|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 24, 2014 16:01:37 GMT -8
Thank god. Finally I think what was the only logical, inevitable outcome for the Q site will start getting sufficient traction. This is AWESOME for SDSU. Not if it's assumed by those who favor this particular plan that the Aztecs would follow the Chargers downtown to play in a new NFL type stadium. The problems that would ensure from that arrangement are numerous, serious, and pretty much known by all Aztec fans. What hope that President Hirshman would emphatically declare two things: 1. That SDSU would enthusiastically support a plan to allow SDSU to take over the current Qualcomm Stadium. but . . . 2. That SDSU will NOT play in the new stadium. Furthermore, that any plan to allow SDSU to use the site must include either the continued use of the Q or the building of a new, smaller stadium on the same site. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Aug 24, 2014 16:06:57 GMT -8
Just play in the Chargers new stadium which would be much nicer plus why would they want to build their own stadium when the Big 5 is trying to take them out of D1 football?
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 24, 2014 16:07:40 GMT -8
Use eminent domain? Wow, how quickly people give away their rights to the government. The land is owned by the city, not the state of California. From what I read nothing is mentioned about renovating the stadium in this plan, just $300M to buy the property to expand the campus. How much additional money would be required to renovate a stadium that was not built for football? Another $100M or so would be needed just to refurbish it and then it would still be a stadium that is a poor venue for football. And with that stadium built in the center of the lot how much space is available for campus housing, classrooms, research center and that big park they are talking about? 1. Eminent Domain - There have been several rulings on the use of eminent domain, so I am not going to go too much into why it exists in the western world. However, the most controversial uses of Eminent Domain is when government uses it on private property. This is the State using it on a municipality. Not sure where individual rights come into play in this transaction. 2. State would need to renovate the stadium. Got it, why is that a problem? So your belief is that no matter the renovation, it would still be a poor venue. Let's assume that is true (not sure where you got your Crystal Ball, but OK), it would be State's poor venue. Yes State is going to need to put money into the structure, what's the issue? 3. The site is 166 Acres and the Stadium occupies a fraction of that footprint, see map below. So, you're all for the state of California confiscating the property that belongs to the citizens of San Diego? As for renovating the stadium I spent many years in the trades and have been going to the Q since it was first built. It sucks as a football stadium but I understand that it wasn't built as one. The field needs to be lowered something like 4'-5' which cannot be done because of standing water. The structure is crumbling, the electrical system is a mess, the plumbing is a mess, the fans are too far from the playing field and the first 12 rows on the sideline are obstructed view. And renovating cost more than new construction because you have to unmake that which was previously built and you are sure to encounter stuff during the build process that no one anticipated
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 24, 2014 16:12:33 GMT -8
Stadium or not, for the growth of SDSU, that is a pivotal site that we should definitely try to move on. With no Graduate School building, an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences), this is as viable a site as any for an extended campus. I would say tearing down the Q would be the one of the first rules of business for the development of SDSU, west campus. I am all for it, and would be well worth the sticker tag. I believe either a law school or a vet school would be great for SDSU. There is only one quality vet school in the state (Davis) and a law school would work well with our business school. San Diego only has one non-for-profit law school so there is room for that. I don't think you could put engineering or sciences there because that would require students to use the trolley to go back and forth for other classes like math and such. But we would need the state of California to ease the restrictions of the CSU charter for this.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 24, 2014 16:52:59 GMT -8
