Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,198
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #41
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-12-2017 05:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Agree MplsBison. I'm from Ohio. The analogies Bearcat gives work in Ohio, but not in California. It's a different culture.

Yes, of course. But the point of that statement was that the taxpayers will be more willing to give SDSU this large of a handout than UCSD, even though UCSD is just as large and is the better academic school.
04-13-2017 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aztec Since 88 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 117
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: San Diego State
Location:
Post: #42
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Here is a little of San Diego history.

The City of San Diego gifted UCSD over 500+ acres in La Jolla to originally build their campus. In addition UCSD was also able acquire in another gift of an additional 500 acres from the federal government which was the old Camp Mathews. So there has been some precedent set albeit 50 years ago. Also, the Q site is 166 acres of land which the City only owns half the land and the water district owns the other half. The city can only gift their land not the water district's portion of the site.

SDSU's goal is to increase their student population to around 50k from the 35K current enrollment. The Q site is connected by a trolley ride of about 7 minutes to the main campus. This is why they want to develop the land to grow the university and also build a new stadium over time, with the new stadium coming first. SDSU does have a couple of spots near campus where the university owns land, where it could build a new stadium but it is close to many residential homes and in CA, it would take forever to build there.

Even under the Soccer City plan initiative they only want purchase the Q site land for 10K.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html

My bet is FS investors the group sponsoring Soccer City and SDSU will come to an agreement in where they can share the site. What the final agreement looks is still TBD. One of the lead investors of Soccer City is a huge SDSU booster as well, and help build they new basketball JAM Center for the hoops programs. He is the A in the initials JAM. I think the mayor will act as the intermediary between both groups to work out something that is amicable.

Lastly, the hard part for SDSU, is they just got a new AD last fall and are in the process of searching for a new University president, as he is leaving to take another job back east in June. Hopefully, we can cue Fisher to take the lead in this for SDSU, now that he is retired from basketball and being retained by SDSU as special designee for the University.
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2017 07:40 PM by Aztec Since 88.)
04-13-2017 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #43
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-13-2017 06:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  taxpayers will be more willing to give SDSU this large of a handout

I guess it all depends on how you spin it.

Right now, the city owns their piece of the land and have to pay $X million per year to maintain it (mostly to upkeep the stadium). By "giving it away" to SDSU, that actually removes a considerable amount of yearly cost from the city's books.

Of course, you can take the position -- like I do -- that the land is very valuable and should actually be sold to SDSU at market price.
04-14-2017 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,198
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #44
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-13-2017 07:37 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  Here is a little of San Diego history.

The City of San Diego gifted UCSD over 500+ acres in La Jolla to originally build their campus. In addition UCSD was also able acquire in another gift of an additional 500 acres from the federal government which was the old Camp Mathews. So there has been some precedent set albeit 50 years ago. Also, the Q site is 166 acres of land which the City only owns half the land and the water district owns the other half. The city can only gift their land not the water district's portion of the site.

SDSU's goal is to increase their student population to around 50k from the 35K current enrollment. The Q site is connected by a trolley ride of about 7 minutes to the main campus. This is why they want to develop the land to grow the university and also build a new stadium over time, with the new stadium coming first. SDSU does have a couple of spots near campus where the university owns land, where it could build a new stadium but it is close to many residential homes and in CA, it would take forever to build there.

Even under the Soccer City plan initiative they only want purchase the Q site land for 10K.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html

My bet is FS investors the group sponsoring Soccer City and SDSU will come to an agreement in where they can share the site. What the final agreement looks is still TBD. One of the lead investors of Soccer City is a huge SDSU booster as well, and help build they new basketball JAM Center for the hoops programs. He is the A in the initials JAM. I think the mayor will act as the intermediary between both groups to work out something that is amicable.

Lastly, the hard part for SDSU, is they just got a new AD last fall and are in the process of searching for a new University president, as he is leaving to take another job back east in June. Hopefully, we can cue Fisher to take the lead in this for SDSU, now that he is retired from basketball and being retained by SDSU as special designee for the University.

The land-for-enrollment trade is a red herring.

The university could have increased enrollment, but chose to get more selective instead. They could have hired more professors in areas that are in-demand (engineering, sciences, management) to accommodate those new students, but instead decided to subsidize departments that are facing declining enrollment.

Land just isn't that big of an issue for enrollment - $100 million in land will increase enrollment less than $100 million in cash would. Let's compare SDSU's land vs student population to other CSU schools with over 20,000 students:
217 students/acre - San Francisco ( 134 acres, 29,045 students )
209 students/acre - San Jose ( 154 acres, 32,154 students )
170 students/acre - Fullerton ( 236 acres, 40,235 students )
159 students/acre - Los Angeles ( 175 acres, 27,827 students )
123 students/acre - San Diego ( 283 acres, 34,668 students )
114 students/acre - Long Beach ( 330 acres, 37,776 students )
113 students/acre - Northridge ( 353 acres, 39,916 students )
102 students/acre - Sacramento ( 300 acres, 30,510 students )
51 students/acre - San Bernardino ( 409 acres, 20,767 students )
18 students/acre - Pomona ( 1,438 acres, 25,326 students )
17 students/acre - Fresno ( 1,399 acres, 24,405 students )
2 students/acre - San Luis Obispo ( 9,678 acres, 21,306 students )


And here's SDSU compared to other urban schools. Most of these have a lot more employees than SDSU, and many of them have hospitals taking up a lot of room on campus:
565 students/acre - Portland State ( 50 acres, 28,241 students )
344 students/acre - Temple ( 115 acres, 39,515 students )
324 students/acre - Cincinnati ( 137 acres, 44,338 students )
267 students/acre - UW-Milwaukee ( 104 acres, 27,813 students )
218 students/acre - NYU ( 230 acres, 50,027 students )
217 students/acre - Pitt ( 132 acres, 28,617 students )
207 students/acre - Cleveland State ( 85 acres, 17,620 students )
138 students/acre - USC (Southern California) ( 308 acres, 42,469 students )
127 students/acre - Boise State ( 175 acres, 22,259 students )
123 students/acre - SDSU ( 283 acres, 34,688 students )
122 students/acre - Tulane ( 110 acres, 13,449 students )
119 students/acre - Illinois-Chicago ( 244 acres, 29,048 students )
113 students/acre - Arizona ( 380 acres, 43,088 students )
107 students/acre - UCLA ( 419 acres, 44,947 students )
104 students/acre - Georgia State ( 518 acres, 54,000 students )
104 students/acre - Akron ( 218 acres, 22,619 students )
103 students/acre - UM-KC ( 157 acres, 16,160 students )
102 students/acre - Nevada ( 209 acres, 21,353 students )
100 students/acre - Harvard ( 210 acres, 21,000 students )
94 students/acre - FIU ( 573 acres, 54,099 students )
66 students/acre - Louisville ( 345 acres, 22,640 students )
64 students/acre - Houston ( 667 acres, 42,704 students )
04-14-2017 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,890
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #45
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-10-2017 04:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Third, a lot of folks think the whole MLS stadium is a ruse for the development group behind the proposal to get there hands on the entire 166 acre Qualcomm site. I'd tend to agree because the proposal also includes 5000 condos, 2 million sq ft of office (equal to 1/7th of downtown San Diego), and 750k sq ft of retail (equal to a large shopping mall).

Ah, so it's like the Brooklyn Nets' Atlantic Yards project, where the arena was pretty much a loss leader included to get the profitable parts of the real estate project approved by the powers-that-be.
04-14-2017 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,890
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #46
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-11-2017 02:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  OK, if there is a real possibility of SDSU getting the entire property, whether they pay for it or get it free, then it makes sense to hold out for that.

Free? How would they get it for free?

Colleges are nonprofit entities. The city (and apparently the water district) donate it to SDSU for the purpose of building the "West Campus" thing, with new dorms and academic buildings (and a riverside park?) and unicorn stables and what have you as a long-term (think in terms of 2100) investment.

It's that, or auction off the site.
04-14-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #47
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Bearcat,

I would argue that sqft of classroom/lab space (teaching space) is a much better number to use.
04-14-2017 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,498
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #48
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(04-13-2017 06:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  taxpayers will be more willing to give SDSU this large of a handout

I guess it all depends on how you spin it.

Right now, the city owns their piece of the land and have to pay $X million per year to maintain it (mostly to upkeep the stadium). By "giving it away" to SDSU, that actually removes a considerable amount of yearly cost from the city's books.

Of course, you can take the position -- like I do -- that the land is very valuable and should actually be sold to SDSU at market price.

Reports have the annual cost of operating Qualcomm at between $12 and $13 million a year, not counting annual bond interest of close to $5 million. Assuming that's accurate, there is no way that SDSU could generate enough revenue from its home schedule to break even or contribute anything to support athletics. Outside of a relatively few P5 schools, can anybody operate a modern stadium without a subsidy from somebody?
04-14-2017 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #49
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(04-13-2017 06:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  taxpayers will be more willing to give SDSU this large of a handout

I guess it all depends on how you spin it.

Right now, the city owns their piece of the land and have to pay $X million per year to maintain it (mostly to upkeep the stadium). By "giving it away" to SDSU, that actually removes a considerable amount of yearly cost from the city's books.

Of course, you can take the position -- like I do -- that the land is very valuable and should actually be sold to SDSU at market price.

Reports have the annual cost of operating Qualcomm at between $12 and $13 million a year, not counting annual bond interest of close to $5 million. Assuming that's accurate, there is no way that SDSU could generate enough revenue from its home schedule to break even or contribute anything to support athletics. Outside of a relatively few P5 schools, can anybody operate a modern stadium without a subsidy from somebody?

