SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[kpexpress]

Really? Is he suggesting that Petco is taller than the other high-rises in the area? And that the footprint takes up more space than other downtown developments? - Horton Plaza, Convention Center, Civic Center, etc. And Petco sapped all the energy out of the area? The Petco area is stronger now than it has been in decades. And once the economy comes back the empty stores will fill in.

This guy's an idiot.

I agree with some of what you've mentioned here.

I like:
added dynamic to the neighborhood
Superbowls, ect. plus great local econ stimulation

No likes:
Traffic congestion
unwalkable neighborhood
added disconnect of downtown and barrio logan
mass amounts of parking lots for tailgating (ultimately won't add to the "village" feel of EV.

[dl3000]

Ok for me airport, then stadium. Im all about the airport.

As for the cons of a stadium,
>infrastructure is there for sports event related congestion, plus on sunday afternoons I can't imagine it being all that busy and could really use some action. monday nights would suck but drivers would go against the commute
>making the area more walkable wont be too bad. rent out the street front of the stadium to mixed use businesses and make the area an offshoot of the Gaslamp district, it would be the first integrated stadium in the NFL.
>never thought of barrio logan as being connected with DT in the first place. isnt gentrification already happening down there? if there are any parking lots for tailgating (shouldnt be many), they can be a buffer zone so the barrio isn't forced to recede
>shouldn't be many tailgating sites to begin with. now many fans will cry foul since our massive lot is home to tons of tailgating and always has been, but there is so much going on in that area i can imagine people having no trouble loosening up before the game, sure itll be more expensive, but with a new stadium everything will be more expensive.

[HurricaneHugo]

“Somebody should do some visuals so they can see the impact of these two huge stadiums next to each other,” he said. “You can’t walk around them, you can’t walk through them. It’s like a walled city, like you plunked a castle in the middle. It’s somebody’s monument.”

Yeah because you can walk through the MTS busyard...

[HurricaneHugo]

mass amounts of parking lots for tailgating (ultimately won't add to the "village" feel of EV.

AFAIK they're not going to add any more parking lots, that's the whole point of building it next to Petco. The wonder bread site + MTS busyard is barely enough for a stadium.

[HurricaneHugo]

The map shows the potential downtown site.

The blue area shows the current footprint of the Qualcomm site, including the parking. Yikes!

The gold area shows the interior seating bowl of Qualcomm Stadium. Although the new design would obviously be modified, I thought it was very interesting that the current seating capacity closely fits the proposed boundaries of the downtown site without even getting into the current parking lot.

The green area shows the scale of the actual field of play.

http://www.geartype.com/chargers/images/sd_chargers_downtown.jpg

[Marina_Guy]

Really? Is he suggesting that Petco is taller than the other high-rises in the area? And that the footprint takes up more space than other downtown developments? - Horton Plaza, Convention Center, Civic Center, etc. And Petco sapped all the energy out of the area? The Petco area is stronger now than it has been in decades. And once the economy comes back the empty stores will fill in.

This guy's an idiot.

I think that is rude. He is not an 'idiot'. He and his firm are actually a pretty good group of architects and he has his point of view. He has worked in the area and his 'vision' of what he would like to see is worth considering from a planning perspective. I think there are many that share his view. Take a look at his work (you might even recognize some of it) and be open to other ideas. His urban infill projects are very cool.

http://www.grahamdownesarchitecture.com/projects

[mongoXZ]

For fans who must do the tailgating thing they should take their trailers to Tempe, AZ and become Cardinal fans. Lost of barren parking space for their humungoid portable bbq grills.

Or if they want, do it @ Qualcomm then take the trolley to DT.

[IconRPCV]

I agree with some of what you've mentioned here.

I like:
added dynamic to the neighborhood
Superbowls, ect. plus great local econ stimulation

No likes:
Traffic congestion
unwalkable neighborhood
added disconnect of downtown and barrio logan
mass amounts of parking lots for tailgating (ultimately won't add to the "village" feel of EV.

There would be no extra parking built. They would utilize the parking created for PETCO. That is one of the perks of this site, they save money because infrastrucxture and parking, transit are already in place.

[Fusey]

http://www.geartype.com/chargers/images/sd_chargers_downtown.jpg

Great map, Hugo. :cheers:

[SDfan]

If there was a fault line going through the tailgate park site, then how was Ballpark Village going to be built? Or am I confusing sites?

[tdavis]

Most of you seem to be clueless. The new potential stadium development would not mirror that of Qualcomm. There is to be no additional park lots, but garages instead to be mixed with commercial/retail development.

So forget the map created on here as it shows what the current Qualcomm area would be if built in the exact same manner.

Why don't you wait two months for the designs and then start your NIMBY complaints.

[tdavis]

I think that is rude. He is not an 'idiot'. He and his firm are actually a pretty good group of architects and he has his point of view. He has worked in the area and his 'vision' of what he would like to see is worth considering from a planning perspective. I think there are many that share his view. Take a look at his work (you might even recognize some of it) and be open to other ideas. His urban infill projects are very cool.

And I agree with staplesla. I've worked with this company and it was a nightmare. And Marina_Guy look at his statements in the article. If he truly thinks all of that he's a moron. You can walk through the busyard, or Petco is taller than the surrounding highrises? Hum, I though Legend and the surrounding buildings were taller to allow for views of the ballpark. I guess I just had it wrong all of these years and he knows better.

[Marina_Guy]

And I agree with staplesla. I've worked with this company and it was a nightmare. And Marina_Guy look at his statements in the article. If he truly thinks all of that he's a moron. You can walk through the busyard, or Petco is taller than the surrounding highrises? Hum, I though Legend and the surrounding buildings were taller to allow for views of the ballpark. I guess I just had it wrong all of these years and he knows better.

There is a difference between mass and height. Active and inactive uses. Dedicating 14 acres to a mostly inactive use deserves serious discussion. I guess everyone is a 'moron' to ask such important questions. I guess people are 'morons' if they want a discussion about how redevelopment $$ should be allocated. I for one have no interest in sending my property tax dollars to Mr. Spanos.

[alasi]

I think at this point, any further discussion would be pointless. The arguments are starting to turn personal because we seem to be divided into two camps.

The pro stadium crowd wants to be the stadium because of : (1) public pride;(2) belief that stadiums and sports teams make money; and (3) that it's really not going to cost that much because of redevelopment money and infrastructure that is already in place.

The con stadium crowd is against the stadium because: (1) The price tag of the stadium is still probably over 500 million; (2) if redevelopment money is used, it means that other projects that would have been built will not be built or may have to be funded another way, meaning the stadium is still being financed by added taxes or bonds; and (3) they do not believe that PETCO can qualify as an example of successful development.

The positions have been laid out clearly, and the choice comes down to what we as a city value, understanding that neither side is right, just that we have different visions of what's important. When it comes time to vote, we will know where the majority of our city stands. I say we call a truce until then.

[kpexpress]

A few things to keep in mind: This is not an argument. I think it's great to openly share individuals' thoughts and feelings. I think that the core issues here have been highlighted already: CCDC money is not endless, in fact many exterior forces and entities are grabbing at the money that is set to redevelop our center city to make it a more human place to live work and play. It's obvious that many here (me to some very reserved degree) feel that building a chargers stadium will do just that, but there is no denying a certain few downsides to the project (albeit the scope of the project and conceptual thinking hasn't been revealed) a NFL Stadium at that scale does conflict with some key basic urban concepts like walkability, interconnectivity, human scale, green space, etc. I wonder what Jane Jacobs would have to say? As for the parking issue and utilizing the existing Petco Park parking, these lots are planned to be a massive urban vertical village, don't count on these parking lots being around forever.

[HurricaneHugo]

Most of you seem to be clueless. The new potential stadium development would not mirror that of Qualcomm. There is to be no additional park lots, but garages instead to be mixed with commercial/retail development.

So forget the map created on here as it shows what the current Qualcomm area would be if built in the exact same manner.

Why don't you wait two months for the designs and then start your NIMBY complaints.

I said the same thing before posting the map.

Wasn't trying to argue against the stadium or anything (in fact i'm in favor!) just an interesting map I found.

[PadreHomer]

I think that regardless of whether the stadium will make money for the city or not, I think the best that the city could realistically hope for is to break even, that it is a must for cities like San Diego to find a way to get these things done. For a city (like it or not) of San Diego's size and stature, building a stadium of only 2 major league sports teams in this city becomes almost as important as building roads, water and sewer systems.

We need to get this done and we need leaders to step up and move this forward to completion. A downtown area with a bus depot, empty lots and empty warehouses would be transformed into a premiere sports complex along with Petco park that even if it didn't make a dime would add tremendously to the culture of our city.

Big cities get this done, major league cities get this done. We need to get this done.

[Fusey]

I've got mixed feelings on a downtown stadium. I'll keep an open mind until I see some sort of plan since all we're hearing now are rumors and politicians blabbering.

[eburress]

I read this on another forum and thought it was very relevant to many of our recent discussions about budget, companies leaving...and it mentions CA a few times. Discuss... :)


"Anyone with any understanding of economics understands why there has been so much Texas coverage in the press lately. The way Texans do business works. If you make it easy to do business, you will prosper. If you make it difficult to do business, you will suffer. We were prudent in managing our economy, so now we get to enjoy things like new performing arts centers, deck parks, and transit expansion while Californians get IOUs.

Of course, now all the people who ran their states into the ground are coming to Texas to find work. They're bringing their politics with them. Big government liberals are locusts. They hop from place to place, destroying economies as they go. From New England, to the Rust Belt, to California... now to Texas. Enjoy your job while you have it."

[PadreHomer]

I read this on another forum and thought it was very relevant to many of our recent discussions about budget, companies leaving...and it mentions CA a few times. Discuss... :)


"Anyone with any understanding of economics understands why there has been so much Texas coverage in the press lately. The way Texans do business works. If you make it easy to do business, you will prosper. If you make it difficult to do business, you will suffer. We were prudent in managing our economy, so now we get to enjoy things like new performing arts centers, deck parks, and transit expansion while Californians get IOUs.

Of course, now all the people who ran their states into the ground are coming to Texas to find work. They're bringing their politics with them. Big government liberals are locusts. They hop from place to place, destroying economies as they go. From New England, to the Rust Belt, to California... now to Texas. Enjoy your job while you have it."
Well maybe if they leave here and go to texas we can pick up the pieces and fix their mess.

[bmfarley]

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/death_to_east_village/8693/

A football stadium in East Village? Architect/developer Graham Downes calls it “an idiotic idea.”

“It will be the death of the area,” he said. “You have this behemoth structure that’s very vertical just sitting there in the middle of town, just sapping all the energy out of the place.”

Downes, a vanguard in East Village’s redevelopment, has long been interested in the area’s industrial past and the potential re-use of its warehouses. He heads Blokhaus, a development company that, among other projects, overhauled the Wonder Bread Factory, the historic building on 14th Street, between Imperial Avenue and K Street, that’s become the reference point for a stadium site but was once part of Downes’ vision for East Village: a hip-yet-gritty live/work area—akin to Vancouver’s Yaletown—that connects seamlessly to Downtown and Barrio Logan, each neighborhood flowing into the next without losing its individual character.

“Somebody should do some visuals so they can see the impact of these two huge stadiums next to each other,” he said. “You can’t walk around them, you can’t walk through them. It’s like a walled city, like you plunked a castle in the middle. It’s somebody’s monument.”

An East Village stadium is far from a done deal, but discussions about its feasibility are moving forward faster than any other proposal put forward in the seven years since the Chargers first expressed interest in moving, arguing in 2002 that continued use of Qualcomm Stadium compromised the team’s “economic viability.”

On Oct. 30, online news site voiceofsandiego.org reported that Mayor Jerry Sanders had met with Chargers President Dean Spanos; Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed for a voice reporter that East Village was discussed. And, on Wednesday, Nov. 18, the board of directors for the Centre City Development Corp., the agency that oversees Downtown redevelopment, will vote on spending $160,000 on a consultant to study the stadium’s feasibility.

Darren Pudgil, Sanders’ spokesperson, told voice that the mayor’s preference was for the Chargers to stay in Mission Valley. It’s Downes’ preference, too.

“We need urban development Downtown,” he said. “A ballpark is not an urban development; it’s suburban development. It needs to be out in the sticks where there’s lots of parking, where cars can queue in line for ages without impacting the area.”

So far, only about 10 acres of land in East Village has been identified for a stadium—miniscule compared to the 592 square acres the City of Industry is making available for its proposed stadium. Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation exempting the L.A. area stadium from environmental review, further putting the pressure on San Diego County to site a new stadium or risk losing the Chargers to L.A.

On Monday, Downes dissolved his interest in the Wonder Bread building—he had been the controlling leaseholder. He did it for multiple reasons, he said, not just the stadium. But, he added, “lots of people have land in that area who are trying to make things happen. No one’s going to come down [to East Village] because they’re going to say, ‘Well, if I set up there, print up business cards and start to get cozy and the Chargers come in, I’m toast.’”
That's pretty much what I said a few days ago... I would like to see examples of a downtown football stadium and impacts around them. Pictures please. Otherwise, I have an overwhleming sense of feeling that a stadium will do the same... kill the energy around it.

[bmfarley]

Really? Is he suggesting that Petco is taller than the other high-rises in the area? And that the footprint takes up more space than other downtown developments? - Horton Plaza, Convention Center, Civic Center, etc. And Petco sapped all the energy out of the area? The Petco area is stronger now than it has been in decades. And once the economy comes back the empty stores will fill in.

This guy's an idiot.

Baseball does not equal football

[bmfarley]

And, hypothetically, where would the bus yard relocate too... and at who's expense?

I tell you... the expense would be on the backs of the public... specifically CCDC and pro-stadium financiers. And, selecting a new site is a dilemma.... because near downtown is an ideal location b/c it is near teh beginning/end of many bus routes.

By the way, that yard is owned by MTS..., not a city/county department.

[Fusey]

Someone already brought up Qwest Field in Seattle. It's probably the most relevant comparison with an adjacent baseball stadium. I'm not familiar enough with Seattle to know the impact Qwest Field has had on nearby businesses, but from the looks of it from Google Maps/Street View, the stadium doesn't exactly look like it fits well in the area.

There's also Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, but that is surrounded by parking lots; I don't think you could really use Ford Field in Detroit as example due to the dire economy in that city; the Metrodome in Minneapolis has been open for decades and is still surrounded by parking lots.

Unfortunately Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is so new it's hard judge the impact that that stadium has had on the surrounding area. It will host the Super Bowl in 2012, though. If any major developments are being planned the city, obviously, would be want them completed before then.

I say we check out the Indy threads, talk to Seattle forumers, and get their opinions. There's also the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, but like Seattle I'm not familiar enough with that city to know its impact.

[IconRPCV]

I think the best comparison would be Baltimore, they have their two stadiums downtown in the inner harbor area.

[tdavis]

And, hypothetically, where would the bus yard relocate too... and at who's expense?

I tell you... the expense would be on the backs of the public... specifically CCDC and pro-stadium financiers.

You don't know that? Why don't you wait for the details before making statements that may be false.

[IconRPCV]

Lets build things. Lets build the stadium, and the library, and an extensive mass-transit system, and a new airport, a new city hall, the convention center expansion, and more parks. What would San Diego be without Balboa Park, or Mission Bay, or Jack Murphy Stadium, thank goodness that someone once had the foresight to BUILD something to make this place better.

During the great depression we built our way out of it, why not build our way out of the great recession.

[Fusey]

I think the best comparison would be Baltimore, they have their two stadiums downtown in the inner harbor area.

I don't think Baltimore works. The football stadium there is cut off from the rest of downtown and is practically surrounded by freeways.

[eburress]

Lets build things. Lets build the stadium, and the library, and an extensive mass-transit system, and a new airport, a new city hall, the convention center expansion, and more parks. What would San Diego be without Balboa Park, or Mission Bay, or Jack Murphy Stadium, thank goodness that someone once had the foresight to BUILD something to make this place better.

During the great depression we built our way out of it, why not build our way out of the great recession.

hahaha - I think you're onto something.

[eburress]

Well maybe if they leave here and go to texas we can pick up the pieces and fix their mess.

So, a bunch of Texans came to California and are currently here messing things up? And for that matter, who is in Texas right now making things work...Californians?

[eburress]

Someone already brought up Qwest Field in Seattle. It's probably the most relevant comparison with an adjacent baseball stadium. I'm not familiar enough with Seattle to know the impact Qwest Field has had on nearby businesses, but from the looks of it from Google Maps/Street View, the stadium doesn't exactly look like it fits well in the area.

There's also Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, but that is surrounded by parking lots; I don't think you could really use Ford Field in Detroit as example due to the dire economy in that city; the Metrodome in Minneapolis has been open for decades and is still surrounded by parking lots.

Unfortunately Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is so new it's hard judge the impact that that stadium has had on the surrounding area. It will host the Super Bowl in 2012, though. If any major developments are being planned the city, obviously, would be want them completed before then.

I say we check out the Indy threads, talk to Seattle forumers, and get their opinions. There's also the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, but like Seattle I'm not familiar enough with that city to know its impact.

I am somewhat familiar with Seattle prior to the stadium being built, and it was pretty inhospitable to begin with. I can't imagine the stadium hurting the situation.

[bmfarley]

You don't know that? Why don't you wait for the details before making statements that may be false.
You're right. The transit system will probably rollover and just give the property away! They don't need a maintenace and storage facility.... they could roll up their buses at night and park them around your apartment building. That might as welll be a good place to change the oil and fluids too.

[dl3000]

Lets build things. Lets build the stadium, and the library, and an extensive mass-transit system, and a new airport, a new city hall, the convention center expansion, and more parks. What would San Diego be without Balboa Park, or Mission Bay, or Jack Murphy Stadium, thank goodness that someone once had the foresight to BUILD something to make this place better.