1. Eminent Domain - There have been several rulings on the use of eminent domain, so I am not going to go too much into why it exists in the western world. However, the most controversial uses of Eminent Domain is when government uses it on private property. This is the State using it on a municipality. Not sure where individual rights come into play in this transaction. 2. State would need to renovate the stadium. Got it, why is that a problem? So your belief is that no matter the renovation, it would still be a poor venue. Let's assume that is true (not sure where you got your Crystal Ball, but OK), it would be State's poor venue. Yes State is going to need to put money into the structure, what's the issue? 3. The site is 166 Acres and the Stadium occupies a fraction of that footprint, see map below. So, you're all for the state of California confiscating the property that belongs to the citizens of San Diego? As for renovating the stadium I spent many years in the trades and have been going to the Q since it was first built. It sucks as a football stadium but I understand that it wasn't built as one. The field needs to be lowered something like 4'-5' which cannot be done because of standing water. The structure is crumbling, the electrical system is a mess, the plumbing is a mess, the fans are too far from the playing field and the first 12 rows on the sideline are obstructed view. And renovating cost more than new construction because you have to unmake that which was previously built and you are sure to encounter stuff during the build process that no one anticipated Who is confiscating? They have the right to force a sale at market not take it for free.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 24, 2014 17:10:07 GMT -8
Hey everyone, look, it's negative Nancy over here. I'm sure you are also one of the individuals who is worried about the basketball performance center "fitting" next to the alumni center. No, I am the one who posted the dimensions of the new BB practice facility and said the lot looks plenty big enough for it. Anyone talking about renovating the stadium needs to know that is a non-starter. There is nothing worth keeping in it. About the only thing on that line that even remotely makes sense is building a new stadium inside the old one (Per Quigley) but even that is probably more expensive than it is worth and you still have the stadium smack dab in the middle of the lot which limits the development of the rest of the property and you end up with a stadium that is much bigger than you actually need which requires more maintenance in the future. You have to remember that according to independent sources the Q has something like $70M in deferred maintenance alone right now. That is just stuff that has to be fixed. Steve Peace is a politician and he has some pie in the sky ideas about how he thinks the property should be used. His whole "car free" zone is laughable. Living in San Diego means you need a car at some point. I do think that a single new stadium built either on the eastern portion of the Q lot (which I prefer) or downtown and shared by the only two football teams in the region that need a large stadium is the best and most economical option, though I don't have much hope that will happen anytime soon. And if this whole P5 thing goes through I don't see the need for SDSU to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a place for men's and women's soccer to play. My apologies for calling you names. I can be too reactionary at times.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Aug 24, 2014 17:28:30 GMT -8
All we are saying is: "give peace a chance!"
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 18:51:47 GMT -8
I thought I make a quick statement about Eminent Domain as I have worked on many Eminent Domain Cases and there is no reason for E.D to be used in this matter. 1) Eminent Domain can be used by one entity against another entity. In fact the entity doesn't even need to be a public entity. For example PG&E and SDG&E have Eminent Domain ability even though they are both private companies. 2) Eminent Domain simply means you are allowed to take land regardless if the land owner want to sell or not BUT! You still have to pay "Highest and Best Use" rates for the land. 3) Eminent Domain law suits are about both saids arguing what is the "highest and Best Use" value of a piece of land and during these law suits they don't argue about the value in it's current condition but the value of the land if it was used in the best possible way (minus the cost to make it that way). 4) Eminent Domain does not get you around environmental or any other issues the land would have for redevelopment. City can opt to make some of the red tape go away but if private citizens don't like that they can hold up the process. 6) Easements can be done through Eminent Domain and often that is how they are created but the land owner can simply grant an easement on there property if they want. Often they don't because easements can restrict what you can do with the land and in return lower the value of the land due to this new restriction. 6) The best way for SDSU to get a good deal on this property is for the property owners to sell it below market value knowing that improved land will help the city in other ways. Thanks. Not at all my area of expertise but I was pretty sure the City of SD isn't shielded from an eminent domain taking by a higher level of government simply because it's an public entity. That said, I also think the issue is probably moot since it isn't like the City will outright refuse to sell the property. In fact, the City and SDSU have already discussed the possibility of the university buying the property. In fact, according to sources inside SDSU, the city has already unofficially agreed to turn the land over to SDSU once the Chargers figure out what their plans are.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 18:56:33 GMT -8
Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... I'll say it again, SDSU will not accept any plan that does not consider its football future. Having a stadium on the land is something that will need to be in the deal if they want us to fork over money for the Chargers. And it sure as hell won't be "car-free" haha, right. True! An SDSU stadium indeed will be in the deal. And there will be a parking lot. Albeit a much smaller one since the stadium will only be 40,000-50,000 seats.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 18:59:10 GMT -8
Thank god. Finally I think what was the only logical, inevitable outcome for the Q site will start getting sufficient traction. This is AWESOME for SDSU. Not if it's assumed by those who favor this particular plan that the Aztecs would follow the Chargers downtown to play in a new NFL type stadium. The problems that would ensure from that arrangement are numerous, serious, and pretty much known by all Aztec fans. What hope that President Hirshman would emphatically declare two things: 1. That SDSU would enthusiastically support a plan to allow SDSU to take over the current Qualcomm Stadium. but . . . 2. That SDSU will NOT play in the new stadium. Furthermore, that any plan to allow SDSU to use the site must include either the continued use of the Q or the building of a new, smaller stadium on the same site. AzWm Please understand: SDSU will NOT play downtown! The administration (Jim Sterk) has made this publicly clear!
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 19:01:50 GMT -8
Just play in the Chargers new stadium which would be much nicer plus why would they want to build their own stadium when the Big 5 is trying to take them out of D1 football? 1st we will not play downtown. 2nd to get into the P5. Just another feather in our cap.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Aug 24, 2014 19:22:03 GMT -8
Use eminent domain? Wow, how quickly people give away their rights to the government. The land is owned by the city, not the state of California. From what I read nothing is mentioned about renovating the stadium in this plan, just $300M to buy the property to expand the campus. How much additional money would be required to renovate a stadium that was not built for football? Another $100M or so would be needed just to refurbish it and then it would still be a stadium that is a poor venue for football. And with that stadium built in the center of the lot how much space is available for campus housing, classrooms, research center and that big park they are talking about? 1. Eminent Domain - There have been several rulings on the use of eminent domain, so I am not going to go too much into why it exists in the western world. However, the most controversial uses of Eminent Domain is when government uses it on private property. This is the State using it on a municipality. Not sure where individual rights come into play in this transaction. 2. State would need to renovate the stadium. Got it, why is that a problem? So your belief is that no matter the renovation, it would still be a poor venue. Let's assume that is true (not sure where you got your Crystal Ball, but OK), it would be State's poor venue. Yes State is going to need to put money into the structure, what's the issue? 3. The site is 166 Acres and the Stadium occupies a fraction of that footprint, see map below. It would probably be cheaper and more efficient to blow up the Q and build a smaller stadium in its place.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Aug 24, 2014 19:31:55 GMT -8
1. Eminent Domain - There have been several rulings on the use of eminent domain, so I am not going to go too much into why it exists in the western world. However, the most controversial uses of Eminent Domain is when government uses it on private property. This is the State using it on a municipality. Not sure where individual rights come into play in this transaction. 2. State would need to renovate the stadium. Got it, why is that a problem? So your belief is that no matter the renovation, it would still be a poor venue. Let's assume that is true (not sure where you got your Crystal Ball, but OK), it would be State's poor venue. Yes State is going to need to put money into the structure, what's the issue? 3. The site is 166 Acres and the Stadium occupies a fraction of that footprint, see map below. It would probably be cheaper and more efficient to blow up the Q and build a smaller stadium in its place. Yea, screw trying to salvage the Q.
