|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 20, 2015 10:05:29 GMT -8
You could put a 25k seat stadium on campus and not fill it so long as SDSU is playing the likes of Wyoming and SJSU. This is the other problem SDSU faces. How do you justify spending upwards of $500million on land and facilities on a program that produces mediocre results in a backwater, irrelevant conference and struggles with attendance? If that question is being discussed on this board (I mean you SDSU-Alumn2003), then how do you expect those discussions to not occur on campus and at the head of the CSU system.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 20, 2015 10:12:24 GMT -8
"Hirshman, who returned to campus Thursday from an out-of-town trip, declined comment. Roberts, who was attending meetings in Sacramento Thursday, issued a statement saying he looks forward to Tuesday's session with the task force. "For now, it is premature to discuss how the county could be involved in whatever might eventually be proposed," Roberts said, "but I am optimistic there are scenarios under which the county could have a meaningful role.” But the campus has previously spoken of its problems with lack of expansion space and inability to grow to meet student demand. It also has wrestled with problems of students living in adjacent neighborhoods and housing needs for its faculty. It has gradually redeveloped pieces of the campus to add more space and residence halls but growth pressures remain." www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/19/stadium-sdsu-chargers-qualcomm/2/?#article-copyCurious if we will know any more info from SDSU with potential future plans after next weeks closed door meeting with the task force and SDSU & County officials. One thing that is abundantly clear is that the Chargers will be vacating the Q site. If they stay in San Diego downtown is their only option.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 20, 2015 10:18:05 GMT -8
You could put a 25k seat stadium on campus and not fill it so long as SDSU is playing the likes of Wyoming and SJSU. This is the other problem SDSU faces. How do you justify spending upwards of $500million on land and facilities on a program that produces mediocre results in a backwater, irrelevant conference and struggles with attendance? If that question is being discussed on this board (I mean you SDSU-Alumn2003), then how do you expect those discussions to not occur on campus and at the head of the CSU system. As I have already stated the primary goal is to obtain the land for an SDSU West Campus expansion. A stadium is secondary. Regardless, any stadium built by SDSU would be privately funded with donors, naming rights and a student referendum vote if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 20, 2015 10:41:36 GMT -8
Maybe a renovation of the current stadium is the way to go, at least for the near future. Take it in stages over the 5 years SDSU gets after the Chargers leave, reduce the maintenance costs while the City maintains the stadium, then take full ownership. I think the estimate in 2011 was $250 million, but SDSU doesn't need all the bells & whistles. If SDSU takes over the advertising in the stadium, concession, parking.. etc and gets to keep some of the money from the Bowl games and other Parking Lot events, plus add several events inside the stadium, then $50 million a year isn't a huge hurdle. The deferred maintenance is $80million. Operations is $10million/year. Renovating the Q at $250million (your numbers). I have a hard time seeing the finished product (renovated) coming in less than $320million, given the time needed to draft plans and deal with immediate maintenance. If it costs $120 million to demo the Q (my guess), then built a new stadium for $250million that makes more sense. You are left with a new facility that is fit for purpose, rather than a frankinstadium. Keep in mind that all of this does not include purchase of the property. I am doubtful the City will just give the property to SDSU. So, it still begs the question, where will all of the money for this come from? Aztecwin noted we need a couple of sugar daddies. That is true, but if they exist, where have they been all these years? Bonds, student fees, donations?...lease it?....who knows? How are any buildings built on campus funded? How was the 20 acres purchased north of TG Stadium for $25 million? How is the $170 million retail development currently under construction being paid for? How was the huge chemistry building built? How was the bio science building built? How was the $100 million student union funded? How is SDSU going to fund the 2007 master plan expansion that included dozens of new buildings and a conference center? To answer your question I don't have any idea of the details. What I do know is that it was a CSU trustee that brought SDSU and the City together about expanding on to the Qualcomm site and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done so if it was a fools errand. The Campaign for SDSU has raised $71 million per year since 2007 and has an annual operating budget of $700 million...this isn't some Podunk operation you are talking about here. Not to mention that as an entity of the State SDSU wouldn't pay property taxes on the land so there won't be any carrying costs allowing them to make damn near anything pencil when compared to how a developer would have to underwrite it. Here is an article written by Hirshman on how buildings will likely be funded in the near future. sdsupresident.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/building-the-future/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 10:59:06 GMT -8
This is the other problem SDSU faces. How do you justify spending upwards of $500million on land and facilities on a program that produces mediocre results in a backwater, irrelevant conference and struggles with attendance? If that question is being discussed on this board (I mean you SDSU-Alumn2003), then how do you expect those discussions to not occur on campus and at the head of the CSU system. As I have already stated the primary goal is to obtain the land for an SDSU West Campus expansion. A stadium is secondary. Regardless, any stadium built by SDSU would be privately funded with donors, naming rights and a student referendum vote if necessary. combining it with the potential development of a new campus makes the number for doing so more realistic.
|
|