Seat licenses. Luxury boxes.
04-14-2017 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #50
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
The question for SDSU is whether they can find a way to fund the initial investment. Operations won't be a big issue.
04-14-2017 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,154
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #51
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 12:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 02:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  OK, if there is a real possibility of SDSU getting the entire property, whether they pay for it or get it free, then it makes sense to hold out for that.

Free? How would they get it for free?

Colleges are nonprofit entities. The city (and apparently the water district) donate it to SDSU for the purpose of building the "West Campus" thing, with new dorms and academic buildings (and a riverside park?) and unicorn stables and what have you as a long-term (think in terms of 2100) investment.

It's that, or auction off the site.

You had me going until the unicorn stables. Everyone knows unicorns must be in a big pasture free to roam.
04-14-2017 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,256
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 413
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #52
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  Reports have the annual cost of operating Qualcomm at between $12 and $13 million a year, not counting annual bond interest of close to $5 million. Assuming that's accurate, there is no way that SDSU could generate enough revenue from its home schedule to break even or contribute anything to support athletics.

Any stadium with operating costs that high is viable only if there are lucrative revenue sources. It's not sustainable to operate the current stadium with SDSU football as its only regular tenant.

Further, in order for that land to be used in any reasonable way (i.e., any way other than a giant stadium surrounded by 100 acres of parking lot), the old stadium has to be demolished because of where it sits. Look at a map, or use Google Images to find a satellite photo. The stadium is smack in the middle of the parcel. Even if the re-use of that land includes a stadium - if SDSU gets it, for academic buildings and student housing; if a private developer gets it, for office buildings, condos, and retail - the stadium would likely be in one corner of the parcel so that the rest could be efficiently used.
04-14-2017 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #53
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  Reports have the annual cost of operating Qualcomm at between $12 and $13 million a year, not counting annual bond interest of close to $5 million. Assuming that's accurate, there is no way that SDSU could generate enough revenue from its home schedule to break even or contribute anything to support athletics. Outside of a relatively few P5 schools, can anybody operate a modern stadium without a subsidy from somebody?

There's zero chance that SDSU, or any developer that gets the property, is keeping Qualcomm as is.
04-14-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,498
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #54
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 02:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  Reports have the annual cost of operating Qualcomm at between $12 and $13 million a year, not counting annual bond interest of close to $5 million. Assuming that's accurate, there is no way that SDSU could generate enough revenue from its home schedule to break even or contribute anything to support athletics. Outside of a relatively few P5 schools, can anybody operate a modern stadium without a subsidy from somebody?

There's zero chance that SDSU, or any developer that gets the property, is keeping Qualcomm as is.

I agree with that, which is why I said "operate a modern stadium" rather than operate Qualcomm. Wouldn't any stadium that has all the bells and whistles fans demand today be too expensive for SDSU to own and operate on its own, without somebody like the city of San Diego or the state of California carrying part of the load?
04-14-2017 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,198
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #55
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bearcat,

I would argue that sqft of classroom/lab space (teaching space) is a much better number to use.

I would agree. But you don't need a lot of land to a lot of square footage. You can always build up. Most of SDSU's campus is 3 story buildings and there's even several 1-story buildings and about 20 acres of surface parking lots (yes, I measured that on Google Maps). There's plenty of room to build up.

Cost-wise, the cost per square foot actually tends to go down as you build up (because land, roof, and much of the foundation are fixed costs).

On top of that, with multiple campuses you lose a lot of efficiencies because students can't easily walk from one class to another in between periods. And faculty either have two workplaces (inefficient) or they end up completely isolated from any colleagues on the other campus.

And that's exactly my point - the city would do more to expand enrollment by selling the land (at fair market value) and giving the money to SDSU.
04-14-2017 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,154
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #56
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bearcat,

I would argue that sqft of classroom/lab space (teaching space) is a much better number to use.

I would agree. But you don't need a lot of land to a lot of square footage. You can always build up. Most of SDSU's campus is 3 story buildings and there's even several 1-story buildings and about 20 acres of surface parking lots (yes, I measured that on Google Maps). There's plenty of room to build up.

Cost-wise, the cost per square foot actually tends to go down as you build up (because land, roof, and much of the foundation are fixed costs).

On top of that, with multiple campuses you lose a lot of efficiencies because students can't easily walk from one class to another in between periods. And faculty either have two workplaces (inefficient) or they end up completely isolated from any colleagues on the other campus.

And that's exactly my point - the city would do more to expand enrollment by selling the land (at fair market value) and giving the money to SDSU.

If SDSU was located in any other state than California and they were the flagship school, then yes, sell it and give the money to the school for the benifit of the state. But this is California, and SDSU is not the flagship of California. I don't know, maybe the city itself is more loyal to SDSU than I realize. I think it'll be a miracle if the city of San Diego does this for SDSU. Not that they would do it for San Diego either (the other college there)
04-14-2017 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,498
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #57
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 07:47 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bearcat,

I would argue that sqft of classroom/lab space (teaching space) is a much better number to use.

I would agree. But you don't need a lot of land to a lot of square footage. You can always build up. Most of SDSU's campus is 3 story buildings and there's even several 1-story buildings and about 20 acres of surface parking lots (yes, I measured that on Google Maps). There's plenty of room to build up.

Cost-wise, the cost per square foot actually tends to go down as you build up (because land, roof, and much of the foundation are fixed costs).

On top of that, with multiple campuses you lose a lot of efficiencies because students can't easily walk from one class to another in between periods. And faculty either have two workplaces (inefficient) or they end up completely isolated from any colleagues on the other campus.

And that's exactly my point - the city would do more to expand enrollment by selling the land (at fair market value) and giving the money to SDSU.

If SDSU was located in any other state than California and they were the flagship school, then yes, sell it and give the money to the school for the benifit of the state. But this is California, and SDSU is not the flagship of California. I don't know, maybe the city itself is more loyal to SDSU than I realize. I think it'll be a miracle if the city of San Diego does this for SDSU. Not that they would do it for San Diego either (the other college there)

Is an increase in enrollment a goal of the City of San Diego, or just of SDSU? Unless the city perceives that it's getting some benefit, they aren't likely to give taxpayer money to the school just because they are good guys.
04-14-2017 08:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #58
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(04-14-2017 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bearcat,

I would argue that sqft of classroom/lab space (teaching space) is a much better number to use.

I would agree. But you don't need a lot of land to a lot of square footage. You can always build up. Most of SDSU's campus is 3 story buildings and there's even several 1-story buildings and about 20 acres of surface parking lots (yes, I measured that on Google Maps). There's plenty of room to build up.

Cost-wise, the cost per square foot actually tends to go down as you build up (because land, roof, and much of the foundation are fixed costs).

On top of that, with multiple campuses you lose a lot of efficiencies because students can't easily walk from one class to another in between periods. And faculty either have two workplaces (inefficient) or they end up completely isolated from any colleagues on the other campus.

And that's exactly my point - the city would do more to expand enrollment by selling the land (at fair market value) and giving the money to SDSU.

Four stories in many earthquake zones is where you have to start building for a higher level of earthquake soundness which substantially increases cost. Three stories is cheap.
04-14-2017 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #59
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-14-2017 05:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree with that, which is why I said "operate a modern stadium" rather than operate Qualcomm. Wouldn't any stadium that has all the bells and whistles fans demand today be too expensive for SDSU to own and operate on its own, without somebody like the city of San Diego or the state of California carrying part of the load?

Well I'm only making a wild guess here, but with only seven (at most) SDSU football home games, employing far fewer staff, I think the cost would be significantly decreased. Plus possibly sharing some of the staff costs/logistics with a MLS team.


(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cost-wise, the cost per square foot actually tends to go down as you build up (because land, roof, and much of the foundation are fixed costs).

I think this argument only works well if you're in the planning stages of the building. IE, building one six story is probably cheaper (and takes less surface area) than building two identical three story buildings.

Once a three story building has been built, however, I'm not even sure if it's possible to "retrofit" it with additional stories on top. Assuming the foundations are strong enough to do that, wouldn't you have to shut the entire building down during construction? Doesn't seem realistic. Might as well just build a whole new building.

(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  On top of that, with multiple campuses you lose a lot of efficiencies because students can't easily walk from one class to another in between periods. And faculty either have two workplaces (inefficient) or they end up completely isolated from any colleagues on the other campus.

Believe it or not, it can work just fine. Especially if you have a light rail running between campuses that comes every 10 minutes.

That's exactly how the U of Minn is setup. Actually, it has three different campuses ... but the main campus is split in two by the Mississippi river. It's really nothing to go back and forth between the two, though, because of bus links and rail. The St Paul campus is a few miles away, though it also has a direct bus route (that is closed to cars).

(04-14-2017 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  the city would do more to expand enrollment by selling the land (at fair market value) and giving the money to SDSU.

Unless they can realistically build a stadium on campus (I proposed in the "Lot A" area), I don't think this will help them.


(04-14-2017 08:01 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Four stories in many earthquake zones is where you have to start building for a higher level of earthquake soundness which substantially increases cost. Three stories is cheap.

Good point!
04-15-2017 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,154
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #60
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
I think multiple campuses work fine at some universities. There's a main campus. Then a few miles away an "East Campus" that hold the medical school, then a "West Campus" a couple miles away that holds the schools sports venues. It's when campus A is 40 minutes from campus B that problems like that occur.
04-15-2017 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.