Pete van der Have is director of plant operations at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. He is a Past APPA President and can be reached at pvanderhave@campplan.utah.edu.

Football, American style. Big business. Tens of thousands of highly charged fans, each one of whom expects to watch an exciting game, every time. Every one of them expects to have access to a seat with great sight lines, hot dogs stands with short lines, and restrooms with no lines. They expect to be able to sit through the entire 3-1/2 hour event, watching their favorite team annihilate the enemy as a ton and a half of human flesh crash, smash, and annihilate each other. These paying fans prefer to do this without a single sliver in their respective gluteus maximi. They demand safe conditions, equal access, and generally a good deal for their money.

Most every community with a college football team changes faces on game day. To many, the football stadium carries a status parallel or even beyond that of a temple, even though for many it is a place of worship. If all that is true, why did we for decades insist on housing this shrine in a tired, run-down, unsafe, inadequate facility? Why do so many others? Could it be--money?

The University of Utah stadium has shown its age for many years. Built over 60 years ago, using wooden bleachers on planking on built-up dirt, and upsized in the early 1980s, this home for 32,000 worshipers was loved like an old swayback horse. It no longer met anyone's needs. Concrete, where it had been used, was rapidly deteriorating and falling apart. The eight lower rows were added in the early 1980s and were in reasonable shape. The restrooms were too few (especially for the women), lighting was inadequate, access was limited, and the place was just generally tired and worn out. The wooden bleachers and planking were slowly sliding downhill, creating an unsafe and ungainly situation. Moreover, it was deemed to be too small for the type and size of institution in our conference. Everybody knew it had to go, but very few wanted to take the first steps toward its demise.

The Seed is Planted

Approximately seven years ago, several gutsy individuals began to investigate opportunities to change things. Funding was found to replace the very old, worn out artificial turf playing field with the then-recently developed SportsGrass system, a creative mixture of artificial sand-filled turf and real grass. We added a full field drainage system, which doubled as a fan-forced sub-air system. (Our experience with this playing field could be a whole other story.)

In the meantime, the university retained financial consultants to determine if the local market could support a better, larger stadium. If we build it, will they come? After many gut-wrenching meetings with numerous stakeholder groups, the conclusion was rendered: Yes, they'll come! With contagious enthusiasm, the university decided to overhaul and expand its Running Utes' Stadium.

There was still, of course, one pressing problem, which now had to be faced head-on: Who's got the money to pay for it? At this point, no one did. We knew better than to approach the state legislature for funding. Thus, our campus did what any modern, self-respecting university does beg for donations. To our surprise, significant donations soon started to roll in.

As the experts were constantly reassessing our current status, a mixed blessing befell onto our state and Salt Lake City: The 2002 Winter Olympics were awarded to Salt Lake City. They would need a home for Opening and Closing Ceremonies, a home large enough to handle 50,000 spectators and the 4,000 athletes. That announcement probably was the final catalyst helping us make the decision: Let s proceed with the renovation and enlargement of the existing stadium, and let s get it done before February 2002!

In late 1995, to fully analyze the project's constructability as well as to begin the initial design work, we (the University of Utah and the State Division of Facilities Construction and Management) retained FFKR Architecture/Planning, a successful local design firm. A steering committee was formed, with representatives from the various stakeholder groups. FFKR soon recommended that we not expand the existing stadium. They found it more cost effective to simply raze the old stadium, and build a new one in its place. The key component of this suggestion was a bowl seating configuration in which the seating rows run continuously from the field to the top row.

In early 1996, we still suffered from extreme budget limitations on this project. Logistically, it made sense there to complete the project in three phases. The west phase (including housing for press, suite, and club levels), when completed, could help generate an increase in revenue to pay for the east phase, and so on. Unfortunately, the last phase would also be the least glamorous and therefore would have the most difficult time generating enthusiastic support from donors, alumni, etc. The proposed schedule reminded me of what a few acquaintances had done in order to get a house: build the basement with a temporary roof, move in, then build the rest of the house. Not pleasant or fast, but more convenient for the checkbook. Definitely, it is not cheaper. We determined that we could end up paying a premium of millions of dollars in order to phase this project over three years, even if we could keep the funding stream and the donations going over that period of time. What's wrong with this picture?

Add a Little Fertilizer

Sober minds prevailed and conquered. An even more energetic fund drive was kicked off. Again, we received ecstatic support from local fans, alumni, donors, philanthropic groups, and the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee. In late December 1996, a matching grant from the George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation worth millions of dollars came to us. We even decided to sell the old chair seats and bleachers out of the stadium to anyone interested.

The success of this funding drive changed the stadium expansion (as it was still referred to) from a three-phase project to a 17-month, single-phase project, to be completed before the commencement of the 1998 football season. The die was cast; we re going to raze the old and build the new! Except that we still had to find a contractor who would be willing to build our new 45,000 stadium, including a couple of dozen luxury boxes, for a limited budget of under $50 million, on a very constricted site, while allowing us to hold one outdoor concert and six football games in the old stadium.

As we were approaching the point when we wanted to locate a contractor, design work was proceeding (thank goodness!). FFKR realized early in the design process that the stadium configuration must be of a simple form to facilitate ease of construction and to meet the budget. Additionally, they realized that by paying extra attention to the design of repetitive details, the feel of the stadium could be elevated to a higher level. While the new stadium was to be designed primarily for football, the desire to host rock concerts and NCAA soccer games was also taken into consideration.

The 2002 Winter Olympics required that a tunnel be added providing direct access to the playing field from the exterior of the bowl. Since they had placed quite a bundle of cash into the construction budget, we were happy to oblige. We had agreed to build 45,000 permanent seats, providing for at least 5,000 temporary seats that could be added for the Ceremonies. Additionally, we designed the roof of the Stadium Box (now called Stadium Towers) so that it can accommodate the crush of world press during the Games. In order to meet the budget and the compressed construction schedule, the lower bowl would be constructed of concrete slab-on-grade seating tiers while the upper bowl would be steel superstructure and steel plate. The university also encouraged development of a South Plaza gathering place which matched with the Olympic requirement for a large staging area for the Games' Opening and Closing Ceremonies.

We hit the marketplace with designs which were about 80 percent complete. A modified design/bid/build process was used to narrow the list of interested and qualified contractors down to a few, who were then encouraged to develop proposals. Obviously, budget and schedule were two primary drivers. During price preparation, it became obvious to all of the contractors that our budget was going to be exceeded. Layton Construction Company (LCC), the eventual winner in the process, admitted that their initial reaction to demolition of an existing stadium and essentially building a brand new one between seasons was one of skepticism. This sense was amplified even further when they learned they would not be permitted to use our SportsGrass playing field for a staging area. Yet, as they learned more about the project and our team (the steering committee, not the football team), they became more optimistic.

As written by LCC:
We were determined to have a solution on how the project could be completed on time, prior to our responding to the proposal. We developed several strategic plans and techniques that would be necessary to accomplish the goal. Some of the strategic elements included:

  1. Begin the Stadium Box ASAP and continue work on it during the football season.
  2. Slip form the stair and elevator cores to facilitate steel erection.
  3. Build the bowl with the concrete and steel sections of the bowl schemed and build as separate phases. The upper half steel bowl could be constructed first, leaving the area of the lower bowl for staging and excavation. The lower and concrete half of the bowl would be formed and poured last.

The project team now included representatives from the university (including the athletics department, others, and facilities), FFKR, Layton Construction, plus a representative from the State Division of Facilities Construction and Management. Upon negotiation of the contract all worked very closely together to get the project back into budget, without diminishing the project. The contractor and the subs developed an extensive list of items to be considered by the user group for value engineering. The steering committee picked those items from the list that would not have a negative impact on the success of the project. The contract was signed and we were on our way. Initially, as the contractor moved on site to start excavation for the Stadium Box, the project progressed ahead of schedule, and stayed that way for most of the first 30 percent of the project. That is not to say we did not run into some complications. There were surprises with utility lines (why not) and the geotech conditions for the site were very complex, creating many challenges. The demolition contractor, once he came on site the day after the last football game of the 1997 season, operated on a different schedule than did the others. The old scoreboard, when lifted off its moorings by a large crane, was dropped and wiped out 300 seats located at the south end of the stadium the only part that was not going to be replaced. All those seats had to be replaced, and we were lucky that was all!

Add a Little Water and Sunshine and a Little Luck

This being Utah, weather is always a factor. It is either too hot or too cold to pour concrete. This would be the year when Mother Nature would do her best to keep us challenged. The contractor intially attempted to backfill the slope with soil that was too saturated. They ended up taking it all out so that they could import material. When they began the traffic topping, it began to rain, and rain, and rain, and rain. After six weeks of rain they had to start multiple shifts to get the topping done on time. As the painting contractor started to spray the high-quality paints on the steel structure (and you can imagine how much of that there is under a stadium of this type), the winds started to blow. Unfortunately for him, and us, we received hundreds of complaints during the next several weeks from irate members of our campus community who found out their cars were not merely dirty but speckled with paint. Since the Opening and Closing Ceremonies are to occur in this facility, one Olympic sponsor donated almost a million dollars worth of mechanical equipment to the Olympic organizers, who in turn sold it to the project for a vastly discounted cost. Although the equipment was not a total hand-in-glove fit, the team was able to make it work, still enjoying a net benefit to the project. The public had a great desire to know what was going on. Almost every day someone showed up on site wanting to take a tour. We had imposters pretending they were members of the Olympic movement, or others saying they were on our Board of Trustees, just to take a peek at the stadium. Layton and the subs had to contend with students, football coaches and players, governmental officials (real or perceived), Olympic dignitaries, NBC Sports (the official network for the 2002 Winter Games), friends, and family. It all had to be done with everyone's safety in mind, as well. Liability questions had to be continuously addressed.

