JTS construction webcam?
- Thread starter isu5000
- Start date
To reduce the likelihood of people standing on the top row doing a back-flip and falling 50 ft?
Um, I don't think those would be very handicap friendly. He's talking about the back 2 rows in the upper corners.
As stated somewhere else on this topic....as a means of egress. Probably required by code.
In other words, so the negative nancies have a place to jump when a couple of plays go bad?
I have trouble seeing this to be the reason. Egress from the top row? Leap over the side? I suppose you could mean it would be easier to run / exit quickly and use the top row as an exit path, but why only a couple of the rows then, why not all of them? Some top rows have benches.
I still believe it is for SRO. I think you could sell twice as many tickets for SRO up there, then butts in the seats.
It's interesting to consider. I'll give you that.
You are absolutely correct. Building code required that the back row in those sections not have seating. This was confirmed by the Athletics Department.
I work with ADA requirements every day, fully support the need for ADA accommodations, but some of the ADA requirements make no sense at all.
So how does that help with egress? Are they going to bring firetrucks and put up ladders? Will we see a return of the crane to rescue everyone from the back row? Maybe they'll install gigantic inflatable slides? I don't get it.
Haha. Exactly my question. It's a tenuous argument to claim that removing a row of bleachers on the top row of a tall grandstand helps with egress in case of emergency. I don't think it's reasonable to expect fans to jump over the top of the bleachers for egress purposes. If so, how does having bleachers hinder egress? Wouldn't having extra height to "jump over the top" help? Lord, this is a silly thought exercise.
Maybe we just have to shake our head here, and realize it is a bad regulation that should be remedied but is going to be applied against ISU in this case to the tune of losing hundreds of seats?
Probably so that if one set of stairs down is blocked, it provides a path for moving laterally between sections.
Yep. I'm sure that regulation was put in place 20 years ago to screw us over when we built that highly likely stadium expansion.
If that were so, then wouldn't it make more sense for the "Code" referred to by others to require a row without seats mid-way up the second level rather than at the top? It would be more accessible to people. It is just funny that removing the benches on the top row is being cited as a means of providing egress (i.e.exit) from the stadium.
You're all trying to rationalize it, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Again, if the idea is to provide more lateral movement between sections, shouldn't it be lower than at the top? I have not studied how large masses of people move, but it just seems perplexing and like wasted space.
No, it probably wasn't. This may be an unintended consequence - and who knows when this regulation was put in place. The ADA may have been enacted in the early '90s, but the regulation implementing the legislation may not have taken effect until 2000, or 2010 or last year. New regs implementing laws happen all the time.
In other Jack Trice Stadium construction news, it seems that they have installed the flashing to close the gap between the old and new sections on the east side. No more strip that looked wide enough to put your foot through.
