Give Cal Plan the Ax
Retrofitting Memorial Stadium for a quake will be a futile waste of countless millions.
By Chris Thompson
- Doug Boehm
- But where to play? How 'bout the Coliseum?
Take a half-dozen granola-and-sandals activists, give them surnames like "Runningwolf" and "Butterfly," stick 'em in a few trees, and sic the University of California on them, and you've got the makings of a perfect Berkeley story. And so the national press has waggled after the latest town-gown controversy, in which university officials want to build a $120 million athletic training center to boost their newly bemuscled football program, and crunchy eco-acolytes (and even a curmudgeonly ex-mayor or two) have put their bodies on the line to stop them. Last month, the city successfully snagged an interim injunction against proceeding with the construction, which would have done away with a smallish oak grove and apparently struck at the heart of a key part of what made this town the "third most sustainable city," according to the eco-wonks at SustainLane.com. It also would have highlighted UC's imperial arrogance, made dozens of squirrels homeless, contributed to global warming via the sweat of middle linebackers; you know the drill. But as usual, the most important element of the story — the true folly of the university's plan — went unnoticed.
The issue isn't really the training center, which could be located in any number of different areas in or around campus. It's the California Memorial Stadium itself, which is the heart of the sports complex university officials want to reinvigorate. The stadium is an 84-year-old seismic deathtrap, built right on top of the Hayward fault, and the western half of it is slowly moving north, ripping at the foundations. Officials need to build the training center so they can move their jocks and coaches out of the stadium before a massive quake hits and buries them beneath a pile of rubble that used to be bleacher seats. Fine and good; since they work there five days a week, getting them out of the complex would surely save their lives. But then Cal administrators want to do something truly stupid: spend a fortune retrofitting the stadium itself.
No one truly knows just how much that would cost. UC Berkeley spokeswoman Marie Felde claims that Cal's engineers haven't even done the math yet. "They're not that far into the design process," she said. "Nobody wants to guess." But according to Craig Comartin, a structural engineer who has studied the schematics for UC Berkeley, the project would probably cost in the order of "tens of millions." For Cisco de Vries, a spokesman for Mayor Tom Bates, the university's very refusal to finish designing the retrofit and related projects is exactly the sort of irresponsible and arrogant planning that prompted the lawsuit in the first place. "Until there's some understanding of what it will take for the stadium to be safe, how can we be making decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars?" he said. "That's a big part of our concern. The mayor says we want them to figure out at the very least what they're going to do with the stadium first."
But this much we know: The university's stated objective is to save the lives of the approximately 73,000 fans who could be caught attending the Big Game when the Big One hits.
Take a closer look at those odds. Seismologists claim that in any given year there's a 1 percent chance of a major quake along the Hayward fault. Cal plays between six and eight games a year at the stadium, and once the training facilities and administrative offices are relocated, these games are the only times a significant number of lives will be at risk. In other words, the university is about to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare for a disaster that has a one-in-25,000 chance of happening.
But where would we play football, you ask? Where would we watch Jeff Tedford's Bears crush Stanford's spirits for a generation? Funny you should ask. University planners don't just want to retrofit the stadium; they want to beef up its concession outlets and slap on some new lights, luxury boxes, and press offices. There just happens to be a facility that already boasts all of these amenities, and its owners — you and me — will be desperate for new tenants very shortly. It's called McAfee Coliseum, and now that the Oakland A's are planning to split for Fremont, Saturdays just happen to be free. With one lease agreement — and given Oakland's pathetic history of giving away the store, Cal officials can count on that agreement being very lucrative indeed — the university could have a massive football complex, complete with luxury boxes and garlic fries, for a fraction of what it would cost to modernize Memorial Stadium. And here's the bonus round: It's not sitting on a fault.
According to UC Berkeley's Felde, such a scheme won't fit in with the university's long-term plans. "When the campus looked at how to revitalize the southeast quadrant of campus, one of the main points was that the goal was to integrate the athletic experience with the student experience to a greater level than it is now," she says. And the fact that the stadium is across the street from the academic centers of campus is very important."
Well, it works for UCLA, whose stadium, the Rose Bowl, is located all the way in Pasadena. And moving Cal's games to the Coliseum wouldn't jeopardize Tedford's contract, which reportedly stipulates that the training center — and only the training center — be built. Felde claims the retrofit would be financed solely by alumni contributions and ticket sales, but make no mistake: Sooner or later you'll pay for this. When the Big One does strike, public money will be used to repair the stadium, and in the meantime, the redirection of ticket revenue would only increase the athletic department's multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
More than ten years ago, Oakland and Alameda County officials signed one of the worst sports deals in history to get the Raiders back, and it cost them millions and the departure of their baseball team. UC Berkeley planners have a chance to shake off the delusion that costly stadium construction projects are the only way to save their football program, and avoid the catastrophic mistakes made by their neighbor to the south. They just have to tell their alumni that beer tastes just as good in Mount Davis.
Comments (50)
Showing 1-25 of 50
"Felde claims the retrofit would be financed solely by alumni contributions and ticket sales, but make no mistake: Sooner or later you'll pay for this." So, Chris Thompson, if in the event of a major earthquake during a game in an un-retrofitted Memorial Stadium, I sustain major injuries, I can count on you to pay my medical fees?
like
dislike
Refusing to move a college football team out of the city to a professional stadium makes complete sense to fans of college football. The writer points out that playing so far from campus "works for UCLA" but ignores that UCLA consistently fails to fill its stadium, averaging less than 70,000 in attendance in a 90,000 seat facility. This makes UCLA by far the worst school in the Pac-10 at filling their stadium. An on-campus facility is truly the only way to be sure to have a full house with full student participation and integration of the student body into the fans. A quick look at the major successful teams that play off campus (University of Miami and UCLA) makes that clear. The real question is why the city should be fighting so hard against allowing the school to spend its own money upgrading its facilities as to remain competitive for the athletes and safe for the fans? While the stadium will never be luxurious on the level of McAfee Coliseum, it doesn't need to be and would probably be worse for it. What it needs are adequate restroom facilities, new benches (some of them are broken, after all), and other upgrades that are by no means luxurious, but definitely increase the comfort of the stadium and access of all fans who wish to come.
I've been following the plans for improving the sports facilities and upgrading the stadium since the plan came out and this has to be the stupidest idea I've read on this yet. I have football season tickets to Cal, but there's no way I would get tickets if the games weren't in Berkeley. Half the fun of going to the game is walking through campus, visiting old hangouts, and letting the memories flow back. The attendance would drop in half in one season and probably trickle down from there as people realize what a letdown the colliseum experience is. The only thing this idea is good for is as a threat to make the Berkeley city council pee their pants over the business they'd lose on football weekends. Sheesh
I tend to agree with the person who mocked the people who moved next door to a football stadium and then expressed dismay that football games are played there. Go Bears! Go Renovation! If this renovation were shut down I honestly don't know that I would ever return to the city of Berkeley to spend any of my tourist money there.
It is too bad that the "tree people" spout their nonsense and if it gets repeated enough people actually take it as the truth. Read the official reports and the studies. The new stadium plan is in the best interest of the responsible, productive members of society such as students, athletes, alumni, fans and employees of the school. It's about time these rent-a-mob folks move along and find some other protest-du-jour to spend their seemingly endless free time protesting. Progress and safety are good things.
From Sandy Barbour: and well said indeed!! Unfortunately, many of these important changes and proposals have been lost in media coverage that has focused on a few people in the trees at the expense of the factual forest. That, in turn, is why we will be making a concerted effort during the summer to take our case to directly to the public, civic leaders and local elected officials. The need for informed debate is ill-served by misinformation. Oak trees planted by the university in 1923 cannot be considered an “ancient grove.” A building site that is clear of active fault lines cannot be labeled as unsafe. A center that will serve the pressing needs of 13 intercollegiate teams cannot be described as benefiting a single sport. well said. Take that, Bates and Hancock swine. Go Bears!!
Basically we are dealing with a group of people who feel they are smarter and better than everyone else. They think that jocks are stupid idiots who have no rights. Likewise, the protestors are attention hungry megalomaniacs. Any other University would have developed Peoples Park ages ago. Instead there is child prostitution, wholesale of illegal narcotics, and rapes and murders there. How nice. Oh and the Panoramic Hill Association, (which is funding all of this mess) has cut down many trees over the years to enlarge their houses. These people are all very selfish, RICH, and again, megalomaniacs. I went up to the Oak Grove to try and discuss the issues with the tree sitters and was immediately labeled a “stupid jock” who knew nothing and was a “f**king idiot.” They then proceeded to run me out of the grove, a public place. My God, they are acting like they own the place! Whatever happens next, however crazy it will be, will not surprise me. If I have learned anything, despite being as the tree sitters called me, a “f**king idiot,” it is that these people will never stop until Cal football and the University pack up and move to the moon or something. Only then they would say we are polluting space. You simply cannot win with people who truly believe they are always right and we are merely stupid idiots.
