Updated Campus Map with new Athletic Facilities

[Guest Sunburned]

If you locate the OCS in this area you could combine a dorm / retail space / stadium deal so we could get the state to fund a portion of the project (similar to what FSU did to upgrade their stadium).

I believe that the FL Legislature has seen to it that, that will never happen again.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

Check out this updated campus map (zoom in for more detail) which shows all the new athletic facilities.  In the future we could put an OCS in the "Meadows" area.

http://usfweb2.usf.edu/FacilitiesPlan/Campus%20Planning/USF%20KIOSK%20MAP_061710%2036%20x%2042.pdf

That area has a lot of wetland area -- the "wavy" line through that section of the map outlines the wetland area.

I'm not sure if developing that has been approved or not.  If developing that area is not yet approved, it may not be approved because of the environmental impact.  (Not 100% sure what the regulations are).

However, setting that aside - the space is big enough for a stadium... but parking is a LONG way from where the stadium could be.  Now, parking will be all over campus, but there will need to be some "close" parking.

Wetlands, shcmetlands...The latest trend is "mitigation" areas, to "offset" the loss of the wetlands. IMO it very rarley works if ever. I'm pretty sure that we could get that past the local "regulators" since the BOCC has pretty much "gutted" the EPC. Parking on the other hand would be a bear.

[cmhatter]

Good find on the graphic, ATL, thanks!

Seeing all the new stuff makes me think this is where the OCS will go. (See attachment. I used Papa John's as the model, made it a bowl, and scaled it using the new soccer field as 100 yards)

i think you just crushed the rotc building

[SpikeBull]

Did I miss any areas?

Without knowing ownership, cost of land, feasibility.environmental issues, etc. the area west of MOSI looks like a great place.

There seems to be enough area for the stadium, plazas and some parking that could also benefit MOSI. Additional pedestrian bridges would tie the site to the current campus and parking (including a direct shot to the Alumni building).

The one drawback would be that people who wear green tights for the Medieval Festival held on those grounds would have to find a new home.

[Dogma]

The long term has the Tennis courts being moved down near the new baseball/softball fields. 

Basically by the south dead-end roundabout of Sycamore.

Given the success our tennis teams have, the current tennis courts are horrible  (doesn't this sound familiar with most of our facilities?)

They are also planning on building a parking garage near Willow

The OCS can then be built where the #35 parking lot and current tennis courts are, running East to West

There was another thread (about a month ago) about this where someone photo-shopped a stadium in this area and it fit perfectly (without the track or any other building needing to be torn down.)

[crambone]

me likey!

[USFishin]

The main problem is it needs to be placed in a location that makes expansion feasible (it's not going to be a 60K stadium forever), and also has at least some parking nearby.

[Guest nybullsfan]

parking doesn't need to be immediately adjacent. both cincy and cuse are severely 'parking-challenged'. probably most urban ocs's are.

by the time we get enough support to build the ocs, hopefully 2 other things will happen:

- we are 'big-name' enough to stop playing weeknight games (saturday games means less competition for available parking)

- our fans are rabid enough that a long walk from the parking lot doesn't faze them.

oh, btw, all I 'crushed' were the tennis courts and old soccer stadium. rotc's hale and hearty!

[Fold FB Invest in BB]

Wetlands, shcmetlands...The latest trend is "mitigation" areas, to "offset" the loss of the wetlands. IMO it very rarley works if ever. I'm pretty sure that we could get that past the local "regulators" since the BOCC has pretty much "gutted" the EPC. Parking on the other hand would be a bear.

Wetlands are regulated by the State Water Management Districts (in this case the SWFWMD) and the Army Corps of Engineers. Local entities very rarely have anyhting to do with the permitting pocess as far as regulating wetlands goes. Wetlands are evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM... see these statutes: https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=62-345) to determine the amount of mitigation requried for every impact. So its not really a trend to offset wetland impacts, it is in fact required by law. While both on-site mitigation (re-creation and maintenance of wetlands) and larger mitigaion banks (where you buy credits for your impacts on the open market...usually from 75K to 200K per credit) are both options. There is clearly no room for the former on campus and the school would be forced to go to a mitigation bank. Having said that, That particular wetland, in my professional opinion, would score very poorly on the UMAM due to its isolated nature and degraded state. Thus little mitigation would be required. If however, USF decided to build across Fletcher on the USF preserve, the impacts to the environment would be far greater and the mitigation much more costly, and would also ignite a political fire storm. Having worked in this profession for seveal years, I can teell you that 90% of the time, economic interests beat out environmental concerns. Its the whole "you can't stop progress" thing.

[Dogma]

Wetlands, shcmetlands...The latest trend is "mitigation" areas, to "offset" the loss of the wetlands. IMO it very rarley works if ever. I'm pretty sure that we could get that past the local "regulators" since the BOCC has pretty much "gutted" the EPC. Parking on the other hand would be a bear.

Wetlands are regulated by the State Water Management Districts (in this case the SWFWMD) and the Army Corps of Engineers. Local entities very rarely have anyhting to do with the permitting pocess as far as regulating wetlands goes. Wetlands are evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM... see these statutes: https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=62-345) to determine the amount of mitigation requried for every impact. So its not really a trend to offset wetland impacts, it is in fact required by law. While both on-site mitigation (re-creation and maintenance of wetlands) and larger mitigaion banks (where you buy credits for your impacts on the open market...usually from 75K to 200K per credit) are both options. There is clearly no room for the former on campus and the school would be forced to go to a mitigation bank. Having said that, That particular wetland, in my professional opinion, would score very poorly on the UMAM due to its isolated nature and degraded state. Thus little mitigation would be required. If however, USF decided to build across Fletcher on the USF preserve, the impacts to the environment would be far greater and the mitigation much more costly, and would also ignite a political fire storm. Having worked in this profession for seveal years, I can teell you that 90% of the time, economic interests beat out environmental concerns. Its the whole "you can't stop progress" thing.

Is the tennis court area and adjacent parking "wetlands?"

Here is the post i was referring to.  Bullshutter photo-shopped the old Orange Bowl in this area:

The parking lot i am referring to is still visible.

Mind you the seating capacity AS IS... WITHOUT THE END ZONE FILLED IN... was: 74,476

With the end zone filled in, it was a little over 80,000