Figure 14.
This idea was proposed to our student population in the survey. There were two questions covering for lights. The first was the support for lights. We discovered an overwhelming 79 percent was in support of lighted fields.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Following the discovery of overwhelming support for the idea, lighting options were investigated. It was the intention to research present methods of lighting as well as environmentally friendly lights. It was immediately made clear that high-powered metal-halide lights were not conducive to solar power because of their large power consumption. It was discovered that the electricity generation and storage system needed to support these lights would not be cost effective. The approximate cost of purchasing and installing four outdoor small stadium lights was $30,000.
Other potential problems to the lights were more readily solvable. The first was ambient light that is generated toward the rest of the campus and surrounding residential areas. Inexpensive masks have been employed recently to control this in other areas. These masks wrap around each individual light and help to focus light where it is aimed. The second problem is the aesthetic nature of the lights. An extremely controversial project in a state park in Florida dealt with this problem. The park had been used for tennis for years and lights were being installed. Local uproar forced an innovative solution to the problem. Light poles, which are typically 70 feet tall, were bent on a steep angle about a third of the way up the pole. By doing this, the same lighting properties came with a pole half the height. Round poles painted in a neutral outdoor color also allow better blending with the environment.
The second alternative explored was the possibility of turning remote parking space into athletic fields. It was the intention to analyze the conversion of parking space adjacent to the rugby field as this area is rarely used. However, the question stated that "remote parking" area would be changed and did not specify where. This ambiguity led to that confusion and unclear results. There was approximately an even split between support and dislike but numerous surveys carried comments pertaining to where the location would be. Many people who answered no were asked the same question later, specifying the area of lots to be torn up and most said they would change their answers had they known.
The concept of using remote parking space for a playing field is not foreign to Rice. Last summer, the parking lot at the end of Rice Stadium that faces Rice Boulevard was removed, and a grass football practice field was installed. This field was state-of-the-art, with an extremely level surface, thick grass and proper drainage. The field also included a gate around the outside. The total cost of the field was $500,000; yet the needs of the club sports' fields are not nearly as great as the varsity fields, and the cost of the club fields could be significantly less.
Since parking is a concern for students, and since more students will be living on campus with the addition of another college, one could make the case for compensating for lost parking space by building a parking garage. This idea previously has been frowned upon by officials, but proposed for several other campus problems, including parking space and flooding. Although expensive and somewhat unattractive, a parking garage would provide for extra parking space, allowing significant portions of the paved areas in the Stadium Lots to be converted to greenspace.
The final alternative for the playing fields was the possibility of moving some fields off site. Presently the softball team practices off campus and an investigation was made to determine support and potential sites. Student support was pervasively negative. As seen in figure 17, almost 80 percent of students were against off campus fields.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Problem: Disappearing Playing Fields