Provide a Lot of Tender, Loving Care

One single, significant process that made this project possible was the slip- forming techniques used on the towers (177 ft. high), which house elevators, stairways, and the shaft for mechanical systems. They also provide the anchor system for the new pressbox and suites--a four-story, 77,000 gsf suspended structure. The time we saved was calculated to be at the very least three months on the construction schedule. The slip-forming used involved a trapezoidal shape, rarely done before in this country. Three 8-hour shifts and a 24-hour concrete batch with contingency plans were required, with 30 workers for each shift. Another problem that had to be resolved resulted from the huge amount of sandblasting required to strip the steel down to bare essentials, prior to painting. There was so much sand and silt to clean up that LCC crews tried sweeping, snow shovels, even conveyers. They still could not keep up with the sheer volume. Finally, someone suggested renting a giant vacuum truck. It worked great!

And Bingo, a New Stadium Flourishes!

Well, it wasn't a cake walk, to be sure. But a number of steps were taken to minimize risks and to guarantee success. For instance, the general contractor sponsored a full-day partnering session. Invited were our entire design and construction team, all the subcontractors, major vendors and suppliers, etc. This was a forum that allowed all the participants to fully understand and accept the goals and objectives of the other players. Lines of communication were always open, so that university personnel, the designers, and builders were always available to answer questions and coordinate on very short notice. A university official, empowered to make almost all decisions on the spot, was present at the weekly coordination meetings. The communications were definitely not phatic in nature we weren't just being nice to each other. Any one of us did confront when the situation called for it. LCC held weekly meetings with the subcontractors, and separate meetings with the consultants. Questions were answered immediately in most cases, avoiding costly and unnecessary delays. When the weather threatened to delay the completion of the project, the contractor and his subs worked out a plan to bring more help to the site, in order to recaptured valuable lost time.

Virtually everyone, virtually all of the time, maintained a will do attitude. If the solution was not obvious at first, the players were able to meet face to face and find the best solution. When there were disagreements (and there were a few, without a doubt) they were resolved. No one took disagreements personally. As a result of this kind of attitude, we were able to save enough money on the project to buy back some of the niceties given up during the initial value management process. For instance, we had chosen to use only architectural concrete on the exterior of the towers, sacrificing a sandstone veneer. We were able to reverse this decision before the end of the project. (We had still designed the footings, etc. to accommodate this potential at a later date.)

Everyone recognized early on that this would be a high profile project. In part because of the Olympic implications, in part because of the generosity of several of the donors, and in part because of the interest in the community with this project, we recognized that there were literally thousands of eyes watching every bit of progress. Some naysayers were saying nay during the full course of the project saying, You'll never finish on time. But, hey, we did!

That there was and is an unbelievable amount of pride with this project is quite evident. We are still in regular contact with the contractor, who maintains an active interest in the success of the newly named Rice-Eccles Stadium. When approached to contribute their thoughts on the successes and hazards with the project, they as well as the designers, as well as university stakeholders eagerly submitted more documents than I could use for this article. Layton Construction shared their numerous photographs of the stadium with us, beyond the framed ones some of us are fortunate enough to display in our offices. Corny though it may sound, I will never forget the 17 months I was able to spend with this team of professionals, together with whom we were able to build such a memorable project.

To Have and to Hold

The university has set up a system whereby this facility has to be totally self supporting. The football team simply becomes a tenant five or six times per year. The stadium has to be a totally independent auxiliary, paying for all its own expenses. In order to generate a revenue stream sufficient enough to pay off the bonds and guarantee proper maintenance, it is operated independently of other campus organizations.

The Stadium Towers provide a spectacular view over the valley. We're 500 feet above the valley floor, and the entire west face of the suspended structure is glass. This makes the facility a natural and marvelous location to host conferences, meetings, wedding receptions, and so on, both to on- and off-campus organizations. All of these events generate income beyond the traditional revenue stream generated by football, concerts, concessions, and the like.

There are still additional organizational and personal alignments that have to occur in order to make this venture operate as smoothly as we would all like. But, given the sweat and tears we all put into the success of the construction project, there is no doubt in my mind that this facility will be an award-winning success story of which we can all be proud for many years! Participants such as FFKR, Layton Construction, DFCM, the University of Utah (many of whom provided text for this article, which I liberally incorporated), will insist on this continued success being the only acceptable option!