|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 28, 2009 9:26:18 GMT -8
The agreement between S.D.S.U. and the City for use of the Q is now a done deal. The bad news is that if Aztec attendance does not go up, the financial pressure on the program will get worse. But there is good news, as well. The good news is that, effectively, the City has told the Aztecs that at least they will have a 5 year grace period to make other stadium arrangements should the worst happen. That worst case (after a Charger departure form S.D. County) would be a decision by the City to tear down Qualcomm Stadium with no replacement planned. (I continue to believe that the "worst case" would become reality only if the City were absolutely pushed to the wall. No City official is going to want to destroy (A) two well-established bowl games and (B) the County's only big-time college football program. Not to mention the only serious venue for other outdoor activities such as important soccer games.) Here is a scenario that might play out; the Chargers announce their intention to leave San Diego after the 2011 season. That would, as I understand it, leave 7 years on the City/S.D.S.U. contract. The City could, repeat could, tell the Aztecs that they have until 2017 to find somewhere else to play. Five years, especially for a school not rolling in dough, is not a lot, but at least it would give us a reasonable period in which to build a stadium or at least convince the City to add a year or two to the five year period. Frankly, as I said above, I doubt that the City is going to tear down Qualcomm Stadium any time soon. As is in not for a decade or more. But it could happen. Therefore, the five year grace period is nice to have. www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/sdsu-city-reach-agreement-stadium/?uniontribAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 9:55:35 GMT -8
The agreement between S.D.S.U. and the City for use of the Q is now a done deal. The bad news is that if Aztec attendance does not go up, the financial pressure on the program will get worse. But there is good news, as well. The good news is that, effectively, the City has told the Aztecs that at least they will have a 5 year grace period to make other stadium arrangements should the worst happen. That worst case (after a Charger departure form S.D. County) would be a decision by the City to tear down Qualcomm Stadium with no replacement planned. (I continue to believe that the "worst case" would become reality only if the City were absolutely pushed to the wall. No City official is going to want to destroy (A) two well-established bowl games and (B) the County's only big-time college football program. Not to mention the only serious venue for other outdoor activities such as important soccer games.) Here is a scenario that might play out; the Chargers announce their intention to leave San Diego after the 2011 season. That would, as I understand it, leave 7 years on the City/S.D.S.U. contract. The City could, repeat could, tell the Aztecs that they have until 2017 to find somewhere else to play. Five years, especially for a school not rolling in dough, is not a lot, but at least it would give us a reasonable period in which to build a stadium or at least convince the City to add a year or two to the five year period. Frankly, as I said above, I doubt that the City is going to tear down Qualcomm Stadium any time soon. As is in not for a decade or more. But it could happen. Therefore, the five year grace period is nice to have. www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/sdsu-city-reach-agreement-stadium/?uniontribAzWm Costs a lot of money to take down a structure that size. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 28, 2009 12:20:29 GMT -8
The agreement between S.D.S.U. and the City for use of the Q is now a done deal. The bad news is that if Aztec attendance does not go up, the financial pressure on the program will get worse. But there is good news, as well. The good news is that, effectively, the City has told the Aztecs that at least they will have a 5 year grace period to make other stadium arrangements should the worst happen. That worst case (after a Charger departure form S.D. County) would be a decision by the City to tear down Qualcomm Stadium with no replacement planned. (I continue to believe that the "worst case" would become reality only if the City were absolutely pushed to the wall. No City official is going to want to destroy (A) two well-established bowl games and (B) the County's only big-time college football program. Not to mention the only serious venue for other outdoor activities such as important soccer games.) Here is a scenario that might play out; the Chargers announce their intention to leave San Diego after the 2011 season. That would, as I understand it, leave 7 years on the City/S.D.S.U. contract. The City could, repeat could, tell the Aztecs that they have until 2017 to find somewhere else to play. Five years, especially for a school not rolling in dough, is not a lot, but at least it would give us a reasonable period in which to build a stadium or at least convince the City to add a year or two to the five year period. Frankly, as I said above, I doubt that the City is going to tear down Qualcomm Stadium any time soon. As is in not for a decade or more. But it could happen. Therefore, the five year grace period is nice to have. www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/sdsu-city-reach-agreement-stadium/?uniontribAzWm Costs a lot of money to take down a structure that size. =Bob Plus, it's a pretty good idea to have a plan ready for the next step: what do you do after you have destroyed the only pro-level outdoor stadium in the whole county? The Q may not last forever, but the negatives associated with destroying the only big stadium in town far outweigh the positives. Maybe not for all time, but for the foreseeable future. (Of course, the "foreseeable future" may only extend five years down the road!  ) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 15:01:39 GMT -8
Costs a lot of money to take down a structure that size. =Bob Plus, it's a pretty good idea to have a plan ready for the next step: what do you do after you have destroyed the only pro-level outdoor stadium in the whole county? The Q may not last forever, but the negatives associated with destroying the only big stadium in town far outweigh the positives. Maybe not for all time, but for the foreseeable future. (Of course, the "foreseeable future" may only extend five years down the road! ) AzWm The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 28, 2009 15:20:52 GMT -8
Plus, it's a pretty good idea to have a plan ready for the next step: what do you do after you have destroyed the only pro-level outdoor stadium in the whole county? The Q may not last forever, but the negatives associated with destroying the only big stadium in town far outweigh the positives. Maybe not for all time, but for the foreseeable future. (Of course, the "foreseeable future" may only extend five years down the road! ) AzWm The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob Makes a lot of sense! This is the optimim location. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 15:25:11 GMT -8
The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob Makes a lot of sense! This is the optimim location. Thanks. I eagerly  await NTU's input. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 31, 2009 9:07:48 GMT -8
The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob Makes a lot of sense! This is the optimim location. Yup! I've been pounding this drum for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Aug 23, 2009 17:00:50 GMT -8
Plus, it's a pretty good idea to have a plan ready for the next step: what do you do after you have destroyed the only pro-level outdoor stadium in the whole county? The Q may not last forever, but the negatives associated with destroying the only big stadium in town far outweigh the positives. Maybe not for all time, but for the foreseeable future. (Of course, the "foreseeable future" may only extend five years down the road! ) AzWm The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob Bob, That makes a lot of sense. I know you have background in city planning/government/etc. Do you really think the city government would do this? Do you think the citizens of SD would support this? I sure hope so! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 24, 2009 10:13:18 GMT -8
The problem I have with the arguments against the stadium is that they are the arguments for why a pro team would not want to play there. It's way too large for SDSU or most other teams outside the few that get upwards of 100K or more every game, but with modifications over a period of years, it would be a very good college football stadium, even at its age (and the Chargers played their first exhibition game there the day before I arrived here, so it ain't all that old compared to other college stadiums) if, over a period of years it is modified to bring it back down to it's original configuration. As some others have written on this subject, SDSU wants to expand its student enrollment to 45K and there is no room on campus to do that. The stadium site is the most logical expansion area. Put student and faculty housing on part of the site with a research park on the rest. That accomplishes a lot of the expansion and provides a jobs center for students that would allow them to take trolley to school and back (strike a deal with MTS for a discounted monthly pass that costs less than the parking fees - seriously boosted parking fees) and walk to intern jobs at the research park. Get rid of most of the parking lot in favor of parking garages with a 300 foot-wide green strip along the river that would serve as a park and a tailgate area. I'd suggest we build on this idea rather than worrying about where the Chargers are going to play. You all get to be urban planners with the end product being a redevelopment of the site with the stadium remaining in place. And you get to offer what you see as the constraints as part of the charet. =Bob Bob, That makes a lot of sense. I know you have background in city planning/government/etc. Do you really think the city government would do this? Do you think the citizens of SD would support this? I sure hope so! If the Chargers leave for a new stadium here or somewhere else, the City has to do something with the land. The conventional wisdom of many is that they'd tear down the stadium, but that's a really dumb idea. My background is actually with the County, not the City and the City can sometimes be real idiots (and always arrogant). But I don't see much downside to this although NTU does based upon his view of the deferred maintenance of the stadium. I don't see the citizens having much of a problem as long as it doesn't cost them anything. I do think the State would rather buy the site than lease it, but that's just an opinion. =Bob |
|
)
await NTU's input.
