|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 31, 2015 10:09:03 GMT -8
Try as you might, Pigpen ... to justify the spending of over a billion dollars on a new stadium, those that will have to approve paying for it will have to answer to the voters. If the stadium's life can be extended by 20-30 years with a renovation that costs half as much as a new stadium (expected to last 30 years), I suspect they will go with the renovation. You are free to walk away from your old car and invest in a new car, but if someone else was being asked to either pay for the repair of your old car or pay for a new one, and the cost difference was $2500-$5000 to repair or $10,000 - $15,000 for a new car -- guess which you'd be getting? You're the only one who will go with renovation because all those numbers you quote are MADE UP numbers that you pulled out of your ass. Who the hell said that a renovated Q will last 30 years and only cost what you quoted? YOU! made up bull$#!+. Keep posting your nonsense as it's only proving that you have no clue. Thanks I am not going to waste too much time responding to this ... The 1997 expansion, the 2003 & 2009 reports, the previous estimates put out by the Chargers and others regarding new build costs adding in land acquisition approximations for downtown and Mission Valley ... adjusting for plan approval, voter approval, environmental approval, lawsuit resolution and normal construction delays and other associated costs to the project (water rate increases and other production factors) are where my numbers come from. Where do yours come from?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 31, 2015 12:04:48 GMT -8
Seems to me that you have a disconnect in your logic. First, there is no way in hell the Q can be renovated to last another 30yrs without essentially rebuilding the entire structure. This would likely cost as much or more than a new stadium. The bones of the stadium are bad. The foundation is bad. What are you expecting to save? There really is nothing about the structure that makes any sense to try and preserve. Also, the stadium has been serving San Diego for nearly 50 years. The design life for a new facility would likely be 50 years with only soft upgrades (technology) needed in the future. Do you see the disconnect now? He can't answer your questions rebar619. He just makes up numbers that fall out of his ass to try to argue his points, which almost everybody can see are nonsense. From a U-T article by By Dan McSwain on MARCH 15, 2015 "In 2004, the Chargers proposed a “state-of-the-art” stadium costing $400 million in construction costs. Today the team wants a venue costing $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion if it stays in San Diego. This doesn’t include costs for land or the tax subsidies inherent in public financing. Inflation explains some of the increase. The same Mission Valley stadium costing $400 million in 2004 would cost about $600 million today, according to the federal index that measures nonresidential construction costs."For clarification of my position let's describe those differences as $600M to improve/rebuild the Q to "state-of-the-art" condition vs $1.2 B-$1.5 B for a whole new stadium. What will the differences be in 3-5 years? A "state-of-the-art" rebuild of the Q could cost as much as $800M, while the new build could cost upwards of $1.7-$2 billion.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 31, 2015 12:16:52 GMT -8
He can't answer your questions rebar619. He just makes up numbers that fall out of his ass to try to argue his points, which almost everybody can see are nonsense. From a U-T article by By Dan McSwain on MARCH 15, 2015 "In 2004, the Chargers proposed a “state-of-the-art” stadium costing $400 million in construction costs. Today the team wants a venue costing $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion if it stays in San Diego. This doesn’t include costs for land or the tax subsidies inherent in public financing. Inflation explains some of the increase. The same Mission Valley stadium costing $400 million in 2004 would cost about $600 million today, according to the federal index that measures nonresidential construction costs."For clarification of my position let's describe those differences as $600M to improve/rebuild the Q to "state-of-the-art" condition vs $1.2 B-$1.5 B for a whole new stadium. What will the differences be in 3-5 years? A "state-of-the-art" rebuild of the Q could cost as much as $800M, while the new build could cost upwards of $1.7-$2 billion. Looking at the numbers from the article you refer to, one things strikes me as odd. The posted numbers don't make any sense. Using those "Federal Index" numbers, the stadium the Chargers proposed in 2004 would now cost around $600 million. Is that for the same stadium the Chargers initially proposed in Mission Valley? Why do the Chargers (Fabiani) now claim a new stadium would cost between $1.2-$1.5 billion? Wasn't the $1.2-$1.5 billion figure for the downtown "convadium" project the Chargers wanted? Why the big difference in numbers?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 31, 2015 12:28:48 GMT -8
From a U-T article by By Dan McSwain on MARCH 15, 2015 "In 2004, the Chargers proposed a “state-of-the-art” stadium costing $400 million in construction costs. Today the team wants a venue costing $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion if it stays in San Diego. This doesn’t include costs for land or the tax subsidies inherent in public financing. Inflation explains some of the increase. The same Mission Valley stadium costing $400 million in 2004 would cost about $600 million today, according to the federal index that measures nonresidential construction costs."For clarification of my position let's describe those differences as $600M to improve/rebuild the Q to "state-of-the-art" condition vs $1.2 B-$1.5 B for a whole new stadium. What will the differences be in 3-5 years? A "state-of-the-art" rebuild of the Q could cost as much as $800M, while the new build could cost upwards of $1.7-$2 billion. Looking at the numbers from the article you refer to, one things strikes me as odd. The posted numbers don't make any sense. Using those "Federal Index" numbers, the stadium the Chargers proposed in 2004 would now cost around $600 million. Is that for the same stadium the Chargers initially proposed in Mission Valley? Why do the Chargers (Fabiani) now claim a new stadium would cost between $1.2-$1.5 billion? Wasn't the $1.2-$1.5 billion figure for the downtown "convadium" project the Chargers wanted? Why the big difference in numbers? This is the mystery that I am trying to break. The Chargers 2009 proposal called for stadium downtown for $800M. Over the next few years, those numbers kept increasing now standing at $1.2B for a stadium in Mission Valley or a $1.5B "convadium" downtown. The cost estimates of their stadium seem to be rising exponentially and not in-line with economic conditions. My guess is that we're talking about extortion and the Chargers will no longer stay in San Diego for that same $600M Mission Valley Stadium (adjusted from 2004 dollars) or that $800M downtown stadium (2009).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 12:45:08 GMT -8
negotiating usually means ask for more than you need initially...also, they may be looking at the value and scope of a potential LA site and are looking for something of similar value if they stay in SD. Of course most of us know they don't have as good of a shot of going to LA as they want us to believe...so it's still interesting that they say they need so much more than before.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 31, 2015 15:46:54 GMT -8
negotiating usually means ask for more than you need initially...also, they may be looking at the value and scope of a potential LA site and are looking for something of similar value if they stay in SD. Of course most of us know they don't have as good of a shot of going to LA as they want us to believe...so it's still interesting that they say they need so much more than before. This is exactly what's going on in my opinion. They're going to ask for a $1.2 billion stadium and the city will propose something closer to $800-900 million or so and it will get negotiated somewhere in between.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Mar 31, 2015 16:07:15 GMT -8
Whomever it was that first noted the comparison between Chargers fans and someone in an abusive relationship is a genius. Apologist attitude on behalf of Chargers' ownership is over the top.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 31, 2015 16:09:36 GMT -8
negotiating usually means ask for more than you need initially...also, they may be looking at the value and scope of a potential LA site and are looking for something of similar value if they stay in SD. Of course most of us know they don't have as good of a shot of going to LA as they want us to believe...so it's still interesting that they say they need so much more than before. This is exactly what's going on in my opinion. They're going to ask for a $1.2 billion stadium and the city will propose something closer to $800-900 million or so and it will get negotiated somewhere in between. Assuming the answer to the the question of "how much will it cost?" is somewhere between $600M and $1.2 B -- the other part of the negotiation will be how much the Chargers are contributing to this stadium ... Will naming rights be included? PSLs? What will the maintenance fees of the new stadium cost? What will the Chargers be paying in rent? What will the new breakdown of the City & County share of parking & concessions? The closer this stadium is to costing $600M, the more the Chargers will be able to keep from naming rights and the rest ...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 8:25:05 GMT -8
Try as you might, Pigpen ... to justify the spending of over a billion dollars on a new stadium, those that will have to approve paying for it will have to answer to the voters. If the stadium's life can be extended by 20-30 years with a renovation that costs half as much as a new stadium (expected to last 30 years), I suspect they will go with the renovation.You are free to walk away from your old car and invest in a new car, but if someone else was being asked to either pay for the repair of your old car or pay for a new one, and the cost difference was $2500-$5000 to repair or $10,000 - $15,000 for a new car -- guess which you'd be getting? Seems to me that you have a disconnect in your logic. First, there is no way in hell the Q can be renovated to last another 30yrs without essentially rebuilding the entire structure. This would likely cost as much or more than a new stadium. The bones of the stadium are bad. The foundation is bad. What are you expecting to save? There really is nothing about the structure that makes any sense to try and preserve. Also, the stadium has been serving San Diego for nearly 50 years. The design life for a new facility would likely be 50 years with only soft upgrades (technology) needed in the future. Do you see the disconnect now? I will stand by my assessment that a new stadium would only be acceptable for 20-30 years ... "The Chargers' cost-benefit analysis for a new stadium ought to span 25-30 years, team owner Dean Spanos said, via the Los Angeles Times." "It’s a very emotional time right now, obviously. But I have to sit here and think about the big picture. I’m not thinking about right now, next year, two years or three years from now. … My focus is on the stadium. That’s the future of this franchise. I’m not trying to diminish the value of the short term, because we do want to win a Super Bowl, we want to do all those things you need to be a successful franchise, but at the end of the day we want a stadium situation that keeps us competitive with the league for the next 25, 30 years."
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 1, 2015 8:35:23 GMT -8
I'm not an architect but renovating the stadium doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me considering the really poor shape the stadium is in down to the core and also because it's not a football stadium. A new stadium designed for football will have a smaller footprint and will be able to be positioned much better in the MV space. Also, where would the Chargers and Aztecs play in the meantime? Renovating Qualcomm would be akin to shouting from the rooftops "San Diego is cheap $#!+!" Since SD isn't cheap $#!+, what will happen is what has happened at a number of other places. The new stadium will be built within walking distance of the old one with the old one torn down when the new one is finished. Speaking of $#!+, I sure wish the Chargers would either do that or get off the pot.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Apr 1, 2015 9:16:09 GMT -8
Seems to me that you have a disconnect in your logic. First, there is no way in hell the Q can be renovated to last another 30yrs without essentially rebuilding the entire structure. This would likely cost as much or more than a new stadium. The bones of the stadium are bad. The foundation is bad. What are you expecting to save? There really is nothing about the structure that makes any sense to try and preserve. Also, the stadium has been serving San Diego for nearly 50 years. The design life for a new facility would likely be 50 years with only soft upgrades (technology) needed in the future. Do you see the disconnect now? I will stand by my assessment that a new stadium would only be acceptable for 20-30 years ... "The Chargers' cost-benefit analysis for a new stadium ought to span 25-30 years, team owner Dean Spanos said, via the Los Angeles Times." "It’s a very emotional time right now, obviously. But I have to sit here and think about the big picture. I’m not thinking about right now, next year, two years or three years from now. … My focus is on the stadium. That’s the future of this franchise. I’m not trying to diminish the value of the short term, because we do want to win a Super Bowl, we want to do all those things you need to be a successful franchise, but at the end of the day we want a stadium situation that keeps us competitive with the league for the next 25, 30 years."Not to be nit-picky, but there is a difference between a cost-benefit analysis and the design life cycle for a structure. I have heard that the NFL is looking at the St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, and Los Angeles markets and doing marketing analysis for each over the next 30 years. This may be the context of Dean's quote. A new facility will be used at least for the next 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Apr 1, 2015 9:18:01 GMT -8
Whomever it was that first noted the comparison between Chargers fans and someone in an abusive relationship is a genius. Apologist attitude on behalf of Chargers' ownership is over the top. Who is an apologist for the Chargers ownership? I haven't seen that anywhere in this thread. I will admit I am not always the most observant.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Apr 1, 2015 9:50:04 GMT -8
I'm not an architect but renovating the stadium doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me considering the really poor shape the stadium is in down to the core and also because it's not a football stadium. A new stadium designed for football will have a smaller footprint and will be able to be positioned much better in the MV space. Also, where would the Chargers and Aztecs play in the meantime? Renovating Qualcomm would be akin to shouting from the rooftops "San Diego is cheap $#!+!" Since SD isn't cheap $#!+, what will happen is what has happened at a number of other places. The new stadium will be built within walking distance of the old one with the old one torn down when the new one is finished. Speaking of $#!+, I sure wish the Chargers would either do that or get off the pot. But San Diego actually IS cheap. San Diegans love our lifestyle, our free parking at the beaches, our safe streets and our free trash collection. But ask people to pay a little more for those things because of inflation, etc. and all hell breaks loose. When was the last time a tax was raised in San Diego? Can't remember? Nobody can. It's been that long. It's the reason the CSAG says they won't even bother proposing something that needs a 3/4 vote. Because they know they won't get it. A few years ago there was a proposal to raise taxes on visitors to help pay for police and firefighters and we shut that down in a landslide vote. No, make no mistake, San Diegans are cheap. It's who we are.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 9:50:42 GMT -8
I will stand by my assessment that a new stadium would only be acceptable for 20-30 years ... "The Chargers' cost-benefit analysis for a new stadium ought to span 25-30 years, team owner Dean Spanos said, via the Los Angeles Times." "It’s a very emotional time right now, obviously. But I have to sit here and think about the big picture. I’m not thinking about right now, next year, two years or three years from now. … My focus is on the stadium. That’s the future of this franchise. I’m not trying to diminish the value of the short term, because we do want to win a Super Bowl, we want to do all those things you need to be a successful franchise, but at the end of the day we want a stadium situation that keeps us competitive with the league for the next 25, 30 years."Not to be nit-picky, but there is a difference between a cost-benefit analysis and the design life cycle for a structure. I have heard that the NFL is looking at the St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, and Los Angeles markets and doing marketing analysis for each over the next 30 years. This may be the context of Dean's quote. A new facility will be used at least for the next 50 years. When speaking of cost-benefit analysis in terms of a structure like an NFL stadium (or a Las Vegas hotel) ... you're basically talking about the cost divided by useful life expectancy (before major renovations or another demo and rebuild) and an analysis of the corresponding economic impact of that spending. This is a different life expectancy cycle than that of most buildings, "As the NFL expansion era wrapped up in the mid-1970s, the average NFL stadium reached it's youngest point at 15.4 years of age in both 1975 and 1976. In the post-expansion years, stadium ages peaked again in 1991 and 1992 at a mean of 26.7 years." - Stadium Construction Trends in Baseball and Football
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 1, 2015 11:30:57 GMT -8
Renovating Qualcomm would be akin to shouting from the rooftops "San Diego is cheap $#!+!" Since SD isn't cheap $#!+, what will happen is what has happened at a number of other places. The new stadium will be built within walking distance of the old one with the old one torn down when the new one is finished. Speaking of $#!+, I sure wish the Chargers would either do that or get off the pot. But San Diego actually IS cheap. San Diegans love our lifestyle, our free parking at the beaches, our safe streets and our free trash collection. But ask people to pay a little more for those things because of inflation, etc. and all hell breaks loose. When was the last time a tax was raised in San Diego? Can't remember? Nobody can. It's been that long. It's the reason the CSAG says they won't even bother proposing something that needs a 3/4 vote. Because they know they won't get it. A few years ago there was a proposal to raise taxes on visitors to help pay for police and firefighters and we shut that down in a landslide vote. No, make no mistake, San Diegans are cheap. It's who we are. If you say so, this Angeleno will buy it. Our taxes may be high, but we've proven over the last two decades that we can live without the NFL so if the NFL wants to return, THEY can pay for their GD stadium.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 1, 2015 14:32:47 GMT -8
Whomever it was that first noted the comparison between Chargers fans and someone in an abusive relationship is a genius. Apologist attitude on behalf of Chargers' ownership is over the top. Who is an apologist for the Chargers ownership? I haven't seen that anywhere in this thread. I will admit I am not always the most observant. Hoobs is biased to say the least. He's NOT a Chargers fan. Doesn't live in So Cal. Lives in D.C. And ONLY CARES what happens to SDSU. That in a nutshell is his "take".
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 1, 2015 14:34:24 GMT -8
Renovating Qualcomm would be akin to shouting from the rooftops "San Diego is cheap $#!+!" Since SD isn't cheap $#!+, what will happen is what has happened at a number of other places. The new stadium will be built within walking distance of the old one with the old one torn down when the new one is finished. Speaking of $#!+, I sure wish the Chargers would either do that or get off the pot. But San Diego actually IS cheap. San Diegans love our lifestyle, our free parking at the beaches, our safe streets and our free trash collection. But ask people to pay a little more for those things because of inflation, etc. and all hell breaks loose. When was the last time a tax was raised in San Diego? Can't remember? Nobody can. It's been that long. It's the reason the CSAG says they won't even bother proposing something that needs a 3/4 vote. Because they know they won't get it. A few years ago there was a proposal to raise taxes on visitors to help pay for police and firefighters and we shut that down in a landslide vote. No, make no mistake, San Diegans are cheap. It's who we are. It's who most are. Now days, so many are only into themselves and what something can do for them only. It's sad but true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 15:04:02 GMT -8
Who is an apologist for the Chargers ownership? I haven't seen that anywhere in this thread. I will admit I am not always the most observant. Hoobs is biased to say the least. He's NOT a Chargers fan. Doesn't live in So Cal. Lives in D.C. And ONLY CARES what happens to SDSU. That in a nutshell is his "take". So basically he belongs here and his comments matter more than those who would think of the chargers before the Aztecs...you know on a SDSU fan/alumni board and all.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 1, 2015 15:12:02 GMT -8
Hoobs is biased to say the least. He's NOT a Chargers fan. Doesn't live in So Cal. Lives in D.C. And ONLY CARES what happens to SDSU. That in a nutshell is his "take". So basically he belongs here and his comments matter more than those who would think of the chargers before the Aztecs...you know on a SDSU fan/alumni board and all. Not really. Nobody's comments matter more. Not sure anybody here would think of the Chargers before the Aztecs. It's what's best for "America's Finest City" There are obviously many on here who don't care for the Chargers at all. That's easy to see based on the number of psots in the Chargers sub forum. But, since he doesn't live here he won't be voting for or against the stadium as I will. and FWIW - I'd prefer the Chargers stay, I don't care where the stadium is, downtown or MV, and I'd hope that if State can afford it, they purchase part of the Q property for campus expansion. I do believe though that there's still room on-campus for expansion if they just quit using the flat parking lots and built more parking garages and buildings on those flat lots. Those flat lots are a tremendous waste of space. There's one along Alvarado that is ONLY used for the 18 wheeler and Xmas tree recycling in January.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Apr 1, 2015 15:19:16 GMT -8
But San Diego actually IS cheap. San Diegans love our lifestyle, our free parking at the beaches, our safe streets and our free trash collection. But ask people to pay a little more for those things because of inflation, etc. and all hell breaks loose. When was the last time a tax was raised in San Diego? Can't remember? Nobody can. It's been that long. It's the reason the CSAG says they won't even bother proposing something that needs a 3/4 vote. Because they know they won't get it. A few years ago there was a proposal to raise taxes on visitors to help pay for police and firefighters and we shut that down in a landslide vote. No, make no mistake, San Diegans are cheap. It's who we are. It's who most are. Now days, so many are only into themselves and what something can do for them only. It's sad but true. Here is a UT story about exactly what I'm talking about (This is from 2010): Taxes: How San Diego measures upHaving an anti-tax attitude is about as San Diego as fish tacos, surfing and 70-degree weather ... www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/12/city-of-san-diego-taxes-are-far-lower-than-the/Highlights: San Diego vs. other cities Average business tax by city San Francisco: $5,253 Los Angeles: $1,281 Oakland: $774 San Jose: $225 San Diego: $79 Revenue generated annually per capita on fees of 1 percent to 10 percent on utility bills, such as electricity, gas, phone, water, cable and trash. Los Angeles: $150.64 Oakland: $123.77 Sacramento: $119.01 San Francisco: $97.34 San Diego: Zero
|
|