Pauley Pavilion Renovation: First Class Money, But Will It Be a First Class Arena?
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 12, 2009 11:56 AM PDT
in Pauley Restoration
22 comments
The project to raise $100 million for the Pauley Pavilion renovation is called The Campaign of Champions. Well, I was under the impression that a champion was the best of the best so I hope the champions that the campaign is referring to are those on the executive committee because based on what the Morgan Center has released thus far, the Pauley Pavilion renovation is not the best of the best. I was there yesterday and I’ve heard just about everything available on the project as well as a few other things and again, I’m unimpressed.
The 200 and 300 levels are no closer. It says there’s a new film room. Well, that’s nice, but five teams use Pauley so either some teams are left out of there’s going to be a fight for film room time. There are no suites anywhere in the arena so the renovation doesn’t maximize revenue needed to fund the other sports. The added space for locker rooms/sports medicine/film rooms/weight room will be less than half the size of the pavilion at Galen Center which holds the same rooms in addition to a practice court that seats 1,000 and has three sections that can hold nine volleyball courts or four basketball courts. I’m sorry, but for all the faults of Galen Center and the fact that I’d take banners over facilities any day, from a purely technical aspect, it doesn’t look like Pauley matches up. I’m aware of the issues with space and the footprint, but is this the best we could do?
I know there was concern about the need for UCLA's arena to be multi-purpose, but there are countless examples around the country of multi-purpose arenas that are outstanding for basketball at the same time. Cal’s Haas Pavilion, Pitt’s Petersen Events Center and Texas Tech’s United Spirit Center are all examples of retractable seating that allows for multiple sports to be played there while still making for a fantastic basketball venue. The multi-purpose aspect of UCLA’s arena is not an issue.
As for cost, USC built Galen Center for $160 million and included the entire pavilion next to it with the practice courts, film rooms, sports medicine area, etc. That was built during a much different economy so while raising money was likely easier, the cost to build was also more then. Oregon’s new 12,500 seat arena will cost $200 million and includes all the over the top aspects we’ve come to expect from Oregon as well as two practice courts and an underground parking garage. Oregon is obviously going to go above and beyond becaause that’s what they do, but if $200 million gets you above and beyond, then I think it’s safe to say that $185 million can get you amazing, especially when you consider Galen Center was $160 million.
Once again, I feel as if the Morgan Center went for good enough instead of exceptional and the best it can be. It's possible that the Morgan Center has done a poor job conveying the exact details of the plan and that there's a lot more to the renovation than we currently know. I doubt that's the case, but it's possible. As of now, I can only feel as if the Morgan Center and everyone involved came up short so I sure hope that at some point in the near future they address what appear to be many a shortcoming.
The plans as is are nice and get the job done, but there’s no way you could convince me that this is the best it can be. You couldn’t convince me that this will serve the students, fans and athletes as best as it possibly can. I’m sorry, but what I’m seeing won’t make Pauley the best or one of the best arenas in the nation. It will make it a very nice arena, but will rely on the history there to carry it into the upper echelon. What it should be is one of the nicest with a history that puts it head and shoulders above the rest. Oregon's arena is the most expensive on-campus arena ever built and we’re very close to it, so why does ours feel a large step below theirs?
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Couldn't have said it better myself
This was a sad day for UCLA athletics.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on May 12, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One more thing that confuses me
The only thing great about Pauley is what was accomplished there. The building and arena itself is not great. It is ugly. It is a bad place to watch a basketball game. It has zero home court advantage. It has terrible seating.
People comparing Pauley to Wrigley Field and other great historical venues is simply laughable. Wrigley is an intimate stadium that is awesome to watch a game in. Watching basketball in Pauley is equivalent to watching baseball at the Oakland Colliseum. This love affair for the building is irrational. Its a terrible facility for watching basketball.
Folks need to realize the greatness of UCLA basketball is the playert and the coaches, not the building. The building was a help in the 60s and 70s, but has been nothing but a hinderance for the last 20 years. Its time for it to go.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on May 12, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I meant to mention this in my post. We’re not talking about tearing down the Sistine Chapel, Monticello, St. Patrick’s Cathedral or the Lyceum Theatre. Those are historic buildings because of the structure itself. Pauley is not that. Pauley is historic because of what happened there and who was there, not because of the building itself. If you tore down the Royal Palace of Madrid, you wouldn’t be able to build something as good as it. If you tore down Pauley you could build something better and take the memories with you to the new arena.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 12, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree to some extent
Respectfully, I don’t think your comments are fair. I don’t think it’s laughable to compare Pauley to Wrigley because we’re talking about different things.
Wrigley is incredible because it’s Wrigley, not because of all the great teams who have played there. In fact, as we know, they have had 100 years of a lot of crappy teams which played there. I agree—Wrigley is a great place to watch a game because it’s a great facility. I watched the Cubs get killed there and still loved the place because it’s gorgeous. But it is also a piece of history. It feels old but, IMHO, didn’t feel like it was crumbling. If you knocked Wrigley down and built a brand new facility to the exact same dimensions, your seats might be more comfortable, and the restrooms might be nicer, but it would not feel the same.
Old Yankee Stadium didn’t have great sightlines for the fans. In fact, in many places, the seats and the view from the seats sucked. But it was Yankee Stadium. The reason people came in droves to attend games there was because they loved what took place there. They loved the fact that Babe Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, etc. played right in this place. You can move Yankee Stadium across the street and call it Yankee Stadium but the Babe didn’t hit any homers there. On a tour, I visited the old Yankee Stadium locker room and sat in the dugout. For the thousands of fans who have also toured the stadium and locker room and sat in the dugout, it is special to think about who also walked or sat or stood there.
I agree—Pauley is special because of its players and coaches. Maybe the building and fans didn’t win any titles—I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But if you cremate the building and build something new and call it Pauley, you won’t be able to say Alcindor played here. Or Walton. Or Ed O’Bannon. You could say that those guys played in the building which used to be here.
To that comment, some of you will say “Big Deal.” Fair enough. Maybe it’s the romantic in me talking, but I like to visit places which have some historical significance, even if they are not an architectural gem. If you knock Pauley down, you can hang up the banners and call it Pauley, but the new building will have no historical value whatsoever. And that’s a fact.
This is all intellectual at this point. They aren’t knocking Pauley down and they aren’t building a new one off-site.
by Barnes2JJ on May 12, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking along the same lines
Sometimes buildings are consider historical because of what happened there and not because they are beautiful or they representative a particular type of architectural design. The same goes for objects. Maybe you wear an old watch that belonged to your father. Sure, you could buy a new watch that’s much nicer and has tons of functions. However, the new watch won’t have the same sentimental value. Yes, memories are more important than objects but it’s nice to have the object around as a physical link to those memories.
by Gen2Bruin1987 on May 12, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I think it’s a bit shortsighted to say that this is a “sad day” for UCLA athletics. While I would love for us to completely build a new, state of the art facility, but I believe that it would be nearly impossible. For one, where do you build it? I don’t think it makes sense to destroy a parking lot on campus (in my mind, that would be the only logical choice for another on-campus location…and as we know, parking is bad enough as it is). An off campus site is a terrible idea…part of the beauty is having Pauley so close and intimate with the student population.
Nestor has mentioned that he would like for them to reconstruct the seating to replicate Mac Court in Eugene. That type of vertical seating requires a venue that is “skinny” and “tall”…and would be almost impossible to do with the current shell that is Pauley. The cost would probably be astronomical…it just doesn’t fit. Given the current overall limitations, I truly think that the administration is doing the best it can with what it can. They are addressing the 3 greatest issues (in my mind):
1. Seating closer to the court
2. Improved bathrooms/concessions
3. Entrance/lobby that gives Pauley a more “indoor” feel and celebrates our great history
All the while we are still able to say that we play at PAULEY PAVILION (Not Tampax Arena or whatever)…the house that Wooden built.
Go Bruins.
by hicalliber on May 12, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points hicaliber
Actually this is the point on which I was hoping we can get more info on:
That type of vertical seating requires a venue that is "skinny" and "tall"…and would be almost impossible to do with the current shell that is Pauley. The cost would probably be astronomical…it just doesn’t fit.
Would love to hear from any folks on BN who might have experience re. assessing costs of such development projects. I respect your take hi but just wanted to get some more datapoints.
by Nestor on May 13, 2009 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have any specific datapoints...
…but I was an engineering major at UCLA and studied structural design. Structurally, you would have to rebuild the entire seating areas or build on top of them (in and up). Because there are two levels to the seating separated by a walkway and limited vertical space (the 300 seating is already near the ceiling as is), the latter is nearly impossible. This would create a “shell” look with a lot of unused and space and terrible aesthetics. On the other hjand, to completely rebuild the entire arena on the inside would be like asking a mechanic to rebuild a totalled car…it would cost less just to build a new one (sorry I don’t have any figures here…I don’t believe anyone has attempted or considered such a renovation). Not only that, but the seating cpacity would most definitely be reduced, which is something the administration would not want…for obvious reasons. I realize this isn’t much of a technical analysis, but in my opinion it would be financially irresponsible for the administration to pursue that kind of design.
Go Bruins.
by hicalliber on May 13, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luxury boxes
First the disclaimer – I have seen the outside of lots of them, but the inside of only two (one at White Hart Lane in London for the Tottenham Hotspurs and one at Staples – both as a last second invitee when someone important cancelled.) If it is assumed that luxury boxes are an important revenue source, would it be engineeringly feasible to expand the arena vertically, and add a ring of luxury boxes? Sort of like adding a second floor to a house – you lift the roof off, build your send floor, then put the roof back on.
Or wouldn’t it be even better to move the whole thing down the street as Silverlake suggested?
by Fox 71 on May 13, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
I think that would be pretty cool…are there a lot of college arenas with luxury boxes? I can’t remember seeing many, but maybe I’m just drawing a blank. Very interesting…
Go Bruins.
by hicalliber on May 13, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The two newest Pac-10 arenas have or will have them
in Oregon’s under construction arena and Galen Center. Many of the newer arenas are being built with them. Ohio St.‘s Jerome Schottenstein Center, Wisconsin’s Kohl Center, Virginia’s John Paul Jones Arena and Maryland’s Comcast Center are all newer arenas that have suites. The new Louisville arena will have it and there is talk about Kentucky building a new arena with suites. As more and more schools build new arenas, there will be more and more with suites and Pauley will fall behind again.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 13, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple factors that might impact the cost
- Our facility space is (and has to be) underground. Presumably that will all have to be dug out, and is not currently excavated. Every additional bit of space we add to those facilities will cost more than at the Galen Center. And while Oregon’s also adding an underground lot, what’s the pricing on a lot vs. actual building space?
- (mostly semantics) The project hasn’t gone out to bid yet – we can’t yet know the exact cost, though we do know the ballpark. Also, the building work could cost a total of $160, say, while the fees – debt, renting the other arenas – could add a good chunk to the total. Those numbers are off the top of my head, but we don’t know the exact financing plan. More or less loans, etc. could lead to different end prices for arenas that cost more or less the same to construct.
That said, I am similarly wary of the project. The price tag is so high, this type of thing can’t be done very often. What will the place be like in another 40 years?
by jaffa on May 12, 2009 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In the end, the ones with bucks will have the final say
DG still needs about $50 million to finance the plan. If he gets enough donors, the plan will continue. If potential donors won’t give unless the plan changes, then DG will be forced to change or abandon the renovation. I’m guessing that DG did his homework and the current plan has the best chance of getting donors’ approval.
by Gen2Bruin1987 on May 12, 2009 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Tim Floyd
When should we expect a post regarding the newest allegations against U$C (never more appropriately spelled)?
by deepdish on May 12, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Expect a post?
You couldn’t write it yourself?
by Nestor on May 12, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, was at work. By the time I would’ve gotten around to it something would’ve already been up. And, there it is. Thanks.
by deepdish on May 12, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
I wasn’t there yesterday but I did go to the focus group about a month ago. They said they are working with an acoustic specialist to try to direct some of the sound that gets trapped in the rafters back towards the court to make it louder.
Also, one of the uses of Pauley is for concerts/awards shows. The sound and such in there can’t be all echo-y the way it is in Haas. I’ve heard that Nickelodeon pays us about $5 million to rent out Pauley for the Kid’s Choice Awards.
by lil eg not cs on May 12, 2009 6:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Arena
Are there any other pictures? I just don’t see any difference between what we have already.
by UCLA4Life on May 12, 2009 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
at $185 million...
I think we should all remember Coach Wooden’s words:
“Never mistake activity for achievement”
by MOlson on May 13, 2009 12:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
