|
Post by aztecphotos on Oct 3, 2012 8:30:40 GMT -8
Nevada is NOT California and has nowhere near the anti-development mentality in it's citizenry or the legislature. +1 Thats the key right there. California is so tough. Especially San Diego. i don't see why we couldn't have something better than Fresno's stadium, just a little bigger, more vertical so its less space, and built with the ability to be added onto in the future if the football program were to really take off. ![](http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/matteosandiego/fresnucky.jpg) Except for the lighting, Fresno's stadium is VERY nice. I'd take that in a heartbeat! ERNIE
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 3, 2012 8:31:33 GMT -8
How are any of the comments, outside of 1 or 2, off-topic. Back 'on topic' from the SD is "anti-development" debate. I would consider that on-topic, in the ability for SD to deliver the same facility at a much higher cost just due to locality.
|
|
|
Post by 99levi on Oct 3, 2012 8:34:10 GMT -8
I always thought the State University system could build whatever they want on their campus. Yes the residents can file suit and it can play out to the benefit of all but when the rubber hits the road, the State can build on their land. I realize the example of the CA high speed rail project is different but seems like majority of ppl don't want that built yet they are... (i apologize if my example is too simplistic in it's view, ignoring enviro, transportation, etc, )
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Oct 3, 2012 8:37:08 GMT -8
I always thought the State University system could build whatever they want on their campus. No, they can't.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 3, 2012 8:39:55 GMT -8
I always thought the State University system could build whatever they want on their campus. Yes the residents can file suit and it can play out to the benefit of all but when the rubber hits the road, the State can build on their land. I realize the example of the CA high speed rail project is different but seems like majority of ppl don't want that built yet they are... (i apologize if my example is too simplistic in it's view, ignoring enviro, transportation, etc, ) Unless they can produce the backup to say the facility would be a profit generating facility (and turning a profit or breaking even rather quickly), new construction is at the bottom for CSU. Renovation of existing facilities takes priority, and facilities with multiple funding sources (NIH, grants, donors, etc.) will get the green light based on need. HSR is a different case, there was federal money that was going to evaporate unless they at least started burning some of that money.
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Oct 3, 2012 8:40:44 GMT -8
All the big time thinkers on this board want a 45,000 seat on campus stadium.
We have 70,000 seats and we want to go back wards because we can't sell tickets.
It is sad to have it all and being going backwards.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 3, 2012 8:44:20 GMT -8
Qualcomm is a great venue for the Aztecs. We just need a team that people want to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2012 8:50:39 GMT -8
I always thought the State University system could build whatever they want on their campus. Yes the residents can file suit and it can play out to the benefit of all but when the rubber hits the road, the State can build on their land. It's been many years since I studied it but it's a "nuisance" lawsuit. California distinguishes between "public" and "private" nuisances and it's more difficult to stop a public one. IIRC, the rationale is it's a balancing of equities and a public nuisance benefits more people, thereby justifying the inconvenience to the plaintiffs. So that's one problem the neighbors have in filing such a suit. Another is the theory of "coming to the nuisance." If it's already there when you move in, you've basically got no case. But even if it isn't already there, if it could reasonably be expected that the normal use of the land proximate to yours would be used for a "nuisance" purpose in the future, you also have difficulty winning. In this case, as with Cox/Viejas Arena, the plaintiffs would have trouble arguing they never anticipated construction of a football stadium. So the say result could be anticipated. In other words, their lawsuit would slow down commencement of construction, thereby maybe buying time for some of the plaintiffs to move, but it wouldn't stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Oct 3, 2012 9:00:13 GMT -8
San Diego does not have the money to tear down our stadium.
Politics does matter. Politics has held SDSU back for years. Hell we could not even pay that $100,000 to our new School President when he is worth may be $500,000 more.
Can a State with an income Tax do more then a State with no income Tax?
Can San Diego State beat Central FL. and South FL. in the Big East?
San Diego State needs to be set free from the State of Calif. ASAP.
Our problems are bigger then getting a new football coach.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 3, 2012 9:14:33 GMT -8
I always thought the State University system could build whatever they want on their campus. Yes the residents can file suit and it can play out to the benefit of all but when the rubber hits the road, the State can build on their land. It's been many years since I studied it but it's a "nuisance" lawsuit. California distinguishes between "public" and "private" nuisances and it's more difficult to stop a public one. IIRC, the rationale is it's a balancing of equities and a public nuisance benefits more people, thereby justifying the inconvenience to the plaintiffs. So that's one problem the neighbors have in filing such a suit. Another is the theory of "coming to the nuisance." If it's already there when you move in, you've basically got no case. But even if it isn't already there, if it could reasonably be expected that the normal use of the land proximate to yours would be used for a "nuisance" purpose in the future, you also have difficulty winning. In this case, as with Cox/Viejas Arena, the plaintiffs would have trouble arguing they never anticipated construction of a football stadium. So the say result could be anticipated. In other words, their lawsuit would slow down commencement of construction, thereby maybe buying time for some of the plaintiffs to move, but it wouldn't stop it. Good summation.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 3, 2012 9:44:24 GMT -8
It's been many years since I studied it but it's a "nuisance" lawsuit. California distinguishes between "public" and "private" nuisances and it's more difficult to stop a public one. IIRC, the rationale is it's a balancing of equities and a public nuisance benefits more people, thereby justifying the inconvenience to the plaintiffs. So that's one problem the neighbors have in filing such a suit. Another is the theory of "coming to the nuisance." If it's already there when you move in, you've basically got no case. But even if it isn't already there, if it could reasonably be expected that the normal use of the land proximate to yours would be used for a "nuisance" purpose in the future, you also have difficulty winning. In this case, as with Cox/Viejas Arena, the plaintiffs would have trouble arguing they never anticipated construction of a football stadium. So the say result could be anticipated. In other words, their lawsuit would slow down commencement of construction, thereby maybe buying time for some of the plaintiffs to move, but it wouldn't stop it. Good summation. All governmental agencies are autonomous and do NOT have to seek approval from city zoning ordinances, etc. That includes public schools and colleges. However, they usually attempt to be "good neighbors" and work with the community and theyDO have economic hurdles to overcome, in addition to normal market forces that cannot be ignored. IF---and I don't see it as likely---they can find the money for an on-campus stadium, they still have to consider traffic. If it's a nightmare for ingress and egress, the stadium simply is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Oct 3, 2012 9:57:57 GMT -8
I'll never understand how traffic is a major issue for the use of a football stadium.
Sure the stadium would be in use for events other than football games only, But we're talking about 5-6 saturdays a year. Hardly the major inconvenience the traffic issue presents itself to be. During construction, ok, i'll give you that. But the revenue that SDSU would generate and keep rather than paying rent to the Q or a potential new Chargers stadium would definitely be well worth the labor.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Oct 3, 2012 11:13:08 GMT -8
I'll never understand how traffic is a major issue for the use of a football stadium. Sure the stadium would be in use for events other than football games only, But we're talking about 5-6 saturdays a year. Hardly the major inconvenience the traffic issue presents itself to be. During construction, ok, i'll give you that. But the revenue that SDSU would generate and keep rather than paying rent to the Q or a potential new Chargers stadium would definitely be well worth the labor. Agree. And on a Saturday the campus is a ghost town with 14,000 availalble parking spaces. Think 14,000 spaces is too few for an on campus statdium of 40,000 seats or so?...thats about the same number of parking spaces the City of San Diego is required to provide to the Chargers for their home games and they get more than 60,000 with regularity.
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Oct 3, 2012 11:52:21 GMT -8
Does one need to be in the development business to see all of the $#!+ that has been built on and around SDSU in the last decade? ..Sent from my Samsung GS3.. No, but you do need to be able to read and be aware of political reality---IF you want to be in touch with the real world. You can cry about politics, I'll look at results. You know, like those real world new buildings and structures everywhere. To say SDSU is anti-development after what has happened to that campus is beyond ridiculous. I have no doubt there are lots of political factors in play but don't let it twist your mind on the obvious. Or maybe you're just butt hurt over losing a SDSU bid. ..Sent from my Samsung GS3..
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Oct 3, 2012 12:02:41 GMT -8
All the big time thinkers on this board want a 45,000 seat on campus stadium. We have 70,000 seats and we want to go back wards because we can't sell tickets. It is sad to have it all and being going backwards. The Q is clearly an NFL stadium, and an old NFL stadium at that. The NFL itself won't even touch it beyond the Chargers games. Even with that in mind, 70k seats is too big for a program like ours when we are currently averaging in the 20ks per game. It's not about being a "big time thinker", it's about being a big time thinker within reason. a 45-50k seat stadium would be great for us, especially if we can put it on campus. As old and outdated as the Q is, there is no way I see a stadium of that caliber and size ever fitting on the Mesa. My point is that you need to take available real estate into account and how much of that can be used to build. Stanford recently reduced the number of seats they had in their renovation to a cool 50k, and their stadium looks like it's rocking every week now. Of course, it helps that they've also been winning recently. In fact, if you look at most stadiums on the west coast that are on college campuses, most aren't very big to begin with. Oregon: 54k Oregon State: 45k Washington: 70k (post renovation) Washington State: 35k Cal: 62k Stanford: 50k Exceptions: UCLA: 100k, USC: 90k If you take out the outliers, your average is around 52k. Note that I only used Pac schools because they have the most resources out west and have some of the most storied programs in the country in terms of wins. If we can get anything close to what Oregon has in terms of seating and design on campus, it would be heaven on earth for our university.
|
|
houbo
New Recruit
Posts: 35
|
Post by houbo on Oct 3, 2012 12:33:01 GMT -8
I hope UNLV's stadium gets built. I'm looking forward to making fun of them when they play in a one-third filled stadium like they have made fun of us for that for so Long. Like SDSU playing in 1/3 full at home. Be careful what you ask for.
|
|
|
Post by cvtower on Oct 3, 2012 12:37:16 GMT -8
All the big time thinkers on this board want a 45,000 seat on campus stadium. We have 70,000 seats and we want to go back wards because we can't sell tickets. It is sad to have it all and being going backwards. The Q is clearly an NFL stadium, and an old NFL stadium at that. The NFL itself won't even touch it beyond the Chargers games. Even with that in mind, 70k seats is too big for a program like ours when we are currently averaging in the 20ks per game. It's not about being a "big time thinker", it's about being a big time thinker within reason. a 45-50k seat stadium would be great for us, especially if we can put it on campus. As old and outdated as the Q is, there is no way I see a stadium of that caliber and size ever fitting on the Mesa. My point is that you need to take available real estate into account and how much of that can be used to build. Stanford recently reduced the number of seats they had in their renovation to a cool 50k, and their stadium looks like it's rocking every week now. Of course, it helps that they've also been winning recently. In fact, if you look at most stadiums on the west coast that are on college campuses, most aren't very big to begin with. Oregon: 54k Oregon State: 45k Washington: 70k (post renovation) Washington State: 35k Cal: 62k Stanford: 50k Exceptions: UCLA: 100k, USC: 90k If you take out the outliers, your average is around 52k. Note that I only used Pac schools because they have the most resources out west and have some of the most storied programs in the country in terms of wins. If we can get anything close to what Oregon has in terms of seating and design on campus, it would be heaven on earth for our university. 57,000+ was the SDSU record crowd vs Washington State last year (and yes I know it was with the SkyShow), about 3,000 more than maximum capacity at Autzen. With a winning program, attendance that matches the Pac-12 could easily be reached
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2012 12:44:30 GMT -8
I hope UNLV's stadium gets built. I'm looking forward to making fun of them when they play in a one-third filled stadium like they have made fun of us for that for so Long. Like SDSU playing in 1/3 full at home. Be careful what you ask for. It's not me who is advocating a 60K seat on-campus stadium. I think ~45k would be ideal and if this program ever gets where it should be on a continual basis, it would be at least 2/3 full for every game and sold out on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 3, 2012 13:26:06 GMT -8
No, but you do need to be able to read and be aware of political reality---IF you want to be in touch with the real world. You can cry about politics, I'll look at results. You know, like those real world new buildings and structures everywhere. To say SDSU is anti-development after what has happened to that campus is beyond ridiculous. I have no doubt there are lots of political factors in play but don't let it twist your mind on the obvious. Or maybe you're just butt hurt over losing a SDSU bid. ..Sent from my Samsung GS3.. Wow, it would take way too much time to school you. I was not speaking of the microscopic world of one college campus. I was talking about development in San Diego County, but more specifically California. You may not understand this yet, but there is a world beyond you. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Oct 3, 2012 13:52:29 GMT -8
Like SDSU playing in 1/3 full at home. Be careful what you ask for. It's not me who is advocating a 60K seat on-campus stadium. I think ~45k would be ideal and if this program ever gets where it should be on a continual basis, it would be at least 2/3 full for every game and sold out on occasion. I'd have to agree. A 45k stadium on campus (with the potential to build up) would be less than the Q, but being in Fresno this weekend made me realize, i'd rather have a 45k stadium near full, that sits close to the action, generates a ton of crowd noise, has our own SDSU signage, trophies, statues etc. and forces you to sit close to everyone rather than spread out in a huge Qualcomm. I found this tidbit pretty interesting today about the old Aztec Bowl and the intentions they had for it when it was built: Aztec Bowl hosted the San Diego State University Aztecs football team until they moved to Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. The stadium held 12,592 people at its peak and cost $500,000 to build. It was dedicated on October 3, 1936 before 7,500 people, after being completed earlier that year. The stadium was initially supposed to be expanded to 45,000 seats, but instead was only expanded once with 5,000 seats in 1948. Aztec Bowl was the only state college stadium in California at the time of its construction.[2]
|
|