SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[SDCAL]

You may not care about the Chargers, but many do. The Chargers need a solution almost as bad as Comic-Con. Remember that at 8 games a year times 70,000 seats, that's 560,000 attendees. If 15% are from out of town, that is 84,000 attendees that may need hotel accommodations, dining, etc. Like Comic-Con, an NFL team provides us a lot of exposure and brings people here.

Unfortunately our citizenry is too short sighted to make any of these projects happen, and people on the city council will not pass measures to make this a reality for fear of reprisal. Face it, the same people that don't want you to have increased density and better transit, also don't want you to have an airport, convention center, or stadium. (NIMBY's -and their appointees-are why we can't have nice things!)

My opinion is that it is worth it to pony up a couple large underutilized mega-blocks only IF it helps get a convention center and stadium done and IF the project can be done to blend into the existing area and further accelerate growth in EV. But, the design has to be good for this to work. We don't want to waste space for additional density, or ruin/wall off sections of downtown. If given a choice, I would build a new Chargers stadium in MV and add development on that site, while moving ahead on the CC plan. But i'm open to downtown if it is the only way to get it done

The big question is will the city have an easier, or harder time getting voters to approve a dual-use project?? At least Spans would be kicking in some money, but the total cost is much higher.

I guess the thing I am most confused/irritated about is why everything needs a vote?

Maybe someone with more civic/city government understanding can shed some light on this, but can't the city council and mayor put certain taxes into place without a public vote if they impact critical infrastructure or economic vitality?

We live in a representative democracy, meaning we elect people who are supposed to evaluate with experts and determine whether things like a larger convention center is needed or not and then act on it based on their research.

Can they NOT move forward without a vote, or are they simply being spineless?

The reason I was drawing a distinction between a football stadium and a convention center is because I see a clear line there.

A football stadium should be something that the public weighs-in on because it's an entertainment venue and, even if it does generate some revenue for the city, it is still not a necessity. The public has a right to give input especially since wherever it is build could have a large impact on traffic, parking, future growth, etc.

A convention center expansion, on the other hand, is something that is vital to downtown's economy, it is a necessity, it is what keeps downtown hotels running, and it's in a location that is specifically for this type of activity - conventions and conferences.

The reason I said these should not be combined is because I think the city should be able to move forward on the convention center independently of a public vote because it's core infrastructure, but a charger's stadium is something that requires public input/a public vote.

I mean we don't decide to add more fire departments by tying them to plans for an amusement park. We don't have the public "vote" on if more hospitals are needed and then to "entice" them to vote yes tie it to plans to build a water park.

[tyleraf]

Nope according to the california state constitution, citizens must approve every new tax regardless of whether it directly affects them.

[SDfan]

I guess the thing I am most confused/irritated about is why everything needs a vote?

Maybe someone with more civic/city government understanding can shed some light on this, but can't the city council and mayor put certain taxes into place without a public vote if they impact critical infrastructure or economic vitality?

We live in a representative democracy, meaning we elect people who are supposed to evaluate with experts and determine whether things like a larger convention center is needed or not and then act on it based on their research.

Can they NOT move forward without a vote, or are they simply being spineless?

The reason I was drawing a distinction between a football stadium and a convention center is because I see a clear line there.

A football stadium should be something that the public weighs-in on because it's an entertainment venue and, even if it does generate some revenue for the city, it is still not a necessity. The public has a right to give input especially since wherever it is build could have a large impact on traffic, parking, future growth, etc.

A convention center expansion, on the other hand, is something that is vital to downtown's economy, it is a necessity, it is what keeps downtown hotels running, and it's in a location that is specifically for this type of activity - conventions and conferences.

The reason I said these should not be combined is because I think the city should be able to move forward on the convention center independently of a public vote because it's core infrastructure, but a charger's stadium is something that requires public input/a public vote.

I mean we don't decide to add more fire departments by tying them to plans for an amusement park. We don't have the public "vote" on if more hospitals are needed and then to "entice" them to vote yes tie it to plans to build a water park.


The convention center is not core infrastructure. As fundamental as it may seem to San Diego's economy (particularly downtown), it isn't a necessity by any means. If that was the case, every city would have one. Essential services include fire, police, streets, sewage, garbage, etc. And even those services could be theoretically privatized, and if they need more funding we need to vote on raising taxes (like a few years ago when Sanders tried getting a voter approved sales tax hike for police and firefighters approved - it failed).

Whether or not we expand the convention center isn't a given, its a discretion, which the state of California has decided needs to be voted upon by the general public.

Most hospitals, while heavily regulated by government, are private operations and entities. UCSD doesn't ask for voter approval for their new facilities because they receive new construction funds from large donors, corporate entities, and federal grants. The new hospital being built off the five is named after Qualcomm's Jacobs because he's the one who foot the bill.

While I wish this process was different, it's what we have. San Diego government might decide to put this on the ballot - but it isn't likely to pass. If the city could reject a sales tax increase for essential services like police and fire, I doubt that it would approve a tax for a non-essential like the convention center.

The Chargers are another story though. Sports teams carry a lot of clout in that they connect at a personal level to many individuals who would otherwise be against tax increases. My tea party minded father wouldn't vote yes on a school bond measure to build my charter school, but he would gladly vote yes on a stadium deal if it meant keeping his beloved Chargers in San Diego (priorities much?).

So I'm not confident that the city will find another source of income for the center anytime soon. If they appeal, they will lose. If they put it on the ballot, the will lose.

[mello]

^^^ But this is a tax for hotels not a sales tax increase or a bond measure. This is a tax the hoteliers are already ok with, no money is coming out of the general fund and obviously the convention center helps bring in more money to the coffers so why would people vote against it?

Another question for you is if the land downtown was used up for a new stadium (And hopefully used for a whole lot more than football, maybe MLS, other events, Final Fours, etc.) but 6000 plus housing units were constructed on the Qualcomm Stadium site would that be a decent trade off for you?

[spoonman]

As others have said, "taxes" require voter approval. I think Jerry Sanders previously tried to get a "conv. center surcharge" (a fee rather than a tax) added to hotel bills in the city. For some reason that didn't take.

Regarding not being able to pass a higher hotel tax, I can't believe that people have a problem with raising taxes on tourists when the hotels don't even seem to mind. If the hoteliers thought it would hurt business, they would not have voted "yes".

This city has one of the lowest TOT rates of a major city. Yet people seem to think it's too high even though they don't pay it. People really will bitch about anything. I think some people have such contempt for the city, developers, progress, etc that they will say virtually anything to derail a project. It's almost a religion.

[spoonman]

Possible good news. Looks like Oceanside may be getting a new hotel downtown, which will include an 8-floor and 6-floor buildings on 2 adjacent blocks.

I thought that the Coastal Commission precluded development over 30 feet that close to the coastline. However there are other recently constructed buildings within a few blocks. Does anyone understand how this works in Oceanside??

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/31/oceanside-hotel-malkin-properties/

[SDfan]

^^^ But this is a tax for hotels not a sales tax increase or a bond measure. This is a tax the hoteliers are already ok with, no money is coming out of the general fund and obviously the convention center helps bring in more money to the coffers so why would people vote against it?

Another question for you is if the land downtown was used up for a new stadium (And hopefully used for a whole lot more than football, maybe MLS, other events, Final Fours, etc.) but 6000 plus housing units were constructed on the Qualcomm Stadium site would that be a decent trade off for you?

The city tried to get the hotel tax raised a few years back, and it failed to meet the two-thirds threshold required. That's California for you! We are such a tax hungry state that we apparently had to stop ourselves by setting higher passage thresholds to contain our grubby little tax hands. The hotels could say they love higher taxes, local government could be all for it, but San Diego is San Diego and it wouldn't get past us!

As for 6000 units at Qualcomm, ha! That would make me cry for joy... and hysteria because it ain't happening. Civita is 230 acres (minus 60-70 acres for open space... so really 170-160 acres) and it's putting in 4780 housing units. The qualcomm site is 166 acres, and I can bet you that at least 30-50% of the site would need to be open space in order to accommodate CEQA, NIMBYS, and the general public. So that's, what, 100 to 80-ish acres of land for 6000 housing units? Civita was barely tolerable to its neighbors and it has a much lower density than Qualcomm would ever be allowed (if it's even allowed, Donna Frye and far left allies would push for 100% parkland - Navy Broadway Complex lawsuits x10 + Cory Briggs = not going to happen quickly or without a fight).

So while a trade off would be better than just a wall of a stadium downtown, I'd still prefer nothing because Qualcomm as a development site is assuredly going to be both underwhelming (height restrictions, neighborhood opposition, litigation, etc.) and a long time coming. Meanwhile you would have land already designated for high-density uses being gobbled up by a "multi-purpose" stadium (hey guys! we have used car sales sometimes!).

In a perfect world there would either be A) enough land downtown to house another large stadium or B) enough land zoned in the city for high-density development. Unfortunately one is impossible and the other is nearly impossible to change.

It's sad, but it's our city. Like the airport, like our transit system, like our land-use decisions, like our political system, like the outside forces at the state and federal level - they all suuuck.

But we have beaches! And a zoo! Yay?

I will have actual positive things to say soon, I promise! I just see these specific issues as distractions needing to be shot down while we should be dealing with real issues of greater implications for our region - like SANDAG's new proposals for transportation or the community plan updates going on throughout the city. More to come on that later though.

[spoonman]

More good-ish news regarding additional places for density. Here is a link to National City's downtown plan which specifically mentions adding high-rise and mid-rise mixed-use and residential in the downtown area. In fact there are NO stated height limits in certain areas, only a FAR of up to 6:1 that must be conformed to. The plan seems to be all about getting growth going. Sounds like they just need to get some momentum.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ci.national-city.ca.us%2FModules%2FShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D277&ei=UeHdU5ncHo7aoASokoKIDg&usg=AFQjCNF7lnKla-cjt12y3P9qYHqTBS3HTQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGU

[SDfan]

Possible good news. Looks like Oceanside may be getting a new hotel downtown, which will include an 8-floor and 6-floor buildings on 2 adjacent blocks.

I thought that the Coastal Commission precluded development over 30 feet that close to the coastline. However there are other recently constructed buildings within a few blocks. Does anyone understand how this works in Oceanside??

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/31/oceanside-hotel-malkin-properties/

Nice to see Oside moving on this one. I remember being in middle school reading about this project.

[SDfan]

More good-ish news regarding additional places for density. Here is a link to National City's downtown plan which specifically mentions adding high-rise and mid-rise mixed-use and residential in the downtown area. In fact there are NO stated height limits in certain areas, only a FAR of up to 6:1 that must be conformed to. The plan seems to be all about getting growth going. Sounds like they just need to get some momentum.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ci.national-city.ca.us%2FModules%2FShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D277&ei=UeHdU5ncHo7aoASokoKIDg&usg=AFQjCNF7lnKla-cjt12y3P9qYHqTBS3HTQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGU

This is really interesting. Thank you for posting!

I'm not sure how tall they could go with an FAR or 6 though. But this is at the very least more progressive then most of the rest of the county.

[tyleraf]

I'm glad to hear about some good mid rises in Oceanside. Also, it will be interesting to see how National City does with its new highrise zoning.

[spoonman]

This is really interesting. Thank you for posting!

I'm not sure how tall they could go with an FAR or 6 though. But this is at the very least more progressive then most of the rest of the county.

I have tried to calculate what type of heights could realistically come from this FAR requirement in National City.

An acre lot is 43,560sf. So a FAR of 6 would provide for a building of up to 261,360sf. As a model for building square footage, I looked at the Executive Complex tower downtown (I was able to find the sf easily), which seems to have a mass similar to a residential tower. The Executive Complex has 346K sf in 25 floors, or an average of 14K sf per floor. Based on this assumption, a building on an acre lot could reach 18 or 19 floors. The building could possibly break into the 20's if thinner.

What I don't know about are lot sizes. Is an acre a realistic size for a tower? It seems to be. A DTSD block is about 1.35 acres (200X300ft), so if the base of a tower took up 70% of a DTSD block (for example), that project would be using an acre of land.

Anyone have thoughts on this???

[tyleraf]

Here is a link with more info about the project in Oceanside which Spoonman mentioned. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/31/oceanside-hotel-malkin-properties/

[dtell04]

Seattle and SD share some characteristics. They have 2 downtown stadiums. Take a look at their schedule for century link field for the rest of the year....
If anyone thinks a stadium would only be used for football games please read it carefully.
http://www.centurylinkfield.com/event-calendar/






CenturyLink Field Events Calendar





August 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Aug 10 7:30pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Houston Dynamo CenturyLink Field
Aug 15 7pm Preseason Week 2: Seahawks vs Chargers Seattle, WA
Aug 20 7pm Seattle Sounders FC vs San Jose Earthquakes CenturyLink Field
Aug 21 6pm Ed Sheeran with Rudimental WaMu Theater
Aug 22 7pm Preseason Week 3: Seahawks vs Bears Seattle, WA
Aug 28 7pm NCAA Football: Washington State University vs. Rutgers CenturyLink Field
Aug 29 8pm Porter Robinson WaMu Theater
Aug 30 1pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Colorado Rapids CenturyLink Field

September 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Sep 1 7am 5K Run: NFL Kickoff Run CenturyLink Field
Sep 4 5:30pm Regular Season Week 1: Seahawks vs Packers Seattle, WA
Sep 11 11am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 12 11am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 12 7:30pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Real Salt Lake CenturyLink Field
Sep 13 10am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 14 10am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 19 7pm benefit 2014 for pediatric cancer research WaMu Theater
Sep 20 7pm Dada Life: Dada Land Compound Seattle WaMu Theater
Sep 21 1:25pm Regular Season Week 3: Seahawks vs Broncos Seattle, Washington
Sep 27 1pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Chivas USA CenturyLink Field

October 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Oct 3 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 4 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 5 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 10 7pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Vancouver Whitecaps FC CenturyLink Field
Oct 12 1:25pm Regular Season Week 6: Seahawks vs Cowboys Seattle, Washington
Oct 15 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 16 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 17 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 18 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 19 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 25 12pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Los Angeles Galaxy CenturyLink Field
Oct 25 7pm Safe in Sound Tour WaMu Theater
Oct 31 2 Days FreakNight 2014 WaMu Theater

November 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Nov 2 1:25pm Regular Season Week 9: Seahawks vs Raiders Seattle, Washington
Nov 9 1:25pm Regular Season Week 10: Seahawks vs Giants Seattle, Washington
Nov 14 2pm Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 15 10am Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 16 10am Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 19 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 20 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 21 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 23 1:05pm Regular Season Week 12: Seahawks vs Cardinals Seattle, Washington

December 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Dec 14 1:25pm Regular Season Week 15: Seahawks vs 49ers Seattle, Washington
Dec 28 1:25pm Regular Season Week 17: Seahawks vs Rams Seattle, Washington

Events calendar powered by Trumba


Printed: Sunday, August 03, 2014 at 9:08 PM PDT Calendar events displayed in Pacific Daylight Time/Pacific Standard Time

[mello]

^^^ Some good points, question about a stadium downtown that is crucial. We are talking about the stadium itself having a footprint that will take valuable high density land away from downtown but what about parking garages that would otherwise not be built were it not for a stadium??? I might be ok with a stadium taking up land if we had an MLS team playing in it and tons of more quality events plus some kind of cover on it that would allow for Final 4's.

I am not cool with more land being gobbled up by parking structures unless 35 floors of some mixed use are added on top of them.

If we look at the Stadium you have 10 Chargers games total (maybe playoffs), 17 MLS Games, 6 SDSU Football games, 2 Bowl Games, then you have possible international Soccer games or "Friendlies between MLS team and INTL Teams". After this you will have to get creative and find other ways to use the Stadium. With MLS combined with football you almost have as many guaranteed events as an NBA team would have, I count 35 and an NBA team plays 41 home games.

[aerogt3]

It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

[Leo the Dog]

It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

You're assuming that the bus yard/parking lots will be there for 50+ years (the lifespan of a football stadium). You can't compare MLB to NFL in regards to stadiums in urban settings. PetCo did clean up the area, but this doesn't mean an even larger stadium is the best use of available land left. The EV isn't exactly a slum in desperate need of some kind of stimulus. It has some very exciting projects and is growing at an phenomenal pace. Why would we want to limit it's growth?

Mello, As for an NBA arena in the East Village, that makes since. those are often found in downtown locations. NYC, Phx, Miami, DC, LA, Boston, etc...

they have a much smaller footprint, can create an urban streets cape, would host many more events/concerts and the playoffs would create many more than just 41 home games.

[SDfan]

It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

I'm not happy about the bus yard either, but it's definitely not stopping development in the area (there is a 40+ story tower going up a few blocks away, if you hadn't noticed). The transients aren't there because of the buses. The site should be redeveloped for mixed-use, high-density purposes. Not a once-in-a-while stadium.

[Prahaboheme]

An NBA arena in the East Village doesn't make any more sense than an NFL stadium. Why must the East Village be targeted for additional stadiums/arenas when there are plenty of other neighborhood opportunities around the city? The East Village is thriving ON ITS OWN and has become increasingly diversified. It doesn't need help in the gentrification department. If anything, an NBA arena could build up in a mixed-use development near the downtown transit / train depot (similar to the TD Garden / Boston North Station setup). In that location, you'd at least have all the Gas Lamp bars and entertainment options which would appeal to the masses, and you can leave the East Village to continue to build upon a niche market that preserves its independent nature.

The convention center should build upon itself - it needs to fight for it's own location. It just doesn't make sense to expand the convention center across Harbor Blvd. Fight the coastal commission - go to court.

Meanwhile, the Chargers have a home in Mission Valley and can make much better use of their property than they currently do. If the Patriots can build out Patriots Place way out in middle of nowhere Foxboro, then the Chargers can re-imagine it's current property, which is already central to the metro area, and connected to mass transit. A mixed-use development at Qualcomm, that includes residential, retail / restaurant, a new stadium, even hotel and office space, could really make that a bustling new district in Mission Valley.

The East Village just doesn't make sense to me.

[spoonman]

There was an opinion piece in VOSD today where someone was bitching about lack of parking for a mixed use project in La Jolla (oh, the humanity). Someone in the comments section gave a fantastic response/rant which seemed to hit the issue spot-on. Just thought I'd share...

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/04/reducing-red-tape-at-the-expense-of-residents/
__________________________________

Matthews
1 day ago

Get out of your car and walk. Hop on a bicycle and peddle. Take an uber lift. Welcome to the 21st century, where urban development in the form of mixed-use projects are taking over car dominated cities across the country. We have a long way to go, but these developments -and the many more to come- are going to transform San Diego for the better, whether stalwart community planning groups like it or not.

You argue that these commercial spaces are planned in order to reduce the need for residents to commute to more distance places for retail, etc. Well, when you place housing on top of commercial space, locating them closer to surrounding neighborhoods - you get just that! More people will walk, bike, carpool to these locations, because they are so close, while they are less likely to drive - because who needs to drive when the hardware store or market is right downstairs or down the street? And this is all localized retail - not destination. Very few people are going to commute across town to Turquoise Street for a convince store, dry cleaner, or nail salon when there are numerable closer options nearby.

And using "community character" (whatever that means) to defend a particular planning restriction/regulation/red tape is not a justifiable argument in the face of our region's growing housing affordability and availability crisis. Particular neighborhoods (*cough La Jolla cough OB cough Clairemont cough Uptown*) want to weasel their way out of contributing to the only viable solutions we have (developing mulit-family, mulit-use, transit oriented development by increasing density and promoting urbanization), but it's only going to cost them in the long run as housing prices become asphyxiating and development stagnates, which would not only effect young families and professionals (the future) but a network of industries tied to real estate, construction, and more related services (big chunks of the local economy). And all because "I can't drive down the street to go to 7-11 because it'll take me 15 minutes to find parking around the block!" The travesty! The inhumanity!

Just because a planning guide was good for 1960 doesn't mean it's good 50+ years later. Time to evolve. Time to start addressing problems. Time to stop clinging on to old regulations that make no sense today. Embrace change and the future.

And thank you for sharing! Your opinion is an important part of community discussion and civic debate about our city's future

[SDfan]

There was an opinion piece in VOSD today where someone was bitching about lack of parking for a mixed use project in La Jolla (oh, the humanity). Someone in the comments section gave a fantastic response/rant which seemed to hit the issue spot-on. Just thought I'd share...

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/04/reducing-red-tape-at-the-expense-of-residents/
__________________________________

Matthews
1 day ago

Get out of your car and walk. Hop on a bicycle and peddle. Take an uber lift. Welcome to the 21st century, where urban development in the form of mixed-use projects are taking over car dominated cities across the country. We have a long way to go, but these developments -and the many more to come- are going to transform San Diego for the better, whether stalwart community planning groups like it or not.

You argue that these commercial spaces are planned in order to reduce the need for residents to commute to more distance places for retail, etc. Well, when you place housing on top of commercial space, locating them closer to surrounding neighborhoods - you get just that! More people will walk, bike, carpool to these locations, because they are so close, while they are less likely to drive - because who needs to drive when the hardware store or market is right downstairs or down the street? And this is all localized retail - not destination. Very few people are going to commute across town to Turquoise Street for a convince store, dry cleaner, or nail salon when there are numerable closer options nearby.

And using "community character" (whatever that means) to defend a particular planning restriction/regulation/red tape is not a justifiable argument in the face of our region's growing housing affordability and availability crisis. Particular neighborhoods (*cough La Jolla cough OB cough Clairemont cough Uptown*) want to weasel their way out of contributing to the only viable solutions we have (developing mulit-family, mulit-use, transit oriented development by increasing density and promoting urbanization), but it's only going to cost them in the long run as housing prices become asphyxiating and development stagnates, which would not only effect young families and professionals (the future) but a network of industries tied to real estate, construction, and more related services (big chunks of the local economy). And all because "I can't drive down the street to go to 7-11 because it'll take me 15 minutes to find parking around the block!" The travesty! The inhumanity!

Just because a planning guide was good for 1960 doesn't mean it's good 50+ years later. Time to evolve. Time to start addressing problems. Time to stop clinging on to old regulations that make no sense today. Embrace change and the future.

And thank you for sharing! Your opinion is an important part of community discussion and civic debate about our city's future

I don't mean to brag, but... I can't just complain on this forum. haha. Thank you!

[spoonman]

Well stated my friend. It seems that many of the NIMBY posts are beginning to be counter-balanced by advocates for transit and mixed use development.

Keep fighting the good fight!!! :cheers:

[aerogt3]

I'm not happy about the bus yard either, but it's definitely not stopping development in the area (there is a 40+ story tower going up a few blocks away, if you hadn't noticed). The transients aren't there because of the buses. The site should be redeveloped for mixed-use, high-density purposes. Not a once-in-a-while stadium.

And if there were a stadium in place of the bus yard, there would be MORE 40 story towers because - guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium but don't want to live near a bus yard.

The question isn't "should be we build a stadium or should we build some towers." Because the answer would clearly be towers. The question is "do we build a stadium, or do we keep empty lots and a bus yard."

[spoonman]

Not speaking for or against the stadium in this post, but either way I believe we are going to have a problem with homeless in that area regardless of what is there. Many of the city's homeless services are in that area (as I understand it). I'm not sure that the homeless can continued to be pushed east into Golden Hill or Barrio Logan, as they wouldn't be able to easily access these services (on foot).

Could someone with more knowledge on this please chime in.

[SDCAL]

....guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium....."

I don't. And neither does anyone I have talked to. Traffic, noise, hauling drunk people back and forth. I'd rather live in an urban neighborhood with walkable streets and businesses and venues geared towards residents as opposed to businesses and venues geared towards people who only come downtown during games.

As someone who lives in EV, I can tell you that after baseball games are over and people have scattered, maybe gone to a restaurant or two then left downtown, it really sucks the vitality out of the area and leaves a sort of lifeless depressing vibe to the neighborhood.

Anyone who has been around somewhere when a huge event happens and then it ends, all the commotion leaves, and you're left with this depressing energy knows what I mean. It's hard to put into words, but it's definitely not a pleasant feeling if you call that neighborhood home.

I really want EV to transform into a place that has things going 24-7 all year, a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood that's not dependant on a few large events scattered throughout the year. EV is better than being a place that just hosts big sports events and parties and then has the energy sucked out of it afterwards.

The key should be bringing jobs to the area, tech jobs and the like, so people can live AND work in the area, not just flood in to watch football games then flood out of it.

