|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 13:12:58 GMT -8
I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl). A renovation of Arrowhead made lots of sense--it was already a football stadium. A Qualcomm remodel would be much more substantial, if whoever does the remodel wants to turn the Q into a stadium that is great for football. Many of the seats are just too far away from the field. I guess it's just safe to say I disagree with you. Incidentally, the NW corner of the lot is where I think a new stadium should go, and although I have no skills in design whatsoever, I think a new stadium wouldn't have as large a footprint as the current stadium does so I think it would fit in that NW corner as it would be designed mainly for football. I welcome civil disagreement -- it is my position that a phased renovation would replace each side of the field in turn ... stripping each section down to its' bones and re-doing the sections to maximize seating, sight lines, concourses etc. ... it would be at this time that seats could be brought closer to the field and rise at a steeper angle, reconnecting to the support structure at different points than before. I don't think it matters much at this point as the Chargers will most likely be unhappy with anything they get (short of a new stadium, downtown paid for by anyone other than themselves). Where a new stadium would go in the parking lot is a secondary concern to how to pay for it ... if being paid through development -- which I don't think will pass CEQA, or survive lawsuits regarding the over development in Mission Valley without infrastructure keeping pace. If a redevelopment plan does pass, retail and residential development would probably prefer to be closer to Friars Road so I imagine a new stadium would end up in the Southeast or Southwest corner of the lot.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 29, 2015 13:13:09 GMT -8
m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/28/finally-supes-stadium-team/"The question is whether the city and the county will be able to work together when the game gets rough. In terms of ego, supervisors are the equal of big-city mayors and council members. Inevitably, there will be disagreements over how much to give the Chargers, what the county as a whole can stomach at the ballot box, if it comes to that. I continue to believe that the only politically palatable solution is a modest one — a phased renovation of Qualcomm (and development of a section of the parking lot) that would cost far, far less than a new stadium. Yes, the Chargers will hate it. They’ll trash talk the Q, call it a “dump.” (Respected local architects strongly disagree.) Dean Spanos might very well cry to the NFL and gain permission to pack up. But we as a region will have done what we could. If the Chargers leave, positive Q options involving San Diego State could be put in play. It could be a lose-win. For now, it’s promising that all the supervisors, and not just Ron Roberts, San Diego’s home supervisor, will be the practical grown-ups in the huddle, a role they should have been playing all along. North, East and South Counties are counting on their good sense." I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl). They tried that small time thinking in Chicago and it didn't work. No wonder it makes sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 29, 2015 13:16:00 GMT -8
A renovation of Arrowhead made lots of sense--it was already a football stadium. A Qualcomm remodel would be much more substantial, if whoever does the remodel wants to turn the Q into a stadium that is great for football. Many of the seats are just too far away from the field. I guess it's just safe to say I disagree with you. Incidentally, the NW corner of the lot is where I think a new stadium should go, and although I have no skills in design whatsoever, I think a new stadium wouldn't have as large a footprint as the current stadium does so I think it would fit in that NW corner as it would be designed mainly for football. I welcome civil disagreement -- it is my position that a phased renovation would replace each side of the field in turn ... stripping each section down to its' bones and re-doing the sections to maximize seating, sight lines, concourses etc. ... it would be at this time that seats could be brought closer to the field and rise at a steeper angle, reconnecting to the support structure at different points than before. I don't think it matters much at this point as the Chargers will most likely be unhappy with anything they get (short of a new stadium, downtown paid for by anyone other than themselves). Where a new stadium would go in the parking lot is a secondary concern to how to pay for it ... if being paid through development -- which I don't think will pass CEQA, or survive lawsuits regarding the over development in Mission Valley without infrastructure keeping pace. If a redevelopment plan does pass, retail and residential development would probably prefer to be closer to Friars Road so I imagine a new stadium would end up in the Southeast or Southwest corner of the lot. That's funny. Your idea is to take the stadium down to it's bare bones and start from scratch. How is that more cost effective than starting from scratch and building a new stadium? It isn't. You've stated that a remodel would take care of the # of club seats and suites. How? Have you ever been in a suite in a newer stadium?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 13:19:49 GMT -8
you constantly display a lack of any knowledge ... you actually think a majority of the water used in a stadium is about keeping the grass green? You really need to think 2x (or more) before posting. Instead of attacking me with not understanding your bull$#!+ why don't you map it out and prove your ignorance for everybody? Oh, I see you're worried about flushing the pots. RECYCLE water! Not my problem. I see thinking 2x before you post is not a strong suit of yours ... California drought goes from bad to worse as state grapples with heat wave
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 29, 2015 13:27:01 GMT -8
Gee, wow, that's "news". NOT! and...how does that have ANYTHING to do with building a NEW STADIUM? Why do you have problem reading and answering direct questions?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 13:33:36 GMT -8
Gee, wow, that's "news". NOT! and...how does that have ANYTHING to do with building a NEW STADIUM? Why do you have problem reading and answering direct questions? You really have no idea what 1 year of water supplies remaining in California means in terms of water conservation, rationing and denial of water to things like stadiums and arenas in favor of water for farming and residential consumption? There are some harsh measures coming in the near future, do you honestly think that residential development and stadium construction will be at the top of anyone's water rationing list? You go ahead and keep your blinders on ... and pretend there's no problem with an historic drought that field turf can't solve.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 29, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -8
A renovation of Arrowhead made lots of sense--it was already a football stadium. A Qualcomm remodel would be much more substantial, if whoever does the remodel wants to turn the Q into a stadium that is great for football. Many of the seats are just too far away from the field. I guess it's just safe to say I disagree with you. Incidentally, the NW corner of the lot is where I think a new stadium should go, and although I have no skills in design whatsoever, I think a new stadium wouldn't have as large a footprint as the current stadium does so I think it would fit in that NW corner as it would be designed mainly for football. I welcome civil disagreement -- it is my position that a phased renovation would replace each side of the field in turn ... stripping each section down to its' bones and re-doing the sections to maximize seating, sight lines, concourses etc. ... it would be at this time that seats could be brought closer to the field and rise at a steeper angle, reconnecting to the support structure at different points than before. I don't think it matters much at this point as the Chargers will most likely be unhappy with anything they get (short of a new stadium, downtown paid for by anyone other than themselves). Where a new stadium would go in the parking lot is a secondary concern to how to pay for it ... if being paid through development -- which I don't think will pass CEQA, or survive lawsuits regarding the over development in Mission Valley without infrastructure keeping pace. If a redevelopment plan does pass, retail and residential development would probably prefer to be closer to Friars Road so I imagine a new stadium would end up in the Southeast or Southwest corner of the lot. We do agree on one thing--the concern of how any new stadium/remodel of old stadium would be paid for. You feel a remodeled Qualcomm is the answer, and I feel a new stadium is the answer. We can agree to disagree on this. Whatever happens, I hope it works out for all parties concerned (which includes SDSU).
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 29, 2015 13:57:36 GMT -8
I welcome civil disagreement -- it is my position that a phased renovation would replace each side of the field in turn ... stripping each section down to its' bones and re-doing the sections to maximize seating, sight lines, concourses etc. ... it would be at this time that seats could be brought closer to the field and rise at a steeper angle, reconnecting to the support structure at different points than before. I don't think it matters much at this point as the Chargers will most likely be unhappy with anything they get (short of a new stadium, downtown paid for by anyone other than themselves). Where a new stadium would go in the parking lot is a secondary concern to how to pay for it ... if being paid through development -- which I don't think will pass CEQA, or survive lawsuits regarding the over development in Mission Valley without infrastructure keeping pace. If a redevelopment plan does pass, retail and residential development would probably prefer to be closer to Friars Road so I imagine a new stadium would end up in the Southeast or Southwest corner of the lot. We do agree on one thing--the concern of how any new stadium/remodel of old stadium would be paid for. You feel a remodeled Qualcomm is the answer, and I feel a new stadium is the answer. We can agree to disagree on this. Whatever happens, I hope it works out for all parties concerned (which includes SDSU). Best case scenario for SDSU is the Chargers move downtown or out of town.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 14:15:53 GMT -8
I welcome civil disagreement -- it is my position that a phased renovation would replace each side of the field in turn ... stripping each section down to its' bones and re-doing the sections to maximize seating, sight lines, concourses etc. ... it would be at this time that seats could be brought closer to the field and rise at a steeper angle, reconnecting to the support structure at different points than before. I don't think it matters much at this point as the Chargers will most likely be unhappy with anything they get (short of a new stadium, downtown paid for by anyone other than themselves). Where a new stadium would go in the parking lot is a secondary concern to how to pay for it ... if being paid through development -- which I don't think will pass CEQA, or survive lawsuits regarding the over development in Mission Valley without infrastructure keeping pace. If a redevelopment plan does pass, retail and residential development would probably prefer to be closer to Friars Road so I imagine a new stadium would end up in the Southeast or Southwest corner of the lot. We do agree on one thing--the concern of how any new stadium/remodel of old stadium would be paid for. You feel a remodeled Qualcomm is the answer, and I feel a new stadium is the answer. We can agree to disagree on this. Whatever happens, I hope it works out for all parties concerned (which includes SDSU). I am honestly not against a new stadium for the Chargers as long as the actual cost and pay-for is agreeable. In fact, if a new stadium were built exactly over the old stadium (in phases) I'd be fine with that too. My advocating of a renovation began when the Chiefs started their $400M renovation in 2008 and in 2009 the Chargers wanted a new one downtown for $800M. I felt then that downtown was better suited for a new Sports Arena than a Football Stadium. I think that the cost difference NOW between a new stadium and a renovated one is big enough that it will come into play. If we were still talking about the $800M stadium the Chargers had initially proposed for downtown in 2009 (which I felt then was a low estimate), then the cost difference between new stadium and renovated one would be a lot lower and a new stadium could make more sense. Now that estimates are reaching $1.4B - $1.7B for a new stadium, I think a $600M renovation of the Q will start to look like the answer (but not one that many will like). My issue is not so much resistance to any new stadium, I just want the best deal possible that helps the most people in the process see >> aztecmesa.proboards.com/post/790352
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Mar 29, 2015 17:58:02 GMT -8
I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl). They tried that small time thinking in Chicago and it didn't work. No wonder it makes sense to you. What didn't work about that plan in Chicago? I am not trying to be argumentative, I really want to know.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 29, 2015 19:44:14 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?
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 29, 2015 20:25:45 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? The only professionals that occasionally argue for a remodel are architects. However, the structural engineers that I have read generally argue against such a renovation. The stadium was built in 1965 to different standards. Earthquake and soils compaction standards have evolved since then, which really affects the Q, because it is sitting in a riverbed in a liquefaction zone; something about "hot soils" applies too, which wasn't a construction consideration in 1965. There is already evidence of a five inch slip in a portion of the foundation, which might get the whole structure red flagged if destructive testing was done and showed it happened elsewhere. There is already evidence of concrete spalling and oxide jacking, which harms the structural integrity of the members. I do believe the upper ring of the Q had supports that were planted in bedrock below, so maybe it would be possible to recompact all of the soils around it and do a phased renovation while keeping a lot of the upper ring and demolishing everything below, but it seems very expensive. Also, for reasons others have mentioned, Arrowhead, Green Bay and Chicago were already football configured; renovation of the Q to a football configuration would be entirely different and cost more. Also, none of those three are in high risk earthquake zones, so those renovations did not have to account for that added cost.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 21:19:31 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? The only professionals that occasionally argue for a remodel are architects. However, the structural engineers that I have read generally argue against such a renovation. The stadium was built in 1965 to different standards. Earthquake and soils compaction standards have evolved since then, which really affects the Q, because it is sitting in a riverbed in a liquefaction zone; something about "hot soils" applies too, which wasn't a construction consideration in 1965. There is already evidence of a five inch slip in a portion of the foundation, which might get the whole structure red flagged if destructive testing was done and showed it happened elsewhere. There is already evidence of concrete spalling and oxide jacking, which harms the structural integrity of the members. I do believe the upper ring of the Q had supports that were planted in bedrock below, so maybe it would be possible to recompact all of the soils around it and do a phased renovation while keeping a lot of the upper ring and demolishing everything below, but it seems very expensive. Also, for reasons others have mentioned, Arrowhead, Green Bay and Chicago were already football configured; renovation of the Q to a football configuration would be entirely different and cost more. Also, none of those three are in high risk earthquake zones, so those renovations did not have to account for that added cost. I suppose it would be prudent to have the last guys that worked on the stadium be consulted ... Nolta Consulting - Construction Expertise & Forensics Drilled Caisson and Driven Pile Foundations: San Diego Qualcomm Stadium Renovation and Expansion: East end zone five-level concrete stadium structures seating 17k people. 6 ft diameter over 100 ft deep drilled caisson foundation system. Drilled below the water table employing polymer drilling fluid. San Diego, CA. (Nielsen Dillingham Builders) Massive Matt Slab Foundations: San Diego Qualcomm Stadium Renovation and Expansion: Existing 2-level concrete stadium structures renovated adding 3 more additional levels. Retrofitted matt slab foundation system. San Diego, CA. (Nielsen Dillingham Builders)
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 29, 2015 21:29:16 GMT -8
That entire scoreboard structure should have been removed during the last remodel.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 21:45:36 GMT -8
That entire scoreboard structure should have been removed during the last remodel. Probably had something to do with the last renovation being in 1997, and the Padres not leaving until 2004 -which was cool because the Q is the only stadium ever to host both the Super Bowl and the World Series in the same year (1998). Any renovation today would be able address configuration issues (football only) and technology upgrades ...
