Town Square

Post a New Topic

Memorial Stadium Vs. Stanford Stadium (Public vs. Private)

Original post made by Jim H. on Aug 28, 2012

The renovation of the UC Berkeley Memorial Stadium renovation cost $321M and took about 21 months. Stanford Stadium was torn down and rebuilt for $90M in 9 months.

Just a small example of what's wrong with the state and the UC system.

Comments (8)

Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 28, 2012 at 12:21 pm

This is a fairly clueless and unfounded conclusion used to attack the whole UC system.

I think the UC system should be attacked for the way it has managed both its responsibilities and the huge salaries it has continued to give and raise to those managers. Where can I sign up for a job where the worse job I go the more I get paid?

But no rational argument is given here to attack the UC system based on anything measurable, no realistic comparison is done to account for the differences between the two venues and the cost differential. Just a biased attack on something the poster doesn't show that he knows anything about.

All in all not a very thought out comment, or conclusion.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:26 pm

>The renovation of the UC Berkeley Memorial Stadium renovation cost $321M and took about 21 months. Stanford Stadium was torn down and rebuilt for $90M in 9 months.

Jim H. - Good post. You nailed a specific example that is both practical and emblematic of the problem. UC Berkely is committed to and paralyzed by the public unions; Stanford is not. This tells me that the UC Berkely budget can and should be cut in half, as a starting point. It will then be forced to abrogate its public union contracts...a very good thing for most of California citizens!


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Stanford Stadium's cost and speed = John Arrillaga.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm

>Stanford Stadium's cost and speed = John Arrillaga.

True enough. Arrillaga is dynamic, determined and generous. However, he would never survive in the UC system, becasue it doesn't recognize, or celebrate guys like him. Stanford still does.

Just cut the UC budget in half, and make them earn what is left, which is still too much. Maybe they will end up giving Arrillaga a phone call, asking for his kind of help. They could learn a lot!

However, entrenched leftists are not about to do that, and we all know it.


Posted by now we know, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Samuel, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm

@ Anon: Are you looking for a complete breakdown of the numbers? The comparison is fairly basic. Two bay area football stadiums. One university decided to rebuild from scratch and spend $90, another university decided to retrofit and spent 3.5X the cost. Doesn't matter if the stadium was built on a fault line, or a volcano, or the moon, for that matter, there's no way the cost are that far out of whack.

No different than your comment about UC salaries


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:32 pm

While a state monitored project, it should be noted that both the UC remodel/expansion and the Stanford Stadium projects are/were privately funded.

Mixing your funding/management criticisms with the other issues surrounding UCB isn't exactly a straight line.

Further - as pointed out above, the UC project was remodel/retrofit project, which also included the construction of a new athletic center...including new offices, weight rooms, locker rooms, classrooms, computer labs, etc.

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison


Posted by Samuel, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2012 at 8:53 am

Actually, "Crescent Park Dad", the money for the athletic center, which cost $150M, is ON TOP of the $321M for the stadium. So, Memorial Stadium vs. Stanford Stadium is $321M vs. $90M.

While the Cal project might have been planned to be privately funded, they have yet to reach their financial goal. That still puts public monies at risk.

Web Link

The criticism is fairly straight. If the UC Regents are making poor financial decisions in one area, it's pretty certain that they're making them in other areas as well.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,878 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,270 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,246 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,235 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 401 views