SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=126473)

Crackertastik Jul 29, 2010 6:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4927258)
Maybe the city should fix the roads or pay its bills instead of building the library?

It does have one of the lowest credit ratings in one of the states with one of the lowest credit ratings in a country that just had its credit rating lowered because of out-of-control spending.

Spend Away!

maybe home owners should help in eradicating Prop 13, so our cities can pay for its infrastructure. Or since we have prop 13, and prop 215 which limits taxation to mitigate prop 13 and its clusterfuck, all our property owners can establish assessment districts or melo-roos taxes to pay for them.

That is what pays for infrastructure. Not, development dollars. They are completely independent of each other. The need for infrastructure disproportionately hits our budget without these fixes. We will never be able develop anything, build anything without those fixes. Streets and infrastructure will forever need fixing and development will always take a back seat with your strategy.

Wake up

brantw Jul 29, 2010 11:49 PM

Backers of new SD City Hall want to pull the plug
 
One of the major backers of a new San Diego City Hall has asked Mayor Jerry Sanders to veto the city’s plan to ask voters to approve the project on the November ballot.

Shirley Horton, president of the Downtown San Diego Partnership, a pro-business group that advocates for economic growth, sent a letter Thursday to Sanders explaining the dim prospects of the ballot measure’s success.

She said the group would typically spend six months to a year to plan a campaign push in favor of the project but will only have three months. It would also be “extremely difficult” to raise the money needed to campaign effectively given the economic climate, she said.

“The cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Civic Center redevelopment is complicated, and does not easily lend itself to the 20-second sound bite dynamic of a political campaign,” she wrote. “... As a result of these realities and the expected shortage of financial resources, we are not optimistic about the prospects of organizing an effective campaign prior to the November election.”

The $293.5 million project calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, just west of the current building. It would include two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,400 office workers.

The City Council approved the City Hall ballot measure on July 19. By rule, Sanders has 10 days to veto it, which means he must make a decision by Thursday.

Sanders has pushed hard for the project and has long promised that the public would get to vote on it.

Article here

brantw Jul 30, 2010 2:28 AM

Mayor vetoes public vote on City Hall
 
LOL.... sorry for so many posts on this, but I just had to laugh:

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has vetoed plans for a public vote on a new City Hall in November, a stunning blow for a project the mayor has shepherded for the past two years.

Sanders, who has repeatedly said the project would save taxpayer money by replacing its outdated civic center, said the developer behind the project and major supporters have asked him to prevent it from reaching the ballot because they don’t believe there is enough time or money to launch an effective campaign to win voters over.

The $293.5 million project is now in limbo because the City Council would have to schedule a special session to override the mayor’s veto and move ahead with a public vote. The council has already called a special meeting for Friday morning to discuss a separate ballot measure that would increase the city’s sales tax rate, but it’s too late to add a discussion on City Hall to the agenda because of public noticing requirements.

The decision comes in a political climate where many people have expressed anger about the reduction in city services — particularly fire protection — and questioned the city’s priorities in pursuing big-ticket items like a new City Hall and a downtown library, which is now under construction.

Also, commercial real estate experts have increasingly questioned whether the project will produce the projected savings.

One potential silver lining for advocates of the sales tax increase is taking the City Hall project out of the discussion may help them sell the tax proposal if it goes before voters in November.

The veto doesn’t kill the project altogether as the council could choose to approve it without a public vote. That could be a tall order, however, because four of the eight council members have said they wouldn’t support the proposal unless voters have a say.

The decision by Sanders came a few hours after a major backer of the new City Hall asked him to pull the plug on the project.

Shirley Horton, president of the Downtown San Diego Partnership, a pro-business group that advocates for economic growth, sent a letter Thursday to Sanders explaining the dim prospects that the ballot measure had to succeed.

She said the group would typically spend six months to a year planning a campaign push in favor of the project but would only have three months if it were to proceed. It would also be “extremely difficult” to raise the money needed to campaign effectively given the economic climate, she said.

“The cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Civic Center redevelopment is complicated, and does not easily lend itself to the 20-second sound bite dynamic of a political campaign,” she wrote. “... As a result of these realities and the expected shortage of financial resources, we are not optimistic about the prospects of organizing an effective campaign prior to the November election.”

The project calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, just west of the current building. It would include two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,400 office workers.

The project would allow the city to avoid $37 million in repairs at its current 45-year-old City Hall and eliminate about $13 million annually in office leases that are needed because city workers are spread throughout downtown. The mayor had estimated the city would save about $24 million in the first 10 years of the project and as much as $232 million over the next 50 years.

The projected savings have come under increasing question by commercial real estate experts and City Councilman Carl DeMaio, who cast the lone vote against the ballot measure.

Sanders has pushed hard for a new City Hall and long ago committed to a public vote. Just last month he promised to campaign on behalf of the proposal and tell voters that it would free up millions of dollars over the next decade that could be used to restore recent cuts, such as the decision to idle up to eight fire engines a day.

“This is certainly not a Taj Mahal,” he said then. “It’s a very functional building that I think will serve the city well and it saves us money every single year.”

If the project proceeds, construction would begin in January 2012 with the goal of opening by July 2014.

Article here

HurricaneHugo Jul 30, 2010 5:02 AM

This city is seriously pathetic.

Derek Jul 30, 2010 6:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4930071)
This city is seriously pathetic.

Which is why I'm moving to Portland next summer. ;)

eburress Jul 30, 2010 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 4930119)
Which is why I'm moving to Portland next summer. ;)

Portland isn't the place to go if you want to avoid NIMBYs! hahaha If you want to avoid the soul-draining vacuum of the NIMBY, you should move to Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston... :)

(Portland sure is pretty though and you gotta love the NW)

Troubadour Jul 30, 2010 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 4930497)
If you want to avoid the soul-draining vacuum of the NIMBY, you should move to Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston... :)

But then you have to deal with psychotic rednecks. :shrug:

brantw Jul 30, 2010 8:27 PM

Guys, look on the bright side. We're getting a new pedestrian bridge! :tup:

eburress Jul 30, 2010 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubadour (Post 4930626)
But then you have to deal with psychotic rednecks. :shrug:

That may be the Texas stereotype, but having actually been there, you would know that you see fewer psychotic rednecks there than you do here (East County anyone?)! hahaha

Dallas and Atlanta are far more cosmopolitan and metropolitan cities than our quaint little San Diego. :)

eburress Jul 30, 2010 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brantw (Post 4930737)
Guys, look on the bright side. We're getting a new pedestrian bridge! :tup:

True true. I'm all a flutter with civic pride! hahaha

Derek Jul 31, 2010 6:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 4930497)
Portland isn't the place to go if you want to avoid NIMBYs! hahaha If you want to avoid the soul-draining vacuum of the NIMBY, you should move to Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston... :)

(Portland sure is pretty though and you gotta love the NW)



I enjoy the weather in the Pacific NW far more than any other place in the US. I'm going to school up there and I plan on staying there for a while. ;)


It'll be a nice change. :D

mello Aug 4, 2010 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 4930908)
That may be the Texas stereotype, but having actually been there, you would know that you see fewer psychotic rednecks there than you do here (East County anyone?)! hahaha

Dallas and Atlanta are far more cosmopolitan and metropolitan cities than our quaint little San Diego. :)

I'm not saying I disagree with you about the cities you mentioned being more cosmopolitan, but I would like to discuss it. What exactly makes you say that? Are you counting all that the beach communities and Tijuana have to offer in to the mix or just the city of SD? I know Dallas has Fort Worth, kind of like a whole other city to add to the mix SD has TJ and the beach towns but what does ATL really have? Buckhead, Midtown, and....

mongoXZ Aug 4, 2010 5:04 AM

If you consider being a cheap place to live and do business a characteristic of a cosmopolitan city then, yeah, Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston are the most cosmopolitan cities of them all.

Being cheap is pretty much the only thing those cities got going for them.

NYC2ATX Aug 4, 2010 5:29 AM

I think cosmopolitan-ness is really complex. Like I've been equally blown away by Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, and many other southern and southwestern cities repeatedly over the past few years (as well as my beloved northern and eastern cities). Austin and Charlotte in particular are booming with skyline growth, and both Dallas and Atlanta have very underrated cultural scenes (remember, the big D is putting the finishing touches on a new, world-class arts district as we type). Charlotte also recently got a slew of new museums, and OKC is starting to show itself as an true player in urban renewal (the Devon Tower, Core-to-Shore).

The thing is, while I don't think any city only has cheap living going for it and nothing else, I don't think freedom to build is all that makes it either.

I was recently in Savannah, Georgia, and I found it to be a very high-class, albeit quaint destination. That has the culture and history, but it lacks the bustle. It's so difficult to pin one characteristic as the defining measure of a world-class city. It's so much more complicated than that.

staplesla Aug 4, 2010 5:37 AM

The Port Commission restarted the clock Tuesday on a massive upgrade to San Diego’s bayfront by agreeing to revise the proposal and add more park space. The hope is the California Coastal Commission, which rejected the project in the spring, will approve the changes.

The new plan, as presented by the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition, is to create a roughly 150-foot-wide park along Harbor Drive, from the County Administration Center to Broadway Pier, to replace an oval park at the foot of Broadway that was once envisioned as the centerpiece of the $228 million North Embarcadero Visionary Plan, in the works for 12 years.

“I think the iron is about as hot as it’s going to get, and if we don’t strike while it’s hot we’re never going to get it,” Port Commissioner Lou Smith of Coronado said.

The risk is that the Coastal Commission will reject the permit and the port’s master plan will remain outdated, Commission Steve Padilla of Chula Vista said. An alternative was to revise the plan and then submit a permit, but port commissioners worried that would add two years to the process.

Coalition members said they want the expanded park, a comprehensive public vetting and a labor agreement with living-wage rates for workers at a hotel that would be part of the project.

If their conditions are met, they said, they will lobby the Coastal Commission to approve the $28 million first phase of the visionary plan that aims to set the tone for a beautification of what’s called San Diego’s “front porch.”

“We’re not willing to give up today,” said Cory Briggs, the attorney representing the coalition. “We need to try.”

Port officials said they will host public meetings in the next few weeks to gather other ideas and then ask the Coastal Commission for approval, either late this year or early in 2011.

The shape and design of the Embarcadero, from Seaport Village to Lindbergh Field, has been an issue in San Diego for more than a century, as early planners envisioned a European-style esplanade full of gardens, playgrounds and stately buildings. Despite its prime location, it became an industrial zone and today is marked by parking lots, Navy buildings and aging hotels.

Commissioner Scott Peters of San Diego said the visionary plan, if carried out with whatever changes are added, is worth fighting for, even with potential roadblocks ahead.

“This is the most important public open space project in all of California,” Peters said. “I’m very concerned we’ll get the money to pay for it.”

He was referring to funds set aside by the Centre City Development Corp., the city’s downtown redevelopment arm, to finance the plan’s first phase. The state might take local redevelopment property tax funds to balance its budget, and CCDC’s authority to spend money in the Embarcadero area expires in 2017. CCDC chief financial director Frank Alessi said the money appears secure in the agency’s current budget, but there’s no guarantee it will be there next year.

Another financial hurdle is a $26 million commitment by the port to buy a Navy leasehold at 1220 Pacific Highway, south of the Holiday Inn on the Bay, and needed for the planned 800-room hotel project at Lane Field, now a parking lot just north of Broadway at Harbor Drive, where the minor league Padres once played.

