(03-08-2017 11:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It costs San Diego something like $10m a year just to operate the site - that is from an earlier UT-SD article quoting a city official. Add to that the need for maintenance, which will quickly run into the tens of millions to keep an old stadium like that in usable condition, and it's clear why they don't want to keep it going. SDSU simply does not pay enough rent to operate a stadium like that. They were riding the Chargers who were the real income driver.

Supposedly the land is worth $60m, but that number seems ridiculously low for California, so I'd guess imply selling the land in the open market could get double that. Plus if it is developed into a business park (tech) the revenue derived could run well into the 8 figures easily in tax revenue. So keeping the site open for SDSU has a total cost of a minimum of $20m per year compared to building a tech park. Land is getting to be like NYC in parts of California; hard to get and ridiculously expensive.

Agreed, keeping the site as is and leaving Qualcomm Stadium there would be an absurd waste of money.

Fun with Google: A developer bought 8.78 acres last year in the same part of San Diego for $31 million. People can argue, the stadium land needs environmental cleanup, it's not zoned for residential, yada yada yada, but if you use that price-per-acre, then the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium parcel would be worth about $586 million. So even if the land is not (currently) zoned for residential, that $60 million figure is waaaaay too low.

Politicians usually don't think like businesspeople, but the business move would be to sell the land for market value, minus a credit for the cost of the developer tearing down the stadium, to a developer who will build something on the site that will generate tax revenue for the city.

Yes, but it is now a run down high school stadium that seats only 3K. I wonder if they could play a bunch of neutral site games till they get something built.

(03-09-2017 01:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, but it is now a run down high school stadium that seats only 3K. I wonder if they could play a bunch of neutral site games till they get something built.

So they basically just tore the stadium down and left the field.

With Petco on the table for 2019 and 2020 that buys SDSU time.

Attendance wise they are in an odd tweener situation. Better off not being in an NFL sized stadium but draw too well for the typical MLS type facility.

(03-09-2017 01:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 01:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, but it is now a run down high school stadium that seats only 3K. I wonder if they could play a bunch of neutral site games till they get something built.

So they basically just tore the stadium down and left the field.

With Petco on the table for 2019 and 2020 that buys SDSU time.

Attendance wise they are in an odd tweener situation. Better off not being in an NFL sized stadium but draw too well for the typical MLS type facility.

Honestly, what they need is something similar to what Houston built.

The land from the removed stands was used for the high school's building expansion. It can't be built back up.

I think all you guys who are not from out here, really don't understand how little space there is now in urban California. Everything is in use, from ocean to mountain's edge, housing and business development packed solid. It is the same in LA, OC, SD and the Bay Area. Every inch of space available is used. (The green stuff is not touchable, it's set aside as parkland ... both a positive and a negative; as we build up we have open space, but the downside is we are packed living in a smaller area). To build something new you have to take out something already standing.

This lack of open land is why it took it takes a Stan Kroenke to build a stadium. The ownership in San Diego didn't have the money, and they are worth over $1B. SDSU is in a world of hurt. They have to buy some land and build a stadium. God only knows where that will be and where the money to pay for it will come from.

Be a shame if they had to drop. SDSU is a mildly promising program.

(03-09-2017 01:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It costs San Diego something like $10m a year just to operate the site - that is from an earlier UT-SD article quoting a city official. Add to that the need for maintenance, which will quickly run into the tens of millions to keep an old stadium like that in usable condition, and it's clear why they don't want to keep it going. SDSU simply does not pay enough rent to operate a stadium like that. They were riding the Chargers who were the real income driver.

Supposedly the land is worth $60m, but that number seems ridiculously low for California, so I'd guess imply selling the land in the open market could get double that. Plus if it is developed into a business park (tech) the revenue derived could run well into the 8 figures easily in tax revenue. So keeping the site open for SDSU has a total cost of a minimum of $20m per year compared to building a tech park. Land is getting to be like NYC in parts of California; hard to get and ridiculously expensive.

Agreed, keeping the site as is and leaving Qualcomm Stadium there would be an absurd waste of money.

Fun with Google: A developer bought 8.78 acres last year in the same part of San Diego for $31 million. People can argue, the stadium land needs environmental cleanup, it's not zoned for residential, yada yada yada, but if you use that price-per-acre, then the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium parcel would be worth about $586 million. So even if the land is not (currently) zoned for residential, that $60 million figure is waaaaay too low.

Politicians usually don't think like businesspeople, but the business move would be to sell the land for market value, minus a credit for the cost of the developer tearing down the stadium, to a developer who will build something on the site that will generate tax revenue for the city.

One solution might be to focus on a stadium design that takes up as little footprint as possible, including garages for parking. Qualcomm Stadium occupies a huge chunk of land, with most of it devoted to surface parking a la a surburban shopping mall. Many on campus stadia and urban European soccer stadia accommodate 30-40k capacities in extremely tight spaces. This could free up a large portion of the Qualcomm site for residential or mixed use development.

(03-09-2017 02:02 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The land from the removed stands was used for the high school's building expansion. It can't be built back up.

I think all you guys who are not from out here, really don't understand how little space there is now in urban California. Everything is in use, from ocean to mountain's edge, housing and business development packed solid. It is the same in LA, OC, SD and the Bay Area. Every inch of space available is used. (The green stuff is not touchable, it's set aside as parkland ... both a positive and a negative; as we build up we have open space, but the downside is we are packed living in a smaller area). To build something new you have to take out something already standing.

This lack of open land is why it took it takes a Stan Kroenke to build a stadium. The ownership in San Diego didn't have the money, and they are worth over $1B. SDSU is in a world of hurt. They have to buy some land and build a stadium. God only knows where that will be and where the money to pay for it will come from.

The fact that much of this discussion is asking about whether there are existing facilities that can be upgraded is a recognition that starting from scratch would be super expensive.

(03-09-2017 01:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 01:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, but it is now a run down high school stadium that seats only 3K. I wonder if they could play a bunch of neutral site games till they get something built.

So they basically just tore the stadium down and left the field.

With Petco on the table for 2019 and 2020 that buys SDSU time.

Attendance wise they are in an odd tweener situation. Better off not being in an NFL sized stadium but draw too well for the typical MLS type facility.

The MLS San Diego plan calls for 40k stadium. Slightly large for current MLS needs, but the league is growing and has a few teams that will undoubtedly hit that number regularly (Seattle already does). So building a 40k building makes sense if you expect the interest to jump. As has been mentioned the big if is if San Diego gets a team. Sacramento was the poster child for waiting in the wings, and you have to think with LAFC coming on board next year, if Cow town were to get a team that would likely leave San Diego on the outside looking in.

Then again MLS expansion has always been fluid. The league is approaching a normal max size for an American sports league with maybe room for four more teams (after the current 4 expansion slots are filled). So that means that if there are 6 knock it out of the park proposals from the current 12 it is likely that all 6 will get in. MLS has also shown remarkable patience when they really want a location. So if they really want San Diego (this is the third time that SD seemingly popped up out of nowhere in expansion talks), then that would bode well for SDSU.

Wow. From stugray's post, the situation for SDSU in a new stadium at Qualcomm site looks bleak, unless SD happens to be selected for MLS expansion and then if SDSU can work out something affordable and agreeable to those looking to build an MLS stadium there.


Otherwise ....

looking at SDSU's campus, there doesn't appear to be a lot of feasible locations for a new stadium.


Do you think they could try squeezing one into that open space to the east of Viejas?? Might be big enough for at least a 20-25k stadium?

(03-08-2017 08:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 07:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Did BYU actually want to stay in the MWC for non-fb sports?

Yes. In early June of 2010, Utah announced they were going to the PAC, BYU instantly started talking about going Indy in football. They wanted to keep everything else in the MWC. The MWC refused giving them an all or nothing ultimatum. They first tried putting their Olympic sports in the WAC but the WAC got raided by the MWC. It looked dicey, then around 11:59 PM, 8/31/2010, The WCC offered them a spot at the 11th hour allowing for them to go Indy.
Cheers!

BYU had been looking at football Indy for two years prior to the announcement. The groundbreaking for the (very expensive) BYUTV broadcast building was in May 2009.

The desire largely stemmed from the way the MWC handled the "The Mtn." channel and its TV deal. I lived in my home state of Oregon at the time and could only get 1 or 2 BYU football games on TV (on Versus....), even though I had Comcast, which owned the Mtn. It was horrible and pretty much the status quo for most BYU fans outside of Utah. The Mtn. wasn't available on DirecTV and there were many instances where there weren't options to watch BYU sports even in Utah.

The Ewetes leaving for the PAC was definitely the catalyst for BYU's August 2010 *timing* for the independence announcement. But, the plan had been in the works for some time.

(03-09-2017 11:55 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 07:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Did BYU actually want to stay in the MWC for non-fb sports?

Yes. In early June of 2010, Utah announced they were going to the PAC, BYU instantly started talking about going Indy in football. They wanted to keep everything else in the MWC. The MWC refused giving them an all or nothing ultimatum. They first tried putting their Olympic sports in the WAC but the WAC got raided by the MWC. It looked dicey, then around 11:59 PM, 8/31/2010, The WCC offered them a spot at the 11th hour allowing for them to go Indy.
Cheers!

BYU had been looking at football Indy for two years prior to the announcement. The groundbreaking for the (very expensive) BYUTV broadcast building was in May 2009.

The desire largely stemmed from the way the MWC handled the "The Mtn." channel and its TV deal. I lived in my home state of Oregon at the time and could only get 1 or 2 BYU football games on TV (on Versus....), even though I had Comcast, which owned the Mtn. It was horrible and pretty much the status quo for most BYU fans outside of Utah. The Mtn. wasn't available on DirecTV and there were many instances where there weren't options to watch BYU sports even in Utah.

