urbanMSP

The U launched the fundraising website for this project. Here is the link to see the plans for all of the buildings. Looks very very nice and well done. Click thru to see the different centers (Football, basketball, olympic sports)

http://www.nothingshortofgreatness.com/saexcellence.php

In that case, those "faculty" have no business being at a university.

Well, it's not quite that simple. In the engineering fields at least, the money comes from a combination of government (usually feds) and corporations. The corporate money is often "soft" money like free equipment and the like, which makes for a nice tax write-off. It may be different in very specific fields of course.

Peer-reviewed papers list their funding sources so it is easy enough to look at that and consider the paper with that context. The more insidious problem is corporations only funding research they are reasonably sure will pan out. That leads to a lot of really minuscule incremental advances (which is not bad in and of itself) and very few revolutions (which is a problem). I remember looking at a lot of papers out of European universities and noting how much more risk-taking and innovative they were. They might be looking at ideas too wild to implement in the real world but it is out of such work that things like the World Wide Web are born.

These buildings will be nice and all, but even if they're among the nicest facilities of their kind in the country on the day they open, they will not tilt the balance of power in the college sports arms race. Alabama or someone will have an even nicer facility in the pipeline that will dwarf this one, and have exactly the things that elite athletes who are 11 years old today will be looking for in 2021 while being recruited. God knows what that is, but someone else will have it. Sometimes I wish we could just quit the whole athletics thing and devote the money, and land, to something more productive.

I disagree. The outdoor field is just as bad: http://goo.gl/maps/XTYwp

(Ultimately all a question of taste) Up and down 15th twice today, so I reflected on this question. The block beside the gate/tarp where the trees are not very developed feels pretty desolate.

But I confess to quite liking the mature trees that block out a lot of the blank wall, and give the sidewalk some shade. There's also just enough room beside the trees that you can run or walk on the grass instead of the sidewalk, and I notice other runners doing the same thing up there.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophe ... 60191.html

Project moving forward, budget cut $40 million.

So that new indoor football practice facility is going right over the existing track. The track is in horrible shape and needs replacement anyway, but I don't see how they can simply get rid of it without replacing it. None of these renderings shows a track. Any idea what the track team will be using for the outdoor season? Is it just not sexy enough to make it into the public parts of the plan, or are they really just tearing up the extant one without replacing it?

The track, I believe, would be moved to the St. Paul campus.

Correct. Building a new track in St Paul. From what I remember, the current track was awful and always having to be repaired. It was due for a major renovation anyways.

I sent a couple emails and got some useful responses. Reading between the lines, it's my conjecture that this plan had been advanced without really considering how integral the track is to *all* the athletes, including the basketball and football players that the new facilities are designed for. I think the track team would like to continue to be based at Bierman and are unhappy with any solution that puts them in St. Paul. The most senior response did not acknowledge a St. Paul location as the place for the new track, instead stating that they're "looking at multiple options" and hope to decide how to proceed soon, at which time they'll make a new announcement. I'm hopeful the new track will end up pretty close to the current one.

I can't imagine where it could possibly fit on the East Bank. The IM field has the nice surface/dome, and I think it would probably have been too small for a track anyway. Beyond that?.. the only spot I can imagine is the Lot 37 & C33 area, which seems to have the dimensions to handle it, but also has a stormwater holding pond (but I believe C37's area is slated to be used by a Biomed building). If the track was only used for events, then StP would be fine. But it's probably very useful for many athletes to have for regular training. Tough situation.

I think that IM field could be fairly easily moved -- there's really not a lot to those domes. That said, it looks like it would still be a pretty tight fit to squeeze the track onto that site.

I've also heard people within the U of M track community are not happy about potentially being moved so far away. Of course, they probably don't have any leverage.

When talking of the IM field, is that the one just behind the athletics facilities and next to the rail yard?

Do people park in the Mariucci-adjacent parking lots outside of events? I seem to recall them being mostly empty during the day, but I can't say for sure.

Although I guess the outrageous price tags for a football parking spot alone probably make it valuable to the department.

The large lot behind Mariucci was generally pretty full when I walked by it. It's only $3/day, if I recall correctly.

That lot used to be the carpool lot, right? Maybe still is?

http://www1.umn.edu/pts/park/facilities/lot37.html

$4/day, not carpool (as far as I can tell). $8-10 for events, but I believe this is a designated tailgate lot for football, with season ticket holders being the only ones with access to it (http://www1.umn.edu/pts/park/gopherfb.h ... allparking)

A friend's parents have a tailgate spot in one of the farther away lots, and I'm pretty sure it's at least $500 for the season.

Oh for Pete's sake.

Civil rights complaint claims $190M Athletes Village violates federal gender equity laws

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_276 ... -athletics