Lane Field developers say their hotel financing is stalled, but they are willing to revise their hotel plans to accommodate the proposed new park.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...re-park-space/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac

Derek Aug 4, 2010 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4934791)
The Port Commission restarted the clock Tuesday on a massive upgrade to San Diego’s bayfront by agreeing to revise the proposal and add more park space. The hope is the California Coastal Commission, which rejected the project in the spring, will approve the changes.

The new plan, as presented by the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition, is to create a roughly 150-foot-wide park along Harbor Drive, from the County Administration Center to Broadway Pier, to replace an oval park at the foot of Broadway that was once envisioned as the centerpiece of the $228 million North Embarcadero Visionary Plan, in the works for 12 years.

“I think the iron is about as hot as it’s going to get, and if we don’t strike while it’s hot we’re never going to get it,” Port Commissioner Lou Smith of Coronado said.

The risk is that the Coastal Commission will reject the permit and the port’s master plan will remain outdated, Commission Steve Padilla of Chula Vista said. An alternative was to revise the plan and then submit a permit, but port commissioners worried that would add two years to the process.

Coalition members said they want the expanded park, a comprehensive public vetting and a labor agreement with living-wage rates for workers at a hotel that would be part of the project.

If their conditions are met, they said, they will lobby the Coastal Commission to approve the $28 million first phase of the visionary plan that aims to set the tone for a beautification of what’s called San Diego’s “front porch.”

“We’re not willing to give up today,” said Cory Briggs, the attorney representing the coalition. “We need to try.”

Port officials said they will host public meetings in the next few weeks to gather other ideas and then ask the Coastal Commission for approval, either late this year or early in 2011.

The shape and design of the Embarcadero, from Seaport Village to Lindbergh Field, has been an issue in San Diego for more than a century, as early planners envisioned a European-style esplanade full of gardens, playgrounds and stately buildings. Despite its prime location, it became an industrial zone and today is marked by parking lots, Navy buildings and aging hotels.

Commissioner Scott Peters of San Diego said the visionary plan, if carried out with whatever changes are added, is worth fighting for, even with potential roadblocks ahead.

“This is the most important public open space project in all of California,” Peters said. “I’m very concerned we’ll get the money to pay for it.”

He was referring to funds set aside by the Centre City Development Corp., the city’s downtown redevelopment arm, to finance the plan’s first phase. The state might take local redevelopment property tax funds to balance its budget, and CCDC’s authority to spend money in the Embarcadero area expires in 2017. CCDC chief financial director Frank Alessi said the money appears secure in the agency’s current budget, but there’s no guarantee it will be there next year.

Another financial hurdle is a $26 million commitment by the port to buy a Navy leasehold at 1220 Pacific Highway, south of the Holiday Inn on the Bay, and needed for the planned 800-room hotel project at Lane Field, now a parking lot just north of Broadway at Harbor Drive, where the minor league Padres once played.

Lane Field developers say their hotel financing is stalled, but they are willing to revise their hotel plans to accommodate the proposed new park.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...re-park-space/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac




It'll be at least another 6 years before anything happens with this...

eburress Aug 4, 2010 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 4934767)
If you consider being a cheap place to live and do business a characteristic of a cosmopolitan city then, yeah, Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston are the most cosmopolitan cities of them all.

Being cheap is pretty much the only thing those cities got going for them.

hahahaha - really?

Crackertastik Aug 4, 2010 8:20 PM

The change seems to be the removal of Harbor Drive along that section of the bay. Something I have been in favor of for years. This is a move in the right direction. Nice!

SDfan Aug 4, 2010 10:13 PM

Are they removing harbor drive? Or are they just cutting the blocks next to the bay in half for park land?

OneMetropolis Aug 5, 2010 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4934791)


This looks great. If they had it like this the first time we would have been somewhere right now. Now it seems not likey to happen.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.