New stadium in LA

[KNSD]

The obvious question here is why not drop the high side 20' and build up the low side 20' with the dirt you just removed from the other side?
The stability would be much greater on the now lowered side, so you build the stadium there.
Wat am I missing?

But then you wouldn't be level with Friar's road which is apparently a big deal for some reason.

[Mister Hoarse]

But then you wouldn't be level with Friar's road which is apparently a big deal for some reason.

Damn HOAs.

[RobH]

Damn HOAs.

Who you callin' a HOA? :-(

[Mister Hoarse]

WHOA...

[SDFan]

At worst they push a bunch of dirt around with bulldozers to raise the elevation of the stadium. Doing so would create a new lake/flood control basin like they have done elsewhere in Mission Valley over the last thirty years.

Edit: Holy crap, there's a stadium already there that isn't on the same elevation as Friar's Road!

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Qualcomm+Stadium/@32.7829611,-117.1173052,1752m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80d95482b06ef9e1:0x33d6063361f826cb

And, to the left and right there are buildings that are not at the same elevation as Friars road either. I wonder if Nick knows how to use Google Maps to do a little bit of research?

If the Spani are taking business advice from FIBiani for the construction business, that 1 will go belly up too.....

let's see, the Chargers floated a proposal a couple years ago to build a downtown stadium ON TOP OF the 10th Ave Marine Terminal- check.
most recently, the Chargers floated a proposal to build a downstown stadium ON TOP OF a multilevel convention center dug in the ground- check.
Qualcomm stadium sits ON TOP OF a lower level for employee & service entrances and infrastructure functions- check.

Yet we're supposed to believe it's an insurmountable problem to move the new stadium location to the top corner of the existing lot, build as many lower levels as they want for parking and other uses up to level with Friars Rd., then build the stadium ON TOP OF THE LOWER LEVELS like all their other designs?

Someone in that group must be related to Rube Goldberg instead of Alex Spanos when it comes to construction design

[KNSD]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-659649-project-chargers.html?page=2

Reading this, it certainly sounds like the Chargers are letting Kroenke force them into a bad decision.

[SDFan]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/29/goodell-nfl-chargers-carson-kroenke-inglewood/

the Commish says... say buh-bye to the Carson DUMP farce....


The current proposals are for Rams owner Stan Kroenke and private partners to erect a covered stadium in Inglewood, or the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson, in which case the NFL would have to shuffle one of those two to the NFC West and transfer an NFC West team to the AFC West.

Having said previously three teams in L.A. would be at least one too many, Goodell on Tuesday was rephrasing his own math equation.

Question: of the two stadium proposals, which is likeliest to succeed?

The Los Angeles Times has forecast that, of the nine possible outcomes in the L.A. stadium game, the two likeliest are 1) an NFL team will not play in L.A. in 2016, even in a temporary home; 2) Kroenke will get the stadium built and move the Rams there, with the possibility of a second NFL team moving there many years later.

[6025]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...nke-inglewood/

the Commish says... say buh-bye to the Carson DUMP farce....


The current proposals are for Rams owner Stan Kroenke and private partners to erect a covered stadium in Inglewood, or the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson, in which case the NFL would have to shuffle one of those two to the NFC West and transfer an NFC West team to the AFC West.

Having said previously three teams in L.A. would be at least one too many, Goodell on Tuesday was rephrasing his own math equation.

Question: of the two stadium proposals, which is likeliest to succeed?

The Los Angeles Times has forecast that, of the nine possible outcomes in the L.A. stadium game, the two likeliest are 1) an NFL team will not play in L.A. in 2016, even in a temporary home; 2) Kroenke will get the stadium built and move the Rams there, with the possibility of a second NFL team moving there many years later.

The Commish is doing Spanos a favor. He bluffed himself into a corner.

[Den60]

That much fill dirt creates a subduction zone, put a Stadium on top and you have an earthquake disaster waiting to happen.

Obviously, you slept through your geology classes. There are no subduction zones in the San Diego area. You can find them off Chile and you can find them off the west coast from the upper part of California to Alaska. The rest of California is in a transform plate boundary, two plates sliding against each other creating "strike slip" faults. You may be inferring to liquefaction but that would occur regardless of whether a project was built on fill or not (though building on fill, in itself, is a bad idea). That is why you have to drive piers into the bedrock when constructing large buildings on soil subject to liquefaction.

As for Canepa's article he should find a better source than Fabiani. When you look at development along the river you don't see developments being built on fill. Building on fill creates unstable foundations which leads to construction defect lawsuits. Man can't compact soil as well as God and time did. The idea of making the whole lot level with Friars is laughable and only serves to show that the Chargers are deliberately trying to torpedo any attempt to get a new stadium built in the city.

Flooding can be controlled by many means, wall, berms (rock and soil), pumps or a combination of all of them. That would be the direction to go to control flooding in the area and it would cost nowhere near the $500M Canepa/Fabiani claim it would.

[Den60]

Not sure why the hoteliers approval is so coveted. That said, why would they not give their approval? It makes no freaking sense that they would be against this as it seems a downtown stadium could only be a positive influence on occupancy rates all over the downtown area? What are we missing here?

They want a contiguous convention center and don't want that money used to build a football stadium.

[Foxbatkllr]

As a regular comic-con attendee who has been to a number of other conventions around the country, contiguous is definitely better and I can see why there is such a hard push to keep the expansion contiguous.

[Den60]

As a regular comic-con attendee who has been to a number of other conventions around the country, contiguous is definitely better and I can see why there is such a hard push to keep the expansion contiguous.

They do run into some legal issues with such an expansion since it restricts access to the waterfront.