Put your thoughts about the Stadium Woods recommendation here
Photo by Caitlin Edenfield
A committee at Virginia Tech today recommended the university change the location of a planned Hokie football practice facility rather than build it on land occupied by an olde-growth forest called Stadium Woods.
My colleagues Tonia Moxley and Andy Bittner have more here.
This has been a hugely contentious issue at Tech; it’s donated scores of letter to the editor by writers pleading the the university to save the woods.
What do you think? Put your comments below.
June 4, 2012 - 4:47 PM
Call me a tree hugger, I agree with the committee.
It was a stupid PR mistake by the Tech Athletic Dept to propose building the facility there in the first place. They have alienated much of the rest of the University community and shold have withdrawn the proposal when the first complaints began to come in. Weaver and Beamer could have generated immense good will with the rest of the community by speaking out and backing off in the first place. Not doing so was an act of arrogance on their part.
300 year old trees-1
Dumbass developers-0
I love the stadium woods. For some reason, my peer group thought impromptu parties at the top of the repelling tower were a good idea. I really don’t even like heights that much, but if someone said they wanted to climb the tower at 3:00am, I always signed up.
But hey, I never did enter the steam tunnels.
I agree with the Committee. They have developed a good compromise. The trees are worth more than the combined cost of excavation, rink, and tennis courts. As a top green school, VT cannot destroy important trees- period.
I tend to agree with dave on this one. It was clear from the get go that most outside the athletic department were opposed to this move. The Athletic Department should have immediately brought in others who were opposed to the original design, had discussions about alternatives and worked out a compromise. The facility would likely have been under construction had they done so. Instead, the university is going to have to spend time healing wounds on both sides in order to move forward.
Why do we have to be satisfied with the committee’s recommendations? Our memory is so short that we forgot where this whole issue started? The Stadium Woods has been contemplated as a protected Greenway under the VT Master Plan. The indoor athletic facility was contemplated to be located parallel to Washington St. at the tennis courts. PERIOD. Can you don’t get it? My original language ain’t english I got it. By forming a committee, by suggesting a change of locations for this facility anyone can question that any stipulated plan at Virginia Tech is subject to the rule of the jungle where anybody can come and modify it as they want? Then, how do we hold accountable our authorities if we cannot trust they will stick with the ORIGINAL PLAN, THE MASTER PLAN? A crocked/diagonal site location not in the woods, or a perpendicular site not in the woods is not any better than a site in the woods. Why? is not obduracy for the sake of obduracy: this is a matter of values one called:”honor your word and the word of the consensus”. All superficial reasons will now flourish: that there is an issue with height, that there is an issue with underground bedrock, that there is an issue with landscaping, that there is an economical issue, that there is an issue with aesthetics, yara-yara. The committee failed to make a categorical recommendation: “we recommend that the suggested idea of placing the indoor athletic facility at the SW is against covenant” Admitting this fact would’ve jeopardized the foundations of any institution. One called Virginia Tech.
I don’t think I could express it any better than dave, and I agree with his assessment. The only thing I can add is that it will be interesting to see if the obstinance by the athletic department continues, or if Weaver and Beamer make public comments supporting the committee’s recommendations as a show of support for the larger purpose of the university. I’ll be skeptical of that occurring until it happens.
They are trees. It ain’t like we are short of them.
If they were unborn children, we wouldn’t bat an eye before killing them. But we can’t hurt the poor trees by, I don’t know, cutting them down and turning them into paper
#7 Are you growin that stuff you’re smokin in the woods?
I want to see the trees stay. I can’t get over how much has been built and how much green has disappeared from that campus since I went there. Out of 2,600 acres, you’d think there are all kinds of other places to put that building and others.
#9 Tell you what, Henry, give us a single decent reason to cut them down instead of simply building the facility where it was planned to begin with.
Gee, that’s what I thought. You’re just trollin’.
@ #9:
Lorax wept.
The facility needs to be built. The current Rector field house is inadequate for the needs of the program which needs to constantly improve to stay relevant on the national scene. As an alum, I value the diversity of the campus and the overall rural atmosphere that is lacking at other state institutions. As for the complaints coming from residents of Blacksburg about how their property values will fall if the Stadium Woods are trimmed, their property values are high to begin with due directly to the athletic program (more specifically the football program). It is no coincidence that VT has increased its academic footprint in the past decade. Nerds want to see a good football game too, including myself.
Put the practice facility at Clemson…
I’m sure Suzie will be along soon to tell us how stupid trees are and that she cuts them down all the time with her bare hands.
The committee’s recommendation also cuts into Stadium Woods, just not as much.
Build the track program a new building on Washington Street, that should help the height issue since the building doesn’t need to be a tall, and the footprint of the building doesn’t need to be as big as the proposed new football building, so it will help keep the new building completely out of Stadium Woods. Rebuild Rector into the new football facility in the place where Rector sits now.
Actually Henry we are getting short of trees. I’ll give you a small example. The farm on which I was reared in 1822 was 640 acres of hardwood forest. My ancestors between 1822 and 1903 cleared all but 50 acres of the trees to convert the land into pastures and grain fields. Most of the trees in that last 50 acres are 350 to 400 years old. Pioneers like my ancestors throughout the midwest and other parts of the country systematically deforested our country to create the farms we have today. Those forests have not been replaced. I know you may have difficulty doing so, but believe me that the deforestation that occurred has damaged our air quality significantly.
The woods at VT may be small but represent a small step toward preservation that is needed badly. The Athletic Department wanted to build the facility in the woods because it was more convenient to the other football facilities. Walking a few steps isn’t going to kill anyone.
Original Greg,
She cuts those trees with the scissors at the end of her arms.
I know every single thing to do with Tech football is a huge stinking deal, but if they have an option other than cutting down the trees, why not take it?
Jeez. If you want trees, go one mile in any direction from Blacksburg. But you know there are enough nuts in Blacksburg to scuttle this thing. Reminds me of a similar flap at Hollins University a few years ago.
As Henry said, if these were little human beings instead of trees, exterminating them would be no problem.
Virginia Tech’s campus is largely a bleak and barren place. It needs MORE trees, not fewer.
“The farm on which I was reared in 1822…”
Wow, Ron, you’re pushing 200! What’s your secret?
“The farm on which I was reared in 1822 was 640 acres of hardwood forest.”
You type very well for someone who’s 190 years old.
Walking a few steps isn’t going to kill anyone.
Comment by Ron — June 5, 2012 @ 8:49 am
No kidding…aren’t they there for “exercise” anyway?
John W & Chuck,
My wife says I look pretty good for my age. That’s all that matters to me.
OK Chuck, that one was funny! Ron, you are a marvel!
Chuck,
My advancing years, on occasion, have caused me to fail to put words in the proper order when composing a sentence. Nonetheless, I’m not too bad for an old codger.
Since this keeps getting forgotten I will re-state:
THE TENNIS COURT AREA IS THE ORIGINAL APPROVED LOCATION, NOT STADIUM WOODS.
For about a decade, the plan was to put the facility on the tennis court location. Also, the VT Master Plan (renewed as recently as 2009)states a commitment to preserve SW as an Environmental Greenway. The switching of location to SW happened very recently (in the last two years) and was done rather secretively, and is in conflict with VT’s own Master Plan.
Regarding the point about the extra costs to make the facility comply with building height restrictions on Washington Street: This claim on their part is just pathetic. Surely, if the athletic dept can get a waiver (or simply ignore) the 2009 VT Master Plan protecting SW, they can get also a waiver from the university for the building height restriction.
Also, the tennis court location is only about 100 yards from the SW location. This is NOT a real inconvenience.
Regarding the point about there not being this reaction if this had been an academic building: A proposal to build an academic building would NEVER have gotten the OK in this location. The fact that the athletic dept did (behind closed doors) is what makes this particularly offensive.
Lastly, to the comments about there being trees everywhere: There are very few mature old growth stands left in the region. Mountain Lake Conservancy is the only one I can think of anywhere around here. This is very rare. And to have them in an urban environment is truly unique. If you do not see the value in this, too bad, but clearly, VT does, as evidenced in VT designating it as a protected Environmental Greenway.
28.”Chuck,
My advancing years, on occasion, have caused me to fail to put words in the proper order when composing a sentence. Nonetheless, I’m not too bad for an old codger.”
We joke about this, but I do feel for the poster known as “dave”. He is a smart guy and obviously writes very well, but has arthritis that causes him some stay keyboard strokes and other typos from time to time. Gotta keep it in perspective. After a serious hand injury many years ago, I don’t ever take functioning fingers for granted.
“Regarding the point about the extra costs to make the facility comply with building height restrictions on Washington Street…”
I think the deal is that no building may be taller than Slusher Tower. I’m not sure if it can’t be a taller building or simply higher in elevation. The elevation of Washington Street could likely make a three or four story building equal in elevation to Slusher. Perhaps the height is necessary for indoor kicking? I’m not sure, but think you’re right, they could do it if they wanted. I sure hope the old trees stay!
If you want the campus to look like a prairie, this is the way to proceed.
Unlike a lot of urban schools, Tech has open space which gives them choice of sites. Regardless, years ago they cut down a fine stand of huge old oaks to make room for that God awful ugly Memorial Chapel. Any idiot can destroy something that takes years to create and replace it with some reject out of a grab bag architectural monstrosity.