|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 16, 2014 16:07:02 GMT -8
No "major" renovation to the Q will be done or should be done. If SDSU ends up owning the Q site along with the stadium I suspect they will make some minor changes. These changes will suit the needs of SDSU and make for a slightly better game day experience for the Aztec fans until such time that either the football program ceases to exist or SDSU is able to privately fund a new football stadium on the Q site or one of the identified locations on campus. The situation is this ... the Chargers do not plan to put the construction of a new downtown stadium on any ballot until 2016. If approved, completion of that stadium will take a few years depending on how many lawsuits are filed and the length of time it will take to resolve them. It will be several years before the Chargers abandon the Q, and the 5 year clock on the Aztecs starts. If SDSU is able to purchase the Q, that will take care of the 5 year clock and we will have more time to decide what to do about the Q (or whatever we rename it). As to the cost to renovation vs. new construction -- to my knowledge, there has never been a study done regarding the stadium and reducing capacity and adding amenities that are designed around the college football experience. Seating sections could be brought closer to the sidelines and raised instead of l owering the field. The reduction in capacity could allow for better sight-lines and viewing angles -- and as a previous post indicated, more luxury box seats and media suites could be added as well. I personally would be fine with keeping the outer structure and look of the stadium to hide a cheaper "erector set" looking stadium on the inside.
But again, this is all probably still a decade or more away from even being a possiblility, so why stress it now? A couple of things that may accelerate the process: One, the convention center has booked some high priority conventions (I believe Comic Con is one of them) in the future based on a convention center expansion by 2017. Two, I believe the Chargers contract runs out in 2020. If indeed the Chargers come up with a proposal that solves the convention center and stadium issue and the tax payers vote for it the project should move along swiftly (assuming no major law suits bog it down). The sooner the Chargers get off the Q site the better for SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 16, 2014 16:18:11 GMT -8
The situation is this ... the Chargers do not plan to put the construction of a new downtown stadium on any ballot until 2016. If approved, completion of that stadium will take a few years depending on how many lawsuits are filed and the length of time it will take to resolve them. It will be several years before the Chargers abandon the Q, and the 5 year clock on the Aztecs starts. If SDSU is able to purchase the Q, that will take care of the 5 year clock and we will have more time to decide what to do about the Q (or whatever we rename it). As to the cost to renovation vs. new construction -- to my knowledge, there has never been a study done regarding the stadium and reducing capacity and adding amenities that are designed around the college football experience. Seating sections could be brought closer to the sidelines and raised instead of l owering the field. The reduction in capacity could allow for better sight-lines and viewing angles -- and as a previous post indicated, more luxury box seats and media suites could be added as well. I personally would be fine with keeping the outer structure and look of the stadium to hide a cheaper "erector set" looking stadium on the inside.
But again, this is all probably still a decade or more away from even being a possiblility, so why stress it now? A couple of things that may accelerate the process: One, the convention center has booked some high priority conventions (I believe Comic Con is one of them) in the future based on a convention center expansion by 2017. Two, I believe the Chargers contract runs out in 2020. If indeed the Chargers come up with a proposal that solves the convention center and stadium issue and the tax payers vote for it the project should move along swiftly (assuming no major law suits bog it down). The sooner the Chargers get off the Q site the better for SDSU. I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that the sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 16, 2014 16:52:57 GMT -8
A couple of things that may accelerate the process: One, the convention center has booked some high priority conventions (I believe Comic Con is one of them) in the future based on a convention center expansion by 2017. Two, I believe the Chargers contract runs out in 2020. If indeed the Chargers come up with a proposal that solves the convention center and stadium issue and the tax payers vote for it the project should move along swiftly (assuming no major law suits bog it down). The sooner the Chargers get off the Q site the better for SDSU. I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that the sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later. I highly doubt that the Chargers would preclude SDSU from becoming a bidder... Talk about burning bridges.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 16, 2014 17:33:17 GMT -8
I know it's apples to oranges a bit. But I went to the Colorado vs Arizona State game last Saturday at the "halfway renovated" Folsom Field. It was a reminder of how awesome a renovation could be. I sat on the 20 yard line, 24th row... it was awesome to be so close to the field. blogs.denverpost.com/colleges/2014/04/12/colorado-facilities-upgrade-break-ground-may-12/30309/At the Q I sit in the 18th row of the field level and it must be 75 feet further back. The flip side is I was in seats that cost the ticket holder like $190/game and they had bleachers. I didn't see any seat backs in any non-suite area. Parking was a disaster. You either park somewhere on campus for $25 or in nearby shopping centers and run like hell from the security. (You guess which I did. I'm pretty fast for a fat guy) I don't think we should settle for a renovated Q. We need to figure out how to get a correctly built football stadium on the main campus. There's room. We just have to get creative.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 16, 2014 19:04:17 GMT -8
I know it's apples to oranges a bit. But I went to the Colorado vs Arizona State game last Saturday at the "halfway renovated" Folsom Field. It was a reminder of how awesome a renovation could be. I sat on the 20 yard line, 24th row... it was awesome to be so close to the field. blogs.denverpost.com/colleges/2014/04/12/colorado-facilities-upgrade-break-ground-may-12/30309/At the Q I sit in the 18th row of the field level and it must be 75 feet further back. The flip side is I was in seats that cost the ticket holder like $190/game and they had bleachers. I didn't see any seat backs in any non-suite area. Parking was a disaster. You either park somewhere on campus for $25 or in nearby shopping centers and run like hell from the security. (You guess which I did. I'm pretty fast for a fat guy) I don't think we should settle for a renovated Q. We need to figure out how to get a correctly built football stadium on the main campus. There's room. We just have to get creative. These work great on bleachers in place of seat backs. www.cubookstore.com/popup.aspx?src=/images/Product/large/18080.jpg
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Sept 16, 2014 19:21:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 16, 2014 20:31:45 GMT -8
I know it's apples to oranges a bit. But I went to the Colorado vs Arizona State game last Saturday at the "halfway renovated" Folsom Field. It was a reminder of how awesome a renovation could be. I sat on the 20 yard line, 24th row... it was awesome to be so close to the field. blogs.denverpost.com/colleges/2014/04/12/colorado-facilities-upgrade-break-ground-may-12/30309/At the Q I sit in the 18th row of the field level and it must be 75 feet further back. The flip side is I was in seats that cost the ticket holder like $190/game and they had bleachers. I didn't see any seat backs in any non-suite area. Parking was a disaster. You either park somewhere on campus for $25 or in nearby shopping centers and run like hell from the security. (You guess which I did. I'm pretty fast for a fat guy) I don't think we should settle for a renovated Q. We need to figure out how to get a correctly built football stadium on the main campus. There's room. We just have to get creative. These work great on bleachers in place of seat backs. www.cubookstore.com/popup.aspx?src=/images/Product/large/18080.jpgYep, and they even have an onsite vendor who will rent you one for like $5. They come to your seat, install it for you, and you leave it there. Never seen that before but a simple solution.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Sept 16, 2014 21:41:53 GMT -8
A couple of things that may accelerate the process: One, the convention center has booked some high priority conventions (I believe Comic Con is one of them) in the future based on a convention center expansion by 2017. Two, I believe the Chargers contract runs out in 2020. If indeed the Chargers come up with a proposal that solves the convention center and stadium issue and the tax payers vote for it the project should move along swiftly (assuming no major law suits bog it down). The sooner the Chargers get off the Q site the better for SDSU. I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that t he sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later. Stop tilting windmills. This would never happen.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 17, 2014 3:43:16 GMT -8
A couple of things that may accelerate the process: One, the convention center has booked some high priority conventions (I believe Comic Con is one of them) in the future based on a convention center expansion by 2017. Two, I believe the Chargers contract runs out in 2020. If indeed the Chargers come up with a proposal that solves the convention center and stadium issue and the tax payers vote for it the project should move along swiftly (assuming no major law suits bog it down). The sooner the Chargers get off the Q site the better for SDSU. I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that the sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later. As an entity of the state we could use eminent domain if necessary. Also, the Chargers don't own the land, the City of San Diego does. The City wants us to use that land for campus expansion.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 17, 2014 7:23:02 GMT -8
I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that t he sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later. Stop tilting windmills. This would never happen. My concern is that I do not know to what lengths the Chargers will go to-- to get what they want. The team is trying to sell a downtown stadium as a multi-purpose asset that many will benefit from ... as opposed to a billion dollar, tax-subsidized structure sitting idle 355 days a year. There are many ways through government and real estate for the Chargers to try and "force" the Aztecs to use their downtown stadium. One such method would be to re-zone the Q. Another would be to break up the total site into smaller parcels for bid. Similarly, the Chargers are trying to kill the convention center expansion, and appropriate those funds. If it got the Chargers another $300+ Million, why wouldn't the Chargers openly and publicly endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU? They have had the ability to secure nearly $1B in funds ... NFL Loan, Team investment, Naming rights, Transient Occupancy Tax / Development Fee (separate from the Convention Center), etc. even without trying to steal the convention center expansion funds or the property sales at Sports Arena or Qualcomm. The land is being provided by the County and the City and reduces the costs of the project significantly. All I am concerned about is how the Chargers structure their deal with the City. At one time, the downtown stadium was supposed to have retail and much needed downtown parking on the lower levels of the stadium ... then it would require a retractable roof so it could also be an arena -- now its a convention center extension. What will it be next?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 17, 2014 7:35:55 GMT -8
I have no doubt the convention center issue will be resolved without the Chargers and when asked; the voters will approve of the current hotel tax structure funding. There will always be lawsuits. Hopefully they are resolved quickly.The Chargers will probably proceed with their plan to put the stadium issue on the ballot for 2016, it will just have to be scaled back to be mostly just a stadium without a promenade or official convention center extension. My concern is the Chargers plan that the city sell the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund their development, and that the sale of the Q excludes San Diego State as a buyer for any reason. If the Chargers are willing to let the city sell the Q to SDSU, then we could get a lot of this done sooner than later. As an entity of the state we could use eminent domain if necessary. Also, the Chargers don't own the land, the City of San Diego does. The City wants us to use that land for campus expansion. I agree with you that eminent domain could be used, that may significantly increase the cost beyond the $300 Million being floated around now, especially if the total property were broken into smaller 40-60 acre parcels for easier development and higher returns. I also agree that it would be mutually beneficial for the city to get that land into the hands of SDSU. While Chargers don't own the land, they can have a considerable influence in how the City handles the property to best benefit the Chargers through lobbying, zoning and lawsuits (not directly, but through organizations like the sierra club, environmental groups or the same guy that stopped the convention center expansion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 10:04:47 GMT -8
Like this? With a similar press box setup to the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara...? The Santa Clara Dunbarton's new stadium is ugly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 11:09:54 GMT -8
Like this? With a similar press box setup to the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara...? The Santa Clara Dunbarton's new stadium is ugly. Sarcasm?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 17, 2014 12:58:04 GMT -8
I don't believe the tax itself was ruled illegal. The way the tax was approved (not going to the voters) was ruled illegal. If it was such a great deal for everyone concerned, it should have been pushed by the hotels and convention center board to the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 17, 2014 13:02:20 GMT -8
As an entity of the state we could use eminent domain if necessary. Also, the Chargers don't own the land, the City of San Diego does. The City wants us to use that land for campus expansion. I agree with you that eminent domain could be used, that may significantly increase the cost beyond the $300 Million being floated around now, especially if the total property were broken into smaller 40-60 acre parcels for easier development and higher returns. I also agree that it would be mutually beneficial for the city to get that land into the hands of SDSU. While Chargers don't own the land, they can have a considerable influence in how the City handles the property to best benefit the Chargers through lobbying, zoning and lawsuits (not directly, but through organizations like the sierra club, environmental groups or the same guy that stopped the convention center expansion). As much as I would like to see SDSU get their hands on the Qualcomm site, I think the convention center gets expanded with a contiguous addition (which is what the convention center board wants--how it gets financed I have no idea), and the Chargers gets a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. I don't think a new Charger stadium will end up downtown. JMO
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 17, 2014 15:27:39 GMT -8
I agree with you that eminent domain could be used, that may significantly increase the cost beyond the $300 Million being floated around now, especially if the total property were broken into smaller 40-60 acre parcels for easier development and higher returns. I also agree that it would be mutually beneficial for the city to get that land into the hands of SDSU. While Chargers don't own the land, they can have a considerable influence in how the City handles the property to best benefit the Chargers through lobbying, zoning and lawsuits (not directly, but through organizations like the sierra club, environmental groups or the same guy that stopped the convention center expansion). As much as I would like to see SDSU get their hands on the Qualcomm site, I think the convention center gets expanded with a contiguous addition (which is what the convention center board wants--how it gets financed I have no idea), and the Chargers gets a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. I don't think a new Charger stadium will end up downtown. JMO The Chargers need the sale of the Q site for the City's contribution to their stadium. They are very smart to try to tie into the conference center expansion.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Sept 17, 2014 21:49:51 GMT -8
Stop tilting windmills. This would never happen. My concern is that I do not know to what lengths the Chargers will go to-- to get what they want. The team is trying to sell a downtown stadium as a multi-purpose asset that many will benefit from ... as opposed to a billion dollar, tax-subsidized structure sitting idle 355 days a year. There are many ways through government and real estate for the Chargers to try and "force" the Aztecs to use their downtown stadium. One such method would be to re-zone the Q. Another would be to break up the total site into smaller parcels for bid. Similarly, the Chargers are trying to kill the convention center expansion, and appropriate those funds. If it got the Chargers another $300+ Million, why wouldn't the Chargers openly and publicly endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU? They have had the ability to secure nearly $1B in funds ... NFL Loan, Team investment, Naming rights, Transient Occupancy Tax / Development Fee (separate from the Convention Center), etc. even without trying to steal the convention center expansion funds or the property sales at Sports Arena or Qualcomm. The land is being provided by the County and the City and reduces the costs of the project significantly. All I am concerned about is how the Chargers structure their deal with the City. At one time, the downtown stadium was supposed to have retail and much needed downtown parking on the lower levels of the stadium ... then it would require a retractable roof so it could also be an arena -- now its a convention center extension. What will it be next? I see you know him well
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 19, 2014 13:27:57 GMT -8
As much as I would like to see SDSU get their hands on the Qualcomm site, I think the convention center gets expanded with a contiguous addition (which is what the convention center board wants--how it gets financed I have no idea), and the Chargers gets a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. I don't think a new Charger stadium will end up downtown. JMO The Chargers need the sale of the Q site for the City's contribution to their stadium. They are very smart to try to tie into the conference center expansion. If the sale of the Qualcomm property isn't approved by the voters of the city (as is required by the city charter), that plan is dead in the water.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 19, 2014 15:39:42 GMT -8
As an entity of the state we could use eminent domain if necessary. Also, the Chargers don't own the land, the City of San Diego does. The City wants us to use that land for campus expansion. I agree with you that eminent domain could be used, that may significantly increase the cost beyond the $300 Million being floated around now, especially if the total property were broken into smaller 40-60 acre parcels for easier development and higher returns. I also agree that it would be mutually beneficial for the city to get that land into the hands of SDSU. While Chargers don't own the land, they can have a considerable influence in how the City handles the property to best benefit the Chargers through lobbying, zoning and lawsuits (not directly, but through organizations like the sierra club, environmental groups or the same guy that stopped the convention center expansion). Why the hell would the Chargers care who the Q site was sold to if they get approval for a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to want to go it alone and keep playing at the Q it won't matter a whit to the Chargers because the owner of the new stadium will still be the city (if it gets built at all). Were there to be a new stadium built downtown the Q site will be sold to the entity (or entities) that come(s) up with the best proposal for redevelopment. The monetary amount the city can get for the property, though, will be of primary importance and the city will need public approval for the sale of the property. They will likely sell to the one(s) who give them the most money for the property.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 19, 2014 15:49:08 GMT -8
I agree with you that eminent domain could be used, that may significantly increase the cost beyond the $300 Million being floated around now, especially if the total property were broken into smaller 40-60 acre parcels for easier development and higher returns. I also agree that it would be mutually beneficial for the city to get that land into the hands of SDSU. While Chargers don't own the land, they can have a considerable influence in how the City handles the property to best benefit the Chargers through lobbying, zoning and lawsuits (not directly, but through organizations like the sierra club, environmental groups or the same guy that stopped the convention center expansion). Why the hell would the Chargers care who the Q site was sold to if they get approval for a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to want to go it alone and keep playing at the Q it won't matter a whit to the Chargers because the owner of the new stadium will still be the city (if it gets built at all). Were there to be a new stadium built downtown the Q site will be sold to the entity (or entities) that come(s) up with the best proposal for redevelopment. The monetary amount the city can get for the property, though, will be of primary importance and the city will need public approval for the sale of the property. They will likely sell to the one(s) who give them the most money for the property. and yet ... in an effort to get their new stadium, the Chargers have yet to openly and publicly endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, why not? It supposedly fits with their plans to sell the Q anyway and puts another $300M towards their downtown project. Why aren't the Chargers out there banging the drum for the sale of the Q to SDSU as part of why they (Chargers) should get a Pro stadium for themselves? Most likely because it doesn't fit with their plan. I believe they do care about where the Aztecs play and don't want a competing stadium to their own.
|
|