I 100% believe that a football stadium in the EV will kill the neighborhood, and I for one would sell my condo and move if it ever came to be.

[Northparkwizard]

I 100% believe that a football stadium in the EV will kill the neighborhood, and I for one would sell my condo and move if it ever came to be.

As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

[nezbn22]

I don't. And neither does anyone I have talked to. Traffic, noise, hauling drunk people back and forth. I'd rather live in an urban neighborhood with walkable streets and businesses and venues geared towards residents as opposed to businesses and venues geared towards people who only come downtown during games.

As someone who lives in EV, I can tell you that after baseball games are over and people have scattered, maybe gone to a restaurant or two then left downtown, it really sucks the vitality out of the area and leaves a sort of lifeless depressing vibe to the neighborhood.

Anyone who has been around somewhere when a huge event happens and then it ends, all the commotion leaves, and you're left with this depressing energy knows what I mean. It's hard to put into words, but it's definitely not a pleasant feeling if you call that neighborhood home.

I really want EV to transform into a place that has things going 24-7 all year, a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood that's not dependant on a few large events scattered throughout the year. EV is better than being a place that just hosts big sports events and parties and then has the energy sucked out of it afterwards.

The key should be bringing jobs to the area, tech jobs and the like, so people can live AND work in the area, not just flood in to watch football games then flood out of it.

I 100% believe that a football stadium in the EV will kill the neighborhood, and I for one would sell my condo and move if it ever came to be.

No offense, but a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood = a lot of traffic, noise, and hauling drunk people back and forth. As unfortunate as it may be, those things usually go hand-in-hand, especially with a young, vibrant beer-loving community :cheers:

[SDfan]

As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

As someone who lives in Golden Hill and frequents the East Village often it's funny to see how wrong you are. Just because these communities have grown and businesses have changed doesn't mean they're worse. Counterpoint, You Are Here and numerous smaller projects and redevelopments have done wonders for the Golden Hill community, adding yoga studios, bars, salon's, wellness centers, offices for insurers, architects, art dealers, and many other small businesses along with the all too important added benefit of more housing options in an urban environment that desperately needs it.

Building a stadium won't do any of that.

And by "100's of millions of dollars in jobs," you must mean the collective salaries of the players and team owners right? Or the wealthy who would own skybox tickets and not give two shiza's about the urban environment around them? Or maybe you mean the collective salaries of the hundreds of seasonal minimum and low-wage service jobs (poor teens who couldn't get gigs at SeaWorld...)? Yeah, great argument there.

There is more life and energy around those mixed-use complexes than would be in a closed, mammoth of a stadium complex.

I don't understand what the huge fascination with the stadium being downtown is? There seems to be an assumption that downtown land is limitless, and that a another massive, seasonally used sports complex will be the only stimulate the rest of the East Village needs for it to build out.

Uh, what's the Idea District again? Makers Quarter? City College expansion? Ballpark Village? East Village Green? The millions of square feet planned, approved, or under construction as we cry over maybe losing the succubus that is the NFL? I guess it's all nothing because apparently only a new home for the Chargers (the people's team!*for an average of $81 a seat* What a deal for a palace we paid for!) is the only savior for the EV.

Build it in Mission Valley. Build it in Chula Vista. Build it in Oceanside. Build it in Temec-u-fu*king-la. But don't build it in the last place we need it: downtown.

[Leo the Dog]

And if there were a stadium in place of the bus yard, there would be MORE 40 story towers because - guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium but don't want to live near a bus yard.

The question isn't "should be we build a stadium or should we build some towers." Because the answer would clearly be towers. The question is "do we build a stadium, or do we keep empty lots and a bus yard."

Disagree 100%.

Football stadiums aren't built in neighborhoods to begin with. I've never met one person who moves to an area because of a nice football stadium. Even in Boston (an urbanist's dream) residents of the Fenway neighborhood constantly fought successfully against the city/Sox for a new Fenway Park. On the proposed site were old dilapidated buildings. Now there are high rise condos and major in-fill.

The empty lots will be developed without the football stadium. Not sure how you can say there will be more towers with less available land.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Lane Field is plugging along...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/photo-448_zps8ea2880f.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/Spiewak/media/photo-448_zps8ea2880f.jpg.html)

[spoonman]

^ Wow! This is huge. Thought this would never happen. I hope this project makes that area more walkable. Right now those few blocks are almost suburban the way that everything is spread out.

[nezbn22]

Pumped about Lane Field.

Re: stadium - EV will be great with or without a stadium...as long as they do it right. A crappy stadium can be a massive eye-sore occupying prime real estate for decades. But let's not forget that towers can do that, too. I moved here from Minneapolis, so I'm using this as a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_Plaza

These towers were celebrated when they were new, and they probably looked pretty sweet once upon a time. But now they look like sh*t. Total sh*t. And good luck evicting everyone and knocking them down. At least a stadium can be demolished after a period of time.

My point is this: whatever we put there, please consider what will look/function well decades from now. And as pessimistic as it sounds, non-residential structures are way easier to scrap in the future...just ask the city about the De Anza Cove RV Park.

[tyleraf]

I'm glad to see Lane Field moving along. I'm starting to lean more against the stadium debate, but I would love to see an arena there. Hopefully this mess gets sorted out soon with the best results for everyone.

[eburress]

Disagree 100%.

Football stadiums aren't built in neighborhoods to begin with. I've never met one person who moves to an area because of a nice football stadium. Even in Boston (an urbanist's dream) residents of the Fenway neighborhood constantly fought successfully against the city/Sox for a new Fenway Park. On the proposed site were old dilapidated buildings. Now there are high rise condos and major in-fill.

The empty lots will be developed without the football stadium. Not sure how you can say there will be more towers with less available land.

"I've never met one person..." is hardly conclusive evidence. It's anecdotal at best.

Some football stadiums are built in neighborhoods (Cowboys stadium in Arlington) and neighborhoods sometimes rise up around football stadiums (CenturyLink Field in Seattle).

[SDCAL]

As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

I agree with the first part of your comment, but don't agree about the stadium. Yuppies moving in kind of goes with the territory when talking about gentrification, but I think EV is far from doomed. There is still a lot of potential to bring back some of the more local, organic activity you describe back in the late 90s. I think the IDEA District could be one catalyst and that area really has a lot of potential, if done correctly.

I'm curious about what "high paying" jobs stadiums bring in? The players don't live near them, and the people working there don't make much. The development they usually bring is restaurants and service sector low-paying jobs. If we could start bringing tech and creative industry jobs (fashion, music, arts, architecture, etc.) it would be far better than the type of jobs a football stadium brings in, in my opinion. I think stadiums tend to suck out the jobs in design/creative areas - just one small example, Design Within Reach in the Simon Levi building closed and in its place we now have "Bub's B-B-Q". :( I think EV can be better.

[SDCAL]

^ Wow! This is huge. Thought this would never happen. I hope this project makes that area more walkable. Right now those few blocks are almost suburban the way that everything is spread out.

Any word on what brands the hotels at LF will be? I know originally it was supposed to be a Fairfield Inn and something else (Garden Hilton?) but then I think someone said they were mandating they be higher-end?

I'm all for higher end, but I am also curious if both Lane Field and Navy Broadway Complex go high-end luxury, is there enough demand for it?

[nezbn22]

Pretty sure Lane Field is going to be a Residence Inn/Springhill Suites (Marriott brands).

[nezbn22]

Here's a link citing the brand names:

http://www.portofsandiego.org/lane-field/3550-port-of-san-diego-celebrates-groundbreaking-of-lane-field-north-hotel-and-park-project.html

[Northparkwizard]

As someone who lives in Golden Hill and frequents the East Village often it's funny to see how wrong you are. Just because these communities have grown and businesses have changed doesn't mean they're worse. Counterpoint, You Are Here and numerous smaller projects and redevelopments have done wonders for the Golden Hill community, adding yoga studios, bars, salon's, wellness centers, offices for insurers, architects, art dealers, and many other small businesses along with the all too important added benefit of more housing options in an urban environment that desperately needs it.

Building a stadium won't do any of that.

And by "100's of millions of dollars in jobs," you must mean the collective salaries of the players and team owners right? Or the wealthy who would own skybox tickets and not give two shiza's about the urban environment around them? Or maybe you mean the collective salaries of the hundreds of seasonal minimum and low-wage service jobs (poor teens who couldn't get gigs at SeaWorld...)? Yeah, great argument there.

There is more life and energy around those mixed-use complexes than would be in a closed, mammoth of a stadium complex.

I don't understand what the huge fascination with the stadium being downtown is? There seems to be an assumption that downtown land is limitless, and that a another massive, seasonally used sports complex will be the only stimulate the rest of the East Village needs for it to build out.

Uh, what's the Idea District again? Makers Quarter? City College expansion? Ballpark Village? East Village Green? The millions of square feet planned, approved, or under construction as we cry over maybe losing the succubus that is the NFL? I guess it's all nothing because apparently only a new home for the Chargers (the people's team!*for an average of $81 a seat* What a deal for a palace we paid for!) is the only savior for the EV.

Build it in Mission Valley. Build it in Chula Vista. Build it in Oceanside. Build it in Temec-u-fu*king-la. But don't build it in the last place we need it: downtown.

I guess you had to be there man, because you had to know what was there before the banal condo's showed up. There was a thriving community that is now gone. Shrinked-to-nothing, gone, left, replaced. I guess that's a matter of fact and taste, both of which you don't seem to concerned with. You're pretty green about your own neighborhood dude, I suggest talking to some folks that have lived and worked there for more than a few years. They might have a history lesson in store for you!

TL;DR It HASN"T grown or changed for the better.

Next thing you know you'll be arguing that Jonathan Segal projects bring communities together...

The rest of your comments about the stadium are funny too. "Not in my brand new condo's back yard!"

[Chapelo]

At the corner of La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee, next to the Strip Club, there is a massive excavation underway. The dirt lot where they had the farmer's markets. Maybe another tower for the Costa Verde development.

Didn't see a rendering or job notice posted though.

[Northparkwizard]

I agree with the first part of your comment, but don't agree about the stadium. Yuppies moving in kind of goes with the territory when talking about gentrification, but I think EV is far from doomed. There is still a lot of potential to bring back some of the more local, organic activity you describe back in the late 90s. I think the IDEA District could be one catalyst and that area really has a lot of potential, if done correctly.

I'm curious about what "high paying" jobs stadiums bring in? The players don't live near them, and the people working there don't make much. The development they usually bring is restaurants and service sector low-paying jobs. If we could start bringing tech and creative industry jobs (fashion, music, arts, architecture, etc.) it would be far better than the type of jobs a football stadium brings in, in my opinion. I think stadiums tend to suck out the jobs in design/creative areas - just one small example, Design Within Reach in the Simon Levi building closed and in its place we now have "Bub's B-B-Q". :( I think EV can be better.

Good question. The "high paying" jobs i'm talking about are the folks who work in the offices of the Chargers. Professionals that will actually live and work in the neighborhood instead of the bedroom community that exists in EV now. We're talking about bringing in a billion dollar business HQ to EV with hundreds of high paying and yes, low paying jobs too.

Yes, players for both the Padres and the Chargers do live very close to both the Q and Petco. How do I know that? Interviews with players that have said, "I walk to work" also I've seen one or two walking to Petco. But you're right, The very rich ones live elsewhere (poway, rancho santa fe, etc). Also a family member of mine works in the front offices of the Padres along with 100's of contemporaries that make great money... along with all the low paying jobs too.

As far as Bub's in concerned, that is a bummer. Although I can't afford the stuff in that place it was fun to window shop. However I'd bet a dollar that Bub's makes far more money that DWR did, pays more in taxes and employs more people. Maybe I'm wrong but the condos high rises seem to be the culprit that sucks jobs from design/creative areas.

[SDfan]

I guess you had to be there man, because you had to know what was there before the banal condo's showed up. There was a thriving community that is now gone. Shrinked-to-nothing, gone, left, replaced. I guess that's a matter of fact and taste, both of which you don't seem to concerned with. You're pretty green about your own neighborhood dude, I suggest talking to some folks that have lived and worked there for more than a few years. They might have a history lesson in store for you!

TL;DR It HASN"T grown or changed for the better.

Next thing you know you'll be arguing that Jonathan Segal projects bring communities together...

