|
Post by sdsuballer on Feb 27, 2015 16:11:50 GMT -8
No way the Chargers move out of San Diego. The Spanos would be run out of town the moment they arrive in LA. The Spanos family reminds me alot of the Sterling family. Cheap and they hide behind their lying pupet Mark Fabiani. For a NFL francise too suceed they would need to take a page from the Dallas Cowboys. They would have to over pay their star players and make the football games an event. Their owner would have to be outspoken and flashy. They would have to win at all cost and engage in community events. Just think of Jerry Buss, new clipper owner, and Magic Johnson. Two consequetive lossing seasons would create poor attendance and LA media choas.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Feb 27, 2015 16:20:18 GMT -8
The San Diego Raiders of El Cajon. I love it! No way we'd share a stadium under that scenario. NFL people would be happy. I'd be happy. It's a win/win.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 27, 2015 16:48:51 GMT -8
I realize that there is some remote connection to the Aztecs...but please move this thread to the Charger's board...
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Feb 27, 2015 17:27:29 GMT -8
I realize that there is some remote connection to the Aztecs...but please move this thread to the Charger's board... No.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 27, 2015 19:27:10 GMT -8
I call bull$#!+ on what the councilman said unless it was Donna gyre circa 2003. It's going to be at Qualcomm and willbe a 55 percent vote. The 2/3 vote pertains to the downtown site that deals with hotel taxes and rental car tax. From Fabian Chat... gj4bolts says: Mark, Ron Roberts mentioned a 55% threshold for the establishment of an Incremental Tac District to pay back the loan. Is this number more feasible to obtain Mark Fabiani says: There are real limits to what funds raised by an Infrastructure District can be used for, and those limits make such districts of limited use to a stadium project. Sounds like the 55% vote wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Feb 27, 2015 21:09:10 GMT -8
Perhaps we should have a floating stadium to match the floating airport idea.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Feb 27, 2015 21:52:07 GMT -8
Perhaps we should have a floating stadium to match the floating airport idea. It was proposed back in the 60's, but we got the Q instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 22:31:14 GMT -8
Perhaps we should have a floating stadium to match the floating airport idea. It was proposed back in the 60's, but we got the Q instead. Or maybe build the stadium in El Centro like the early airport proposal. This city is so fing backwards.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 27, 2015 22:31:56 GMT -8
Perhaps we should have a floating stadium to match the floating airport idea. It was proposed back in the 60's, but we got the Q instead. I thought this would have been the best choice for the new stadium at the time. It would have given us seats close to the field, a quick turn around from baseball to football and we wouldn't have had to play on the infield dirt for several games each season.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 27, 2015 22:43:39 GMT -8
Perhaps we should have a floating stadium to match the floating airport idea. It was proposed back in the 60's, but we got the Q instead. Remind me again how the locker rooms worked ... and the concessions, video, lighting and what was the plan for the difference between high and low tide? How long would it have taken to convert the stadium from baseball to football and back to baseball again during cross-over season? What would the insurance have been on a contraption like this?
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Feb 28, 2015 12:57:56 GMT -8
Gillespie Field is not an option. It is designated for aviation use only and at some point the airport will be expanded. The reason the county did not renew the lease for the old Cajon Speedway was because it was not aviation related. Right now the land remains vacant because none of the master lease holders at Gillespie will fund the expansion, so anyone coming in will have to pay for all the infrastructure improvements. Also it is my understanding that an airport expansion would require the relocation of the airport tower.
As for traffic you are looking at a nightmare trying to get 60-70K people in there. The nearest trolley stop is more than a mile away as the bird flies. It would be quite a hike to get from there to the proposed stadium site by walking around the airport. I'd guess somewhere from 2.5 miles to 3 miles. The Bradley/Hwy 8 at Prospect/Magnolia intersections are choke points (try them during rush hour sometime). Using Johnson coming from highway 8 would also be a train wreck and I'm sure that the owners and tenants of Parkway Plaza don't want that kind of traffic keeping their customers away on weekends. Cuyamaca street would be slightly better but still requires traveling around the airport either using Prospect or Bradley.
Also, right in the middle of that vacant property is a fenced off area protecting some sort of endangered native plant.
