5 Reconstruction Plans for Coliseum Produced : Architecture: It will be more than a renovation. Proposals make it clear it will be a far different place.

After several days of work, a team of 13 prominent architects, engineers and historic preservationists from around the country has produced five alternative plans for reconstructing the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

All of the plans lower the playing field, bring thousands of seats closer to the action, provide for luxury boxes and elite club seating, maintain or augment the stadium’s famous tunnels and retain both the historic eastern peristyle and the exterior walls.

But the plans make clearer than ever that the new Coliseum--now a national historic landmark as the only stadium to host two of the modern Olympic Games--is going to be a far different place.

It will truly be reconstructed and not just renovated. No matter where the boxes are placed, on the rim or between new decks of seats, the facility will have a substantially reduced seating capacity and a far different interior structure.

Its major scoreboards may be moved from the columned peristyle to the west end. The number of seats in the west end is apt to be greatly reduced. Front-row seats are likely to be vertically separated from the field for the first time. In one of the alternatives, the boxes would be constructed on top of an entirely new structure built outside the present walls.

The alternatives developed during the four-day workshop, sponsored by an unusual coalition--the Coliseum Commission; the Spectacor Limited Partnership, financiers and builders of the new stadium; the Los Angeles Conservancy, a leading preservationist group; and the office of Mayor Tom Bradley--are only the beginning of the design work.

The alternatives vary sharply, mostly in the placement of the boxes, the lowering of some seats, the establishment of new sight lines and seating tiers, and the plans for providing new service concourses.

But even more radical changes may be incorporated in the final official plan, expected in four to six months from the Kansas City architectural firm of HNTB. Three of the firm’s leading designers participated in developing the alternatives released here late Saturday.

Also emerging from the workshop was the likelihood of a longer construction period than officials had indicated.

Work cannot begin until the expected yearlong process of preparing an environmental impact report is complete. A public hearing on the scope of the environmental study is scheduled for the Sports Arena on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

In their 65-page report, the designers estimated actual construction would take 27 months, making it plain that the Coliseum’s prime tenants, the Los Angeles Raiders and USC football teams, will have to find somewhere else to play for two seasons, not just one.

The time frame also makes it uncertain whether the new Coliseum will be ready to host World Cup soccer matches in 1994, as Bradley and others organizing a Los Angeles bid for the finals and semifinals have hoped.

Coliseum Commission Chairman Matthew Grossman said at the end of the workshop that it may not be possible to begin construction until early 1993, which would rule out the Coliseum for World Cup use. Even if construction were to start in early 1992, it would be difficult to have the stadium ready in time, especially since one of the HNTB designers estimated construction could take 36 months.

The loss of the Coliseum would not rule out a Los Angeles area World Cup bid, but it would have to focus on the Rose Bowl, instead of offering both the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum to the international soccer federation as had been contemplated.

As last week’s design sessions began, workshop leader Michael John Pittas, formerly a Harvard faculty member and chief of comprehensive planning for New York City, described the goal.

“Our work here is to find the middle ground between historic preservation and building a state-of-the-art modern facility,” he said. “We are generating alternatives, not providing optimum solutions. We have to be sensitive to a range of concerns.”

Among the experts paid to come to Los Angeles to participate were Frank E. Sanchis III, lead architect with the National Trust for Historical Preservation; Michael Kwartler, director of Columbia University’s Program in Historic Preservation; Walter P. Moore, a Houston civil engineer, and George Loschky, chief architect of Seattle’s Kingdome. Among the Angelenos joining them were structural engineer John Kariotis and architects Francisco Behr, Craig Hodgetts and William Ellinger.

Loschky and others said from the outset that while Coliseum preservationists’ concerns in recent years have centered on retaining the peristyle and the exterior walls, retaining the basic arrangement of the Coliseum’s inner space and its tunnels may be just as important.

Now, they noted, there are no abrupt differences, row by row, in the quality of seats in the Coliseum. When club seats and luxury boxes are installed, that will no longer be true; there will be distinct class differences between people occupying adjacent rows of seats.

“The present oneness of the spectator group, the democratic character of the Coliseum, is a prime issue,” said Loschky.

Bob Harris, dean of the USC School of Architecture, contended that retaining the tunnels in the new facility would be essential. “Coming through the tunnels into an extraordinary new place would actually augment our sense of history,” he said.

The exchanges between those being interviewed and the experts made evident many strong, widely varying opinions, about what the new stadium should be like.

For instance, Deputy Los Angeles Police Chief William Rathburn, long responsible for Coliseum security, expressed concern that in an earthquake or other disaster requiring evacuation, the tunnels would prove dangerous. He said he has long been concerned that stampedes there could result in fatalities.

Raiders attorney Amy Trask said: “We want an intimate facility where our team can hear and play to the roar of the crowd and where the fans can feel they’re part of the action. We don’t have that now. . . . We cannot overemphasize how vital intimacy is to the Raiders.”

On the other hand, USC Athletic Director Mike McGee said the school’s focus is on well-placed club seating, where the school can continue to sell the best viewing at premium prices to loyal alumni who are supporting its scholarships.

Both the Raiders and USC representatives stressed the importance of increasing the number of seats between the goal posts on either side of the field, noting that these seats total only 22,000 now. The Raiders said they wanted a seating capacity of 65,000 to 70,000; USC said it would prefer 72,000, temporarily expandable to 85,000 for USC’s big games.

Christy McAvoy, a member of the historic resources group of the Los Angeles Conservancy, said she recognized that “the guts of this building have to be renovated,” but she pleaded with the designers not to construct any boxes or other seating that would rise above the perimeter of the present stadium.

As the alternatives were developed, it became evident that not all desired features could be incorporated within any of them.

Only one of the alternatives, for example, manages to boost the number of seats between the goal posts to 50% of the total, or about 35,000, as the teams want. Three of the alternatives do raise structures above the present perimeter.

Some alternatives are considerably more costly than others, although no figures were given by the experts. Coliseum authorities have talked of budgeting $145 million for the reconstruction.

Although the emphasis of the workshop was on retaining the historic elements of the present Coliseum, both an official of the U.S. National Park Service and the chairman of the State Historic Building and Safety Board told the workshop participants that there is no authority by their agencies to actually block demolition of such features.

Linda Dishman, the representative of the National Park Service, said, for instance, that the most punitive action the Service could take would be to withdraw the national historic landmark designation if too little of the old Coliseum were left standing.

But, she added, if federal authorities were satisfied that historic elements were retained, the buildings of the new Coliseum might qualify for a 20% tax writeoff.

SOME POSSIBLE NEW ANGLES ON THE COLISEUM

The Coliseum, built from 1921 to 1923 and expanded for the 1932 Olympics, has a seating capacity of 92,516. Its comparatively shallow bowl, and large spaces between field and seats, is said to make it a poorer place to watch football than the stadiums listed below. The seating and the space profile of each of these stadiums, superimposed on the profiles of the Coliseum, show how fans in the other stadiums are closer to the field and watching from a steeper angle than Coliseum fans. All of the other stadiums also have luxury boxes, which the Coliseum does not.

ARROWHEAD STADIUM

This Kansas City stadium was completed in 1968 and has a seating capacity of 78,097.

MILE HIGH STADIUM

This Denver stadium was expanded to its present capacity in 1977. It seats 76,123.

JOE ROBBIE STADIUM

This stadium, outside Miami, was competed in 1987 and has a capacity of 75,000.

TEXAS STADIUM

This stadium, at Irving, outside Dallas, has permanent seating for 63,855 and can be expanded with temporary seating to 73,855.