Since 1995 - Insightful commentary on the Georgia Bulldogs

Post Visualizing the indoor practice facility

Tuesday March 10, 2015

We learned last month that the athletic department is going forward with an indoor practice facility (IPF).

Greg McGarity put out some information on Monday that talked a bit about the process (and why news to this point has been short on specifics.) More interesting is a series of renderings showing how an IPF might look in various locations around the current practice fields.

One thing to note is that the IPF won’t look exactly like the building you see, so don’t get hung up on the design. They’re using a generic facility to show how a building of similar size will sit in these locations. “Please understand the focus on these renderings centers only on the MASS of the facility in specific areas,” McGarity explained. “Architectural design will be developed as the process continues.”

The renderings make clear the tradeoffs in picking the location. It’s tight quarters. Some combination of existing buildings, existing practice fields, campus streets, and parking will be affected. While the perspective of the renderings make it tough to pinpoint the exact locations, we see several distinct locations under consideration.

  • Some of the renderings lie in part of what we’ll call the “Hoke Smith Block” bordered by Lumpkin St., Carlton St., Sanford Dr., and Smith St. We’re shown versions that are aligned east-west as well as north-south. The north-south orientation cuts off Smith St. and replaces the smaller turf practice field below the track. The east-west version brings the facility closer to Stegeman Coliseum.
  • Other configurations show the facility on the footprint of either a full-length turf or grass practice field. McGarity has insisted for several years that “we don’t want to disturb that environment” of “the first-class practice facility we have here with two grass fields and two turf fields.”
  • At the same time, we’ve come a long way in a year. In December 2013, McGarity seemed resigned to the idea that “it’s gotta probably be out on South Milledge.” We know now that the focus is now much closer to the existing complex. Has McGarity’s stance on sacrificing a practice field changed as well? After all, is an outdoor turf field much different than an indoor one?
  • Another possibility shows the facility placed in the area surrounded by Foley Field’s left field wall, the tennis complex, the Carlton St. parking deck, and the Rankin Smith Center.

Since we’re still in the proposal phase, it’s not worth spending time on the pros and cons of each location or guessing which is most likely. Each location shown will have some impact either on current football facilities or on campus infrastructure (or both).

Comments are closed.