Faciilities Threads (Merged)

[AUApostle 7,651]

5 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

He said this because it's 100% true. People made their point and now I think everyone will move on.

As far as the other part. If Jay would have put in a coherent plan as far as upgrades to JHS and a new football complex, this would have been done. Money would have been there. He didn't. Jay went up in front of the BOT not once but twice pitching his plan for a new complex. Asking for 50+ million each time. He didn't have a complete plan and the people he hired to draw all of this up could not answer basic simple question about the project. He was denied both times. 

We will see what Greene can do. I'm willing to bet that when this goes up in front of the BOT again that this will be a complete package presented to them and that Greene will get the go head to proceed. Everyone might think that all of the PBT are dumb want access to the program type people. This could not be further from the truth and when it comes to building, AU has some of the finest people in the world on their side. And they have deep pockets. But they just are not going to blindley give to AU anymore till the people in charge at AU stop pissing away their hard earned money. 

Have to give Gus, Greene and other at AU a lot of credit here getting Tim Cook involved. Jay did have a casual relationship with Tim and Tim did give money. But it seemed he and his staff were afraid to ask Tim for more. I think Tim and Gus has struck up a pretty good friendship over the last couple of months. Props to Gus for this. 

When I present for big projects like this (last one was the FSU student union), there is a chain of command you go through of many presentations that starts with the facilities PM, then department assistant heads, then department head, then the president's assistants, then the President. Often with athletics some of these intermediate hurdles get cut out, so the project may not have been fully vetted by everyone by the time it gets to the board.  By the time a project officially gets in front of the board, its approval should really just be a formality.

[ellitor 33,105]

13 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

I think Tim and Gus has struck up a pretty good friendship over the last couple of months. Props to Gus for this. 

#NerdsUnite

[ellitor 33,105]

3 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

When I present for big projects like this (last one was the FSU student union)

[keesler 5,924]

11 hours ago, AuburnEagle79 said:

A $10 athletic fee per student per year would be roughly $240,000. Slap one of those, get some big donations. Borrow the rest. It'll pay for itself. 

AU Athletics already pulls +$4MM a year from student fees.  What's another $10/student, right?  

[keesler 5,924]

13 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

When I present for big projects like this (last one was the FSU student union), there is a chain of command you go through of many presentations that starts with the facilities PM, then department assistant heads, then department head, then the president's assistants, then the President. Often with athletics some of these intermediate hurdles get cut out, so the project may not have been fully vetted by everyone by the time it gets to the board.  By the time a project officially gets in front of the board, its approval should really just be a formality.

THANK YOU!

By the time any project hits the Board level, all it should need is a rubber stamp of approval, i.e. nothing more than an formality.  No one should even be allowed to present to the Board (twice?) with a half baked plan in the preliminary phases and bring support people to the presentation that are unprepared to answer the simplest of questions and backup their project adequately.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

28 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

When I present for big projects like this (last one was the FSU student union), there is a chain of command you go through of many presentations that starts with the facilities PM, then department assistant heads, then department head, then the president's assistants, then the President. Often with athletics some of these intermediate hurdles get cut out, so the project may not have been fully vetted by everyone by the time it gets to the board.  By the time a project officially gets in front of the board, its approval should really just be a formality.

Just relaying what I was told. 

[AidiAU 1,270]

Chandler Cox is all for it. 😁 

 

[AU64 10,122]

32 minutes ago, keesler said:

AU Athletics already pulls +$4MM a year from student fees.  What's another $10/student, right?  

Yeah...right,...... let them borrow a little more money each year to pay that additional fee to help kids who are already on full scholarship?   ….☹️

[AU64 10,122]

16 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

Just relaying what I was told. 

I've been involved in a couple projects that had a chain of command approval as described above.  And from my experience.....you find that everyone in the chain considers themselves to be an "expert"...and furthermore, since someone asked their input they will give it.... and be unhappy if their advice is not taken.   The more money they have in the project the more willing they are to impose their view.     Unless you have been through a few of these episodes you can't really appreciate what it's like...JMO but in a bureaucracy like AU or any similar institution it is a wonder that anything ever get's done. 

[Mikey 16,625]

19 hours ago, James Howell said:

I am one that does not know about why fundraising is difficult at Auburn but didn't Auburn raise $600 million a few years back. If we did then I cant imagine we would have trouble raising $ 60 million now unless the money guys are holding out to see if they have to come up with $ 33 million to get a new coach.

