[winflop]

Pick any two.

A 50,000 seat stadium completed within a year for $100 million was quite a feat.  There are a number of reasons this was accomplished:

1. Some of the design was really clever.  I know the geotechnical engineer who came up with the mechanically stabilized earth solution that allowed the new footprint to fit in the old stadium while meeting all building codes, particularly seismic, without costing a fortune.

2. No fault trace directly through the middle of the stadium helps hold costs down.

3. John Arrillaga wields a lot of power in the South Bay development, real estate, engineering and heavy construction industries.  He called in a number of chits.

4. I recall the winter of '05-'06 as fairly mild.  Otherwise forget it.

5. Some of the design and construction is just really cheap.  The lead CM told a group of us that they initially thought the upper deck would actually be water tight based on what the sales people told them. Wrong. I recall the first lovely coke drips from above.  This is a really lightweight structure. It will be interesting to see how it ages.  Aluminum tends to due weird stuff as it oxides.

Stanford Stadium 2.0 is modeled after SMU's Gerald J. Ford Stadium.

Maybe it does start to show its age in 10 years.  So what?  A cost of $5M per year is peanuts.  It'll probably be less than Shaw will be making by then.

[winflop]

Pick any two.

A 50,000 seat stadium completed within a year for $100 million was quite a feat.  There are a number of reasons this was accomplished:

1. Some of the design was really clever.  I know the geotechnical engineer who came up with the mechanically stabilized earth solution that allowed the new footprint to fit in the old stadium while meeting all building codes, particularly seismic, without costing a fortune.

2. No fault trace directly through the middle of the stadium helps hold costs down.

3. John Arrillaga wields a lot of power in the South Bay development, real estate, engineering and heavy construction industries.  He called in a number of chits.

4. I recall the winter of '05-'06 as fairly mild.  Otherwise forget it.

5. Some of the design and construction is just really cheap.  The lead CM told a group of us that they initially thought the upper deck would actually be water tight based on what the sales people told them. Wrong. I recall the first lovely coke drips from above.  This is a really lightweight structure. It will be interesting to see how it ages.  Aluminum tends to due weird stuff as it oxides.

Stanford Stadium 2.0 is modeled after SMU's Gerald J. Ford Stadium.

Maybe it does start to show its age in 10 years.  So what?  A cost of $5M per year is peanuts.  It'll probably be less than Shaw will be making by then.

[stupac2]

Concessions at Stanford are getting better, but still don't hold a candle to Levis.

Really? They have more variety but it's not like any of it is particularly good, and it's (somehow) even more expensive.

Also, the bathrooms are designed so badly They're deep but not wide, so you get monstrous lines at the front when the rear is nearly completely empty, I guess because people would rather stand around clogging the aisles than walk a few feet to pee. I've never had that issue at Stanford, or had to wait nearly as long.

I dunno, the stadium is visually nice, but I think that's dead last on what I want from a stadium.

In a different discussion a friend of mine recently said:

a lot of stadium experience boils down to: was your seat comfortable, could you see the action, how hard was it to buy something from a concession stand, how long did it take to take a piss, and how dirty is the place

I would add "how hard is it to get into/out of", and I think Stanford and Levi's are basically the same on 4 counts (comfort, cleanliness, ease of concessions, and sight lines) and Stanford is clearly superior on the other 2. YMMV.

[stupac2]

Concessions at Stanford are getting better, but still don't hold a candle to Levis.

Really? They have more variety but it's not like any of it is particularly good, and it's (somehow) even more expensive.

Also, the bathrooms are designed so badly They're deep but not wide, so you get monstrous lines at the front when the rear is nearly completely empty, I guess because people would rather stand around clogging the aisles than walk a few feet to pee. I've never had that issue at Stanford, or had to wait nearly as long.

I dunno, the stadium is visually nice, but I think that's dead last on what I want from a stadium.

In a different discussion a friend of mine recently said:

a lot of stadium experience boils down to: was your seat comfortable, could you see the action, how hard was it to buy something from a concession stand, how long did it take to take a piss, and how dirty is the place

I would add "how hard is it to get into/out of", and I think Stanford and Levi's are basically the same on 4 counts (comfort, cleanliness, ease of concessions, and sight lines) and Stanford is clearly superior on the other 2. YMMV.