The rest of your comments about the stadium are funny too. "Not in my brand new condo's back yard!"

Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order for the East Village to get back it's small-town, small-business, neighborhood vibe (as since been lost in Golden Hill - minus all the community that's there now, because it's not circa 1990-blahblahblah) it needs to build a large, corporate, taxpayer subsidized stadium devoid of small-businesses and to-scale development?

What planet do you live on that this makes sense?

Yes, the Chargers and a massive $1 billion stadium with the backing of corporate America will restore the East Village to a small, community-based ideal, while promoting small-businesses and neighborhood identity.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Yeah, okay man. If only I had been around all the way back in 1990, then maybe any of this would make a sense.

[Northparkwizard]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order for the East Village to get back it's small-town, small-business, neighborhood vibe (as since been lost in Golden Hill - minus all the community that's there now, because it's not circa 1990-blahblahblah) it needs to build a large, corporate, taxpayer subsidized stadium devoid of small-businesses and to-scale development?

What planet do you live on that this makes sense?

Yes, the Chargers and a massive $1 billion stadium with the backing of corporate America will restore the East Village to a small, community-based ideal, while promoting small-businesses and neighborhood identity.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Yeah, okay man. If only I had been around all the way back in 1990, then maybe any of this would make a sense.

Not at all, I think you're misunderstanding. I never suggested that EV could get back any of the neighborhood qualities that it lost. They're gone, probably forever. There's nothing, really, we can do about that now.

What I am suggesting is that building a stadium in East Village wouldn't destroy, take away, or change anything substantial because 99% of what use to be there is already gone.

You're getting the late nineties which I'm referring to and 1990 mixed up. The late nineties/early 2000's were awesome in EV. For example Shepard Fairey and Dave Kinsey owned and operated Black Box on Park/12th street, what we now know as OBEY. Shit was pretty rad.

We might as well have some high paying jobs at a stadium instead of none at condo high rises. I'm just trying to think along those lines.

To suggest that a premeditated neighborhood like the Makers Quarter OR a billion dollar EV stadium (both of which might never be built) can/would be a good idea is yet to be seen. I'm just not a fan of doing things half-assed. If EV is going to be the sort of place that it's trying to be then let the reigns go loose and let the market dictate it, i guess.

I'm happy that we're arguing about it thought, it means that at least we all give a shit about the future.

:cheers:

[eburress]

At the corner of La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee, next to the Strip Club, there is a massive excavation underway. The dirt lot where they had the farmer's markets. Maybe another tower for the Costa Verde development.

Didn't see a rendering or job notice posted though.

Several years ago four rather tall apartment towers were planned for that spot. The NIMBYs nixed that project (big surprise) but one would think this is also bound to be high-rise residential of some sort.

[spoonman]

Does anyone know which corner of Genessee & La Jolla Village the excavation was on? It may be Phase 1 of the UTC plan, which will build a new underground parking garage and demolish and rebuild the Nordstrom. Not sure if I'm citing the correct project, but here is a link.

http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-marino-blog/the-future-of-utc/

[SDfan]

Several years ago four rather tall apartment towers were planned for that spot. The NIMBYs nixed that project (big surprise) but one would think this is also bound to be high-rise residential of some sort.

From what I understand, the project you're describing was a part of Costa Verde . It was downsized from four, 32-34 story towers to four 22-24 story towers. They got approval from the community planning group and city after the downsizing, and were put on hold after the recession crashed the real estate market.

I think the project going on at Genesse and LJVD is related to UTC, but if its CV I would be thrilled!

[eburress]

Does anyone know which corner of Genessee & La Jolla Village the excavation was on? It may be Phase 1 of the UTC plan, which will build a new underground parking garage and demolish and rebuild the Nordstrom. Not sure if I'm citing the correct project, but here is a link.

http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-marino-blog/the-future-of-utc/

It's the southwest corner of that intersection, across Genesee from UTC.

[eburress]

From what I understand, the project you're describing was a part of Costa Verde . It was downsized from four, 32-34 story towers to four 22-24 story towers. They got approval from the community planning group and city after the downsizing, and were put on hold after the recession crashed the real estate market.

I think the project going on at Genesse and LJVD is related to UTC, but if its CV I would be thrilled!

This is on the site of the project you're speaking of. Who knows if the project is the same as before (the downsized four 22-24 story towers), but unless the mall is spanning Genesee, my guess is that this isn't mall-related.

[dales5050]

What I am suggesting is that building a stadium in East Village wouldn't destroy, take away, or change anything substantial because 99% of what use to be there is already gone.


Excellent point. We are talking about parking lots and a bus depot. But there is no point in debating with closed minded folks. Just because they don't see the benefit of sports or conferences or can't afford the ticket...they feel that they somehow 'own' downtown and should have the right to keep it as they see fit.

It's funny that people complain about $80 NFL tickets but have no problem paying $10 for 'craft cocktails' or $15 for a 'farm to table sausage sandwich'....it's just a personal closed minded perspective.

Interestingly enough, the UT just put out a post on a new convention center / stadium hybrid plan. I think this makes perfect sense.

San Diego is NEVER going to become a Chicago or NYC. It's never going to have a single downtown core. Rather, it's going to have multiple and that's great if you ask me. Why not try and focus the redevelopment of the old Q site into the next La Jolla type development? Maybe find a way to bring a mix of residential, retail and commercial/research to partner with SDSU?


http://i.imgur.com/YYf4tLa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ugYzoKj.png

[Derek]

http://i.imgur.com/YYf4tLa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ugYzoKj.png

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

[dales5050]

Wanted to add a comment on the density. As someone who lives Downtown and walks almost everywhere...there are PLENTY of sites that can accommodate the dense development that others want.

There are the parking lots we all know about. There are also the older run down buildings. But what most people don't consider are some of the 'newer' builds that simply are not quality.

A perfect example are the apartments at 900 F Street. http://www.900fstreet.com/

These were build in 2002 and IMHO are simply 'place holder' housing until something much bigger comes along. When you consider some of the towers that are going up around this project...it's not that far of a reach to see a developer in the next 10-15 years doing the math and saying lets do a tower here.

[SDCAL]

Excellent point. We are talking about parking lots and a bus depot. But there is no point in debating with closed minded folks. Just because they don't see the benefit of sports or conferences or can't afford the ticket...they feel that they somehow 'own' downtown and should have the right to keep it as they see fit.

It's funny that people complain about $80 NFL tickets but have no problem paying $10 for 'craft cocktails' or $15 for a 'farm to table sausage sandwich'....it's just a personal closed minded perspective.

Interestingly enough, the UT just put out a post on a new convention center / stadium hybrid plan. I think this makes perfect sense.

San Diego is NEVER going to become a Chicago or NYC. It's never going to have a single downtown core. Rather, it's going to have multiple and that's great if you ask me. Why not try and focus the redevelopment of the old Q site into the next La Jolla type development? Maybe find a way to bring a mix of residential, retail and commercial/research to partner with SDSU?


What does the price of tickets have to do with whether or not a football stadium downtown is a good idea? Your post seems to imply that anyone who doesn't see *your* vision of downtown is being close-minded. If someone prefers spending money on good food as opposed to a football ticket, that's their personal preference it doesn't mean they are "close minded".

I've noticed those who want a stadium downtown continually use the argument that it's just "parking lots" and a bus depot implying that if a stadium isn't build there it will always be parking lots and a bus depot, which is ridiculous.

As a resident of East Village, I don't think it's "close minded" to want smart development in my neighborhood, things like the IDEA district to attract tech jobs, instead of making it the county's sports complex.

Let's face it - this is a pivotal decision for EV. If a football stadium is erected next to a baseball stadium, that will define the neighborhood - it will be a mega-sports themed area and the development that surrounds it will be geared to that.

If that's what you want, fine, but I'm not going to call you close minded for it the way you have to people who don't share your vision for EV.

[Crackertastik]

Wanted to add a comment on the density. As someone who lives Downtown and walks almost everywhere...there are PLENTY of sites that can accommodate the dense development that others want.

There are the parking lots we all know about. There are also the older run down buildings. But what most people don't consider are some of the 'newer' builds that simply are not quality.

A perfect example are the apartments at 900 F Street. http://www.900fstreet.com/

These were build in 2002 and IMHO are simply 'place holder' housing until something much bigger comes along. When you consider some of the towers that are going up around this project...it's not that far of a reach to see a developer in the next 10-15 years doing the math and saying lets do a tower here.

To add...look at the areas that can be built out. Look to the South there. Huge amounts of area that can be an entire new neighborhood of density, still extremely underdeveloped. Look to the South of the Hilton west of Harbor Drive, on the waterfront. Do we really think that area will be a working (barely) port in 30 years? It shouldn't be. It will be exactly what San Francisco is doing with Mission Bay. A new urbanist midrise mixed use community and dense. There is room for 40 - 50 towers and high density developments in those two areas alone. Not to mention the parking lots all over the rest of EV and Downtown in general.

That plan for the stadium looks fantastic. It is very tight for a football stadium. If you look, it has a good street presence along two sides (east and west), which allow for restaurants of street activation. The north side has a plaza. What more do you really want? Condo towers are as closed off as anything. Giant Podiums with Parking structures like the east village development they have rendered here? Look at that giant podium of death. Not much better to me.

The argument is absurd that the stadium HAS to be a detriment, and especially under this design, absurd to believe the area would markedly better as a collection of condos and office towers.

[tyleraf]

I love the plan that the UT has. Although the stadium may be better in MV it seems this may be the most feasible option. Plus it eliminates most of tailgate park and completely rids us of the MTS bus-yards

[eburress]

To add...look at the areas that can be built out. Look to the South there. Huge amounts of area that can be an entire new neighborhood of density, still extremely underdeveloped. Look to the South of the Hilton west of Harbor Drive, on the waterfront. Do we really think that area will be a working (barely) port in 30 years? It shouldn't be. It will be exactly what San Francisco is doing with Mission Bay. A new urbanist midrise mixed use community and dense. There is room for 40 - 50 towers and high density developments in those two areas alone. Not to mention the parking lots all over the rest of EV and Downtown in general.

That plan for the stadium looks fantastic. It is very tight for a football stadium. If you look, it has a good street presence along two sides (east and west), which allow for restaurants of street activation. The north side has a plaza. What more do you really want? Condo towers are as closed off as anything. Giant Podiums with Parking structures like the east village development they have rendered here? Look at that giant podium of death. Not much better to me.

The argument is absurd that the stadium HAS to be a detriment, and especially under this design, absurd to believe the area would markedly better as a collection of condos and office towers.

I completely agree. The piece of land that Seattle's football stadium (CenturyLink) sits on seems to be about the same size and is in a very similar position in relation to its downtown - and just like you suggested, an entirely new neighborhood is sprouting up around it.

It is incredibly difficult to get anything done in SD...almost as if developers have to subvert the system...so the chances of a stadium happening are remote, but I think this would be tremendous for that part of downtown and for the city in general.

[SDfan]

I love how people seem to believe downtown land is limitless. Or that rezoning other parts of the city for high-density development is as easy as flipping a light switch. Does no one know how to look at a map or notice how small downtown's footprint is compared to the rest of county? Has no one been paying attention to the density fights going on all around the city, none of which have resulted in significant density increases, anywhere?

"Don't worry, we'll just upzone other parts of the city, because that's been working out so well for us in Clairemont, Bay Park, Uptown, Golden Hill, etc."

Um... :lmao:

There is a huge assumption on the part of downtown stadium proponents that the city will just magically upzone the old-Q site, or make UTC or some other location another downtown. I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.

UTC = 95% built out, and the community up there is fighting all growth
Mission Valley = while promising, will never reach its full potential because of geographic and NIMBY constraints
Uptown = :haha:
Kearny Mesa = really? If the future of urban San Diego is KM then we have more serious problems then I thought

It's sad how the UT can flash some renderings and all of a sudden our need for mixed-use, high-density neighborhoods is trumped by mega-sports and convention complexes. I guess since the East Village doesn't have anything like that already, its okay... Oh, wait! It does!

And I have no problem paying reasonably for a good meal, good drinks, while supporting small local businesses and entrepreneurs. I wouldn't pay $80 to watch men get concussions, while knowing taxpayers were fleeced to pay for a palace and community dead-zone, while lining the pockets of multi-millionaires.

Where are our priorities here? Obviously not with the community or for future generations. "Sorry you have limited, sustainable or affordable housing and community options, but hey! You can pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch football or wait outside the center in your batman costume!"

But San Diegans are prone to making stupid, short-sighted decisions in terms of urban development and land-use. We need more housing? Build a stadium! We need more urban neighborhoods? Build a convention center annex! We need more high-tech jobs downtown? Add a convention center and a stadium! Yay! We are so smart!

:titanic:

[Bertrice]

I love how people seem to believe downtown land is limitless. Or that rezoning other parts of the city for high-density development is as easy as flipping a light switch. Does no one know how to look at a map or notice how small downtown's footprint is compared to the rest of county? Has no one been paying attention to the density fights going on all around the city, none of which have resulted in significant density increases, anywhere?

"Don't worry, we'll just upzone other parts of the city, because that's been working out so well for us in Clairemont, Bay Park, Uptown, Golden Hill, etc."

Um... :lmao:

There is a huge assumption on the part of downtown stadium proponents that the city will just magically upzone the old-Q site, or make UTC or some other location another downtown. I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.

UTC = 95% built out, and the community up there is fighting all growth
Mission Valley = while promising, will never reach its full potential because of geographic and NIMBY constraints
Uptown = :haha:
Kearny Mesa = really? If the future of urban San Diego is KM then we have more serious problems then I thought

It's sad how the UT can flash some renderings and all of a sudden our need for mixed-use, high-density neighborhoods is trumped by mega-sports and convention complexes. I guess since the East Village doesn't have anything like that already, its okay... Oh, wait! It does!

And I have no problem paying reasonably for a good meal, good drinks, while supporting small local businesses and entrepreneurs. I wouldn't pay $80 to watch men get concussions, while knowing taxpayers were fleeced to pay for a palace and community dead-zone, while lining the pockets of multi-millionaires.

Where are our priorities here? Obviously not with the community or for future generations. "Sorry you have limited, sustainable or affordable housing and community options, but hey! You can pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch football or wait outside the center in your batman costume!"

But San Diegans are prone to making stupid, short-sighted decisions in terms of urban development and land-use. We need more housing? Build a stadium! We need more urban neighborhoods? Build a convention center annex! We need more high-tech jobs downtown? Add a convention center and a stadium! Yay! We are so smart!

:titanic:

what about the hoods to the east of EV? there's nothing great about them ,maybe gentrification would move that way. EV which by the way was the warehouse district 15 years ago is still a dog.

[HurricaneHugo]

Lol seriously the East Village still has plenty of run down buildings that can be torn down.

A new stadium/convention center can revitalize the area just like Petco Park did.

[SDfan]

what about the hoods to the east of EV? there's nothing great about them ,maybe gentrification would move that way. EV which by the way was the warehouse district 15 years ago is still a dog.

The East Village is a part of downtown, and the community is pro-growth and open to high-density development.

To the east of EV is Golden Hill, which is anti-development and it's community plan is restrictive. Also to the east are Sherman Heights, Logan Heights, and Grant Hill, which are all limited in their acceptance and ability to increase housing and density. Finally there is Barrio Logan, which is more promising than the other four neighborhoods, but is not at the scale of EV at all.

I wish this wasn't the case. I wish we had more options. But unless something drastic changes in both public perception and leadership in government, we will continue having downtown play a disproportionate role in mitigating our housing crisis.

[SDfan]

Lol seriously the East Village still has plenty of run down buildings that can be torn down.

A new stadium/convention center can revitalize the area just like Petco Park did.

There are a lot of old buildings and plenty of parking lots, but in the long run, there isn't enough there to meet our housing and employment center needs for the decades to come after.

And the EV doesn't need catalysts for growth. Development will occur without the Chargers or Comic Con. We overstate the benefits these organizations have on our economy, when in reality most of our industry is small-business oriented.

Here is an article from VOSD about the dynamics of our economy:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/07/san-diego-businesses-by-the-numbers/

Here are articles on the overstated benefits of Comic-Con and the nonsense of stadium financing:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/04/the-problem-with-comic-cons-money-making-numbers/

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/22/local-economists-yes-we-should-build-a-stadium-no-it-doesnt-make-economic-sense/

[SDfan]

On another note, here is a link to an online petition trying to get the Uptown Planning Committee chair (Leo Wilson) to resign.

http://www.change.org/petitions/leo-wilson-a-call-for-leo-wilson-to-resign-from-uptown-planners?recruiter=9735812&utm_campaign=twitter_link&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

He has been the chair of the community organization for 9 years (more of an oligarchy if you ask me). He and his allies on the UPC have been against bike lanes, active transportation, and increasing housing opportunities in Uptown for nearly a decade. It's time to pressure UPC to start adopting more urban-minded and forward thinking policies in order to address the growing problems we have.

Please sign and share if you care about San Diego's future! Thank you!

[tyleraf]

Signed!

[ArquitectoMontenegro]

It's funny how none of the proposals even dare mention that the downtown Chargers stadium plan involved demolishing the historic Wonderbread Factory, a beautiful brick warehouse which houses Mission Brewery, and it would displaced 3 architecture and landscaping businesses and the NewSchool of Architecture Domus Academy Campus (they of course can move to other locations, but don't we want to preserve historic architecture)? Petcopark worked because they integrated the historic buildings into the stadium, but this Chargers Stadium just displaced everything existing there.

The worst thing that this part of East Village has going for it is the Bus Depot. It is a megablock with no pedestrian penetration. The bus depot needs to move, and be replaced with smaller blocks for residential and commercial infill. A stadium here isn't really doing anything to improve the neighborhood other than to solidify an impenetrable block as far as pedestrianism goes.

[SDCAL]

It's funny how none of the proposals even dare mention that the downtown Chargers stadium plan involved demolishing the historic Wonderbread Factory, a beautiful brick warehouse which houses Mission Brewery, and it would displaced 3 architecture and landscaping businesses and the NewSchool of Architecture Domus Academy Campus (they of course can move to other locations, but don't we want to preserve historic architecture)? Petcopark worked because they integrated the historic buildings into the stadium, but this Chargers Stadium just displaced everything existing there.

The worst thing that this part of East Village has going for it is the Bus Depot. It is a megablock with no pedestrian penetration. The bus depot needs to move, and be replaced with smaller blocks for residential and commercial infill. A stadium here isn't really doing anything to improve the neighborhood other than to solidify an impenetrable block as far as pedestrianism goes.

I wasn't aware of all that, thanks for posting. How would they even be able to get approval for this. Wonder bread factory is a pretty well known and significant historical structure in EV.

[SDCAL]

http://i.imgur.com/ugYzoKj.png

Are they going for 70's revival here? Not only would a football stadium downtown kill EV as a neighborhood, the design is pretty lame. Would the convention center literally be attached to the stadium? What would happen to the old one? A major convention when there's a game going on in a city with poor mass-transit? Yikes.

[Northparkwizard]

I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.
:titanic:

I don't speak for anyone here but I'm fairly certain the folks on this particular message board are familiar with community planning groups and what the realities are in San Diego.

I guess my question is; is there a currently-on-the-table proposal for the area (Lower East Village) other than what we're talking about? To supplant the city owned and operated bus yard, a few small warehouses, and parking lots for Petco via some type of piecemeal multi-developer project seems far more unlikely than any stadium idea. Suggesting that the properties in question would ever be developed in that kind of cooperative way is really far-fetched, No?

Since you seem to know so much more than I do about, "how land-use works". Please explain why the City of San Diego would every displace a operational bus yard for anything less than a mega-complex of some type.

Furthermore, half of the property we're talking about is already owned by the private developer that ordered those renderings. I'd be very surprised if JMI and the Spanos' haven't already put a bow on this thing.

My only other big question is who's going to be the corporate sponsor? My vote is for, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap Stadium."

[dales5050]

I've noticed those who want a stadium downtown continually use the argument that it's just "parking lots" and a bus depot implying that if a stadium isn't build there it will always be parking lots and a bus depot, which is ridiculous.

Of course it won't always be parking lots. But what it becomes should be up to everyone.

As a resident of East Village, I don't think it's "close minded" to want smart development in my neighborhood, things like the IDEA district to attract tech jobs, instead of making it the county's sports complex.

Let's face it - this is a pivotal decision for EV. If a football stadium is erected next to a baseball stadium, that will define the neighborhood - it will be a mega-sports themed area and the development that surrounds it will be geared to that.

If that's what you want, fine, but I'm not going to call you close minded for it the way you have to people who don't share your vision for EV.[/QUOTE]

First, this is just YOUR opinion. Just as I have mine.

Second, I am for a diverse downtown where everything is included. I love the IDEA district, as well as, the sports complex district. I am not one to say something should not exist.

Third, sports are a huge part of the culture in a city. They are not for everyone but neither are the Museums, Theater or the Zoo. To each their own but I find it closed minded when some who are not a fan of sports want to block that aspect of the cultural base. Great cities have everything.

Fourth, the EV is massive. It's almost 2x to 3x the size of any other section of DT. The reason for this is that until recently, everything west of 10th and South of Broadway was a 'no go' zone. Petco Park changed this. So it's great that you love your part of DT but it seems as if you can't come to terms with how it came to be. Without Petco, IMHO, all of the development would have been focused to the West in Columbia, Core and LI.

Frankly, I think the 'East Village' really needs to be redefined and broken up into 2 or 3 areas. Why not make have a 'Sports' District in the South, an 'Idea' District in the North and something else in-between? It's not like there isn't enough room.


http://i.imgur.com/1oarTqd.gif

[dales5050]

I love how people seem to believe downtown land is limitless. Or that rezoning other parts of the city for high-density development is as easy as flipping a light switch. Does no one know how to look at a map or notice how small downtown's footprint is compared to the rest of county? Has no one been paying attention to the density fights going on all around the city, none of which have resulted in significant density increases, anywhere?

I love how some people can't grasp that San Diego is not, nor will ever be, a city with a centralized core. The commercial development in La Jolla and Sorrento Valley, in addition to, the extensive freeway infrastructure has put San Diego on a trajectory where it will never have a centralized DT.

If you want to play SimCity..go ahead. It's not real. Downtown San Diego has plenty of room to grow for what is needed over the next 50 years.

People like to cry about how not every building being constructed today is a shiny new tower but fail to understand that NOTHING is permanent. Until there comes a day, and it won't, where every single parcel in downtown contains a dense structure...it's a pointless conversation.


"Don't worry, we'll just upzone other parts of the city, because that's been working out so well for us in Clairemont, Bay Park, Uptown, Golden Hill, etc."

Heh, before you even get to changing the zones you first have to upgrade what exists. In each of the locations you listed there are countless opportunities to improve the density, walkability and quality of the neighborhood before you even look at upzoning.

There is a huge assumption on the part of downtown stadium proponents that the city will just magically upzone the old-Q site, or make UTC or some other location another downtown. I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.

Nice detail. I guess because you say so it's true. I guess you have some pictures of the planning agenda for San Diego that has been etched into stone to share? :rolleyes:

UTC = 95% built out, and the community up there is fighting all growth
Mission Valley = while promising, will never reach its full potential because of geographic and NIMBY constraints
Uptown = :haha:
Kearny Mesa = really? If the future of urban San Diego is KM then we have more serious problems then I thought

You people keep talking about NIMBY constraints as if they are some evil empire or Oligarchy. That's ignorant. Everything changes.

It's sad how the UT can flash some renderings and all of a sudden our need for mixed-use, high-density neighborhoods is trumped by mega-sports and convention complexes. I guess since the East Village doesn't have anything like that already, its okay... Oh, wait! It does!

The wonderful density in the East Village is due in large part to Petco Park. You're either naive or lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

This stadium plan is about as compact as you can get. If located where they are suggesting, it will be surrounded by block after block of 1 story structures that will eventually be converted to high rise developments. Just because your personal taste does not find value in overlooking at stadium does not mean you get to undervalue it. Go as a Real Estate agent how much a view overlooking Petco Park goes for.

Now if there were calls to prevent every. single. project. in downtown that did not follow your 'mixed-use, high-density' litmus test with the tenacity...you might have a leg to stand on but this is not the case.

[Northparkwizard]

A major convention when there's a game going on in a city with poor mass-transit? Yikes.

Something like a comic themed convention with 150K people happening in the midst of a Baseball and tourist season in Downtown San Diego? Seems work out just fine year after year.

Also, major conventions here usually use Sunday (most football days during Fall) as break-down/get-away days. Not to mention it's the least traffic congested day of the week Downtown. Other conventions outside of Comic Con really aren't a traffic/mass transit issue because of there relatively low attendance,

"... fantasy fans ranked first in terms of the convention center’s attendance, far outstripping the combined total of its next four largest conventions, expected to be about 62,500 people." - NYT

As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

I also signed the petition to recall Leo Wilson, as every good member of BikeSD should. (http://www.change.org/petitions/leo-wilson-a-call-for-leo-wilson-to-resign-from-uptown-planners)

[SDfan]

As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

The #2 is my neighborhood bus, and my primary mode of transport in and out of Golden Hill as well. Saying "it could be much better" is an understatement. We have transit in San Diego that is debilitating our communities, we need more LRT, streetcars, and increased frequency. The #2 isn't cutting it.

I also signed the petition to recall Leo Wilson, as every good member of BikeSD should. (http://www.change.org/petitions/leo-wilson-a-call-for-leo-wilson-to-resign-from-uptown-planners)

Yay! Again, everyone, please share and sign!

[SDCAL]

Something like a comic themed convention with 150K people happening in the midst of a Baseball and tourist season in Downtown San Diego? Seems work out just fine year after year.

Also, major conventions here usually use Sunday (most football days during Fall) as break-down/get-away days. Not to mention it's the least traffic congested day of the week Downtown. Other conventions outside of Comic Con really aren't a traffic/mass transit issue because of there relatively low attendance,

"... fantasy fans ranked first in terms of the convention center’s attendance, far outstripping the combined total of its next four largest conventions, expected to be about 62,500 people." - NYT

As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

I also signed the petition to recall Leo Wilson, as every good member of BikeSD should. (http://www.change.org/petitions/leo-wilson-a-call-for-leo-wilson-to-resign-from-uptown-planners)

I meant if they are literally part of the same structure. Maybe I don't understand the proposal, but is it to have the convention center and charger's stadium be one structure? The conv center rendering appears to be a completely different building than the current structure. If this is the plan, then what will happen to the current convention center? If the thinking is expansion by having two convention centers, that would be idiotic. Convention clients - those we have and those we want to attract - overwhelmingly say they want somewhere that has contiguous space and not be broken up into events at different locations.

[SDCAL]

Dales5050, I don't hate sports. Your assumption that people who don't want to see a sports stadium downtown are not into sports is not correct.

I do realize sports is an important cultural aspect of the city, I just don't think having another stadium dt would be good for dt at all. I would much rather see a new stadium/mixed-use development in mission valley.

I will say, however, that trends show American football losing popularity. With all the controversy about head injuries, and changing demographics that are drawing people away from American football and towards soccer, I'm skeptical football will remain as big as it is today long-term.

[SDCAL]

Furthermore, half of the property we're talking about is already owned by the private developer that ordered those renderings. I'd be very surprised if JMI and the Spanos' haven't already put a bow on this thing.

My only other big question is who's going to be the corporate sponsor? My vote is for, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap Stadium."

I think there are MANY more hurdles besides finding a corporate sponsor.

First, is the chargers-convention center proposal within coastal commission impacted area?

What about the destruction of historic buildings, someone mentioned the wonder bread building which is an important historical structure would need to be demolished, I'm sure that would raise lawsuits, and rightfully so.

Then, will city money be used at all? As we saw from the recent hotel tax court decision last week, any use of public funds requires a vote.

Also, questions about the convention center - would this satisfy demand? Would it be a new structure and would the old one also be used? Is this proposal for contiguous convention space for large events? I haven't seen this specified anywhere.

It seems like there is a lot going on here, and years of wrangling either way.

[SDfan]

I love how some people can't grasp that San Diego is not, nor will ever be, a city with a centralized core. The commercial development in La Jolla and Sorrento Valley, in addition to, the extensive freeway infrastructure has put San Diego on a trajectory where it will never have a centralized DT.

I don't think San Diego will ever have a centralized core either, but downtown is by far the closest neighborhood we have to it - neither Sorrento Valley (an office bedroom community home to Qualcomm and kind of a train station?) nor UTC (which isn't La Jolla by the way, and is locked-in in terms of future development) are anywhere near downtown in infrastructure, transit options, zoning, and community support for growth. Even if the 2050 regional plan is fully implemented (non-constrained option) these areas aren't going to be close to downtown in terms of potential.

Downtown San Diego is not going to be Manhattan, the Loop, or even DTLA - and comparing our quaint hamlet to larger cities is preposterous. But Sorrento Valley and UTC are never going to be downtown San Diego, and it's illogical to assume these neighborhoods are going to somehow mitigate our urban growth problems in the same capacity downtown could.

If you want to play SimCity..go ahead. It's not real.

I love SimCity! Particularly SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition. And correct, it's not real at all. Yay, we agree one something! :cheers:

Downtown San Diego has plenty of room to grow for what is needed over the next 50 years.

I think this is difference of perspective. I look out from the new central library and I see the 5, Golden Hill, Sherman Heights, Barrio Logan, the Bay, the Gaslamp, and City College hemming in a small, compact space.

There are only 6 city blocks from the central library on Park Blvd to I-5. Keep in mind, a block downtown is smaller than a block in say Hillcrest or North Park as downtown was designed by Alonzo E. Horton with smaller blocks so alley ways would be unnecessary and they're easier to develop on.

From my perspective, that's not a lot of room at all. Others (assuming you) might look out over the reading room into the EV and see endless opportunities for development on parking lots and older structures. I don't agree at all, but again, difference of perspective.

People like to cry about how not every building being constructed today is a shiny new tower but fail to understand that NOTHING is permanent. Until there comes a day, and it won't, where every single parcel in downtown contains a dense structure...it's a pointless conversation.

Nothing is permanent, but Qualcomm (Jack Murphy, San Diego Stadium) has been sitting on that site in MV for nearly 50 years, meaning whatever is built downtown will be with us through the next century. You don't just demo a 1.4 billion stadium after a couple decades, especially not in California where such projects take decades to process and construct.

Heh, before you even get to changing the zones you first have to upgrade what exists. In each of the locations you listed there are countless opportunities to improve the density, walkability and quality of the neighborhood before you even look at upzoning.

Duh. Adding trolleys, adding bike lanes, creating better pedestrian and transit friendly environments have been the infrastructure projects opposed by community groups throughout the city and in these neighborhoods because they know it could potentially lead to higher densities, which makes the upzoning of these and other areas a comical fantasy, and my original argument even stronger. :whistle:

Nice detail. I guess because you say so it's true. I guess you have some pictures of the planning agenda for San Diego that has been etched into stone to share? :rolleyes:

Here is a link to the meeting agendas for every community planning group in the city:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpg/agendas.shtml

I'm not going to hold your hand or do your work, you can stop being lazy and go over them for yourself. These aren't etched in stone as you would like, but they are on pdfs, if that's acceptable? :tup:

You people keep talking about NIMBY constraints as if they are some evil empire or Oligarchy. That's ignorant. Everything changes.

Oh, things are changing, but for the worse as we down zone the urban rings and promote no-growth and auto-centric design principals. These groups are typically represented by individuals who are more keen on protecting their property values and imposing their conservative ideologies on planning (no growth, auto-centrism, suburban model) then leading us into a more sustainable future. It's not ignorant to question these groups legitimacy, philosophies, or relevance. Welcome to democracy. They aren't an "evil empire" but they have been detrimental to our future.

The wonderful density in the East Village is due in large part to Petco Park. You're either naive or lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

There is no doubt about that, I never said otherwise - thus never lied. What I did state was that we don't need a stadium in EV to stimulate growth today. It's unnecessary with all of the current, planned, and future development going on in EV now. My point is that there are other, less problematic options for stimulating growth in EV (IDEA District, Makers Quarter, East Village Green, etc.) We don't need a stadium to catalyze the area.

This stadium plan is about as compact as you can get. If located where they are suggesting, it will be surrounded by block after block of 1 story structures that will eventually be converted to high rise developments. Just because your personal taste does not find value in overlooking at stadium does not mean you get to undervalue it. Go as a Real Estate agent how much a view overlooking Petco Park goes for.

My personal tastes don't rest on this issue, I'm looking at this from a logical perspective. If we have very little land for high-density mixed-use development in the region, and upzoning other areas is nearly impossible that means we should be maximizing what we have rather than limiting said space for a limited-use stadium.

Now if there were calls to prevent every. single. project. in downtown that did not follow your 'mixed-use, high-density' litmus test with the tenacity...you might have a leg to stand on but this is not the case.

There aren't any calls to limit development in EV, correct, which is why we should be saving as much of that space and opportunity for useful development (housing, workspaces, high-density, etc.) rather than throwing it away for a stadium. I'll stand on my own legs and make my own case here, thank you.

And I need to clarify something, while I don't believe the Chargers are as significant as they or the city claim they are economically, and while I am not an ardent sports fanatic (I have more important things to do), I do see the value in sports to the greater community.

The Chargers should build a new stadium, but it should not be in EV or anywhere downtown. I wouldn't vote yes on any direct public monies for it, but I would support the project if it made economic sense (i.e. NFL, Spanos, hotel tax, tourism surcharge, ...as in I'm not paying for it) and if it was in another location outside downtown.

[SDfan]

I meant if they are literally part of the same structure. Maybe I don't understand the proposal, but is it to have the convention center and charger's stadium be one structure? The conv center rendering appears to be a completely different building than the current structure. If this is the plan, then what will happen to the current convention center? If the thinking is expansion by having two convention centers, that would be idiotic. Convention clients - those we have and those we want to attract - overwhelmingly say they want somewhere that has contiguous space and not be broken up into events at different locations.

JMI is informally proposing 5 different options to city and business leaders. They all have different pros and cons, but in each one the original convention center would stay open and most of them an annex would be built either alone or as part of a stadium complex.

I'm not sold on much that JMI is offering, as an annex alone would be just as bad as a stadium or stadium-convention center in my opinion. :uhh:

[SDfan]

I think there are MANY more hurdles besides finding a corporate sponsor.

First, is the chargers-convention center proposal within coastal commission impacted area?

What about the destruction of historic buildings, someone mentioned the wonder bread building which is an important historical structure would need to be demolished, I'm sure that would raise lawsuits, and rightfully so.

Then, will city money be used at all? As we saw from the recent hotel tax court decision last week, any use of public funds requires a vote.

Also, questions about the convention center - would this satisfy demand? Would it be a new structure and would the old one also be used? Is this proposal for contiguous convention space for large events? I haven't seen this specified anywhere.

It seems like there is a lot going on here, and years of wrangling either way.

The coastal commission wouldn't be involved since the project wouldn't be on coastal lands, but inland downtown.

I'm not sure about historic structure, but San Diego city govt has been able to deal with those types of issues before - they'll probably either incorporate Wonderbread or move it, assuming it is historical.

The public vote on a tax increase is the biggest hurdle to any convention center or stadium construction. Interestingly, conservative penny-pinchers in the county may end up being the progressive EV's saving grace.

And we are years away from any real movement in either direction. After the appellate court shot down the CC funding scheme, we're 3-5 years from resolution.

[mello]

I think Dale has brought up some interesting points regarding the future and where dense development could begin to take place if all of existing lots are built up in Downtown. SDfan I do like your arguments, looking at google maps "Tailgate Park" and the Bus Yard basically take up 8 city blocks combined. The Tenth Ave Marine Terminal looks to take up about 14 city Blocks. I also see a lot of land South of Imperial that could be scrapped for higher densities and better use. What is up with that big empty lot on Newton Ave for example?

As you walk around downtown you also see a lot of blocks that have measly "new builds" on them like Dale said and eventually these could be torn down to accommodate towers in the future. Also along G and Market in the Columbia district there are old builds from the late 80's/Early 90's that are only 3 or 4 floors and very suburban in Nature that could see the demolition ball in the next 20 years or so.

I think there is a middle ground that will eventually be reached, look at how the tide of NIMBYism eventually changed and now San Francisco is seeing a lot of construction in the city. National City could step up and really provide a lot of new housing units as well as the Chula Vista Bayfront and they are very close to downtown.

Regarding UTC being built out who controls that giant piece of land just east of the 805 and on the North side of Mira Mar road? It looks to be about 140 to 160 acres of flat land? That could be turned in to a shit load of housing units and eventually the furniture stores could be scrapped and turned in to housing on Mira Mar road as well. There are always options for finding new areas to construct housing.

[dtell04]

Boy what a great way to spend time waiting for a flight reading the discussions. I live in the EV as well, but don't understand how not building the stadium will help in the long run. The city owns over 7,000 pieces of land. Why would the bus yard ever be sold or developed into anything other than something for public use?
It just seems like the real question is bus yard or football stadium. I agree it would be great to eventually live AND work DT, but realistically unless you work for MTS or the chargers (maybe) no one will have a job on that site. Park and market could be built with office space, in the EV. The makers quarter complex could be built with office space. If (fingers crossed) the Salvation Army sold their almost 3 blocks of land that would be a game changer as well.
I personally would like to see a football stadium in the EV. I don't think it should be viewed as something that would ruin the non-existent planned development of our beloved bus yard. The debate should really be titled: maintaining a bus yard bounded by homeless people or build something to put downtown SD higher on the national stage.

[SDCAL]

Boy what a great way to spend time waiting for a flight reading the discussions. I live in the EV as well, but don't understand how not building the stadium will help in the long run. The city owns over 7,000 pieces of land. Why would the bus yard ever be sold or developed into anything other than something for public use?
It just seems like the real question is bus yard or football stadium. I agree it would be great to eventually live AND work DT, but realistically unless you work for MTS or the chargers (maybe) no one will have a job on that site. Park and market could be built with office space, in the EV. The makers quarter complex could be built with office space. If (fingers crossed) the Salvation Army sold their almost 3 blocks of land that would be a game changer as well.
I personally would like to see a football stadium in the EV. I don't think it should be viewed as something that would ruin the non-existent planned development of our beloved bus yard. The debate should really be titled: maintaining a bus yard bounded by homeless people or build something to put downtown SD higher on the national stage.

Another argument for "it's better than what's there now".

That's how mediocre urban areas get built, by settling.

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The choice is not a stadium or a bus yard.

A stadium would probably take half a decade or more as things go, to assume the bus yard is there for eternity is simply ridiculous.

[SDCAL]

The public vote on a tax increase is the biggest hurdle to any convention center or stadium construction. Interestingly, conservative penny-pinchers in the county may end up being the progressive EV's saving grace.

Politics makes strange bedfellows :)

This could very well be the case.

[SDCAL]

I'm not sold on much that JMI is offering, as an annex alone would be just as bad as a stadium or stadium-convention center in my opinion. :uhh:

Agreed. The city claims convention center expansion is necessary to keep comic con and to attract more large clients. People who organize these events want a contiguous space big enough to accommodate their convention - nobody wants to deal with the logistics of multiple venues, getting people back and forth, etc., if there are cities who already have the space under one roof.

If the city decides to support any plan with "multiple convention centers" to solve the space issue it would be a total waste of money. They won't attract the big convention clients they are targeting.

[aerogt3]

I don't. And neither does anyone I have talked to. Traffic, noise, hauling drunk people back and forth. I'd rather live in an urban neighborhood with walkable streets and businesses and venues geared towards residents as opposed to businesses and venues geared towards people who only come downtown during games.

You mean like the entire gaslamp? FYI the gaslamp is full of drunken people who mostly do not live in downtown. And you forget how EV started.... first it was a place no one would ever want to live (like the football area now), then Petco brought in a small population to live there, but businesses were still mostly geared towards the game attendees. Then it grew to enough residents to sustain full time businesses geared towards residents. But the neighborhood needed a start.

As someone who lives in EV, I can tell you that after baseball games are over and people have scattered, maybe gone to a restaurant or two then left downtown, it really sucks the vitality out of the area and leaves a sort of lifeless depressing vibe to the neighborhood.

I would rather have an NFL stadium provide a little bit of a boost on occassion than have the year round lifeless, depressing vibe that the bus yard and parking lots have.

I really want EV to transform into a place that has things going 24-7 all year, a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood that's not dependant on a few large events scattered throughout the year.

So you want to keep the bus yard and parking lots? Because no one is going to buld the neighborhood you want there. There is no demand. No one wants to live east of the bus yard, but people would live on the east side of the stadium (just like Petco.)

I 100% believe that a football stadium in the EV will kill the neighborhood, and I for one would sell my condo and move if it ever came to be.

Kill what neighborhood? In the area where the stadium would sit, there IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD!

[aerogt3]

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The development you want, on city land, only exists in our dreams. If there was a proposal to build a real neighborhood there instead of the stadium, I would be all for it as I would way prefer a city environment to a stadium. But other than the stadium, what is proposed for the bus yard? Nothing.

Here in reality, it's stadium, or bus yard.

[dales5050]

I don't think San Diego will ever have a centralized core either, but downtown is by far the closest neighborhood we have to it - neither Sorrento Valley (an office bedroom community home to Qualcomm and kind of a train station?) nor UTC (which isn't La Jolla by the way, and is locked-in in terms of future development) are anywhere near downtown in infrastructure, transit options, zoning, and community support for growth. Even if the 2050 regional plan is fully implemented (non-constrained option) these areas aren't going to be close to downtown in terms of potential.

Downtown San Diego is not going to be Manhattan, the Loop, or even DTLA - and comparing our quaint hamlet to larger cities is preposterous. But Sorrento Valley and UTC are never going to be downtown San Diego, and it's illogical to assume these neighborhoods are going to somehow mitigate our urban growth problems in the same capacity downtown could.

It seems as if you're only talking about new development and not redevelopment. We are talking about the next 50 years right? When I look at space like that, I see a much different San Diego.

Take for example the UTC Mall. Today, you have a nice mall in a sea of parking lots. In the future, I see towers on top of parking ramps that line both Genesee and La Jolla Village Drive.

Then I look at the apartment communities in UTC. They are nice and they are dense..at least to San Diego standards...but they can also be rebuilt. A lot of those communities are already 20+ years old. Do you think they were built to last another 50 years? I don't.

There is opportunity to redevelop. It's not idea but it's there.

I think this is difference of perspective. I look out from the new central library and I see the 5, Golden Hill, Sherman Heights, Barrio Logan, the Bay, the Gaslamp, and City College hemming in a small, compact space.

There are only 6 city blocks from the central library on Park Blvd to I-5. Keep in mind, a block downtown is smaller than a block in say Hillcrest or North Park as downtown was designed by Alonzo E. Horton with smaller blocks so alley ways would be unnecessary and they're easier to develop on.

From my perspective, that's not a lot of room at all. Others (assuming you) might look out over the reading room into the EV and see endless opportunities for development on parking lots and older structures. I don't agree at all, but again, difference of perspective.

Yes. You have 6 blocks going East but you also have 7 blocks going North. What I envision is each of those 42 blocks looking like 15th and Island. But this is just the EV. Then you have the A and Ash street corridors, which are severely underdeveloped. After that it's the Park Blvd corridor.

Once you fill those in, you can then look at redeveloping all of the 1-4 story structures. If you don't see the opportunity to redevelop these types of structures...we're never going to see the same page.

Nothing is permanent, but Qualcomm (Jack Murphy, San Diego Stadium) has been sitting on that site in MV for nearly 50 years, meaning whatever is built downtown will be with us through the next century. You don't just demo a 1.4 billion stadium after a couple decades, especially not in California where such projects take decades to process and construct.

What's wrong with having a 'sports district' being downtown for the next 50 years? Other cities are trying everything they can to try and bring stadiums downtown because of the awful results of putting them out on the edge. San Diego needs to learn from those mistakes.

It's not like the stadium would be empty all of the time. People like to say it's just for 8 NFL games a year but that's false. Especially considering that it's San Diego and the weather allows for year round stuff.

Duh. Adding trolleys, adding bike lanes, creating better pedestrian and transit friendly environments have been the infrastructure projects opposed by community groups throughout the city and in these neighborhoods because they know it could potentially lead to higher densities, which makes the upzoning of these and other areas a comical fantasy, and my original argument even stronger. :whistle:

Power shifts.

We're talking about a San Diego in the future right? A San Diego populated by millennials who don't purchase large homes and want to live a different lifestyle than what a lot of the current population wants.

They are talking about a growth of 1 Million people by 2030. That's enough of a shift to push the NIMBYs from power.

At least you and I agree that the mindset of these folks who are anti-density is wrong. Where we don't agree is the ability to eventually take the power away from them. So there is that.



Here is a link to the meeting agendas for every community planning group in the city:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpg/agendas.shtml

I'm not going to hold your hand or do your work, you can stop being lazy and go over them for yourself. These aren't etched in stone as you would like, but they are on pdfs, if that's acceptable? :tup:

Thank you for the link. I look forward to doing my research.


Oh, things are changing, but for the worse as we down zone the urban rings and promote no-growth and auto-centric design principals. These groups are typically represented by individuals who are more keen on protecting their property values and imposing their conservative ideologies on planning (no growth, auto-centrism, suburban model) then leading us into a more sustainable future. It's not ignorant to question these groups legitimacy, philosophies, or relevance. Welcome to democracy. They aren't an "evil empire" but they have been detrimental to our future.

We agree on this. We just don't agree on the solution.

I think a stadium adds to the overall experience of (and I dislike this phrase) live/work/play downtown. Make no mistake that the ballpark is a key factor for Sempra.

The best way I see to get some of the first ring communities to want to connect to DT via smart transit is to make it the most diverse community possible. Since these folks already have housing..it's employment, shopping, arts, dining and entertainment that are going to be selling factors for them.

When you have to drive to DT to see the Padres, Drive to Mission Valley (or your suggestion Temecula) to see the Charger, Drive to Fashion Valley to shop...when you have to drive all over San Diego to get some of the things you want...you want to stay car centric.

There is no doubt about that, I never said otherwise - thus never lied. What I did state was that we don't need a stadium in EV to stimulate growth today. It's unnecessary with all of the current, planned, and future development going on in EV now. My point is that there are other, less problematic options for stimulating growth in EV (IDEA District, Makers Quarter, East Village Green, etc.) We don't need a stadium to catalyze the area.

I disagree in part. The EV will grow regardless..that we agree upon. However, EV would grow UP more if their was a stadium. Take a look at the height directly around Petco and then consider how it goes down the farther you get. Obviously that's not all due to Petco but it has a lot to do with it.

My personal tastes don't rest on this issue, I'm looking at this from a logical perspective. If we have very little land for high-density mixed-use development in the region, and upzoning other areas is nearly impossible that means we should be maximizing what we have rather than limiting said space for a limited-use stadium.

We both agree on High Density. Where we disagree is on the tools to create that. My personal opinion is that a Stadium would essentially deliver high rises in the near future for the blocks surrounding the stadium. Without the stadium, you would get some but you would also have several 3-5 story complexes.

We both agree that 3-5 story complexes are bad overall for the future.

There aren't any calls to limit development in EV, correct, which is why we should be saving as much of that space and opportunity for useful development (housing, workspaces, high-density, etc.) rather than throwing it away for a stadium. I'll stand on my own legs and make my own case here, thank you.

And I need to clarify something, while I don't believe the Chargers are as significant as they or the city claim they are economically, and while I am not an ardent sports fanatic (I have more important things to do), I do see the value in sports to the greater community.

The Chargers should build a new stadium, but it should not be in EV or anywhere downtown. I wouldn't vote yes on any direct public monies for it, but I would support the project if it made economic sense (i.e. NFL, Spanos, hotel tax, tourism surcharge, ...as in I'm not paying for it) and if it was in another location outside downtown.

See the previous comment. Again, we both agree that DT needs to go UP and it needs to a mix of everything. That said, the main focus IMHO should be to get more people working downtown.

What we disagree on is the best way to accomplish this.

Look at the office development in the EV. It's all based on views of Petco. Now look at the stadium plan. The stadium would create the opportunity on 7-10 blocks, DIRECTLY off the 5 and walking distance to Mass Transit for office towers...all with AMAZING views of the stadium. That's the opportunity here. A game changer IMHO.

Without the stadium, there is no 'beacon' drawing people to this section of DT. Instead, you're just looking at parcels that are on the outside radius from other drawing points.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

[dales5050]

Another argument for "it's better than what's there now".

That's how mediocre urban areas get built, by settling.

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The choice is not a stadium or a bus yard.

A stadium would probably take half a decade or more as things go, to assume the bus yard is there for eternity is simply ridiculous.


Here is the thing about organic development...it does not exist. Every parcel downtown is influenced already.

Let's look at the parcels north of the bus garage. They are already influenced by the proximity to the 5, which could be a good or a bad thing right now, and their proximity to the Gaslamp/Petco...which really is a bad thing.

Going further, I think most here want density downtown and for that to happen it means consolidating parcels on a block to a single parcel. The likelihood of that happening on the outer edges of DT without a massive influence like a stadium is slim IMHO. So what you would get is smaller developments that are not the correct use of land.

Lastly, speaking to the bus yard specifically, as others have mentioned that's a massive 4 block parcel. In order for it to be redeveloped it's going to require a very large environmental remediation process. As we all know, this is not cheap in California. So the only way this parcel sees an environmental remediation is having it done all at once. The only way to have it all done at once is to develop it all at once. That's a large project like a stadium.

There is no way the city is going to move the bus garage to another location AND do an environmental remediation for land speculation. It just will not happen.

So unless someone has a Qualcomm type campus construction project up their sleeve or know of SDSU wanting to build a downtown campus extension...this is really the only option when you think about it.

Well, you could develop around the bus terminal but we all know what that would look like in the long run.

[SDCAL]

So you want to keep the bus yard and parking lots? Because no one is going to buld the neighborhood you want there. There is no demand. No one wants to live east of the bus yard, but people would live on the east side of the stadium (just like Petco.)



Kill what neighborhood? In the area where the stadium would sit, there IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD!

Your reply implies that a football stadium would only influence development on the parcel of land it sits on or that immediate area.

Forget the damn bus yard, I'm talking about the wider neighborhood - having a football and baseball stadium right next to each other would make the wider EV area be predominately a sports-themed entertainment complex. I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

If the other areas of EV develop, then eventually something would be done with those parcels of land.

I'm just not into the let's build a football stadium because we hate the bus yard idea.

If the bus yard stays in lieu of a stadium, development might be slower in the area, but it would be better quality in my opinion.

[aerogt3]

I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

That's a fantasy. There are no proposals to build anything out there, other than the stadium. It is literally the stadium or the bus yard. There is no interest or money to build anything else.

I would rather have a 2nd stadium anchor a "sports themed" neighborhood than have no neighborhood at all.

[dales5050]

Your reply implies that a football stadium would only influence development on the parcel of land it sits on or that immediate area.

Forget the damn bus yard, I'm talking about the wider neighborhood - having a football and baseball stadium right next to each other would make the wider EV area be predominately a sports-themed entertainment complex. I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

So what you're saying is the 'creative industry' has some form of ownership over the EV? How does this faction have any more rights to the lower half of the EV over any other group.

Additionally, what is the issue with a 'sports-themed entertainment complex'? We have a food & beverage themed entertainment complex in the gaslamp. Do those who do not drink or dine out often have the right to claim a better use for that area?

If the other areas of EV develop, then eventually something would be done with those parcels of land.

I'm just not into the let's build a football stadium because we hate the bus yard idea.

If the bus yard stays in lieu of a stadium, development might be slower in the area, but it would be better quality in my opinion.

Just what does better quality mean to you? From the sounds of it, this is subjective at best and elitist at worst.

Also, just how do you see the bus yard being developed outside of a single project? Again, would love to see the steps, either now or in 40 years, as to how the single bus yard was moved, remediated and then built out as multiple parcels.

If anything, you would be looking at another Navy Broadway Complex, which would not be organic. It would simply be the vision of a single developer.

[dtell04]

Another argument for "it's better than what's there now".

That's how mediocre urban areas get built, by settling.

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The choice is not a stadium or a bus yard.

A stadium would probably take half a decade or more as things go, to assume the bus yard is there for eternity is simply ridiculous.

I was saying that if not a stadium or bus yard, it will be something for public use. San Diego doesn't often (if ever) sell off it's property.

[nezbn22]

If anyone's looking for a breather from the stadium talk, I found a few pretty cool videos showing the Lane Field site. They're not that updated (latest is July 31st), but cool nonetheless:

http://vimeo.com/groups/263780/videos

[nezbn22]

Also, it appears that Landmark Aviation has opened its newly finished private jet terminal off Pacific Highway.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/08/11/terminal-for-private-planes-opens-at-lindbergh-field/#axzz3ACByDLXv

http://timesofsandiego.com/business/2014/08/09/landmark-aviation-opens-new-business-terminal-airport/

[Northparkwizard]

Sorta seems like we can have our cake and eat it too.

North to South:
"College" bounded by Broadway to the south, "East Village/Idea/Makers" between Broadway and Market, "Ballpark/Lower East Village" between Market and Imperial? I know... armchair urban planner over here... I'm just sayin'

Speaking of a breather from stadium talk, I got a notice about "Kettner Lofts" yesterday.

Here it is.
(http://www.civicsd.com/images/stories/NOA_Kettner_Lofts_8.11.14.pdf)
Anybody have renderings?

[spoonman]

^ Wow...look at a map...this project is totally going to kick-off more development on the north side of Little Italy where today is is somewhat detached from the rest of LI and downtown. This will be a huge catalyst for that area.

[SDCAL]

That's a fantasy. There are no proposals to build anything out there, other than the stadium. It is literally the stadium or the bus yard. There is no interest or money to build anything else.

I would rather have a 2nd stadium anchor a "sports themed" neighborhood than have no neighborhood at all.

It's fantasy to think that those particular parcels of land will eventually be developed if a stadium doesn't go in?

That's absurd.

I'm not talking about something springing-up right away, but to say they will forever be undeveloped parking lots/bus yards and that a stadium is the ONLY option is ridiculous.

[SDCAL]

So what you're saying is the 'creative industry' has some form of ownership over the EV? How does this faction have any more rights to the lower half of the EV over any other group.

Additionally, what is the issue with a 'sports-themed entertainment complex'? We have a food & beverage themed entertainment complex in the gaslamp. Do those who do not drink or dine out often have the right to claim a better use for that area?



Just what does better quality mean to you? From the sounds of it, this is subjective at best and elitist at worst.

Also, just how do you see the bus yard being developed outside of a single project? Again, would love to see the steps, either now or in 40 years, as to how the single bus yard was moved, remediated and then built out as multiple parcels.

If anything, you would be looking at another Navy Broadway Complex, which would not be organic. It would simply be the vision of a single developer.

I agree with you when you say that a lot of this is subjective, which is why we have varying opinions :) I agree with you about the Gaslamp, and that's one reason I am against the football stadium downtown - I DON'T want EV becoming another Gaslamp.

By that, I mean I don't want it to be simply a place people come to party, drink, watch sports, then leave. I'd like to see it develop into more of a neighborhood where people live and work and that's less commercial. I'm thinking a more dense more urban North-parkish type area, a place that has mostly non-chain venues. I also like neighborhoods that do retain a bit of their historical grit. I don't think all of EV needs to be polished and without warts to be great, in fact sometimes the warts make the neighborhood better. I am totally willing to admit that's my personal vision for the neighborhood, and it's impossible that I would ever see it develop exactly the way I want it to, but isn't that what these forums are for - to pitch ideas and give our opinions?

I mean the same arguments you make can be used towards the sports idea too. Why does sports have supreme reign over dictating development in the area?

Any major development is a risk, even a A football stadium. Even things I am in favor of could end up not doing what they are supposed to do (i.e. the IDEA District could end up being a flop, I don't think it would but it's possible).

When I use the word organic I do so realizing nothing (or almost nothing) is 100% organic when it comes to development. Urban planning takes place to spawn more development. It's just my opinion that downtown in general has enough of the type of development you see spawned from large sports venues (sports bars and the like) and I was hoping EV would be sort of a counter-balance to the rest of downtown. Less mainstream, a little more edgy, a little more creative.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussions with everyone and want to stress I am not trying to be a jerk, nor am I any kind of expert in development. I am simply sharing my one person vision of what I'd like to see in my neighborhood. I know I won't see everything i want, but hopefully I'll see some of it down the road.

[nezbn22]

Noticed a structure going up in a little spot wedged in between Hotel Solamar and Ballpark Storage on 6th Ave. Pretty sure it's a Courtyard by Marriott referenced here:

http://www.hotel-online.com/press_releases/release/j-street-hospitality-to-build-90-room-san-diego-courtyard-by-marriott-to-op

It's not very high yet, but they have the crane on site, and it's moving and shaking...

[Leo the Dog]

There's a lot of activity going on in DT/EV (and other awesome infill around town). I'm down there often and I'd love to do photo updates. Sempra is growing fast and 15th/island is HUGE now.

Does anyone have a good free photo sharing site they'd recommend? I used to post photos on Flickr, but just wondering if there are better ones out there?

[spoonman]

^ Awesome idea. Not sure what is a good site...flicker?

******

Looks like work has started/resumed at Sunroad Centrum in Kearny Mesa. There is a parking structure being constructed, whichI believe will either be for the office tower, or will be part of the 7 floors of residential that will be above parking.

This article below mentions that the office tower is moving forward.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sunroad-centrum-ii-floors-stand-kearny-mesa


Here's also a link for the residential development. Looks great for KM. Appears to have ground level retail.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandiego.gov%2Fplanning-commission%2Fpdf%2Fpcreports%2F2014%2Fpc14027.pdf&ei=yHjrU5LkOsa8oQS-sYL4Dg&usg=AFQjCNF7ykKZRTokuR_LvPqISoaq4VhPFw&sig2=z4UfntIAV2SXzuysRmAluQ

[dales5050]

I agree with you when you say that a lot of this is subjective, which is why we have varying opinions :) I agree with you about the Gaslamp, and that's one reason I am against the football stadium downtown - I DON'T want EV becoming another Gaslamp.

By that, I mean I don't want it to be simply a place people come to party, drink, watch sports, then leave. I'd like to see it develop into more of a neighborhood where people live and work and that's less commercial. I'm thinking a more dense more urban North-parkish type area, a place that has mostly non-chain venues. I also like neighborhoods that do retain a bit of their historical grit. I don't think all of EV needs to be polished and without warts to be great, in fact sometimes the warts make the neighborhood better. I am totally willing to admit that's my personal vision for the neighborhood, and it's impossible that I would ever see it develop exactly the way I want it to, but isn't that what these forums are for - to pitch ideas and give our opinions?

I mean the same arguments you make can be used towards the sports idea too. Why does sports have supreme reign over dictating development in the area?

Any major development is a risk, even a A football stadium. Even things I am in favor of could end up not doing what they are supposed to do (i.e. the IDEA District could end up being a flop, I don't think it would but it's possible).

When I use the word organic I do so realizing nothing (or almost nothing) is 100% organic when it comes to development. Urban planning takes place to spawn more development. It's just my opinion that downtown in general has enough of the type of development you see spawned from large sports venues (sports bars and the like) and I was hoping EV would be sort of a counter-balance to the rest of downtown. Less mainstream, a little more edgy, a little more creative.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussions with everyone and want to stress I am not trying to be a jerk, nor am I any kind of expert in development. I am simply sharing my one person vision of what I'd like to see in my neighborhood. I know I won't see everything i want, but hopefully I'll see some of it down the road.


OK. I see your perspective now. I don't agree with it at all but I understand it.

If you want another North-parkish type area..there are countless parts of San Diego that could become the next North Park. Hell, even North Park could grow into more of what it already has going on.

But to suggest that the EV should grow out to be nothing more than a collection of gourmet taco shops, craft beer bars and co-working facilities is really short sighted. Don't get me wrong, I love tacos, craft beer and keep hours at a co-working facility myself but that's not what DT and the EV needs to be.

By 2030, San Diego is expected to grow by 1M people and 500K jobs from the 2004 numbers. In order to allow for this, DT needs to go up and be maximized. My personal opinion is that the best way to ensure DT and the EV goes UP is to add development projects that push this. Like it or not, correctly built stadiums do this. Petco Park did it and the new stadium, if constructed, would do it as well.

[Bertrice]

well here it comes and not a moment too soon.
I don't want to here a bunch of crap like they should just build more mass transit or something along those lines. drive the 5 everyday and you will see.:yes:

http://media.10news.com/photo/2014/08/13/interstate_5_i_5-sign_1407970429464_7363054_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

http://www.10news.com/news/calif-coastal-commission-approves-plan-to-expand-27-mile-stretch-of-interstate-5?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter