public accommodations must comply and allow the handicapped reasonable access to the facility. The new construction (upgrades, if you will) provided an opportunity for the city/county to enforce these rules.

Notice that it is the building permit that triggers this stuff (also can happen when the property is sold).* This means the builder, who usually is seeking financing, can simply fold the code requirements into the building plan and into the financing scheme. It is much less painful that way than if the building inspectors came out and ordered a property owner to put an upgrade in place -- i.e., ordering someone to put in, say, new windows or a concrete driveway simply because they chose you as a target. This way, eventually, all land improvements really become improvements.

* Sometimes bond liens are paid when a property is sold. Other times, they may be seen as a tack-on to a building permit fee. Usually the bond has paid for some kind of neighborhood improvement -- storm drains, new roads, etc.

[Festus13]

Someone, please tell me I'm wrong, but are the sheduled repairs to the restrooms and concession stands really going to be delayed over the trees on the street? I have to say that this sounds very politically convenient for those at the school who do not want to see Duke football succeed!

PS- I know there were rumors earlier, just wanting someone to confirm the delays are real!

:mad:

[Inonehand]

There is no doubt in my mind. The dude goes to every game and cheers/groans. However, he no longer deals well with the city and the people they've hired lately to help with planning deal with the city even worse. Duke screwed it up. No doubt in my mind. I think the city would like to say yes to these changes but are tired of the maneuvering that constantly goes on from the Duke side.

[DU82]

Someone, please tell me I'm wrong, but are the sheduled repairs to the restrooms and concession stands really going to be delayed over the trees on the street? I have to say that this sounds very politically convenient for those at the school who do not want to see Duke football succeed!

PS- I know there were rumors earlier, just wanting someone to confirm the delays are real!

:mad:

No rumor, but typical of local "reporting" these days. The Chronicle had this story TWO WEEKS ago, and the Herald-Sun is just now picking up on the story.

As one involved in the review process as a Durham citizen (but not specifically for this project) I repeat my comments above that Duke and Trask screwed this one up. The requirements are pretty clear, and as the Chronicle story so accurately pointed out, Duke tried to circumvent the system.

[Bluedawg]

Someone, please tell me I'm wrong, but are the sheduled repairs to the restrooms and concession stands really going to be delayed over the trees on the street? I have to say that this sounds very politically convenient for those at the school who do not want to see Duke football succeed!

PS- I know there were rumors earlier, just wanting someone to confirm the delays are real!

:mad:

Im afraid they are:



The renovations for Wallace Wade Stadium have been delayed because of difficulty in obtaining a permit from the city of Durham for the University's $5 million project, administrators confirmed this week.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/04/18/News/Renovations.Delayed.For.Wally.Wade-3335248.shtml

[Duvall]

Yeah, good one - Durham should be compared to a developing country.

I'm really not sure whether to believe the Durham haters in the crowd are uninformed, unwilling to explore and form their own opinions, or are truly as arrogant and superior as they come off.


Or?

..

[hughgs]

No rumor, but typical of local "reporting" these days. The Chronicle had this story TWO WEEKS ago, and the Herald-Sun is just now picking up on the story.

As one involved in the review process as a Durham citizen (but not specifically for this project) I repeat my comments above that Duke and Trask screwed this one up. The requirements are pretty clear, and as the Chronicle story so accurately pointed out, Duke tried to circumvent the system.

From the synopsis on the front page it's the trees on Frank Bassett Drive versus a sidewalk which is being targeted. If you have ever tried to walk on Frank Bassett Drive during rush hour you will quickly realize that it's pretty unsafe. Bassett Drive is wide enough for two lanes of cars and head-in parking on both sides and that's it. On the other side of the parking is either a hill or a fence leaving no walking room whatsoever.

I suspect that Duke is balking because the cost to putting a sidewalk is more than just laying the sidewalk. They will have to either do some major grading and tree cutting, or move a lot of fence. And when they remove the parking from around Wallace Wade, things will get even tighter in that area.

[DU82]

From the synopsis on the front page it's the trees on Frank Bassett Drive versus a sidewalk which is being targeted. If you have ever tried to walk on Frank Bassett Drive during rush hour you will quickly realize that it's pretty unsafe. Bassett Drive is wide enough for two lanes of cars and head-in parking on both sides and that's it. On the other side of the parking is either a hill or a fence leaving no walking room whatsoever.

I suspect that Duke is balking because the cost to putting a sidewalk is more than just laying the sidewalk. They will have to either do some major grading and tree cutting, or move a lot of fence. And when they remove the parking from around Wallace Wade, things will get even tighter in that area.

In theory, the walkway could go between the south side parking and the ball fields/ID football parking, which would require minimal grading, but relocating the chain-link fence. It would possibly alter the field dimensions of the practice field (where nobody parks.) Another option is to remove a row of parking, and only have parking on one side of Bassett Drive.

Looking at maps.live.com's birdseye view (great online tool!) there appears to be room to shift the marked field over enough to fit in a decent walkway between the parking and the field fence on the south side of Bassett (that's the side closest to NC 751/golf course.) A pretty simple solution, one that wouldn't require cutting down more than maybe one or two trees closest to the stadium on that side. The "picket fence" row of lower trees at the entrance closest to Science Drive could present a problem (not sure if they could be relocated.)

In other words, plenty of options other than "cutting down all the trees."

[hughgs]

In theory, the walkway could go between the south side parking and the ball fields/ID football parking, which would require minimal grading, but relocating the chain-link fence. It would possibly alter the field dimensions of the practice field (where nobody parks.) Another option is to remove a row of parking, and only have parking on one side of Bassett Drive.

Looking at maps.live.com's birdseye view (great online tool!) there appears to be room to shift the marked field over enough to fit in a decent walkway between the parking and the field fence on the south side of Bassett (that's the side closest to NC 751/golf course.) A pretty simple solution, one that wouldn't require cutting down more than maybe one or two trees closest to the stadium on that side. The "picket fence" row of lower trees at the entrance closest to Science Drive could present a problem (not sure if they could be relocated.)

In other words, plenty of options other than "cutting down all the trees."

Since you responded to my post I want to clarify that I'm not the one who said that one of the options is "cutting dosn all the trees".

The only issue with removing one side of parking is that parking in that area is already tight and that's with the use of Wallace Wade. Once they renovate Wallace Wade we'll lose all of that parking (which includes the PT parking) and now you will also lose the parking along one side of Bassett.

The ability to place the sidewalk on the south of Bassett (I'll refer to them as the South Fields) would require the removal of more than just a couple of trees. If you're going to minimize the impact on the practice fields that will require more than removing "one or two trees closest to the stadium". You would have to remove all the trees along that side. And the landscaping near the entrance.

As for changing the dimensions of the South Fields they are used by the soccer and lacrosse teams to practice so any changes to their dimensions aren't as simple as you imply. Not saying that it couldn't be done, but there are more hoops to jump through than a "simple solution" would imply.

[DU82]

Since you responded to my post I want to clarify that I'm not the one who said that one of the options is "cutting dosn all the trees".

The only issue with removing one side of parking is that parking in that area is already tight and that's with the use of Wallace Wade. Once they renovate Wallace Wade we'll lose all of that parking (which includes the PT parking) and now you will also lose the parking along one side of Bassett.

The ability to place the sidewalk on the south of Bassett (I'll refer to them as the South Fields) would require the removal of more than just a couple of trees. If you're going to minimize the impact on the practice fields that will require more than removing "one or two trees closest to the stadium". You would have to remove all the trees along that side. And the landscaping near the entrance.

As for changing the dimensions of the South Fields they are used by the soccer and lacrosse teams to practice so any changes to their dimensions aren't as simple as you imply. Not saying that it couldn't be done, but there are more hoops to jump through than a "simple solution" would imply.

My reference was to Tallman Trask's comments, not yours, sorry for any negative inference to you.

There's more than ten feet on the 751 side of the south practice fields, and the fields can be shifted over without affecting the proper size of the fields, and there should be enough sideline room left on that side as well, even moving things over ~10 feet. That would allow a walkway to be installed without taking ANY trees (there are no trees inside the fence line there) with the possible exception of the lower "picket fence" trees (you called it landscaping, we're talking about the same thing) immediately to the right as you turn onto Frank Bassett Drive from Science Drive. That landscaping may be able to be replanted ten feet further back, or you could put the walkway behind the tree row. There may be a tree or two in the way at the stadium end of this line as well. But overall, a lot less impact to trees than Trask implied in his comments.

I have not done a field investigation to see this area up close since we've been talking about this walkway. (I expect that I may well do so if I get involved in the review of this project.) I do park on the field during football games, and must walk through this area for basketball games, so I am familar with many of the specifics.

My solution involves moving a chain link fence, fine grading and paving asphalt/pouring concrete. Not a major job. While they're at it, they can fix the potholes on the path immediately next to the turf field on the north side leading to the soccer stadium. That's a disgrace.

As for parking, I presume from your comment that you either work at or are a student at Fuqua (I assume that's who's assigned to park along Bassett.) Parking's been reduced for staff and students for the thirty years I've been around, starting with the parking lot that used to be where the Bryan Center is now. I'm afraid that trend's not going to be stopping any time soon. (Not that it helps you any, though, sorry!) But this solution takes no parking along Bassett, and probably only one or two gravel spots in the lot closest to WW.

[YmoBeThere]

Maybe I should cancel my trip to Wallace Wade this year?

[hughgs]

My reference was to Tallman Trask's comments, not yours, sorry for any negative inference to you.

There's more than ten feet on the 751 side of the south practice fields, and the fields can be shifted over without affecting the proper size of the fields, and there should be enough sideline room left on that side as well, even moving things over ~10 feet. That would allow a walkway to be installed without taking ANY trees (there are no trees inside the fence line there) with the possible exception of the lower "picket fence" trees (you called it landscaping, we're talking about the same thing) immediately to the right as you turn onto Frank Bassett Drive from Science Drive. That landscaping may be able to be replanted ten feet further back, or you could put the walkway behind the tree row. There may be a tree or two in the way at the stadium end of this line as well. But overall, a lot less impact to trees than Trask implied in his comments.

I have not done a field investigation to see this area up close since we've been talking about this walkway. (I expect that I may well do so if I get involved in the review of this project.) I do park on the field during football games, and must walk through this area for basketball games, so I am familar with many of the specifics.

My solution involves moving a chain link fence, fine grading and paving asphalt/pouring concrete. Not a major job. While they're at it, they can fix the potholes on the path immediately next to the turf field on the north side leading to the soccer stadium. That's a disgrace.

As for parking, I presume from your comment that you either work at or are a student at Fuqua (I assume that's who's assigned to park along Bassett.) Parking's been reduced for staff and students for the thirty years I've been around, starting with the parking lot that used to be where the Bryan Center is now. I'm afraid that trend's not going to be stopping any time soon. (Not that it helps you any, though, sorry!) But this solution takes no parking along Bassett, and probably only one or two gravel spots in the lot closest to WW.

For clariification, I'm not a Fuqua student and there are many, many, many other undergraduates, graduate students and employees that use those parking areas.

The landscaping I'm referring to is the area directly across from the bus stop at the entrance to Bassett. While trivial in the grand scheme of things it will be impacted.

You state unequivocally that moving the fence will have no impact on the use of the fields. While that may be true, given your use of the area I doubt that you know that for sure. While you may be correct I think that the teams that use those fields would be better able to comment on that. And since we haven't heard anything from someone in that capacity it seems presumptuous to assume that it is that simple. Hence, my disagreement with your characterization of your idea as an "simple solution".

Finally, putting in a sidewalk along the south side will place it very close to the trees near the parking spots. The only way to insert a sidewalk that close will entail a lot of root destruction to those trees, probably killing them.

Sorry for the disjointed reply. I'm not saying that your idea isn't the easiest solution, or that your idea won't come to fruition. But, your solution isn't nearly as "simple" as you seem to imply.

[Devilsfan]

If Duke is Duke then on the other end of the spectrum, Durham is Durham imo.

That said, I would probably buy season tickets to football again as soon as they renovate or tear down and rebuild Wade.

[formerdukeathlete]

as one who has been involved in land development matters, it would seem to me that what Duke sought was a variance. Building bathrooms and concessions in no way increased the seating capacity of Wade. Duke's approach seems perfectly reasonable, and Durham's intransigence not reasonable at all. Yes, pedestrian walkways could be improved, and Duke might have undertaken to do this at a later date when the Iron Dukes building were added, when the track were lowered, and therefore when capacity were increased. At this time, no, I dont blame Trask. Chalk another up to Durham.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Maybe I should cancel my trip to Wallace Wade this year?
I hope you'll plan to be there! It's disappointing that the renovations haven't started, but we can still fill the stadium with blue and white on November 8 (NC State) and November 29 (Carolina) and support our team.

