Maybe the main difference is the UM bubble is designed to be taken down therefore the fabric integrity is not as durable as a permanent structureWere they circular or oblong?
And went forward with it when there were valid reasons not to. One of the weak spots of the university in taking the cheap way out instead of planning better.They built what they could afford.
What's your source and qualifications for the "completely ruined" conclusion?Bubble is completely ruined. I’d imagine a hefty lawsuit impending.
Multiple 10 foot long tears, metal support rods holding up the bubble broke the lighting and hvac systems probably need to be repairedWhat's your source and qualifications for the "completely ruined" conclusion?
Another griz fundraiserHow long before we find pieces of the bubble on eBay for sale?
Boise does not get the violent weather that Montana gets. That storm we had a few weeks ago as the first time I have felt like I was in MT since I left.Boise State has a bubble for indoor tennis and has no issues with tears or wind storms, does anybody have the engineering specifications on how the bubble is rated.
Not true, Boise gets violet T-storms, and has more weather extremes due to high heat. An inflatable bubble is a bad design, period.Boise does not get the violent weather that Montana gets. That storm we had a few weeks ago as the first time I have felt like I was in MT since I left.
It wasn't rushed, it was what the budget would cover now. My understanding is that it would have taken significant time (years) to raise enough for today's cost for a permanent structure. Of course today's cost isn't necessarily relevant years down the road. It was done to accommodate athletes sooner as opposed to later. You continually want to craft a story whether it is accurate or not to reinforce your dislike for a certain person.That's not what I said, the bubble was/is a terrible idea, it was rushed, it was done so that AD Dept could get the press that they were the first to have an indoor facility over MSU and post it over SM. MSU was patient and did it right. How much money and time will go into fixing the bubble going forward. A warranty only lasts so long and does not include events classified as mother nature. Lets hope they have insurance on it.
IncorrectIf I'm reading this thread correctly, I am not authorized to criticize this bubble unless I personally fund an alternative. Is that correct?
Gaddammit . . . I owe a lot of FCS domes a lot of money . . .
Is getting what you can afford taking the cheap way out?And went forward with it when there were valid reasons not to. One of the weak spots of the university in taking the cheap way out instead of planning better.
The 10 million dollars would of been better spent to upgrade WA Griz stadium, you would of returned more on your investment which could be reinvested into the AD Dept. You say it wasn't rushed but that kind of makes it worse, you had time to think about all the possible things that could go wrong by installing a inflatable fabric structure in SW Montana, would love to see the engineering report with all the caveats.It wasn't rushed, it was what the budget would cover now. My understanding is that it would have taken significant time (years) to raise enough for today's cost for a permanent structure. Of course today's cost isn't necessarily relevant years down the road. It was done to accommodate athletes sooner as opposed to later. You continually want to craft a story whether it is accurate or not to reinforce your dislike for a certain person.