For those interested in the federal courthouse, the groundbreaking is set for Dec.11.

They've been driving piles for the soldier beam and lagging for at least a week now though.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...2/IMG_0954.jpg
(pardon my thumb...lol)

Regarding the Chargers' new stadium:


Honestly, as long as they're in the county I'm happy. If it were up to me, I'd rebuild at the Qualcomm site.



Downtown would be cool, too. Or even Escondido.


THE END :D

Concerning the Chargers' stadium; I think the best local would be the East Village, then the current site, and as a last resort the Escondido site. I for one wouldn't like to make the drive up or down the 15 during a football game.

The stadium should be located by mass transit. I know the Escondido site is by the Sprinter but for those of us in SD proper that means a Coaster ride then a transfer to the Sprinter, a bit too complicated and time consuming I feel, so the majority of fans would then just drive.

I too would like to see the Chargers in East Village. Downtown is already equipped with the needed various forms of transportation, and it's centrally located for the county's residents. And if built right the location could serve as a sporting/entertainment venue year round for which the crowds before and after the events would spend money at the downtown restaurants, and the garages could serve the daily downtown crowds when events are not in session.

And regarding Escondido, if this location becomes serious you are going to see the NIMBY's coming out of the woodwork fighting this with tooth-and-nail because of "traffic and crime issues."

Oh man! A Charger stadium in downtown would be just. . . just awesome!

It seems as if the Chargers were always interested in downtown. They shrugged off the 2 Chula Vista sites like they were nothing and i don't think they're taking Escondido too seriously. Fabiani seems to really like East village pointing out the already existing infrastructure to support it.

Imagine this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/...1af7bfa9c5.jpg

A football stadium downtown does not appeal to me. They are huge... and the area around them are devoid of energy outside of game days. How many are there each year?

^^^^

It would not just be the Chargers using the facility. The Aztecs would use it as would the two bowl games San Diego hosts. Concerts, large conventions, probably a MSL soccer team. So to say it would sit empty, is dare I say it, ignorant.

Design it so it can double as an arena! :D

I realize there's some tongue-in-cheek, but that was precisely the mistake San Antonio made with their Alamadome. In designing it so that it could double as an arena, it didn't actually end up working for either purpose. It was a horrible waste of money.

I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

I love Petco downtown, I think where they put "the dump" makes perfect sense. The park during the day is a great place to bring you pup or throw a baseball of frisbee or football around. So if Petco is only half the reason for this part of East Villages' redevelopment then what is the other half of the reasoning?

So because San Antonio didn't do it right, we should just forget about it? Many other cities have mixed use entertainment/sporting developments that are very successful and thrive year-round.

How can anyone say that PETCO is anything but a GINORMOUS success while maintaining a straight face.

These people trully are idiots. And i mean to be bemeaning. Capital letters, IDIOTS.

Id say the area around our stadium is as vibrant as you can get, so im a bit confused by these assertions. It is just rediculous.

I am abit offended by your remarks. PETCO is a beautiful ballpark that has transformed a blighted neighborhood into a vibrant 24/7 neighborhood with buisnesses and residents. I know this for a fact because I live next door.

PETCO is just about the only notable piece of architecture that SD has produced in the last decade or two, so if you think it is a dump then you must think SD is a dump.

Chargers, S.D. discussing downtown stadium
15-acre site near Petco Park eyed for $1 billion project

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...34634cbc5420f3

SAN DIEGO — After years of watching other cities tease the Chargers with talk of a new stadium, San Diego has become the team's leading suitor again by dangling the possibility of professional football near Petco Park. Mayor Jerry Sanders discussed the downtown idea in a private meeting with team President Dean Spanos two weeks ago. That prompted Escondido to stop wooing the team while San Diego revisits the stadium issue for the first time since 2006 when the Chargers rejected rebuilding at the Qualcomm Stadium site and began exploring options elsewhere in the county.

The focus on downtown has fueled optimism among community leaders and created anxiety among property owners who might be displaced by a $1 billion stadium project.

The roughly 15 acres being eyed for a stadium includes city-owned Tailgate Park close to Petco Park, the privately owned Wonder Bread building and the bus yard for the San Diego Transit Corp., owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but mayoral spokesman Darren Pudgil said yesterday that the Mayor's Office is looking at all of the ways cities have helped with stadium construction. Pudgil said two options could be infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Everyone from team officials to potentially affected property owners say the project's financing is its main hurdle.

"Somehow, somebody still has to come up with the money to build this big, expensive stadium," said Bob Sinclair, who owns the Wonder Bread building. "I don't know how they're going to get over that delta for the cost."

Sanders and Spanos met for about an hour on Oct. 27 at the La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club. It was their first meeting since Jan. 7, although city and team officials have talked since then. Sanders called Spanos in July and early October, and Sanders' aides met with a team representative in April, May and mid-October. Future meetings will explore the city's role in the project.

In an interview last week, Sanders said contacts are more frequent now because the political landscape has changed since April 2006 when he said San Diego lacks the time and money to focus on a new Chargers stadium.

In particular, Sanders said, the city has a less combative city attorney since Jan Goldsmith replaced Michael Aguirre and the team has stopped exploring sites in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside.

"I don't want to say the Chargers were not important because they were, but I think that after four years, we certainly have to give them a signal on what we intend to do or how we want to do it or what we can do," Sanders said. "And then start working together to see if we can achieve a solution."

Sanders and Spanos have met privately three other times, once in January 2006, about six weeks after the mayor took office, and twice in October 2006.

Building a football stadium downtown has been kicked around San Diego before. In 2003, the year before Petco Park opened, then-Mayor Dick Murphy's citizens task force on Chargers issues examined a downtown stadium site while studying a replacement or upgrade of Qualcomm Stadium.

At the time, the task force noted that building on the large bus storage facility in East Village was an option but would require a relocation of the fleet and likely an environmental cleanup. On the plus side, it found, the area has 57,000 parking spaces within 1.5 miles.

Property owners in the area are mixed on the idea of a downtown stadium. Sinclair, whose Wonder Bread building on 14th Street dates to 1898 and is about 20 percent leased, said the location makes sense for a stadium because it is accessible, has ample parking, is made up of only a handful of parcels and probably isn't too contaminated from the buses.

While some people believe the team may eventually give in to the temptation of a new stadium proposed for the Los Angeles-area City of Industry, Sinclair expects the team to stay local.

"If they're reasonable enough, they could make a deal with everybody on our little block," he said.

Yet Eddie Zaitona, the longtime owner of Logan Market & Liquor on 16th Street, which could be in the stadium's footprint, doesn't want to leave.

City officials have not ruled out using their eminent domain powers for the stadium, Pudgil said yesterday. For now, the city and team are agreeing to a series of regular meetings to study the stadium concept.

Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said she will stand by in case talks break down in San Diego, but she isn't hoping for that outcome.

"The way I see it, we're all engaged in trying to make sure the Chargers stay in San Diego," she said. "I think (the downtown San Diego location) is a beautiful site."

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the point person on the team's stadium search, has long said a downtown stadium makes financial sense because infrastructure improvements to accommodate a stadium of up to $1 billion elsewhere could cost $200 million, but they are a fraction of that downtown.

Both Fabiani and Sanders said they want to know quickly if the site is economically feasible for the team. A site of that size would be among the National Football League's smallest stadium footprints.

One of the first matters of business will be conducting a financial analysis to figure out how a project might be financed and to what extent the city might be involved. One possibility is some of the money for the project could come from selling or developing the city-owned 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site, which the team would leave vacant.

Fabiani attended the Oct. 27 meeting between Sanders and Spanos with Kris Michell, Sanders' chief of staff, and Fred Maas, board chairman of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm.

The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money.

Richard Rider, a longtime taxpayer advocate who ran for mayor in 2005 against Sanders, said the Chargers shouldn't count on any handout, including redevelopment bonds.

"I don't think the taxpayers are going to want to subsidize a new football stadium when we have a perfectly good football stadium more centrally located in Mission Valley," he said.

But Ben Haddad, board chairman at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, is excited that Sanders and Spanos are again in regular contact.

"If folks can agree at the highest levels on a particular course of action, then I want to be in there right behind them as a business leader trying to get that done," Haddad said.

Library researchers Anne Magill and Merrie Monteagudo contributed to this report.

Matthew Hall: (619) 542-4599; matthew.hall@uniontrib.com

I don't get it, wasn't this plan already shot done by voters in 2008 when there was a ballot for the measure to do the exact same thing they're doing now? Why do they think it would work again? Even if they do get this site, who's paying for it? The tax payers? The stadium up in LA is fully privately financed and can begin construction whenever, not so much this plan. Also that Fabiani person he's not the head or owner of the chargers, what does his aspirations have to do with what the chargers really want?

