Here's a little note on Pauley Pavilion's Progress

by isodore on Mar 1, 2007 11:33 PM PST

As I have stated a few times, I am privy to some little tidbits here and there about the campus. One of those tidbits, which I have not seen posted elsewhere, is that there were a series of meetings yesterday to discuss the Pauley renovation between the various departments associated with Pauley Pavilion and people representing the architecture firm hired to revamp Pauley. This was a large scale meeting, held as a series of small meetings, to discuss the improvements needed. There has not been a specific plan set as of this time, but the concept will be on a very large scale, and much of what we know as Pauley will be changed.

The price tag I heard about 2nd hand from a conversation Wooden had was in the $120 million range and that there has been a $25 million donor. The changes will include the removal of the inside concourse between the 200 and 300 levels, expanding the guest accomodation facilities, a complete overhaul of the outdoor food court setup on the spaulding field (south) side and more.

So at this point it does look like it will be a reality, especially since they have already set the dedication date for Coach Wooden's 100th. However it is still in the early stages, and I wouldn't expect a blueprint for months.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm thankful

for any tidbits you can throw our way regarding the renovation. I was highly skeptical at first, considering how long this has been "in the works", but there does seem to be some unprecedented momentum here. Can I finally have some faith that this will get actually happen? It would be beyond cruel to have the plans derailed again, especially with the planned rededication and everything.

by Tydides on Mar 1, 2007 11:45 PM PST reply actions

as I have said before...

I won't believe it for sure until they break ground, but it does look likely.

by isodore on Mar 2, 2007 12:00 AM PST up reply actions

Second that motion

Iso ... I really appreciate the tidbits you are sharing here. I realize you probably can't share everything, but this types post always is very helpful to get a little sense of what is going in and helps us take in the big picture. Much appreciated.

by Nestor on Mar 3, 2007 7:40 AM PST up reply actions

OK, Isodore

Your new assignment - go upsteam through your connections and plant the seeds in the right places that there is probably another $25 million donor out there who is ready to drop such an item on the football program as soon as we get a real coach and not this pretender.

by Fox 71 on Mar 2, 2007 6:36 AM PST reply actions

Thanks for the update.

This is real encouraging. I was worried that we were talking about a 10 or 15 million dollar renovation job. $125 sounds about right.

Great post.

by rfirpo on Mar 2, 2007 8:19 AM PST reply actions

yesterday

There was also a big meeting on campus about brining the 2016 (?) olympics to Los Angeles. . . coincidence? Well, if UCLA was an Olympic village, then wouldn't some events be held at Pauley? What happened at Pauley in 1984?

If the renovation has been dedicated for Wooden's 100th birthday then there really is no going back. What kind of a horrible fate would fall on UCLA athletics if we renege to Coach?

by rick.2012 on Mar 2, 2007 9:32 AM PST reply actions

Gymnastics were @ Pauley

by bruinhoo on Mar 2, 2007 10:27 AM PST up reply actions

Inside Concourse

I have a close pal that works at the UCLA CTO and he gave me some info he heard. Apparently they wanna remove the inner concourse give Pauley a staples center feel. They also plan on centering the court and giving the floor level seats an upgrade, also along the lines of staples center floor seats. They also plan on taking out those ridiculous sight obstucting hand rails from the upper level and put in new rails to prevent obstruction. Obviously the big step would be the concouse, im eager to see a layout.

by Callmesenorfresh on Mar 2, 2007 10:21 AM PST reply actions

I've heard similar things...

New walkway / food, etc on the south side, which is so heaving traveled it should be revamped and presented as more of a gateway to campus. Moving the court further east, bringing in the west end seats in, luxury boxes, new locker rooms... basically blowing up the entire inside reconfiguring and all new seats, etc.

I heard the $ was 125 mil as well, but they're all in the same ballpark and not 15 mil so that's a good sign.

Yes, the US Olympic committee went to UCLA yesterday to see if UCLA would serve as a site (and possible athlete village I believe, as it did in '84). That committee will pick a city in the US and then go to the world committee to try to get the US the bid. It's very dirty political pool and probably not too dependent / influential on Pauley.

Now I'm going to go try and figure out a way to get Drake turned into a football stadium.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Mar 2, 2007 11:17 AM PST reply actions

LOL

Drake as a football stadium. How about transport back to before it was built and convince them to build the football stadium they were planning before changin their minds to a track stadium. That's about the only hope of an on campus stadium at this point. If you want an on campus football stadium I say figure out a way to get the VA to sell and build one there although getting them to sell and paying more for the land than Fox is highly unlikely as well.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 2, 2007 2:36 PM PST up reply actions

Hey - Don't blame me

I promise not to bid on the VA land.

(SJH 66 will remember how what formerly was the side of a hill was turned into Drake stadium for track instead of a 60,000 seat on-campus football stadium. There was a vote as to whether our "incidental fee" of $121.80 a semester would be raised some huge amount, like $3.00 or so, to fund a football stadium. Of the 30,000 students, about 1,000 voted, and the vote was 550 to 450 against the football stadium.

I blame sjh for this, by the way. I was a commuter at the time, but I'm sure he was on campus. He didn't mobilize the troops. In my defense, I truly had no concept of what was going on -- I just knew that I didn't want to go to the Crapiseum to watch football.

Anyway, if we're goint to be renovating things, let's do the whole schmear, and put something on campus that will ignite the fans. Can you imagine what it must be like at Ohio State or Michigan on game day? It probably would be a little less enthusiastic if the student body had to schlep 30 miles across town to see the game.

by Fox 71 on Mar 2, 2007 9:01 PM PST up reply actions

It really is hard to comprehend...

or even try to imagine what west LA would be like if there were UCLA games in Westwood. I shudder at the possibility, having grown up in LA and seen the exponential rise in traffic over 26 years. Of course traffic flow patterns would have been made to accommodate this, but still. We'd need 3 thousand more parking spaces for the crappy games alone, never mind the large scale out of town guests' games. And Westwood was not built for that many people either. It is a fun and interesting what if to consider. I do have to say though I like the Rose bowl and just wish it were 20 miles closer. But even as far as it is, it still beats the hell out of the Coliseum.

by isodore on Mar 2, 2007 9:19 PM PST up reply actions

People adapt

The same sort of comments were made when someone decided to build this thing called Pauley Pavilion. Similar arguments have been made about just about every similar large scale project. (I used to live in Pasadena, and the City Council always thought disaster was about 5 minutes away because of traffic on game days, and especially on January 1.)

But people adapt. Old alums will come to the game whether it's in Westwood or Pasadena, and they will adapt to the parking problems. Remember, everyone who ever went to UCLA knows that parking sucks, and they will adapt.

Plus, alums that come back to the campus are reasonably likely to drop in at their old frat/sorority houses and the like, and that will tend to inject some new life (read contributions) there. The excitement of tail-gating will be quadrupled when that tail-gating could be on Bruin Walk or Janss Steps.

To me, having a football stadium on campus is an absolute no-brainer. How can being off-campus be better than being on-campus under any standard?

by Fox 71 on Mar 2, 2007 9:51 PM PST reply actions

Everyone says the traffic and neighbors

But you know how many people will go to a football game on campus (6 times a year?) A hell of a lot less than go to Westwood every Monday. All those buildings on Wilshire... Empty. All the buildings on campus... Empty. No students will be on the roads. The traffic argument holds no water... and as Fox has pointed out - Drake was originally planned as a football stadium, so that kind of upsets the neighbor's arguments. (But I hear the councilman is a BIG stumbling block.)

The amount of money and support that is lost on the way to Pasadena is HUGE. And can anyone even name a successful football school that plays games off campus? (not to mention 30 miles away?) Those are the people we're recruiting against.

Having been to games at Wisconsin, Colorado, ND, Miami and seen stadiums at Texas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Cal, Oregon, Tennessee, LSU, Michigan, and more... the football stadium simply HAS to get done.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Mar 3, 2007 2:55 PM PST up reply actions