(04-13-2012 08:33 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 09:49 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 07:21 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 02:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Thanks! The picture really does help. Just because other practice facilities are big rectangles doesn't mean this one has to be.

From Wikipedia:
The architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture programs in Virginia Tech's College of Architecture and Urban Studies are ranked among the very best in America. In its 2010 "America's Best Architecture & Design Schools" report, DesignIntelligence (the only national college ranking survey focused exclusively on design) ranked the undergraduate architecture program 4th nationally among both public and private universities. The graduate architecture program ranked 8th in the nation. DesignIntelligence ranked the university's undergraduate landscape architecture program No. 1 in the nation and its graduate landscape architecture program No. 2. (In addition, DesignIntelligence ranked the university's undergraduate interior design program 7th, and undergraduate industrial design program 11th.)

Not the best source but a quick one. There are plenty of smart people at VT. They can find a compromise.

Are you really incapable of visualizing this simple of a concept? Who cares how good your design schools are when you have to build a 100 X 60 yard block minimum (and that's assuming you just build the field, which clearly they aren't gonna do)? There is no way to incorporate a big ass tree(s) into a football field. The trees have to go. There is no compromise here.

Are you really incapable of visualizing anything other than a big, rectangular building? They could use an "U" shaped building with room for those grand old oak trees in the negative space. That is just one example.

You say they need 54,000 sqft (100y x 60y) minimum? 4 acres is 173,056 square feet. That is more than 3 times your number! For reference Clemson's facility is 80,000 square feet - less than half of the 4 acres.

I care about how good the design school is. If one of the best design schools in the country says, "we tried and we just can't find a compromise," I can accept that. I can't accept them not even trying.

I stand by my original statement - there are plenty of smart people at VT. I believe they can find a compromise.

They're building g-damn football fields! They come in one ****** shape! Some of the trees are gonna go, there's no way around that. Jeez, its not that hard.

I agree will your points on:
1. They are building a football field
2. Football fields come in one shape
3. SOME of the trees might have to go
4. VT has an existing indoor practice facility
5. It's not that hard

I disagree with your points on:
1. God as any interest in this topic.
2. Buildings come in only one shape/size.
3. 300 year old oak trees being cut down without ANY effort to try and save them.
4. This is the only possible location for this facility.

Regardless of the building shape or size, I believe it is possible to design a facility that will allow some, if not all, of the older oak trees to remain. So....

I stand by my original statement - there are plenty of smart people at VT. I believe they can find a compromise.

(04-14-2012 10:05 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  ...I stand by my original statement - there are plenty of smart people at VT. I believe they can find a compromise.

Hopefully that compromise is build the practice facility and plant some more trees.

I could understand the uproar if we were talking about some kind of rare species, but losing a few 300 year old white oaks isn't that big of a deal. I have 3 300+ year old white oaks in my yard, and on the property behind me is probably another 10-15 of the same age.

I'm guessing the compromise will be to come out and announce it'll only take 2 acres of the woods instead of 4. They were talking about it fronting the existing practice fields with rollup doors. The square drawn in that picture is pretty far away from the existing field so there is room to move the square in and the evironmentalists will be somewhat happy that they saved some trees that they didn't even know were there.

(04-16-2012 11:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I'm guessing the compromise will be to come out and announce it'll only take 2 acres of the woods instead of 4. They were talking about it fronting the existing practice fields with rollup doors. The square drawn in that picture is pretty far away from the existing field so there is room to move the square in and the evironmentalists will be somewhat happy that they saved some trees that they didn't even know were there.

Betcha $5 it doesn't matter to the tree-huggers and they still protest.

Again, this confounds me. We are talking about White Oaks.....not an endangered species here. While the deer hunter in me hates to see White Oaks cut down (White Oak acorns are a preferred food of Whitetailed Deer) it's not like they are in short supply.