During the great depression we built our way out of it, why not build our way out of the great recession.

Hell yeah! Thats what I'm all about. PS, World War II ended the great depression, had to crank out that military industrial complex, the new deal and other public works only started it but they didn't finish the job.


And on this Texas thing, sure low taxes and regulation for business is the way to go. I typically am for government regulation (you can say im a "big government liberal" if you want to) but there is a line and California has crossed it. All these contradicting propositions and stuff that each has its own budget and if it gets passed its law may have worked when the state was smaller, but it is ridiculously inefficient. I think the state government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up. And I dont care how nice the amenities in Texas are, money doesn't buy you beaches and dry summers and mild winters.

[eburress]

Hell yeah! Thats what I'm all about. PS, World War II ended the great depression, had to crank out that military industrial complex, the new deal and other public works only started it but they didn't finish the job.


And on this Texas thing, sure low taxes and regulation for business is the way to go. I typically am for government regulation (you can say im a "big government liberal" if you want to) but there is a line and California has crossed it. All these contradicting propositions and stuff that each has its own budget and if it gets passed its law may have worked when the state was smaller, but it is ridiculously inefficient. I think the state government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up. And I dont care how nice the amenities in Texas are, money doesn't buy you beaches and dry summers and mild winters.

For sure! hahaha (though if the Chargers leave, I don't care how great the weather and beaches are - I'm still outta here! :) )

[Crackertastik]

Hell yeah! Thats what I'm all about. PS, World War II ended the great depression, had to crank out that military industrial complex, the new deal and other public works only started it but they didn't finish the job.


And on this Texas thing, sure low taxes and regulation for business is the way to go. I typically am for government regulation (you can say im a "big government liberal" if you want to) but there is a line and California has crossed it. All these contradicting propositions and stuff that each has its own budget and if it gets passed its law may have worked when the state was smaller, but it is ridiculously inefficient. I think the state government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up. And I dont care how nice the amenities in Texas are, money doesn't buy you beaches and dry summers and mild winters.


Another less talked about Problem with California...Proposition 13 which limits property taxes. Since 78, just try to imagine how much property values have increased, and then imagine how stagnant property tax increases have been. It makes the taxes due on properties disproportionate to their value. That is a SHIT ton of money the state is losing out on.

This state should be much more business friendly, lower corporate taxes, and counter that by having regulations restricting a free for all. And then, the state should get compensation for its land value back to proper proportionality.

[PadreHomer]

So, a bunch of Texans came to California and are currently here messing things up? And for that matter, who is in Texas right now making things work...Californians?
no

[Dale]

Hell yeah! Thats what I'm all about. PS, World War II ended the great depression, had to crank out that military industrial complex, the new deal and other public works only started it but they didn't finish the job.


And on this Texas thing, sure low taxes and regulation for business is the way to go. I typically am for government regulation (you can say im a "big government liberal" if you want to) but there is a line and California has crossed it. All these contradicting propositions and stuff that each has its own budget and if it gets passed its law may have worked when the state was smaller, but it is ridiculously inefficient. I think the state government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up. And I dont care how nice the amenities in Texas are, money doesn't buy you beaches and dry summers and mild winters.

Yeah, but does it buy you money ? The money part is the one thing that keeps me from living in SD.

[kpexpress]

I am in no way proposing this or am saying that I would be in favor of such a proposal, but I thought I would pose the question. This is of course in regards to the downtown Chargers football stadium.

If the Chargers, some how, acquire a huge portion of land, lets say from the 5 to Park Blvd, and between Imperial and K Street. And there they developed a world class multi-sport (but football focused) olympic grade sports venue with a mixed use urban village to tie it into the grid......

Do you think that if the above was actually pulled off would the Barrio feel LESS or MORE disconnected from Downtown?

I think that if that was done it would create a huge physical CORNER in downtown and virtually boundary off any connection neighborhood, but then I was thinking and asked myself the question, "How connected is the Barrio to Downtown?" "Would they even care?" "Would downtown notice a difference?"

The two neighborhoods and even more southern areas of the city are directly connected by the Trolley and all seem to enjoy and quaint local vibe with local economies and walkable neighorhoods not so much dependent on a direct (pedestrian, or vehicular) access to downtown.

Your thoughts...... KP

[dl3000]

My thoughts align more with your second opinion. I never though the Barrio to be well linked anyway, especially with the rail yards and the 5 freeway, Coronado bridge, shipyards etc. That part of DT was never "vibrant" or "diverse" but rather just industrial. Though I say that sports venue idea would effectively wall off downtown, which may not be so good for anyone.

[SDfan]

I can see the people in Barrio Logan being concerned about noise, density and potential redevelopment in their neighborhood...mainly because they have voiced these concerns to the city before. The SD Reader had an excellent cover story on the Barrio a few months ago. I think a sports complex would be a positive for the area (dead sports complex or dead industrial area?). An urban village would be nice, but if bay access is bad enough by fifth, what about around tenth where you have an industrial marine terminal? Not very appealing to see or live by. I just wonder what the port and its workers in the area are going to say. They protested Ballpark Village fearing it would eventually push them into the bay. I can see them protesting any residential/commercial/hotel developments that may spring up around them.

[spoonman]

One thing I think many overlook is the concept that a stadium downtown will shift more public attention downtown. This includes national attention (people from others locales that will notice our vibrant downtown), and it will bring more attention from locals. I can't tell you how many older people still think downtown is just a sleazy place to get hookers.

I see moving the stadium as a way of incrementally reversing the bad pro-suburb decisions that have been made for so many decades. We are returning these amenities back to downtown. We are supporting our increasingly urban model...why doesn't anyone see it that way?

Cost aside (and that is hard to imagine), the stadium appears absolutely worth it considering the small amount of land the stadium will occupy. It's a small price to lure people back towards the urban core.

[kpexpress]

One thing I think many overlook is the concept that a stadium downtown will shift more public attention downtown. This includes national attention (people from others locales that will notice our vibrant downtown), and it will bring more attention from locals. I can't tell you how many older people still think downtown is just a sleazy place to get hookers.

I see moving the stadium as a way of incrementally reversing the bad pro-suburb decisions that have been made for so many decades. We are returning these amenities back to downtown. We are supporting our increasingly urban model...why doesn't anyone see it that way?

Cost aside (and that is hard to imagine), the stadium appears absolutely worth it considering the small amount of land the stadium will occupy. It's a small price to lure people back towards the urban core.

yeah like the gigantic working bay doesn't already draw national and local attention.

"Small amount of land" are you serious? Amount of land completely aside, please consider the scale you're dealing with. Driving around Qualcomm is one thing....do-able if needed, but walking around it (and it's parking lots) is not enjoyable whatsoever. Scale scale scale, urban pedestrian friendly and monster stadiums don't really mix. And this is coming from a stadium supporter, but when it comes down to it I would support a walkable East Village with close connections to Barrio/Southwestern/Golden Hill neighbors. We've already fenced off part of our downtown with the convention center, you would think we would have learned our lesson with that (yes, I know the cc brings ton's of commerce and a stadium would too, but try walking around it...or over it like CC).

[staplesla]

The downtown San Diego bus yard being studied as a site for a new football stadium has been the subject of a county environmental investigation since 1986.

Leaking underground storage tanks and pipes have periodically discharged diesel fuel, gasoline and oil into the soil and groundwater 10 to 15 feet below the site’s surface, nine football fields northeast of San Diego Bay.

The environmental damage at the site, a few blocks east of Petco Park, could require an expensive cleanup that might mean delays for any development. It’s unclear who would pay for a remedy that could run into the millions of dollars.

Excessive cleanup costs could lead the Chargers to look elsewhere for a new stadium, said special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has guided the team’s search since 2002.

“You can certainly envision scenarios where the cleanup is a deal-breaker,” Fabiani said. “Once you undertake the financial obligation of a cleanup, there’s no telling where it stops and no telling how long it takes.”

At times, the level of petroleum contaminants and carcinogens such as benzene found during testing has exceeded safety limits, and monitoring continues, according to files at the county Department of Environmental Health.

Eight thick file folders outline 23 years of oversight at the northwest corner of 16th Street and Imperial Avenue, which is owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and houses its bus fleet and offices.

Records show that the 5-acre lot has operated as a bus fueling yard and maintenance facility for nearly a century. Calls to the Metropolitan Transit System were not returned yesterday.

The Chargers have retained Turner Construction Co. to review several issues at the site, including the contamination. A report could be ready next month.

Fabiani has said site cleanup would probably be part of the stadium project, but the extent of the damage wasn’t widely known until The San Diego Union-Tribune reviewed county records this week.

Who might pay for the cleanup and whether contaminated soil would be removed or covered by some sort of buffer are “open to discussion,” Fabiani said yesterday.

The San Diego environmental law firm Caufield & James LLP notes on its Web site, “As a general rule, the party responsible for an unauthorized release of contaminants or a substantial permit violation will also be responsible for remediation — including notice to affected parties, cleanup, restoration and assurance of adequate preventive measures.”

A new stadium could cost $800 million to $1 billion and has been on the Chargers’ wish list for seven years. It’s premature to say to what extent, if any, a stadium plan could involve public financing.

A downtown stadium, far from a sure thing, would require the assembly of several parcels of land, perhaps through eminent domain, and financing in a rough economy.

After long saying the city wouldn’t help the team financially, Mayor Jerry Sanders met with team President Dean Spanos in October, and last week the city’s downtown redevelopment arm, the Centre City Development Corp., paid $160,000 to study how to pay for a new downtown stadium.

That review could be done within three or four months.

The site being eyed by the city and team consists of the bus yard, some adjacent private parcels and a portion of city-owned Tailgate Park east of an earthquake fault.

The county opened its investigation of the bus-yard site in May 1986 after four 10,000- to 20,000-gallon underground storage tanks that held diesel fuel failed integrity tests, indicating probable breaches.

The leak was later determined to be in pipes on the site, but nothing was done for years, records show.

Then in 1993, eight new underground storage tanks were installed to replace a range of older ones. From 1994 to 1997, 16 other tanks were removed. Some were leaking or had holes, and others were pulled from soil heavily discolored by petroleum products or near contaminated groundwater. In 2006, two additional tanks were drained and left in place.

A note in the file from a 1997 meeting between county officials and the property owners reads, “Health risk is minimal long-term since there is open yard/no buildings.”

Yet 2,030 cubic yards of contaminated soil were trucked off site in 1993 and at least 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were hauled away in 1997, records show. (A full-size pickup can carry about 4 cubic yards.)

Another county file shows that the nearby Wonder Bread building, which would be in the stadium footprint, had contaminated soil and groundwater in September 1998.

A consultant hired by the Wonder Bread building’s then-owner speculated that the gasoline probably came from the bus yard, but the county didn’t confirm it.

A handwritten note in that file raises such a possibility, however. It asks “is something coming” from the bus yard and notes that benzene was found in two soil samples at the Wonder Bread site.

The Chargers have played at Qualcomm Stadium on 166 acres of city-owned land in Mission Valley since 1967. That area is the subject of a legal dispute between the city and owners of a massive nearby tank farm over the cleanup of a mile-long, underground plume of petroleum products. If the team ultimately quits the site, it also would need to be cleaned before redevelopment could occur there.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/28/chargers-could-bail-bus-yard-over-fouled-soil/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2009/11/28/site_t352.jpg?980751187beea6fc26a3a9e93795d379f58af1c4

[Derek]

Big fucking surprise.

[HurricaneHugo]

Yeah I'm pretty sure they know about that this isn't news...

[kpexpress]

Excavate it and fill it in with three layers of underground parking. Problem solved.

[staplesla]

This is an interesting survey from Forbes measuring the economic security of metro areas across the nation. You can click on the arrows to sort the columns.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/cities-recovery-unemployment-lifestyle-real-estate-top-ten-chart.html

[staplesla]

A new $27 million pedestrian suspension bridge under construction in downtown San Diego near the convention center and Petco Park is not going to be completed on time. The bridge was initially supposed to be finished by early next year, but officials from San Diego’s Centre City Development Corporation have said it’s going to be late next summer before the span is ready for pedestrians.

"I think we were probably a little over ambitious, optimistic... ," the CCDC’s Derek Danziger told 10News.

Danziger said no one in particular is to blame for the delay. "It’s not something like a cookie-cutter type of a design. It’s something that had to be completely done from scratch and, in that, there’s a lot of nuances to that that maybe we just didn’t predict in terms of timing," he said.

The bridge is being designed by the well-known design firm T.Y. Lin, out of San Francisco. They’re the firm behind the design of the new eastern span of the Oakland Bay Bridge. That project was originally supposed to be completed in 2007, but now isn’t scheduled for completion until 2013.

A representative from T.Y. Lin told 10News that the delays with the San Diego bridge aren’t a big deal. He chalked it up to assumptions about how fast the contractor building it would do their work, as well as the Ohio-based fabricator making the bridge pieces; assumptions that turned out to be wrong. But Lin rejects any charges that the issues that led to the delay could’ve been predicted.

The San Diego pedestrian bridge is being funded primarily with taxpayer dollars from federal, state and local sources. The JMI Reality Company, which is associated with Petco Park kicked in nearly $5 million of the overall $27 million pricetag.

http://www.10news.com/2009/1203/21791493_240X180.jpg
http://www.ccdc.com/images/img_harbor_drive_pedbridge_north.jpg

http://www.10news.com/news/21791269/detail.html

[HurricaneHugo]

Engineers/Contractors always skew numbers to get the bid...

[spoonman]

The bridge to nowhere...the city should have spent the money putting the train tracks below grade instead...

[kpexpress]

The bridge to nowhere...the city should have spent the money putting the train tracks below grade instead...

This is not a bridge to nowhere, this bridge will provide direct access to the bay front for all the East Village residents, and complete the Bay-to-Park link vision that has shaped development for this town for over 100 years.

It's also an iconic gateway to the city from the South, and helps define the East Village's relationship to the Bay. San Diego is notorious (in my opinion) to cutting off access to the bay (it's most prized characteristic).

[OneMetropolis]

This is not a bridge to nowhere, this bridge will provide direct access to the bay front for all the East Village residents, and complete the Bay-to-Park link vision that has shaped development for this town for over 100 years.

It's also an iconic gateway to the city from the South, and helps define the East Village's relationship to the Bay. San Diego is notorious (in my opinion) to cutting off access to the bay (it's most prized characteristic).


Bravo...:rolleyes:

j/k:haha:

[HurricaneHugo]

This is not a bridge to nowhere, this bridge will provide direct access to the bay front for all the East Village residents, and complete the Bay-to-Park link vision that has shaped development for this town for over 100 years.

It's also an iconic gateway to the city from the South, and helps define the East Village's relationship to the Bay. San Diego is notorious (in my opinion) to cutting off access to the bay (it's most prized characteristic).

True story.

[CoastersBolts]

So will the recent developments concerning the bridge delay plans to connect Park Boulevard to Harbor Drive?

[ShekelPop]

Some excerpts from the CA Real Estate Journal, 12/7/09

Expansion for S.D. Convention Center
Mandy Jackson

Task force recommends pursuing $752.7 million project to prevent losing hospitality business despite city facing a $179 million budget deficit

While San Diego is facing a budget deficit of at least $179 million for its next fiscal year, the city is considering an expansion of its convention center that could cost more than $700 million. Citizens Coordinate for Century 3, a nonprofi t group focused on local and regional planning issues, invited three members of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders’ citizen task force assigned to study an expansion of the San Diego Convention Center to address the challenges of the $752.7 million project.

Mark Steele, a task force member and founder of architecture fi rm MW Steele Group, moderated the discussion. Steele said major projects in downtown San Diego, such as construction of a new main library, redevelopment of the Civic Center Complex and expansion of the convention center, are long overdue. With a 225,000-square-foot expansion that would include exhibition space, meeting rooms and a ballroom, the convention center would total 1.2 million square feet.

The new space is expected to provide $372 million per year in direct spending, 6,885 permanent jobs, $155.6 million in annual gross room sales for hotels and $34.2 million per year in city, sales and transient occupancy tax revenue. Advertising and public relations executive Bob Nelson, vice chairman of the San Diego Convention Center Corp. board of directors, noted that the purpose of the convention center is not to serve the citizens of San Diego. Instead, the facility’s purpose is to generate revenue that pays for city services. “A lot of other cities want to be convention cities,” Nelson said. While San Diego’s convention center represents only 9 percent of the exhibit space in the western United States, the facility booked 33 percent of the most sought-after conventions in the country this year. Nelson explained that the industry standard for convention center occupancy is 55 percent because of the time the facilities need for setting up and tearing down events, but San Diego’s convention center runs at more than 70 percent of its capacity due to strong demand. Convention Retention Some conferences are turning away from the city because of the convention center’s lack of space.

For the rest of the article, see http://carealestatejournal.com/

[mongoXZ]

how bout fixin dem potholez phurst?

[HurricaneHugo]

I'm all up for the expansion as long as it's done tastefully.

[kpexpress]

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/undergroundfootball.jpg

[dl3000]

Soooo whats that?

[eburress]

Soooo whats that?

hahaha - that's what I was wondering.

[SDfan]

I think they are suggesting we put the stadium under the city.

[HurricaneHugo]

I think they are suggesting we put the stadium under the city.

And hook it up with our massive subway system!:banana:

[eburress]

And hook it up with our massive subway system!:banana:

They could build it right next to the city's new subterranean international airport. ;)

[Derek]

:ack:

[staplesla]

For seven years, the San Diego Chargers have said they would build a new stadium without using taxpayer money. Thursday, a team spokesman said otherwise.

“It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money,” said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium search since 2002.

“Now the question is: Can you say to the taxpayers you’re putting in this, but here’s what you’re getting back? And you know, it’s possible you can make that case.”

It’s a significant shift for the team, which has always expressed a desire to finance stadium construction privately and acknowledged via Fabiani the difficulty of getting public support for any kind of taxpayer subsidy.

Fabiani’s latest comments came in an interview after he made a pitch for a new stadium and chief operating officer Jim Steeg touted the team’s value to the community at a morning gathering of the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce at Sony headquarters in Rancho Bernardo.

Fabiani was updating the crowd of 40 or 50 people on early efforts by the city and team to evaluate a potential stadium site in downtown San Diego east of Petco Park.

That location is in the city’s downtown redevelopment area, so it’s possible that the city could borrow money against future property taxes to help finance a stadium.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but an aide said last month that the Mayor’s Office is looking at all ways cities have helped with stadium construction, including infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Thursday, Fabiani told the crowd a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. In the past, it has been said that the Chargers and the National Football League might contribute $200 million apiece to a stadium, and that the gap would be bridged by nearby ancillary development such as hotels, condos and retail.

The team has set aside that idea because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium to abut the street and expand to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls, with little room to build much else in the way of ancillary development.

Fabiani told the crowd Thursday about the need for creative financing and twice said a new financing model was something people must “wrap their heads around.”

Afterward, he said the team has “no interest in obscuring” from people its shift on public financing because it wants support from voters to achieve its goals.

Fabiani again said Thursday that the team wants to put any stadium measure onto a public ballot.

“We have no interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, even into the millions, on this site, and then finding out that nobody wants to support it,” he said. “We think we should lay it out on the table right now that this is a very different kind of site, that it’s not the same model that we’ve used before, that people need to adjust their thinking about that, and that you’re not going to have ancillary development on the same site.”

A push to use public money would face opposition from Donna Frye, the longest-serving member of the San Diego City Council, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium.

“My main point will always be that the taxpayers don’t foot the bill,” she said last week. “We cannot afford to pay for a Chargers stadium. The city can’t afford it. That would include any money from the redevelopment agency.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/10/chargers-say-they-need-public-money-stadium/

[SDfan]

Booooo.

[Derek]

Fuck Donna Frye!

[kpexpress]

Soooo whats that?

not under the city, just submerged a bit so as keeping the street level circulation scaled more toward human walking.

[CoastersBolts]

Fuck Donna Frye!

Ditto.

[mello]

The only way I see the citizens of San Diego voting yes on any use of public funds is if the vote is right after the Chargers win the Superbowl. Other then that the stadium will not get built with public funds if it is put to a vote. Why does everything in San Diego need to get voted on? Is there a way to use public money and not have it go to a ballot measure?

I wonder if there is anyway to get the county to chip in money and not just the city of SD. This is going to be interesting. The developer in LA says that a team must commit to the stadium before he begins construction so whoever goes there would have to play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 2 to 3 years before moving in to the new stadium in the City of Industry.

[tdavis]

I predict this will continue to stall as it has been for months, or the voters will vote no - with the end result being the Chargers moving to Los Angeles.

[IconRPCV]

/\
/\

Thankfully for us this guy up in LA wants majority ownership in the team that moves to LA and the Spanos family is not looking to give up more than half the team.

[Derek]

I'll be following the Chargers and move to Los Angeles. Yikes. I hate LA.

[eburress]

I'll be following the Chargers and move to Los Angeles. Yikes. I hate LA.

I think at that point I'll either head back to Dallas or maybe give Seattle or Portland a try. ;)

[Derek]

Portland sounds good, but no sports teams = no bueno. :(



I guess they have the Trail Blazers...

[eburress]

Portland sounds good, but no sports teams = no bueno. :(



I guess they have the Trail Blazers...

Bball's my second favorite sport and I think I could get on-board with the Blazers. ;)

[Fusey]

^ Too bad Oden gets injured more often than Merriman. :haha:

Portland is an okay. I think it's a bit overrated compared to several other US cities.

[HurricaneHugo]

Screw you guys, I'll go down with the ship!

[pesto]

I sympathize with how you feel. I would like to see LA get a team from outside the state but who knows which one we'll get. Whoever it is, I'll become a fan (except if it's the Raiders).

The real problem is the sprawl. SD might lose a team but it' hard to say that "LA" gets one. The Chargers would move 20 miles from LA. Industry is basically on the border of LA, SB, Riverside and Orange Counties. Similarly, the Rams and Angels were in a different county. Same in the Bay Area: the SF 49er's and maybe the Raiders and A's may move 50 miles away to SJ.

It might be tough, but you could probably find a rationale for staying Charger fans. I stayed a Rams fan after they moved to St. Louis. Maybe think of them as the SoCal Chargers of Industry What's it all really mean, after all?

Or move to Portland; nice place in the summer.

[HurricaneHugo]

I'm not sharing the Chargers with the rest of SoCal.

Screw them.

Anyways, anything going on with the Gaylord site?

[tdavis]

I'm not sharing the Chargers with the rest of SoCal.

Screw them.

Anyways, anything going on with the Gaylord site?

Gaylord pulled out a while back saying that "CA's attitude toward business wasn't conducive for it to move forward" - meaning taxes. To date no other projects have been announced for the area.

[staplesla]

I'm not sure about any new proposals, but here is the info on Gaylord pulling out.

http://www.tradeshowweek.com/article/CA6619279.html

And for those new here, here are some photos of what Gaylord had proposed:
http://photos.signonsandiego.com/album151

[eburress]

Gaylord pulled out a while back saying that "CA's attitude toward business wasn't conducive for it to move forward"

I wonder if it has occurred to anybody that maybe we ought to fix that little attitude toward business problem.

[HurricaneHugo]

The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

[Derek]

The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

I concur.

[tdavis]

The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

Unfortunately I don't think it will happen there. Chula Vista already backed out earlier this year.

[HurricaneHugo]

Well wasn't that from the other site?

[tdavis]

Well wasn't that from the other site?

Yeah, but it didn't have to do with the site. It was because Chula Vista is in more of a fiscal mess than SD, and the leaders of CV decided they didn't have the financial clout to go up against SD or LA and ceased all talks.

[staplesla]

Perfect timing for this story considering the recent comments.


Considered an eyesore and an environmental nightmare, community leaders Tuesday demanded the demolition of the South Bay Power Plant, which sits on the south side of Chula Vista's bayfront.

However, 10News learned with the city's high hopes for the property, developer Gaylord Entertainment could be a part of the property's future.

More than a year ago, Gaylord pulled out of their plans for a billion-dollar hotel and convention center project on the bayfront. Now, work is under way to specifically attract them back to the table.

more after the jump.......

http://www.10news.com/news/21978297/detail.html

[HurricaneHugo]

So why would this work when they pulled out of the other site?

[staplesla]

So why would this work when they pulled out of the other site?

It sounds to me that the Chula Vista leadership is just hoping. It's hard for me to imagine any $1 billion projects getting off the ground in this economic climate, but who knows.

[kpexpress]

I talked to one of my professors today about his thoughts on a downtown chargers stadium. His response was very negative toward having it put downtown and extremely negative to having public money spent to get it built.

I think I agree with him on the public money part, especially when the roads and sidewalks are crumbling around the center city and it severely lacks green space. Since when does the public give to private for something, should be the other way around if any giving is going to happen. And I think I agree with him that downtown is not a fitting location for an NFL stadium, just think about the massive dead zone this stadium would create downtown, and kill the walkability factor of the neighborhood that it sits in.

This will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out in the upcoming months. The issue will likely be raised at the CCAC meeting (Jan 20) and I thought I heard that CCDC has started to conduct a financial feasibility and market impact study on the construction of a downtown stadium. Should be very interesting.

[HurricaneHugo]

It's already a dead zone...

[kpexpress]

It's already a dead zone...

Dead to you maybe, but it has so much potential to become a vibrant residential neighborhood without a gigantic stadium.

Plus, can someone please share with me why that would be a good place for a stadium? And I don't want to hear "cause it would be so cool! I love the chargers"

Seriously, think about the amount of parking surface needed to facilitate those events and the tailgating culture.

I still think they should revisit the idea of building it at Qualcomm. Or has that been exhausted too?

[HurricaneHugo]

The parking is already there. That's one of the appeals of the site. There won't be any more surface parking lots added.

Petco Park has enough parking for 45k people, so they would need to add maybe two parking structures to the area.

As for a "dead zone," do people complain about Petco Park October-March?

And no it's not my first choice site, I'd prefer the Qualcomm site but the soil there is A LOT more contaminated that the bus yard site.

I see this as the Chargers last chance to stay in SD vs the POSSIBILITY of the SE East Village becoming a "vibrant neighborhood."

I'll pick the former easily.

[staplesla]

The mentioning of a new stadium creating a dead zone is ridiculous. Consider what the area around Petco looked like just 10 years ago to today. And this is with an average to poor team. Imagine how many people would be down there if the Padres were on top of their game.

Also, there are ways to build the stadium to incorporate it with the surrounding area, without blocking off too much space as well. This is one of my complaints about the convention center, but it seems that the Chargers are attempting to do this by utilizing existing Petco parking....granted we'll have to wait and see the designs/studies.

And building a stadium that would take out 4-6 blocks of a neighborhood wouldn't destroy the entire neighborhood. Look at the area surrounding Wrigley Field. It's a pretty hip area with sports bars, shops....one that many people wish to live in.

I would rather have it in downtown though considering that people who go to the Q simply go to watch the game, then drive home. However many who would go to a downtown game, would then walk around, dine out, shop - which puts more money into the city's coffers. And the 5 is one block away for those wish to see the game only for quick access out of the area.

Here is an interesting article I found. Obviously the scope of the projects are a bit smaller, but still - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20030112/ai_n10013847/

[S.DviaPhilly]

Dead to you maybe, but it has so much potential to become a vibrant residential neighborhood without a gigantic stadium.

Plus, can someone please share with me why that would be a good place for a stadium? And I don't want to hear "cause it would be so cool! I love the chargers"

Seriously, think about the amount of parking surface needed to facilitate those events and the tailgating culture.

I still think they should revisit the idea of building it at Qualcomm. Or has that been exhausted too?


That area is dead, i live right there and never walk east out of my place (unless The Mission.) I think there is a real huge opportunity here to build the stadium and extend "The Ballpark Area" east. I do not see the "potential" being developed there for years and years unless the stadium is built there. As was said above, look what Petco did for that area of downtown. It went from a pretty crappy area, to a fun vibrant neighborhood. Plus I bet if the new stadium passes downtown, snowball development would definitely happen. Projects like Ballpark Village would get off the ground too to accommodate Super Bowl needs. Also downtown you have the harbor. When Jacksonville had the Super Bowl they had luxury cruise ships parked in the harbor for people to stay at. Plus the S.B would bring millions to the city every 5 years or so.

I wonder if the Chargers make a huge run in the playoffs (knock on wood), if the stadium has a better shot of getting passed?!?!? Like when the Padres were in talks about a new ballpark and then went to the World Series in '98, and then got their ballpark downtown.

[kpexpress]

OMG, everyone always reverts back to comparing this potential project to Petco Park. NFL STADIUMS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BASEBALL STADIUMS! Why is that so hard to understand. The size, parking requirement, duration and frequency of use is completely different. Building a stadium there due to the existing parking capacity should not be the leading reason to consider this site.

[tommaso]

Uploaded on December 8, 2009
by ww_whist

New office building set inside/atop old brick building's walls

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2715/4171198182_40f77440d4_b.jpg

[tommaso]

Uploaded on August 28, 2009
by So Cal Metro

Market Street

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3864475924_cd81fa5185_b.jpg

New highrises along Market Street in downtown San Diego. From front to back, they are Alta, The Mark, and Strata.