I disagree that this facility won't be a natural/seemless integration. I think that the current plans show an exceptionally functional facility that encloses our football facilities into a single, unified location immediately adjacent to existing facilities and the stadium.
On the issue of obstructing MS, I can't help but think that is a bit silly to argue. Doesn't Irwin already block the iconic columns from the north and east (and won't Irwin surely be taller than this facility?)? When you drive down Fourth St, the columns are blocked by trees and the tarped fence around the practice fields. The view the new facilities will obstructing doesn't exist in the first place. The only view of the east side columns that currently matters is from the fan entrance on the south, a view that will still exist and that will be complemented by the addition of a striking, impressive, and modern (but subtle and enclosed behind Irwin and fences/trees to the east) new facility.
As far as seemlessness, I don't think the facility will stick out much, if at all, given that it is relatively short and squat, and is hidden by other buildings or the preexisting enclosure around practice fields. The renderings show additional landscaping on the east side to further enclosed the facility from the public. And I think that is a goal - the primary focus of the facility is the giant windows/balcony on the south side overlooking the enclosed practice fields and columns. I can't help but think using the facility to maximize what is one of the few options for a non-graveyard, non-parking lot view is a very good decision. Imagine recruiting events where families and recruits talk with coaches and players outside, on the balcony of a brand new facility, looking down over pristine practice fields flanked by the facade and columns of memorial stadium, and enclosed from the public by trees and fences. That sounds good to me. Aesthetically, I find the plans to be sleek and modern without hurting the impressiveness of the MS facade in any way. Campus architecture has been moving in a modern direction (see BIF, ECE), and I think that this facility does a much better job of incorporating itself into campus architecture than any other recent build.
As practice field space goes, remember this is the preferred option of lovie (and presumably his staff). Clearly losing some grass is not that big of an issue. I am inclined to believe what will remain will be more than sufficient, especially if the grass fields are replaced with turf. In the past, Beckman would use the stadium for practice to avoid tearing up the grass - turf practice fields would solve that issue. It could be the case that a smaller area of turf is as functional as a larger area of grass, considering maintenance and wear concerns. Not to mention the facility is also integrated into Irwin.
On other locations that have been proposed, I think they are either impractical or worse than this proposal. Moving behind the ARC would result in the same space limitations that exist with the current NEZ facilities, or mess with existing infrastructure for little gain. Wrapping around Irwin was how I always thought this facility should be built, but looking at the renderings it's clear that putting the facility south of Irwin is much smarter - it's more private, integrates into existing practice space better, and uses the space around Irwin functionally for parking. Putting the facility underground is antithetical to what is supposed to be an impressive, eye-catching facility. Moving the practice facilities blocks away is incredibly idiotic for any number of reasons. This is clearly a very good solution and a smart use of space and existing facilities.
I side with the professionals on this one.