Tuesday, June 05, 2007

And now, the best editorial ever!

On the State of Schools and Schooling
On solid ground
by Gregory Fenves and Jack Moehle


This story ran as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on Friday, June 1, 2007

The city of Berkeley is suing the University of California to block construction of a student-athlete center next to the historic Memorial Stadium. The lawsuit alleges the new building would be unsafe in an earthquake. With top geologists now reaffirming that there are no active faults under the proposed center, the city's allegation is unfounded from our perspective as earthquake engineers. In fact, the city's lawsuit, filed last December, has the potential to jeopardize the safety of Cal athletes by delaying and possibly derailing the first step of a critical project to seismically retrofit the 83-year-old Memorial Stadium.

The Hayward Fault cuts through Memorial Stadium, which means that a large-magnitude earthquake could severely damage the structure and endanger lives. Each day, nearly 500 students and staff members use the stadium facilities. In addition to training and sports medicine services, the aging edifice houses offices for programs such as football, field hockey, rugby, crew and lacrosse.

Before the retrofit of the stadium can be launched, students and staff must vacate the premises and move into a new, seismically safe building. That is the purpose of the proposed new Student-Athlete High Performance Center. The plans for the center have met rigorous state environmental and earthquake-safety requirements.

Although the student-athlete center will be built near the Hayward Fault, it does not cross it. To confirm this, the campus hired a top firm, Geomatrix Consultants of Oakland, to dig trenches and drill boreholes to investigate the geology at the site. In response to the city's concerns about the study, the campus hired the geologists to return and investigate the site in greater detail.

The results of that examination substantiate the conclusion that there is no fault under the site. Thus, the design is in complete compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, a state law prohibiting new buildings on earthquake faults. Furthermore, seismologists and engineers know from studies of past earthquakes that the level of ground shaking is approximately the same right next to a fault as it is anywhere else within two miles of the fault. Thus, the new student-athlete center is unlikely to experience ground motion greater than any other building on campus or in downtown Berkeley should a major earthquake occur on the Hayward Fault.

The center has been designed by a leading Bay Area structural engineering firm Forell/Elsesser Engineers. That firm is well known for its earthquake strengthening work on many buildings using advanced technology, including Berkeley Civic Center, San Francisco City Hall, the Asian Art Museum and Oakland City Hall. To further ensure seismic safety, the student-athlete center's design has been subject to rigorous independent review.


Among the experts who have scrutinized and approved the project are Loring Wyllie, chairman emeritus of Degenkolb Engineers and member of the National Academy of Engineering; Craig Comartin, past-president of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; and UC Berkeley's Seismic Review Committee, which is made up of faculty experts in seismology, geotechnical engineering and structural engineering.

Since 1997, UC Berkeley has invested $500 million in retrofitting nearly 70 percent of its campus buildings identified as seismically at risk. Furthermore, UC Berkeley's goal is to reopen the campus within 30 days of a major earthquake, keeping to a minimum the disruption of classes, research and community services. Indeed, university campuses play an important role in disaster recovery efforts, as was the case with UC Santa Cruz following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Likewise, UC Berkeley will be a key player in the aftermath of a major earthquake along the Hayward Fault. Given what is at stake here, and UC Berkeley's painstaking attention to seismic safety, it is vital that the campus proceed with construction of the Student-Athlete High Performance Center.

Cal athletes and athletic staff deserve the same level of protection as occupants of other seismically upgraded campus buildings. Let them move out of the Memorial Stadium and into a state-of-the-art building that meets meticulous earthquake safety standards.

Gregory Fenves is chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Jack Moehle is director of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center at UC Berkeley.

8 comments:

Roland Dodds said...

I just wish all rational people would stop listening to these prehistoric morons and stand for progress and growth!

Terry said...

" The Hayward Fault cuts through Memorial Stadium, which means that a large-magnitude earthquake could severely damage the structure and endanger lives. "

right on the fault line is a dangerous place to have even the most earthquake proof stadium. nothing will stop the stadium from cracking in 2 if the quake is big enough. that is why it is illegal to spend more than half the value of the building to repair it if it is on a fault line. if UC thinks it is a safe place to put 70,000 people, why do the visiting fans hahve to sit on the side built on land fill?

see the maps on this site:

http://www.llnl.gov/hmc/Larsen/Hayward/

"...
The Hayward fault runs through some of the most densely populated regions of the San Francisco Bay Area, and has a high probability of failing with a magnitude 7+ earthquake within the next 30 years. Hence, the identification of regions where high amplitude ground motions are expected is important for seismic hazard assessment.
...
model developed at the University of California at Berkeley.
"

Terry said...

" Cal athletes and athletic staff deserve the same level of protection as occupants of other seismically upgraded campus buildings. "

Of course the full cost of fixing the stadium is never mentioned. WIth the new gym estimates i have heard are around 1/2 a billion dollars. It will be a tricky task to gut the building, leave the facade and make such a large structure holding so many people "safe" right on top of a mega fault line. There will be cost over runs. In the end, a new stadium will cost closer to 1 billion dollars.

Kind of cuts into the Cal Football team makes the Univerisity money argument. What is the take at a UC game? Subtract the other costs of running the team. I doubt if it adds up to a million dollars a game. But say it does. It will take 1000 games to pay for the stadium. Over 100 years of games.

Football is great to play.

But all of you people who want the people of California to pay 1 billion for your privledge is not fair.

Fair would be to spend the money fixing Oakland Public Schools.

Anonymous said...

With everything going on these days, it would be great to get an update from your standpoint. Is this blog dead?

Cal Football Radical said...

I can assure you that this site is far from dead and I fully intend to resume my blogging duties shortly. Recent events regarding the SAHPC and the irrational and self-serving obstacles that have sprung up against it have left me subdued and quite melancholy. However, I cannot allow this ragtag group of media hungry sociopaths (Save the Oaks + Panoramic Hill Association + City of Berkeley) to dull my sense of duty. This blog is very much alive and will open with a deft salvo of stories seeking the truth shortly.

To the uninformed gentleman, Terry, you sir are completely and wholly out of touch with reality. I must ask you sir, why do you insist on frying your brain with huge amounts of drugs? What purpose does that serve other than making you more truculent? And why have you not taken that money and donated it to the cause that you so passionately defend? Stop using drugs and come into the real world.

GOD SAVE THE BEARS! (-:

Jenny said...

Your enthusiasm is charming, but don't let your engineering credentials go to your head! This issue is more complex than a question of earthquake safety - the City has blocked the project because people are trying to save the Oak Grove. It may not look ancient to you, but maybe you should read up on Berkeley law and you will see that the citizens of Berkeley want to preserve the grove. Build your new stadium somewhere else!

dear jenny said...

Jenny,

Of course some view it as an ancient oak grove. they view any living tree as such. i would ask that you reevaluate your priorities. they seem a little amiss.

Anonymous said...

Poster "terry" makes points in a fairly reasonable and rational way. Blogger (appropriately describe "Cal football radical") irrationally accuses terry of being on drugs. Blogger appears only to be preaching to those who already share his views, rather than trying to make a strong case as to why anyone should change their viewpoint to his.