I did a double take on something Union-Tribune sports columnist Nick Canepa wrote the other day. Canepa was keeping alive discussion about the concept of a new stadium that would satisfy a number of dreams, not just football — a domed stadium downtown that would serve as the hub of an “entertainment complex.”

This isn’t a new concept; we’ve been hearing talk for a year about some kind of solution that would replace both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm Stadium. But off and on we’ve been hearing a rationalization for it that includes the Convention Center. Perhaps it could replace not only the aging arena and stadium, but the need for a new Convention Center?

Convention Center officials and boosters, the hoteliers and others brush this off.

But then Canepa came with this (emphasis mine):

I understand Sanders and Maas last week went on a fact-finding mission to the L.A. Live, AEG’s downtown entertainment campus. They would like to do something similar in downtown San Diego, only it would include a stadium with a retractable soft-top that could house many big indoor and outdoor events and add an enormous amount of space to our Convention Center.

“And I like to get some folks to go to Indianapolis, where they have probably the best template for use of a convention center, football stadium and Conseco Fieldhouse, where the Pacers play,” Maas says. “The stadium (Lucas Oil) has 183,000 square feet of convention space — and that doesn’t include the field.”

There it is again, but this time, the mayor “would like” to do this?

This is odd because the mayor just released a new financing plan for a $500 million Convention Center expansion. If he wants a new stadium to add an enormous amount of space to the Convention Center, do we need the $500 million expansion to the main building, too? Is he backing away from his plan just a few weeks into it?

Darren Pudgil, the mayor’s spokesman, told me no.

We are not looking at the stadium as a Convention Center expansion. They are two separate things — though a stadium could be used for other uses. We certainly looking at it as a multi-use complex that could benefit the Convention Center but not replace an expansion.

As Liam Dillon reminded me, the head of the hoteliers lobby laid out a similar position. They maintain that a new domed stadium could help visiting groups but, darn it, we still have to build a new Convention Center.

So let it be clarified that the benefits to conventions from a new stadium wouldn’t actually save us from investment in conventions. Don’t go off getting excited that a new stadium will save money on this aspect of boosters’ dreams. To them, it’d just be icing on a bigger convention center cake.

You can contact me directly at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0527 and follow me on Twitter (it’s a blast!): twitter.com/vosdscott.

Scott Lewis oversees Voice of San Diego’s operations, website and daily functions as Editor in Chief. He also writes about local politics, where he frequently...

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.