|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 8, 2019 13:11:22 GMT -8
May I suggest a hat, for possible day games? Or a rain jacket or poncho, if it rains? "Problem" solved. Or you can just stay home. Again, I said it was a minor issue. Maybe you can stay home. Let it rain, or let it be sunny during day games (should we play any in the future). I'm there no matter what. It's not an issue at all. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 8, 2019 13:37:00 GMT -8
You must know, that what triggers, and allows, another big bite of the apple, is a new development. Often a new police station, or public bathroom, or library, is funded by the developer as a condition of a new development. It's extortion, but legal. And THIS is their last shot at fulfilling their wish list in that area. Not quite. Riverwalk is destined to be developed and I do think the Mission Valley Mall's (now Westgate) best days are over. Not quite? Oh, I was talking about the "Q" end of Mission Valley--east. RiverWalk, on the western end, will have it's own line-up of hats to fill, when they pull permits in a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Oct 8, 2019 14:29:44 GMT -8
Then my question to the city would be, where is all the development fees that have been collected in the last 3 decades from all the development in the valley, and was any of it actually earmarked for that bridge? I have asked Scott Sherman that very question via email, and I await his response. (Honestly, I don't expect one) I was coming back from a charity event a couple of Thursdays ago. Radio was on KOGO and SS and someone else was on talking about the bridge. They did make it apparent that other developments in the area would have to contribute to the construction of the bridge but that no money would be collected until the bridge is actually constructed. The problem with this is that the City agreed to build the bridge as part of their negotiations on the Civita development. In essence this would amount to shifting the responsibility of building the bridge from Civita to SDSU. In what world does this make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 8, 2019 14:33:36 GMT -8
I was coming back from a charity event a couple of Thursdays ago. Radio was on KOGO and SS and someone else was on talking about the bridge. They did make it apparent that other developments in the area would have to contribute to the construction of the bridge but that no money would be collected until the bridge is actually constructed. The problem with this is that the City agreed to build the bridge as part of their negotiations on the Civita development. In essence this would amount to shifting the responsibility of building the bridge from Civita to SDSU. In what world does this make sense? Curiouser and curiouser, Civita is owned/developed by Sudberry. Sudberry is part of the Friends of SDSU, yes? |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 8, 2019 15:10:08 GMT -8
Or you can just stay home. Again, I said it was a minor issue. Maybe you can stay home. Let it rain, or let it be sunny during day games (should we play any in the future). I'm there no matter what. It's not an issue at all. If we were building this for the hardcore fans we could save a ton of money and build a 15K bleacher seat stadium. As I said, for night games not having cover is rather minor, there will be some games when it will rain and fans will stay home. Were we playing during the day then many would find the lack of shade to be a "deal-breaker," at least during August and September. But, I don't see us playing any day games while a member of the MWC. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 8, 2019 15:16:57 GMT -8
Not quite. Riverwalk is destined to be developed and I do think the Mission Valley Mall's (now Westgate) best days are over. Not quite? Oh, I was talking about the "Q" end of Mission Valley--east. RiverWalk, on the western end, will have it's own line-up of hats to fill, when they pull permits in a couple of years. Both sites are within 3 miles of the proposed campus expansion with Friars being the main connector. The MV Mall is even closer and being on Camino Del Rio North and within 1.5 miles of the proposed bridge would definitely benefit from a bridge there. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 8, 2019 15:18:43 GMT -8
Not quite? Oh, I was talking about the "Q" end of Mission Valley--east. RiverWalk, on the western end, will have it's own line-up of hats to fill, when they pull permits in a couple of years. Both sites are within 3 miles of the proposed campus expansion with Friars being the main connector. The MV Mall is even closer and being on Camino Del Rio North and within 1.5 miles of the proposed bridge would definitely benefit from a bridge there. The city should have built the bridge years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 8, 2019 15:28:42 GMT -8
I was coming back from a charity event a couple of Thursdays ago. Radio was on KOGO and SS and someone else was on talking about the bridge. They did make it apparent that other developments in the area would have to contribute to the construction of the bridge but that no money would be collected until the bridge is actually constructed. The problem with this is that the City agreed to build the bridge as part of their negotiations on the Civita development. In essence this would amount to shifting the responsibility of building the bridge from Civita to SDSU. In what world does this make sense? And where would I find that? Somewhere in the linked document? www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/community/profiles/missionvalley/pdf/plans/quarryfallsspecificplan.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 8, 2019 15:32:33 GMT -8
Both sites are within 3 miles of the proposed campus expansion with Friars being the main connector. The MV Mall is even closer and being on Camino Del Rio North and within 1.5 miles of the proposed bridge would definitely benefit from a bridge there. The city should have built the bridge years ago. It doesn't really matter, developers are often called on to make improvements for the public good as part of gaining approval for their project. This isn't a new game and like one other poster said, I would like to know if they got commitments towards funding the bridge from other recent developments in MV. As someone who lives in the city limits, but not in the MV area, I don't want my taxes to go up to fund the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 8, 2019 15:42:24 GMT -8
The city should have built the bridge years ago. It doesn't really matter, developers are often called on to make improvements for the public good as part of gaining approval for their project. This isn't a new game and like one other poster said, I would like to know if they got commitments towards funding the bridge from other recent developments in MV. As someone who lives in the city limits, but not in the MV area, I don't want my taxes to go up to fund the bridge. I was that "other poster". |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 8, 2019 15:55:27 GMT -8
It doesn't really matter, developers are often called on to make improvements for the public good as part of gaining approval for their project. This isn't a new game and like one other poster said, I would like to know if they got commitments towards funding the bridge from other recent developments in MV. As someone who lives in the city limits, but not in the MV area, I don't want my taxes to go up to fund the bridge. I was that "other poster". Good to know. I have been consistent on here saying that the bridge would benefit the campus expansion as well as the rest of the area. I would like to see costs of building the bridge spread among those who would benefit, which includes the city. |
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Oct 8, 2019 19:15:40 GMT -8
I was coming back from a charity event a couple of Thursdays ago. Radio was on KOGO and SS and someone else was on talking about the bridge. They did make it apparent that other developments in the area would have to contribute to the construction of the bridge but that no money would be collected until the bridge is actually constructed. The problem with this is that the City agreed to build the bridge as part of their negotiations on the Civita development. In essence this would amount to shifting the responsibility of building the bridge from Civita to SDSU. In what world does this make sense? Naturally, in the world of politics where you say or claim one thing and turn around and do the exact opposite! Soitenly!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by redaztec5150 on Oct 9, 2019 7:07:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 9, 2019 8:10:54 GMT -8
The referenced article should be sent to Squirmin' Scott Sherman's office. In fact, it should go to all city councilmembers, the mayor, and anyone else from the city who is on their negotiating team. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Oct 9, 2019 10:30:11 GMT -8
I was that "other poster". Good to know. I have been consistent on here saying that the bridge would benefit the campus expansion as well as the rest of the area. I would like to see costs of building the bridge spread among those who would benefit, which includes the city. I don't see a large benefit of the bridge to SDSU west on a daily basis, I can actually see more negatives that impact the development, i.e. create more traffic inside the development. They aren't building a huge retail and entertainment district, so they aren't going to need to attract thousands of card per day by having easier access. Only large traffic demands will be during events, which is partially why the stadium is located where it is. The development is more for the innovation district and housing, and they won't want a ton of traffic diverted through what is essentially a neighborhood just so people can jump from the freeway/Friars to Camino Del Rio North or getting to Ikea and Costco. The main traffic from the housing, in theory, should be mostly SDSU related occupants. Most traffic leaving during the week should be going to the campus, where there isn't any parking anyway, so the trolley will most likely be utilized for the majority of travel. I would imagine the large section of the people living in the housing, in theory, will actually be working in the innovation district or taking classes @ SDSU west, meaning there wouldn't be hundreds of cars making the commute to work every day. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 9, 2019 14:45:36 GMT -8
Good to know. I have been consistent on here saying that the bridge would benefit the campus expansion as well as the rest of the area. I would like to see costs of building the bridge spread among those who would benefit, which includes the city. I don't see a large benefit of the bridge to SDSU west on a daily basis, I can actually see more negatives that impact the development, i.e. create more traffic inside the development. They aren't building a huge retail and entertainment district, so they aren't going to need to attract thousands of card per day by having easier access. Only large traffic demands will be during events, which is partially why the stadium is located where it is. The development is more for the innovation district and housing, and they won't want a ton of traffic diverted through what is essentially a neighborhood just so people can jump from the freeway/Friars to Camino Del Rio North or getting to Ikea and Costco. The main traffic from the housing, in theory, should be mostly SDSU related occupants. Most traffic leaving during the week should be going to the campus, where there isn't any parking anyway, so the trolley will most likely be utilized for the majority of travel. I would imagine the large section of the people living in the housing, in theory, will actually be working in the innovation district or taking classes @ SDSU west, meaning there wouldn't be hundreds of cars making the commute to work every day. Look, more traffic is going to be generated on a daily basis by the development, and most of that traffic is going on Friars Rd. Anything coming from or going to highway 8 is going to impact Fairmount. Of course a bridge at Fenton Pkwy is going to alleviate traffic as it would provide a brand new route to get from Highway 8 to the new campus, Fenton Marketplace and some of the surrounding apartments without adding traffic to Friars. Also, there will be non-university residences as well as 400 new hotel rooms. There will be 6,200 parking spaces. I live in San Carlos. My closest freeway access to go West, North or South is at Friars Rd. I avoid MV as much as I can because traffic there is already bad. I don't want to see it even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Oct 9, 2019 15:03:10 GMT -8
I don't see a large benefit of the bridge to SDSU west on a daily basis, I can actually see more negatives that impact the development, i.e. create more traffic inside the development. They aren't building a huge retail and entertainment district, so they aren't going to need to attract thousands of card per day by having easier access. Only large traffic demands will be during events, which is partially why the stadium is located where it is. The development is more for the innovation district and housing, and they won't want a ton of traffic diverted through what is essentially a neighborhood just so people can jump from the freeway/Friars to Camino Del Rio North or getting to Ikea and Costco. The main traffic from the housing, in theory, should be mostly SDSU related occupants. Most traffic leaving during the week should be going to the campus, where there isn't any parking anyway, so the trolley will most likely be utilized for the majority of travel. I would imagine the large section of the people living in the housing, in theory, will actually be working in the innovation district or taking classes @ SDSU west, meaning there wouldn't be hundreds of cars making the commute to work every day. Look, more traffic is going to be generated on a daily basis by the development, and most of that traffic is going on Friars Rd. Anything coming from or going to highway 8 is going to impact Fairmount. Of course a bridge at Fenton Pkwy is going to alleviate traffic as it would provide a brand new route to get from Highway 8 to the new campus, Fenton Marketplace and some of the surrounding apartments without adding traffic to Friars. Also, there will be non-university residences as well as 400 new hotel rooms. There will be 6,200 parking spaces. I live in San Carlos. My closest freeway access to go West, North or South is at Friars Rd. I avoid MV as much as I can because traffic there is already bad. I don't want to see it even worse. If you are concerned about the impact on yourself, then I'd worry more about Civita and the gridlock it is/will create on Friars. Any traffic impact SDSU will have will be 5+ years from now, which will in fact be mostly students and faculty. If I lived at SDSU west, I would take the road on the East side that connects quite easily to Rancho Mission and then connect to Camino Del Rio. From there, I am free to head toward Mission George or Mission Valley, or connect to to the 8 and 15. and return just the same. My other alternative is to take the trolley in either direction. No reason for me to try and fight the Costco traffic on a bridge. Would a bridge help, yes, but it is not a cost the SDSU be liable for. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 9, 2019 15:12:36 GMT -8
Look, more traffic is going to be generated on a daily basis by the development, and most of that traffic is going on Friars Rd. Anything coming from or going to highway 8 is going to impact Fairmount. Of course a bridge at Fenton Pkwy is going to alleviate traffic as it would provide a brand new route to get from Highway 8 to the new campus, Fenton Marketplace and some of the surrounding apartments without adding traffic to Friars. Also, there will be non-university residences as well as 400 new hotel rooms. There will be 6,200 parking spaces. I live in San Carlos. My closest freeway access to go West, North or South is at Friars Rd. I avoid MV as much as I can because traffic there is already bad. I don't want to see it even worse. If you are concerned about the impact on yourself, then I'd worry more about Civita and the gridlock it is/will create on Friars. Any traffic impact SDSU will have will be 5+ years from now, which will in fact be mostly students and faculty. If I lived at SDSU west, I would take the road on the East side that connects quite easily to Rancho Mission and then connect to Camino Del Rio. From there, I am free to head toward Mission George or Mission Valley, or connect to to the 8 and 15. and return just the same. My other alternative is to take the trolley in either direction. No reason for me to try and fight the Costco traffic on a bridge. I worry about any impacts on traffic and you are understating the impact of traffic from the new campus. I'm one of those rare ones, someone who hates to be stuck in traffic. Oh, and I plan to be still around in 5 years. If you read the draft EIR you will see, as part of the road plan, that the university plans a new stoplight where the campus road intersects with Fenton Parkway. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Oct 9, 2019 15:22:45 GMT -8
If you are concerned about the impact on yourself, then I'd worry more about Civita and the gridlock it is/will create on Friars. Any traffic impact SDSU will have will be 5+ years from now, which will in fact be mostly students and faculty. If I lived at SDSU west, I would take the road on the East side that connects quite easily to Rancho Mission and then connect to Camino Del Rio. From there, I am free to head toward Mission George or Mission Valley, or connect to to the 8 and 15. and return just the same. My other alternative is to take the trolley in either direction. No reason for me to try and fight the Costco traffic on a bridge. I worry about any impacts on traffic and you are understating the impact of traffic from the new campus. I one of those rare ones, someone who hates to be stuck in traffic. Oh, and I plan to be still around in 5 years. If you read the draft EIR you will see, as part of the road plan, that the university plans a new stoplight where the campus road intersects with Fenton Parkway. I'm not saying there WON'T be a traffic impact, but that the bridge isn't going to create much of a cure all for that area, and the SDSU West isn't going to have the massive impact that the other developments are having already. Not enough to warrant SDSU paying for a bridge. Besides, a lot of people feel the same, they hate traffic, so the Trolley is a great option to commute to a campus with zero parking. Also, I was trying to think... there isn't a connector on Camino Del Rio to the 8 between Qualcomm Way and Fairmount, so I still don't see how a bridge will help a whole lot. Only create the same congestion at the same intersections. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Oct 9, 2019 15:54:13 GMT -8
Just a quick take from my trip to CSU's stadium.
I think it was covered on the first thread page pretty well. It's a beautiful stadium, BUT...
There is nothing there indicative -- or iconic -- showing that it belongs to Colorado State. It's a beautiful stadium, alright -- but you can put it on any one of about 75 FBS campuses right now.
When you look at Georgia, you know where you are immediately because of the hedges. When you look at Notre Dame: TD Jesus. USC: The peristyle. Washington has the lake. Ohio State has those big buildings in the end zone corner. Colorado State, you could just as easily be at North Carolina State if you didn't know better. And in a couple of decades when the novelty wears off and the sparkling concrete of the Rams' stadium begins to look worn, it won't have much more punch to it than the stadium they just left.
I hope that, in the "details" phase of designing this new thing we've got down at SDSU West, the architect will give SDSU art, history, etc departments a call and ask them to come up with something to incorporate into the building that gives it an identity that is SDSU.
|
|
