So...since it does not connect its a screw-up. Well they could have connected and a large portion of the top corners of the deck wouldn't have been able to see the north endzone. If there was a screw-up, which I don't believe there was, happened in the design of the east side upper deck. The roof makes it look similar to the west, but beyond that its is nothing like the first upper deck. This is the sole reason the north and south endzones couldn't be connected to the old decks. I seriously doubt that the athletic department ever though BDS would be the size it is now when they were designing the first and second upperdecks.
Now what you have is two new upper decks (in the north and south) that start at the same elevation. If we need more room in the future the old west deck can come down and a horse shoe can be constructed to connect the north, west, and south decks. While the athletic department wouldn't say this is the plan, if demand continues to sore it'll happen.
One thing that is certain, the AD has made it clear that they will not sacrifice a stadium that is fan friendly (has someway to go, but has come a long, long way) just for the sake of seat numbers. So, unless they do MAJOR reconstruction of the lower bowl the field will never be lowered because of sight lines. So basically, if it will interfere with sight lines, etc it won't happen. When looking at the plans for the new deck I was surprised to see they added 4 additional rows to the south upper deck. It will have 31 rows compared to the north's 27. This will almost cause a sight line problem because of the roofs of the east and west.
As for ethics, it would have nothing to do with the design, but the bidding for the individual parts of the project. Considering that bids were not due to the I believe, Monday. I would think it would be hard to accuse anyone of anything unethical.
Last edited:
