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 13, 2016 6:05 AM

This probably doesn't mean much to the locals but for my family and friends that live in cities of tiers 1 thru 4 they are going to like this new addition to the tier 5 city of San Diego:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/30950370/n...open-next-week


So the city can build a rental cat structure that is as big as 4 football fields but can't find the right stadium site???? Lol

:D:D:D


Seriously though, SD may need a new airport but I have admit after doing regular travel by air for a while now the city did some very nice upgrades to the existing one. Probably one of the better ones for me to get in and out of.

dtell04 Jan 13, 2016 6:23 PM

Boy what a day yesterday. I hope Spanos takes the opportunity to fire Fabiani. He has failed to secure their 25 percent they supposedly get from LA area. Even if Spanos moves and has a 50 percent partnership, it is in the stadium only and not the surrounding events area.
I think he needs to be honest and just flat out tell SD its the downtown convention center expansion and stadium or nothing. If he can bring 100 million more to the table that potentially saves 100 million in tax payer contribution towards the convention center. Might be a good reason for the city to negotiate that area. Whatever he choses, he is sitting as a very powerful man right now.
This would make a good movie.

Nerv Jan 13, 2016 7:14 PM

You want to know what the new trend will be in the NFL? It won't be if cities can afford to keep teams as it has been in the past and as some posters here have suggested. Larger cities like LA usually end up paying little or nothing of taxpayers money because they have owners with money. The new trend will be owners building stadium projects that can net them big profits without city votes or mass amounts of city money.


The owners that need city votes and monies like the Spanos will disappear over time and it will come down to owners of teams with money that build money making projects like everyone else. The 100 million dollar payout to either Oakland or San Diego reminded me of a handout a rich man does when he hands a homeless man a dollar. Take this and run along now.


I think I'd be more concerned if I lived in a NFL city where the opportunity to build a money making stadium project like LA doesn't exist. I'm not saying the flood gates are going to open with many teams moving but I do think that we might see teams leaving cities in the NFL on a more regular basis than we have as what I stated above takes place.

That's my 2 cents on the future of the NFL.

a very long weekend Jan 13, 2016 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7297372)
Oakland has backed off from LA (unless the Chargers decide not to move there)
but that doesn't mean they are staying in Oakland either since they are already looking at other cities for their options.

Raiders: still stuck in Oakland and have to start over with options.
Oakland: they kept the Raiders but no one expects for much longer

i'm really curious as to why people think that a mark davis type who lives in the berkeley/oakland hills would ever consider moving his team to a place like san antonio or...? would you want to move from the bay area to southmost texas? where else then? that team will stay over in oakland unless it moves to los angeles.

also, i agree that the era of major cities/counties paying for sports mega stadia is surely coming to a close. oakland won't pay, san francisco sure as hell wouldn't pay, los angeles and ingleside won't pay. but the alternative for these parasitic teams is to find suburban counties and smaller cities whose electeds and citizens they can ensorcell with promises of prestige and name recognition. shitty ass santa clara is supposedly making a profit on their bond financing agreement with the 49ers but i'm skeptical. sacramento paid for their basketball team. carson would have given everything they could have. san diego is on the bubble between normal large california city (s.f., l.a., san jose, oakland now) and sacramento/suburbs.

ucsbgaucho Jan 13, 2016 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7297892)
You want to know what the new trend will be in the NFL? It won't be if cities can afford to keep teams as it has been in the past and as some posters here have suggested. Larger cities like LA usually end up paying little or nothing of taxpayers money because they have owners with money. The new trend will be owners building stadium projects that can net them big profits without city votes or mass amounts of city money.


The owners that need city votes and monies like the Spanos will disappear over time and it will come down to owners of teams with money that build money making projects like everyone else. The 100 million dollar payout to either Oakland or San Diego reminded me of a handout a rich man does when he hands a homeless man a dollar. Take this and run along now.


I think I'd be more concerned if I lived in a NFL city where the opportunity to build a money making stadium project like LA doesn't exist. I'm not saying the flood gates are going to open with many teams moving but I do think that we might see teams leaving cities in the NFL on a more regular basis than we have as what I stated above takes place.

That's my 2 cents on the future of the NFL.

I would normally agree, but there's not enough cities that are enticing enough for an owner to foot the whole bill for a project like this, especially now when $1 billion is the norm for stadium construction. The biggest markets are all (now) spoken for and maxed out on franchises. The smaller markets will be the ones competing back and forth for teams, and I predict the issue with public funding will continue. No owner is going to see their personal wealth climb more than the cost of a stadium in a market like St Louis, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Portland, etc. These are the cities that will be fighting for teams in the years to come, and owners will be threatening because one city will offer more to them than their existing one. An owner can spend $1 billion in Los Angeles and still eventually make a profit. That wouldn't work in San Diego, the market won't support it. Cities or other investors will always be required on top of what the owners and the NFL will pitch in. It'll just depend on how well the city negotiates to protect itself.

Everyone's blaming the Rams for leaving, but the city agreed when they moved in 1994 that their stadium would remain in the top 8 in the league. That's a HORRRRRRIBLE deal for the city, and that's exactly what the owner used to get out.

Nerv Jan 13, 2016 11:48 PM

Oh I think cities will continue to be asked to help fund stadiums in the near future but I think that process is going away. Just like I believe that owners like Spanos who's wealth is largely based on his teams value and not on what he's made outside of football will disappear from leagues over time as they die, quit or are forced out. These types of owners are being priced out of their own leagues as owners and it's really starting to show over time.


San Diego is a So-Cal city which gives it instant value over most of the US cities. I do think if Spanos was worth more money (like several billion more) the Chargers could EASILY produce a stadium mixed use project that could make them money. But they aren't worth enough to do that so they have to beg for money and resort to blaming the city for everything that isn't working for them.


The biggest problem with sports teams in San Diego is that the city has had to many owners that seem they can barely afford to own a team (Kroc being an exception) and they usually field a piss poor product and blame fans when it doesn't work for not supporting them.

I've lived in LA and San Diego both. The fans are not far off from each other. So-Cal has to much else going on it for fans to be bothered with teams that lose regularly. This isn't St. Louis or Green Bay or Cleveland or somewhere else where you live and die by sports team that produce or not because there isn't much else to do in your city. The things you take for granted living in So-Cal is why the rest of the country is regularly visiting us for. We may be a lot of things but boring isn't one of them. :D

SDfan Jan 14, 2016 5:29 AM

A note on Comic-Con. They recently renegotiated their lease with the convention center and hoteliers and with little to no conflict. This came after a previous battle years before when they threatened to leave for LA or Anaheim. So what changed?

A few things. First, internal polling. They asked their attendees if they would go to Comic-Con if they moved to another city and what they got in response was a clear "hell no." Meanwhile, regional comic conventions have been growing, meaning more options for consumers. Lastly, many of Comic-cons workers are SD locals who volunteer each year, that network has been invaluable to their success.

Moving Comic-Con would be deeply unpopular with their consumers, shrink their market share in an increasingly competitive field, and require extensive recruiting and training - all for a single event. That's why they complained a lot less when they signed the dotted line last time around.

I'm not saying there are no irrational people who may move Comic-Con, but it is very unlikely - with or without an expansion.

SDfan Jan 14, 2016 5:32 AM

Also lololololololololololololololz on the Chargers! I can't wait for Armageddon to start once they move north. Our economy will be in shambles. No one will ever be inspired to visit our zoo without those commercial break-aways to our skyline. The end is near, folks. :D

bobbyv Jan 14, 2016 11:16 AM

https://youtu.be/iW4X-x_76Mw

dales5050 Jan 14, 2016 1:42 PM

I think some good some people are hitting the nail on the head that the profile of NFL owners is changing. The old guard, guys who were millionaires and purchased teams when they were 'affordable' are being replaced with uber billionaires.

That said, I think the 'race to LA' made the deal unlike any future deal that you'll see regarding a new stadium for any other team.

Also to consider is the fact that after the dust settles for the new stadium in LA that will be home to St. Louis and San Diego, the NFL really only two teams with a need if you will. Buffalo and Oakland.

The rest of the teams in the league are already playing in either new stadiums (less than 20 years old) stadiums recently renovated (KC, Chicago, etc) or stadiums under renovation (Miami). So the comments of how things are going to be different are a bit late.

Oakland is not going to have trouble finding a new city. Buffalo, I think, is going to follow a hybrid plan of what Green Bay and NY/NJ did. The owner is going to pick up the tab for the new stadium but will ask for infrastructure work to be done and will look to develop around the stadium.

eburress Jan 14, 2016 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a very long weekend (Post 7298063)
i'm really curious as to why people think that a mark davis type who lives in the berkeley/oakland hills would ever consider moving his team to a place like san antonio or...? would you want to move from the bay area to southmost texas? where else then? that team will stay over in oakland unless it moves to los angeles.

...lots and lots of money.

Nerv Jan 14, 2016 6:26 PM

It's been noted from the beginning of this process that the mayor and city have said they are trying to build an "NFL" stadium. They were fully aware that they might be putting their efforts into getting another team other than the Chargers.


So expect after LA is done to hear Oakland and maybe even Jacksonville talking with the city. Right now they can say only so much since the Chargers are still sitting in San Diego. I think Oakland has done as much as they can "behind the scenes" with rumors of being in SD. The media on that has grown even more now.

The latest on both teams is Jacksonville's owner still isn't happy there and the city of Oakland is still not offering Mark Davis what he wants. I think they are so concerned about their A's they will probably lose the Raiders in the process.

Nerv Jan 14, 2016 6:36 PM

Also if the city can deliver what they say they can the likely cost of a stadium at the Q is possible when you count the Raiders share with the extra 100 million.

Another plus is Mark Davis is not looking for an extra luxury set up like Spanos was hoping for but just someplace to grind out a profit. He's not looking at a downtown or bust location like the Chargers were.


To early to say anything like this will happen but there is a lot of positives for both the city and Oakland to get together and make something work.

Nerv Jan 14, 2016 6:55 PM

As for comic con staying or leaving I have spoken with the organizers over the years about this ever happening. I was for years a dealer selling at the con.


As you know they also run Wondercon which left San Francisco because the city wasn't willing to work with them and gave out a "we don't care if you leave" which is why they haven't returned. A decade or so ago this was the same attitude in San Diego until the city changed its tune. The city does work with the con and that makes them happy unless it changes. They don't blame the city either for the first failed try to expand.

They will also tell you they have a Los Angeles convention already (Wondercon) and Anaheim didn't work as well which is why they moved it there.

Las Vegas was a media rumor and only ever a pipe dream. A comic con has been tried in Vegas and it just doesn't work. The dealers hate it because the city is not great if you are selling product. Las Vegas does work for a lot of trade shows but comics aren't one of them.


Comic Con would love more space at a convention center and will continue to help themselves (and the city) with the threat of leaving. Why not? It's a great bargaining chip.

So I'm not saying they will never leave but it seems the relationship is calmer than a decade ago.

If you noticed the city has worked with them in spreading it outside the convention center with events and they will soon have noticeable more space when the bayside Marriott finishes its expansion. That's going to be something like 2 more Ballroom 20's of space available and it's still fairly close to the CC.

dales5050 Jan 14, 2016 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7299243)
It's been noted from the beginning of this process that the mayor and city have said they are trying to build an "NFL" stadium. They were fully aware that they might be putting their efforts into getting another team other than the Chargers.


So expect after LA is done to hear Oakland and maybe even Jacksonville talking with the city. Right now they can say only so much since the Chargers are still sitting in San Diego. I think Oakland has done as much as they can "behind the scenes" with rumors of being in SD. The media on that has grown even more now.

The latest on both teams is Jacksonville's owner still isn't happy there and the city of Oakland is still not offering Mark Davis what he wants. I think they are so concerned about their A's they will probably lose the Raiders in the process.

Don't hold your breath.

First you need to consider that the LA teams might block another team going to San Diego for multiple reasons. But the only one that matters is they can.

Beyond that, NFL teams are broken up into divisions. San Diego plays in the AFC West and St. Louis plays in the NFC West. So moving both to LA does not create any issues.

That said, Jacksonville plays in the AFC South with Indy (EST), Houston (CST) and Tenn (CST). Moving them to the West coast would either me shaking up the divisions or forcing the teams in the South to do that travel. Neither would be wanted.

The only path to avoid the above would be for an existing owner to want to move to San Diego and not shake up the divisions. That would be Oakland and nobody is crazy enough to think the San Diego Raiders would work.

Derek Jan 14, 2016 8:06 PM

Don't get too excited guys, the Chargers could very well be staying in San Diego. The city has a few months to make a deal with Spanos.

spoonman Jan 14, 2016 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7299395)

The only path to avoid the above would be for an existing owner to want to move to San Diego and not shake up the divisions. That would be Oakland and nobody is crazy enough to think the San Diego Raiders would work.

I don't know if you have followed the local or national news, but EVERYONE is talking about a possible Raisers move to San Diego. Not only that, but many die-hard Charger fans (including myself) welcome the move after the way we've been burnt. At this point I would say that the odds that the Raiders move to SD are considerable.

Nerv Jan 14, 2016 9:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7299395)
Don't hold your breath.

First you need to consider that the LA teams might block another team going to San Diego for multiple reasons. But the only one that matters is they can.

Beyond that, NFL teams are broken up into divisions. San Diego plays in the AFC West and St. Louis plays in the NFC West. So moving both to LA does not create any issues.

That said, Jacksonville plays in the AFC South with Indy (EST), Houston (CST) and Tenn (CST). Moving them to the West coast would either me shaking up the divisions or forcing the teams in the South to do that travel. Neither would be wanted.

The only path to avoid the above would be for an existing owner to want to move to San Diego and not shake up the divisions. That would be Oakland and nobody is crazy enough to think the San Diego Raiders would work.


First, I don't believe the NFL would block a move. If you believe what was going behind the scenes the reason Spanos got the short end with his possible move to LA was the league didn't really want him in LA to begin with. They wanted the Rams as you can see by the votes. They threw Spanos a bone. He clearly has less influence than he thought. I do believe the league would love to have SD get a new stadium built and I seriously doubt they would turn down a city in So-Cal with a new stadium attached. Their greedy, not stupid.


As to the San Diego Raiders being crazy? I seem to remember fans saying the Chargers weren't serious about moving too.

Sports=money, so anything that can increase profits is in play. Crazy doesn't apply to this topic.

mello Jan 14, 2016 9:36 PM

A couple questions on how funding for a stadium would be voted on. As it stands with the initial proposal: City 200 County 150 with no new taxes technically the vote would only be an "advisory vote" not binding. I spoke with Dan McSwain the business guy at the UT and he confirmed this. He sit there is no major bond measure it is a land lease swap or whatever it's called so technically there doesn't need to be a vote.

Second I've read that if the Chargers want to do their own ballot initiative that doesn't have any new taxes and asked for that same 350 million in City/County money all they need to do is get 60k signatures maybe 70k and then there is a City Council vote not a vote of the public. Is this true? The author said its what Carson did that the people didn't vote after the sigs were gathered the Carson City Council voted. Can anyone confirm this because that is a game changer no public vote needed!

dales5050 Jan 14, 2016 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7299507)
I don't know if you have followed the local or national news, but EVERYONE is talking about a possible Raisers move to San Diego. Not only that, but many die-hard Charger fans (including myself) welcome the move after the way we've been burnt. At this point I would say that the odds that the Raiders move to SD are considerable.

Report: Raiders have already secured land in San Antonio for move
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/o...amodome-011316


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.