He allready regarded that a move to LA would be best.

Site Link:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=1#post4552211

This is the saddest thing about this...

"The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money."

First the City Council takes its chunk of redevelopment dollars, now the State is taking $45 million and with this it looks like struggling multimillionaire Spanos will take some too. I have never experienced a community so vision-less as to not spend $$$ on its downtown when it actually has it! Living downtown for many years now, we continue to be devoid of activated parks, recreational facilities, and economic development initiatives to bring more jobs and retail downtown. While I understand the community loves its Chargers, I don't think it is appropriate to spend/borrow against redevelopment $$$ to keep them here. There are other priorities.

FYI - just saw this on CBS-8. A group has been formed to push the CA High-Speed Rail Authority to change the proposed route in SD. This group wants the rail line to bypass UTC, the airport, and downtown; but instead travel all the way down the I-15 to the border.

This group doesn't want the line traveling through the Rose Canyon/UTC area. My personal opinion is that UTC which is one of the most populated areas outside of downtown must be served, as well as downtown.

Anyway, public comment is being accepted by the High Speed Rail Authority:

Email: comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line LA-SD HST and cc. comments to rosecanyon@san.rr.com
Mail: Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director
ATTN: HST Project EIR/EIS
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814

The area around Qualcomm is dead. I wouldn't want something like that in downtown San Diego.

Qualcomm is surrounded by the largest parking lot west of the Mississippi, The new stadium will not be, thats the point to put the stadium into an urban setting to avoid the mistake of qualcomm.

Actually they're going to turn all of east village into a huge parking lot.

This county seems to have a surplus of idiotic leadership.

I saw this on channel 8 also.

This group headed by nazi-environmentalist Don Frye plan to make Qualcomm Stadium the transit hub of San Diego not downtown or the airport. Reason being is they want the HSR to avoid the Rose Canyon fault.:shrug::haha: :rolleyes:

First of all whatever high speed rail system California gets, the best earthquake-resistant technology will be taken into account *cough cough* SHINKANSEN *cough*
San Francisco, LA, Inland Empire and the Central Valley all run along the mother of all fault-lines (San Andreas) so if HSR can route thru that, Rose Canyon is no problem.

I don't understand the logic of Qualcomm as a transit hub. This group wants an environmentally responsible HSR route but wants to turn SUBURBAN Mission Valley into a hub? Not urban downtown? Didn't Frye talk against the Qualcomm Stadium redo (a dense collection of condos, hotels, and offices) proposed a few months ago because of congestion issues? And now she wants to turn it into a destination hub? Huh?!?!?

Get out, Donna Frye. Seriously. Get the f**k out.

Yea she is lame.

The California HSR blog shares my exact sentiments.

"Dropping passengers in the Qualcomm parking lot would be a cruel joke, a sign that San Diego isn't willing to truly embrace sustainable transportation or smart growth principles."

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/

wouldn't the money we're gonna spend on HSR be able to build every county in the state their own new airport? wouldn't the regional economy as a whole benefit more from having better regional air transportation versus being able to get to san francisco (when I don't work or live in San Francisco) in an hour?

Maybe because Qualcomm is in her district and Downtown isn't. Just sayin'...ulterior motives.

And ShekelPop, I would be the first to agree with you that San Diego needs a new airport, it's why I got into civil engineering in the first place, but the HSR has already been approved and the airport has already been shot down. Besides, the whole state and Fed is dumping money into the HSR whereas SD would cover much of the costs of its own airport. I know the state and fed might help on an airport but what SD spends on train is less than for an airport. I'm for taking what opportunities there are. PLUS, a huge amount of traffic out of the airport is California based. Put in a train, you alleviate that pressure on the capacity.

To the following gentlemen,

Your comments deserve answers.

To SDviaPhilly(which strangely enough also describes me), the other half of the reason was that they had a huge junk of real estate and someone who promised to develop the East Village. But the Ballpark was not the reason that the Horizon,Renaissance, Electra, Park Row or City Walk were developed in the Marina District. They were developed because we made it easy for Bosa and friends to develop these properties. Ditto for Little Italy.
If we had done the same for the East Village, we coud have had similar development without the current 25-30 million bond servicing we face with PETCO. I have yet to see any study that indicates that PETCO has paid for itself.

To IconRPCV,

Yes there is life, but the same could have been had if we had used the same approach used in other parts of downtown. I also frequent the area.In fact, some of you may not realize that the Western Metal was going to be developed into luxury lofts and there was talk of developing the other Tom Hom property to the south before the ballpark became all the rage in development. These developments could have fostered the same excitement that you attribute solely to the ballpark(this I know because I had plunked down an earnest money deposit on the development in 1992). The very building you live in was the home of artists lofts and one of the theater companies had already been interested in using space (When it was the Reincarnation Bldg had was famous for Torres's eyes).

To Mr Crackertastik,

I was hoping that you were being tongue and cheek. It probably is not very persuasive to call people idiots, particularly since you seem incapable of using spell check.

^^^

I understand that some people don't value professional sports, and no amount of arguing will change this. I for one am one who does value professional sports and no amount of persuasion will change this.

As much as I would love to see a world class stadium built around a dense urban village that's woven into a web of mixed use, cultural areas, etc. If it came down to a choice, I would much rather see the money spent on parks, affordable housing, public art, and business development downtown.

Thank you. I could not agree more. Glad to see you are stepping up with your election to the CCAC.

I see little evidence that a football stadium will lead to an improved day to day urban experience. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, give me some examples. There might be a few and I think it would be useful to share the case studies.

Oh my.. I just read the blog piece on this... I just don't know what to say. High Speed rail to the Qualcomm parking lot? These council people represent the City of San Diego. That is embarrassing.

It shouldn't matter if you like or don't like sports. I don't see why people can't be for better development because of the benefits to the area. Plus studies show that having a professional team attracts more businesses and people.

In that case we should look at NFL stadiums in urban cores. A stadium could be pretty downtown here, but that doesn't mean it would be functional with the neighborhood.

Exactly. I know the hotel interests will be all over it. But I don't think a lot of people could argue that surrendering that much land in East Village will contribute to an improved 24 hour environment. I don't think one could argue that the stadium would sit empty at least 5 days of each week. Is that an appropriate land use for what should be a dense, urban land area? This will be a 1 billion dollar investment. I think Petco was around a 1/3 of that and it is used a bit more than a football stadium.

MLB also benefits from having 81 homes games each year; NFL is 1/10 of that. I think the Aztecs plays 5 or 6 home games. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand that parking lot at Qualcomm seems like a waste of space. On the other, football stadiums are so massive and hard to build around. Even in very urban Barcelona the area around Camp Nou isn't very walkable.

Actually,when PETCO was first being debated, studies leaned more towards stadiums having either a neutral or negative benefit. The author of one of the more respected studies against public funding of stadiums was then hired by the pro-stadium group, and lo and behold, he suddenly seemed to feel that maybe he was being too harsh in his analysis. So if you start indicating that studies are for something, I'd also want to be sure that the research is unbiased.

it is a good point about the need to alleviate the capacity taken up with interstate travel

trains vs. planes: the HSR concedes that very little of their ridership will come form airplane traffic; almost all from car trips (see their website).

I would guess that zero percent of SD to Bay Area and Sacto. travellers would switch to train (4 hrs. if you can find expresses, which will be rare). And about zero percent of traffic to the OC or the south part of LA county because you will have to connect through Union Station and then circle back south.

IE traffic is not taking airplanes to begin with so really only the Central and SGV part of LA County would be pulled out of airplanes.

Love the stadium dialog here, been awhile since we've seen this type of action on this left-for-dead-not-long-ago-forum. Keep it up.

Another Stadium update... Seems this on a fast track now... Don't you love how they can design a stadium overnight.



=======

Voice of San Diego.

Chargers Near to Releasing Downtown Stadium Drawings

To prepare for my interview on the Chargers stadium search today on KPBS' "San Diego Week," I called team special counsel and stadium point man Mark Fabiani. He ran down what's been a busy couple of weeks for the team and downtown San Diego site. The site is about 15 acres, located east of Petco Park and is the current home to the Wonder Bread building.

Here's what he had to say:

Fabiani met this week with Mayor's Office policy man Phil Rath and downtown redevelopment agency head Fred Maas. Maas, the chairman of the city-run Centre City Development Corp., is the team's main contact with the city, Fabiani said.
"It was important to us because Fred has pulled off big projects like this," Fabiani said.

Maas' participation also is significant because his agency could be involved in the stadium's financing through redevelopment tax revenue.



Fabiani pegged the cost of the project as $750 million to $1 billion. He has long touted that a site downtown saves money because transportation infrastructure, such as roads and parking, are already in place.

The team is having its environmental consultants examine the site. There's likely to be some level of contamination because of the San Diego Transit Corp.'s bus yard included in the site. The team isn't concerned about a geological fault line that runs through the western portion of Tailgate Park, also included in the site plans.


Fabiani also met this week with the team's Kansas City-based stadium architects, Populous (formerly HOK). The plans are for 64,000 seats. Preliminary designs put all the luxury boxes on one side of the stadium. Shops, bars and restaurants will be on the first floor. Unlike other football stadiums, this one would be right along the city street.

"We're not that far away from releasing drawings," Fabiani said.


The team hopes to complete a preliminary financial analysis in two months, Fabiani said. For context's sake, that's around the time, L.A. developer Ed Roski plans to shop financial plans to the Chargers and other team for his stadium project in the city of Industry.

Interesting...because that's not the case in Europe: Many flights have been canceled due to HSR. Personally, even if the times were comparable, I'd choose HSR over the hassle of the airport--the being frisked, taking off one's shoes, the having to be there 2 hours early...If it's 4 hours from SD to Sac by HSR, it's certainly not less by plane, given the travel time to/from airports, the being there 2 hours early, and the flight time itself. Also, my guess is that there'd be far more traffic between SD and Silicon Valley than to Sac. On that trip HSR would easily beat planes(time-wise).

Additionally, I think there's a perception by many that traveling through the air is riskier than travel on the ground. It may be unwarranted statistically, but ancdotally it's a common enough perception.

As for an idea of a station at a ballpark instead of downtown--that's inane. How many people travel from LA or SF to watch the SD sports team? Why would they unless their home team was playing them--and that would still be just the small percentage of uber-fans. DT to DT is the proven track record when it comes to HSR which has been around for decades in other nations.

Interesting; my sense is just the opposite. 18 stops from SD to SF by HSR (more if the East LA and Central Valley stops are added); zero by plane. In either case you have to get to the station with luggage, check luggage, get seated, off-board, pick-up luggage, arrange for transportation. But the plane does it in 1 ¼ hrs. and the train in 4 IF you aren’t delayed at one of the many stations and make your connection onto an express.

HSR figures 5 out of 6 riders will not be from planes (mostly former car users). This is also a tough competition for the train since cars are so much cheaper for families and take you door to door and don’t require a rental on arrival. But this is more for the transit discussions.

I would personally rather go by HSR then plane any day. I used to live in Germany and would hop on the train often for short trips to other European cities.

It's an easier way of travel, you don't feel cramped, you can get up and walk around, cell phone/pc internet works since you are on the ground, and pesto - you have to lug your luggage around in an airport, and check it as well, so I'm not understanding your statement.

This is more for the transport threads, so my final post:

You took a train with 18 stops in Europe? From where to where? The three big differences between the US and Europe: air fares are kept artificially high; cars are impractical in most large European cities, so they don't compete; stops are very few (not 18+ like from SD to SF).

Even then, check how long it takes to go 300-400 miles in northern Europe (say, Berlin to Munich or Frankfurt; Munich to Paris; etc. Most trains will be 5 hrs. plus. The Paris-Lyon-Marseilles TGV trip is 200 mile legs; these make sense for rail. HSR in Spain is legitimately very successful.

There are about 9 or 10 stops between Gothenburg and Copenhagen (200 miles). The trip takes a little less than four hours. There are probably more if you go from Copenhagen to Oslo (around 380 miles).

As for AVE in Spain, that service has not reached Alicante (2012) so I can't judge it yet. Alvia lines are okay. If I'm going to Madrid I'll take it; for Barcelona I'll fly.

Many of the HSR rail lines in Europe have 15+ stops. Note, there are 10 different HSR trains in Europe and I think you are only thinking about the Eurostar which is limited in stops.

I've been on the the Thalys probably 50 times from Koln to St. Maurice which has about 15 stops, the Eurostar Italia has numerous stops on lines from Brindisi to Bolzano, and the AVE from Malaga to Barcelona has 13 stops.

I travel to various locations in Europe roughly every 6 weeks or so. And whoever is stating the rail doesn't have numerous stops is flat out wrong.

And I personally love the rail over there. It's roomy, allows for me to relax or do some work while awaiting my destination.

When I'm in the EU I choose to take rail over plane any day. It's easier for me, they don't get delayed like planes, the hauling around of bags is pretty much the same as you'd have to do in any airport, it's easier to get on and off due to the multiple doorways, but most important to me is that I don't like being in cramped spaces, and I love that I can get up, walk around, check out the other compartments.