[Bluedawg]

as one who has been involved in land development matters, it would seem to me that what Duke sought was a variance. Building bathrooms and concessions in no way increased the seating capacity of Wade. Duke's approach seems perfectly reasonable, and Durham's intransigence not reasonable at all. Yes, pedestrian walkways could be improved, and Duke might have undertaken to do this at a later date when the Iron Dukes building were added, when the track were lowered, and therefore when capacity were increased. At this time, no, I dont blame Trask. Chalk another up to Durham.

I agree.

[Inonehand]

I agree.

but Duke has gotten by with doing nothing to enhance safety or accessibility through a number of recent projects. IMHO, Durham has allowed plenty of leeway to Duke. Just put in some freaking sidewalks so I don't run over pedestrians when I leave games!

[Festus13]

Could they (without a permit) clean the bathrooms, replacing leaking toilets and sinks, unclogging any drain pipes, paint a little, etc while they ponder how next to delay spending any 'real' money on renovations?

:confused:

[DU82]

as one who has been involved in land development matters, it would seem to me that what Duke sought was a variance. Building bathrooms and concessions in no way increased the seating capacity of Wade. Duke's approach seems perfectly reasonable, and Durham's intransigence not reasonable at all. Yes, pedestrian walkways could be improved, and Duke might have undertaken to do this at a later date when the Iron Dukes building were added, when the track were lowered, and therefore when capacity were increased. At this time, no, I dont blame Trask. Chalk another up to Durham.

It is not a variance in a building code point of view. That wasn't what was asked for. A variance would be something akin to having a building too close to a lot line. This was related to Durham's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO, unified because it covers both the city and county of Durham.)

The project is adding buildings to the campus, and as part of the agreement between Duke and Durham regarding developments and zoning, Duke must comply with the UDO. (If I remember correctly, this was so that Duke received the University/College District zoning.) By not providing pedestrian access to the new facility (whether or not it's within the football stadium complex, they are new buildings) they are in violation of the UDO, and their agreement with the City. It has nothing to do with seating capacity. My understanding of the ordinance is that if Duke chose to renovate the existing facilities within the same building, a building permit would be required, but no development approval.

The same rules apply to a new building on the medical center side of things (including the new surgical building being planned) or a new dormitory. On a sports related theme, it applies to the new stadium seating at the East Campus field hockey facility along Broad Street. Duke will need to provide a street-side pedestrian walkway (sidewalk) along Broad. The running/walking trail inside the wall does not meet the intentions of the UDO.

The UDO is available online here: http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/

[DU82]

For clariification, I'm not a Fuqua student and there are many, many, many other undergraduates, graduate students and employees that use those parking areas.

The landscaping I'm referring to is the area directly across from the bus stop at the entrance to Bassett. While trivial in the grand scheme of things it will be impacted.

You state unequivocally that moving the fence will have no impact on the use of the fields. While that may be true, given your use of the area I doubt that you know that for sure. While you may be correct I think that the teams that use those fields would be better able to comment on that. And since we haven't heard anything from someone in that capacity it seems presumptuous to assume that it is that simple. Hence, my disagreement with your characterization of your idea as an "simple solution".

Finally, putting in a sidewalk along the south side will place it very close to the trees near the parking spots. The only way to insert a sidewalk that close will entail a lot of root destruction to those trees, probably killing them.

Sorry for the disjointed reply. I'm not saying that your idea isn't the easiest solution, or that your idea won't come to fruition. But, your solution isn't nearly as "simple" as you seem to imply.

I agree that I minimized the solution, there are issues as you pointed out. My classification of it being a simple solution is in response to Trask's own simplistic insistance that the larger trees had to go to comply.

[Inonehand]

Could they (without a permit) clean the bathrooms, replacing leaking toilets and sinks, unclogging any drain pipes, paint a little, etc while they ponder how next to delay spending any 'real' money on renovations?

:confused:

Why mess that up by cleaning them?

[formerdukeathlete]

It is not a variance in a building code point of view. That wasn't what was asked for. A variance would be something akin to having a building too close to a lot line. This was related to Durham's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO, unified because it covers both the city and county of Durham.)

The project is adding buildings to the campus, and as part of the agreement between Duke and Durham regarding developments and zoning, Duke must comply with the UDO. (If I remember correctly, this was so that Duke received the University/College District zoning.) By not providing pedestrian access to the new facility (whether or not it's within the football stadium complex, they are new buildings) they are in violation of the UDO, and their agreement with the City. It has nothing to do with seating capacity. My understanding of the ordinance is that if Duke chose to renovate the existing facilities within the same building, a building permit would be required, but no development approval.

The same rules apply to a new building on the medical center side of things (including the new surgical building being planned) or a new dormitory. On a sports related theme, it applies to the new stadium seating at the East Campus field hockey facility along Broad Street. Duke will need to provide a street-side pedestrian walkway (sidewalk) along Broad. The running/walking trail inside the wall does not meet the intentions of the UDO.

The UDO is available online here: http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/

It seems to me that Durham is struggling here, intransigence prevails, and we need some better intellect on the Durham side of the equation.

"The running/walking trail inside the wall does not meet the intentions of the UDO." What you mention here points out the subjective elements in applying uniform ordinances or development code to particular situations.

Here we have faciliities being replaced. The number of folks walking from parked cars to games does not increase as a result of these facilities replacements. Common sense needs to prevail, and Duke asked for a variance or exemption from the application of this "ordinance" or agreements entered into with Durham, and Durham should have granted the request.

To posters who suggest that Duke has tried to circumvent, throw its weight around, etc., in my experience Duke has not even closely played hardball on these and other campus development matters. Such as file a lawsuit against the City.

A common tactic of a developer turned down in a development request to build homes on a golf course - sue the county that refusal to allow development (such refusal based on applying uniform land development ordinances - golf course would result in too much concentration, not enough green space) was in effect a form of reverse condemnation of the property, seeking millions of dollars in damages. If such as suit is not dismissed early on, the county commissioners likely will cave. Now that is hardball. If anything, Duke's gentle coaxing is not enough.

I must say that in my view it is simply preposterous to hold up bathrooms and concessions over predestrian paths. Durham should have quickly allowed an exemption and given the go ahead.

[hughgs]

It seems to me that Durham is struggling here, intransigence prevails, and we need some better intellect on the Durham side of the equation.

"The running/walking trail inside the wall does not meet the intentions of the UDO." What you mention here points out the subjective elements in applying uniform ordinances or development code to particular situations.

Here we have faciliities being replaced. The number of folks walking from parked cars to games does not increase as a result of these facilities replacements. Common sense needs to prevail, and Duke asked for a variance or exemption from the application of this "ordinance" or agreements entered into with Durham, and Durham should have granted the request.

To posters who suggest that Duke has tried to circumvent, throw its weight around, etc., in my experience Duke has not even closely played hardball on these and other campus development matters. Such as file a lawsuit against the City.

A common tactic of a developer turned down in a development request to build homes on a golf course - sue the county that refusal to allow development (such refusal based on applying uniform land development ordinances - golf course would result in too much concentration, not enough green space) was in effect a form of reverse condemnation of the property, seeking millions of dollars in damages. If such as suit is not dismissed early on, the county commissioners likely will cave. Now that is hardball. If anything, Duke's gentle coaxing is not enough.

I must say that in my view it is simply preposterous to hold up bathrooms and concessions over predestrian paths. Durham should have quickly allowed an exemption and given the go ahead.

You're conflating two entirely different situations. The walking/running trail is on East campus, and I think reasonable minds can disagree as to whether it allows "adequate" access.

But tying up the concessions by forcing Duke to address the problems with pedestrians on Bassett seems fairly. Reasonable to me. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has had to walk or drive on Bassett after a game should be able to attest to the issues that the lack of a walkway incur.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

It has nothing to do with seating capacity. My understanding of the ordinance is that if Duke chose to renovate the existing facilities within the same building, a building permit would be required, but no development approval.
[/URL]

Well, actually it does involve seating capacity, especially in the Women's facilities :)

Not to make light of the situation (can I say that this wouldn't have happened if I were AD? I think I can...) but tearing down an existing structure to one remaining wall and then building onto that to get around new codes is a very common way of circumventing inconvenient (and perhaps impossible) codes. I saw extensive use of this "tactic" back in the 70's at my parents' housing development in Ft. Lauderdale. 5000 square foot McMansions were built where 1600 square foot homes once stood, sometimes spanning 2 or more lots. As long as they left one wall somewhere in the original house, they were good to build under the old codes, calling it a renovation. It resulted in some very odd configurations.

I haven't seen any of the plans - why haven't they consulted me on this????

[formerdukeathlete]

You're conflating two entirely different situations. The walking/running trail is on East campus, and I think reasonable minds can disagree as to whether it allows "adequate" access.
..........


I was just pointing out that the enforcement of ordinance or code standards involves subjectivity.

Discretion (and the quick go-ahead) in the case of the wade bathroom and concessions redos would have been the better part of valor.

Durham could have gotten their undertaking to address the paths when the new Football building(s) adding seats were constructed.

RE Ozzie's comment, now he is letting us know that his folks lived in a swanky area of Ft. Lauderdale, maybe Las Olas. By keeping a wall up from an old structure, one avoided the need to bring the lot up to 10 feet above sea level. Along a lot of the best streets in Ft. liquor-dale (sure Ozzie never took advantage - unlike me - of the 18 year old drinking age and activities at Big Daddy's) exiting homes are 6 to 8 feet above sea level.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

RE Ozzie's comment, now he is letting us know that his folks lived in a swanky area of Ft. Lauderdale, maybe Las Olas. By keeping a wall up from an old structure, one avoided the need to bring the lot up to 10 feet above sea level. Along a lot of the best streets in Ft. liquor-dale (sure Ozzie never took advantage - unlike me - of the 18 year old drinking age and activities at Big Daddy's) exiting homes are 6 to 8 feet above sea level.

Actually, no they didn't live near Las Olas. They lived in Tamarac at The Woodlands, which is just north of Inverary, eight miles west of the beach. In fact, Inverary opened a year after my folks built their home in 1969/1970.

I do have a very good friend who owns a house on one of the island streets off of Las Olas. Talk about McMansions going up where smaller houses once roamed! A neighbor offered them $2.9 million two years ago for their lot, just to tear down the 30 year old house and expand his property.

Wasn't the Big Daddy's lounge/night club on Oakland Park, near the Intracoastal Waterway? I spent more than a few hours there when home on break from Duke. Not to be confused with the Big Daddy's liquor store chain, where I didn't go.

[hughgs]

I was just pointing out that the enforcement of ordinance or code standards involves subjectivity.

Discretion (and the quick go-ahead) in the case of the wade bathroom and concessions redos would have been the better part of valor.

Durham could have gotten their undertaking to address the paths when the new Football building(s) adding seats were constructed.

RE Ozzie's comment, now he is letting us know that his folks lived in a swanky area of Ft. Lauderdale, maybe Las Olas. By keeping a wall up from an old structure, one avoided the need to bring the lot up to 10 feet above sea level. Along a lot of the best streets in Ft. liquor-dale (sure Ozzie never took advantage - unlike me - of the 18 year old drinking age and activities at Big Daddy's) exiting homes are 6 to 8 feet above sea level.

My bad on mis-interpreting your example. Sorry about that.

Regardless, you're missing the point that the current situation is not safe for anyone involved. Pedestrians need a better method to walk along Bassett and drivers need a better access to the roads without a bunch of pedestrians.

[DU82]

It seems to me that Durham is struggling here, intransigence prevails, and we need some better intellect on the Durham side of the equation.

"The running/walking trail inside the wall does not meet the intentions of the UDO." What you mention here points out the subjective elements in applying uniform ordinances or development code to particular situations.

Here we have faciliities being replaced. The number of folks walking from parked cars to games does not increase as a result of these facilities replacements. Common sense needs to prevail, and Duke asked for a variance or exemption from the application of this "ordinance" or agreements entered into with Durham, and Durham should have granted the request.

To posters who suggest that Duke has tried to circumvent, throw its weight around, etc., in my experience Duke has not even closely played hardball on these and other campus development matters. Such as file a lawsuit against the City.

A common tactic of a developer turned down in a development request to build homes on a golf course - sue the county that refusal to allow development (such refusal based on applying uniform land development ordinances - golf course would result in too much concentration, not enough green space) was in effect a form of reverse condemnation of the property, seeking millions of dollars in damages. If such as suit is not dismissed early on, the county commissioners likely will cave. Now that is hardball. If anything, Duke's gentle coaxing is not enough.

I must say that in my view it is simply preposterous to hold up bathrooms and concessions over predestrian paths. Durham should have quickly allowed an exemption and given the go ahead.


Thanks for the insult of my intellegence regarding the Durham side of the equation. :) (As I pointed out, as a citizen volunteer, I review similar plans for one of Durham's advisory commissions. And just to be clear, especially to the mods, the smiley means I didn't take your comment personally.) The staff for Durham doesn't have the leeway, else you get into a "you bent/ignored the ordinance for Duke, why not for me. There are passages in the UDO that allow for the flexibility/variance when appropriate. In my opinion(and the opinion of the very professional planner handling this review) this situation does not meet those conditions where a basic requirement can or should be waived.

It is not a subjective opinion regarding the East Campus walk trail. It does not meet ADA standards, nor Durham's UDO standards for walkways. Two specifics: the makeup of the trail (gravel/dirt, instead of a hard surface) and the discontinuity with the City network (if traveling along Broad, how to you get to the other side of Markham other than hopping the wall? I'm not as limber as I used to be when I hopped that wall to get to Aunt Sue's.) So, keeping this on a sports venue theme, the renovations, including seating capacity increases, to the field hockey stadium, require a sidewalk on the outside of the walk/hedges along Broad.

Are you in Durham and involved in the zoning process? If so, you missed a lot of Duke trying to throw its weight around. It wasn't until they came to their senses that the realized the only way to get things done was to work with Durham, and surrounding neighborhoods, to ensure a smoother process. This resulted in the agreement to approve the zoning/basic development concepts for Central Campus.

The facilities at Wallace Wade are being relocated, and in all likelihood, enlarged. That calls for Duke, as part of the univeristy's agreement with the City regarding this (general) issue, to meet the requirements of the UDO. In my opinion, it is not Durham that's being stubborn against all reason, it is Duke. (Let me re-emphasize this point, Duke AGREED to the conditions of the UDO as part of the rezoning of the campus.)

[formerdukeathlete]

My bad on mis-interpreting your example. Sorry about that.

Regardless, you're missing the point that the current situation is not safe for anyone involved. Pedestrians need a better method to walk along Bassett and drivers need a better access to the roads without a bunch of pedestrians.

pedestrians may need a better way to walk, but putting in some usable bathrooms and concession arrangements is an entirely different matter.

Wallace Wade need not be brought up to current codes in every respect, nor the entire Duke campus for that matter, simply as a result of fixing existing bathrooms at the stadium.

As I commented, an undertaking to correct the pedestrian path situation, at such time as the Iron Duke catered suites, combined training table, combined Indoor practice facility building were constructed, would have made abundant sense.

This sort of thing is done all the time, particularly with an isolated fix-up of an exisiting facility.

Ozzie, Big Daddy's Lounge, spring break, some good work done there. How about the Parrot Lounge, x number of beers for a dollar...recall being in there freshman spring break. Place was full of Notre Dame and Maryland ball players, as well as ladies who but for the absence of Ozzie4 found some time to talk with yours truly...rockin good time.

[formerdukeathlete]

The staff for Durham doesn't have the leeway, else you get into a "you bent/ignored the ordinance for Duke, why not for me.

Hey, DU82, my apologies, my comments were directed at paid staff intransigence & certainly not focused at all on your advisory committee work. There must always be leeway, particularly in a situation such as this where the fix-up did not change the number of pedestrians who would be walking to the stadium, and when an undertaking to fix the issue in a specified manner could have been negotiated between the parties.

[Inonehand]

Duke didn't take any of this seriously enough. All of this work should have been done years ago. Now, because they can't get it done, they are losing the confidence of the man they hired a few months ago with a bunch of promises for facility upgrades. Brodhead, Trask, and whoever else is involved needs to take football seriously or after a few short years and Cutcliffe takes us to a couple of bowl games, he's gone. You sell recruits on commitment by the school in the program and the school can't even get the toilets fixed and it is in the freaking paper. It is a joke. Durham is hard to work with sometimes, no doubt, but Duke screwed this up. Nothing Durham has said or done in this matter was new or news to Duke.

[DU82]

Hey, DU82, my apologies, my comments were directed at paid staff intransigence & certainly not focused at all on your advisory committee work. There must always be leeway, particularly in a situation such as this where the fix-up did not change the number of pedestrians who would be walking to the stadium, and when an undertaking to fix the issue in a specified manner could have been negotiated between the parties.

Well, separate from the facilities question, I certainly hope and expect that pedestrian activity to and from Wallace Wade will increase, starting this September!!

(BTW, in my paid job, I'm usually on the receiving end of those comments, including recently, from Durham officials! So I'm definitely used to folks blowing off steam like that, especially when you don't know the staff involved personally. I save my rants for IT "assistance" personnel.)

[Festus13]

I'm sure the powers that be can find some 'extra' money to hire 'extra' janitors who can clean the 'crap' out of those facilities and make them last another year ..... or two ...... or .......
Plus, let everyone bring their own coolers and charge an excise tax by the ounce ....... for food and drink ....... concession buildings can remain closed!

:D

[hughgs]

pedestrians may need a better way to walk, but putting in some usable bathrooms and concession arrangements is an entirely different matter.

Wallace Wade need not be brought up to current codes in every respect, nor the entire Duke campus for that matter, simply as a result of fixing existing bathrooms at the stadium.

These statements are simply not true in Durham, as has been pointed out beforehand. You may want them to be true, you may thing that there are reasonable and should therefore be true, but the fact remains that upgrades/changes to Wallace Wade require that a minimum of standards need to be met. And I'm willing to bet that pedestrian safety is one of those minimums.

[Festus13]

These statements are simply not true in Durham, as has been pointed out beforehand. You may want them to be true, you may thing that there are reasonable and should therefore be true, but the fact remains that upgrades/changes to Wallace Wade require that a minimum of standards need to be met. And I'm willing to bet that pedestrian safety is one of those minimums.

As I read this, I have all sorts of funny thoughts about relating pedestrian safety and using the john! Come to think of it, there have been times when I've had to rush from my car to the nearest 'facility', wherever that happened to be. This really sounds more and more like high paid government and college educated people trying to figure out ways to make life more complicated so they can make more $$$$$ doesn't it? I would just say fix the restrooms on a budget, fix the concessions on a budget, fix the sidewalks on yet another budget and be done with it. Now, let's play football ...... and by that I mean let's support this new coach and his program by at least doing these minimum repairs.

