Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Cal approves $321 million stadium renovation

  1. #1
    Moderator Buffnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    A van down by the river
    Posts
    52,030
    Blog Entries
    40

    Cal approves $321 million stadium renovation

    SAN FRANCISCO -- The University of California has approved a $321 million renovation of UC Berkeley's Memorial Stadium.

    The UC Board of Regents signed off on the renovation and seismic retrofit of UC Berkeley's 87-year-old Memorial Stadium, which straddles the Hayward Fault. The project will reduce seating from about 72,000 to 63,000 and upgrade restrooms, food service and public safety facilities.

    The project is expected to begin later this year and be completed by the start of the 2012 football season. The stadium will be closed during Cal's 2011 season, when the team will play at another location.

    UC officials say the project will be funded mainly by sales of long-term rights to about 3,000 stadium seats and that no state money will be used.

    Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

    *************

    Very interesting. This looks to me like they're spending $300 MM in order to make less money. That stadium is a dump and needs to be fixed, but they're losing 9k seats and sacrificing the 2011 home slate. Plus, you'd have to think that if people paid $50k+ per seat for long-term rights on 3k premium seats then they're not paying the regular ticket price for those seats going forward.

    I hope Bohn studies this in depth and learns something valuable from it. CU is going to need to look at a Folsom, Dal Ward & Balch project at some point in the near future. The Cal plan may offer some ideas since they pulled it off without using state money, but I'm skeptical that it's the exact right model.


    Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. - Alex Levine

  2. #2
    Tedford better start doing something with that team to justify this. 5 more years of shattered expectations and Emerald Bowls and those fans are going to stop buying tickets.

  3. #3
    what's the big deal.. they play their 2011 schedule at Oakland Alameda Coliseum. They'll probably outdraw the Raiders..


    Disagree on Tedford.. They haven't gotten over the hump, but that program is in so much better shape than before. Tedford is a good coach..

  4. #4
    Club Member sackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Folsom bleachers
    Posts
    37,583
    This sounds remarkably like what Stanford did a few years ago. They went from a 85K seat stadium +/- to around 55K ( I don't know the exact figures, somebody can feel free to correct me) but made the stadium much nicer.
    Quote Originally Posted by absinthe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do not argue with Sackman, world traveler, American, knower of all.

  5. #5
    Ambitious but rubbish. absinthe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Monica
    Posts
    22,038
    Blog Entries
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by sackman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This sounds remarkably like what Stanford did a few years ago. They went from a 85K seat stadium +/- to around 55K ( I don't know the exact figures, somebody can feel free to correct me) but made the stadium much nicer.
    you are right, although somehow it only cost Stanford about 1/3rd of the Cal price.
    "Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
    ENTJ

  6. #6
    Club Member sackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Folsom bleachers
    Posts
    37,583
    Quote Originally Posted by absinthe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    you are right, although somehow it only cost Stanford about 1/3rd of the Cal price.
    $321MM is a ton of money, no doubt about it. I shudder to think what CU could do with $321MM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by absinthe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    you are right, although somehow it only cost Stanford about 1/3rd of the Cal price.
    Has to be location. Cal's stadium is on a fault, and on a hill, might make it a little more expensive. Plus they probably have to pay the tree people to move during the construction.

  8. #8
    Club Member Daaah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    14,891
    What sucks is that this is going to make Tightwad Hill a thing of the past. It's really a great place to watch a game. And it's free!




  9. #9
    Club Member CarolinaBuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In front of my TV
    Posts
    16,823
    Quote Originally Posted by sackman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This sounds remarkably like what Stanford did a few years ago. They went from a 85K seat stadium +/- to around 55K ( I don't know the exact figures, somebody can feel free to correct me) but made the stadium much nicer.
    I think it was similar to the LA Coliseum before they lowered the field in that it had a track and had a pretty flat slope. It almost looks like they completely rebuilt it because not only is the track gone but it now has an upper deck. And I'm pretty sure they rarely ever had a capacity or near-capacity crowd anyway, so it's not like they lost much if anything by giving up that many seats. I guess having 85K seats (or whatever it was) helped in getting them a Super Bowl played there.

  10. #10
    Club Member sackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Folsom bleachers
    Posts
    37,583
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaBuff View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it was similar to the LA Coliseum before they lowered the field in that it had a track and had a pretty flat slope. It almost looks like they completely rebuilt it because not only is the track gone but it now has an upper deck. And I'm pretty sure they rarely ever had a capacity or near-capacity crowd anyway, so it's not like they lost much if anything by giving up that many seats. I guess having 85K seats (or whatever it was) helped in getting them a Super Bowl played there.
    I was in that old stadium. It was a relic from a bygone era. Huge stadium.

  11. #11
    apparently a large chunk of the money is for a retrofit. they are gunna separate the stadium in sections and lay a bunch of plastic below it so it will "move" with the earthquakes.

    I don't **** around. But when I do, I don't **** around.

  12. #12
    Flagship of the 12-Pac Skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tuscan Vernacular Revival
    Posts
    19,352
    Blog Entries
    7
    Can't wait to check out the stadium before they close it down. Next season can't start soon enough.
    Colorado football is not a matter of life and death; it's more important than that.

  13. #13
    #1 Buff Fan
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    1,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    apparently a large chunk of the money is for a retrofit. they are gunna separate the stadium in sections and lay a bunch of plastic below it so it will "move" with the earthquakes.
    Exactly. Plus, it's typically easier to just tear something down and rebuild it, which is what Stanford did.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by OKCBuff View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Exactly. Plus, it's typically easier to just tear something down and rebuild it, which is what Stanford did.
    Stanford did the whole thing in a single offseason too which is pretty incredible. The old stadium was a terrible place to watch a game especially with the track around the field.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by SINKRATZ View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Stanford did the whole thing in a single offseason too which is pretty incredible. The old stadium was a terrible place to watch a game especially with the track around the field.
    The furds' old stadium sure did suck. Haven't been to the new one yet, but have heard good things.

    Pretty much all stadiums with tracks suck. The only stadium I can think of that doesn't is Husky Stadium, which would be absolutely amazing if it got rid of the track somehow.

Visitors found this page by searching for:

tightwad hill

tightwad hill calcost of uc berkeley stadium renovationcal memorial stadium renovation costcal memorial tightwad hillhow much did the cal stsdium cost to rebuildcals 321 stadium renovationuniversity of california stadium renovationhow much did Cals new stadium costnew pictures of folsom field renovation drawingwww.allbuffs.comwhere is university of cal playing while stadium renovatedcal berkley stadium renovation completionwhy the memorial stadium renovation cost so muchcost to renovate memorial stadium - university of californiawhen did cal berkeley starttight wad hillcostly stadium renovationsrenovations to cal berkley football stadiumhow much does it cost to enter memorial stadium berkeleycost for berkley stadiumcost of stanford stadium renovationwaterproofing for cal berkeley stadiumHow cal paid for facility renovationscal berkley football stadium renovation
SEO Blog

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •