|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2014 2:31:34 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 In my opinion (somewhat informed) there is less than zero chance of SDSU following the Chargers to a downtown stadium. I have no clue why that is credibly brought up as a scenario here. Sterk &/or Hirshman have already stated that the Aztecs will not play football downtown, period.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2014 2:35:32 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. Yes, but you have those in the wrong order... First, start construction on the academic, etc. buildings on one side of the Q. Second, start building our new stadium on the other side of the Q. Once the new stadium is build, THEN blow up the Q.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Aug 25, 2014 6:18:41 GMT -8
I've been advocating this plan for years...this is the perfect solution...
The only part that is crazy is the asking price...
The total area of Qualcomm stadium is 166 acres...at a price tag of $300 million...that's just over $1.8M per acre...plus the cost of razing the stadium and doing any cleanup necessary before any new construction begins.
Putting it perspective...the Silverdome in Detroit (136 acres) was sold in 2009 for a mere $550,000...
A much fairer price would be closer to $1M per acre less the cost of razing the stadium bringing the total acquisition cost to around $100M...
It's really a perfect situation for:
- SDSU - It adds 60% of new land - currently 283 acres + 166 acres = 449 acres with room to add an OCS as well as classrooms, dorms, and possibly parking
- City of San Diego - It sells off an under-performing asset - netting $100M and brings in high-paying construction jobs + high-paying professorship jobs + additional student revenues from more students attending SDSU
- State of Calif - By expanding their current CSU system at their most popular campus...accommodating probably by at least 15K more students
No losers...just winners with thus plan...no wait...the Chargers lose a possible windfall with the taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire owner with a new stadium...boo-hoo...
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 25, 2014 6:25:07 GMT -8
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. SDSU is tax exempt. Why would the city "turn over" valuable real estate in which they would earn little future revenue from it? It isn't like the city is rolling in money right now and Mission Valley isn't exactly a low income, blighted area. The possibility of the lot being split, part for a new stadium (that both teams would share) and part for the university is a possibility though I think it is rather slim because in any redevelopment plan the city is going to look at how they can increase revenue from that property. With the stadium not being "on-campus" you would then be able to have alcohol sales. As for whether or not SDSU would play in a downtown stadium (someone else's point) I think it is just posturing by the university. That might not be their ideal plan but that would be the only stadium in town. Their only other option at that point is to dig very deep in their pockets and build their own stadium which could end up breaking the bank for SDSU athletics. People need to remember that the downtown site was brought in first because they could get redevelopment money if they build it there. The Chargers first proposal was to build the stadium on the eastern portion of the Q site but the city wouldn't go for their plan. With the issues of expanding the convention center they then developed a proposal to tie in a new stadium with the convention center. This is all about trying to make it more attractive economically for the city. If the city gets its convention center expansion without the stadium and the state continues to withhold redevelopment money the downtown site loses its attractiveness as a stadium site.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 25, 2014 6:38:01 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 Yes, architects have looked at it and decided that they cannot fix the main problem of the stadium, which is the fact that the layout is wrong for football. Like I said, Quigley (a local architect who designed the downtown library) came up with the idea of building a new stadium inside the old stadium (you can do a search of the UT for the article). Quigley, though, doesn't design stadiums (thank God, his stuff is atrocious) and this option would make the stadium's footprint bigger than what it needs to be, shut it down (with no option for either the Aztecs of the Chargers to play in it) for at least a couple of years, and wouldn't free up the rest of the lot for the type of redevelopment wanted. The Q isn't some historical site like Lambeau or Soldier Field (which looks stupid now) so why the urge to save it? The Chargers have no qualms playing in a new stadium on the eastern portion of the lot. This was their first proposal (which was for a 62,500 seat stadium that would be expandable for special events (like the Superbowl). The issue is about funding. Now if Steve Peace can promise the funding in his proposal then a new stadium could be built fairly easily (the $300 million could come from either SDSU or developers)but I don't think he is anything more than another mouth in the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2014 6:48:32 GMT -8
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. SDSU is tax exempt. Why would the city "turn over" valuable real estate in which they would earn little future revenue from it? It isn't like the city is rolling in money right now and Mission Valley isn't exactly a low income, blighted area. The possibility of the lot being split, part for a new stadium (that both teams would share) and part for the university is a possibility though I think it is rather slim because in any redevelopment plan the city is going to look at how they can increase revenue from that property. With the stadium not being "on-campus" you would then be able to have alcohol sales. As for whether or not SDSU would play in a downtown stadium (someone else's point) I think it is just posturing by the university. That might not be their ideal plan but that would be the only stadium in town. Their only other option at that point is to dig very deep in their pockets and build their own stadium which could end up breaking the bank for SDSU athletics. People need to remember that the downtown site was brought in first because they could get redevelopment money if they build it there. The Chargers first proposal was to build the stadium on the eastern portion of the Q site but the city wouldn't go for their plan. With the issues of expanding the convention center they then developed a proposal to tie in a new stadium with the convention center. This is all about trying to make it more attractive economically for the city. If the city gets its convention center expansion without the stadium and the state continues to withhold redevelopment money the downtown site loses its attractiveness as a stadium site. You seem dead set against SDSU taking over the Q site, which would be an enormous opportunity for the betterment of the university as a whole, not just football/athletics. Why? Similarly, you seem dead set on SDSU playing in whatever stadium is built for the Chargers, despite this being a worst-case situation for SDSU in nearly every scenario. Why?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 25, 2014 7:28:21 GMT -8
I read that article ... it was conspicuous that an Aztecs football stadium was absent in the "plan" for the Q site ... "He said SDSU, landlocked at its 300-acre campus on Montezuma Mesa, could turn the Qualcomm site into a new “front door” with student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park focused on the San Diego River. It all would be designed as a car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development linked to the existing San Diego Trolley, three stops away from SDSU and in a few years, several more stops on a new trolley line to UC San Diego. SDSU, UCSD and USD all could conceivably participate in creating a multi-university campus where students could interact." My guess is that his plan has the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium from the ChargersThis would make the Downtown Stadium closer to SDSU
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Aug 25, 2014 7:29:39 GMT -8
So it begins. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/$300M to buy the Q site. State may be able to buy the site, develop it for a West Campus, renovate the stadium, and have control. 1. State can use eminent domain and there would not need to be a vote on the sale. 2. Politically allowing one of the best assets in town expand is not going to be toxic. 3. This frees up $300M plus to fund Convention Center and or Charger Stadium downtown It may make too much sense, we shall see what transpires. 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? Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2014 7:40:37 GMT -8
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. SDSU is tax exempt. Why would the city "turn over" valuable real estate in which they would earn little future revenue from it? It isn't like the city is rolling in money right now and Mission Valley isn't exactly a low income, blighted area. The possibility of the lot being split, part for a new stadium (that both teams would share) and part for the university is a possibility though I think it is rather slim because in any redevelopment plan the city is going to look at how they can increase revenue from that property. With the stadium not being "on-campus" you would then be able to have alcohol sales. As for whether or not SDSU would play in a downtown stadium (someone else's point) I think it is just posturing by the university. That might not be their ideal plan but that would be the only stadium in town. Their only other option at that point is to dig very deep in their pockets and build their own stadium which could end up breaking the bank for SDSU athletics. People need to remember that the downtown site was brought in first because they could get redevelopment money if they build it there. The Chargers first proposal was to build the stadium on the eastern portion of the Q site but the city wouldn't go for their plan. With the issues of expanding the convention center they then developed a proposal to tie in a new stadium with the convention center. This is all about trying to make it more attractive economically for the city. If the city gets its convention center expansion without the stadium and the state continues to withhold redevelopment money the downtown site loses its attractiveness as a stadium site. High Magnitude Economic Impact (before any expansion at the Qualcomm site) www.calstate.edu/impact/campus/sandiego.htmlSan Diego State’s annual impact on the San Diego region and the State of California is enormous:Annual spending related to San Diego State ($893 million) generates a total impact of $896 million on the regional economy, and more than $1.2 billion on the statewide economy. This impact sustains more than 9,000 jobs in the region and statewide more than 11,400 jobs. Per year, the impact generates more than $62 million in local and nearly $86.7 million in statewide tax revenue. Even greater—nearly $4.2 billion of the earnings by alumni from San Diego State are attributable to their CSU degrees, which creates an additional $6.5 billion of industry activity throughout the state. Here's a refresher on what the Chargers cost the city:Grand Jury Qualcomm Stadium Report - County of San DiegoRemind me what the economic impact of the Chargers are on the City? Region? State?What Are The Chargers Worth To San Diego? (Tim Sullivan, sports columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune) THE QUESTION PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT IMPACT DO CHARGERS HAVE ON SAN DIEGO'S ECONOMY? IF THE CHARGERS GO WILL OUR ECONOMY SUFFER?
I DON'T THINK IT IS AN ECONOMIC QUESTION. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL QUESTION. YOU CAN PROBABLY INVEST THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY IN A COUPLE OF WALMARTS OR MAYBE SEVERAL AND CREATE MORE JOBS. THE CHARGERS ARE A BOND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. AND WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE. AS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE IT IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY. GIVEN THE WAY THAT THESE DEALS TEND TO BE STRUCTURED IT IS A NET LOSS FOR VIRTUALLY ANY CITY TO BUILD A FOOTBALL STADIUM. WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF SUPERBOWLS HERE TO BRING IN MONEY?
YOU MAY GET A SUPERBOWL EVERY TEN YEARS BUT YOU DON'T BUILD A STADIUM ON THAT BASIS. IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO IT ON A LONG TERM BASIS YOU DON'T DO IT FOR ONE DAY IN A DECADE. IT WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO BRING THE SUPERBOWL BACK. A LOT OF ESTIMATES OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ARE INFLATED BUT THAT'S NOT A REASON DO IT.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2014 7:51:31 GMT -8
I read that article ... it was conspicuous that an Aztecs football stadium was absent in the "plan" for the Q site ... "He said SDSU, landlocked at its 300-acre campus on Montezuma Mesa, could turn the Qualcomm site into a new “front door” with student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park focused on the San Diego River. It all would be designed as a car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development linked to the existing San Diego Trolley, three stops away from SDSU and in a few years, several more stops on a new trolley line to UC San Diego. SDSU, UCSD and USD all could conceivably participate in creating a multi-university campus where students could interact." My guess is that his plan has the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium from the ChargersThis would make the Downtown Stadium closer to SDSU Haha ... don't you mean this will move the campus closer to a downtown stadium?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 25, 2014 7:52:16 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 The new seats are the only ones with the correct site lines for football.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Aug 25, 2014 7:57:12 GMT -8
I think the site has been largely already remediated. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I wish that was so, but the Grand Jury in 2012 did not agree. Late last year candidate Kevin Faulconer told me about 90% of the fuel plume had already been removed.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 25, 2014 7:59:15 GMT -8
This would make the Downtown Stadium closer to SDSU Haha ... don't you mean this will move the campus closer to a downtown stadium? That is static thinking. To a physicist when you apply your car's brakes, you accelerate.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 25, 2014 8:02:09 GMT -8
SDSU is tax exempt. Why would the city "turn over" valuable real estate in which they would earn little future revenue from it? It isn't like the city is rolling in money right now and Mission Valley isn't exactly a low income, blighted area. The possibility of the lot being split, part for a new stadium (that both teams would share) and part for the university is a possibility though I think it is rather slim because in any redevelopment plan the city is going to look at how they can increase revenue from that property. With the stadium not being "on-campus" you would then be able to have alcohol sales. As for whether or not SDSU would play in a downtown stadium (someone else's point) I think it is just posturing by the university. That might not be their ideal plan but that would be the only stadium in town. Their only other option at that point is to dig very deep in their pockets and build their own stadium which could end up breaking the bank for SDSU athletics. People need to remember that the downtown site was brought in first because they could get redevelopment money if they build it there. The Chargers first proposal was to build the stadium on the eastern portion of the Q site but the city wouldn't go for their plan. With the issues of expanding the convention center they then developed a proposal to tie in a new stadium with the convention center. This is all about trying to make it more attractive economically for the city. If the city gets its convention center expansion without the stadium and the state continues to withhold redevelopment money the downtown site loses its attractiveness as a stadium site. You seem dead set against SDSU taking over the Q site, which would be an enormous opportunity for the betterment of the university as a whole, not just football/athletics. Why? Similarly, you seem dead set on SDSU playing in whatever stadium is built for the Chargers, despite this being a worst-case situation for SDSU in nearly every scenario. Why? Because he's a Charger honk. Isn't it obvious?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2014 8:02:20 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 To my knowledge, no plans or feasibility studies have been done on the Q as pertains to downsizing it. Every plan that I know of has the Chargers as the primary tenant and were designed to address only the needs of the Pro Team. I do not know if there is a separate study out there with the Aztecs as the primary tenant, using a lower capacity and focusing on the wants & needs of the University and it's football team.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2014 8:12:54 GMT -8
Haha ... don't you mean this will move the campus closer to a downtown stadium? That is static thinking. To a physicist when you apply your car's brakes, you accelerate. haha, and I was thinking in terms that the Charger's (and their downtown stadium) are an un-moveable object, and as always it's SDSU that has to move closer to what the Chargers want whenever there is a disagreement ... like a downtown stadium is too far from campus --- solution: move the campus closer to the downtown stadium '
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 25, 2014 8:27:18 GMT -8
That is static thinking. To a physicist when you apply your car's brakes, you accelerate. haha, and I was thinking in terms that the Charger's (and their downtown stadium) are an un-moveable object, and as always it's SDSU that has to move closer to what the Chargers want whenever there is a disagreement ... like a downtown stadium is too far from campus --- solution: move the campus closer to the downtown stadium' The trolley makes a downtown stadium much more attractive for the Aztecs. It not being close to campus is mainly an issue for students living on campus. Gaslamp will rock SDSU on game days. One aspect about the site in Mission Valley is having land to relocate stuff that is currently on campus thereby giving far more options for a stadium on the current campus site. I don't know why people think $300M from the current site would go to a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2014 8:38:05 GMT -8
You seem dead set against SDSU taking over the Q site, which would be an enormous opportunity for the betterment of the university as a whole, not just football/athletics. Why? Similarly, you seem dead set on SDSU playing in whatever stadium is built for the Chargers, despite this being a worst-case situation for SDSU in nearly every scenario. Why? Because he's a Charger honk. Isn't it obvious? I know, but I thought it fair to give him a chance to say that himself...
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Aug 25, 2014 8:38:05 GMT -8
I will re-iterate my question ... if the Chargers have access to $750 Million for a new stadium, why would they need anything from the city other than the land to build it on? Why bring up the Qualcomm site to SDSU or the Convention center tax issue in the article? This article could have just centered on the possibilities of the Qualcomm site to SDSU and not have anything to do with the Chargers Downtown stadium plan. It could also have just focused on how the Chargers could afford their own stadium and had a companion article of the possible uses of the Qualcomm site. This is a publicity piece to encourage support for a downtown stadium ... such a stadium would not want any competition from an Aztecs Stadium, nor would it be happy with the loss of income from Aztecs renting the Chargers stadium. The way the article was laid out is just a bit suspect to me. I also have questions about this "Atrium" connecting the convention center to the downtown stadium ... it would have to cut through either the Imperial Transit Plaza, or the Padres Tailgate park (or both). We just spent nearly $2 million on a pedestrian bridge between the Hitlon and Petco Park ... how does that fit into this "Atrium" plan? It may just be because my degrees are in Political Science and Finance, but I just see more to this article than meets the eye. When the Chargers finally vacate the Q SDSU will take control and build a West Campus & Stadium. The 2 stadiums won't compete with each other. Aztec stadium at most would be 40,000-50,000 seats with fewer bells and whistles; not some NFL/convention center monstrosity. Two different venues with very different purposes. Exactly. They wouldn't be in competition at all, and in fact I doubt the city or the Chargers would want the Aztecs to go downtown even temporarily. We would get in the way of scheduling flexibility for the convention activities.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2014 8:39:52 GMT -8
haha, and I was thinking in terms that the Charger's (and their downtown stadium) are an un-moveable object, and as always it's SDSU that has to move closer to what the Chargers want whenever there is a disagreement ... like a downtown stadium is too far from campus --- solution: move the campus closer to the downtown stadium' The trolley makes a downtown stadium much more attractive for the Aztecs. It not being close to campus is mainly an issue for students living on campus. Gaslamp will rock SDSU on game days. One aspect about the site in Mission Valley is having land to relocate stuff that is currently on campus thereby giving far more options for a stadium on the current campus site. I don't know why people think $300M from the current site would go to a new stadium. Wait... why are we talking about SDSU utilizing a downtown stadium??? Ain't. Gonna. Happen. (Unless, maybe if we're talking about for 1 or 2 seasons during construction of a new stadium if tearing down the Q site has to begin before the new stadium is ready)
|
|