Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 10:28:58 GMT -8
Was thinking last night that if SDSU West does happen, or we at least built a new stadium on that land, there's no way Qualcomm stays up for how long it's going to take to get a new stadium up.
So do we see SDSU play in a temporary home or could we see an entire season of road games? There is precedent other schools have had to do this.
Or could SDSU play at Petco for a year or even go back to Balboa Stadium?
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 12, 2017 10:34:19 GMT -8
You build the new SDSU/MLS stadium first and play in the Q for a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 12, 2017 10:39:25 GMT -8
Petco Park is out of the question for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's reported (I haven't walked the place with a tape measure) that Petco will not accommodate the footprint of a football configuration. Second, it's in the original agreement that football would not be played there.
But as for the Q, as bad as it is, it's not literally going to fall down in the next few years. SDSU has been guaranteed 5 years, at least, to take action. That action should start right away, in my view.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 12, 2017 10:43:59 GMT -8
Was thinking last night that if SDSU West does happen, or we at least built a new stadium on that land, there's no way Qualcomm stays up for how long it's going to take to get a new stadium up. So do we see SDSU play in a temporary home or could we see an entire season of road games? There is precedent other schools have had to do this. Or could SDSU play at Petco for a year or even go back to Balboa Stadium? SDSU has another year on their lease. After that they will likely become the primary tenant and sign a short-term lease while the details/fundraising/construction of our new SDSU stadium is completed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec92 on Jan 12, 2017 10:44:37 GMT -8
Balboa Stadium is way too small. Yeah it's close, but there are plenty of larger high school/Community college stadiums around the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Jan 12, 2017 10:54:17 GMT -8
Balboa stadium seats 3,000 LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jan 12, 2017 11:00:21 GMT -8
If SDSU gets rights to the land, why would the City expedite the demolition if SDSU has nowhere to play? The biggest threat is developers acquiring and leveling MV for non-SDSU interests. Clear that, and I have no worries about the city knocking down the Q prematurely.
|
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Jan 12, 2017 11:28:40 GMT -8
If SDSU gets rights to the land, why would the City expedite the demolition if SDSU has nowhere to play? The biggest threat is developers acquiring and leveling MV for non-SDSU interests. Clear that, and I have no worries about the city knocking down the Q prematurely. yep. they cant afford the demolition of it. |
|
|
|
Post by whitehawk on Jan 12, 2017 11:41:41 GMT -8
You build the new SDSU/MLS stadium first and play in the Q for a year. THis is exactly what would happen. Time to go to work! GO AZTECS!!! GO WEST!!! |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 12, 2017 11:51:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 12, 2017 11:59:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jan 12, 2017 12:34:29 GMT -8
Keep playing in the rathole while the new stadium is being built. We can put up with minimal parking for a couple seasons as long as they are smart about organizing extra trolley runs and bus shuttles from nearby parking lots. I know of a certain up-and-coming four year university about 5 miles to the east that has several nearly empty parking garages on Saturdays.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Jan 12, 2017 17:55:06 GMT -8
You mean that Balboa stadium is still around? I thought it was torn down decades ago!  Plus, those of you who are worried about playing at the Q. Years ago, someone who knows the Q site very well (might be a contractor/builder) said if a new football stadium was to be built it could be easily put up in the west parking (of the current stadium) lot because they would have room to do that without tearing down the Q right away. Then after the new stadium was finished the Q could be taken down. No need to go anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jan 12, 2017 18:26:12 GMT -8
If SDSU gets rights to the land, why would the City expedite the demolition if SDSU has nowhere to play? The biggest threat is developers acquiring and leveling MV for non-SDSU interests. Clear that, and I have no worries about the city knocking down the Q prematurely. It won't happen. SDSU will play nice and try to pay a "fair" amount say no more than $50m. If city tries to go another direction the state, through the CSU Syatem, will just use eminent domain. The city knows this so I don't think it will get close to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jan 12, 2017 18:44:27 GMT -8
Petco Park is out of the question for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's reported (I haven't walked the place with a tape measure) that Petco will not accommodate the footprint of a football configuration. Second, it's in the original agreement that football would not be played there. AzWm I can't believe the Padres were able to design Petco as a single-use facility. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 13, 2017 17:15:05 GMT -8
Petco Park is out of the question for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's reported (I haven't walked the place with a tape measure) that Petco will not accommodate the footprint of a football configuration. Second, it's in the original agreement that football would not be played there. AzWm I can't believe the Padres were able to design Petco as a single-use facility. It is one of the reasons why the Padres wanted out of the Q, and why no one builds multi-purpose (as in baseball and football) stadiums any longer. |
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jan 13, 2017 17:43:26 GMT -8
I can't believe the Padres were able to design Petco as a single-use facility. It is one of the reasons why the Padres wanted out of the Q, and why no one builds multi-purpose (as in baseball and football) stadiums any longer. Except for soccer and football, right? Has approval been granted to secure land in Mission Valley? Has the money also been secured? Is this just more blowing smoke? |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jan 13, 2017 18:18:23 GMT -8
I can't believe the Padres were able to design Petco as a single-use facility. It is one of the reasons why the Padres wanted out of the Q, and why no one builds multi-purpose (as in baseball and football) stadiums any longer. Yes I understand that. But it seems something could have been done to accomodate the dimensions of a football or soccer field. Movable seating, fences or barriers? |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 13, 2017 19:51:11 GMT -8
It is one of the reasons why the Padres wanted out of the Q, and why no one builds multi-purpose (as in baseball and football) stadiums any longer. Except for soccer and football, right? Has approval been granted to secure land in Mission Valley? Has the money also been secured? Is this just more blowing smoke? I was referring to baseball and football in the same facility (which I said pretty clearly in the original post). And my post related to the Padres leaving the Q for their own facility. That was it. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 13, 2017 19:52:24 GMT -8
It is one of the reasons why the Padres wanted out of the Q, and why no one builds multi-purpose (as in baseball and football) stadiums any longer. Yes I understand that. But it seems something could have been done to accomodate the dimensions of a football or soccer field. Movable seating, fences or barriers? I think it was pretty obvious that the Padres didn't want that capability in the ballpark. |
|
Plus, those of you who are worried about playing at the Q.
