(04-10-2016 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Article on SDSU possibly having a new stadium & subcampus if the Chargers move to a new stadium in in SD or LA.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2016/4/8/11390858/San-diego-state-campus-stadium

Temple is apparently also looking at building an on campus stadium.

(04-10-2016 02:53 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I thought of the Padres' ballpark as a possible SDSU football home, at least for the period between demolition of Qualcomm Stadium and the opening of "Aztec Stadium". Apparently you can't realistically squeeze a football field in--outfield wall would be just "feet" from the end zone.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/sep/05/football-field-not-a-fit-at-petco/

(04-10-2016 03:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  It would be a bit of a challenge since the existing stadium is basically centered on the property, but if it is built in the northwest corner of the lot it should fit.

(04-10-2016 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Article on SDSU possibly having a new stadium & subcampus if the Chargers move to a new stadium in in SD or LA.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2016/4/8/11390858/San-diego-state-campus-stadium

Temple is apparently also looking at building an on campus stadium.

(04-10-2016 03:56 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Another article: From one old stadium to two new ones?

Interestingly, this article says the "campus" part will include research facilities for both UCSD and SDSU. How will that work? UCSD is the bigger research powerhouse, but the site is much closer to SDSU, and UCSD doesn't have a trolley stop (the Qualcom site is 2 stops from SDSU on the trolley).

Of course the big issue is how to pay for it. The linked article includes this quote from Jim Moores, billionaire owner of the company (JMI) that developed the "West Campus" study and former owner of the Padres:

“Nobody cares about a convention center. Fifty years from now, no one will care about a stadium. Fifty years from now, everyone is going to care about the universities.”

(04-12-2016 08:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know nothing of the situation so of course I am going to throw my opinion in.

Quote:SDSU already plays at the stadium. The stadium is old by NFL standards but average by college standards. Why tear it down just to build another one it its place? At 70k, it may be a little big for SDSU so close off the upper tier. My question would be, would putting $200 million (or what ever the number is) in a new stadium get us a better building than putting $200 million in this one?

(04-12-2016 10:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 08:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know nothing of the situation so of course I am going to throw my opinion in.

I don't know much more than you do, so I will go ahead and answer with confidence. :)

Quote:SDSU already plays at the stadium. The stadium is old by NFL standards but average by college standards. Why tear it down just to build another one it its place? At 70k, it may be a little big for SDSU so close off the upper tier. My question would be, would putting $200 million (or what ever the number is) in a new stadium get us a better building than putting $200 million in this one?

With the Chargers gone, keeping the stadium is not an option. Something is going to be done with that property. That much land, right by the junction of two interstates in the middle of San Diego, sitting there doing nothing 350+ days a year is not going to happen. SDSU footballl 6 nights a year plus a couple of bowl games probably doesn't produce enough revenue to maintain the stadium.

So Q is coming down, and *something* will be done with that choice parcel of land. "SDSU West" (or east or whatever) seems like a pretty good choice. We'll see if a big developer comes in with a competing proposal, or if this rolls forward.

(04-12-2016 01:23 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I can see developing the property around the stadium. I don't see the point in tearing down a 70k stadium to put up a 40k stadium. I think a couple of concerts, a couple of bowl games and an AMWAY convention would cover the cost of maintaining the stadium. If it is going to take $100 million to bring the building up to par, then yes, I would look at replacing. Still a shame because San Diego should have been taking better care of the building. It reminds me of Atlanta and their need to tear down stadiums every 20 years for what ever reason.

(04-12-2016 01:23 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I can see developing the property around the stadium. I don't see the point in tearing down a 70k stadium to put up a 40k stadium.

Quote: I think a couple of concerts, a couple of bowl games and an AMWAY convention would cover the cost of maintaining the stadium. If it is going to take $100 million to bring the building up to par, then yes, I would look at replacing. Still a shame because San Diego should have been taking better care of the building. It reminds me of Atlanta and their need to tear down stadiums every 20 years for what ever reason.

On the other hand, I do like the look of that graphic. So...

(04-12-2016 01:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:23 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I can see developing the property around the stadium. I don't see the point in tearing down a 70k stadium to put up a 40k stadium.

There's no point in having a 70,000 stadium if you don't have parking.

The 40,000 seat stadium won't need 40,000 people worth of parking, because the students are going to be walking from SDSU New Campus, or taking good public transit from SDSU ORiginal.

Quote: I think a couple of concerts, a couple of bowl games and an AMWAY convention would cover the cost of maintaining the stadium. If it is going to take $100 million to bring the building up to par, then yes, I would look at replacing. Still a shame because San Diego should have been taking better care of the building. It reminds me of Atlanta and their need to tear down stadiums every 20 years for what ever reason.

On the other hand, I do like the look of that graphic. So...

Well, wikipedia says it was built in 1967.

It's not about the stadium. It's about SDSU New Campus, and part of that is a stadium.

Its "70,000 aging stadium" vs "spend money for New CAmpus, including stadium."

Qualcomm without the Chargers is finished. The question is what gets built there instead.

(04-12-2016 01:58 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  This bigger fight seems to be the city council doesn't want to donate land to the University rather than want $$ for it.
One of the quotes in the article from the SDSU president was that Universities were in the business of having land donated to them rather buy land.
We'll see what will happen soon.

(04-12-2016 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:58 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  This bigger fight seems to be the city council doesn't want to donate land to the University rather than want $$ for it.
One of the quotes in the article from the SDSU president was that Universities were in the business of having land donated to them rather buy land.
We'll see what will happen soon.

That tells me the city council, rightly or wrongly, believes that there is someone out there who will give the city a big sack of cash for the land, to build whatever it is.

(04-12-2016 03:22 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:58 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  This bigger fight seems to be the city council doesn't want to donate land to the University rather than want $$ for it.
One of the quotes in the article from the SDSU president was that Universities were in the business of having land donated to them rather buy land.
We'll see what will happen soon.

That tells me the city council, rightly or wrongly, believes that there is someone out there who will give the city a big sack of cash for the land, to build whatever it is.

They're not wrong that someone will pay.

150ish acres for sale on a transit line, adjacent to multiple interstates and close to downtown is something most developers dream of. Especially in a city with housing costs as high as San Diego.

(04-12-2016 09:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 03:56 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Another article: From one old stadium to two new ones?

Interestingly, this article says the "campus" part will include research facilities for both UCSD and SDSU. How will that work? UCSD is the bigger research powerhouse, but the site is much closer to SDSU, and UCSD doesn't have a trolley stop (the Qualcom site is 2 stops from SDSU on the trolley).

Of course the big issue is how to pay for it. The linked article includes this quote from Jim Moores, billionaire owner of the company (JMI) that developed the "West Campus" study and former owner of the Padres:

“Nobody cares about a convention center. Fifty years from now, no one will care about a stadium. Fifty years from now, everyone is going to care about the universities.”

I think the president reaching out to Univ of San Diego and UC-San Diego and there housing/research needs to get overcome any obstacles in getting the land first and to 'split' the costs. If the UC and CSU system shared costs then the plan may happen more quickly. Qualcomm is in the middle of USD and SDSU.

(04-12-2016 03:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:22 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:58 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  This bigger fight seems to be the city council doesn't want to donate land to the University rather than want $$ for it.
One of the quotes in the article from the SDSU president was that Universities were in the business of having land donated to them rather buy land.
We'll see what will happen soon.

That tells me the city council, rightly or wrongly, believes that there is someone out there who will give the city a big sack of cash for the land, to build whatever it is.

They're not wrong that someone will pay.

150ish acres for sale on a transit line, adjacent to multiple interstates and close to downtown is something most developers dream of. Especially in a city with housing costs as high as San Diego.

Exactly. This is prime land.

The article that I linked to above (From one old stadium to two new ones?) said that, "They looked at multiple alternatives. On one side was high-density projects involving housing, which Kratzer said is 'no question ... the highest and best use for that land.....The shocking thing we found was the value was the same when doing a low-density, university project.' Why that is owes, in part, to the relative costs of the projects, different environmental and ingress/egress requirements."