TandemBear said:
DoubtfulBear said:
TandemBear said:
" the inconvenience of playing in a stadium 27 miles from campus"
Those are LA miles, which translate to like 150 Bay Area miles!
We're so lucky to have the most amazing football stadium location in college sports.
We're so lucky our stadium was built on a fault line so we could be saddled with half a billion dollars in debt in stadium retrofitting
Yes, I admit that one could have argued that the stadium could have been moved to Edwards or Gil Tract or even the Golden Gate Fields.
But when you look at the overall situation with the Hayward Fault, you should probably argue that the ENTIRE campus should be moved. Because when a major quake hits, does it matter if you're ON the fault, or 300 feet away? Especially when the earthquake's focus is 11 miles deep (like Loma Prieta on the San Andreas). Look at the geometry and you realize such tiny changes in longitude or latitude on the surface are almost meaningless. Major fault movement "right below" the stadium would wreak havoc in the entire Berkeley area.
The campus has spent billions and probably will spend billions more doing seismic retrofitting to address the Hayward Fault. The stadium is only a very small piece. Plus, its stands are occupied only 10-15 times a year anyway.
Not opining on whether they should have moved the stadium. They never should have built it there which is what the original architect said but moving was more complicated.
It is a massive difference being directly over the fault line vs 300 feet away. You have a much higher risk of the ground and thus the building rupturing. If you hike the earthquake trail in Point Reyes, you can see the difference clearly. The ground on the fault itself moved 16 feet as is evidenced by an old fence that existed at the time. Yes, I'm sure if you were standing 300 feet away that day you shook like hell, but the ground didn't rupture or slide 16 feet beneath your feet. The structural difference between shaking like hell and say one side of the structure moving 10 feet while the other side stays still is a massive difference. (which is why the stadium is effectively 2 structures now.)
Almost the entire campus and certainly most of Berkeley is much further than 300 feet away from the fault. A major earthquake big enough to wreak havoc over the entire Berkeley area will tear the stadium to shreds.
The Hayward fault is much shallower than the San Andreas. It is much smaller. The top end magnitude capability is much lower. It is also much more contained. The danger of the Hayward Fault is that we have built so much right on top of it. As you see from Loma Prieta, a major event on the San Andreas has a major impact on the whole Bay Area. A major event on the Hayward fault in Berkeley will shake SF pretty good, but the damage will be limited. It will be an East Bay event.
The Hayward fault does not go through the inhabited part of campus. It runs through the stadium and east of the Greek Theatre and Bowles. There are no other campus structures built on top of it, though Bowles is close.
Also, the issue isn't just a catastrophic event. The fault moves slowly. Before they retrofitted the stadium there were huge cracks running through it. Literally they weren't there when i started going to football games and they were gaping when they closed to retrofit.
Whether we should have built it, or moved it, or kept it there, the fact is that the stadium is in by far the worst place on the Cal campus to survive an earthquake and it isn't close. It was built in the canyon over the objections of the architect because of the views. It was kept there on the retrofit because of the views and the nostalgia. It is clearly not the best location. It will get hit one day. Whether 100+ years of enjoyment is worth whatever that impact will be is certainly something that can be debated on either side.
