The Pauley Problem & How To Solve It

by silverlakebruin on May 1, 2009 4:43 AM PDT Comment 49 comments

Bumped. silverlake brings up an interesting idea which I think is worthy of more attention and discussion. GO BRUINS. -N

We are entering a time of great importance in the future of UCLA basketball and the athletic department as whole.

The greatest weakeness of the Athletic Department in the past two decades has been an unwillingness to change and embrace new things, an aversion to risk, and a desire to do things on the cheap. We have seen this play out in the hiring of cheap inexperienced coaches, the retention of staff and coaches who don't get the job done, allowing Pauley to age ungracefully, and various other shortcomings.

Dan Guerrero has done a lot to address these problems, and I commend him for it. However, I am greatly concerned that the current plans for Pauley Pavillion will be a significant error that will set the athletic department back decades.

While the plans haven't been publicly released, word has filtered out from those in the know that the plan is to remodel Pauley with minimal structural changes. Seating in the 300 section will be as bad as it has always been, and there will only be minimal improvement in the 200s with a centering of the court, and angling the seating. The bottom section should see some improvements and additions of seats.

To do this, and make some other necessary improvements (locker room, donor room, facilities, etc) the athletic department needs $160M. For comparison, that is roughly the cost of building the Galen Center. Spending that much money on something that does not address the greatest weakness of the facility for basketball (the distance of most seats from the court and poor sightlines) is a huge mistake.

I would suggest rather than this plan, the University move forward with a new basketball only arena and keep Pauley where it is for other sports and as a practice and multipurpose facility for other sports.

What we should do is build a new basketball only facility at lot 32. The benefits are you don't have to tear anything down, you are within walking distance for students, you keep Pauley operational for non-basketball activities, you bring some life into the businesses in westwood, and you have an arena visible from Wilshire Blvd and the 405, with signage and naming rights to sell to help pay for the arena.

This would be a savior for businesses in Westwood, provide a state of the art facility without the limitations facing Pauley, and still allow practice and other sports to be done at Pauley so Student athletes are not disadvantaged. Also, we would build a building with state of the art seating, restrooms, and amenities, and would make Westwood a destination before and after games.

Why isnt' this being seriously considered? We need to dump the stale thinking of the Morgan Center and think outside the box on this one. The greatness of UCLA is boldness and forward thinking, yet the Pauley project is wrapped in decrepit fearful thinking.

For those of you who don't know, Lot 32 36 is bounded by Wilshire to the south, Gayley to the east, Kinross to the North, and Veteran to the west. There wouldnt be any significant structures that would have to be raised, and being bounded by Willshire would mean easy access for vehicles and public transportation, including eventually the subway. Here is where lot 32 36 is on a map.

Lot 32 36 Map

We need to demand the same excellence in this project we would for the product on the field and court. I am asking every real true bruin to consider whether a $160M remodel of Pauley that doesn't address the core issues is really the right way to do this, and if not, we should make our voices heard that a new arena is the way to go.

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.

5 recs | Comment 49 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

lets try that map again...

and the street boundaries aren’t totally accurate, but you should get the idea.

http://maps.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3…857&zoom=18#mvt=m&lat=34.061369&lon=-118.446178&zoom=17

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Help! can someone clean up the map link? thanks!

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I fixed it

Is that what you intended?

by Tydides on Apr 29, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect. Thanks!

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on board with the new arena idea

but I’d say that Pauley should be torn down if they do it. They can build the new arena where you’ve suggested and play at Pauley while it’s built. Then, when it’s done they can move into the new arena and Pauley can be torn down. That would provide a lot of needed room for other sports. There isn’t enough room to move the baseball stadium on campus like I wish would happen, but there are a few other things that could be done with that space.

One is we could have a football practice field that is actually full sized. We could also expand the Acosta Center, which would add some much needed room or we could build a new building just for the football team that could house a locker room, coaches office, meeting rooms, weight room, etc. Then, by moving the football team into their own facility, a lot of room would be freed up in the Acosta Center for the other sports.

I’ve made my thoughts on the renovated Pauley clear and agree that a new arena is the way to go. Galen Center was built for $160 million, but building costs are down now so that’d help with a new arena. We could have a first class arena and free up some much needed room for the other sports.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 29, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope there are voices in Morgan Center

That are at least making themselves heard regarding the points you and silverlake have brought up. I’d hate to think that they’re just pushing ahead with the renovation plan without considering all the options.

by Tydides on Apr 29, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would be open to doing whatever is in the best interest of the University with Pauley

I’m not sure exactly what else it is needed for, but if it can be raised and the area used for better purposes, all the better. I do think we would probably still need a multipurpose arena however.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The new arena could still be a multipurpose arena

Cal uses Haas Pavilion for basketball, volleyball and gymnastics. If you take a look at the seating chart for gymnastics at Pauley, they don’t use much more space than basketball. They use more room, but if they used bleachers that pull up at the new arena like they currently use at Pauley or they use at Pitt’s Petersen Events Center, Texas Tech’s United Spirit Center, etc., I don’t think there would be an issue playing volleyball, basketball, gymnastics and having other events there.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 29, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would there be enough room for a full-sized facility?

That lot doesn’t extend all the way to Gayley — there are some buildings (UCLA owned, I think) there as well. We’d also need a lot more parking in that area…

by gradstudentbruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Im thinking you can use the federal building lot

on Thursday Nights and Saturdays which is right across the street.

There would be enough room for a facility, but people would have to walk further, and park on campus or in westwood village and walk down.

For disabled people you could have a smaller lot close by.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you mean Lot 36?

Lot 32 is the parking structure on the other side of Kinross Ave. Lot 36 is on lthe corner of Wilshire and Veteran. Otherwise, you have to tear down a parking structure to build the new arena. Would the new arena include parking? UCLA is already short on parking as it is.

by Gen2Bruin1987 on Apr 29, 2009 4:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You are right, I do mean lot 36

the lot without the parking structure. Im not sure about the parking, but you aren’t replacing a parking structure, just a parking lot, which is an inefficient use of land.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 29, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edited it

by Nestor on Apr 29, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Apr 30, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you guys heard

impressions/feedback from Coach Howland or his staff about the renovation plans? I am really curious to hear their thoughts and haven’t heard anything either in print or via the backchannels.

Silverlake … I think your idea is very interesting and I will bump this post up … so that it gets more attention. However, I am still very curious to hear what Coach Howland thinks and am conflicted right now since I haven’t really seen the plans for the new redesign yet.

by Nestor on Apr 29, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think CBH has commented on them

but I doubt he’s going to say that he doesn’t think they’re good enough, even if he believes they’re not.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 29, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think if the coaching staff is not terribly excited

the word will get out one way or another.

by Nestor on Apr 29, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt it

Based on what I’ve heard, their current plans are pretty set in stone. It’s what they’re going forward with and while I don’t think they’re very good, they’re still an improvement over what Pauley currently is. CBH knows that they still need to raise money to get this done and letting it be known that he’s unhappy with it won’t help raise money for a project that while flawed, is better than they have now.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 29, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

James Keefe

Keefe sat in on the focus group with us and looking pretty impressed by the design. Especially the new training, film, and locker rooms.

by lil eg not cs on Apr 29, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Silver's idea

Pauley was certainly a jewel when it opened almost half a century ago. The operative words then were “jewel” but now are “almost half a century ago.” The ’60’s gave us the multi-use stadium like Three Rivers and Riverfront Stadium. Those stadia were relatively OK for their multiple uses, but were not ideal for any of them. A little before those were built, Dodger Stadium was built (and privately financed) as a single-purpose stadium, to be used for baseball only (plus the occasional rock concert.)

Pauley was great for intramurals (I shot at the same baskets that all the Bruin greats did), and volleyball and graduation and dog show and whatever else it was used for, and it was relatively OK for basketball. It was OK in the 20th Century, but this is the 21st Century. I like the idea of keeping Pauley as the nice multi-purpose forum for everything other than UCLA basketball, and opening a new, state of the art, basketball only facility at wherever it is supposed to be according to Silver. (Sorry, the map thingy I clicked on showed the way to Tropicana Field (no kidding), where I will be paid to watch the Rays-Red Sox game as “Booth Runner,” i.e., being the gopher for the on-air talent, but I digress.) UCLA basketball has proven itself to be a unique asset to UCLA. UCLA would not be what it is without UCLA basketball, and the program deserves its own showcase.

I think Silver has really scored with this idea, and I think that those who have any influence at all at Morgan Center would be doing a good service to make sure this idea gets serious consideration.

by Fox 71 on Apr 29, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

While waiting for a friend at Novel,

I decided to walk over to the Lot, and Silver was RIGHT ON. The place will fit a stadium, although there will not be much room around it for public gatherings and the crowds that typically assemble. Plus, it is an absolutely ridiculous use of space as it is a slap of concrete.

B.F.

by eubruin on Apr 29, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couple of issues

1) They are currently rebuilding the UCPD station on Westwood and Charles E. Young, and I believe (could be mistaken) that they have been temporarily relocated to lot 36 and the adjacent building until 2011 or 2012. That means that construction could not for another 2 years at the least, which is a problem.

2) Westwood has so many restrictions on it these days that I doubt the university could just put up an arena without some resistance, even though they do own the land. Also, parking would be a huge problem, unless UCLA is willing to shuttle people from the campus lots.

I do like your idea though, and wish that the university was more open to options like this. Slightly OT, but I would like to see a 50 or 60 thousand seat football stadium built where the old hospital lies. It isn’t being used except for the med school (which can be relocated), and that plus the surrounding buildings that are now housed in Reagan such as Resnick and Mattel provide more than enough room for a stadium plus a parking structure or two. Alas, with the uptight Bs (Brentwood, Bel-Air, and Beverly Hills) and huge budget problems, this will never happen.

by Sideout11 on Apr 29, 2009 11:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You are right sideout,

there are a slew of police cars parked outside.

B.F.

by eubruin on Apr 29, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mentioned this, as have others...

But I do not see how it is possible to build an arena there (and definitely a stadium in place of the old hospital) because of parking issues. Westwood already has its issues with traffic and parking as I am sure we all know. Can you imagine the log jam coming off the Wilshire 405 exits trying to get to the game?

On game days parking already is inconvenient with Pauley as there have to be officers and parking attendants waving cones and directing people in the streets. Moving to an “off campus”(in effect) location would require extensive busing to on the campus parking lots, plus people would be circling endlessly in the village looking for cheap street parking. And this would only exacerbate the current lack of parking in the village. Though I would love the idea of a new arena, I believe the only realistic chance for that is to build it in Pauley’s place. Such are the problems of living in a land scarce (and expensive) community that UCLA is lucky enough to occupy.

by NorCalBruin08 on Apr 30, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only one nit to pick

It seems to me that anyone coming to UCLA for any reason knows that there is never a place to park. I don’t see anyone circling around looking for free parking. I’m cheaper than anyone I know, and I wouldn’t do that.

by Fox 71 on Apr 30, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

Since you took either the 405 or the 10 to get there, you are guaranteed to already be late for whatever you’re trying to get to, so spending half an hour to find free parking isn’t really an option.

by Tydides on Apr 30, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are thousands of available parking spots accross the street

at the federal building which should theoretically be available on Thursday nights and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Games are played after federal building working hours.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on May 1, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In that case...

If the federal building across the street were to allow UCLA to use that parking space (which seems unclear given that this is all hypothetical), then I agree parking would not be a huge issue. Does anyone know if this has been done before? Many of the attendees would be students which won’t require parking anyways. But I do not know if it is a sure thing…I have known people working in federal buildings, and ever since Okla City bombings, getting in and out of federal parking lots has been restricted and requires clearance…at least in the 2 different federal buildings I have had to go to up in Sacramento. Whether or not they would ease these concerns remains to be seen.

In response to the cheap parking…maybe not too many people would circle around endlessly in the village looking for the rare free space. But if they are late (and with the freeways in the area, they will be as you guys point out), they might also circle in hopes of finding one in the new arena’s close proximity…rather than head up the the campus lots and have to bus or walk all the way back down. Then again, none of this matters if the federal parking lot allowed UCLA to use it.

All of this traffic would be good for local businesses, as you say silverlake. Imagine after a big game all the students pouring out into lower westwood and stopping at the bars and eateries on their way back up to the dorms/apartments.

by NorCalBruin08 on May 1, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It may very well be unworkable from a traffic perspective

But what I would like to see with this new plan is an explanation of all the options explored, and why the option to spend $160M without improving the view from 2/3s of the seats was the option chosen.

My main concern is the unveiling of a “final” plan without any sort of openness in the process or any discussion of alternatives or the thought process.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on May 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this 100%. I fear that we here on BN are discussing alternatives and options much more thoroughly than the decisions makers might be.

by NorCalBruin08 on May 4, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WIll it pass Environmental Impact Report?

I can’t see this passing an environmental impact analysis. It is one thing to get off the 405 at Wilshire and go to campus. It is another to have traffic concentrated around Veteran and Wilshire, which is always crowded on a good day. IIRC, three of the most crowded intersections in LA are WIlshire & Sepulveda, WIlshire & Westwood, and Wilshire & Veteran. Have you ever tried to get off the SB 405 at Wilshire during rush hour? The geniuses at CalTrans who redesigned the Wilshire ramps have oncoming traffic trying to merge just as the exiting traffic is trying to get into the same lane. When the traffic lights are red on Wilshire, it backs up onto the 405.

While I agree with the concept, I can’t see it happening, at least at that location. It would add to the already impossible traffic.

by ucla717274 on May 1, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But what about the children!

And by children, I’m referring to the homeowners organization of westwood (or whatever they’re called) that basically shoots down any semblance of that area being a “college town”.

Bars being shot down, new liquor permits impossible to obtain, Black Friday disappearing, Undie Run under heavy surveillance now, midnight yell disappearing, bonfires gone — all under the guise of “noise violations” due to complaints of the local homeowners.

If a new arena were constructed that far south, we’re looking at an area that would potentially be yet another sticking point for the homeowners in that area. At least Pauley is buried in towards campus so it’s a moot point.

However, with that said, LOVE the idea. I’ve actually always thought we needed 2 good facilities to handle the teams, and when I was in college, always wondered why the Men’s Gym location wasn’t considered for a mid-level venue.

by bruinhopeful on May 1, 2009 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

shot = shut; tough day

by bruinhopeful on May 1, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Black Friday?

Wasn’t it Black Sunday?

by freesia39 on May 1, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol might have been...too "black" to remember I suppose

by bruinhopeful on May 1, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

by bruinhoo on May 13, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinross Building resident here

Sorry, but I don’t think this will fly.

True, the UCPD is here in Kinross building only temporarily, but there are other major offices (Library collections and restoration, and Research Administration) in the Kinross Building—and Lot 36 is where we park. There are also a lot of Wilshire Center employees that park in Lot 36. Lot 32 wouldn’t be able to handle all of the cars that currently park in 36 should that parking be removed for a new arena. So that would mean two major construction projects that would have to be addressed.

I also think the traffic and Westwood homeowners pressure group issues are also major hurdles for this hypothetical.

by Westwood Wizard on May 1, 2009 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the Westwood homeowners alone would have killed it

They were extremely vocal about the possible expansion of the federal building and that was abandoned.

I used to work at the Wilshire Center and parked in Lot 36 too, and I figured unless they were able to add 5 more stories to lot 32, there’s no way they can get rid of that lot. There’s absolutely no parking under the Wilshire Center that can be reallocated. (used to do parking allocations for the dept, hated it.)

by freesia39 on May 1, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We would really hold up a basketball arena

because it inconveniences the parking options of the library collections staff and the research administration staff?

That has to be a joke, right?

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on May 1, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you on that one.

by cabz on May 1, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I’m just pointing out that this area isn’t tabula rasa—there are a lot of staff employees in this area, and these departments wouldn’t be too happy with a basketball arena next door. I know there are no perfect solutions anywhere, but you can be sure that any departments potentially inconvenienced by a major construction project would be lobbying against that project.

I want to see an arena for UCLA basketball fitting our legacy too.

But it bears reminding that UCLA athletics is one of numerous departments, and not all get along. And before you shrug off research administration (I might as well out myself as an ORA employee), research administration helps to bring in close to $1 billion dollars to the campus each year. As much as I love our team, it can’t match that!

by Westwood Wizard on May 1, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is "research administration"?

And how can it bring in a billion bucks? More to the point, is this something that I can do at home and earn $1,000, $2,000 … up to $10,000 a month — and all in your spare time working at your home computer!

To be serious a second, the concept of “research administration” seems to fodder for jokes about academia, and how it’s more important to be able to keep track of the research of others than to do one’s own original research. I’m sure there’s more to it than that. A billion dollars is not something to be joked about.

by Fox 71 on May 2, 2009 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of sounds like

the Department for Administrative Affairs from “Yes, Minister!” Haha.

B.F.

by eubruin on May 5, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Research administration is...

…everything that goes on behind the scenes when a professor or other researcher gets a grant or contract. Awards are made to the Regents, not the individual researcher, and research administration entails making sure that the grant proposal is okay, that the award complies with UC regulations, that approvals for human or animal research subjects are in place, that patents get registered…we obviously don’t do the research, but we make sure that the research is able to take place, and that UCLA gets the money from the sponsors (governmental, non-profit institutions, and industry). It’s very unsexy, but it’s a big deal.

And Fox, let me assure you…there are many more things that are better fodder for academia jokes. Trust me, I was a graduate student in the humanities.

by Westwood Wizard on May 2, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Is anyone planning on going to Pauley Monday to see the renovation plans?

I might head down to see what 160 mil buys these days.

by insomniacslounge on May 7, 2009 12:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll be there

I’m hoping we’ll be able to speak to them and ask them about the process and what other options they explored before settling on this one.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 7, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure you'll get a straight answer, Rye.

Here is the version from academia: “Our steering committee consulted all available sources, and consulted select members of the athletic department, athletic staff, administration and most of all students and fans. We collected all input, and hired the best professionals around to come up with a renovation plan that will blah, blah, blah.”

The actual version is more like this: “We spent an outrageous amount of money on architects and planners and they came up with a plan which just about everyone else says is crummy. But we spent so much money, we have to use their plan or we’ll look stupid. It’s easier to make ourselves look good by taking a professionally prepared, albeit lousy, plan than coming up with a real plan with input from real people.”

It’s the same reason why professional teams continue to play players who aren’t performing but who were given an enormous salary and signing bonus. We don’t care about winning or keeping a better player on the bench, because if we don’t play Mr. Big Bucks, we’re admitting that we made a stupid decision.

by Fox 71 on May 7, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I'm assuming that's what I'll get

but hopefully if I get the opportunity I’ll have the chance to ask a follow up question regarding exactly what they investigated and decided not to go with and why. I doubt I’ll get that opportunity, but maybe I’ll get lucky.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs