|
Post by sdsu2000 on Jul 11, 2017 9:02:34 GMT -8
I'm not sure the land is big enough for a football stadium. The surrounding land is all canyons, so I'm not sure how hard it would be to develop (but someone feel free to correct me). The land is about 350 meters wide and 800 meters tall (each bracket = 200m). It's not a rectangular lot of land so the a stadium would have to be narrower than that. For comparison, Stub Hub Center, which is a 30,000 capacity soccer stadium is about 600m x 700m for just the stadium! Even Grossmont's Football Stadium, with a capacity of probably 1,000 is about 400 meters long. So unless that land surrounding the plot of land is buildable, I don't see it happening. Busting out the metric units.
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Jul 11, 2017 9:14:02 GMT -8
Oops... should be feet.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 11, 2017 9:14:19 GMT -8
I'm not sure the land is big enough for a football stadium. The surrounding land is all canyons, so I'm not sure how hard it would be to develop (but someone feel free to correct me). The land is about 350 meters wide and 800 meters tall (each bracket = 200m). It's not a rectangular lot of land so the a stadium would have to be narrower than that. For comparison, Stub Hub Center, which is a 30,000 capacity soccer stadium is about 600m x 700m for just the stadium! Even Grossmont's Football Stadium, with a capacity of probably 1,000 is about 400 meters long. So unless that land surrounding the plot of land is buildable, I don't see it happening. Here are the details for the StubHub CenterThe field is only 110m by 69m... and if you use that as a reference for this picture... Then from the road on the left to the parking on the right can only be ~200m at most 210m... Am I not getting the math right? Now I have no idea how if it can fit on the Alvarado site...
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Jul 11, 2017 10:01:35 GMT -8
Then from the road on the left to the parking on the right can only be ~200m at most 210m... Am I not getting the math right? Now I have no idea how if it can fit on the Alvarado site... I typed meters but I meant feet. I'll update the original post for clarity. You're right it's about 200m (~600ft). But the 55th location is only ~350 feet wide.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 11, 2017 10:12:47 GMT -8
How you took my response as everything is coming up roses is beyond me. I gave equal arguments to each side making their plan a reality. The facts for SDSU are that they need to reveal a viable plan that can rival FS. They dont necessarily need the Qualcomm lease extension. The facts for FS is they need an extension on the expansion decision for their vote. Both are challenging for both sides. Nothing is locked up or guaranteed. That is the reality. Not giving a thing. Just stating what we know. You can have your own conjecture, but all any of us can go off or hold people to right now, is what they have said publicly. Anything else is just guessing. All that i've stated are the facts. You think the admin is just sitting around not doing a thing? Thats pretty extreme. I dont deal with extremes. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. There are always two sides to the coin. You can be critical saying any business entity wouldve wrapped up that lease...but you dont realize the other side of the equation.The same can be said about FS investors/Mayor not wrapping up their many loose ends. They are on equal footing in my opinion-especially now that the vote is pushed to 2018. The best, most powerful business entity in the world with a huge staff of the best negotiators in the world can't wrap up a lease if the other party won't pick up a pen and sign. So please tell us what "huge staff of best negotiators in the world" did SDSU find, who will---in the next 30-day revelation--bring an obstreperous and recalcitrant city to it's knees, and "force" it to finally sign? Mr. McGrory and Ms. Roush tell us that that is their "Job One", which, evidently, was NOT critical months and years ago, yes?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 11, 2017 10:20:18 GMT -8
The best, most powerful business entity in the world with a huge staff of the best negotiators in the world can't wrap up a lease if the other party won't pick up a pen and sign. So please tell us what "huge staff of best negotiators in the world" did SDSU find, who will---in the next 30-day revelation--bring an obstreperous and recalcitrant city to it's knees, and "force" it to finally sign? Mr. McGrory and Ms. Roush tell us that that is their "Job One", which, evidently, was NOT critical months and years ago, yes? You know that is not was the poster said. You just like acting like a jackass. I guess you won this battle, purely by my response. Well played.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 11, 2017 10:29:21 GMT -8
So please tell us what "huge staff of best negotiators in the world" did SDSU find, who will---in the next 30-day revelation--bring an obstreperous and recalcitrant city to it's knees, and "force" it to finally sign? Mr. McGrory and Ms. Roush tell us that that is their "Job One", which, evidently, was NOT critical months and years ago, yes? You know that is not was the poster said. You just like acting like a jackass. I guess you won this battle, purely by my response. Well played. What? Without sarcasm, what did I miss? Did he not claim that we could not get anywhere, even with the "best", if the other side won't sign? " We now have spokespeople saying they are working toward the number one agenda item, the lease. They hope to show us "progress" within less than a month now. So what has changed to enable them to feel that we're making "progress"?
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jul 11, 2017 10:35:43 GMT -8
The best, most powerful business entity in the world with a huge staff of the best negotiators in the world can't wrap up a lease if the other party won't pick up a pen and sign. So please tell us what "huge staff of best negotiators in the world" did SDSU find, who will---in the next 30-day revelation--bring an obstreperous and recalcitrant city to it's knees, and "force" it to finally sign? Mr. McGrory and Ms. Roush tell us that that is their "Job One", which, evidently, was NOT critical months and years ago, yes? In spite of you impressive vocabulary, you apparently weren't able to understand my post. I never even hinted that SDSU had the best negotiators in the world. There's not doubt they don't. Earlier you said "Any sound business entity would have wrapped up that lease issue IN WRITING, months, or even years ago." Mateo implied, and I believe I clarified, that there was no way that SDSU could "wrap up that lease issue" unless the city was willing to sign the lease extension that was apparently negotiated even if they had the best negotiators in the world.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jul 11, 2017 10:38:02 GMT -8
You know that is not was the poster said. You just like acting like a jackass. I guess you won this battle, purely by my response. Well played. What? Without sarcasm, what did I miss? Did he not claim that we could not get anywhere, even with the "best", if the other side won't sign?"We now have spokespeople saying they are working toward the number one agenda item, the lease. They hope to show us "progress" within less than a month now. So what has changed to enable them to feel that we're making "progress"? Yes I did. Are you saying that we could wrap up the lease issue even with the city refusing to sign?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 11, 2017 10:40:32 GMT -8
So please tell us what "huge staff of best negotiators in the world" did SDSU find, who will---in the next 30-day revelation--bring an obstreperous and recalcitrant city to it's knees, and "force" it to finally sign? Mr. McGrory and Ms. Roush tell us that that is their "Job One", which, evidently, was NOT critical months and years ago, yes? In spite of you impressive vocabulary, you apparently weren't able to understand my post. I never even hinted that SDSU had the best negotiators in the world. There's not doubt they don't. Earlier you said "Any sound business entity would have wrapped up that lease issue IN WRITING, months, or even years ago." Mateo implied, and I believe I clarified, that there was no way that SDSU could "wrap up that lease issue" unless the city was willing to sign the lease extension that was apparently negotiated even if they had the best negotiators in the world. I understood both points, from you and Matteo. Evidently, I was very unclear about my points. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Jul 11, 2017 10:42:27 GMT -8
Then from the road on the left to the parking on the right can only be ~200m at most 210m... Am I not getting the math right? Now I have no idea how if it can fit on the Alvarado site... I typed meters but I meant feet. I'll update the original post for clarity. You're right it's about 200m (~600ft). But the 55th location is only ~350 feet wide. You have to remember that SDSU owns the land to the east. The western property line is down at the bottom of the canyon up the middle of the knoll to Chapultepec. It's probably the only place on campus to put a stadium but unrealistic with the costs and obstacles to accomplish it and with SDSU moving forward on the new residence halls located over there I'd say it's extremely unlikely. Wicker has some dream number for building a stadium and that number only makes sense if it's on the Qualcomm site. I'd expect FS to stay quite because right now because they are on the ballot in '18, popular enough to get 50% and MLS has now left the door open for that timeline. If SDSU's plan is to wait for Soccer City to fail then they better be willing to enter into a stadium deal with FS because there's no other options unless the City Attorney drops something official in regards to the initiative being illegal due to State Law or City Charter. She said it might but you need to get that ruling now if you want to kill it.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 11, 2017 10:42:55 GMT -8
What? Without sarcasm, what did I miss? Did he not claim that we could not get anywhere, even with the "best", if the other side won't sign?"We now have spokespeople saying they are working toward the number one agenda item, the lease. They hope to show us "progress" within less than a month now. So what has changed to enable them to feel that we're making "progress"? Yes I did. Are you saying that we could wrap up the lease issue even with the city refusing to sign? Of course not. Our "leadership" is saying that that is their #1 priority, the lease. Further, they are saying that within a few weeks they'll have a show and tell. With their stated #1 priority, what do you suppose would be the topic of their "Show and Tell"?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 11, 2017 11:43:56 GMT -8
Yes I did. Are you saying that we could wrap up the lease issue even with the city refusing to sign? Of course not. Our "leadership" is saying that that is their #1 priority, the lease. Further, they are saying that within a few weeks they'll have a show and tell. With their stated #1 priority, what do you suppose would be the topic of their "Show and Tell"? Sally Roush InterviewQ: You mentioned the Aztec football team and their future is a little bit squishy beyond 2018 when their lease with Qualcomm expires. What are the options there? A: Option No. 1 is for the city to come back to the table and extend our lease. That is a primary objective of mine is to get that lease extended. Secondarily, we want the lease extended for a sufficient period of time, probably two years is sufficient, to actually build a stadium. In order to do that we need to work with the city to identify a location on a site where we can move forward with stadium construction while the rest of the issues around the future use of the site are resolved. ok, so let's look at what she said and then compare that to what was said in this thread... "Option No. 1 is for the city to come back to the table and extend out lease." - This is not the only option nor is it the only thing she is working on. "That is a primary objective" - which doesn't mean it is the only objective, nor is it the only "primary" objective so I would say that the lease is one of a few important objectives. It is safe to say that the lease may or may not be the top, top priority. "for a sufficient period of time, probably two years is sufficient" - She was clear that SDSU thinks that they can build a stadium and have it ready to go by Fall 2020. "work with the city to identify a location on a site where we can move forward with stadium construction while the rest of the issues around the future use of the site are resolved." - Again, she was clear that they are talking about moving forward before the "vote" in 2018 and that there are conversations about how that would happen.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jul 11, 2017 16:05:21 GMT -8
In my opinion, SDSU got caught with its pants down on this whole thing. There was no real plan, there still isn't a contingency plan, and I think they really just expected the land to be given/gifted to them or at the very worst, get a "name your price" type of sweetheart deal. It backfired because someone else came in that could offer more money or that played nice with the city. From the outside, that's what it looks like to me, anyway.
Perhaps the only thing worse than so-called "Sucker City" and the controversy surrounding it has been the overall ineptitude of the school now and going back more than a few years on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by jalmonb on Jul 14, 2017 15:02:41 GMT -8
I would love to see it built at the apartments on 55th, site of my first housing at SDSU. I can tell the grandkids at what yard line my apartment was. Let's getter done!
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Jul 20, 2017 9:26:01 GMT -8
Been saying that for years but, the went and built apts at west end and parking would be big problem. Access will also be a major problem. The only access to the site is a 2 lane roadway with a freeway on one side and a creek on the other.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Jul 20, 2017 9:31:13 GMT -8
Yes I did. Are you saying that we could wrap up the lease issue even with the city refusing to sign? Of course not. Our "leadership" is saying that that is their #1 priority, the lease. Further, they are saying that within a few weeks they'll have a show and tell. With their stated #1 priority, what do you suppose would be the topic of their "Show and Tell"? The City cannot extend the lease at this point due to the uncertainty of Soccer City vote. How can the City extend the lease pass 2018 if they don't even know if they will be controlling the Q in 2019? These are all repercussions of pushing back the vote to 2018, it hand-cuffs the City's control of the site for the next year and a half.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 20, 2017 9:50:47 GMT -8
Of course not. Our "leadership" is saying that that is their #1 priority, the lease. Further, they are saying that within a few weeks they'll have a show and tell. With their stated #1 priority, what do you suppose would be the topic of their "Show and Tell"? The City cannot extend the lease at this point due to the uncertainty of Soccer City vote. How can the City extend the lease pass 2018 if they don't even know if they will be controlling the Q in 2019? These are all repercussions of pushing back the vote to 2018, it hand-cuffs the City's control of the site for the next year and a half. The initiative, in order to get SDSU on board (which didn't work), has language that allows the City to lease the property to others until 2020... So, yes the city could extend the lease right now and it would not conflict with the initiative process... Plus, since the initiative is just that and doesn't govern anything, the city can extend the lease. If the initiative were to pass then it would become law and some kind of deal would have to be worked out with the tenant...
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jul 20, 2017 11:07:16 GMT -8
The City cannot extend the lease at this point due to the uncertainty of Soccer City vote. How can the City extend the lease pass 2018 if they don't even know if they will be controlling the Q in 2019? These are all repercussions of pushing back the vote to 2018, it hand-cuffs the City's control of the site for the next year and a half. The initiative, in order to get SDSU on board (which didn't work), has language that allows the City to lease the property to others until 2020... So, yes the city could extend the lease right now and it would not conflict with the initiative process... Plus, since the initiative is just that and doesn't govern anything, the city can extend the lease. If the initiative were to pass then it would become law and some kind of deal would have to be worked out with the tenant... There may be some laws affecting initiatives and government owned property that I'm not aware of. However, under general real estate law, there is not problem with leasing a property either before or after it's put up for sale. The purchaser would have to take the property subject to the lease. Most purchase contracts will have language forbidding the seller from entering into a lease after the contract was accepted. In this case the city doesn't have a contract with FS. At best it could be considered that the City has received an offer from FS that the citizens will accept or reject when they vote. Also, under general real estate law, there would be no problem with an owner (the City) from selling part of all of a property that's for sale before a purchase contract is accepted with another party.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 20, 2017 11:30:38 GMT -8
The initiative, in order to get SDSU on board (which didn't work), has language that allows the City to lease the property to others until 2020... So, yes the city could extend the lease right now and it would not conflict with the initiative process... Plus, since the initiative is just that and doesn't govern anything, the city can extend the lease. If the initiative were to pass then it would become law and some kind of deal would have to be worked out with the tenant... There may be some laws affecting initiatives and government owned property that I'm not aware of. However, under general real estate law, there is not problem with leasing a property either before or after it's put up for sale. The purchaser would have to take the property subject to the lease. Most purchase contracts will have language forbidding the seller from entering into a lease after the contract was accepted. In this case the city doesn't have a contract with FS. At best it could be considered that the City has received an offer from FS that the citizens will accept or reject when they vote. Also, under general real estate law, there would be no problem with an owner (the City) from selling part of all of a property that's for sale before a purchase contract is accepted with another party. This
|
|