[formerdukeathlete]

These statements are simply not true in Durham, as has been pointed out beforehand. You may want them to be true, you may thing that there are reasonable and should therefore be true, but the fact remains that upgrades/changes to Wallace Wade require that a minimum of standards need to be met. And I'm willing to bet that pedestrian safety is one of those minimums.

with building officials, county commissioners, county staff, and working though uniform land development code, county codes, negotiating and amending undertakings, here is how I think it should have happened, and it certainly could have gone this way:

Duke undertakings to comply with the uniform ordinance with respect to the campus additions, such as central campus, and any other re-development of the campus as a general matter, could have been amended to permit the bathrooms and concessions fix-up at Wade without imposing the uniform ordiance requirements with respect to all pedestrian traffic too and fro Wade. I would submit that in most municipaliites this would have happened. There is plenty of precedent for this, and the reasons are not to punish a business or university for simply wanting clean bathrooms and concessions stands, such punishment in the form of many other upgrades (pedestrian paths) which make the minor repair type fix-up prohibitively expensive.

An anology would be in the case of a house or small commercial building - built say in 1980, coastal area in the south. The owner wants to replace rotted siding. He hires a contractor. the contractor pulls a permit, and the building department says, "Wait, you are pulling a permit, everything in that building must be brought up to current building code." So the owner in order to maintain his building and replace siding would be required to spend - pick a number - an additional 300k to rebuild the building. Of course this is preposterous. This would not work. This would be egregiously unfair. And, Uniform Building Codes address this issue.

However, this is precisely what Durham is doing. A much more reasonable, common approach would have been to allow the minor bathroom fix-ups, amend prior agreements and undertakings, and give Duke a heads up that before the Iron Duke building were permited, pedestrian paths need to be provided for.

The purpose of the development codes, ordiances is to ensure things like open / green space, limitations on concentrations, allowance for pedestrians, bikepaths, and these are not bad things. However, there is always an opportunity for interpretation, waiver, undertakings.

Over and out.

[hughgs]

with building officials, county commissioners, county staff, and working though uniform land development code, county codes, negotiating and amending undertakings, here is how I think it should have happened, and it certainly could have gone this way:

Duke undertakings to comply with the uniform ordinance with respect to the campus additions, such as central campus, and any other re-development of the campus as a general matter, could have been amended to permit the bathrooms and concessions fix-up at Wade without imposing the uniform ordiance requirements with respect to all pedestrian traffic too and fro Wade. I would submit that in most municipaliites this would have happened. There is plenty of precedent for this, and the reasons are not to punish a business or university for simply wanting clean bathrooms and concessions stands, such punishment in the form of many other upgrades (pedestrian paths) which make the minor repair type fix-up prohibitively expensive.

An anology would be in the case of a house or small commercial building - built say in 1980, coastal area in the south. The owner wants to replace rotted siding. He hires a contractor. the contractor pulls a permit, and the building department says, "Wait, you are pulling a permit, everything in that building must be brought up to current building code." So the owner in order to maintain his building and replace siding would be required to spend - pick a number - an additional 300k to rebuild the building. Of course this is preposterous. This would not work. This would be egregiously unfair. And, Uniform Building Codes address this issue.

However, this is precisely what Durham is doing. A much more reasonable, common approach would have been to allow the minor bathroom fix-ups, amend prior agreements and undertakings, and give Duke a heads up that before the Iron Duke building were permited, pedestrian paths need to be provided for.

The purpose of the development codes, ordiances is to ensure things like open / green space, limitations on concentrations, allowance for pedestrians, bikepaths, and these are not bad things. However, there is always an opportunity for interpretation, waiver, undertakings.

Over and out.

I agree, in general, with your sentiment. However, the onus is on the business to seek waivers, not for Durham to suddenly agree that non-compliance is OK.

[wumhenry]

The purpose of the development codes, ordiances is to ensure things like open / green space, limitations on concentrations, allowance for pedestrians, bikepaths, and these are not bad things. However, there is always an opportunity for interpretation, waiver, undertakings.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, eh?

[GopherBlue]

Duke didn't take any of this seriously enough. All of this work should have been done years ago. Now, because they can't get it done, they are losing the confidence of the man they hired a few months ago with a bunch of promises for facility upgrades. .... Durham is hard to work with sometimes, no doubt, but Duke screwed this up. Nothing Durham has said or done in this matter was new or news to Duke.

Agreed. Heads must roll. Can we still fire Alleva?

[arnie]

I'm afraid this shows how unimportant football is to many at Duke. We consider the upgrades critical to the success of the new program, those in Admin view it as something akin to repairing a section of sidewalk. Maybe our new AD can put some "oomph" behind successfully upgrading the program.

[Festus13]

I'm afraid this shows how unimportant football is to many at Duke. We consider the upgrades critical to the success of the new program, those in Admin view it as something akin to repairing a section of sidewalk. Maybe our new AD can put some "oomph" behind successfully upgrading the program.

Reading these posts is humorous at best, why can't the Admin simply admit they don't have the enthusiasm of Coach C? We, the fans, are catching it while those who hold the reins are pulling the program back in the best subtle fashion they know how ....... politics. It's time for them to get on board the f'ball train!

:D

[devilirium]

This makes me wonder if the previous rendering of Wallace Wade with the colonnades at the top, new scoreboard, etc has been shelved.

I can't imagine that Cut would stand for that.

[hughgs]

I agree that I minimized the solution, there are issues as you pointed out. My classification of it being a simple solution is in response to Trask's own simplistic insistance that the larger trees had to go to comply.

I was on campus today, and tried to remember to count the number of trees along Bassett. I missed and then forgot on the way back, but there seemed to be about 10 trees and they were the largest in the area. Not trying to make a point, just thought you would be interested.

[GopherBlue]

I stumbled across a note in the building permits section of the N&O a few weeks back that indicated a permit had been issued for a construction trailer at Wallace Wade Stadium.

This led me to 'the internets' to search 'the google' for updates on WW renovations, and I came across this construction alert from Duke FMD indicating some movement on this front: (http://152.3.18.208/Alerts.asp)

"FMD WILL START WORK ON PHASE 1A ON MONDAY, 12-01-2008. RESTROOMS #1 AND #6 AND CONCESSION STAND #1 WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND NEW RESTROOMS AND A CONCESSION STAND CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AUGUST 2009. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WALLACE WADE STADIUM RENOVATIONS."

