Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#2023578 - 11/17/17 10:47 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: beenahawk]
Kman_blue Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 08/31/08
Loc: Kansas
Originally Posted By: beenahawk
Without knowing the EXACT location, there is NO WAY design has even started. They only have the design "concept" on paper with estimated costs. There is tons of stuff still to do on actual blueprints. Structural, electrical (is there sufficient power to the location?)
Plumbing? One might assume that the players and staff might need to use a facility to relieve themselves! Fire Sprinkler system to satisfy the City and State has not be designed without actual blueprints. All of that stuff, once on paper, needs to go to the City for approval. If they actually break ground after the OU game, they likely will be issues...........unless they have been lying to everyone and already have the required building permits because all the planning is 100% complete and approved....and that won't surprise me since this is a Zenger deal. crazy

Right, because all the McDonald's or Walmarts (or name the chain with the same basic designs for every store) around the country have no known general cost until they know exactly where each and everyone is going...err...

Of course costs fluctuate from state to state and location to location, but that has a lot to do with the codes,regulations, taxes, red tape, etc. from state to state more than anything else. I actually had an interesting discussion once with a McDonald's exec about this and recall distinctly him saying that 90% of the difference in cost from 1 state to another was purely the difference in the laws, regulations, and red tape they had to deal with. I'm sure there's an occasional exception, but that's not the norm.

Like I said, from what I've heard all of the locations being considered have similar basic costs involved for the building they supposedly have designed. I got the impression they had blueprints for all the possible locations being considered and it was more or less the same building in 3 different spots. They didn't pick straws to come up with the $26 million figure here.

On a side not, I thought that since KU's campus is technically state property, they only had to comply with state codes and not the city of Lawrence. Somewhere back in the recesses of my brain I seem to recall this being a big point of contention between KU and the city of Lawrence once upon a time even.
_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

Top
#2023581 - 11/18/17 12:33 AM Re: Practice facility? [Re: Kman_blue]
casey Offline
hello

Registered: 04/06/08
Loc: elsewhere
Originally Posted By: Kman_blue
Originally Posted By: beenahawk
Without knowing the EXACT location, there is NO WAY design has even started. They only have the design "concept" on paper with estimated costs. There is tons of stuff still to do on actual blueprints. Structural, electrical (is there sufficient power to the location?)
Plumbing? One might assume that the players and staff might need to use a facility to relieve themselves! Fire Sprinkler system to satisfy the City and State has not be designed without actual blueprints. All of that stuff, once on paper, needs to go to the City for approval. If they actually break ground after the OU game, they likely will be issues...........unless they have been lying to everyone and already have the required building permits because all the planning is 100% complete and approved....and that won't surprise me since this is a Zenger deal. crazy

Right, because all the McDonald's or Walmarts (or name the chain with the same basic designs for every store) around the country have no known general cost until they know exactly where each and everyone is going...err...

Of course costs fluctuate from state to state and location to location, but that has a lot to do with the codes,regulations, taxes, red tape, etc. from state to state more than anything else. I actually had an interesting discussion once with a McDonald's exec about this and recall distinctly him saying that 90% of the difference in cost from 1 state to another was purely the difference in the laws, regulations, and red tape they had to deal with. I'm sure there's an occasional exception, but that's not the norm.

Like I said, from what I've heard all of the locations being considered have similar basic costs involved for the building they supposedly have designed. I got the impression they had blueprints for all the possible locations being considered and it was more or less the same building in 3 different spots. They didn't pick straws to come up with the $26 million figure here.

On a side not, I thought that since KU's campus is technically state property, they only had to comply with state codes and not the city of Lawrence. Somewhere back in the recesses of my brain I seem to recall this being a big point of contention between KU and the city of Lawrence once upon a time even.


LOL. You're out of your depth here my friend. Walk away from this one.

Top
#2023585 - 11/18/17 07:51 AM Re: Practice facility? [Re: John_Brown]
track Offline
gale sayers

Registered: 01/18/06
Loc: Topeka,Kansas
The laugh is on you kc... kman has it right

Top
#2023590 - 11/18/17 09:23 AM Re: Practice facility? [Re: casey]
Kman_blue Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 08/31/08
Loc: Kansas
Originally Posted By: casey
LOL. You're out of your depth here my friend. Walk away from this one.
I'm not an architect if that's what you mean. I have been involved with and around a few building projects in my time though. I know how the process goes and I've tried to relay how far in the process KU actually is here. It's further along than the debbie downers want to believe. Perhaps I skipped over a step in the building process in my description of what I've heard or didn't type it out in accurate architect speak as I admit I'm not one and I don't use the same verbiage.

Point remains, KU didn't arbitrarily pick out a figure of $26 million without the process being far enough along to know what the major costs are going to be regardless of the exact site chosen as all of the possible sites have the same basic infrastructure costs involved. This is why I'm under the assumption they've at least got blueprints already and have probably even got a contractor. This last part is my assumption from the things I've heard.

If you really don't think I know what I'm talking about, why not just ignore it and move on? We'll see what happens between now and September 2018.

I guess your position is KU picked out the $26 million figure from thin air. The Regents then cluelessly said "yes" to some building project that's still in the purely speculation stage with totally unknown costs, where KU had nothing to present to them other than a pipe dream as the Regents have had a penchant to say "yes" to these kinds of things especially with KU (riiiiight) and the Chancellor is a liar?
_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

Top
#2023658 - 11/19/17 12:57 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: John_Brown]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
I think the regents and the chancellor at Kansas have more than a "handshake" agreement over the $26M estimate. KU had a "targeted" amount they presented probably just before half time of the last football WWF event.

No pun intended.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2023659 - 11/19/17 02:23 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: John_Brown]
casey Offline
hello

Registered: 04/06/08
Loc: elsewhere
Price has gone up from $15 million (the originally announced figure from September) to $26 million in the last few months.

KU says the $15 million was an artifact, but how out-of-date could that initial estimate possibly have been? KU was still letting the total $315 million cost be reported as recently as early November... now they're saying total cost is $326 million. Hmmm.

http://cjonline.com/news/state-governmen...indoor-football

Top
#2023663 - 11/19/17 05:42 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: casey]
58hawk Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 12/16/09
Loc: KCMO
Originally Posted By: casey
Price has gone up from $15 million (the originally announced figure from September) to $26 million in the last few months.

KU says the $15 million was an artifact, but how out-of-date could that initial estimate possibly have been? KU was still letting the total $315 million cost be reported as recently as early November... now they're saying total cost is $326 million. Hmmm.

http://cjonline.com/news/state-governmen...indoor-football

Don't worry about it because you're not a KU fan anyway.
_________________________
KU Coach Naismith invented the game so you get to play it.

Top
#2023667 - 11/19/17 07:32 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: 58hawk]
casey Offline
hello

Registered: 04/06/08
Loc: elsewhere
Originally Posted By: 58hawk
Originally Posted By: casey
Price has gone up from $15 million (the originally announced figure from September) to $26 million in the last few months.

KU says the $15 million was an artifact, but how out-of-date could that initial estimate possibly have been? KU was still letting the total $315 million cost be reported as recently as early November... now they're saying total cost is $326 million. Hmmm.

http://cjonline.com/news/state-governmen...indoor-football

Don't worry about it because you're not a KU fan anyway.


I'm a diehard fan of financial responsibility.

Top
#2023682 - 11/20/17 11:51 AM Re: Practice facility? [Re: Kman_blue]
beenahawk Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 09/01/02
Loc: Topeka, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Kman_blue
Originally Posted By: casey
LOL. You're out of your depth here my friend. Walk away from this one.
I'm not an architect if that's what you mean. I have been involved with and around a few building projects in my time though. I know how the process goes and I've tried to relay how far in the process KU actually is here. It's further along than the debbie downers want to believe. Perhaps I skipped over a step in the building process in my description of what I've heard or didn't type it out in accurate architect speak as I admit I'm not one and I don't use the same verbiage.

Point remains, KU didn't arbitrarily pick out a figure of $26 million without the process being far enough along to know what the major costs are going to be regardless of the exact site chosen as all of the possible sites have the same basic infrastructure costs involved. This is why I'm under the assumption they've at least got blueprints already and have probably even got a contractor. This last part is my assumption from the things I've heard.
I guess your position is KU picked out the $26 million figure from thin air. The Regents then cluelessly said "yes" to some building project that's still in the purely speculation stage with totally unknown costs, where KU had nothing to present to them other than a pipe dream as the Regents have had a penchant to say "yes" to these kinds of things especially with KU (riiiiight) and the Chancellor is a liar?


I suppose we both have been taken out of context a bit K-man. I too have a history with buildings/building projects. My point was that they may have CONCEPTUAL plans completed, but unless they actually know the location, there is absolutely no way actual working prints have been completed. If you have the background you say you do, you know that's true.

Though NOTHING about a Zenger run athletic department would surprise me. The man is a fool and a tool. grin

Top
#2023687 - 11/20/17 12:53 PM Re: Practice facility? [Re: beenahawk]
Kman_blue Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 08/31/08
Loc: Kansas
Originally Posted By: beenahawk
My point was that they may have CONCEPTUAL plans completed, but unless they actually know the location, there is absolutely no way actual working prints have been completed.
Totally agree.
_________________________
"If I went West, I think I would go to Kansas." -Abraham Lincoln

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Preview