10-21-2012, 12:05 AM
OK,
I had seen the renovated stadium on TV, and was not too impressed. Now that I have been there I know something is wrong. Somebody in California must have pocketed $150 million or something. Right?
The positives-
Concrete- Seriously! The extensive use of concrete looked nice. Nice outside the stadium and in the stands.
Sound System - The sound system speakers are behind the stands and the sound quality was very good with few echo problems.
Press Box! - Clearly designed to host recruits on visits and big donors during games.
The expected items-
A lot more ADA access and seating
An army of people willing to help people find seats
Improvements to the concourse area on the west side
The negatives -
The very unequal treatment of East and West
The Army style net support posts
The lack of pass through space (still) in the stands
The porta-potties on the East side
Excessive cost
I began to wonder if the year away from the facitility was intentional to mask the lack of change. If someone took my car from me for a year, painted it a different color and put in a new sound system would I be more inclined to think it was a different or better car?
I heard many other people wondering where the money went. I can imagine building today on a fault line costs a lot, but the game day experience for the masses seems to really only have a few benefits. Small TVs, great sound, lights for night games and the removal of the wood seats. All nice, but not $321 million nice. Stanford Stadium always seemed like a bargain, but now I am more impressed than ever. Definitely would take Stanford Stadium's seating equality over the UCB situation.
The UCB haves get more, though it is apparent that even the haves are not moved. There are a lot of open seats available at the 50, so the donation requirement must exceed the benefits given to the elite.
I had seen the renovated stadium on TV, and was not too impressed. Now that I have been there I know something is wrong. Somebody in California must have pocketed $150 million or something. Right?
The positives-
Concrete- Seriously! The extensive use of concrete looked nice. Nice outside the stadium and in the stands.
Sound System - The sound system speakers are behind the stands and the sound quality was very good with few echo problems.
Press Box! - Clearly designed to host recruits on visits and big donors during games.
The expected items-
A lot more ADA access and seating
An army of people willing to help people find seats
Improvements to the concourse area on the west side
The negatives -
The very unequal treatment of East and West
The Army style net support posts
The lack of pass through space (still) in the stands
The porta-potties on the East side
Excessive cost
I began to wonder if the year away from the facitility was intentional to mask the lack of change. If someone took my car from me for a year, painted it a different color and put in a new sound system would I be more inclined to think it was a different or better car?
I heard many other people wondering where the money went. I can imagine building today on a fault line costs a lot, but the game day experience for the masses seems to really only have a few benefits. Small TVs, great sound, lights for night games and the removal of the wood seats. All nice, but not $321 million nice. Stanford Stadium always seemed like a bargain, but now I am more impressed than ever. Definitely would take Stanford Stadium's seating equality over the UCB situation.
The UCB haves get more, though it is apparent that even the haves are not moved. There are a lot of open seats available at the 50, so the donation requirement must exceed the benefits given to the elite.