|
Post by Tom on Aug 30, 2014 13:26:42 GMT -8
perhaps we can convince either Ralph Rubio, founder and chairman of Rubio’s Fresh Mexican Grill or Costco co-founder Jim Sinegal (both of whom are Alumni) to invest in an SDSU expansion / stadium project at the 166 acre Qualcomm site Don't know if Rubio likes football, he did speak every year at state to the marketing classes. I don't costco guy had a meager salary and compensation in relative terms Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 30, 2014 20:28:28 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone would disagree that 166 acres of premium land wouldn't be the most ideal option for SDSU. That plus the Lindo Paseo project would be transformative for SDSU. For the city at minimum, bringing new keys/housing online at the largely unused Qualcomm site would have profound effect on mission valley and allied gardens as well. Plus, they'll get ridership up on their silly trolley line Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards I do. If said person cares more about the Chargers than San Diego State University.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 31, 2014 6:23:42 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone would disagree that 166 acres of premium land wouldn't be the most ideal option for SDSU. That plus the Lindo Paseo project would be transformative for SDSU. For the city at minimum, bringing new keys/housing online at the largely unused Qualcomm site would have profound effect on mission valley and allied gardens as well. Plus, they'll get ridership up on their silly trolley line Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards I do. If said person cares more about the Chargers than San Diego State University. Huh? I said most ideal for SDSU, nothing related to the Chargers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 8:51:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -8
I do. If said person cares more about the Chargers than San Diego State University. Huh? I said most ideal for SDSU, nothing related to the Chargers. To be honest, you said you didn't know why anybody ... SDSU-Alum identified a few somebodies ... (those that care more about the chargers than SDSU) whether you said anything directly related to the Chargers ... some of their fans are opposed to what is ideal for SDSU as it relates to what is ideal for the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 1, 2014 9:14:57 GMT -8
You didn't read the part where I said that both parties have a shared interest in getting a stadium built and that they should be "working together" to get something done. The Chargers have been talking with a lot of parties to get something done so I tend to think that is is the university that seems to be willing to sit by and see what happens. But since the prevailing belief on here is that the university can buy the Q (and operate it at a loss) or has the funds to build their own stadium then why are they waiting? They can annex the Hardy Elementary school site (it is nearly 60 years old) and have more than enough room to build a stadium West of the track. Or they could get really creative and build the stadium north of Viejas and tie it in with the trolley line to have a station (open on event days only) that would allow fans to disembark right into the stadium. Wouldn't that be cool? Then, when the Chargers leave town they could then buy the entire Q site and use it like the way Peace seems to want it to be used which, if you read his proposal, doesn't include a stadium on the site. And, finally, they had an on-campus stadium once called Aztec Bowl. It was reportedly expandable to 45,000 seats (part of the original plan in fact) and yet they decided they didn't want it for football. Why is that? They could have found somewhere else on campus to build a BB arena (though that would likely have increased the cost) and probably wouldn't have needed the Hardy site to do so. Using Stanford's stadium renovation as a model they probably could have done something with Aztec bowl for something like $120-$150M or so. I don't disagree that the Chargers & Aztecs have a shared interest in getting a stadium built. I don't believe that they want to share the same stadium. I have never read or heard this idea from anyone from either the Charger or Aztec organizations. I do know that SDSU will not play downtown. If you understand that then you can forget the idea of a shared downtown stadium. Certainly SDSU's biggest mistake was building Viejas on Aztec Bowl. They could have built a basketball arena on any number of locations on campus and expanded Aztec Bowl to 40,000 seats as it was intended. But as Rocky Long says, "no use crying over spilled milk." Indeed, studies have indicated there are a couple of locations on campus where an OCS could be built for approximately $250 million. However, I believe that estimate to be low. It makes more sense to purchase the Q site for $300 million and make some changes to the Q so it is more user friendly for SDSU. The Aztecs would continue playing there and begin an Aztec Warrior Stadium fund raising campaign for several years all while using the CSU/SDSU general fund to begin the long term transformation of SDSU West Campus. Possibly 10 years (or sooner) from now SDSU may actually get invited to a P5 league (something that acquiring & developing the Q site would only help with) and with it the increased TV revenue (at least $20 million/year not including the bump in ticket sales). This would allow SDSU to privately fund a new Stadium to be built either on the Q site or one of the locations on the main campus. So, in the long term acquisition & development of the Q site, SDSU would increase its footprint by 166 acres, increase student population by about 10,000 students, significantly increase research at SDSU, offer more areas of study, turn SDSU into a nationally recognized research university and get a new football stadium built that consequently could support an MLS team as well. Not a bad deal! Granted this is a best case scenario but certainly possible. Not all that long ago: legacy.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070211/news_1m11aztecs.htmlIt is interesting to note that Weber put the value of the Q site at $500M which is significantly higher than Peace's $300M price tag.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 9:27:56 GMT -8
Huh? I said most ideal for SDSU, nothing related to the Chargers. To be honest, you said you didn't know why anybody ... SDSU-Alum identified a few somebodies ... (those that care more about the chargers than SDSU) whether you said anything directly related to the Chargers ... some of their fans are opposed to what is ideal for SDSU as it relates to what is ideal for the Chargers. Yep, they recognize that once the Q site becomes SDSU property the options for the Chargers that allow them to stay in town become much more limited. However, just as was true for the pads in the 90's I think if the chargers put together a big season soon(Super Bowl?) they could finally get the new stadium they are wanting. Seems to be this towns MO.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 1, 2014 9:34:46 GMT -8
To be honest, you said you didn't know why anybody ... SDSU-Alum identified a few somebodies ... (those that care more about the chargers than SDSU) whether you said anything directly related to the Chargers ... some of their fans are opposed to what is ideal for SDSU as it relates to what is ideal for the Chargers. Yep, they recognize that once the Q site becomes SDSU property the options for the Chargers that allow them to stay in town become much more limited. However, just as was true for the pads in the 90's I think if the chargers put together a big season soon(Super Bowl?) they could finally get the new stadium they are wanting. Seems to be this towns MO. Look at Viejas, there is already talk that it isn't big enough now. Winning is a big draw in this town. Not sure that it is true that we need a bigger arena. I'd rather have a smaller venue that you can consistently sell out and that doesn't include any "bad" seats over a larger one that you don't fill or puts people too far away from the action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 10:37:35 GMT -8
Yep, they recognize that once the Q site becomes SDSU property the options for the Chargers that allow them to stay in town become much more limited. However, just as was true for the pads in the 90's I think if the chargers put together a big season soon(Super Bowl?) they could finally get the new stadium they are wanting. Seems to be this towns MO. Look at Viejas, there is already talk that it isn't big enough now. Winning is a big draw in this town. Not sure that it is true that we need a bigger arena. I'd rather have a smaller venue that you can consistently sell out and that doesn't include any "bad" seats over a larger one that you don't fill or puts people too far away from the action. Are you responding to me? Not sure I connect my comment to yours(larger arena, did I mention that?)...or are you just looking for an excuse to bring up BB? lol
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 1, 2014 11:45:24 GMT -8
I don't disagree that the Chargers & Aztecs have a shared interest in getting a stadium built. I don't believe that they want to share the same stadium. I have never read or heard this idea from anyone from either the Charger or Aztec organizations. I do know that SDSU will not play downtown. If you understand that then you can forget the idea of a shared downtown stadium. Certainly SDSU's biggest mistake was building Viejas on Aztec Bowl. They could have built a basketball arena on any number of locations on campus and expanded Aztec Bowl to 40,000 seats as it was intended. But as Rocky Long says, "no use crying over spilled milk." Indeed, studies have indicated there are a couple of locations on campus where an OCS could be built for approximately $250 million. However, I believe that estimate to be low. It makes more sense to purchase the Q site for $300 million and make some changes to the Q so it is more user friendly for SDSU. The Aztecs would continue playing there and begin an Aztec Warrior Stadium fund raising campaign for several years all while using the CSU/SDSU general fund to begin the long term transformation of SDSU West Campus. Possibly 10 years (or sooner) from now SDSU may actually get invited to a P5 league (something that acquiring & developing the Q site would only help with) and with it the increased TV revenue (at least $20 million/year not including the bump in ticket sales). This would allow SDSU to privately fund a new Stadium to be built either on the Q site or one of the locations on the main campus. So, in the long term acquisition & development of the Q site, SDSU would increase its footprint by 166 acres, increase student population by about 10,000 students, significantly increase research at SDSU, offer more areas of study, turn SDSU into a nationally recognized research university and get a new football stadium built that consequently could support an MLS team as well. Not a bad deal! Granted this is a best case scenario but certainly possible. Not all that long ago: legacy.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070211/news_1m11aztecs.htmlIt is interesting to note that Weber put the value of the Q site at $500M which is significantly higher than Peace's $300M price tag. The pricing was from 2007. Did you hear about the national recession that happened in 2008? Here's a hint: values crashed and won't get back to 2007 anytime soon. Also, I can tell you Dr Weber and our current President/AD have completely different takes on a relationship with the Chargers on any site but the current one.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 1, 2014 12:48:48 GMT -8
The pricing was from 2007. Did you hear about the national recession that happened in 2008? Here's a hint: values crashed and won't get back to 2007 anytime soon. Also, I can tell you Dr Weber and our current President/AD have completely different takes on a relationship with the Chargers on any site but the current one. 1984(Den60) is using an article from 2007 to prove a point about property value of the Q site ... is it a coincidence that the Campaign for SDSU kicked off in 2007 with a goal of raising $500M (and to date has raised $494M)? Public conversations between the City and SDSU regarding a purchase began in 2009. Then in 2014, Peace comes out with an article that sets a price of $300M for the 166 acre Q site.
|
|