Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
The area proposed for development was underwater this year. Our Rainfall this year was not exceptional. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2017/s… Yes, development can be protected by flood control engineering, *this is what the giant Stadium Parking Lot does for the Stadium.* I fight for our parkland wherever it is, but we should remember Mission Valley was developed last not because the town didn't start there, at San Diego Mission, but because wiser heads had respect for the River, which erased the earlier mistakes.— September 17, 2017 11:39 a.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
The Stadium field flooded multiple times. The flood this year happened with empty reservoirs, basically local runoff. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/all-narratives/nei…— September 16, 2017 6:40 p.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
The field at San Diego Stadium floods by design. This is pitched as a flaw, but the floods are ignored when proposing billion dollar developments on the same site. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2017/s…— September 16, 2017 9:14 a.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
UCSD is non-profit, but that didn't stop them from selling the land for University City. If the split campus will work, students should be willing to park next to the Stadium and take the Trolley to SDSU. That might free up parking lots for development on campus. Parking structures have already made room for some development on parking lots.— September 15, 2017 5:52 p.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
New SDSU buildings would be better placed on the site of the many parking lots on Campus. I'm sceptical about SDSU intentions. All the players in the decades long farce have wanted the already graded and centrally placed Stadium property, the empty space seems to drive developers mad like lechers to the ingenue. SDSU might claim the highest intentions now, but I suspect they want to rape the site with condos like the rest. If their intentions are pure, they might ask for free student parking first, and see if the idea of using the Trolley from the Valley to the Campus really works.— September 15, 2017 9:17 a.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
The Stadium site seems too disconnected from the rest of the campus to work well. Allowing students to park at the Stadium might provide a useful survey of whether students would use the trolley. If students used their automobiles between classes it might be a complete traffic disaster.— September 14, 2017 2 p.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
There was a track at the Rose Bowl, this was obvious before modifications. Compared to San Diego Stadium, sightlines are still a joke.— September 13, 2017 5:33 p.m.
Rip down Qualcomm and build new stadium?
SDSU might think small is better now, but the City had smaller Stadiums before, and step by step they moved to the larger one. Those who complain that Qualcomm Stadium can also be used for baseball should attend at LA Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, these stadiums were designed for track and field, and are much less comfortable, yet big time college football teams play there. As I've stated here for years, the new Stadium proposals are just cover for the land grab. This is parkland, designated so because it's on a floodplain, the San Diego River can be formidable once it's dams are full, all of the valley bottom was at one time underwater. If we decide to part with our parkland, we should be certain to get a fair price. The land value under the proposed 5000 condos and commercial overdevelopment should be over one billion dollars, if normal San Diego ratios of land value to sale price were applied.— September 13, 2017 4:38 p.m.
Stadium spending zooms to new record
SDSU should use the parking lot immediately. A combination student parking-trolley pass might be very popular. I'm not so sure anything more should be built on that flood plain though. These hurricanes, and the Northern California floods should give us pause.— September 9, 2017 2:38 a.m.
Stadium spending zooms to new record
I'm concerned by plans to tear down Qualcomm Stadium in two years, as a supposed cost saving measure. Somehow a useful structure with a billion dollar replacement cost must be torn down because of the loss of a few million a year, a small percentage of the amortization of the billion dollar bond pitched to fund it's replacement less than twelve months ago. This supposed cost saving necessity is parroted by nearly all local media, but they've been wrong before. Maintaining our present Stadium should be the most economical way to present large events, to my thinking, but I hear no one say this. The City accounting of stadium costs seems as opaque as the proposals for new stadiums. Is there an honest comparison anywhere of the cost of maintaining versus the cost of replacing our Stadium? Without real estate flim flammery of course.— September 8, 2017 4 p.m.