Restore Pauley - Part III: The Road Behind Us

by Menelaus on Jan 10, 2007 2:40 PM PST in Pauley Restoration

This is Part III in a periodic series. Here is Part I and Part II.

We can agree that it's time to renovate Pauley Pavilion. So, what's going on?

If you're like me, you have a vague recollection of reading an article every year or so, full of tantalizing promises, yet without any tangible results. Or, perhaps you've been told something startlingly vague by someone associated with the university. Either way, it seems like the same old story over and over.

As I mentioned in Part I, the administration is now apparently in the process of hiring an architect. But, is this real progress, or just the most recent demonstration of faux progress meant to placate the alumni base? Time will tell. For a historical perspective, let's review the road behind us.

As of late March 2003, Ben Howland wouldn't be named UCLA's head coach for another week. But, renovation of Pauley has already a top priority, at least for Ben. From the LA Times:

[Howland] does believe Pauley Pavilion is in serious need of renovation. The Petersen Event Center, which he proclaims "easily the best on-campus facility in the nation," spoiled him.

"[Wooden] lost two games in Pauley Pavilion. Two games," he said. "It can be a tremendous home court. But [renovation] has got to be done. Even if it means playing a year at the Forum or wherever.

"At our facility, the students surround the court. It was built so they can stand the entire game and not impede the view of the paying public who sits behind them. You want to maintain the ambience and sense of history, but you have to upgrade."

So, the dark days of Lavin were coming to an end. A new Athletic Director was making bold moves. A national Coach of the Year was installed in Westwood. A man who desperately wanted a new facility to help restore UCLA basketball to its former glory.

Nevertheless, the Pauley renovation effort floundered, as this DB article from April 2003 lamented the lack of private funding:

In light of the recent changes within the athletic department, the lingering question remains: With a new athletic director and a new basketball coach, is Pauley going to follow suit?
...
According to Administrative Vice Chancellor Peter Blackman, no specific plans are being pursued, but [associate athletic director of business operations Ken] Weiner said that studies have been conducted to examine the feasibility of changing some features of Pauley....

But even these changes have yet to be realized. In fact, visible changes to Pauley are practically non-existent. Why?

In short, the money isn't there.

"There's no firm funding source," said Mick Deluca, director of UCLA Cultural and Recreational Affairs, the department that manages Pauley Pavilion. "It's always been in discussion. I think it's high on the list of campus objectives to update a building approaching 40 years old."

Though UCLA would announce the renaming of the Pauley Pavilion floor a few months later, and despite it being "high" on the list of administration objectives, the "firm funding source" never materialized.

Yet, there was another glimmer of hope in mid-2004:

Change is in the air for Pauley Pavilion, UCLA sources announced recently.

The arena, completed in 1965, has had no major structural changes since its construction. The university has retained local architectural firm Turner Meis to review the building's current capacity for home basketball....

If plans are approved at the end of summer or early fall, the next step would be to find funding from outside sources to begin the project.

In other words, as early as 2004, the administration retained an architect to produce a study. Yet, I don't remember sitting in a renovated Pauley a couple weeks ago. So, are you still encouraged by UCLA's recent RFQ for an architect?

The lesson, of course, is that as we look at these things, and hear the latest announcements, its fair to ask whether there has been genuine progress, or if the administration is just going through the motions. We'll see, as this story continues.

Lots more history after the jump.

By October 2004, momentum seemed to be building, with the OC Register reporting that plans for a title sponsor were in the works:

UCLA will take another step toward the renovation of Pauley Pavilion on Monday in a meeting with design architects, and university officials expect soft cost estimates for the project will be between $50 million-$70 million.

How those funds will be raised has yet to be determined, but Athletic Director Dan Guerrero said the university would consider the prospect of selling corporate naming rights to help fund construction at the storied venue, which has been home to 38 NCAA championship teams since it was opened in 1965. ...

"We're in the program development phase and a little of the design phase," Guerrero said. "We'll see what he comes back with. "

Design phase doesn't sound bad, right? But, just days later, in what would be part of a recurring pattern, officials were quick to warn that construction was still years away.

Athletic department and university officials at UCLA will continue to evaluate the feasibility of renovating venerable Pauley Pavilion after hearing a preliminary proposal from a local architectural design firm on Monday....

The project, which athletic director Dan Guerrero said is in its most preliminary stages, likely will not enter the construction phase for several years....

"When I became athletic director here, there were certain things that were part of my vision for where I would like to take this department," said Guerrero, who is in his third year at UCLA. "Looking at Pauley was first and foremost among those things."
...
Fund-raising for the proposed renovations will not begin until a design is in place and an architect has been hired, two decisions that Guerrero said he was nowhere close to making.
...
"We're committed toward moving forward with this project," Guerrero said.... We all want to continue to be nationally competitive, and we realize the facility is critical to that goal."

And so it goes. We are told that the project is "first and foremost" in DG's vision, but is still in "its most preliminary stages". We're assured that the "facility is critical" to being nationally competitive, yet there's no design or architect. Were we being given forthright information, or the run around?

In the mid-2005 update, UCLA announced that a fundraising strategy for the project was just months away. Per the Dohn at the Daily News:

UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said Monday he hoped a fundraising strategy for the renovation of Pauley Pavilion would be in place by the end of 2005, but added no timetable exists to start the project....

``We're hoping to get the scope of the project done by the end of the summer, at which time we would begin to seek an architect to look at design elements, and things of that nature,'' Guerrero said.

Sounds like good news. We also learned that UCLA was hard at work on hiring a chief fundraiser whose "primary and immediate focus" was to spearhead the fundraising efforts for the renovation of Pauley. But, even as this was happening, it was apparent that the athletic department's effort was dulled by sticker shock:

A preliminary meeting last October with a design firm did not bode well. Athletic department officials were expecting the range for the project to run from $40 million-$50 million. But the cost estimate for the proposed renovation was such that they were forced to go back and reassess what could and could not be included in the proposed project.

"Based on what was laid out, the bang for the buck really didn't jibe with what we were looking for," said Ken Weiner, associate athletic director for business operations, at the time.

And, thus, whatever momentum had gathered for the project appeared to dissipate as officials bemoaned the lack of funding, insisted the project had "no timeframe," and focused on fundraising, as reflected in this interview of Dan Guerrero from June 2005:

Are there any updates on the Pauley Pavilion renovation?

"The number one priority is hiring a new athletic fund raiser. Because it's all about raising a significant amount of money."

Well, for what its worth DG's priority was accomplished two months later, in August 2005, when UCLA announced the hiring of Ross Bjork as the senior associate athletic director of external relations.

By December 2005, a couple more seemingly promising reports regarding the project trickled out, and a nice recap of the history was produced, but no real progress was made.

Then, in mid-2006, we hear it again. Despite Howland's Ben ball warriors making it to the NCAA Championship game, we learned that absolutely nothing tangible had happened for a year:

"Nothing has changed (in the past year)," said Ken Weiner, associate athletic director of business operations and the point man for this phase of the Pauley Pavilion renovation project. "Right now we're in what's known as a 'quiet phase.' That means we're mostly trying to gauge the interest of potential donors."

A quiet phase? Is that straight shooting or bureaucratic BS? Sound like the latter and, as several readers have already noted, we seem to be repeatedly given vague, incomplete, and even untrue information by the athletic department. And the AD has the gall to throw up its hands wondering where all the funding is, when they refuse to even the involve larger Bruin community in the process.

Anyway, the DB article was followed by this well-deserved broadside from our very own Nestor, who aptly observed:

It seems like officials like Weiner are in this "quiet phase" every single year. If you think it seems like every year we hear a lot of PR/mumbo jumbo/hot air from UCLA's athletic department officials about renovating Pauley, you are right.... We hear the same nonsense, same excuses on fundraising every year. And it's not like the athletic department is lacking in terms of staff/personnel when it comes to fundraising....

What is so hard about raising funds to renovate the holy grail of college basketball, which happens to be the home of the greatest program in college hoops? What is so difficult about raising millions through on and offline fundraising from a huge alumni base, which is still euphoric about our run in the NCAA tourney, our recent conference championships, and the incredible job Coach Howland has done in revitalizing the program? For how long we are going to have put up with these excuses?

Great questions.

More recently, in October 2006, Dohn wrote a piece suggesting that, outward appearances aside, some progress has, in fact, been made:

UCLA's project to renovate Pauley Pavilion appears to be gaining little momentum in the spotlight, but behind the scenes a lot of groundwork is complete and progress is being made.

By the end of the calendar year, athletic director Dan Guerrero plans to have a 16- to 20-member campaign committee in place, and a public fund-raising push could get underway by the summer....

The last year has been spent speaking with influential boosters and potential donors. The school wants to secure at least half of the needed funds from a small contingent of people before taking the fund-raising campaign to the general public.

The school has conceptual designs for the renovations, but an architect has not been hired for the project....

Gracious me. A committee. Hallelujah. Okay, I may be jaded, but even though it sounds like something has been happening, it's doesn't appear to be very much.

A couple months later, in early December 2006, we hear from DG himself as quoted from a radio interview he gave Simers and Roggin on AM 570 (courtesy of our friends at Dump Dorrell):

Simers: So one of the questions there is with the Galen Center. When are you going to do something with Pauley Pavilion?

DG: Well we've been in the process of doing things for quite a while now. In fact, we have a select committee of individuals that are out raising money in what's called a "quiet phase" and we're going to continue to raise dollars probably up until the fall and then we'll launch the public phase for the project.

Simers: What is the project? Are you just going to remodel, or are you going gut it?

DG: Yeah, it will be a renovation of the facility. We've done a lot of focus group work and things of that nature with our constituent base, with our fan base. And to demolish Pauley Pavilion is not what most people would like to see. So we're not going to do that. We're going to give it a great facelift and make it look like a new facility, but its still going to be Pauley Pavilion and that's important to many of the folks associated with UCLA.

Fantastic. A committee and focus groups. Again, arena renovation at warp speed.

Which brings us to last month, and UCLA's RFQ for an architect issued just before Christmas for "UCLA Pauley Pavilion Renovation and Expansion".

So, here we are, in January 2007. If I'm counting right, over the last 3 years, we've consulted with an architect, considered granting naming rights, hired a fund raiser, formed a committee, and done focus groups. I can't for the life of me understand how it took so long to do so little. But, if DG is to be believed (this time), then we can expect to see a public campaign to renovate Pauley by this fall.

Will that happen? Based up our recent history, I can't say I'm overly optimistic.

That is, unless the larger Bruin community makes clear to the administration and athletic department how important this project is. That's were we come in.

Next up: Part IV: A New Hope?

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Pauley Wars

I love it: "Part IV: A New Hope"

But if you make one Death Star joke I'll refuse to donate.

by uclaw1 on Jan 10, 2007 3:39 PM PST 0 recs

I know, I know

I'm writing on a blog, about sports, trying to get someone else to spend their money to build a building. Yes, I'm sorta a dork. And, no, the import of that title was not lost on me.

by Menelaus on Jan 10, 2007 3:48 PM PST up 0 recs

Their fundraising is a joke

It would not be that difficult to start fundraising now even without huge donations from donors. Last year at the final four, if the athletic department had charged an extra $5 per ticket that would go towards the renovation they could have made well over $50,000. If tye charged $2 more per ticket for every home game this year they would bring in over $300,000. Things like that add up. If they actually got somewhere with an architect and got some artist renderings and images they could show those at a booth outside Pauley and I'm sure they could make a lot of money from people who would donate there on the spot. People don't have to donate that much. Fact is the Morgan Center is not making the Pauley renovation a priority and the renovation will not get done until they do.

by ryebreadraz on Jan 10, 2007 5:25 PM PST 0 recs

Is 3-4 Billion In Donations Isn't Enough?

Didn't UCLA proudly announce they raised 3 or 4 billion dollars in some sort of donation drive last year? Couldn't 1/30th of that money be used for Pauley? I don't get it.

by alcor805 on Jan 10, 2007 7:10 PM PST 0 recs

I think you're getting confused

It was 3 bil over the past 10+ years, not last year. Don't forget that number includes several big money donations, e.g. $300 mil for Reagan Med Center, and I believe a very large majority of money were gifts of $1MM+, so I'm fairly certain that the large majority of the gifts were nondiscretionary. Also, I'm also certain that most of the gifts are expected to go towards endowments, so it's not like UCLA suddenly has $3bil to spend freely. Athletics was also part of the fundraising efforts, and I believe that their goal during the campaign was to endow all of the athletic scholarships, which I believe has been done.

BTW, the campaign you are thinking of is Campaign UCLA.

If we raised 3 billion in the past year, UCLA wouldn't have reg fees anymore.

But more importantly, instead of complaining that UCLA hasn't done anything, one question really should be how many of us here are really willing to step up and pay out of pocket? I see a lot of people here asking for a lot of things, and a lot of people saying how they "would" donate, but I sure don't see too many people ACTUALLY donating to UCLA right now.

by stevenucla on Jan 11, 2007 10:01 AM PST up 0 recs

You want a list of potential donors?

Here it is: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Baron Davis, Mark Harmon, DeShaun Foster, Donnie Edwards, Troy Aikman, any Bruin in the NFL, any Bruin in the NBA, friggin' actors, CEOs, entrepreneurs. For crying out loud, why are we the only school where our wealthy alumni disassociate themselves from their alma mater?

Here's another dark horse for you: David Geffen. The UCLA School of Medicine is now named after him. Sure, he might request to have his name on the building, but he might not. We can still have the Wooden Court. He has donated more to UCLA than anyone I can think of. And he's not even an alumnus.

by tasser10 on Jan 11, 2007 6:59 AM PST 0 recs

I think that's an unfair statement

Considering that many wealthy alumni do donate to UCLA. For example, I'm fairly certain that Troy Aikman has endowed at least a scholarship (which I believe is an upfront $150K or so). Plenty of UCLA CEOs and entrepreneurs have given multi-million donations like Samueli, who gave $30M to the School of Engineering.

Geffen is unusual, and don't forget that he's also the wealthiest of all people who have donated. If my memory serves me correctly, I think he's somewhere in the $250M+ range at this point all in.

I think many of the wealthy donors at UCLA give because, as much as all of us love UCLA athletics, I think they're looking to fund something that can perpetuate beyond a one-time donation, with a potential impact on those beyond the immediate UCLA community, mainly in the form of research and scholarships. That's why someone like Geffen would donate to the med school, and not to something like UCLA Athletics.

A captial campaign for an athletic building is definitely feasible, but I think it's really going to need a sizable seed fund to get it started, which I imagine would have to be $10M+. I would strongly imagine that you're not going to get 10 $1M donations, because if you could do that, you could endow a department chair. For $10M, you'll probably want naming rights, and I don't think renaming something like the scoreboard is going to cut it.

I'm guessing the seed money is going to come in one of the following ways, either renaming Pauley, very expensive PSLs ($5-10K/seat), in exchange for a sizable contract (Adidas?), or a combination of all of the above. It all comes down to quid pro quo. I think it's naive to believe that we're going to get something for nothing, especially in this day and age.

BTW, you can't "shame" people into donating, you have to reward them for stepping up. So I think it's a bit counterproductive to put up a list of people you think should be donating, especially when some of them actually have donated. I think what is more productive is to talk about what you are doing and will continue to do to contribute to the effort, even if it is as simple as pledging to donate $1/day to the Athletic Fund. Like the saying goes, "Money talks, bullshit walks."

by stevenucla on Jan 11, 2007 11:20 AM PST up 0 recs

No guilt-fund-raising here

I am NOT trying to shame these guys into donating, not one bit, that was not the point of the list. I am sure they already give in one way or another. I was saying that we have plenty of potential donors, given the right opportunity. I was talking more about promoting UCLA to the general public the way some other athletes show pride for their school. I just feel like they don't show much passion for their alma mater on a public stage. How often do you see past UCLA greats at basketball or football games?

There is another side to this as well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that a donation to an academic fund is fully tax-deductible while donations to university athletic departments are only 80% deductible. I never said we should get something for nothing, but it will all depend on what the university is willing to offer or give up that will be enticing enough for a major donation.

by tasser10 on Jan 12, 2007 6:57 AM PST up 0 recs

Tax deductibility

That's partially correct, donations to the university are 100% tax deductible, unless you derive some sort of tangible or intangible benefit. Therefore, if you donate to the fund, but don't use the donation to secure better seating, then you could deduct 100% of your donation. Chances are, the person/people who donate significantly to the renovation of Pauley, are probably going to get 100% deduction, because they would probably pay separately into the Fund for better seating.

by stevenucla on Jan 12, 2007 8:18 AM PST up 0 recs

Addressing your other issue

I think our athletes show the same kind of pride in UCLA as athletes in other schools do. Our UCLA greats do show up for our games in I would say in roughly the same frequency as most other D1 schools. Just because Joey Harrington and Phil Knight showed up at the UCLA/Oregon game doesn't mean they show up to any other Oregon game beyond that--it's not like they were at the JustSC game. What kind of show of pride would you want to see?

But it seems to me that the basis of your post was that we have a list of famous/rich alumni, especially athletes, and that they are all potential donors (it was the title of your post). So it seems to me, that what you're frustrated about is that if we have all these famous alum with deep pockets, why is it so hard to get them to donate to the program? I think that's an unfair statement because I'm pretty sure most D1 program big donor lists don't include many of their NFL/NBA players as well, but mainly wealthy business owners, like our list.

by stevenucla on Jan 12, 2007 8:52 AM PST up 0 recs

Then why?

I can't say that I'm frustrated because I frankly do not know whether they donate or not. The goal of the post was actually to point out that we should have a large pool of individual donors, considering the success of our alumni, whether they are athletes or not, and that should deter any doubts about the available source of funds for the renovation.

And as for the other point about alumni attending events, it's not just the events that I am referring to. It's also partly an issue with the poor PR job done by UCLA. How many non-Bruins out there know where Aikman, MJD and other studs in the NFL and NBA went to school? How often do you hear Tim Brown and Joe Montana associated with Notre Dame? Carson Palmer, Matt Whinart with JustSC (though they did win a Heisman)? Almost at every game. I just think there's a general awareness that is simply not there and it's a waste because there is a big UCLA presence in professional sports.

by tasser10 on Jan 12, 2007 11:36 AM PST up 0 recs

Sources of funds

I agree that we have a large pool of individual donors, but I think that the large majority of donors would rather give to the non-athletic side of UCLA. At the end of the day, writing a check for $10K a year is still a pretty big commitment for many people. For example, my buddy, who unfortunately for him, when to Duke, donates $25K a year to the program. You know what he gets for that? The AD himself flew out to meet him overseas this year to have dinner with him. So clearly, it's not like people hand over large checks like that to an athletic program on a regular basis.

However, I think the issue isn't whether we can raise the money once the seed money's in place, I think the issue is/was getting the seed money to begin with. It doesn't matter even if you're a multi-billionaire, you're not going to hand over a check for $10M+ to the athletic program with no strings attached. But like I've mentioned in another post, I think the seed money's there now with yesterday's announcement, so I think this is a moot point.

To address your other point, I think a large part of why people where Montana, Brown, et al went to school is because they went from being on the national stage on a collegiate level to being on the national stage on a professional level, and the media hype continues to follow them. Montana won the NC. Brown won the Heisman. So it's not like they were unknown before they became pros. Do most people know where Kurt Warner went to school? No, but almost everyone knows he was a grocery bagger and played in Europe, because that's the kind of humint angle the media loves to hype. But guess what? Everyone knows Kareem, Walton, etc. etc. all went to UCLA, and if anyone from the 95 NC team had actually made a marquee impact in the NBA immediately after college, or even drafted as the #1 pick, you would have heard UCLA over and over again by the media.

You know how we get better PR for our players? Make sure they win on a national stage in college, get them to be a #1 or 2 draft pick, coach them well so they succeed at the next level. And I do completely agree that we need to do a better job promoting our players as Heisman or Wooden candidates, so that can happen, and we DEFINITELY need to get a coach who can actually contend for the BCS title game.

by stevenucla on Jan 12, 2007 12:21 PM PST up 0 recs

Damn you!

Steven, you make way too much sense, I hate you! :)

Can't you just let me be cynical and irrational, for crying out loud!

by tasser10 on Jan 13, 2007 7:59 AM PST up 0 recs

Noted

by stevenucla on Jan 13, 2007 8:46 AM PST up 0 recs

PSLs

After doing some more research, I'm fairly certain that PSLs are going to be used to fund any renovation. Looking at Cal's athletic fund site, PSLs are $5K/seat or $2.5K/seat depending on location, and are also based on a priority system based on how much and how long you've been donating.

by stevenucla on Jan 11, 2007 10:36 AM PST 0 recs

we should be so fortunate

if UCLA limited PSL's to Cal's level.

Looking at the recent opening of UVA's John Paul Jones Arena, for example, the cost of PSL's for priority level seats were significantly higher. Such seats required a one-time donation ranging from $5,000 for upper level seats, up to $250,000
(equivelent to courtside seats in front of the Den, plus the lower rows of sections 103-105 at Pauley). Such payments are in addition to annual athletic fund donations.

Relating to the discussion regarding naming rights and large-money donors, UVA sold naming rights to its arena for $29 million, plus an additional supplement for the A/V system, for an approximate total of $35 million. One would think that with the significantly greater history of UCLA Basketball, as well as the visability of the Los Angeles market (though also factoring the reduced TV visability afforded by the Fox contract), a suitable renovation of Pauley could command such a sum.

by bruinhoo on Jan 11, 2007 2:50 PM PST up 0 recs

Dan Guerrero Must Read BN

Can we wait until John Wooden's 100th B-day?

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/011107aaa.html

by charnaw on Jan 11, 2007 1:05 PM PST 0 recs

Assuming an Oct. 2010 deadline

That would mean renovation would begin no later than at the end of the 2007-08 season, which means that significant public fundraising will start no later than the end of this season.

by stevenucla on Jan 11, 2007 1:11 PM PST up 0 recs

If renovation began in March...

is it possible for them to be finished by next season?

I know Howland said he wouldn't object to playing at the Forum for a year, but would we play there? Would the fan support be the same level?

by True Blue and Gold on Jan 11, 2007 6:07 PM PST up 0 recs

This November?

I seriously doubt it, especially if you're talking about the beginning of the 07-08 season. First, the money's not even there yet, and I think at best, MAYBE the seed money's there, which leaves at least another 50M+ to be raised. Plus, we don't even have an architect picked out, much less an actual plan.

Even if the money was there, which I'm sure it isn't, I would assume the architect/engineer would need at least 3-6 months to plan, then you still need to find a general contractor, which would take at least another 3 months, plus you need review and permits. By the time you can even take out the first seat in Pauley, you're already into the beginning of 2008.

Anyway, any renovations would have to clear out at least part of a season, if not an entire season. What you're proposing would mean all the construction happen within 8 months (between March and November), which could never happen. The tear-down of the old seats, etc, I'm guessing would take a minimum of 3 months.

Here's my guess, based on my own experience with construction projects: if you want the new Pauley to be up by 2010, construction begins at the end of the 07-08 season, which gives the contractor 20 months. That's already a pretty aggresive timeframe, but I think it's doable. However, that also means any exterior work would probably happen before or after interior work (i.e. the area between Pauley and Spalding), and the team would definitely be out of Pauley for the 2008-09 season.

by stevenucla on Jan 11, 2007 6:43 PM PST up 0 recs