Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
04-05-2016, 09:46 AM,
Post: #1
Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
sdsupresident.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/qualcomm-stadium-site-provides-opportunity-to-advance-sdsu/

by Elliot Hirshman | April 5, 2016 · 8:40 am

Qualcomm Stadium Site Provides Opportunity to Advance SDSU

San Diego State is a dynamic and evolving university with numerous recent accomplishments – each one building on our history of excellence and achievement. To give two examples, the creation of the Susan and Stephen Weber Honors College and the opening of the Conrad Prebys Aztec Student Union occurred at singular moments in time, but they were the results of decades of efforts by our university community. Similarly, SDSU’s emergence as a nationally renowned research university, while highlighted by a flurry of recent discoveries, reflects the collaborative efforts of faculty, staff, students and administrators over more than five decades.

Today, we have an opportunity that could alter the trajectory of our history for the next several decades. In a recent blog, I mentioned three touchstones for San Diego State’s continued success in the future – the highest-quality programs, service to students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds and financial strength. While our current campus footprint of 225 acres is sufficient to support our aspirations in the short term, we will, most assuredly, need more space for the long-term advancement of our university’s programs over the next 50 years.

The San Diego Chargers’ recent decision to leave Mission Valley and pursue a downtown stadium creates this critical opportunity. This decision opens up a host of possibilities for the future of the Qualcomm Stadium site – just eight minutes away by trolley from our College Avenue campus.

While some might argue that the Qualcomm site should be redeveloped along Mission Valley’s familiar high-density, automobile-dependent pattern, San Diego State supports a low- to medium-density vision focusing on sustainable recreational and educational uses.

We see a future in Mission Valley with community parks and recreational opportunities, low- to medium-density housing, a small number of research/technology transfer facilities and, possibly, a stadium – one on a significantly smaller scale than Qualcomm Stadium – that could be shared by San Diego State, a Major League Soccer franchise and other community partners. We are eager to join members of our community in discussing this vision.

The excitement and challenge of realizing such a vision will, of course, be in the details. One especially exciting aspect, mentioned earlier, is that the Metropolitan Transit System’s Trolley provides a rapid, easily accessible connection between our campus and the Qualcomm site. This existing transportation infrastructure is critical to realizing a sustainable, green vision for the redeveloped site and for our entire university. As just one example, faculty, staff and students residing on a redeveloped site could use the trolley system, instead of their cars, to get to campus. This would reduce traffic in Mission Valley and in the College Area, as well as reduce our entire community’s carbon footprint and parking challenges on our campus.

These possibilities will, of course, raise many detailed questions. Who would own the redeveloped site? Who would be the development partners? How would the redevelopment be financed? The blunt answer to these questions at this moment is that we don’t know.

It is, however, time for the communal discussion that will help us find these answers. The end point of a great adventure is rarely known, but the possibilities associated with any grand pursuit must first be envisioned. Let’s dream as a community, knowing that the opportunity to advance the future of our university is before us.
Reply
04-05-2016, 12:19 PM,
Post: #2
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
We see a future in Mission Valley with community parks and recreational opportunities, low- to medium-density housing, a small number of research/technology transfer facilities and, possibly, a stadium – one on a significantly smaller scale than Qualcomm Stadium – that could be shared by San Diego State, a Major League Soccer franchise and other community partners. We are eager to join members of our community in discussing this vision.

But give it to Elliot, he put his hat in the ring for the property without committing to any specific plan or action, just that we come to the table and discuss. Well played.
Reply
04-05-2016, 01:25 PM,
Post: #3
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
SDSU endorses 'west campus' concept for Qualcomm Stadium site

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news...velopment/
Reply
04-05-2016, 02:09 PM,
Post: #4
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
Wow... Pres. Hirshman's blog post, a public event, and a couple SDUT articles all in one day... almost like there was a strategic effort in planning the university's rollout of a campaign in support of developing the Q site...
Reply
04-05-2016, 02:25 PM,
Post: #5
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
[Image: giphy-1.gif]
Reply
04-05-2016, 04:22 PM,
Post: #6
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
Wow, public statement without taking sides...brilliant.
Reply
04-05-2016, 05:08 PM,
Post: #7
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
(04-05-2016, 01:25 PM)SDSU-Alum2003 Wrote: SDSU endorses 'west campus' concept for Qualcomm Stadium site

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news...velopment/

That article has been substantially edited since you linked it. Very strange. Must have something to do with Kratzger's comment about Moores literally biting his ear off talking about the project. Maybe Evander Hollyfield has a copyright on that?
Reply
04-05-2016, 05:14 PM,
Post: #8
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
Talked to Lori Saldana today about her bid for mayor ...
She was very receptive to my questions about her campaign and ideas regarding obtaining the MV site for SDSU.

Quote:If the warring factions were at all interested in what is best for SD ... the Chargers, SDSU, Hoteliers, Comic-Con and the Water Dept -- lead by the mayor -- would have worked out an agreement that would offer an alternative to the Briggs initiative with one that:
  • Raise the TOT from 10.5% to 14.5% (2% to codify the TMD & 2% to fund the contiguous expansion)
  • Authorize the sale of the Q to SDSU and use the funds to pay off the existing bond & acquire the property downtown for the Chargers stadium
  • Authorize the Chargers to build their stadium downtown (without public money) on land owned by the City.
  • Authorize Lease-Revenue bonds to be issued to fund infrastructure improvements downtown as a result of the new stadium (Chargers land-lease used as pay-for)
  • Set 40 acres aside for a River Park

This would cover all the same bases as the Briggs initiative so either they both fly or neither does. The one with the contiguous CC expansion, direct benefit to SDSU and a whole lot cheaper than the "citizens plan" would probably have gotten more votes, but the Chargers greed keeps this from being an option.

She was also receptive to the idea that if the Chargers balk at such a deal, an alternate use of that site could be for a new arena downtown.

She informed me that mayor Falconer would only agree to a debate on Spanish language media next week, but is resisting any debate other than that.

She was encouraged by Hirshman's statement on MV and thinks there's room to open the discussion further regarding SDSU's needs, the projected shortage of a college educated workforce and the economic impact of an expanded SDSU on the local economy.
Reply
04-05-2016, 05:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-05-2016, 05:24 PM by SleepingGiantsFan.)
Post: #9
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
A thought has come to mind. (Such things happen most often when I've had a tough day and my mind is mush.) Granted, it's out of the box thinking but bear with me.

The Mission Valley plan could more likely come to fruition if the city donated the land, correct? The chances of the land being provided gratis by the city increase if it's donated as a joint effort between SDSU and UCSD, correct? There has already been some speculation about SDSU academically outgrowing the California State University system, correct? SDSU and UCSD already have about a dozen joint PhD programs, correct? There has been speculation about UCSD wanting its athletics to move up to the major leagues, correct? If Power 5 conferences eventually expand to 16 members so the Pac-12 is compelled to follow suit yet the Pac-12 can't manage to get Texas and Oklahoma it's going to have to settle for unexciting dull bulbs like Texas Tech in the middle of nowhere, correct? And the single biggest impediment to SDSU being a contender for Pac-12 membership is its academic profile, correct?

Can anybody give me a good reason why having SDSU be subsumed into UCSD wouldn't be a win-win for everybody?
Reply
04-05-2016, 06:12 PM,
Post: #10
RE: Q Site Statement by Elliot Hirshman
Subsumed? Not a fan, and I think highly unlikely.

Help UCSD get to D1 so the two can be added as a pair to the "PAC-16"? Sure. But for the latter half of that deal it's tough to see any guarantees...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)