It's good to see some activity on this front, but is this the extent of the WW renovations planned for 2009? Any timelines for more extensive upgrades? What happened with the Durham requirements for installing walkways leading into the stadium along Bassett Drive?

[Devilsfan]

My favorite is overhearing a fan say he has seen "nicer nuclear waste dumps".
Let's spend some money and get Coach Cut a facility he deserves.

[Acymetric]

I stumbled across a note in the building permits section of the N&O a few weeks back that indicated a permit had been issued for a construction trailer at Wallace Wade Stadium.

This led me to 'the internets' to search 'the google' for updates on WW renovations, and I came across this construction alert from Duke FMD indicating some movement on this front: (http://152.3.18.208/Alerts.asp)

"FMD WILL START WORK ON PHASE 1A ON MONDAY, 12-01-2008. RESTROOMS #1 AND #6 AND CONCESSION STAND #1 WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND NEW RESTROOMS AND A CONCESSION STAND CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AUGUST 2009. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WALLACE WADE STADIUM RENOVATIONS."

It's good to see some activity on this front, but is this the extent of the WW renovations planned for 2009? Any timelines for more extensive upgrades? What happened with the Durham requirements for installing walkways leading into the stadium along Bassett Drive?

Simply from reading this myself, I understand that to mean that Duke crews will be working on these projects. It says "in support of the w.w. renovations" which to me implies that a separate entity will be doing the bulk of the work, and they are just taking care of these parts because they have the capacity to do it themselves. So hopefully other companies will be coming in to do some other things. I can't remember what was initially planned to be done by next season.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I stumbled across a note in the building permits section of the N&O a few weeks back that indicated a permit had been issued for a construction trailer at Wallace Wade Stadium.

This led me to 'the internets' to search 'the google' for updates on WW renovations, and I came across this construction alert from Duke FMD indicating some movement on this front: (http://152.3.18.208/Alerts.asp)

"FMD WILL START WORK ON PHASE 1A ON MONDAY, 12-01-2008. RESTROOMS #1 AND #6 AND CONCESSION STAND #1 WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND NEW RESTROOMS AND A CONCESSION STAND CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AUGUST 2009. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WALLACE WADE STADIUM RENOVATIONS."

It's good to see some activity on this front, but is this the extent of the WW renovations planned for 2009? Any timelines for more extensive upgrades? What happened with the Durham requirements for installing walkways leading into the stadium along Bassett Drive?
I'll try to wander by WW on Friday or Saturday and see what's actually going on now.

[DU82]

I stumbled across a note in the building permits section of the N&O a few weeks back that indicated a permit had been issued for a construction trailer at Wallace Wade Stadium.

This led me to 'the internets' to search 'the google' for updates on WW renovations, and I came across this construction alert from Duke FMD indicating some movement on this front: (http://152.3.18.208/Alerts.asp)

"FMD WILL START WORK ON PHASE 1A ON MONDAY, 12-01-2008. RESTROOMS #1 AND #6 AND CONCESSION STAND #1 WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND NEW RESTROOMS AND A CONCESSION STAND CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AUGUST 2009. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WALLACE WADE STADIUM RENOVATIONS."

It's good to see some activity on this front, but is this the extent of the WW renovations planned for 2009? Any timelines for more extensive upgrades? What happened with the Durham requirements for installing walkways leading into the stadium along Bassett Drive?

The indoor practice facility has been shelved for the time being. Currently, Duke has submitted a site plan for the new half-time house (ie, visitor's locker room), which has been slightly relocated to the end zone of the extended to full length first practice field (this is the field closest to WW.) The site plans indicate that the practice field would be artificial turf, which I believe is a change, probably due to losing the indoor facility.

[formerdukeathlete]

The indoor practice facility has been shelved for the time being. Currently, Duke has submitted a site plan for the new half-time house (ie, visitor's locker room), which has been slightly relocated to the end zone of the extended to full length first practice field (this is the field closest to WW.) The site plans indicate that the practice field would be artificial turf, which I believe is a change, probably due to losing the indoor facility.

Isnt the practice field which is being extended already field turf?

Any more on the drawing up of other phased renovations of Wade, such as renderings of seating after the track is removed and field lowered?

[Devilsfan]

I went to see a movie this past weekend and it reminded me of our lovely town of Durham. Hint: The movie won an academy award. Our facilities under discussion are in keeping with the image the world has of Durham not Duke.
We have a class coach, a class staff, a class team now we need to fix our football facilitiy to be representative of the ACC.

[formerdukeathlete]

I went to see a movie this past weekend and it reminded me of our lovely town of Durham. Hint: The movie won an academy award. Our facilities under discussion are in keeping with the image the world has of Durham not Duke.
We have a class coach, a class staff, a class team now we need to fix our football facilitiy to be representative of the ACC.

Yoh is a nice football facility, though, the indoor practice field is short. Lengthening the outdoor practice field ought to be helpful.

I question the true need (in order for Duke to recruit top student athletes in Football) for the indoor facility requested by Cut, or at least disagree that this is an urgent priority. I do not think Duke will out-recruit prospects on the basis of having the best indoor practice facility in the South. Sure, were we Pitt, with horrible weather most of the year. But, in Raleigh Durham, it is mostly related to having air-conditioned space in the summer and early fall.

Stanford recently finished the rebuild of their football stadium and they just signed a top 14 recruiting class. Stanford has no indoor football practice facility, last time I checked. Neither does Wake Forest. How Stanford landed such a top rated class was through targeting top students among the top football prospects. These kids were receptive to Stanford as a top academic bcs school, given the increased commitment to football there as evidenced by the new stadium, etc. They were perhaps more interested in the library, curriculum, other facets of the university than in whether they had air conditioned space in which to run plays / drills.

I see getting rid of the track at Wade and lowering the field as more important symbolically and practically - improving the game day experience, connecting fans with the action. I think that, with Cut targeting the brightest students among the best prospects, as leading to us yielding top top 15 recruiting classes.

[Acymetric]

Isnt the practice field which is being extended already field turf?

Any more on the drawing up of other phased renovations of Wade, such as renderings of seating after the track is removed and field lowered?

Don't believe so, Coach and a few players went on and on last year about how difficult it was to practice on the practice field one week when there had been significant rain. Apparently it resembled the Dolphins/Steelers game of 2007, practically ankle deep in mud. Others might remember this.

[formerdukeathlete]

Don't believe so, Coach and a few players went on and on last year about how difficult it was to practice on the practice field one week when there had been significant rain. Apparently it resembled the Dolphins/Steelers game of 2007, practically ankle deep in mud. Others might remember this.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/08/18/story11.html

There is a grass practice field with a drainage problem, which may be in the process of being fixed.

The field being lengthened to the new half-time house is already artificial turf.

http://www.cha-llp.com/go/project/duke-university-synthetic-turf-fields

Interesting to note per the bizjournals article that NC State has no indoor practice facility, but they have a nicely remodeled stadium.

[DU82]

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/08/18/story11.html

There is a grass practice field with a drainage problem, which may be in the process of being fixed.

The field being lengthened to the new half-time house is already artificial turf.

http://www.cha-llp.com/go/project/duke-university-synthetic-turf-fields

Interesting to note per the bizjournals article that NC State has no indoor practice facility, but they have a nicely remodeled stadium.

I don't get that, I've been in State's indoor facility (admittedly, about ten years ago.) IT wasn't full length, but it had turf and yard markers. Further searching indicates that the football operations moved out of Weisiger-Brown General Athletics Facility in 2003.

Regarding the turf field, I haven't been out that far in a while to see the field, I had assumed the turf was going to be new.

Nothing further on removing the track and adding seats, because IT'S NOT NEEDED YET. It's way down in the priority list.

[formerdukeathlete]

I don't get that, I've been in State's indoor facility (admittedly, about ten years ago.) IT wasn't full length, but it had turf and yard markers. Further searching indicates that the football operations moved out of Weisiger-Brown General Athletics Facility in 2003.

Regarding the turf field, I haven't been out that far in a while to see the field, I had assumed the turf was going to be new.

Nothing further on removing the track and adding seats, because IT'S NOT NEEDED YET. It's way down in the priority list.

the first practice field beyond WW was made field turf a fair number of years ago. As you know well, building the new half-time house allowed pushing out the field to 100 yards - extending the pre-existing field turf. I dont know if they intend to replace the whole (old, existing) field turf with new field turf as they lenghten the field or add new field turf to the old as they lengthen.

My point about the stadium renovations - other schools with which we compete for recruits placed stadium renovations ahead of an indoor facility. Stanford essentially built a brand new stadium, with 50k plus seating capacity. There were not drawing on average 50k per game. They made the decision that improved sightlines and bringing fans closer to the field were important in establishing a home field fan friendly atmosphere.

When Kevin White took the job he saw a substantial redo of Wade as the number one priority. I am in that camp. Cut wants the practice facility first. When he was at ole miss he recruited, sold the program on the basis of having the best practice facility. My point is that more intellectual recruits focus on other facets of the University. There is still the glaring problem of WW, which just does not look like a d-1 stadium, and, with the track, is the laughing stock of the ACC.

[killerleft]

formerdukeathlete said:

"There is still the glaring problem of WW, which just does not look like a d-1 stadium, and, with the track, is the laughing stock of the ACC."

The more wins we get at WW with Coach Cutcliffe at the helm will go hand in hand with a great lessening of snickers by our opponents. Sure, Wallace Wade needs a re-do. But it looks exactly like what it is: A gracefully aging old-school football stadium. Seats is seats. I doubt seriously whether a player will turn down Duke because Wallace Wade Stadium has a track around it.

[formerdukeathlete]

formerdukeathlete said:

"There is still the glaring problem of WW, which just does not look like a d-1 stadium, and, with the track, is the laughing stock of the ACC."

The more wins we get at WW with Coach Cutcliffe at the helm will go hand in hand with a great lessening of snickers by our opponents. Sure, Wallace Wade needs a re-do. But it looks exactly like what it is: A gracefully aging old-school football stadium. Seats is seats. I doubt seriously whether a player will turn down Duke because Wallace Wade Stadium has a track around it.

I dont know too many who would say that Wade is a gracefully aging stadium I know plenty who think it is a d-2 facility.

I personally know people who were recruited by Duke for Football, who chose other programs (Pitt and Notre Dame) over Duke, and who commented to me that Duke's Football stadium was a negative. Certainly not the sole factor in turning down Duke. Roof put it differently - that removing the track and lowering the field would help recruiting (a lot).

K. White's view was that he wished Duke could write a big check and bulldoze Wade all together and start over. He is very much for removing the track and lowering the field, last time I e-mailed the man.

We will soon be the only bcs school with a track separating fans from the field. i put a lot of stock in the collective wisdom of so many schools which have renovated stadiums removing tracks and lowering fields since the 1950s - or built / gone to new stadiums without tracks. Here is a partial list:

Pitt
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Texas Tech
Navy
Southern Cal.
Temple
Penn State
Stanford

Washinton and Kansas are about to get rid of their tracks.

It is not so much that Duke needs more seats, though it will need to be able to draw 40k fans in order to sustain a d-1 program, it is that Duke needs good seats. Seats brought in closer to the field are better seats. The stadium gets louder, more impressive, with higher gate receipts, and would meet size / attendance requirements which may be increased over time.

Whether the path to a nationally-competitive program is better paved through first building an indoor practice facility...that is a matter we may chose to disagree on. Fixing Wade is part and parcel of this, imo, however.

[DU82]

For football, seats closer to the field are not necessarily better seats.

[killerleft]

For football, seats closer to the field are not necessarily better seats.

True. Standing behind the little wall separating seats from the concourse at WW provides an unobstructed view that has few rivals in the college football world. Kinda like a very large big-screen TV, except 1000 times better.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

True. Standing behind the little wall separating seats from the concourse at WW provides an unobstructed view that has few rivals in the college football world. Kinda like a very large big-screen TV, except 1000 times better.
I agree. The first tickets I bought years ago were down low near the 50 yard line. I wanted to be able to see the X-rays, hear what everyone said. I realized that sitting that close to the field made the action two-dimensional. Next location was nearer the top, but in the corner or curve on the home side. Great view there! The action on the field is three dimensional and it's easy to see the plays unfold. Then someone in Promotions decided to move everyone in that area down to the 10 yard line.... terrible view! When Coach Cutcliffe arrived, I requested seats near that corner where I sat before. I like being up higher because of how much better I can see the plays. If I want more detail, I use my binoculars or look at the big screen for the replay.

[jjasper0729]

For football, seats closer to the field are not necessarily better seats.

yes.. my seats are row C and while they are close and I can hear the defensive coaches talking to their players while the offense is on the field, those big guys in uniforms standing on the sidelines sometimes obstruct the view.

Not that I'm complaining. plenty of action has happened practically right in front of me.