(06-17-2017 04:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  A) is a hole in the ground, no structure except one building to erect. Nothing in place, no constrictions.

B) an existing structure which, nowhere to move it. Have to repair in place. Very difficult engineering task.

You have no knowledge of CA earthquake codes and requirements. It's not cheap

And you're not an engineer or any kind of expert. You're just taking a guess. Might be a correct guess, but I'm not convinced just because you present your opinion in an authoritative manner.

(06-17-2017 05:40 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Exactly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9uwGLQQliv8

Thanks a lot for this!! +3 It actually explains the issues.

Now I have a much better idea of why Cal burnt so much money on this project. Incredible that this was allowed to pass.

All to, more or less, keep the "look" of the 1920's stadium on the outside. So spend 15xM to put a performance center in the ground, and spend 3xxM to completely demolish and rebuild one side of the internal structure of the stadium with state of the art, if not experimental, building methods, while maintaining the exterior facade.

Also explains why they build the press box/suites structure on that side of the stadium. That always bothered me when I visited the campus a few years ago. I thought to my self "you dummies! why would you block that fantastic view by putting the box on that side???" Now I know it's because they spend 3xxM to renovate one side of the stadium.

(06-17-2017 05:40 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Also, Levi's cost three times of Cal and at the same time as the Cal project, $100M only gets you Avaya Stadium in San Jose now.

Somewhat moot, now that I understand the difference, but from 2006 dollars to 2017 dollars, Stanford's stadium would only be $110M. Of course it's never that simple, but still we're talking well below $200M.