The MV site is a much better fit for a stadium given the access to the 8 and 15 (though improvements should be made) and the location of a trolley station already onsite. The city already owns the land there.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 1, 2015 20:48:42 GMT -8
I met with a City Councilman this morning about another issue and the Chargers came up. They are OK with letting the Chargers go... then building a new stadium after they leave to attract another team. Faulconer has his work cut out for him in getting support. It's not that the City doesn't want a stadium... they just dont want the Chargers. They know San Diego is very attractive and another team would gladly relocate here. Interesting They "know". They're fools then. Just like the recent surveys showing very little interest in the Chargers in LA. Who the hell here would give a $#!+ about the Jaguars or Rams or ?
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Mar 1, 2015 21:14:15 GMT -8
Gillespie Field is not an option. It is designated for aviation use only and at some point the airport will be expanded. The reason the county did not renew the lease for the old Cajon Speedway was because it was not aviation related. Right now the land remains vacant because none of the master lease holders at Gillespie will fund the expansion, so anyone coming in will have to pay for all the infrastructure improvements. Also it is my understanding that an airport expansion would require the relocation of the airport tower. As for traffic you are looking at a nightmare trying to get 60-70K people in there. The nearest trolley stop is more than a mile away as the bird flies. It would be quite a hike to get from there to the proposed stadium site by walking around the airport. I'd guess somewhere from 2.5 miles to 3 miles. The Bradley/Hwy 8 at Prospect/Magnolia intersections are choke points (try them during rush hour sometime). Using Johnson coming from highway 8 would also be a train wreck and I'm sure that the owners and tenants of Parkway Plaza don't want that kind of traffic keeping their customers away on weekends. Cuyamaca street would be slightly better but still requires traveling around the airport either using Prospect or Bradley. Also, right in the middle of that vacant property is a fenced off area protecting some sort of endangered native plant. The MV site is a much better fit for a stadium given the access to the 8 and 15 (though improvements should be made) and the location of a trolley station already onsite. The city already owns the land there. Of course you can't use that site...won't stop the Spanoi from using El Cajon as a cheap $2 whore in a spaghetti western though. Hasn't anyone figured out their ploy by now? 1st, "We'll move to Chula Vista!"....nobody really bites...then "Oceanside is the geographic center of Charger fans, we'll go there!"...bait is still on the hook...then the bottom drops out of the real estate market making their plan to rape the City unfeasible. Here we are a few years later, and they're at it again threatening to go somewhere else. The City really holds all the cards right now, and all this blustering is just that...HOT AIR.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 11:25:52 GMT -8
The infrastructure issues surrounding the El Cajon Speedway are no more or less problematic than a Downtown SD Stadium. Neither is set up for the traffic and parking issues of a 70K stadium. Did you think downtown traffic would be a breeze for a Monday night or Thursday night game Downtown? I can just imagine the issues when the Padres and Chargers have a game scheduled for the same day, bad enough for a Sunday but if it were a Monday or Thursday game added to regular downtown congestion?
I am not actively advocating for using the El Cajon Speedway site ... just pointing out that it is no more or less problematic than some of the other sites mentioned ... We all know that there is no way to increase the capability of Friar's Road to handle more traffic on game days ... now add more commercial, residential and recreational development to the site along with more stop lights and intersections and see what we end up with in terms of inadequate infrastructure.
OTOH ... we are basically talking about only 8-10 games a year at possibly max capacity for the stadium -- traffic & public transportation issues could be ironed out over time
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 2, 2015 14:26:54 GMT -8
It was proposed back in the 60's, but we got the Q instead. Remind me again how the locker rooms worked ... and the concessions, video, lighting and what was the plan for the difference between high and low tide? How long would it have taken to convert the stadium from baseball to football and back to baseball again during cross-over season? What would the insurance have been on a contraption like this? I don't know what the official answers would have been, but here are some ideas of how those issues could have been addressed. Locker rooms. Baseball locker rooms could be under the stands behind the dugouts. Football locker rooms could have been built beyond the end zone shown at the lower right hand corner. Concessions. Under the stands just like they are now at the Q. Video. Not sure what you mean by this, but I'll assume you're talking scoreboard. A double sided scoreboard could be placed just beyond the baseball right field. Or one scoreboard beyond the baseball outfield and another past the end zone in the lower right hand corner of the picture above. High/Low tide. Ballast. Pump water into or out of ballast tanks as needed. Conversion time. Should be the same or less that moving the field level seats around in the Q. Insurance costs. I don't see that the insurance costs would be significantly different than for the Q. It's not like we are Florida and have to worry about hurricanes.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 15:33:57 GMT -8
Remind me again how the locker rooms worked ... and the concessions, video, lighting and what was the plan for the difference between high and low tide? How long would it have taken to convert the stadium from baseball to football and back to baseball again during cross-over season? What would the insurance have been on a contraption like this? I don't know what the official answers would have been, but here are some ideas of how those issues could have been addressed. Locker rooms. Baseball locker rooms could be under the stands behind the dugouts. Football locker rooms could have been built beyond the end zone shown at the lower right hand corner. Concessions. Under the stands just like they are now at the Q. Video. Not sure what you mean by this, but I'll assume you're talking scoreboard. A double sided scoreboard could be placed just beyond the baseball right field. Or one scoreboard beyond the baseball outfield and another past the end zone in the lower right hand corner of the picture above. High/Low tide. Ballast. Pump water into or out of ballast tanks as needed. Conversion time. Should be the same or less that moving the field level seats around in the Q. Insurance costs. I don't see that the insurance costs would be significantly different than for the Q. It's not like we are Florida and have to worry about hurricanes. First, how far is this field from the airport and what will the noise from takeoffs and landings be like for games? Where on the bay would this be and what will the traffic and parking be like for this "stadium"? Would this add to the unique traffic and parking issues on Harbor Drive or will it be somewhere else (like Mission Bay)? Regarding high & low tide ... if the field is set high enough not to be affected by the tides, then the ballast issue would be to have the stands set to low tide at field level, then fill with ballast to remain at field level during high tide. So much can go wrong with that idea. Then there's the balance of the structure as it fills or empties with fans will be it's own logistical issue. Should the tides be rising or falling during the course of the game, that should be it's own brand of fun. The insurance on mishaps with floating, mobile grandstands in open water with gang planks for embarkation of say 20,000 fans (some quite possibly drunk) as well as merchandise and supplies for the concessions located behind those stands would actually be substantial, not to mention the coverage for the ballast tanks and sump pumps as well as the possible security issues regarding having the back of the stands facing the open marina. Now lets add shore power hookups to light the stands and power concessions and the insurance on that as well. What will the effect of the wake of large Navy or cruise ships (and the tugs that move them) be on a floating grand stand? The higher the structure, the greater the effect of the shifting to those riding in the upper deck. Then there will be the general water craft and the insurance against general mishaps related therein. As for scoreboard, monitors, advertising and other such things that make the event an experience ... we'll probably have to go with a less is more strategy, of course that will impact the ability to generate income, but we'll just increase the ticket prices to offset that.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 2, 2015 15:45:59 GMT -8
I don't know what the official answers would have been, but here are some ideas of how those issues could have been addressed. Locker rooms. Baseball locker rooms could be under the stands behind the dugouts. Football locker rooms could have been built beyond the end zone shown at the lower right hand corner. Concessions. Under the stands just like they are now at the Q. Video. Not sure what you mean by this, but I'll assume you're talking scoreboard. A double sided scoreboard could be placed just beyond the baseball right field. Or one scoreboard beyond the baseball outfield and another past the end zone in the lower right hand corner of the picture above. High/Low tide. Ballast. Pump water into or out of ballast tanks as needed. Conversion time. Should be the same or less that moving the field level seats around in the Q. Insurance costs. I don't see that the insurance costs would be significantly different than for the Q. It's not like we are Florida and have to worry about hurricanes. First, how far is this field from the airport and what will the noise from takeoffs and landings be like for games? Where on the bay would this be and what will the traffic and parking be like for this "stadium"? Would this add to the unique traffic and parking issues on Harbor Drive or will it be somewhere else (like Mission Bay)? Regarding high & low tide ... if the field is set high enough not to be affected by the tides, then the ballast issue would be to have the stands set to low tide at field level, then fill with ballast to remain at field level during high tide. So much can go wrong with that idea. Then there's the balance of the structure as it fills or empties with fans will be it's own logistical issue. Should the tides be rising or falling during the course of the game, that should be it's own brand of fun. The insurance on mishaps with floating, mobile grandstands in open water with gang planks for embarkation of say 20,000 fans (some quite possibly drunk) as well as merchandise and supplies for the concessions located behind those stands would actually be substantial, not to mention the coverage for the ballast tanks and sump pumps as well as the possible security issues regarding having the back of the stands facing the open marina. Now lets add shore power hookups to light the stands and power concessions and the insurance on that as well. What will the effect of the wake of large Navy or cruise ships (and the tugs that move them) be on a floating grand stand? The higher the structure, the greater the effect of the shifting to those riding in the upper deck. Then there will be the general water craft and the insurance against general mishaps related therein. As for scoreboard, monitors, advertising and other such things that make the event an experience ... we'll probably have to go with a less is more strategy, of course that will impact the ability to generate income, but we'll just increase the ticket prices to offset that. I didn't design this concept and am not an architect or engineer. Besides, this is not a design under consideration now. This was just one of the options discussed in the '60s when building San Diego Stadium was under consideration. To the best of my memory this would have been placed in Mission Bay. So Navy and cruise ships wouldn't have been a problem. I don't believe Mission Bay has very large tides. The stands could sit on permanent pilings and water pumped out of the ballast tanks to make them float between the two fields. I'm sure that solutions to all the problems you present could have been found. In any event, it was an interesting concept.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -8
First, how far is this field from the airport and what will the noise from takeoffs and landings be like for games? Where on the bay would this be and what will the traffic and parking be like for this "stadium"? Would this add to the unique traffic and parking issues on Harbor Drive or will it be somewhere else (like Mission Bay)? Regarding high & low tide ... if the field is set high enough not to be affected by the tides, then the ballast issue would be to have the stands set to low tide at field level, then fill with ballast to remain at field level during high tide. So much can go wrong with that idea. Then there's the balance of the structure as it fills or empties with fans will be it's own logistical issue. Should the tides be rising or falling during the course of the game, that should be it's own brand of fun. The insurance on mishaps with floating, mobile grandstands in open water with gang planks for embarkation of say 20,000 fans (some quite possibly drunk) as well as merchandise and supplies for the concessions located behind those stands would actually be substantial, not to mention the coverage for the ballast tanks and sump pumps as well as the possible security issues regarding having the back of the stands facing the open marina. Now lets add shore power hookups to light the stands and power concessions and the insurance on that as well. What will the effect of the wake of large Navy or cruise ships (and the tugs that move them) be on a floating grand stand? The higher the structure, the greater the effect of the shifting to those riding in the upper deck. Then there will be the general water craft and the insurance against general mishaps related therein. As for scoreboard, monitors, advertising and other such things that make the event an experience ... we'll probably have to go with a less is more strategy, of course that will impact the ability to generate income, but we'll just increase the ticket prices to offset that. I didn't design this concept and am not an architect or engineer. Besides, this is not a design under consideration now. This was just one of the options discussed in the '60s when building San Diego Stadium was under consideration. To the best of my memory this would have been placed in Mission Bay. So Navy and cruise ships wouldn't have been a problem. I don't believe Mission Bay has very large tides. The stands could sit on permanent pilings and water pumped out of the ballast tanks to make them float between the two fields. I'm sure that solutions to all the problems you present could have been found. In any event, it was an interesting concept. As a concept it is fantasy, and that is what it remains ... if it were to be in Mission Bay, then the easier and cheaper solution would have been to build both the baseball and football fields on Fiesta Island (you know, on land). The water table issue would have been the same and the logistical nightmare would have been limited to access. Over time the solution would have been to make it less of an island and more of a peninsula. Now there's a new idea to float ... let's build a stadium complex on Fiesta Island. We can re-route the new trolley line going to UTC/UCSD to make a stop for a stadium.
|
|
|
Post by gentlesaztec on Mar 2, 2015 16:07:47 GMT -8
Why can't we find a nice canyon to send some graders and excavators too, dig out a stadium and use the fill as base for parking.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 2, 2015 16:17:06 GMT -8
Why can't we find a nice canyon to send some graders and excavators too, dig out a stadium and use the fill as base for parking. That is one of the sites proposed for a place to put the SDSU on campus stadium. The canyon just west of the north end of 55th.
|
|