Can SDSU share the stadium with a possible MLS franchise? Or maybe with the Padres in downtown? I'm a native Californian but I don't keep up with California politics and economics. Wasn't the state cutting all the UC and CSUs budgets? If so, how could SDSU justify spending millions of dollars in a brand new stadium? It won't be cheap since California's labor costs are higher than mostly everywhere.

(04-13-2016 07:16 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Can SDSU share the stadium with a possible MLS franchise? Or maybe with the Padres in downtown? I'm a native Californian but I don't keep up with California politics and economics. Wasn't the state cutting all the UC and CSUs budgets? If so, how could SDSU justify spending millions of dollars in a brand new stadium? It won't be cheap since California's labor costs are higher than mostly everywhere.

Petco isn't really possible. A football field won't really fit in the dimensions of that ball park. SDSU could definitely share with a MLS franchise.

The CSU system is actually looking to expand and just issued a bunch of bonds for facilities improvements. This project would fall right in line with what the Chancellor is looking to do going forward.

(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.

That and Wedge's data makes a much clearer picture.