JTS Improvements - Want More

jdcyclone19

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2017
3,496
4,810
113
Iowa
This battle was over before it started, the work has already begin east of University. Ok, now in five years, when we people are complaining about the lack of parking at JTS, I expect the three of you, to come on here and explain to the rest of us why those soccer fields were needed in that location, instead of out by the Towers. That is all I have ever said. What could be a win for both sides, will do nothing but cause problems for the people that attend football games in the future.

The decision has been made, now we all have to live with it.

I've already explained to you why things are the way there are right now. Would we all love more parking for football, absolutely, but it doesn't make sense in the bigger picture in the view of the University.

The problem with your view is you are ONLY thinking about football fans and making a large investment that will please fans for only 7 day of a year. The utilization is soooo low, why invest in that when you can turn that space into something that it utilized 10x more and aligns more with the mission and vision of the University? Your view just is coming off as give me this, give me that, it's dumb because its not what I want and you all should come back and say you were wrong. You're grabbing at straws to try and justify your view point, thats ok, just step off your high horse.

Go look at other P5 stadiums, Jack Trice is very fortunate to have what we already have in place and is better than 95% of other P5 schools.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,716
6,919
113
62
Go home, you're drunk.

At 10:30 in the morning, not likely. Not one of you guys have explained why it is necessary to have the fields off univeristy. I hear a lot of excuses, but not one reason, why they could not have built those fields out by the baseball and softball fields and the intermural football fields. I would think they would have wanted them all grouped together.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,716
6,919
113
62
I've already explained to you why things are the way there are right now.

The problem with your view is you are ONLY thinking about football fans and making a large investment that will please fans for only 7 day of a year. The utilization is soooo low, why invest in that when you can turn that space into something that it utilized 10x more and aligns more with the mission and vision of the University? Your view just is coming off as give me this, give me that, it's dumb because its not what I want and you all should come back and say you were wrong. You're grabbing at straws to try and justify your view point, thats ok, just step off your high horse.

Go look at other P5 stadiums, Jack Trice is very fortunate to have what we already have in place and is better than 95% of other P5 schools.

And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,802
35,192
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
At 10:30 in the morning, not likely. Not one of you guys have explained why it is necessary to have the fields off univeristy. I hear a lot of excuses, but not one reason, why they could not have built those fields out by the baseball and softball fields and the intermural football fields. I would think they would have wanted them all grouped together.
I only responded to your contention that the cross country course should be leveled so that it could accommodate other fields.

And there is no reason for us to come back on here and "explain to everyone". You are pretty much the only one who is carrying the banner for this issue. There are a lot of posters that understand what is going on.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jdcyclone19

jdcyclone19

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2017
3,496
4,810
113
Iowa
And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.

You're right.

Here is why. Convenience and utilization of grass areas for students > than parking lots for football fans with low utilization. Please a few football fans that *might* have issues with parking or improve the experience for students, who are paying way more money. Easy choice. Minority vs majority, majority wins.

Facts are not excuses. You just view them as excuses because they do not agree with your logic or fit your view point.

You fail to recognize the mission of the University.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: capitalcityguy

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,802
35,192
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.
I doubt you drive further than I do to attend games and I am able to make most of them. The difference is I am realistic. The athletic department needs to worry about working out a deal to get the lots they do have repaved before they get crazy about adding a bunch more inventory. The parking situation isn't perfect, but it is better than virtually every other college stadium out there. Go ahead and hold out for perfect, but I have a clue for you; you aren't going to get there.
 

IcSyU

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
27,761
5,953
113
Rochester, MN
And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.
FWIW, I drive a couple hundred miles and have had season tickets longer than your 10 years if you want to get into that pissing match too. The two games I've missed in the last decade were to be in a wedding and because we were at the Maui Invite.

And you're 100% wrong...it isn't helping everyone. It's helping a couple thousand fans 6 or 7 Saturdays a year. Right now it's helping thousands of students who are using them for 6 or 7 months a year. Rec Services isn't impeding anything. Athletics has to want to pay to move Rec Services.

You're completely missing the fact that this stuff costs significant amounts of money. It sure is a great idea to put the football building on hold so athletics can outfit a different area for Rec Services so athletics can spend even more money on a parking lot that has a hilariously bad return.

Every donor has parking right now. The AD doesn't care about those people attending one game a year nearly as much. The $20/car doesn't move the needle in the budget. The $250 donor parking in G-7 has incentive to donate more if they want closer parking.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

jcisuclones

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2011
4,579
4,680
113
Ames, IA
And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.
If you have time to spit out bad takes on a forum, I think you can wait 45 minutes for traffic to clear up a bit so you can get on the road. Have a beer to celebrate the Cyclone victory. If your patience level to get on the road is this poor, then don't get tickets anymore.

We have plenty of parking. If the demand was there, knowing how this athletic department operates, I know they would make something work. Right now, the demand isn't there to expand parking.
 

capitalcityguy

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2007
8,332
2,124
113
Des Moines
The city of Ames would not be maintaining it the university would be, and it cost a lot less to blade a parking lot than mowing soccer fields all summer long. What property taxes will those soccer fields be paying to the city of Ames?

This watershed does not need any additional challenges thrown at it. Going from grass to paved lot would be an additional unnecessary challenge added to this flood prone area and the drainage systems that go away from it.

A city owns and maintains the infrastructure to and from this area. That is all I was referring to. It was meant to be a general comment against all the parking lot love that was being generated on the thread and you tend to see hear/see elsewhere (….i.e….”downtown needs more parking!”). Parking lots in general are a negative financial drain on a city….even if they do pay taxes but they generally don’t generate enough tax revenue to support the infrastructure the city has in place to service them.
Again…not exactly relevant here, but it is to the larger point that cities shouldn’t ever be striving to cover more land with parking lots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haverhill

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,802
35,192
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
This watershed does not need any additional challenges thrown at it. Going from grass to paved lot would be an additional unnecessary challenge added to this flood prone area and the drainage systems that go away from it.

A city owns and maintains the infrastructure to and from this area. That is all I was referring to. It was meant to be a general comment against all the parking lot love that was being generated on the thread and you tend to see hear/see elsewhere (….i.e….”downtown needs more parking!”). Parking lots in general are a negative financial drain on a city….even if they do pay taxes but they generally don’t generate enough tax revenue to support the infrastructure the city has in place to service them.
Again…not exactly relevant here, but it is to the larger point that cities shouldn’t ever be striving to cover more land with parking lots.
This is true. There are options for things like permeable surface lots but they often are not nearly as stable as concrete (bituminous or Portland cement) and they have higher maintenance needs and costs.
 

capitalcityguy

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2007
8,332
2,124
113
Des Moines
. Ok, now in five years, when we people are complaining about the lack of parking at JTS, I expect the three of you, to come on here and explain to the rest of us why those soccer fields were needed in that location, instead of out by the Towers.

.

Do you own a paving company or something? Maybe large investments in oil/gas?

You would select moving the fields further from campus which would mean fewer students walking to them and thus needing to drive instead….probably resulting in a need to offer a lot more parking by the Towers vs what would be required here at current location. Hey we could expanding parking in both places this way!

Seriously though. It is a quality of life issue for the students to have amenities (especially those that promote being active) to be as close to campus as possible. How you can justify losing that in favor of creating parking to be used 6 or 7 times a year is really making it tough to see your side of this argument.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NWICY

knowlesjam

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2012
4,281
4,697
113
Papillion, NE
I, for one, simply want the university to keep up with the maintenance of the existing parking lots...spend some money to make these better than the back lot at Walmart. Do a little work on the grassy areas too...

Paving new parking areas is incredibly expensive as you now have to meet a bunch of federal and state guidelines for drainage, lighting, and ecology.

Take care of what we have...before a penny is used to make more that soon while have its own maintenance tail due to crappy weather.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,716
6,919
113
62
Do you own a paving company or something? Maybe large investments in oil/gas?

You would select moving the fields further from campus which would mean fewer students walking to them and thus needing to drive instead….probably resulting in a need to offer a lot more parking by the Towers vs what would be required here at current location. Hey we could expanding parking in both places this way!

Seriously though. It is a quality of life issue for the students to have amenities (especially those that promote being active) to be as close to campus as possible. How you can justify losing that in favor of creating parking to be used 6 or 7 times a year is really making it tough to see your side of this argument.

