Zero chance there is a default. Possibly a negotiated refinancing. Keep in mind, the athletic department doesn't have a true loan, and the campus entity has the external liability, even if internally athletics has a large (and varying) degree of responsibility for it. Suppliers of building materials and cash will get paid. It's a matter …
Zero chance there is a default. Possibly a negotiated refinancing. Keep in mind, the athletic department doesn't have a true loan, and the campus entity has the external liability, even if internally athletics has a large (and varying) degree of responsibility for it. Suppliers of building materials and cash will get paid. It's a matter of internal politics and arm wrestling whose' budget gets what sized hit. And given the size and duration of the debt for what has long appeared to be a very poorly managed project, a change of Chancellor is a certainty during the run of it, at which time whatever the status of the campus politics and bookkeeping is will be completely up for grabs.
Even better, UC issued 50-year bonds to fund the West Side Improvements project (aka Cal Memorial renovation). You may remember that the Regents' approval was required before the bonds could be issued.
Yeah they can’t default, as they know they will need bond financing again. If I had my druthers and I were Chancellor I would buy as many of the neighboring houses as possible in order to moot that opposition to revenue events there.
After I read what the enormous total cost was, and before I saw the end product for the first time, I assumed that was a part of it. For that money, a lot of clap-trap housing and old business fronts must have been acquired and torn down, to facilitate improved access and some semblance of parking, this for one of the hardest to access and egress venues in the west, and probably some cooperative venture to get some semblance of a modern hotel presence nearby. It was an obvious to anyone who had tried to navigate the terrible streets and lack of parking and facilities need. And low and behold, on the first trip back after the project, none of that was done. And the stadium was a poor man's early 70's endeavor.
Also just seems basic. If you are going to build a project that will attract a lot of people, you want to buy the neighboring lots, to capture the increase in value. Otherwise you are just gifting those folks a windfall
Just my two cents. The seismic retrofit of the grandstand and the new press box on the west side were very expensive. They should have demo'd the entire west side of the stadium (not retrofitted) and constructed an entirely new, and smaller, west grandstand with a new, and less lavish, press box (all up to current seismic standards). I think that would have been significantly less expensive than what they did.
And they should have done a little more on the east side. It's really silly when you have spent hundreds of millions and you still have porta potties and no decent concessions on the east side, isn't it?
The entire project was poorly conceived. And this leaves still open the question of whether they got their money's worth for what they actually ended up doing (ie, was the project as built well managed and overseen).
The die-hard Cal fan in me bristles at the thought of a smaller West side. We should wanna be the Big House like Michigan’s. As for the east side, yeah the austere accommodations might be just one reason why so many students don’t go to games.
(See also my response to Overall). The price for what they got was way overboard (whomever the GC was got away with stealing a massive amount of money), and a lot of what should have been done surrounding the project wasn't. Cal got a poorly lit version of Autzen (built decades ago) that has no parking.
I was comparing it in terms of stadium style (open concrete bowl with no upper deck), bench seating style, very limited box/lodge./club/covered seating, etc,; the fan experience aspects. Both look like a 60s era stadium (which Autzen actually is), not a 21st century stadium build.
I do realize the construction site is different, though every building everywhere has to meet seismic requirements, and Autzen sits near a river, in a floodplain, next to a wetland, on hydraulic grounds, which presents its own engineering complications, and costs, historically and currently.
And in a location also with wildly deficient street services.
It's a strain to reconcile the extreme costs for what Cal got relative to the costs of other relatively contemporary stadium construction and renovation projects without wondering if seismic issues weren't used as cover for at least some increased costs that don't seem to have been critically reviewed at the risk of being seen as cutting corners on safety. And at this point, its water under the bridge (or stadium), as the money is already spent.
Okay, now do Ryan Field, Northwestern's football stadium. The fundraising for renovating Ryan Field was launched last summer or fall and is projected to be $800 million. Cal Memorial's renovation cost was projected at $320 million and probably came in at around $340 million.
Ryan will also be a triple deck stadium with at least almost all seats under cover. So they are going to be getting quite a bit more. And I expect the scope of that project is larger, involving more related work surrounding the actual stadium.
Apparently you haven't been to Home Depot for project materials lately!
It's impossible to arrive at an exact increase because each material or finished product is different, but here are a few price comaparison stats I was able to pull together.
2010 Ending Cost per 1.000 board feet of lumber $316.40
2021 Ending Cost per 1,000 board feet of lumber $1143.90 up 261.5% (after peaking at $1670.50) per macrotrends.net
Cement has not increased as much, but escalated from under $90 / metric ton in 2012 to $125 / metric ton at the end of 2021, up 40%, per statista.com
(Concrete, a manufactured product using cement that costs ~ 2.5 times what the cement component does, was at about $336 / ton at the end of 2021 per bls.gov)
Steel went from $487 / ton in 2012 to $1,270 in 2021, up 160%, per lakeairmetals.com. And the delay in getting a steel order especially filled, like all things in the pipeline, has escalated dramatically, adding time costs to any large project.
All manufactured or finished components have escalated more than materials themselves because they all include escalating costs of labor, transport, storage, etc. on top of the increased cost of underlying materials.
Those are not increases of "several times over." Lumber has not doubled, neither has concrete.
Even so, Ryan Field is projected to lose approx. 1/4 of its capacity when the project is complete (dropping from about 47,000 capacity now to about 35,000 capacity when finished). So, what does that say about the cost of renovating Cal Memorial? I think it was a huge amount at the time. The cost is looking better now.
I'd say opportunistic, when presented with a contract administrator that did not know construction or facilities design. And maybe of less than hoped for ethics, though that should be anticipated.
Zero chance there is a default. Possibly a negotiated refinancing. Keep in mind, the athletic department doesn't have a true loan, and the campus entity has the external liability, even if internally athletics has a large (and varying) degree of responsibility for it. Suppliers of building materials and cash will get paid. It's a matter of internal politics and arm wrestling whose' budget gets what sized hit. And given the size and duration of the debt for what has long appeared to be a very poorly managed project, a change of Chancellor is a certainty during the run of it, at which time whatever the status of the campus politics and bookkeeping is will be completely up for grabs.
I hope we got a 30 yr fixed on the stadium.
Even better, UC issued 50-year bonds to fund the West Side Improvements project (aka Cal Memorial renovation). You may remember that the Regents' approval was required before the bonds could be issued.
Yeah they can’t default, as they know they will need bond financing again. If I had my druthers and I were Chancellor I would buy as many of the neighboring houses as possible in order to moot that opposition to revenue events there.
In other words, buy Panoramic Hill.
After I read what the enormous total cost was, and before I saw the end product for the first time, I assumed that was a part of it. For that money, a lot of clap-trap housing and old business fronts must have been acquired and torn down, to facilitate improved access and some semblance of parking, this for one of the hardest to access and egress venues in the west, and probably some cooperative venture to get some semblance of a modern hotel presence nearby. It was an obvious to anyone who had tried to navigate the terrible streets and lack of parking and facilities need. And low and behold, on the first trip back after the project, none of that was done. And the stadium was a poor man's early 70's endeavor.
Also just seems basic. If you are going to build a project that will attract a lot of people, you want to buy the neighboring lots, to capture the increase in value. Otherwise you are just gifting those folks a windfall
That is what the Cubs did, basically. Was a good idea!
So you predict Christ goes down for a CMS boondoggle? What about the project was poorly managed?
Just my two cents. The seismic retrofit of the grandstand and the new press box on the west side were very expensive. They should have demo'd the entire west side of the stadium (not retrofitted) and constructed an entirely new, and smaller, west grandstand with a new, and less lavish, press box (all up to current seismic standards). I think that would have been significantly less expensive than what they did.
And they should have done a little more on the east side. It's really silly when you have spent hundreds of millions and you still have porta potties and no decent concessions on the east side, isn't it?
The entire project was poorly conceived. And this leaves still open the question of whether they got their money's worth for what they actually ended up doing (ie, was the project as built well managed and overseen).
The die-hard Cal fan in me bristles at the thought of a smaller West side. We should wanna be the Big House like Michigan’s. As for the east side, yeah the austere accommodations might be just one reason why so many students don’t go to games.
(See also my response to Overall). The price for what they got was way overboard (whomever the GC was got away with stealing a massive amount of money), and a lot of what should have been done surrounding the project wasn't. Cal got a poorly lit version of Autzen (built decades ago) that has no parking.
The cost of renovating Cal Memorial was inflated by the need for seismic engineering and construction. Cal Memorial is not comparable to Autzen.
I was comparing it in terms of stadium style (open concrete bowl with no upper deck), bench seating style, very limited box/lodge./club/covered seating, etc,; the fan experience aspects. Both look like a 60s era stadium (which Autzen actually is), not a 21st century stadium build.
I do realize the construction site is different, though every building everywhere has to meet seismic requirements, and Autzen sits near a river, in a floodplain, next to a wetland, on hydraulic grounds, which presents its own engineering complications, and costs, historically and currently.
And in a location also with wildly deficient street services.
It's a strain to reconcile the extreme costs for what Cal got relative to the costs of other relatively contemporary stadium construction and renovation projects without wondering if seismic issues weren't used as cover for at least some increased costs that don't seem to have been critically reviewed at the risk of being seen as cutting corners on safety. And at this point, its water under the bridge (or stadium), as the money is already spent.
Okay, now do Ryan Field, Northwestern's football stadium. The fundraising for renovating Ryan Field was launched last summer or fall and is projected to be $800 million. Cal Memorial's renovation cost was projected at $320 million and probably came in at around $340 million.
Ryan will also be a triple deck stadium with at least almost all seats under cover. So they are going to be getting quite a bit more. And I expect the scope of that project is larger, involving more related work surrounding the actual stadium.
Cal Memorial renovation - Nov. 2010 to Aug. 2012.
Ryan Field renovation - unknown start date and completion date.
During which time, materials costs have increased several times over.
Show your work. Your statement defies belief.
Apparently you haven't been to Home Depot for project materials lately!
It's impossible to arrive at an exact increase because each material or finished product is different, but here are a few price comaparison stats I was able to pull together.
2010 Ending Cost per 1.000 board feet of lumber $316.40
2021 Ending Cost per 1,000 board feet of lumber $1143.90 up 261.5% (after peaking at $1670.50) per macrotrends.net
Cement has not increased as much, but escalated from under $90 / metric ton in 2012 to $125 / metric ton at the end of 2021, up 40%, per statista.com
(Concrete, a manufactured product using cement that costs ~ 2.5 times what the cement component does, was at about $336 / ton at the end of 2021 per bls.gov)
Steel went from $487 / ton in 2012 to $1,270 in 2021, up 160%, per lakeairmetals.com. And the delay in getting a steel order especially filled, like all things in the pipeline, has escalated dramatically, adding time costs to any large project.
All manufactured or finished components have escalated more than materials themselves because they all include escalating costs of labor, transport, storage, etc. on top of the increased cost of underlying materials.
Those are not increases of "several times over." Lumber has not doubled, neither has concrete.
Even so, Ryan Field is projected to lose approx. 1/4 of its capacity when the project is complete (dropping from about 47,000 capacity now to about 35,000 capacity when finished). So, what does that say about the cost of renovating Cal Memorial? I think it was a huge amount at the time. The cost is looking better now.
Yes, all buildings must be seismic requirements, but not all buildings are split down the middle on the Hayward Fault.
I did not think of the seismic refit costs. Good point Fiat.
Hmm, imagine that a crooked GC. Lands sake, I can scarcely believe it. <sarcasm font>
I'd say opportunistic, when presented with a contract administrator that did not know construction or facilities design. And maybe of less than hoped for ethics, though that should be anticipated.