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Aug 24, 2014 19:43:00 GMT -8
It would probably be cheaper and more efficient to blow up the Q and build a smaller stadium in its place. Yea, screw trying to salvage the Q. Would the old Chargers practice field near the southwest corner of the parking lot be part of the deal? I could see this area holding a smaller football stadium if it's environmentally feasible - acknowledging that its pretty close to the river. Then you'd still have most of the parking lot available, and the Q' can be torn down to make room for the other facilities. It would also be as far as possible away from the oil/gas tanks. I think that area is being used now as soccer fields.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 24, 2014 20:54:56 GMT -8
A lot of people have posted a lot of ideas and opinions in this thread. Some of those ideas and opinions are at odds with other posts. I think it's a case of a whole lot of speculation mixed in with some solid factual statements. But I'm not an expert, so I don't know just whom to believe.
For instance, someone posted that the Q cannot be salvaged. Do we have any architects who could address that question? I remember that one of our former members suggested several years ago that it would be worthwhile to tear down the eastern expansion of the stadium, bringing the venue close to what it was in the 60s. I think the rationale was that the expansion was problematic, perhaps even settling more than the rest of the stadium. It's certain that the reduced capacity, which I guess would be in the 50,000 seat range, would be better for the Aztecs. I have yet another idea, but I need to draw an illustrative diagram to show everyone.
As far as the Chargers are concerned, I totally agree that they would be very unhappy if we were to continue using the Q or a newly built stadium in Mission Valley. We have to take a firm stand against that idea. Again I call upon the university president to announce publicly and forcefully that we are not going to continue as a Charger sock puppet.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 24, 2014 20:58:45 GMT -8
Just play in the Chargers new stadium which would be much nicer plus why would they want to build their own stadium when the Big 5 is trying to take them out of D1 football? I fear you are not up to speed on this question. A downtown venue for SDSU would be a terrible idea for a whole host of reasons. How can anyone not see that Mission Valley is the obvious place for an Aztec football stadium (assuming that we won't be able to build one on the Mesa)? As far as I'm concerned, let the Spanoses spend their own damned money on a new stadium. And if they are not rich enough to do that, then they should sell the team to someone who is. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Aug 24, 2014 20:59:15 GMT -8
This is a brilliant plan and the best of all worlds for everyone involved. Frankly, I've been honking about it since about 1995 on one of the predecessor Aztec chat boards. I've written at least two dozen detailed psots about this -- long before anyone in the city or the Chargers started kicking it around. Is it too presumptuous to think that the idea first germinated on this board? Wouldn't have been the first time.
SDSU could demolish the Q and build from scratch a world-class campus that would augment its current configuration. The West Wing would comprise dorms, student apartments, law school, science center, entrepreneur and business center, and an adjacent high-tech research park. Nestled among the ivy-covered buildings would be a state-of-the-art college football stadium.
SDSU would have a student body population of 50k to 60k, making it one of the largest institutions of higher learning in the U.S. And, oh yeah, we'd likely also get an invitation for membership in the P-12.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 24, 2014 21:04:56 GMT -8
Yea, screw trying to salvage the Q. Would the old Chargers practice field near the southwest corner of the parking lot be part of the deal? I could see this area holding a smaller football stadium if it's environmentally feasible - acknowledging that its pretty close to the river. Then you'd still have most of the parking lot available, and the Q' can be torn down to make room for the other facilities. It would also be as far as possible away from the oil/gas tanks. I think that area is being used now as soccer fields. It is a part of it... www.sandiego.gov/qualcomm/about/factguide.shtmlHow will they ever be able to develop a 166 acre site with a 15 acre stadium in the way?
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2014 22:18:45 GMT -8
Why anyone thinks we are getting professional schools is beyond me. We are specifically excluded from offering those degrees. UCSD my get a law school, we wiil not. Unless the law is changed.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Aug 25, 2014 0:04:14 GMT -8
Why anyone thinks we are getting professional schools is beyond me. We are specifically excluded from offering those degrees. UCSD my get a law school, we wiil not. Unless the law is changed. Unless we become a charter school which the CSU system would lobby the politicians to prevent it from happening. Hell, try as we might to upgrade our academic mission we'll get opposition from both ends. SMH
|
|