SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

Nerv Jan 3, 2016 6:53 PM

I can't wait for that second tower to get going. They keep showing shots of the single tower on the local news stations from time to time and it looks so lonely out there. :(


San Diego should look a lot "fuller" in the next few years.

HurricaneHugo Jan 5, 2016 7:31 AM

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...n-los-angeles/

I'm numb.

Lipani Jan 5, 2016 11:02 AM

No surprise. It'd be hilarious if the NFL chooses the Rams over the Raiders/Chargers and watch the Davis/Spanos families going back to their cities and begging for money again.

Leo the Dog Jan 5, 2016 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani (Post 7288242)
No surprise. It'd be hilarious if the NFL chooses the Rams over the Raiders/Chargers and watch the Davis/Spanos families going back to their cities and begging for money again.

Lots of speculation that Spanos want to move the team to sell it for billions. Take the money and run (or rather, run then take the money).

eburress Jan 5, 2016 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7288207)

I'm not surprised. The city has had how many years to get something done? San Diego obviously doesn't deserve a football team.

nezbn22 Jan 5, 2016 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7288634)
I'm not surprised. The city has had how many years to get something done? San Diego obviously doesn't deserve a football team.

The Chargers and the NFL have had the same number of years.

dales5050 Jan 5, 2016 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezbn22 (Post 7288676)
The Chargers and the NFL have had the same number of years.

In the last 20 years, 21 NFL stadiums have been built around the US. If anything, the NFL has shown it's very good at getting stadiums built.


The NFL plays by a set of rules for sure and San Diego may not want to play that game.

mello Jan 5, 2016 10:01 PM

350 million dollars financed over 20 years is a tiny fraction of the budget for the 8th/9th largest city in the country and 5th most populous county in the US. Now Oakland/Alameda county are much smaller municipalities for them to come up with 350 million dollars is a big deal. Sports stadiums are part of public infrastructure especially in a major destination city like San Diego. Hosting NCAA title games, Final Fours, and Superbowls is a big thing for SD to keep our profile up and help with branding. I think it is worth 350 for the City and County but no more than 400 million that is all I think should be put in.

Regarding Carson do you know how long the delays are going to take for construction on top of that old dump? Porsche has been trying to build a racetrack adjacent to the stadium parcel for years and it still isn't finished... Have fun playing in the dumpy Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 5 or 6 years that will totally kill the buzz of NFL in LA and by the time the new Stadium is built Rivers will be retired and they will be lucky to win more than 5 games a year.

nezbn22 Jan 6, 2016 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7288758)
In the last 20 years, 21 NFL stadiums have been built around the US. If anything, the NFL has shown it's very good at getting stadiums built.


The NFL plays by a set of rules for sure and San Diego may not want to play that game.

They're incredibly good at it. And they've done it by building one of the most powerful PR machines today. They've developed the brand to the point where people actually debate whether certain cities "deserve" an NFL team like it's some prestigious honor bestowed upon only the best and most worthy. Come on.

I love NFL football. I'll be disappointed if the Chargers leave (I don't think they actually will). I think using taxpayer money to build a stadium is justified based on the civic pride involved. However, I do not feel honored by their presence and am sick of all their self-righteous bullsht. San Diego will be great with or without the NFL.

dl3000 Jan 6, 2016 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7288864)
350 million dollars financed over 20 years is a tiny fraction of the budget for the 8th/9th largest city in the country and 5th most populous county in the US. Now Oakland/Alameda county are much smaller municipalities for them to come up with 350 million dollars is a big deal. Sports stadiums are part of public infrastructure especially in a major destination city like San Diego. Hosting NCAA title games, Final Fours, and Superbowls is a big thing for SD to keep our profile up and help with branding. I think it is worth 350 for the City and County but no more than 400 million that is all I think should be put in...

That same City's budget has many bigger fish to fry in the form of a severe infrastructure repair backlog than line Spanos' pockets. $17.5 million a year can go a long way to make San Diego an even better place to live.

dales5050 Jan 6, 2016 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7288864)
Have fun playing in the dumpy Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 5 or 6 years that will totally kill the buzz of NFL in LA and by the time the new Stadium is built Rivers will be retired and they will be lucky to win more than 5 games a year.


FWIW, I don't think the NFL or the owners have that much concern for the gameday experience for fans in the seats. It's not like the Q is a nice stadium.

It's about the luxury boxes and market gains from what I can tell.


That said, the Coliseum is a dump right now but is going under a $300M update. Not sure on when it will be done.

dales5050 Jan 6, 2016 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 7289413)
That same City's budget has many bigger fish to fry in the form of a severe infrastructure repair backlog than line Spanos' pockets. $17.5 million a year can go a long way to make San Diego an even better place to live.

Do you honestly think that saying NO to the NFL and a new stadium means the money for that will all of a sudden go towards infrastructure improvements?

I have always found this particular argument a bit amusing. It's not like there is a pile of money or gold sitting somewhere and the debate is on where it should be spent.

Streamliner Jan 6, 2016 5:08 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXLK90VWEAAIoP_.jpg:large

The 12-story Atmosphere project at 5th and Beech is above-ground as seen from this December 26 photo from the San Diego Streets blog's twitter page

Rendering:
http://www.latitude33.com/wp-content...ndering-11.jpg
Source

eburress Jan 6, 2016 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7288864)
Have fun playing in the dumpy Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 5 or 6 years

If not longer. This will be the funny irony for whichever team(s) end up moving! :)

eburress Jan 6, 2016 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7289601)
Do you honestly think that saying NO to the NFL and a new stadium means the money for that will all of a sudden go towards infrastructure improvements?

I have always found this particular argument a bit amusing. It's not like there is a pile of money or gold sitting somewhere and the debate is on where it should be spent.

Exactly. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the string of improvements purchased with this money.

ChargerCarl Jan 6, 2016 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7288634)
I'm not surprised. The city has had how many years to get something done? San Diego obviously doesn't deserve a football team.

Are you serious? As a huge chargers fan I applaud San Diego for not throwing public money at what is a hugely profitable business. Let the NFL pay for their own fucking stadiums.

Nerv Jan 6, 2016 6:43 PM

Since only two teams will go to LA I'm guessing it ends up being the St. Louis/San Diego combo with the Chargers being what the Clippers have usually been to the Lakers.

In San Diego I see the Raiders making serious talks to move here since their city is mostly offering nothing and San Diego will seem a nice runner up place to be along with a larger market. On top of that it will give the Raiders one more chance to take a dig into the Chargers who seem to think they will keep all of their fan base intact with no hard feelings after moving. I can actually see more fans in LA supporting a San Diego Raiders team than a LA Chargers team.

After really losing an NFL team I see enough locals giving in to support getting something done with a new stadium (see 1998 Padres and Petco emotional vote).


I'm not saying I really believe the above will happen but I will concede its in the realm of possibility.

ChargerCarl Jan 6, 2016 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7289601)
Do you honestly think that saying NO to the NFL and a new stadium means the money for that will all of a sudden go towards infrastructure improvements?

I have always found this particular argument a bit amusing. It's not like there is a pile of money or gold sitting somewhere and the debate is on where it should be spent.

God forbid the taxpayers actually get to keep it...

IconRPCV Jan 6, 2016 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7289936)
Since only two teams will go to LA I'm guessing it ends up being the St. Louis/San Diego combo with the Chargers being what the Clippers have usually been to the Lakers.

In San Diego I see the Raiders making serious talks to move here since their city is mostly offering nothing and San Diego will seem a nice runner up place to be along with a larger market. On top of that it will give the Raiders one more chance to take a dig into the Chargers who seem to think they will keep all of their fan base intact with no hard feelings after moving. I can actually see more fans in LA supporting a San Diego Raiders team than a LA Chargers team.

After really losing an NFL team I see enough locals giving in to support getting something done with a new stadium (see 1998 Padres and Petco emotional vote).


I'm not saying I really believe the above will happen but I will concede its in the realm of possibility.


I have read several articles mentioning this as well. The San Diego Raiders sounds odd but better than nothing.

Nerv Jan 6, 2016 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 7288395)
Lots of speculation that Spanos want to move the team to sell it for billions. Take the money and run (or rather, run then take the money).



Forbes actually covered the Spanos family inability to have most of their wealth not be tied up in the Chargers.

The team is their value (mostly) unlike many owners in the league today which an NFL team is nothing more than an additional toy in their collection.


Since a moving fee along with a new stadium putting them in debt with several years needed to pay it off vs the income it would bring right away means the only smart business move in moving the Chargers with the Spanos current financial state would be to sell the team at its new higher value. But as Forbes also pointed out in the same article the Spanos family has not been very business savvy in the past so who really knows what they are thinking. I think dad was the smartest of the group and son and grandson are hanging on to his coat tails.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.