Mr. deMause, my name is Mark Fabiani, and I work with the San Diego Chargers. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your post.
First, for any of your readers interested in a detailed look at Qualcomm Stadium renovation issues, please take a look at http://www.chargers.com/news/article-1/Fabiani-addresses-question-of-stadium-renovation/983d294d-14e9-4a57-8e3c-4ad264436157.
Second, your reference to "the former chair of the city's stadium task force" does not support the argument for renovation. On the contrary, several months ago, this former chair was part of a private development group that proposed to demolish the existing stadium, build a new stadium, and create the equivalent of two Empire State Building's worth of office space on the existing stadium site to pay for it all. The project was immediately rejected by the Mayor and the community for various reasons, but the bottom line is that the person you refer to in your post has just recently advocated demolition of the existing stadium.
Third, the article you cite concerning "a bunch of local architects" is several years old. In the time since that article was written, the architects group has not submitted any proposal to renovate Qualcomm Stadium. The only two serious studies that have been done -- one by the architectural firm HNTB, and the other by stadium design firm HOK -- both concluded that it would cost as much to completely renovate Qualcomm Stadium as it would to build a new stadium. These two studies are the best sources of information we have on renovation, and based on the studies -- and on the experience of cities across the country that have chosen not to renovate 1960's era, baseball-football facilities such as Qualcomm -- I hope you can see why the Chargers have concluded that renovation is simply not the way to go.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.
Best wishes, Mark Fabiani

Thanks for posting, Mark. The only thing I'd correct in your comment is that the article I cited is only a year and a half old, which I'm pretty sure is within the statute of limitations for "anyone who has looked at it over the years."

In any case, though, the interesting thing isn't whether some architects once advocated renovation (as you note, the Chargers themselves were once considering it), but whether it's feasible now. So I'd like to ask you: When you say that "complete" renovation would cost more than building new, what do you mean by "complete"? Clearly, there's a lot of leeway between a minor rehab and a major reconstruction, both in terms of cost and in terms of benefits — did the Chargers examine whether a more modest renovation, say, could reduce costs enough to make up for not generating as much revenue as a more elaborate rebuild, or a whole new stadium? (This is, for example, the conclusion that the Boston Red Sox ultimately came to with Fenway Park after a new stadium proved infeasible, though obviously that's a very different facility in a different sport.)

I hope you can share with my readers your reply.

Thanks,

Neil deMause

Mr. deMause, thanks for inviting me to answer your renovation questions. For the Chargers, from the start, there have been two questions:
(1) In San Diego, where there is no public funding for stadium improvements, how could a renovation be financed -- even if from a technical point of view renovation was a sensible choice?
(2) Why would it make sense to renovate a 1960's era, multi-use stadium when the experience of other cities around the country shows that the only renovations that make sense are to football-only facilities -- and even those renovations in the end cost about as much as building new stadiums from scratch?

The first question -- how would such a renovation be financed privately, without any public support -- is obviously paramount. After extensive evaluation of the funding options, the Chargers concluded that -- even if renovation somehow made technical sense -- there is simply no way to privately finance such a renovation. Here's why:

o The Chargers have been working to privately finance the stadium project with equity contributions from the team, a loan from the NFL, and the profits from a mixed-use development that would be adjacent to the new stadium.

o Because Qualcomm Stadium is located in the center of the existing Mission Valley site, it is not logistically possible to create a mixed-use development and a park along the river all on the same site with the existing stadium.

o In fact, every plan that has been developed for the Qualcomm site envisions moving the new stadium to a corner of the site, building a mixed-use development at the other corner of the site, and creating a park along the riverfront, in the flood plain area of the site. (Even the stadium task force member you cite in support of your argument recently advocated demolishing the existing stadium as part of a mixed use development.)

o In short, as long as the stadium remains in the middle of the existing site, there is no real possibility of a mixed-use development that might generate enough revenue to pay for the complete renovation with private funds.

But let's assume for the moment that you could find a way to finance a renovation. Would it make sense?

Renovation of Qualcomm Stadium was the very first option considered by both the Chargers and the City of San Diego in 2002.

At that time, at the direction of the Citizens' Task Force on Charger Issues, both the City of San Diego and the Chargers hired nationally-recognized architectural and design firms to evaluate the possibility of renovation.

The City of San Diego hired the firm HNTB, and the Chargers retained the firm HOK. Both firms worked independently of one another.

Both HNTB and HOK submitted studies to the Citizens' Task Force and answered questions about their findings in public session in late 2002. Both reports came to the same conclusion: A complete renovation of Qualcomm Stadium would cost nearly as much as building a new stadium.

As a result, the 15-member Citizens' Task Force concluded in its final report, in early 2003, that renovation did not make sense.

The fundamentals of the situation have not changed since 2003, and there is no reason to doubt the conclusions of these two independent studies today.

Your online following is obviously very knowledgeable, so I would like to address in closing examples of successful renovations -- and explain why they don't help us in our search for a solution in San Diego.

In particular, the examples of renovated stadiums in Chicago (Soldier Field) and Green Bay (Lambeau Field) are not applicable to San Diego's situation.

Both Soldier Field and Lambeau Field were designed originally as football stadiums. Qualcomm, on the other hand, was designed with baseball in mind. According to the studies that have been done, creating a modern NFL facility at Qualcomm would require demolition of significant portions of the stands to achieve the appropriate sight lines and viewing angles for football. The designers of renovations at Soldier and Lambeau field were, on the other hand, able to work with existing sight lines because those stadiums were football-only in the first place.

Both the Solider Field and Lambeau Field renovations, completed in the early years of this decade, cost nearly as much as building new stadiums would have cost at the time -- exactly the conclusion predicted by the HNTB and HOK studies.

I hope that I have answered your questions, but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional information.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Mark Fabiani.

As always, Fabiani is looking for a free stadium. No city in San Diego County wants to provide that OR free land.
He's got a great offer up in the City of Industry. Continuing to say the Chargers want to stay in San Diego is seeming more and more like an outright fabrication. To continue to stay in the San Diego Stadium saves the Chargers tons of money they have to pay back to the City. Fabiani and Chargers will milk this amortized schedule until it makes sense to move. Probably as early as the 2012 season.

Neil;

I'm pleased to see Mr. Fabiani take the time to comment on your site. It is refreshing to see someone involved with these projects actually engage with the public. All too often these types of negotiations are kept behind closed doors until the deals are signed.

While I won't offer support for the Chargers' wants in this matter, I can say I understand the position he and the Chargers have taken. It does often cost as much to renovate an existing facility as to build new. In some cases, it isn't possible to "fix' major siting or orientation issues that were not properly made at the time of original construction.

That said, it seems unlikely that the Chargers will be able to work toward an agreement with the city of San Diego (who have significant challenges of their own as regards funding).

I have no major objection if municipalities commit some funding to new sports facilities, so long as the general public gets something back (whether that comes in the form of other events, significant incremental tax revenues, or what have you) in return. This is the basis on which most concert and arts facilities are built (ownership is maintained in the public sector, and the venues earn incremental revenue for the municipality).

The problems develop when significant (and sometimes unlimited) public money is committed to facilities which effectively become the property of the private businesses that require them. The "public benefit" must be maintained in any tax payer funded facility. If these subsidies end up as gifts to private business, I would argue there are more deserving businesses than professional sport that we might consider supporting first.

Thank you.