“Childish?” Wow, ok. So how exactly are we supposed to respond to such a childish article? With maturity? No, these Panoramic Hill types who move next to a stadium and then express outrage over the use of said stadium are the insane ones. This is nothing more than a classic example of the continuing efforts of the City to degrade the sovereignty of the University. They have done a wonderful job of making Cal out to be the bad guy, when in actuality they are. The other great point is the fact that Memorial cannot simply be torn down, so what are we to do with it when we move to Oakland? I have heard rumors that the Panoramic Hill Association plans on turning it into a massive party site, where underage prostitutes and drugs run rampant. I say we send in the National Guard and forcibly remove these residents. Send them to reeducation camps where perhaps they could learn a thing or two. God help us all, God help us all indeed!
I've been a Cal football season ticket holder for over ten years and I'm hoping the stadium renovations occur. However, I have to admit that many of the comments by the pro-renovation folk are childlike. Calling the author names and assuming your opinions are the only valid ones is pretty egotistical. We need voices of dissent so that the projects we undertake take all negative impacts into consideration.
Give UC Berkeley a break. It is 1.2 acres of planted Oaks. The smart thing to do would have been to demand "mitigation", where UC Berkeley buys 5-10 acres of umperiled (i.e. to development) oaks elsewhere (ideally on the edge of an existing East Bay Park) and donates it to the East Bay Park system. That would actually add good habitat to a much larger chunk of intact habitat. This "Oak grove" is pretty low value habitat. This is something that could have been worked on in conjunction with other environmental causes. This maximizes the time and energy of activists. The dumb thing to do was to waste 100% time and effort for months for 1.2 of degraded oak habitat (take a walk in Tilden, then take a walk in the grove if you don't know what I'm talking about). This has tied up the time and energy of dozens of activists. Any victory is a loss if the true goal is to preserve habitat.
Property Address: 15xx FRANCISCO ST, BERKELEY CA 94703-1215 Owner: LIM KENG L & KAM C Losers...
Number of errors in this subjective story. A's stadium was over 30 years old; A's wanted an entirely new and fancy "downtown" stadium in Oakland. It wouldn't have mattered if the Raiders were there or not, as the A's wanted out of there. Oakland refused. So the A's sought the riches of the Silicon Valley, which they probably were really after all along.
Joan Barnett writes: "The EIR issued in support of this retrofit/development outlines a way to pay for it by having an unlimited number of other "capacity events" at the 62,00 seat stadium. So the stadium becomes no longer alumni's much-beloved Cal Stadium, but a large, commercial venture with possible rock concerts, etc." ------------- Hey Joan, I've not seen the document that refers to the unlimited number of "capacity events" at the 62,000 seat stadium, but I've got to ask you...exactly how many events per year (outside of a measly 6-7 football games) do you think stadiums that hold 62k persons are booked for? By simply perusing ticketmaster's site, it sure doesn't look like many. Giants Stadium (a football stadium serving the NY market) is booked for one concert (The Police) thus far for this year. ONE CONCERT. The LA Coliseum and Rose Bowl currently have NO bookings. So even if they were to use it as a commercial site, the demand simply doesn't exist for an unlimited number of non-football events. Your argument fails to apply logic beyond that of hysteria.
This comment is directed to Chris Adams, who said: ------------ "As a retired architect I would add that there is no way that an athletic training center could cost $1000 per square foot, unless there is a substantial hidden cost to make its structure part of the needed support for the west side of the stadium." ------------ Uh, Chris...have you been following this situation at all? There is absolutely nothing hidden about the cost nor the plan to include shoring up the western wall of Memorial as part of phase 1 of the project (which refers largely to the construction of the SAHPC). To quote DIRECTLY from university documents in a description of the project: "This building will be placed partially below grade so that the top of the building forms a plaza at the exterior promenade level of the stadium." The document continues: "Construction of the underground space for this building will require significant shoring of the existing west stadium wall, thus providing the first phase of seismic reinforcement to the stadium itself." What's being hidden here?
WOW. As a Berkely native, I hate to say I have read dumber things but not by much. Off campus stadiums have not worked for college football. Moreover, the move to oakland would HURT attendence and make the deficits that you speak of even larger....football turns an important profit to help support the rest of the athletic department. You also need to address the question of "now what" since demo'ing Memorial is out of the question given its historic significance. I
Memorial Stadium in Berkeley is one of the best places to watch a football game on the planet. Not one bad seat in the house (except for the ones closest to the field), and views are to die for. McAfee/Network Associates/Virus Scan Coliseum is one of few reminders of an era of monstrous multipurpose bowls, and is an awful place to watch almost any event by comparison. The seats on top of Mount Davis are even worse than the "visitor" section in the LA Coliseum. Why anyone would entertain moving from a gem to a sh*thole is beyond me.
Terrible research. Horrible logic. Sounds like someone who doesn't like football and who has drank the Panoramic Hills association coolaide. As a Cal alumni, I am extremely disappointed by the the city's lawsuit against the University. The flagship University in the great state of California defines the City of Berkeley. It is not the city that defines Cal. Why can't we have a great academic University as well as a great sports University? Both are possible and your misguided efforts to support some tree supporters is very disappointing. The University has done an excellent job in preparing for this renovation (why wouldn't they?) and new athletic facilities. The Stadium is 84 years old. We need new facilities. You should be ashamed of yourself as a fellow Cal alum. We will win and our sports programs will excel just like our academic programs. Go Bears!
Your idea is so stupid, I got to puke now, thank you for ruin my breakfast, and lunch today.
Dude, Chris Thompson, your idea would actually make sense and restore a rough sense of proportionality between the priority we accord football and the priority of spending public money. This of course means, your idea is disqualified from the start. Especially in this state. Only ideas that can be b!tched about ad nauseum or which make life perfect for one of the numerous psychotic, deranged groups of wackjobs with nothing better to do than sit in trees, participate in bureaucratic pissing matches, gripe about their property values, or participate in some mass delusion of togetherness at a sporting event are permitted, Chris. Shame on you for insulting the petty fascists who pay your salary, mister. You should have known that the most costly solution is the one that accomplishes nothing of value, and that is the one they want :)
Yes, of course. Let's relocate the football program even though the stadium was there before the Panoramic Hill neighborhoods were developed. I'm going to buy a house near AT&T Park tomorrow and force the Giants to move back to Candlestick because I don't like the noise, traffic, and potential damage in an earthquake. Funny, there were no complaints from neighbors and this "newspaper" when the Haas Business School was built and Wurster Hall was retrofitted, both literally across the street from the stadium.
Good article. As a retired architect I would add that there is no way that an athletic training center could cost $1000 per square foot, unless there is a substantial hidden cost to make its structure part of the needed support for the west side of the stadium.
Dear Panoramic Hill residents, Inspired by this article, I feel we need to address problems that stretch far beyond the borders of Memorial Stadium. After giving it careful thought, it's become clear that you should no longer eat meals in your homes. The fumes created from your ill-advised "enchilada night" are not only a nuisance to your neighbors, but threaten the lives of an "ancient" breed of endangered "Common House Cat." The subsequent trash from said cooking increases traffic of garbage trucks through the hillside. Besides, these kitchens are now deemed seismically unsafe, as they were built decades ago. I know you'd love to remodel and create a kitchen that keeps your family safe and happy, but think of the cats. My resolution: Cook and eat meals in the kitchens of West Oakland homes. They have perfectly good kitchens already. Don't waste your money on maintaining your personal identity when you can simply rent someone else's. I'm sure your little rugrats will be happy to make the journey to the West O. Bon Appetit!
EBE, I'm a dedicated supporter of the tree-sit and I just want to say "Thank you" for this article. You touch in on some essential issues that many other newspapers have intentially avoided. For example: "UC arrogance", the availability of alternative sites, the $ incentive for UC and the resulting $ problems for the Berkeley comminity. I never even thought about McAfee Stadium, but it is a great idea! It would also make travel easier for visiting teams (Oakland Airport access), and there's PLENTY of parking! A long shot, but a great idea nontheless. My only concern, will Raider fans and Cal fans get along???
Your ideas are not too far fetched. The only problem is moving the games off campus. You site UCLA's plan as working. They have a very hard time getting students to go to the games. The Rose Bowl is usually half full at best. And they aren't the only example. San Diego State used to have a highly successful football program. They moved the game of campus and the whole program has gone downhill. Off campus sites might work for non-student fans, but future fans need to come from the student body to get the kind of support a college football team needs. Making it difficult for students to get to games is bad news.
Latest in Columns
-
¡Ask a Mexican!
Putting a name to a crazy, mixed-up heritage.
- Sep 26, 2007
-
¡Ask a Mexican!
Ask a Mexican
- Sep 12, 2007
-
¡Arriba, Arriba!
"Speedy González is the most misunderstood Mexican since your gardener."
- Sep 5, 2007
- More »
Author Archives
-
Anybody Seen Hizzoner?
Be patient, say supporters of Oakland top dog Ron Dellums.
- Jun 6, 2007
-
Pension Woes Dog UC Regents
State Senator Leland Yee wants university leaders to give workers a say in managing their mishandled retirement fund.
- May 23, 2007
- More»
