Chula Vista Stadium Survey Released
The Chargers are still deciding between two cities for their new stadium - Oceanside and Chula Vista.
The Chula Vista Site Analysis for a New Chargers Stadium was released today by Architecture and Urban Design firm Cooper, Robertson & Partners, and in it, they’ve settled on two potential Chula Vista sites:
The first site, on the Bayfront, builds on existing transportation infrastructure and planning already going on. The Bayfront site offers premium access, with modifications to I-5 and a new trolley stop at L-street. Shared parking between the stadium and new commercial/retail development on the Bayfront work naturally together. Imagine the power plant image replaced by a friendly modern NFL Stadium at the foot of the City on the Bayfront. This extravaganza could be the most powerful icon in the region. The second site in Otay is seen as the centerpiece of a larger on-going development effort that will bring together mixed-use development, a new university/tech park campus, expanding residential, new parks, and the Olympic Training Center. In this case, most transportation infrastructure, while planned, still needs to be built. But the land is unencumbered and the project can proceed at a pace that matches public and political will. Rarely in this country is there an opportunity to develop this variety of uses, to the highest sustainable degree possible, and re-shape the image of a city. Oceanside’s Center City Golf Course is also under consideration. The Chargers are currently conducting a study there on the viability of an adjacent office development that would help pay for the stadium. There are organizations that have formed in support of and opposing each of these locations, and any development will have to be put to the voters next year before a final decision or commitment to the team can be made.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Attractions, Politics & Religion, Sports
6 opinions for Chula Vista Stadium Survey Released
Mandy
Sep 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm
The site in Oceanside is highly unlikely. It is too small and the terrain is very steep. The freeway will not even start to be widened in the area until well after 2010. We contend that the Chargers probably want to coat-tail onto Gaylord who would do the bulk of the infrastructure improvement. The bayside location would be beautiful if they can overcome the contamination & power plant issues. Trade volts for Bolts!
Carole A. Lane
Sep 19, 2007 at 9:19 am
Thanks for your comments, Mandy. I agree that the bayside location would be beautiful, but I think that the Oceanside location has a better chance of attracting the L.A./Orange County crowd because of its proximity to the train and freeways. Either location could work for San Diegans who really want to attend.
I wonder if they’re banking on getting the Mexico crowd if they put the stadium in Chula Vista, and what their numbers have been in past years.
Whichever site is chosen, I hope it stays in San Diego county.
Mandy
Sep 20, 2007 at 9:50 am
I have since learned that the freeway has little or no chance of widening until 2030. Considering Oceanside a viable site is simply beyond the pale. The freeways are backed up now from Friday night through Sunday night. This location is simply not going to happen. We are still supportive of a deal being reached in Missin Valley as that has all the required infrastructure in place and does not disrupt pre-existing neighborhoods like it would in O’side.
Carole A. Lane
Sep 20, 2007 at 10:13 am
I hear what you’re saying, Mandy, but what I’m not understanding is how people from North County, Orange County, and L.A. are going to get to Oceanside OR Chula Vista without the freeway, unless you’re suggesting that everyone to the north will get there by train. In that case, it would seem that Oceanside would still be at least as viable as Chula Vista, since the train would be closer.
Or are you suggesting that only those in the Chula Vista area and Mexico will go to the games if the stadium is built in Chula Vista? Are there enough fans to support the Chargers and the stadium there? (I’m not being argumentative. I’m really wanting to understand ALL of the pros and cons.)
Mandy
Sep 22, 2007 at 10:25 am
I am not overly fond of the Chula Vista site but said nothing about who would attend those games. There are 2 airports nearby- San Diego Int’l and Brown field that can serve either Qualcomm or CV.
Frankly if they can’t work out a deal on Qualcomm site, they should move to LA. And besides, the fan base is not what makes the Chargers money: it’s the media contracts, special box seat and fancy box seat sales, parking fees, licensing, etc. A new stadium really has little or nothing to do with average fans if you look at the financial picture.
Carole A. Lane
Sep 26, 2007 at 3:59 pm
That’s interesting, Mandy. Thanks for clarifying that. I always thought the attendance was one of the big issues in the past. I’ll have to do some homework on the financial issues to fully understand it all. I do appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: