17 comments:

• posted at 9:09 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .WOW, found a great article. University of Arkansas did a Turf / Grass study and they claim an 8-10 year life of the turf before rennovation is required. The studies also address REALISTIC maintenance costs (such as the need to disinfect) which resulted in an annual maintenance cost of $65,000 to $100,000 for turf - versus $33,000 for grass. The difference being about $32,000 more in Turf maintenance costs.Also discusses disposal costs (when the field is to be replaced), warranties, injuries, lawsuit costs brought on by injuries, health concerns and associated costs, and high temperatures.Check out the entire article - I think it is a MUST READ for this issue.http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html

  • Link

   

• posted at 9:03 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .I have been on the turf field in Roseville during the summer, and let me tell you ... there is no way you would STAND or SIT on that field to watch a band play, even AFTER SUNDOWN ... the field radiates heat like a convection oven. It would be extremely uncomfortable.As pointed out, watering the turf down would only result in a moderate amount of cooling. That makes "other events" pretty much impractical during spring and summer.

  • Link

   

• posted at 9:01 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .(CONTINUED).3) COST OF REPLACEMENT In 20 years the turf has to be replaced (at an estimated cost of $3 Million) versus a GRASS field that never has to be replaced if it is regularly maintained "as new" from year to year.

  • Link

   

• posted at 9:00 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .(CONTINUED.With a grass field, the city would have to re-grade and re-sod the field. Then they would need to REGULARLY MAINTAIN the new field so that it doesn't fall into disrepair again.If they do a great job of ongoing maintenance, they should never have to "replace the grass field in 15 to 20 years" like they would with turf. They simply have a plan to keep the GRASS field in top shape from year to year (which was the failure of the past).I'll bet if you compared the following elements from GRASS and TURF fields, you would find that GRASS makes more REALISTIC SENSE for Lodi P&R to maintain:1) COST OF INSTALLATION Roll out grass versus construct the turf field infrastructure.2) COST OF ONGOING MAINTENANCE Cost of a plan to keep a grass field "Like New" from year to year, versus what is costs to maintain a turf field.

  • Link

   

• posted at 8:56 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .Money should talk, and B.S. should walk.If the turf ends up lasting the max 20 years, it would cost the city 3 times as much ($3 million) to replace the field in the year 2030 due to natural inflation. But let's assume that they stashed away $50,000 per year to plan for that cost - and that interest on that money makes this issue a wash. The problem would be, could the city keep its hands off that money for 20 years? But I digress...On top of the $50,000 per year that has to be saved to replace the field in today's dollars... what is the maintenance cost of a turf field going to actually be? Because the only real savings is the difference between what it would cost to maintain TURF vs maintaining a revitalized GRASS field. No one is discussing that....

  • Link

   

• posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Aug 6, 2009.

  Posts:

  .A study of injuries sustained by California high school football players found higher rates of injury on turf [Ramirez, et al. 2006]. While there were 13.8 injuries per 100 session hours on turf and only 8.4 per 100 on natural grass, the type of injury matters.Players on synthetic turf fields are more prone to injuries such as:Turf toe Muscle trauma Turf burnThe increased incidence of turf toe and muscle trauma relate to surface resistance on artificial field turf. A comparison of in-shoe foot loading patterns found that turf caused higher peak pressures in the central forefoot and lesser toes, while grass had higher pressures within the medial forefoot and lateral midfoot [Ford, et al. 2006].

  • Link

   

• posted at 11:59 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  What makes you think there is going to be another concert within the next 30 years?

  • Link

   

• posted at 7:24 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  You explain to me what would be wonderful about attending a concert and being forced to spread your blanket out on turf! This is crazy!

  • Link

   

• posted at 5:51 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Whoa NellieI am in the middle on this issue. My concern is the CC's claim that money will be set aside for maintenance. I think we have seen in Lodi money that is set aside for a specific purpose and somehow grows legs and ends up somewhere else.

  • Link

   

• posted at 5:14 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  While I love to see good "mud bowl" football games, the Grape Bowl needs the artifical turf. The city cannot afford to maintain the natural turf at the Grape Bowl. There can be 8 football games between Thursday and Saturday in the fall. Add a few rain storms and you get a field that does not recover for the rest of the season. By the end of the season, the grass is in terrible shape. I would venture to say that the natural turf is a bigger health hazzard to the kids than the artificial turf by the end of the year.

  • Link

   

• posted at 5:05 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Jeff, thanks for the links. No question that "well maintained grass fields" are preferred. They also go on to mention that no other sports or activities should be allowed use of the field. There was also some reference to the new artificial turf field in Seattle being very close to real turf. Most stadiums don't have that luxury and are dependent on other events to pay the bills. A multi-purpose artificial turf is best for the Grape Bowl. Let's get on with it!

  • Link

   

• posted at 4:13 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  It is unfortunate the city neglectedd the grapebowl for so long. I trust the city will receive some especially competitive bids since "cash is king" in these difficult financial times.

  • Link

   

• posted at 3:36 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Observer, while I'm not convinced one way or the other on the subject of articificial turf at the grape bowl, it would be disingenuous to say, 'if it wasn't safe... [nflpa] would be screaming.'While they are not 'screaming' 85% of nfl players prefer natural turf (2004 survey). Further, their surveys have led to more natural fields over the past several years.Just saying.http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=148868http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=1143&type=n&weigh=443,0,1143,n

  • Link

   

• posted at 3:25 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  This is long over due. With a nice field & amenities the City could generate revenue from the new youth football programs in town too, not to mention soccer, band reviews, special events (relay for life, etc), and more concerts. Concerns over the heat during hot weather are far outweighed by the fact that the field would be able to be used year-round and would no longer turn into a swamp like in the picture.The bones of this old beauty are still good. She just needs a face lift!GO FLAMES!

  • Link

   

• posted at 2:15 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Today's artificial turf is so far improved. It would be an absolute shame to miss this opportunity. Believe me, if it wasn't safe they wouldn't be using it the several professional stadiums....the players associations would be screaming!

  • Link

   

• posted at 1:51 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Come on Lodi! We are totally behind the times ... Every city that we travel to for sports has an artificial turf field ... Rocklin, Patterson, Livermore, San Andreas, Walnut Creek, Sacramento, Stockton. There is so much potential for the Grape Bowl to be used all year round. We need this field!

  • Link

   

• posted at 1:33 am on Thu, Jul 30, 2009.

  Posts:

  Too bad we can't use reclaimed wastewater from White Slough to irrigate our sports fields in Lodi. This would provide for natural turf while using some of our available water. This is done in cities throughout California, and the results are amazing.

  • Link