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 30, 2015 7:27:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 30, 2015 7:58:36 GMT -8
I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl). They tried that small time thinking in Chicago and it didn't work. No wonder it makes sense to you. Yeah, what do you end up saving, the field? There is nothing about the Q that can't be fixed with a few hundred pounds of strategically placed TNT.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 30, 2015 8:08:25 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? The only professionals that occasionally argue for a remodel are architects. However, the structural engineers that I have read generally argue against such a renovation. The stadium was built in 1965 to different standards. Earthquake and soils compaction standards have evolved since then, which really affects the Q, because it is sitting in a riverbed in a liquefaction zone; something about "hot soils" applies too, which wasn't a construction consideration in 1965. There is already evidence of a five inch slip in a portion of the foundation, which might get the whole structure red flagged if destructive testing was done and showed it happened elsewhere. There is already evidence of concrete spalling and oxide jacking, which harms the structural integrity of the members. I do believe the upper ring of the Q had supports that were planted in bedrock below, so maybe it would be possible to recompact all of the soils around it and do a phased renovation while keeping a lot of the upper ring and demolishing everything below, but it seems very expensive. Also, for reasons others have mentioned, Arrowhead, Green Bay and Chicago were already football configured; renovation of the Q to a football configuration would be entirely different and cost more. Also, none of those three are in high risk earthquake zones, so those renovations did not have to account for that added cost. Keeping the outer ring still gives the stadium a much bigger footprint than it needs. You don't need a round structure surrounding a rectangular feature. I suspect that is part of your point as well. And yes, construction in the 1960s didn't take into account that earthquakes have a vertical component, not just horizontal. Anyone who has ever been in the construction industry knows that a renovation always carries a higher level of "the unknown" that will result in the project costing more than expected. When we were involved in the renovation of the US Grant Hotel downtown the work was performed on a T&M contract.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 30, 2015 9:58:24 GMT -8
The only professionals that occasionally argue for a remodel are architects. However, the structural engineers that I have read generally argue against such a renovation. The stadium was built in 1965 to different standards. Earthquake and soils compaction standards have evolved since then, which really affects the Q, because it is sitting in a riverbed in a liquefaction zone; something about "hot soils" applies too, which wasn't a construction consideration in 1965. There is already evidence of a five inch slip in a portion of the foundation, which might get the whole structure red flagged if destructive testing was done and showed it happened elsewhere. There is already evidence of concrete spalling and oxide jacking, which harms the structural integrity of the members. I do believe the upper ring of the Q had supports that were planted in bedrock below, so maybe it would be possible to recompact all of the soils around it and do a phased renovation while keeping a lot of the upper ring and demolishing everything below, but it seems very expensive. Also, for reasons others have mentioned, Arrowhead, Green Bay and Chicago were already football configured; renovation of the Q to a football configuration would be entirely different and cost more. Also, none of those three are in high risk earthquake zones, so those renovations did not have to account for that added cost. Keeping the outer ring still gives the stadium a much bigger footprint than it needs. You don't need a round structure surrounding a rectangular feature. I suspect that is part of your point as well. And yes, construction in the 1960s didn't take into account that earthquakes have a vertical component, not just horizontal. Anyone who has ever been in the construction industry knows that a renovation always carries a higher level of "the unknown" that will result in the project costing more than expected. When we were involved in the renovation of the US Grant Hotel downtown the work was performed on a T&M contract. You do realize that the increased concourse width does as much to expand the "footprint" of the stadium as does the actual seating rings? Then there are the access ramps and escalators to the upper levels that need to be clear of the concourse that add to the footprint. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference between the Chargers mock-up footprint, and the current one ... as for the "roundness" of the stadium ... blow out the corners of the Plaza and Field level seats to bring the sideline seats closer to the field and get that "squareness" in the lower levels -- This renovation would not have to account for baseball in its' design, so yeah there's a lot that could be done for less than $1.4 billion.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Mar 30, 2015 10:15:08 GMT -8
Keeping the outer ring still gives the stadium a much bigger footprint than it needs. You don't need a round structure surrounding a rectangular feature. I suspect that is part of your point as well. And yes, construction in the 1960s didn't take into account that earthquakes have a vertical component, not just horizontal. Anyone who has ever been in the construction industry knows that a renovation always carries a higher level of "the unknown" that will result in the project costing more than expected. When we were involved in the renovation of the US Grant Hotel downtown the work was performed on a T&M contract. You do realize that the increased concourse width does as much to expand the "footprint" of the stadium as does the actual seating rings? Then there are the access ramps and escalators to the upper levels that need to be clear of the concourse that add to the footprint. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference between the Chargers mock-up footprint, and the current one ... as for the "roundness" of the stadium ... blow out the corners of the Plaza and Field level seats to bring the sideline seats closer to the field and get that "squareness" in the lower levels -- This renovation would not have to account for baseball in its' design, so yeah there's a lot that could be done for less than $1.4 billion. I really dont understand why people keep talking about renovation. The bones of the stadium are bad. What you are talking about is akin to renovating a house that all of the timber is rotted with termites and the foundation is bad. It makes no sense. BTW, I am a civil engineer that does structural work, I am in my element here.
|
|