Nope do not own a paving company or anything like it.. You seem to be flip flopping here, the city does own the land east of University where they are building the new soccer fields. The university owns it, they would not have to remove the snow after football season, as they will set empty, just like they will now for soccer, during the winter. But they have to be mowed the rest of the year, the parking lot would not have to be.

Like I have said before, this was an opportunity to build thinking ahead, the atheletic department can wait a few years to build it. They are still redoing the soccer fields, so that money is spent, I drove by there yesterday, it would not have cost much more to build those fields out by the CC course, they are moving dirt right now east of University.

The idea that students can not make it out there is silly, then how do they use the baseball, softball and intermural fb fields out there if it is so far? You also have the towers right there, and would closer to Freddie and the dorms to the west part of campus than the current setup.

The university lost an opportunity here to help the people going to the games, whether that is a single game at $20 bucks or a new season ticket parking fan. It would not have harmed the rec department. Sounds like a win all around to me.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jcisuclones

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,177
5,917
113
And your problem is you are not thinking about those fans that do attend the games, drive a couple hundred miles in my case 6 to 7 times a year. Its not a high horse, its helping everyone, and from the three of you, its nothing but excuses. You have won, now remember, come back in 5 years and defend your position.

I could care less about the other 95% of college stadiums and where people park, only about JTS. We have a good thing, we could have made it better, but the powers that be, the Rec Servies would not allow that to happen.
I think what you have to understand is I think some people agree at some point the university might see the need for expanded parking, but at that point, it is more likely they upgrade a current parking area from grass and expand other areas that are either not being utilized for anything or underutilized. I think I can see them building a parking structure if they can find a year around use and a full time use during the day, and/or a partner like Cyride or some other business close buy needing parking, but that is a long shot.
The likely scenario will be as the number of donors goes up they will push the lower donor parking out to where grass areas are and pave those areas, and possibly add parking at other areas adding more shuttles.
JTS has a pretty good set up, it always could be better, and as facilities grow and eliminate parking areas and as the stadium grows they will have to look at expansion, but right now it is adequate.
Moving into that area where the IM fields are has always been talked about as an idea, it just is not likely because there just isn't a good alternate for that at this time and you would look at building infrastructure for those and parking thus doubling the cost.
Those fields are utilized for other things year round like Special Olympics which also utilize some of the athletic facilities next door. And have a huge showing from Iowa State Athletes, Cheerleaders and Staff which are all right there in the area.
Those intramural fields are a big deal, for the University and the community as a whole.
They have plenty of other options for expansion if and when that time comes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jdcyclone19

IcSyU

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
27,761
5,953
113
Rochester, MN
Nope do not own a paving company or anything like it.. You seem to be flip flopping here, the city does own the land east of University where they are building the new soccer fields. The university owns it, they would not have to remove the snow after football season, as they will set empty, just like they will now for soccer, during the winter. But they have to be mowed the rest of the year, the parking lot would not have to be.
Sunk cost. Whether the fields are there or elsewhere they have to be mowed. Period. That's an impressively stupid argument. Additionally, mowing them is really, really cheap compared to the cost of constructing even a gravel parking lot.

Like I have said before, this was an opportunity to build thinking ahead, the atheletic department can wait a few years to build it. They are still redoing the soccer fields, so that money is spent, I drove by there yesterday, it would not have cost much more to build those fields out by the CC course, they are moving dirt right now east of University.

You don't have the slightest clue what earth moving or parking lot construction costs do you? Well, I actually happen to work for a company which does both and this would be many millions of dollars. You have this stupid idea they can just regrade the cross country course. That isn't happening. The SW athletic complex doesn't have the land to touch the SE complex. That's not an "excuse" as you say...that's reality.

The idea that students can not make it out there is silly, then how do they use the baseball, softball and intermural fb fields out there if it is so far? You also have the towers right there, and would closer to Freddie and the dorms to the west part of campus than the current setup.
I would bet roughly half of the intramurals participants walked from the frats/MWL/old RCA. It might be closer in distance to Freddy Court but the drive is probably 10+ minutes to the SW Complex and 5 to the SE Complex. There is literally nothing at the SW complex at this time. Additionally, rec services has the fields at MWL as well as Lied...I'm sure they'd love to have something 2 miles away to manage as well.

