An Alternative Design for USC's Coliseum Renovation

I recently wrote a rambling, 2,000 word, mostly critical review of USC’s proposal to renovate the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. However, it isn’t fair to simply sit back and criticize carefully-thought out plans without giving feasible suggestions. There have been many Coliseum renovation plans presented before, but the vast majority have been entirely unrealistic or too expensive. In addition, previous plans haven’t viewed the Coliseum in the same way that the USC Athletic Department seemingly does - as a historic stadium in need of a general facelift and a few modern amenities. Thus, I set out to create an alternative that accomplishes everything that USC’s proposal does, but in a more aesthetically pleasing and flexible way.

*I should note that I’m not an architect. I am someone who has traveled to see approximately 70 professional and college stadiums and who has a near-encyclopedic memory of hundreds of stadiums around the world. My drawings may not be 100% to scale, but they should be close within reason.*

THE OVERVIEW

I’ll start by showing an overview of USC’s proposal. Here, you can see the new video boards next to the peristyle, the new aisles, and the space for the new suites/clubs/press box on the south side. The field would stay in its current place and the seating arrangement would be nearly identical.

An overhead view of USC's proposal.

Now, I’ll show an overview of my alternative. As you can see, there are some similarities and many differences. I’ll start with what stayed the same:

Alternative proposal. Note that the black line is the current location of the 50 yard line.

-The restored peristyle. This is the best architectural feature of the stadium and it should be restored. It stays.

-2 new video boards in the east corners next to the peristyle. These will be pretty poor seats regardless of the seating configuration. They’ll be a nice upgrade for replays and stats throughout the game, so they stay.

-Every seat gets replaced and some sections get better leg room. I didn’t show this in my rendering, because there is already too much information on there. This will be a welcome improvement, so it stays.

-New aisles and handrails. I still have doubts about this being a major improvement, but I suppose it’s necessary until the athletic department can afford to make improvements to the rest of the stadium. It stays.

-Wi-fi throughout the stadium. If John McKay were coaching today, he would be on twitter and he’d probably go on glorious rants about the PAC-12 refs during halftime. For that reason, the wi-fi stays.

Let’s get to the differences between USC’s proposal and my alternative:

-The field would be shifted approximately 20 yards towards the east end of the stadium, the sun deck would be removed, and seats would be added underneath the peristyle. In other words, the field would be truly “centered.” The first row in the end zones would be a maximum of 100 feet from the field; the first row on the sidelines would be a maximum of 45 feet from the field. To account for the increased distances in the end zone seats, the field would be lowered by 3 feet to improve sight lines.

-Placing seats under the peristyle would add between 5,000 and 7,500 seats (I’m not sure how many seats each row would have - I estimate that the average section would be between 20 and 30 seats per row). This would put the total capacity around 82,000 to 85,000.

-The suites/club seats/ press box would be shifted one section towards the east. In USC’s proposal, it runs from tunnels 4-10. In my alternative, it runs between tunnels 3-9. Reseating the bowl for season ticket holders should be very simple, as everyone would just move one section to the east. I’ll have more to say about the premium sections later.

-I outlined 6 sections near the peristyle in yellow, because I think that may be a better place for the student section. I understand that many alumni have a sentimental/philosophical belief that the students should be on the sideline. However, as someone who sat there recently (Class of ‘13), I can say that the current student section has some major drawbacks. Many seats are situated awkwardly behind the sun deck, far away from the field. Of the 8,600 seats, only about 2,500 are good seats on the sideline. The band sits in the end zone, because it allows the rest of the stadium to hear them and respond to them. This should be the case for the student section as well. This is more food for thought than a strong opinion, but I think that putting the students with the band in the east end zone would look cool and allow them to have a bigger impact on games.

-By shifting the field 20 yards towards the east, there would be some pretty extreme viewing distances on the west side of the stadium. To account for this, there would be a “Flex Area” in the upper sections between tunnels 11-18.

This area could have a wide variety of uses, depending on the specific needs of the event. For big games against Notre Dame, UCLA, Texas, etc. these sections could be left alone. If USC really wants the capacity to be below 80,000, then they can tarp off these seats or remove them entirely. Or they could put in pools, like the Jacksonville Jaguars (this is a joke, please don’t do this). Or they could put the visiting fans up there. Or they could remove the corner sections (tunnels 11-13 and 16-18), put in 2 video boards, and turn the area below them into party decks. In other words, these sections would have the flexibility to adapt in order to suit the changing needs of the athletic department and the USC fan base.

THE CROSS-SECTION

The main focal point of USC’s proposal was the suite/club seat/press box tower that would be placed on the south side of the stadium. The design of this tower is extremely troubling, because it sticks out from the existing seating bowl, creates visual imbalance in the overall stadium, and it could create obstructed views. Here is a rough cross-section to see what this looks like overlaying the seating bowl:

A general cross-section of USC's proposal.

The main aspect of my alternative design is that the premium seating areas would be designed to seamlessly blend into the seating bowl. You can see my alternative cross-section below. I’ll take you through it from the bottom to the top:

An alternative cross-section of the premium seating that seamlessly blends into the current seating bowl. Note that it is overlaid on top of the Coliseum's current cross-section.

-My lower bowl would be identical to the USC proposal. There would be additional aisles and handrails. Treads would be wider to increase leg room. There would also be expanded areas for ADA accessible seating.

-Just above this would be 6 rows of seats, rising to the top of the lower tunnels. This area would add approximately 500 seats. In two large sections, these seats would be removed to create an open concourse.

-The next two levels would be founder’s suites. These suites will be sold to some of USC’s wealthiest donors and will help cover the total renovation costs. In order to blend suites into the seating bowl, there is a set-back similar to the Maracanã Stadium in Brazil (pictured below). These suites would have more outdoor space than USC’s proposal. To account for potential rain, retractable awnings could extend over the seats.

These are suites at the Maracanã Stadium in Brazil. Note how they blend into the single-tier bowl.

Here, you can see how the suites appear to be neither "too horizontal," nor "too towering." They match the slope of the seating bowl.

-Above the suites would be the club level. Loge boxes would have TV’s and tables. There would be 8-12 rows of club seats, depending on the section. The east and west sides would have open-air patio spaces for club members. My alternative design would have a slightly smaller club level, but it would have an upper concourse at the top of the club sections. The upper concourse would be wide enough for another bar/lounge area and would overlook the field.

-The top 3 levels of my alternative would be the suites, press box, and viewing deck. The design for this would be very similar to the “floating” press box at the renovated Cal Memorial Stadium (pictured below). Cantilevers would extend over the front and back of the support structure, causing it to look like it is floating. The front of the structure would overhang 5 rows of club seats, and the back of the structure would extend to the back rim of the Coliseum. The support structure would taper at the ends in order to eliminate any possible obstructed views. The event/viewing deck would still provide incredible views of Downtown LA and the surrounding areas.

Note how the press box appears to "float" above the stands. The structure doesn't appear massive.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this exercise was to prove that there are ways to accomplish USC’s goals for a Coliseum renovation, while still preserving the architectural integrity of the historic stadium. My alternative design would have the same approximate cost (it may cost less, because the premium areas would have slightly less square footage). It could also be completed in the same timeframe, because the overall scope of the project is nearly identical. This design is intended to be easily adaptable for the many events that the Coliseum will host, including soccer, concerts, and possibly the Olympics. My design also creates a general guideline for future renovations to the Coliseum, which will eventually impact the north and west sides of the stadium. Unless USC can find a way to afford a full, top-to-bottom renovation (approximately $800 million+), it should do its best to blend modern amenities into the historic structure.