The Ewetes leaving for the PAC was definitely the catalyst for BYU's August 2010 *timing* for the independence announcement. But, the plan had been in the works for some time.

The mtn. did end up of Direct TV.

I do not feel sorry SDSU and here are the reasons. They started playing there football games in Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. They have had 50 years to get ready and plan for the day when they had to face the situation they are in today. Qualcomm was build in a day when many cities were building multiuse stadiums. The writing has been on the wall for many years now on the fate of Qualcomm.

Three Rivers Stadium Gone
Riverfront Stadium Gone
Atlanta Stadium Gone
Veterans Stadium Gone
Busch Memorial Stadium Gone
RFK Stadium, About to lost last team DC United
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum, A's are the only team left and they want a new stadium.

(03-08-2017 01:23 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  At least according to this article.

If the Aztecs have to drop football, where do they go? Big West? And what happens to the MWC?

Writer is ill informed of how big city politics work and the finances of ginat downtown universities.

I say that as a fan of a school that had similar articles written 3 years ago.

(03-09-2017 08:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 01:23 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  At least according to this article.

If the Aztecs have to drop football, where do they go? Big West? And what happens to the MWC?

Writer is ill informed of how big city politics work and the finances of ginat downtown universities.

I say that as a fan of a school that had similar articles written 3 years ago.

Less room in San Diego than in Atlanta. Politics in California are much different too, though San Diego is much more conservative than the other big cities in CA. This will be interesting.
Cheers!

(03-09-2017 04:22 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I do not feel sorry SDSU and here are the reasons. They started playing there football games in Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. They have had 50 years to get ready and plan for the day when they had to face the situation they are in today. Qualcomm was build in a day when many cities were building multiuse stadiums. The writing has been on the wall for many years now on the fate of Qualcomm.

Three Rivers Stadium Gone
Riverfront Stadium Gone
Atlanta Stadium Gone
Veterans Stadium Gone
Busch Memorial Stadium Gone
RFK Stadium, About to lost last team DC United
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum, A's are the only team left and they want a new stadium.

Great post. I don't understand why San Diego St allowed themselves to get in this situation in the first place. Years ago when land was cheaper and more available they could have built a stadium. They could have built it at the Veijas site 15 years ago. This story is shocking. Where are the SDSU fans who used to post on here? They disappeared! Why? I want to hear from them on this.
Cheers!

(03-09-2017 04:22 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I do not feel sorry SDSU and here are the reasons. They started playing there football games in Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. They have had 50 years to get ready and plan for the day when they had to face the situation they are in today. Qualcomm was build in a day when many cities were building multiuse stadiums. The writing has been on the wall for many years now on the fate of Qualcomm.

Three Rivers Stadium Gone
Riverfront Stadium Gone
Atlanta Stadium Gone
Veterans Stadium Gone
Busch Memorial Stadium Gone
RFK Stadium, About to lost last team DC United
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum, A's are the only team left and they want a new stadium.

Until recently, the Aztecs could have reasonably thought the Chargers would have a new stadium in San Diego before Qualcomm Stadium was torn down.

Most of your examples above -- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and the DC area -- built new stadiums for their NFL teams.

Pitt and Temple play in the new NFL stadiums in their cities.

Tampa built a new NFL stadium that is being utilized by South Florida football.

Miami built an NFL stadium that has been used by the Canes since the OB was torn down.

(03-09-2017 08:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 04:22 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I do not feel sorry SDSU and here are the reasons. They started playing there football games in Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. They have had 50 years to get ready and plan for the day when they had to face the situation they are in today. Qualcomm was build in a day when many cities were building multiuse stadiums. The writing has been on the wall for many years now on the fate of Qualcomm.

Three Rivers Stadium Gone
Riverfront Stadium Gone
Atlanta Stadium Gone
Veterans Stadium Gone
Busch Memorial Stadium Gone
RFK Stadium, About to lost last team DC United
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum, A's are the only team left and they want a new stadium.

Until recently, the Aztecs could have reasonably thought the Chargers would have a new stadium in San Diego before Qualcomm Stadium was torn down.

Most of your examples above -- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and the DC area -- built new stadiums for their NFL teams.

Pitt and Temple play in the new NFL stadiums in their cities.

Tampa built a new NFL stadium that is being utilized by South Florida football.

Miami built an NFL stadium that has been used by the Canes since the OB was torn down.

But the SDSU fans on here had been cheering for years that the Chargers would leave believing it a good thing for SDSU!! Why did they think it was a good thing for their program if it may now cost them their football team??
Cheers!

Is there any chance that the can just leave Qualcomm standing if the MLS thing doesn't work out?

You forgot Candlestick, the poster child for awful. One feature was the Hunters point slum overlooking the parking lot. The local preteens would sometimes practice rock tossing at the cars down below. Another feature the brilliant planners gave us was the wonderful weather resulting from being at the exit of the San Bruno wind tunnel; it was so cold, windy and miserable for baseball that the joke went, the coldest winter I ever experienced was one July in San Francisco.

I even have a Croix de Candlestick!