UConn's Gampel Pavilion could see $100 million renovation project under new proposal (Mike Anthony) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UConn's Gampel Pavilion could see $100 million renovation project under new proposal (Mike Anthony)

JMick said:
They should do a study and plan for it, if a recent one doesn't already exist. At least to show some consideration if by a miracle we get into a stable power conference.
Expand ...
They are still paying off the stadium in Hartford there is zero chance they build a new stadium on campus at this point
 
When I saw this article I was confused because aren’t they already in the early phases of remodeling the XL Center? That reno is already a $100M project, can’t imagine the state managing to afford both.
 
JMick said:
They should do a study and plan for it, if a recent one doesn't already exist. At least to show some consideration if by a miracle we get into a stable power conference.
Expand ...
I can't endorse spending millions of dollars on a bluff.
 
Robrio89 said:
When I saw this article I was confused because aren’t they already in the early phases of remodeling the XL Center? That reno is already a $100M project, can’t imagine the state managing to afford both.
Expand ...

They’re working that too:



-> A decade-old push to renovate downtown Hartford’s aging XL Center that recently suffered a setback amid rising costs could get a significant boost of as much as $45 million in state funding under a spending bill that cleared the state legislature late Tuesday.

The bill, which is now headed to Gov. Ned Lamont for his signature, increases the amount of funding the state is willing to spend on the renovation project, from $80 million to $125 million <-
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
They’re working that too:



-> A decade-old push to renovate downtown Hartford’s aging XL Center that recently suffered a setback amid rising costs could get a significant boost of as much as $45 million in state funding under a spending bill that cleared the state legislature late Tuesday.

The bill, which is now headed to Gov. Ned Lamont for his signature, increases the amount of funding the state is willing to spend on the renovation project, from $80 million to $125 million <-
Expand ...

leftover federal funds were burning a hole in the legislators' pockets so they released it for Gampel, new $625MM for UConn 2000 funding, etc.
 
Jbirdp5 said:
They are still paying off the stadium in Hartford there is zero chance they build a new stadium on campus at this point
Expand ...
Why would they go with 30 year bonding. I'd be fine to wait 10 years before the new on-campus stadium is built.

For what it's worth, Connecticut pays 2.7 million a year to the state to use Rentschler Field six times a year.
 
UC15 said:
Left pocket to right pocket, merely procedural
Expand ...
Except that at $2.7 million expense makes the athletic department financials look worse. If we agree that it is a net nothing, why not eliminate it and make the athletic department financials look $2.7 million better?
 
.-.
.-.
USF has almost 50,000 students and the cost of doing business there is massively lower there than in Connecticut. It costs under $10k to attend instate, and under $20k oos. They are not a peer.
 
The Rent needs work too but is further down the line from fixing the Gampel as it should be. I am not sure what a few million would do, but fixing the leaks and improving the Wi-Fi would help.
 
speckle said:
USF has almost 50,000 students and the cost of doing business there is massively lower there than in Connecticut. It costs under $10k to attend instate, and under $20k oos. They are not a peer.
Expand ...
They are a peer in conference realignment deck of card shuffling.

So what you are saying is a similar size stadium in Storrs would be higher than $340m not closer to $100,000,000?
 
huskymedic said:
They are a peer in conference realignment deck of card shuffling.

So what you are saying is a similar size stadium in Storrs would be higher than $340m not closer to $100,000,000?
Expand ...
You're right, in conference realignment, even Tulane, Memphis and Duke are somehow peers.

I would expect a new CT stadium to be in a similar ballpark to Northwestern's, $800m for 35,000 seats. Pricey.
 
Will they finally be taking the blue banner/header net thing over the entrances and wrapping it all the way around? Please?
 
.-.
CONN78SEJ said:
That’s why I said almost, and so you’re saying the cost to build has more than tripled in 20 years?
Expand ...
Likely more than tripled. Concrete (a massive part of the construction costs) doubled from 2000-2010; doubled again from 2010-2019 and nearly doubled again from 2019 until now (last one primarily due to a combnation COVID limiting supply lines and thhe current inflationary environment).

What would concern me most would be the site prep. The Rent was relatively affordable in large part due to the land being donated. While an on campus football stadium likely would be built on school owned land (no additional costs for land acquisition), there are a number of areas with wetland concerns in and around the campus. Site prep to stabilize the land base for a stadium and also prevent the possibility of contaminating the surrounding water table with runoff could easily run tens of millions of dollars before any construction begins.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Likely more than tripled. Concrete (a massive part of the construction costs) doubled from 2000-2010; doubled again from 2010-2019 and nearly doubled again from 2019 until now (last one primarily due to a combnation COVID limiting supply lines and thhe current inflationary environment).

What would concern me most would be the site prep. The Rent was relatively affordable in large part due to the land being donated. While an on campus football stadium likely would be built on school owned land (no additional costs for land acquisition), there are a number of areas with wetland concerns in and around the campus. Site prep to stabilize the land base for a stadium and also prevent the possibility of contaminating the surrounding water table with runoff could easily run tens of millions of dollars before any construction begins.
Expand ...
For what it's worth the environmental impact study done for Toscano showed no adverse impact in building in the athletic complex, which would be the ideal spot in my opinion. I am a little concerned about the potential wetlands impact of the parking, though.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Likely more than tripled. Concrete (a massive part of the construction costs) doubled from 2000-2010; doubled again from 2010-2019 and nearly doubled again from 2019 until now (last one primarily due to a combnation COVID limiting supply lines and thhe current inflationary environment).

What would concern me most would be the site prep. The Rent was relatively affordable in large part due to the land being donated While an on campus football stadium likely would be built on school owned land (no additional costs for land acquisition), there are a number of areas with wetland concerns in and around the campus. Site prep to stabilize the land base for a stadium and also prevent the possibility of contaminating the surrounding water table with runoff could easily run tens of millions of dollars before any construction begins.
Expand ...
You do know why the land was donated? Tons and tons of toxic debris, not to mention WW2 defused bombs, years and years of Chance Vought & Pratt & Whitney manufacturing debris, oil, rubber, metals, chemicals, lead paint. Where do you think all that stuff went? In the 1930’s and 40’s and after the war, stuff was just buried, very deep hopefully. It would have cost UTC billions to properly reclaim those 75 acres. Residential or business development was out of the question.
 
CONN78SEJ said:
You do know why the land was donated? Tons and tons of toxic debris, not to mention WW2 defused bombs, years and years of Chance Vought & Pratt & Whitney manufacturing debris, oil, rubber, metals, chemicals, lead paint. Where do you think all that stuff went? In the 1930’s and 40’s and after the war, stuff was just buried, very deep hopefully. It would have cost UTC billions to properly reclaim those 75 acres. Residential or business development was out of the question.
Expand ...
Since the early 1990's federal funds have been used to subsidize contaminated soil remediation and brownfield restoration. I don't doubt that any soil that had been contaminated (even if it had occurred many decades earlier) by petroleum or other chemicals or other forms of industrial waste would have had to have been professionally removed with the disposal fully documented. I also know (from what the companies that I've worked for during the past quarter century) that federal funds would have covered nearly the entirety of the costs (depending on the situation, 85%-95% if documented and supervised correctly).

I know of a handful of such projects within the northeast and numerous other projects throughout the rust belt where anywhere from $10mm to $45mm (per project) was funded by federal grants through DEEP. If the cost of doing this for the site work at Rentschler Field wasn't almost fully subsidized, someone didn't do their job (which is entirely possible).
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,233
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom