|
|
Post by aztecfanatic on Nov 30, 2017 19:05:03 GMT -8
Are skyboxes part of the plan? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 30, 2017 19:07:57 GMT -8
Get the remaining signatures, put the proposal on the ballot and there you go.... badda bing badda boon.. Doth my eyes decieve me?!?! Or is this an actual positive post!   Go SDSU Mission Valley! Go Aztecs! |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Nov 30, 2017 19:11:57 GMT -8
Are skyboxes part of the plan? Just wondering. Yes. I don't think anyone calls them sky boxes anymore though. They are called "Hospitality Suites" or "Luxury Suites." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfanatic on Nov 30, 2017 19:52:29 GMT -8
Are skyboxes part of the plan? Just wondering. Yes. I don't think anyone calls them sky boxes anymore though. They are called "Hospitality Suites" or "Luxury Suites." Of course you are right, couldn't remember the name. Thanks fanhood. |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Nov 30, 2017 19:54:17 GMT -8
Yes. I don't think anyone calls them sky boxes anymore though. They are called "Hospitality Suites" or "Luxury Suites." Of course you are right, couldn't remember the name. Thanks fanhood. I grew up calling them Skyboxes as well. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 30, 2017 23:22:20 GMT -8
Amazing job and presentation by all involved. I've never taken Viagra, but after watching that I'm probably going to have to call my doctor later as a result of having an erection lasting longer than four hours. I thought you are TheDoctor!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Dec 1, 2017 8:01:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecdan8 on Dec 1, 2017 8:48:53 GMT -8
What the portion or area of the stadium was expandability discussed? Not trying to get ahead of things here, but there would seemingly need to have room/space in at least one of the 4 sides of the stadium where expansion would happen.
Was anything said or do any of you know or have some hunches how expansion could be accomplished structurally & proximity?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 1, 2017 9:23:17 GMT -8
"No plan, no vision. Wicky sucks just like Sterky and Hirshy. Total fail" - MOW Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Dec 1, 2017 9:37:24 GMT -8
What the portion or area of the stadium was expandability discussed? Not trying to get ahead of things here, but there would seemingly need to have room/space in at least one of the 4 sides of the stadium where expansion would happen. Was anything said or do any of you know or have some hunches how expansion could be accomplished structurally & proximity? Thanks in advance! Up a new level or enclose sections, But keep in mind this is just an overall concept. The images are simply nothing more than conceptual drawings with little engineering or feasability behind them. While the overall concept will remain, there still is a lot of actual design & engineering work that will be done if/When the Friends of SDSU initiative passes. |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 1, 2017 9:44:02 GMT -8
 "No plan, no vision. Wicky sucks just like Sterky and Hirshy. Total fail" - MOW Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. I am beginning to realize that you are a caricature.
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 1, 2017 9:50:33 GMT -8
Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. I am beginning to realize that you are a caricature. Well, of course, that is one way to address this. Your "shorthand" character attack is equaled only by SDSU's lack of substance. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Dec 1, 2017 10:11:02 GMT -8
"No plan, no vision. Wicky sucks just like Sterky and Hirshy. Total fail" - MOW Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. Not going to take the time to refute your points... Only going to say you have been wrong on this from the get go and you are wrong here... There is plenty of everything needed. For example, Walmart is partnering with Lyft on a preferred network for home deliveries, etc. we know what Amazon is doing and other traditional retailers are all working on what “retail” is going to look like. Since this is going to be built out over the next 10-15 years the whole face of retail will be different making the 55k sqft SM needed for many more homes than today. Also, they have run through all of the revenue streams and done so with folks that know this space and how often an asset like this gets used in a market like San Diego. All they were saying was that they are going to now cover their concept and designs with these folks and get a deeper understanding of how they feel about the design and potential revenue streams. Wait, I started to refute, my bad... |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 1, 2017 10:13:18 GMT -8
Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. Not going to take the time to refute your points... Only going to say you have been wrong on this from the get go and you are wrong here... There is plenty of everything needed. For example, Walmart is partnering with Lyft on a preferred network for home deliveries, etc. we know what Amazon is doing and other traditional retailers are all working on what “retail” is going to look like. Since this is going to be built out over the next 10-15 years the whole face of retail will be different making the 55k sqft SM needed for many more homes than today. Also, they have run through all of the revenue streams and done so with folks that know this space and how often an asset like this gets used in a market like San Diego. All they were saying was that they are going to now cover their concept and designs with these folks and get a deeper understanding of how they feel about the design and potential revenue streams. Wait, I started to refute, my bad... It seems that the UT and you disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Dec 1, 2017 10:47:10 GMT -8
What the portion or area of the stadium was expandability discussed? Not trying to get ahead of things here, but there would seemingly need to have room/space in at least one of the 4 sides of the stadium where expansion would happen. Was anything said or do any of you know or have some hunches how expansion could be accomplished structurally & proximity? Thanks in advance! Great question & concern. JD Wicker on 1360 yesterday discussed that exact point. Check out the SDSU AD JD WICKER JOINS THE LOOSE CANNONS INTERVIEW. If you forward to the 10:00 minute mark its what you want to hear. www.iheart.com/podcast/529-The-SDSU-Aztecs-Rep-28418856/ |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 1, 2017 11:08:36 GMT -8
What the portion or area of the stadium was expandability discussed? Not trying to get ahead of things here, but there would seemingly need to have room/space in at least one of the 4 sides of the stadium where expansion would happen. Was anything said or do any of you know or have some hunches how expansion could be accomplished structurally & proximity? Thanks in advance! It would be nonsense for anyone to think that our proposed new stadium could be expanded to accommodate the NFL. This is merely fodder to gain votes from the "bitter clingers" for a new NFL team. The NFL---with their $1.5 billion, and more, requisite expenditure on a new facility, would never allow their palace to be mounted upon, the---by comparison--Dixie Cup that we'll be propping up. |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Dec 1, 2017 11:15:54 GMT -8
What the portion or area of the stadium was expandability discussed? Not trying to get ahead of things here, but there would seemingly need to have room/space in at least one of the 4 sides of the stadium where expansion would happen. Was anything said or do any of you know or have some hunches how expansion could be accomplished structurally & proximity? Thanks in advance! It would be nonsense for anyone to think that our proposed new stadium could be expanded to accommodate the NFL. This is merely fodder to gain votes from the "bitter clingers" for a new NFL team. The NFL---with their $1.5 billion, and more, requisite expenditure on a new facility, would never allow their palace to be mounted upon, the---by comparison--Dixie Cup that we'll be propping up. I do agree that no NFL will come to play in our stadium. But even though its temporary did anyone really believe you'd see the CHARGERS playing at a tiny soccer stadium below 30k seats? Not me. As for context, between SDSUWest and Soccer City... The most realistic option is the SDSUWest path of expansion and or partnering with an NFL team. Soccer City has an open plot of acreage for an NFL team. But theres no way two stadiums on that site would ever get approved from the city power brokers. |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 1, 2017 11:18:53 GMT -8
The negativity of this board never ceases to amaze me. People here have been crying for a year, saying that SDSU was flailing and faltering. People said they would never be able to get anything done. Yet here they are, with a plan in place. They have developed outside support, who has hired a campaign manger, raised funds, and is moving towards an initiative, just as FS did. What is more impressive is, SDSU did all this in a 7-8 month period, starting from scratch. Meanwhile, the competition had two years, and was inappropriately (potentially illegally) receiving inside information from the city government.
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 1, 2017 11:39:50 GMT -8
The negativity of this board never ceases to amaze me. People here have been crying for a year, saying that SDSU was flailing and faltering. People said they would never be able to get anything done. Yet here they are, with a plan in place. They have developed outside support, who has hired a campaign manger, raised funds, and is moving towards an initiative, just as FS did. What is more impressive is, SDSU did all this in a 7-8 month period, starting from scratch. Meanwhile, the competition had two years, and was inappropriately (potentially illegally) receiving inside information from the city government. We just disagree on "plan". I don't care about the FS plan, except as it impedes, or blocks SDSU. I see SDSU still slow to mount any PR campaign (though better this week) and slow to show any ability whatsoever to fund what they want and wish for. Throwing out "bond" funding without also showing provable revenue streams is almost desperate. But most of all, I am very disappointed that SDSU apparently has no real partner with bank. |
|
|
|
Post by azteca on Dec 1, 2017 11:41:10 GMT -8
"No plan, no vision. Wicky sucks just like Sterky and Hirshy. Total fail" - MOW Hmmm. So you think this is a "plan", eh? First, let's get it right: The Wickster, then Hirshy and Sterky. I will say, that The Wickster did come through on the "pretty pictures", as he promised. So they've sprung for maybe $75,000 to a hundred G's on this so far. Impressive, for SDSU. Good for them and I do like their dream vision---however it is vastly under-parked and under-served by retail. With huge housing and office components, there will be far too little shopping available for potentially 10,000 people who could be living and working there. For example, a neighborhood of only 3,000 homes requires a major supermarket (say 55,000 SF, not 12,000 sf mentioned) to support that population. But in my opinion, they have given us no more of a real plan, than they did 6 months ago. The fact that they have NOT, as yet, even broached the subject (according to the UT) of how they'll generate about $15 million per year in income to support the previously underestimated stadium cost, is troubling---to be kind. People on this board were smart enough to know that it would be $250 to $300 million, while The Wickster was ignorantly spouting off $150 million. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that they had not even done the basic homework of exploring different income streams from the potential targets, BEFORE putting this out there. That should have been something they did 6 months ago. The fact that JMI has no "skin in the game" is also very disappointing. I had---evidently incorrectly--assumed that SDSU would actually have a deep-pocket developer as a partner. I see disaster in the making with this group, as well as years of lawsuits. They'd probably be better off to just try to go the condemnation route, as others have mentioned. MOW, to address one of your points, you do realize that the Fenton Marketplace Center is basically right next door the location and they have a variety of places to shop, including, Lowes. Costco, IKEA plus numerous restaurants. And I'm not sure that we know right if there would or would not be a supermarket. That's a bit premature I would think. |
|
