I agree with some of what you've mentioned here.

I like:
added dynamic to the neighborhood
Superbowls, ect. plus great local econ stimulation

No likes:
Traffic congestion
unwalkable neighborhood
added disconnect of downtown and barrio logan
mass amounts of parking lots for tailgating (ultimately won't add to the "village" feel of EV.

Ok for me airport, then stadium. Im all about the airport.

As for the cons of a stadium,
>infrastructure is there for sports event related congestion, plus on sunday afternoons I can't imagine it being all that busy and could really use some action. monday nights would suck but drivers would go against the commute
>making the area more walkable wont be too bad. rent out the street front of the stadium to mixed use businesses and make the area an offshoot of the Gaslamp district, it would be the first integrated stadium in the NFL.
>never thought of barrio logan as being connected with DT in the first place. isnt gentrification already happening down there? if there are any parking lots for tailgating (shouldnt be many), they can be a buffer zone so the barrio isn't forced to recede
>shouldn't be many tailgating sites to begin with. now many fans will cry foul since our massive lot is home to tons of tailgating and always has been, but there is so much going on in that area i can imagine people having no trouble loosening up before the game, sure itll be more expensive, but with a new stadium everything will be more expensive.

Yeah because you can walk through the MTS busyard...

AFAIK they're not going to add any more parking lots, that's the whole point of building it next to Petco. The wonder bread site + MTS busyard is barely enough for a stadium.

The map shows the potential downtown site.

The blue area shows the current footprint of the Qualcomm site, including the parking. Yikes!

The gold area shows the interior seating bowl of Qualcomm Stadium. Although the new design would obviously be modified, I thought it was very interesting that the current seating capacity closely fits the proposed boundaries of the downtown site without even getting into the current parking lot.

The green area shows the scale of the actual field of play.

http://www.geartype.com/chargers/ima...s_downtown.jpg

I think that is rude. He is not an 'idiot'. He and his firm are actually a pretty good group of architects and he has his point of view. He has worked in the area and his 'vision' of what he would like to see is worth considering from a planning perspective. I think there are many that share his view. Take a look at his work (you might even recognize some of it) and be open to other ideas. His urban infill projects are very cool.

http://www.grahamdownesarchitecture.com/projects

For fans who must do the tailgating thing they should take their trailers to Tempe, AZ and become Cardinal fans. Lost of barren parking space for their humungoid portable bbq grills.

Or if they want, do it @ Qualcomm then take the trolley to DT.

There would be no extra parking built. They would utilize the parking created for PETCO. That is one of the perks of this site, they save money because infrastrucxture and parking, transit are already in place.

Great map, Hugo. :cheers:

If there was a fault line going through the tailgate park site, then how was Ballpark Village going to be built? Or am I confusing sites?

Most of you seem to be clueless. The new potential stadium development would not mirror that of Qualcomm. There is to be no additional park lots, but garages instead to be mixed with commercial/retail development.

So forget the map created on here as it shows what the current Qualcomm area would be if built in the exact same manner.

Why don't you wait two months for the designs and then start your NIMBY complaints.

And I agree with staplesla. I've worked with this company and it was a nightmare. And Marina_Guy look at his statements in the article. If he truly thinks all of that he's a moron. You can walk through the busyard, or Petco is taller than the surrounding highrises? Hum, I though Legend and the surrounding buildings were taller to allow for views of the ballpark. I guess I just had it wrong all of these years and he knows better.

There is a difference between mass and height. Active and inactive uses. Dedicating 14 acres to a mostly inactive use deserves serious discussion. I guess everyone is a 'moron' to ask such important questions. I guess people are 'morons' if they want a discussion about how redevelopment $$ should be allocated. I for one have no interest in sending my property tax dollars to Mr. Spanos.

I think at this point, any further discussion would be pointless. The arguments are starting to turn personal because we seem to be divided into two camps.

The pro stadium crowd wants to be the stadium because of : (1) public pride;(2) belief that stadiums and sports teams make money; and (3) that it's really not going to cost that much because of redevelopment money and infrastructure that is already in place.

The con stadium crowd is against the stadium because: (1) The price tag of the stadium is still probably over 500 million; (2) if redevelopment money is used, it means that other projects that would have been built will not be built or may have to be funded another way, meaning the stadium is still being financed by added taxes or bonds; and (3) they do not believe that PETCO can qualify as an example of successful development.

The positions have been laid out clearly, and the choice comes down to what we as a city value, understanding that neither side is right, just that we have different visions of what's important. When it comes time to vote, we will know where the majority of our city stands. I say we call a truce until then.

A few things to keep in mind: This is not an argument. I think it's great to openly share individuals' thoughts and feelings. I think that the core issues here have been highlighted already: CCDC money is not endless, in fact many exterior forces and entities are grabbing at the money that is set to redevelop our center city to make it a more human place to live work and play. It's obvious that many here (me to some very reserved degree) feel that building a chargers stadium will do just that, but there is no denying a certain few downsides to the project (albeit the scope of the project and conceptual thinking hasn't been revealed) a NFL Stadium at that scale does conflict with some key basic urban concepts like walkability, interconnectivity, human scale, green space, etc. I wonder what Jane Jacobs would have to say? As for the parking issue and utilizing the existing Petco Park parking, these lots are planned to be a massive urban vertical village, don't count on these parking lots being around forever.

I said the same thing before posting the map.

Wasn't trying to argue against the stadium or anything (in fact i'm in favor!) just an interesting map I found.

I think that regardless of whether the stadium will make money for the city or not, I think the best that the city could realistically hope for is to break even, that it is a must for cities like San Diego to find a way to get these things done. For a city (like it or not) of San Diego's size and stature, building a stadium of only 2 major league sports teams in this city becomes almost as important as building roads, water and sewer systems.

We need to get this done and we need leaders to step up and move this forward to completion. A downtown area with a bus depot, empty lots and empty warehouses would be transformed into a premiere sports complex along with Petco park that even if it didn't make a dime would add tremendously to the culture of our city.

Big cities get this done, major league cities get this done. We need to get this done.

I've got mixed feelings on a downtown stadium. I'll keep an open mind until I see some sort of plan since all we're hearing now are rumors and politicians blabbering.

I read this on another forum and thought it was very relevant to many of our recent discussions about budget, companies leaving...and it mentions CA a few times. Discuss... :)


"Anyone with any understanding of economics understands why there has been so much Texas coverage in the press lately. The way Texans do business works. If you make it easy to do business, you will prosper. If you make it difficult to do business, you will suffer. We were prudent in managing our economy, so now we get to enjoy things like new performing arts centers, deck parks, and transit expansion while Californians get IOUs.

Of course, now all the people who ran their states into the ground are coming to Texas to find work. They're bringing their politics with them. Big government liberals are locusts. They hop from place to place, destroying economies as they go. From New England, to the Rust Belt, to California... now to Texas. Enjoy your job while you have it."

Well maybe if they leave here and go to texas we can pick up the pieces and fix their mess.