The total actually came to over $ 1 billion raised on that fund drive. However, it had nothing to do with athletics other than perhaps some peripheral benefits. As someone who donated to that drive, when it was done they sent me a nice, slick magazine detailing the drive's success. There are masses of Auburn people that will give a modest amount to the university in general but aren't interested in paying for athletics. I don't think athletics can get support from the large numbers of individuals and corporations that the previous drive got. Thus, any fund raising drive for athletics must depend on big individual donors, not tens of thousands of lesser gifts. That's my take on it anyway.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

24 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The total actually came to over $ 1 billion raised on that fund drive. However, it had nothing to do with athletics other than perhaps some peripheral benefits. As someone who donated to that drive, when it was done they sent me a nice, slick magazine detailing the drive's success. There are masses of Auburn people that will give a modest amount to the university in general but aren't interested in paying for athletics. I don't think athletics can get support from the large numbers of individuals and corporations that the previous drive got. Thus, any fund raising drive for athletics must depend on big individual donors, not tens of thousands of lesser gifts. That's my take on it anyway.

I'd say you hit this one out of the park. 

[AUApostle 7,651]

25 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I've been involved in a couple projects that had a chain of command approval as described above.  And from my experience.....you find that everyone in the chain considers themselves to be an "expert"...and furthermore, since someone asked their input they will give it.... and be unhappy if their advice is not taken.   The more money they have in the project the more willing they are to impose their view.     Unless you have been through a few of these episodes you can't really appreciate what it's like...JMO but in a bureaucracy like AU or any similar institution it is a wonder that anything ever get's done. 

Facilities hires a firm to work on a planning study.  The planning study confirms that the site works, nails down a preliminary space program, and develops an initial budget.  A good design firm will develop multiple strategies and drill down on key "big idea" project drivers that will unite decision makers and stakeholders during the design process.  The planning study should be vetted at all levels, up to the presidents office.  Once the study is approved, then the institution advertises the job to architectural design firms.  Then 3-5 are shortlisted for presentations and eventually one is selected to design the job.  And then the design process really starts all over, beginning with facilities and key stakeholders, then higher ups are slowly folded in as the process develops.  You never want to put anything in front of a board or president that even has a chance of getting torpedoed...your argument has to be rock solid.  

So to the original point that WDE brought up...I'd say there is either incompetence at the facilities level (which those guys seem pretty sharp from the few times I've met with them) or the money folks changed their mind and decided they didn't want to build after all (and the design team gets the blame).

[abw0004 10,125]

1 hour ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

Everyone might think that all of the PBT are dumb want access to the program type people. This could not be further from the truth and when it comes to building, AU has some of the finest people in the world on their side. And they have deep pockets. But they just are not going to blindley give to AU anymore till the people in charge at AU stop pissing away their hard earned money. 

Not to mention, people also forget the building we have done outside of our athletics program.  We just had a state-of-the-art culinary building approved for everyone to use.  Our campus is constantly under construction to always make it better.  While other programs only route their money to athletic complexes, I would like to think Auburn distributes their building budget to also improve the student education/experience.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

7 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Facilities hires a firm to work on a planning study.  The planning study confirms that the site works, nails down a preliminary space program, and develops an initial budget.  A good design firm will develop multiple strategies and drill down on key "big idea" project drivers that will unite decision makers and stakeholders during the design process.  The planning study should be vetted at all levels, up to the presidents office.  Once the study is approved, then the institution advertises the job to architectural design firms.  Then 3-5 are shortlisted for presentations and eventually one is selected to design the job.  And then the design process really starts all over, beginning with facilities and key stakeholders, then higher ups are slowly folded in as the process develops.  You never want to put anything in front of a board or president that even has a chance of getting torpedoed...your argument has to be rock solid.  

So to the original point that WDE brought up...I'd say there is either incompetence at the facilities level (which those guys seem pretty sharp from the few times I've met with them) or the money folks changed their mind and decided they didn't want to build after all (and the design team gets the blame).

I know for almost certain that the firm that Jay hired did not have a complete plan ready when they went in front of whoever. Twice. This is from multiple people. 

[AU64 10,122]

12 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

So to the original point that WDE brought up...I'd say there is either incompetence at the facilities level (which those guys seem pretty sharp from the few times I've met with them) or the money folks changed their mind and decided they didn't want to build after all (and the design team gets the blame).

Agree...I've been through that on two new libraries and also on a church addition and two problems you face ….the people making the decisions sometimes change, and thus the instructions can change...... and times and circumstances change and people decide to spend less (rarely more) and it's back to the drawing boards.  And as noted, someone has to take the fall...   But unfortunately, stuff like that happens frequently  ...and unless it's a high speed train in California or a road project in Boston, it does not make the news. 

[ellitor 33,105]

28 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

I'd say you hit this one out of the park. 

Mikey's first home run in a long time...

[keesler 5,924]

1 hour ago, AUDevil said:

Facilities hires a firm to work on a planning study.  The planning study confirms that the site works, nails down a preliminary space program, and develops an initial budget.  A good design firm will develop multiple strategies and drill down on key "big idea" project drivers that will unite decision makers and stakeholders during the design process.  The planning study should be vetted at all levels, up to the presidents office.  Once the study is approved, then the institution advertises the job to architectural design firms.  Then 3-5 are shortlisted for presentations and eventually one is selected to design the job.  And then the design process really starts all over, beginning with facilities and key stakeholders, then higher ups are slowly folded in as the process develops.  You never want to put anything in front of a board or president that even has a chance of getting torpedoed...your argument has to be rock solid.  

So to the original point that WDE brought up...I'd say there is either incompetence at the facilities level (which those guys seem pretty sharp from the few times I've met with them) or the money folks changed their mind and decided they didn't want to build after all (and the design team gets the blame).

And to think that Jacobs & Co supposedly went before the BOT twice and they shot it down both times just reeks of incompetence at all levels IMO.  

There were articles where Jacobs stated they were "going back to the drawing board" at least once, and then he continuously followed that up with "we have to see if AU people really want to open their wallets to pay for this project" on numerous occasions and the multiple feasibility studies and letters sent to AU alum to gauge the interest of the fan base, etc.    

[keesler 5,924]

Excuse the frustration I'm laying out about this.  I can not fathom why Auburn University has had these "issues" for years regarding much needed athletic facility improvements.  There seems to constantly be hurdles while other programs ALL around us are steadily funding top of the line projects.  They get their people in place, have a vision and bring that vision to fruition with brick 'n mortar structures and some of them are already on their second and third rounds of upgrades/improvements.  Yet here AU sits with a new AD & Prez in place and we are still waiting for something to happen.  

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

1 hour ago, keesler said:

Excuse the frustration I'm laying out about this.  I can not fathom why Auburn University has had these "issues" for years regarding much needed athletic facility improvements.  There seems to constantly be hurdles while other programs ALL around us are steadily funding top of the line projects.  They get their people in place, have a vision and bring that vision to fruition with brick 'n mortar structures and some of them are already on their second and third rounds of upgrades/improvements.  Yet here AU sits with a new AD & Prez in place and we are still waiting for something to happen.  

I do believe its happening now. 

[atl-tiger 655]

Our current indoor practice facilities and weight room would be a downgrade for some high schools these days.  

[keesler 5,924]

2 minutes ago, atl-tiger said:

Our current indoor practice facilities and weight room would be a downgrade for some high schools these days.  

Depends on the HS you're comparing it to, some of those in TX are swanky and palatial now a days. 

In big time college football, if a program isn't constantly upgrading and improving with the going trends, then they're getting left behind.  They literally have to run a rolling 24 month operating budget with a 5 yr capital expenditure plan automatically built in for facility upgrades as needed.  

AU's indoor practice facility was completed Fall 2011, and now it's outdated now with 8 yrs age on it?   The weight room (15,000sf) was built in 2002,  renovated in 2012 at $27.5MM now 7 yrs old and it's outdated?

[The Plainsman 948]

The benefit of all of this is had we gone ahead with a JJ plan,  we would more than likely already need to talk about upgrades needed.  I understand this will always be the case for all arms race programs,  but the latest should always be the best and as other programs have already completed theirs,  AU/Green/Gus has the opportunity to move all the way to the front of the pack.   

We do not need to put something up that only brings us to the middle of the pack.   Green needs to bring it,  and bring it full monte.  As WDE mentioned,  Greens mentor/peer group can also guide him on how to not only bring to fruition, but bring it in major fashion!!!   

That is my hope a least. 

[augolf1716 21,207]

11 hours ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

I bet it does. Within a year or year 1/2. No inside but I sense that there is some real urgency here now.  

There is

[fredst 9,064]

On 2/20/2019 at 7:24 PM, aujeff11 said:

He already sounds like Heath Evans. lol

Lets hope he doesn’t “text” like Heath, lol

[fredst 9,064]

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

The total actually came to over $ 1 billion raised on that fund drive. However, it had nothing to do with athletics other than perhaps some peripheral benefits. As someone who donated to that drive, when it was done they sent me a nice, slick magazine detailing the drive's success. There are masses of Auburn people that will give a modest amount to the university in general but aren't interested in paying for athletics. I don't think athletics can get support from the large numbers of individuals and corporations that the previous drive got. Thus, any fund raising drive for athletics must depend on big individual donors, not tens of thousands of lesser gifts. That's my take on it anyway.

Agree with this sentiment. I would consider myself a “modest” donor (with plans for bigger) but I would much rather give my limited, hard-earned dollars to COSAM/academic programs. If I really hit a home-run financially I would love to be a big financial supporter of athletics as well. Just where my personal priorities are at this stage....