Printable View
was there not a way to use a darker based concrete so that the new endzone section going in would more closely match what is already existing? Pretty obvious from any view including the live cam but I linked the latest pictures that clearly show what I am talking about.
http://www.msubulldogclub.com/reseat.../#CONSTRUCTION
[QUOTE=maroonmania;146935]was there not a way to use a darker based concrete so that the new endzone section going in would more closely match what is already existing? Pretty obvious from any view including the live cam but I linked the latest pictures that clearly show what I am talking about.
http://www.msubulldogclub.com/reseat.../#CONSTRUCTION[/QUOTE
No way to economically do that.
The difference will not be as noticeable after the seating is installed.
Lol. It won't take long for the colors to match. A few weeks out in the elements and you'll never notice.
Also, this is the "Green" concrete that was developed by the university that is environmentally friendly. So I don't believe color was a big concern from them. Plus, everyone knows it's an addition so it's going to look newer anyway.
The old concrete you speak of is officially the oldest concrete in college football. We have the NCAA's oldest football stadium.
Good point, I had forgotten about that issue being a driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRef
Or when the stadium is packed! It will blend in within a year or two. Stadium is really starting to come together. Can't wait to see it in person!
[QUOTE=TheDogFather;146939]Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
I understand that but can you even select different shading of concrete? The Ref pointed out the "green" product we are using so that may have eliminated any color option anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassInterference
2nd oldest...GT's stadium is older unless they tore it down within the past year.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassInterference
correctQuote:
Originally Posted by TheRef
yes you can. and it's EXPENSIVE for even a small project, much less a stadium expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
2nd oldest in Division I behind Bobby Dodd stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassInterference
ETA: Should have read the entire thread before posting...
I'm in the industry...
Literally no one would color that amount of cement before it was poured... The only way would be to stain the concrete after it is set(which wouldn't be that hard or expensive, because it wouldn't be decorative. It's still a waste of money though, because it will darken pretty fast in a humid/wet Mississippi climate.
Just a side note... In my experience, the so called "green" cements have nothing to do with the color. The deposits where cement companies get their limestone will effect how light or dark the cement is more than anything(but I doubt this was even thought about). Cement companies generally use a lot of fly ash or slag as a filler. When you take fly ash out of the cement, you reduce your carbon footprint, and get a better cement product honestly. cement products that have too much fly ash will get too hot, dry out too fast, and crack to shit. I see it all the time on the stucco side of the business. Quickrete/TXI all in one bag products will use the sh!t out of fillers.
^ this guys knows. The "green" label also comes from the selected fuels the cement kilns burn to produce the cement. The brown you see is the aggregate starting to show through from years of wear and tear. Much like Mississippi's brown roads. Here in Alabama most things are limestone aggregate based so wear and tear on concrete doesn't show quite as drastically much like our roads look gray once the asphalt is worn of the surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo352
I would love for us to do what auburn did and add a spray on coating which looks new and adds some friction back to the old concrete surfaces.
How does that work? I would think fly ash would have minimal impact, basically what you consume shipping it. If you remove it, are you really not replacing it with material that would have roughly equal carbon emissions?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo352
I've worked on a couple of LEED Certified building projects. Green building guidelines look at the complete manufacturing process. Something like fly ash is considered a bad thing b/c of the way it is manufactured (which is typically a by-product of burning something - which the greenies don't like), and to a degree the way it off-gases over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
Jimbo just nailed it .... I'm afraid the "Green" thing is here to stay - it's one huge pain in the butt and usually not worth the cost .... concrete or mortar colorant can be added but in those quantities it's very difficult to maintain the continuity .... staining is always cheaper and easierQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbo352
That seems backwards. Fly ash is a byproduct of a combustion process that's going to take place regardless. Seems like they'd want to go ahead and use it since it's going to be created anyway. Obviously to the extent you're creating a market for fly ash you are making it a little more profitable to do things like burn coal, but I would think the ability to sell fly ash would not normally be driving a significant uptick in whatever process is used to create it. Is the sale of fly ash a bigger money maker than I realize, or is this another instance of greens being idiots?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
I was building an academic center @ Clemson under the Green mandate and because of that I had to import lumber / plywood from some virgin forest in Oregon ...yes, it was incredibly expensiveQuote:
Originally Posted by GumpDawg
The later, but it does have a financial benefit to the power, steel, etc. industry as they don't have to dispose of the byproduct as a regulated waste. That costs them money whereas selling it is a profit. There is a big battle going on over this now. The folks that don't want it used as byproducts don't understand that it will take up all the air space in our landfills otherwise. It's funny when the environmentalist don't want something recycled or reused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
So instead of using timber harvested from planted trees, they actually wanted to impact natural forests?Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHDAWG
I actually can't remember if it was virgin or not but the products had to come from a certain geological area in Oregon ... I passed the criteria on to my materials supplier and he promptly called me back to see if I understood what it was going to take to meet the spec ... apparently nothing that money couldn't take care of .... lots of money
LEED has some benefits, there are definite head-scratching things about it, and it can drive some major costs. The Guv here in GA actually issued an executive order last year banning State agencies from using LEED b/c they do not consider southern yellow pine as a sustainable material (much to the chagrin of 'Ole Yella Wood).
I'm not sure what the end game is for the people who want fly ash out... I would understand if they were arguing product quality, but they're not... Maybe they think they can raise the taxes and fees to dispose of it, and push them to move toward cleaner energy... Not sure...Quote:
Originally Posted by GumpDawg
There are a few manufactures of scratch and brown, masonry, and one coat, that use waaayyy too much fly ash, and the quality is absolute crap. That needs to be regulated a little better IMO, but not for environmental reasons. It's hard to get cement companies to move toward more expensive and cleaner methods, because the margins are already so tight. Will be interesting to see what happens when real pressure is applied by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgInMemphis
Actually, you are all wrong. It's the 2nd oldest Division 1 on campus football stadium in the NCAA.
Okay..okay...let's get specific here everyone. It's the 2nd oldest Division I NCAA on campus football stadium that is currently in use.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully