Debussy - at ATM, this line of fan behavior &/or thinking would be referred to as a 2 Percenter.
But the main point is that they have ~100,000 fans (including ~30,000 students) up in the stands at virtually every home game, regardless of their opponent.
TDECU has an open concourse to see the field from. Does Kyle Field have an open concourse? If not, then that’s why they don’t do the same there.
Again, Kyle Field does do the same. There’s an awful lot of gray in the background of this pic for a reason, and it’s not just because the Aggies were losing.
I dont blame people for hanging our under the concourse they at least showed up and said this heat is too much, it is what it is, thatbis how it will be until management gets serious.
They did get serious, they built us Queenie’s
The velarium is a good idea, how schools in the southeast and southwest have not come up with something I do not know. It was done a thousand years ago without today’s technology; seems it could be done today at a feasible cost. the seattle mlb park essentially has an expensive version of this for the rain; it can be done; but let’s just keep making day games in the south a deterrent i suppose.
just checked temperatures in Houston. at 8:30 its 79 but feels like temperature is 86; that’s mostly because of the humidity. high humid cities like Houston add 4-5 degrees to the feels like temperature on humidity alone. Add to it and it’s like the Throwing Muses sang in their song ‘Dizzy’; "its just that mean old texas sun, it makes me dizzy in my head’; some shade sure would help a lot.
Whenever we need to upgrade the lights to LED would be an ideal time to explore costs.
To have a canopy it would require a serious captial
T Mobile is almost exactly the same as Daikin Park, just without the windows in left or solid wall in right to make it fully indoor.
BC Place in Vancouver is the better comparison
Seems like a canopy option would be ideal for video board for commercials on a grand scale.
Vancouver is a beautiful city with amazing outdoor scenery but I can’t remember the last time they had a hurricane. The ideal “system” would be retractable in case a storm is coming. To find the right balance between engineering, efficiency and the right funding it is a small space for the needle to go through. But when you have a will there is a way. To even be discussed is a huge update.
I live halfway between Seattle and Vancouver. We don’t get tropical hurricanes, but it’s normal to get 3 or 4 major windstorms each winter that funnel south down the Fraser River. Gale force at least, but sometimes into hurricane force range.
I have been up a few times, love it. My wife’s family is from Washington State. Her cousins seem to always be fishing or hunting.
It’s being discussed on Coogfans but not by Coog administration. Let’s be realistic
Maybe one or two of them are watching this game in Ireland rn. That concept would work handsomely on the Cage
It will never be in the budget
One can dream…one donor. I know, I know.
Here is some AI for you.
Question: Can you compare the windstorm engineering requirements between Houston, TX and Vancouver, BC?
Abridged answer: Houston’s physical wind forces on a building envelope are 4 to 6 times higher than Vancouver’s.
Answer: Comparing windstorm engineering requirements between Houston, Texas and Vancouver, British Columbia highlights the contrast between hurricane-driven tropical wind design and temperate maritime wind design. Houston’s proximity to the Gulf Coast subjects it to extreme wind hazards, meaning its structural engineering rules focus strictly on preventing catastrophic failure from tropical storms. Meanwhile, Vancouver’s parameters are significantly lighter, focusing primarily on winter storms and matching lateral stability with its massive seismic code demands.
Core Comparison Overview
| Parameter / Feature | Houston, TX | Vancouver, BC |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Code Foundation | International Building Code (IBC) / ASCE 7-22 | BC Building Code (BCBC 2024) / National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) |
| Design Metric Basis | 3-Second Gust wind velocity (mph) | Hourly Wind Pressure (HWP) 1-in-50-year return (kPa) |
| Baseline Design Speed / Pressure | 120 to 140+ mph (varies by Risk Category) | 0.40 to 0.45 kPa (~65–70 mph equivalent 3-sec gust) |
| Wind-Borne Debris Region | Yes (Requires impact-resistant glass/shutters) | No (Standard glazing is acceptable) |
| Dominant Lateral Load Concern | Wind Loads (Hurricanes dominate over very low seismicity) | Seismic Loads (Earthquakes dwarf wind requirements) |
Houston, TX: Structural engineers utilize the ASCE 7-22 (Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures) standard adopted via the local Houston Building Code amendments. The methodology is based on ultimate 3-second gust wind speeds measured at 33 feet above the ground in open terrain (Exposure C). [1, 2]
Vancouver, BC: Engineers design under the BCBC 2024 (derived from the National Building Code of Canada). Canada does not use direct wind speed maps for structural design equations; instead, it uses a 1-in-50-year Hourly Wind Pressure (HWP). This represents a sustained, hourly mean wind speed rather than a rapid gust. [1, 2]
Houston’s Severe Demands: Houston sits in a hurricane-prone region. For a standard building (Risk Category II), the design wind speed is generally between 125 to 135 mph, stretching up to 150 mph near coastal borders. This translates to base velocity pressures of roughly 40 to 55+ psf before applying shape factors. [1, 2, 3]
Vancouver’s Moderate Demands: Vancouver features a standard 1-in-50 HWP of 0.40 to 0.45 kPa (about 8.3 to 9.4 psf). Converted roughly to a 3-second gust equivalent for comparison, Vancouver’s design winds are around 65 to 70 mph—nearly half the velocity of Houston’s design threshold. Because wind pressure scales exponentially (V²), Houston’s physical wind forces on a building envelope are 4 to 6 times higher than Vancouver’s. [1, 2]
Houston (Impact Zones): Portions of Houston—especially areas falling near the coast or dictated by the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA)—require Wind-Borne Debris Region (WBDR) compliance. Windows and doors must feature costly impact-rated laminated glass or structural storm shutters capable of withstanding large missile impacts (like a flying 2x4 timber). [1, 2]
Vancouver (No Impact Rules): Vancouver has no wind-borne debris mandates. Fenestration and glass design are governed strictly by standard deflection and water/air infiltration constraints under North American Fenestration Standards (NAFS).
Houston (Wind Governs): Seismicity in Houston is effectively non-existent (Seismic Design Category A). Therefore, wind load completely governs the design of the lateral force-resisting system (shear walls, bracing, and moment frames). [1]
Vancouver (Seismic Governs): Vancouver sits on a major tectonic subduction zone with severe earthquake risk. The newly enforced BCBC 2024 provisions bumped seismic design forces significantly. For almost all low-to-medium-rise buildings in Vancouver, earthquake forces significantly dwarf wind forces. The extensive “braced wall panels” or concrete cores engineered into Vancouver buildings are there to survive tremors, which incidentally makes them more than strong enough to handle local windstorms. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Question: Can you estimate the cost of building a canopy and structure similar to what they have at BC Place stadium in Vancouver over TDECU stadium in Houston, TX, account for additional structure for windstorm requirements, assuming existing structure of TDECU stadium is not designed for a canopy so additional, to the ground structure and foundations are to be accounted for.
Abridged answer: $260m-$390m
Answer:
Estimating the cost of building a BC Place-style canopy over the University of Houston’s TDECU Stadium requires evaluating a heavy civil and structural megaproject. Because TDECU Stadium’s existing concrete and steel infrastructure was not engineered to support a roof, we cannot tie into the current bowl. [1]
To execute this, engineers would have to build an independent exoskeleton structure—a ring of massive steel masts and deep concrete foundations completely surrounding the exterior of the stadium, much like the engineering behind BC Place’s iconic cable-supported system. [1]
The total estimated cost to engineer and construct this windstorm-hardened canopy over TDECU Stadium ranges from $260 million to $390 million USD.
Cost Breakdown Estimate
| Project Phase / Component | Estimated Cost Range (USD) | Cost Drivers & Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Foundations & Deep Piling | $35,000,000 – $55,000,000 | Massive concrete drill shafts down to stable soil strata to counteract immense wind uplift forces. |
| 2. Exoskeleton Steel Infrastructure | $110,000,000 – $155,000,000 | 30+ major perimeter steel masts, compression rings, and the specialized cable net matrix. Heavy windstorm premium. |
| 3. Canopy Membrane (ETFE/PTFE) | $45,000,000 – $65,000,000 | High-tensile fabric panels covering the 40,000-seat bowl footprint. Includes retractable center mechanisms. |
| 4. Windstorm Engineering & Soft Costs | $25,000,000 – $40,000,000 | Complex boundary-layer wind tunnel testing, dynamic structural modeling, architectural and permitting fees. |
| 5. General Conditions & Contingency | $45,000,000 – $75,000,000 | 20% premium for working over an active, existing stadium footprint with tight logistical constraints. |
| TOTAL ESTIMATED COST | $260,000,000 – $390,000,000 | Roughly 2.5 to 3.5 times the original $102M build cost of TDECU Stadium. |
Critical Engineering Cost Drivers
The original BC Place roof renovation cost roughly $514 million CAD (~$380M USD at the time), but it was designed for Vancouver’s gentle 65–70 mph equivalent wind speeds. [1]
Because the stadium bowl can take no load, a series of massive steel masts must be erected around the perimeter of the “Cougar Cage”. [1, 2]
A BC Place-style roof utilizes dual-layer ETFE (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene) cushions or PTFE (Teflon-coated fiberglass) membranes. [1]
Building over a finished stadium is drastically more expensive than building from scratch. Crane placement will be highly restricted by the surrounding campus infrastructure, the nearby METRORail Southeast Line, and localized parking lots. Staging massive steel lifts will require highly complex logistics, driving up the construction management costs. [1, 2, 3]
Would you like to explore how changing the scope to a fixed, partial canopy (only covering the sidelines, like modern European soccer stadiums) would reduce these foundation and wind-load costs?
No one has ever said that it can’t technically be done, what they have said was it was going to cost north of $200m.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that UH is going to spend $200-300 million to put a cap on our ~$120 million stadium. And so unless someone has a $100+ million to contribute toward the cause, I would suggest that we not waste any more time discussing it.
If anything, UH is more likely to spend money on improving the north side upper decks and adding bathrooms, concessions, etc. as well as contributing toward recurring capital maintenance items (ie: refreshing exterior panels, et al.)
You sure showed me
© 1999-2025 CoogFans.com
