The review panel's recommendations for President Steger are due next Friday, June 1st.
Why would Beamer, being the 800lb gorilla in VT Athletics, throw his hands up? His team is Tech's cash cow, and this is the last big ticket item on the list of facilities that he wants for the program. He's probably pretty confident he can get what he wants, and figures things will blow over once all is said and done.
http://www.facilities.vt.edu/documents/oup/masterplan/2009_land_use.pdf), and the Washington St. site is set aside for Athletics use.
Wrong. First, an alternate site, originally proposed, is 50 seconds further walking distance. I guess our elite football players are incapable of walking 50 more seconds to spend two hours practicing, right? Is that really the argument you want to make?
Secondly, 'millions more within spitting distance' shows zero grasp of reality.
Oh, and the tennis court area is inappropriate for this type of facility for like 73 reasons...
'Surrounded by national forest'? Wrong again. See, there is no argument to placing the facility in Stadium Woods, except that Frank Beamer wants it there.
Stadium Woods is not 'surrounded by national forest' and is not inconsequential, unless your world only involves Playstation football games. 'Essentially the same trees'? Wrong. Again. Continually wrong.
If the tennis court area is inappropriate 'for like 73 reasons', how about providing me with seven of those reasons? Less than 10%, I'll make it easy. This should be funny.
Keep in mind that you'd need an electron microscope to find those trees on this map.
As for reasons why the tennis courts are less than desirable...1) area is already being used. 2) makes no sense to disjoint the football facility to that degree. 3) seems like smack dab Washinton St. frontage would not "feel right" for that type of facility. 4) would place a HUGE building more towards town where buildings begin to look more and more like town and less and less like campus. 5) Because the athletics dept. seems to think the other site is more ideal. 6)General everyday logistics for the people that use that facility. 7) because I said so.
Now, you may find many or all of those reasons to be not really compelling reasons to cut down a small portion of those trees...but hey, they're at least as compelling as any of the reasons for leaving the trees as is.
I mean really...."because they were here during the American Revolution" is a reason they must be protected at all costs?
Last night after this thread got started I went and read all I could about the topic. I don't really care one way or the other. They probably end up capitulating and putting the building somewhere else...but from an ecological or historical standpoint, this sure seems much ado about nothing.