The university lost an opportunity here to help the people going to the games, whether that is a single game at $20 bucks or a new season ticket parking fan. It would not have harmed the rec department. Sounds like a win all around to me.
It wouldn't have harmed rec services to be a couple miles away from their other facilities (Lied/MWL) with a smaller footprint? It would certainly harm the AD. What part of this aren't you understanding? Millions of dollars spent that could be used significantly more effectively elsewhere. The Iowa State Center lots need the money significantly worse in repairs than constructing a new lot that gets used all of 7 days a year.

You really seem to struggle with the idea of constrained resources.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,716
6,919
113
62
Sunk cost. Whether the fields are there or elsewhere they have to be mowed. Period. That's an impressively stupid argument. Additionally, mowing them is really, really cheap compared to the cost of constructing even a gravel parking lot.



You don't have the slightest clue what earth moving or parking lot construction costs do you? Well, I actually happen to work for a company which does both and this would be many millions of dollars. You have this stupid idea they can just regrade the cross country course. That isn't happening. The SW athletic complex doesn't have the land to touch the SE complex. That's not an "excuse" as you say...that's reality.


I would bet roughly half of the intramurals participants walked from the frats/MWL/old RCA. It might be closer in distance to Freddy Court but the drive is probably 10+ minutes to the SW Complex and 5 to the SE Complex. There is literally nothing at the SW complex at this time. Additionally, rec services has the fields at MWL as well as Lied...I'm sure they'd love to have something 2 miles away to manage as well.

It wouldn't have harmed rec services to be a couple miles away from their other facilities (Lied/MWL) with a smaller footprint? It would certainly harm the AD. What part of this aren't you understanding? Millions of dollars spent that could be used significantly more effectively elsewhere. The Iowa State Center lots need the money significantly worse in repairs than constructing a new lot that gets used all of 7 days a year.

You really seem to struggle with the idea of constrained resources.

You want stupid arguments, look at google maps, Freddie court and the western dorms are half the distance to the Towers than the IM fields off university. But somehow it takes twice as long to drive. Lincoln way must have really improved since this past fall, because before it has always been pain to get on and off on. But now its improved and will be faster. That should be great for this fall.

Lets looks at the excuses.

1. Its too far away, but not too far for IM football fields, baseball and a softball field, and would be closer to the many students that live out by the BB practice facility and the towers. But it would be too far.

2. Costs, and we need to repair what we currently have. I have never said it needed to be done now, just the possibility in the future. Yes, we need to repave what we already have. But without those lands to the east of JTS, that pushes parking further out., if and when we actually need it.

3. Special Olympics uses those fields and then the stadiums. As the father of a specials needs child, I know all about SO, and where they take those kids. They never use JTS or Hilton then walk them over to the IM fields. Never. They use one or the other, but never both on the same day. A total BS argument.

4. Distance to mow and maintain. Are they driving the mowers from the east side to the west complex. No, its a silly idea. Crews are sent to one area, when they are finished they move to another area.

5. Parking lots in cities do not make money, and have costs involved with them. This is not a public city owned parking lot, but a university owned lot that would not be maintained during the rest of the year. Put up a gate at the entrance and lock it, the rest of the year.

I do think those fields are important, necessary and everything else. But so is parking for the football games. You can not tell me that they could not have used parts of the CC course and could have achieved the same thing, that they will have now. The only difference is now with money being spent on those fields, it takes that area off the board for future parking.
 

dunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2007
2,296
526
113
West Des Moines, IA
I was brow beat for wanting the RV lot project done last time I brought it up, so I’m not going there. It was completely selfish on my part - move RVs out of D lots, more space for paved donor parking, I don’t need to increase my donation again to keep decent parking. I’m spoiled, I know. Our donation level is now 20x greater than it was when we first became donors/season ticket holders in 2003. That’s outpaced inflation, for sure. And we park one lot south of where we started. Supply is less than demand, I get it.

I’m amused that “only used 6-7 days a year”
is a common argument (which is true.) Of course I’d complete the argument as “6 or 7 days a year that provides a lot of revenue for our AD.” After media rights, football is the next largest revenue stream, right? And without football in a P5 conference, media rights are all but worthless.

But we’re so far off topic, whar updates on JTS improvements??? I’ll hang up and listen...