The IPF and architectural considerations...

[ttowncoug]

So I've been watching them put up some new warehouses in Gig Harbor with precast walls. Curious why we couldn't create something that looks really cool, done very quickly at a fraction of the estimated cost.

If you look at this data center, put some architectural elements on here, I contend it would blend well with the baseball complex and the tech building close to the IPF.

Wells® | Building Solutions Provider

From the design through installation, Wells works collaboratively with our industry partners, providing transformational building solutions that help communities thrive.

www.spancrete.com

 

[COUGinNCW]

I’m not sure what the current design is but you can make tilt ups look like brick.

 

[Coug90]

F it lets 3-D print it!

 

[95coug]

So I've been watching them put up some new warehouses in Gig Harbor with precast walls. Curious why we couldn't create something that looks really cool, done very quickly at a fraction of the estimated cost.

If you look at this data center, put some architectural elements on here, I contend it would blend well with the baseball complex and the tech building close to the IPF.

Wells® | Building Solutions Provider

From the design through installation, Wells works collaboratively with our industry partners, providing transformational building solutions that help communities thrive.

www.spancrete.com

Between prevailing wage requirements, the process used, engineering reviews, and general inefficiencies, WSU can't build anything for anywhere near commercial rates.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

A tilt up is one of the two quickest and cheapest ways to build a big box. The other is a steel shell type (Butler is an example of the pre-built version, though you can stick build anything you want). Tilt ups have become more versatile, and for enough money you can do many things, but there are some practical limitations regarding height. That is normally not a concern for warehouses...the new ones Amazon, UPS, etc., are building in SoCal are typically tall enough to permit racking to go 6-7 or so layers high. That is about all the higher that you want a fork lift to be stacking stuff. That sort of height equates out to maybe a 40' high wall (which when you cut out 3-4' for a parapet wall at roof level means mid- to upper 30's feet of usable wall height). If you want much taller you are generally not talking about a tilt-up; I usually see those going steel. So the operative question is, how high does the ceiling (and supporting structural beams) need to be for the IPF? I suspect that for punters, kickers and for some sorts of baseball practice, you would want more than roughly 40' clear height. But maybe I'm wrong. Some of the folks on this board know more than I do about how much clear height the IPF would need?

 

[SDCoug]

A tilt up is one of the two quickest and cheapest ways to build a big box. The other is a steel shell type (Butler is an example of the pre-built version, though you can stick build anything you want). Tilt ups have become more versatile, and for enough money you can do many things, but there are some practical limitations regarding height. That is normally not a concern for warehouses...the new ones Amazon, UPS, etc., are building in SoCal are typically tall enough to permit racking to go 6-7 or so layers high. That is about all the higher that you want a fork lift to be stacking stuff. That sort of height equates out to maybe a 40' high wall (which when you cut out 3-4' for a parapet wall at roof level means mid- to upper 30's feet of usable wall height). If you want much taller you are generally not talking about a tilt-up; I usually see those going steel. So the operative question is, how high does the ceiling (and supporting structural beams) need to be for the IPF? I suspect that for punters, kickers and for some sorts of baseball practice, you would want more than roughly 40' clear height. But maybe I'm wrong. Some of the folks on this board know more than I do about how much clear height the IPF would need?

Let’s just do the tilt up and then tie the bubble on top of it. Solves everything!

 

[ttowncoug]

I read somewhere you can make tilt-up walls up to 96FT in height.

I read articles like this where is says:
Air Force built their IPF for 19M.
Auburn built theirs for 12.5M.

And we are saying it's a 30M project? Prevailing wages isn't the issue. Prevailing budget/facility foolishness is.

Designing the Modern College Football Practice Facility

Athletic Business examines why indoor practice facilities have become vital to college athletics programs and how the best ones are designed.

www.athleticbusiness.com

(yes, I get that the dates were a few years ago).

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Interesting. Thanks for the two other facility referrals, ttown. I used Mr. Google to look at them.

Auburn's facility appears to have something like 40' walls with concrete pillars that support steel arching beams. Looks like steel panels between the pillars, but it might be tilt up. From the pictures it looks like maybe 55' clearance in the middle. Air Force went with a square, steel building that also looks to have something like 50-55' clearance, but because it has a semi-flat roof (there is a slope for rain, but not a big slope), the clearance is pretty much the same across the width of the building.

Air Force (being in Colorado Springs) would have similar rain/snow roof support requirements that you would find in Pullman.

Both structures would be $25m or less today, even in remote Pullman. However, both structures are just a box with a roof. Not something you would want to look at in the middle of campus, and not something that is built in a style that fits anything else. No offices. Did not look like there was a locker room in either...appeared that occupants would have to go to another building to shower. I don't know what the IPF includes. If there is some office space and shower facilities, it would add cost. Also need to consider that there is plenty of land at the AF academy, and from satellite view it appears that there is also a lot of land available at Auburn. Depending upon where you are locating the IPF at WSU, it might make sense to include a lot of offices if the office space is needed. One would have to also include any demo costs if other structures were removed to make space for the IPF, or if adjoining buildings had to have some alterations. I guess what I'm saying is that I can't see or justify $50m if it is just a box with a roof, no matter what construction method is used. But if there were lockers, showers and 12-15K sq ft in office space, and done to match neighboring buildings, it might start to make some sense. I don't have enough info to know.

And just for clarification, the only tilt ups that I am aware of over approx 40' tall are used in multi-story buildings, where you have the structure that supports each floor to help support & stabilize the vertical walls. I've read about people doing office buildings that go to 80' -90-ish feet high that utilize tilt-up walls, though in CA they usually don't go higher than 75' due to the changes in fire code that happen at that height.

 

[ttowncoug]

cr - thanks for the clarification.

I personally contend that we just need a facility, with some locker rooms, and make it blend in with the campus. The Air Force facility, a little bigger to accommodate track, soccer and baseball, seems very doable.

I drive my the VMAC (Seahawks facility) all the time. That's primarily metal-based building....not terrible "fancy" from the outside aesthetics.

What I don't know is if there is enough room on the existing IPF footprint to accomplish this. I'd guess their is, it would just mean vacating a road.

I contend WSU puts itself in this "victim" mentality and can't "see the forest through the trees." We want a 30M IPF when very good substitute is available for half that price.

 

[etowncoug]

cr - thanks for the clarification.

I personally contend that we just need a facility, with some locker rooms, and make it blend in with the campus. The Air Force facility, a little bigger to accommodate track, soccer and baseball, seems very doable.

I drive my the VMAC (Seahawks facility) all the time. That's primarily metal-based building....not terrible "fancy" from the outside aesthetics.

What I don't know is if there is enough room on the existing IPF footprint to accomplish this. I'd guess their is, it would just mean vacating a road.

I contend WSU puts itself in this "victim" mentality and can't "see the forest through the trees." We want a 50M IPF when very good substitute is available for half that price.

The stupid bubble was supposed to be a temporary solution... almost 20 years ago. The IPF, like the FOB and stadium renovations are going to be campus fixtures for a long time. Might as well build it right to keep the building from being an eyesore 5 years after it gets built.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

The stupid bubble was supposed to be a temporary solution... almost 20 years ago. The IPF, like the FOB and stadium renovations are going to be campus fixtures for a long time. Might as well build it right to keep the building from being an eyesore 5 years after it gets built.

Your comment regarding a temporary solution gave me a laugh. Immediately after WWII there was a boom in students (majority male), and because so many were mid- to late 20's, there was also a commensurate boom in married student housing needs. You may not be old enough to have seen the quonset hut-style structures that were built in the latter 40's to be "temporary", but which were still occupied when I was on campus during the disco era. One of my uncles lived in one of those for his last year of school in the early '50's, and they were not luxurious then. I can only imagine what they looked like in the '70's. We have to assume that all "temporary" structures will follow a similar path...

 

[Coug90]

Interesting. Thanks for the two other facility referrals, ttown. I used Mr. Google to look at them.

Auburn's facility appears to have something like 40' walls with concrete pillars that support steel arching beams. Looks like steel panels between the pillars, but it might be tilt up. From the pictures it looks like maybe 55' clearance in the middle. Air Force went with a square, steel building that also looks to have something like 50-55' clearance, but because it has a semi-flat roof (there is a slope for rain, but not a big slope), the clearance is pretty much the same across the width of the building.

Air Force (being in Colorado Springs) would have similar rain/snow roof support requirements that you would find in Pullman.

Both structures would be $25m or less today, even in remote Pullman. However, both structures are just a box with a roof. Not something you would want to look at in the middle of campus, and not something that is built in a style that fits anything else. No offices. Did not look like there was a locker room in either...appeared that occupants would have to go to another building to shower. I don't know what the IPF includes. If there is some office space and shower facilities, it would add cost. Also need to consider that there is plenty of land at the AF academy, and from satellite view it appears that there is also a lot of land available at Auburn. Depending upon where you are locating the IPF at WSU, it might make sense to include a lot of offices if the office space is needed. One would have to also include any demo costs if other structures were removed to make space for the IPF, or if adjoining buildings had to have some alterations. I guess what I'm saying is that I can't see or justify $50m if it is just a box with a roof, no matter what construction method is used. But if there were lockers, showers and 12-15K sq ft in office space, and done to match neighboring buildings, it might start to make some sense. I don't have enough info to know.

And just for clarification, the only tilt ups that I am aware of over approx 40' tall are used in multi-story buildings, where you have the structure that supports each floor to help support & stabilize the vertical walls. I've read about people doing office buildings that go to 80' -90-ish feet high that utilize tilt-up walls, though in CA they usually don't go higher than 75' due to the changes in fire code that happen at that height.

Plenty of room. The punters and kickers can go do their thing outside or in the field house.

 

[32eekortS]

cr - thanks for the clarification.

I personally contend that we just need a facility, with some locker rooms, and make it blend in with the campus. The Air Force facility, a little bigger to accommodate track, soccer and baseball, seems very doable.

I drive my the VMAC (Seahawks facility) all the time. That's primarily metal-based building....not terrible "fancy" from the outside aesthetics.

What I don't know is if there is enough room on the existing IPF footprint to accomplish this. I'd guess their is, it would just mean vacating a road.

I contend WSU puts itself in this "victim" mentality and can't "see the forest through the trees." We want a 30M IPF when very good substitute is available for half that price.

“Can’t see the forest for the trees.”

 

[95coug]

		A tilt up is one of the two quickest and cheapest ways to build a big box. The other is a steel shell type (Butler is an example of the pre-built version, though you can stick build anything you want). Tilt ups have become more versatile, and for enough money you can do many things, but there are some practical limitations regarding height. That is normally not a concern for warehouses...the new ones Amazon, UPS, etc., are building in SoCal are typically tall enough to permit racking to go 6-7 or so layers high. That is about all the higher that you want a fork lift to be stacking stuff. That sort of height equates out to maybe a 40' high wall (which when you cut out 3-4' for a parapet wall at roof level means mid- to upper 30's feet of usable wall height). If you want much taller you are generally not talking about a tilt-up; I usually see those going steel. So the operative question is, how high does the ceiling (and supporting structural beams) need to be for the IPF? I suspect that for punters, kickers and for some sorts of baseball practice, you would want more than roughly 40' clear height. But maybe I'm wrong. Some of the folks on this board know more than I do about how much clear height the IPF would need? A tilt up is one of the two quickest and cheapest ways to build a big box. The other is a steel shell type (Butler is an example of the pre-built version, though you can stick build anything you want). Tilt ups have become more versatile, and for enough money you can do many things, but there are some practical limitations regarding height. That is normally not a concern for warehouses...the new ones Amazon, UPS, etc., are building in SoCal are typically tall enough to permit racking to go 6-7 or so layers high. That is about all the higher that you want a fork lift to be stacking stuff. That sort of height equates out to maybe a 40' high wall (which when you cut out 3-4' for a parapet wall at roof level means mid- to upper 30's feet of usable wall height). If you want much taller you are generally not talking about a tilt-up; I usually see those going steel. So the operative question is, how high does the ceiling (and supporting structural beams) need to be for the IPF? I suspect that for punters, kickers and for some sorts of baseball practice, you would want more than roughly 40' clear height. But maybe I'm wrong. Some of the folks on this board know more than I do about how much clear height the IPF would need? Broke out my old physics formulas for parabolic motion. If you want punters kicking inside, the ceiling needs to be at least 80 feet. If you want them practicing for hang time...higher.

 

[Coug90]

		Broke out my old physics formulas for parabolic motion. If you want punters kicking inside, the ceiling needs to be at least 80 feet. If you want them practicing for hang time...higher.

Yup. Field house works for that. Although shanked punts can result in broken windows that may cost more to fix than the entire IPF.

 

[95coug]

And we are saying it's a 30M project? Prevailing wages isn't the issue. Prevailing budget/facility foolishness is.

prevailing wage is an issue. Especially when your philosophy ensures mistakes and then pays the contractor to fix them.

The entire prevailing wage system is ridiculous anyway, and should be eliminated.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Whether prevailing wage makes sense or not really comes down to how important it is for your crew to be trained. Because guys are paid what they are worth in the open market, and guys who are fully trained are usually paid more than the prevailing wage scale. At least that is true where I live. If it is OK to have just the foremen and some lead guys fully trained, and use unskilled labor for the rest, then you might consider deliberately building a building with a few good guys and a bunch of schmucks. If you did that, you might end up with as much as a 10-15% differential in the entire crew rate between prevailing and not prevailing wage projects. That includes the reality that if your guys are less skilled, their productivity is lower, and you need more working hours, more guys or both to build the job. Most federal money prevailing wage projects also require the use of more apprentices than we would normally use, because there is a desire on the government's part to ensure that we keep a pipeline of apprentices coming to take the place of guys who retire, as well as helping with both training and employment for young people. That increase in the % of folks who are apprentices partially offsets the requirement that people be paid at the rate that a trained person would expect to get. Not completely, because again they tend to be less productive, but partially. Finally, less work has to be done over again, fewer mistakes and fewer accidents when the crew is fully qualified. Can't say the same if a significant % of the crew is not fully trained.

Also recognize that the costs of equipment and materials are agnostic regarding whether a project is prevailing wage or not prevailing wage. Net net, the total impact of prevailing wage is probably at least 5% in the total project cost, but rarely 10%. It is something, but it is not a big factor in a building's construction budget.

And remember...skilled labor isn't cheap, and cheap labor isn't skilled. That has been true as long as construction has been in existence. It might be OK to have sloppier work on some buildings. That is a decision that ought to be made consciously, rather than blindly. Which is one of the reasons for prevailing wages. Are they a good idea? That is as much a political and social question as it is a cost question. But don't over-estimate the cost magnitude for a building's total delivered cost in terms of whether the project is prevailing wage or not, because I have yet to see a total building that would have more than a 10% differential due to prevailing wage, and it is typically less than that. Specific trades might be more or less, but the IPF is not $50 million solely or even significantly due to prevailing wage rules.

 

[95coug]

Whether prevailing wage makes sense or not really comes down to how important it is for your crew to be trained. Because guys are paid what they are worth in the open market, and guys who are fully trained are usually paid more than the prevailing wage scale. At least that is true where I live. If it is OK to have just the foremen and some lead guys fully trained, and use unskilled labor for the rest, then you might consider deliberately building a building with a few good guys and a bunch of schmucks. If you did that, you might end up with as much as a 10-15% differential in the entire crew rate between prevailing and not prevailing wage projects. That includes the reality that if your guys are less skilled, their productivity is lower, and you need more working hours, more guys or both to build the job. Most federal money prevailing wage projects also require the use of more apprentices than we would normally use, because there is a desire on the government's part to ensure that we keep a pipeline of apprentices coming to take the place of guys who retire, as well as helping with both training and employment for young people. That increase in the % of folks who are apprentices partially offsets the requirement that people be paid at the rate that a trained person would expect to get. Not completely, because again they tend to be less productive, but partially. Finally, less work has to be done over again, fewer mistakes and fewer accidents when the crew is fully qualified. Can't say the same if a significant % of the crew is not fully trained.

Also recognize that the costs of equipment and materials are agnostic regarding whether a project is prevailing wage or not prevailing wage. Net net, the total impact of prevailing wage is probably at least 5% in the total project cost, but rarely 10%. It is something, but it is not a big factor in a building's construction budget.

And remember...skilled labor isn't cheap, and cheap labor isn't skilled. That has been true as long as construction has been in existence. It might be OK to have sloppier work on some buildings. That is a decision that ought to be made consciously, rather than blindly. Which is one of the reasons for prevailing wages. Are they a good idea? That is as much a political and social question as it is a cost question. But don't over-estimate the cost magnitude for a building's total delivered cost in terms of whether the project is prevailing wage or not, because I have yet to see a total building that would have more than a 10% differential due to prevailing wage, and it is typically less than that. Specific trades might be more or less, but the IPF is not $50 million solely or even significantly due to prevailing wage rules.

That’s what it was intended to do, it’s not what it does. Most trades people jump at any opportunity to work a prevailing wage job. They know those jobs pay them more than commercial work, and have a lax schedule so they also end up getting more hours. The only thing prevailing wage does is guarantees that government projects significantly overpay for labor. You’re right about equipment and materials also being a big cost...but it balances out because government projects significantly overpay for those too.

Government bidding and contracting is completely dysfunctional. Starting from the start, when the contractor is told how much money is available, then assured of a profit margin, then asked what can be built within those limits. The commercial way makes more sense - this is what I want, what will it cost?

 

[NMBRCRNCHR]

Whether prevailing wage makes sense or not really comes down to how important it is for your crew to be trained. Because guys are paid what they are worth in the open market, and guys who are fully trained are usually paid more than the prevailing wage scale. At least that is true where I live. If it is OK to have just the foremen and some lead guys fully trained, and use unskilled labor for the rest, then you might consider deliberately building a building with a few good guys and a bunch of schmucks. If you did that, you might end up with as much as a 10-15% differential in the entire crew rate between prevailing and not prevailing wage projects. That includes the reality that if your guys are less skilled, their productivity is lower, and you need more working hours, more guys or both to build the job. Most federal money prevailing wage projects also require the use of more apprentices than we would normally use, because there is a desire on the government's part to ensure that we keep a pipeline of apprentices coming to take the place of guys who retire, as well as helping with both training and employment for young people. That increase in the % of folks who are apprentices partially offsets the requirement that people be paid at the rate that a trained person would expect to get. Not completely, because again they tend to be less productive, but partially. Finally, less work has to be done over again, fewer mistakes and fewer accidents when the crew is fully qualified. Can't say the same if a significant % of the crew is not fully trained.

Also recognize that the costs of equipment and materials are agnostic regarding whether a project is prevailing wage or not prevailing wage. Net net, the total impact of prevailing wage is probably at least 5% in the total project cost, but rarely 10%. It is something, but it is not a big factor in a building's construction budget.

And remember...skilled labor isn't cheap, and cheap labor isn't skilled. That has been true as long as construction has been in existence. It might be OK to have sloppier work on some buildings. That is a decision that ought to be made consciously, rather than blindly. Which is one of the reasons for prevailing wages. Are they a good idea? That is as much a political and social question as it is a cost question. But don't over-estimate the cost magnitude for a building's total delivered cost in terms of whether the project is prevailing wage or not, because I have yet to see a total building that would have more than a 10% differential due to prevailing wage, and it is typically less than that. Specific trades might be more or less, but the IPF is not $50 million solely or even significantly due to prevailing wage rules.

Prevailing wage ≠ "skilled"

I don't care how you slice it, I will leave it at that.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Prevailing wage ≠ "skilled"

I don't care how you slice it, I will leave it at that.

Cheap labor is not skilled, and skilled labor is not cheap. That is a fact that won't change. When it comes to skilled trades wages, there is no guarantee that if you pay more you will get more; but there is a certainty that if you pay less you will get less. Prevailing wage rules are a proxy to try to assure that you don't have cheap labor (which, de facto, will not be skilled, or they would be earning more). Prevailing wage rules are a clumsy proxy to try to achieve the goal, but we have not come up with anything better for the past 4 or 5 generations. I'm open to something that will work better. But again, the slimiest, most worthless contractors typically have the cheapest crew mix. Their crew mix is cheap because their guys are not good enough to get better wages elsewhere. The competitive market works, and a good guy can leave a contractor and get a job somewhere else tomorrow. Mediocre guys have to look around and find a good fit. And poor guys, who are often poor because they are untrained, are the ones who you don't want on your job. Prevailing wage rules are intended to avoid the slimy contractors with the unskilled guys. Again, it is clumsy and it is certainly not 100% effective. Based on my lifetime of construction work, I'd guess its effectiveness at no better than 75-80%, and it also carries the usual government paperwork (especially payroll related) and other hassles that make it unpopular from a management perspective as well as a labor perspective. But we don't have a better approach right now. Unfortunately.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

That’s what it was intended to do, it’s not what it does. Most trades people jump at any opportunity to work a prevailing wage job. They know those jobs pay them more than commercial work, and have a lax schedule so they also end up getting more hours. The only thing prevailing wage does is guarantees that government projects significantly overpay for labor. You’re right about equipment and materials also being a big cost...but it balances out because government projects significantly overpay for those too.

Government bidding and contracting is completely dysfunctional. Starting from the start, when the contractor is told how much money is available, then assured of a profit margin, then asked what can be built within those limits. The commercial way makes more sense - this is what I want, what will it cost?

Tradespeople jumping at prevailing wage jobs does not match my life's experience, if the tradesperson is competent. Guys who are not fully trained and are not very productive like prevailing wage jobs, because it does in fact give them a chance to make more than they could make if they were simply be paying what they were worth if a contractor will hire them. But since prevailing wages are typically set at or slightly under base union journeyman wages, and since most union guys that are any good are paid somewhat over scale, you are left with no union guys who have gone through 5 years of night school along with working during their apprenticeship in order to be fully trained being motivated to work prevailing wage, and only non-union guys who are not fully trained/educated seeing prevailing wage as an opportunity. Recognize that the field guys are not the ones bidding the work...the contractors are bidding the work...and they really have no business bidding a prevailing wage job if their guys are not good enough to merit pretty close to what ever the prevailing wage rate is in their trade. They can't be competitive if their guys are not at that level. And there are good non-union contractors. Those are the ones who typically have been around a long time, have a stable work force, and have enough guys at every skill level that they fit prevailing wage jobs as well (or even better, since prevailing wage is a bit under union rates) as the union contractors do. Typically the contractors who do mostly prevailing wage work are the better non-union guys, who have a stable work force that due to the competitive market are getting about the same wages whether it is a prevailing wage project or not.

 

[froropmkr72]

A tilt up is one of the two quickest and cheapest ways to build a big box. The other is a steel shell type (Butler is an example of the pre-built version, though you can stick build anything you want). Tilt ups have become more versatile, and for enough money you can do many things, but there are some practical limitations regarding height. That is normally not a concern for warehouses...the new ones Amazon, UPS, etc., are building in SoCal are typically tall enough to permit racking to go 6-7 or so layers high. That is about all the higher that you want a fork lift to be stacking stuff. That sort of height equates out to maybe a 40' high wall (which when you cut out 3-4' for a parapet wall at roof level means mid- to upper 30's feet of usable wall height). If you want much taller you are generally not talking about a tilt-up; I usually see those going steel. So the operative question is, how high does the ceiling (and supporting structural beams) need to be for the IPF? I suspect that for punters, kickers and for some sorts of baseball practice, you would want more than roughly 40' clear height. But maybe I'm wrong. Some of the folks on this board know more than I do about how much clear height the IPF would need?

They go way higher than that...like 70' plus.

TCA Top 10 Projects: Tallest Panel | Tilt-up Concrete Association

These project listings are continually updated to showcase the extents to which Tilt-Up construction has been successfully used.

tilt-up.org

 

[cr8zyncalif]

They go way higher than that...like 70' plus.

TCA Top 10 Projects: Tallest Panel | Tilt-up Concrete Association

These project listings are continually updated to showcase the extents to which Tilt-Up construction has been successfully used.

tilt-up.org

Correct. As I noted, they go higher than about 40' if there is additional reinforcement, such as what you get with multiple stories (in other words, multiple floors, or in the case of the churches cited, mezzanines or choir lofts that help stabilize the taller walls). That doesn't apply for a big box. Not saying you couldn't build a really tall big box with a tilt up, but you would have to add pillars or buttresses or something to stabilize the structure. And then it would not be the cheap solution anymore, so you don't see people doing it much, if at all.

 

[froropmkr72]

Correct. As I noted, they go higher than about 40' if there is additional reinforcement, such as what you get with multiple stories (in other words, multiple floors, or in the case of the churches cited, mezzanines or choir lofts that help stabilize the taller walls). That doesn't apply for a big box. Not saying you couldn't build a really tall big box with a tilt up, but you would have to add pillars or buttresses or something to stabilize the structure. And then it would not be the cheap solution anymore, so you don't see people doing it much, if at all.

Sure, the roof is a steel structure. This is a detailed breakdown of of the 40' tilt-up walls with a 60' at the center truss. Meant to add that they said it could of taller, but would be too imposing. If there's room...they can build a berm against the walls too make it less imposing

https://facilities.ufl.edu/prjdocs/00004462.pdf

File:Tualatin Hills Aquatic Center.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[95coug]

Sure, the roof is a steel structure. This is a detailed breakdown of of the 40' tilt-up walls with a 60' at the center truss. Meant to add that they said it could of taller, but would be too imposing. If there's room...they can build a berm against the walls too make it less imposing

https://facilities.ufl.edu/prjdocs/00004462.pdf

File:Tualatin Hills Aquatic Center.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here’s a 6-story building in Texas, using tilt-ups.

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=5498

 

[COUGinNCW]

The Amazon Fullfilment Cebter was supposed to be a 4 story tilt up but time constraints and contractor availability forced them to go another direction.

 

[COUGinNCW]

So I've been watching them put up some new warehouses in Gig Harbor with precast walls. Curious why we couldn't create something that looks really cool, done very quickly at a fraction of the estimated cost.

If you look at this data center, put some architectural elements on here, I contend it would blend well with the baseball complex and the tech building close to the IPF.

Wells® | Building Solutions Provider

From the design through installation, Wells works collaboratively with our industry partners, providing transformational building solutions that help communities thrive.

www.spancrete.com

Captain hindsight on the entire subject but the FootballOps building and the IPF should have been combined. Building the Ops building where they did added significant costs to the build. I bet there would have been $15-20M savings combining them.