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)

HurricaneHugo Feb 19, 2020 5:09 AM

[QUOTE=mello;8834778]
Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildSanDiego (Post 8830873)

Can someone who has access to this article give us the high points? So Caydon is a company that bought the project from the original owner who I suspected was looking to "flip" this thing after getting approval anyway. Is that what happened? Thanks

Hope to get some good news on 7th and Market soon... Man is that project dragging out. Also 1st and Beech/Alexan Little Italy lets go guys :yes::shrug:

Caydon bought it from Sloan Capital Partners and Presidio Bay Ventures.

Plans are to to demolishing the theater and rebuilding it with as much original ornamentation. (Building is too far gone to save).

474 ft condo tower.

Demolishing in late 2020, construction early 2021.

252 parking spots, 45 subsidized housing units.

PS: I used the tip earlier in the thread to be able to read the articles on Firefox.

HurricaneHugo Feb 27, 2020 1:15 AM

What do you guys think of the upcoming Measures and mayoral/supervisor elections as it relates to development?

SDCAL Mar 1, 2020 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 8843703)
What do you guys think of the upcoming Measures and mayoral/supervisor elections as it relates to development?

I voted yes on C. I think it’s critical measure C gets approved to FINALLY expand the damn convention center. Money will also go to homeless. This is a hotel tax and I don’t really see a downside to this measure.

lakeviewer Mar 2, 2020 6:46 AM

Manchester
 
Hey all, new posting in the SD forum.

I have heard that Manchester does not have funding to proceed with the ambitious grand plan. The word is that during excavation, they came across some underground cabling that would be quite costly to relocate. The rumor is that nothing(except current Navy building) will be completed as planned, if completed at all.

I emailed SDUT to inquire about 7th & Market a few weeks ago, editor Lori Weisberg said she anticipated an announcement in the coming weeks.

NYC2ATX Mar 2, 2020 6:59 AM

That would be a disappointment, but it doesn't really seem like Manchester has a great record of getting projects completed, does it? I'm most familiar with their efforts at the Fairmont Austin, and that project was significantly shrunk and value-engineered before even breaking ground. The completed project is nice enough, but pales in comparison to the original plans, which would have evoked much higher praise than that.

I'm mostly frustrated because this has the potential to fill a significant hole in the waterfront while also giving San Diego a much more inviting and iconic face out to the harbor. SD is already much more limited than some places to develop a distinctive physical form because of the height cap (not to even speak of the ridiculous airport situation), and I would rather plans of great potential and consequence be in the hands of more capable developers if this is going to drag for another 10 years.

SDCAL Mar 2, 2020 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeviewer (Post 8847746)
Hey all, new posting in the SD forum.

I have heard that Manchester does not have funding to proceed with the ambitious grand plan. The word is that during excavation, they came across some underground cabling that would be quite costly to relocate. The rumor is that nothing(except current Navy building) will be completed as planned, if completed at all.

I emailed SDUT to inquire about 7th & Market a few weeks ago, editor Lori Weisberg said she anticipated an announcement in the coming weeks.

I knew there was a problem with the Manchester project. Earlier on this board someone said they called to get information and a person who works at Manchester was rude and hung up on them.

I also posted that something seems off with the way they decided not to proceed with anything until after the Navy building when they had all along said the project would be comprehensive and have aggressive timelines.

This is really a huge setback for downtown. It took what I think was almost a decade to get that project going, does that mean it will sit like it is for another decade?

Also, wouldn’t they have found this problem BEFORE they proceeded with the Navy Building? Now that the Navy building is built, it makes it more difficult for another developer to do a comprehensive re-do of that site because they will have to work that building into the scheme. That building was designed to fit-in with the rest of the project.

I can’t under-emphasize what a cluster F this is.

I hope Manchester gets sued over this. He never should have built that one building if they thought there was a possibility they couldn’t complete the project.

tdavis Mar 2, 2020 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeviewer (Post 8847746)
Hey all, new posting in the SD forum.

I have heard that Manchester does not have funding to proceed with the ambitious grand plan. The word is that during excavation, they came across some underground cabling that would be quite costly to relocate. The rumor is that nothing(except current Navy building) will be completed as planned, if completed at all.

I emailed SDUT to inquire about 7th & Market a few weeks ago, editor Lori Weisberg said she anticipated an announcement in the coming weeks.

I heard the same from a commercial broker with Hughes Marino last week. He told me that the entire plans are being shelved by Manchester and Manchester is looking to unload the property to a new developer. 😡

mello Mar 2, 2020 8:31 PM

Wow big disappointment with Manchester....
 
We were told he had the financing... What the hell happened. This is a huge scar on his and family's legacy.

As far as voting: Yes on C , Yes on B , no on A.

We need all the housing we can get so a couple of sprawl developments here and there won't kill us. In the grand scheme of things 10 to 12k sprawl units built in the unincorporated areas over the next 10 to 15 years is a drop in the bucket. We should be building fifteen thousand units per year in this County.

spoonman Mar 3, 2020 5:09 AM

Seems like Manchester’s development was a huge vanity project (and financial of course). Something must be really wrong (and costly) for him to walk on this unless he feels like he has unlocked enough value through the painstaking entitlement process and development of the Navy building to walk away with a decent sale price. Anyone have a guess as to what the improvements are worth from a profit standpoint?

Will O' Wisp Mar 3, 2020 7:06 AM

I'd just keep in mind, this is a rumor. No first or secondhand source has confirmed there are issues with financing, no newspaper has even run an "according to anonymous sources" article.

Fun fact: Manchester's lease with the Navy is available online (Warning: large file). Per the lease Manchester was required to deliver the new Navy HQ on June 27th, 2009 (pg 7). The Navy is allowed to collect damages for every day that they don't have ownership of that facility after that date (pg 9 - exact amount per day is redacted), unless the delay was caused by something outside of Manchester's control (pg 13). And that is only allowed on a day for day basis, so Manchester faces massive fines unless it's able to provide legal proof that every last day of delay from 2009-2020 was outside its control.

I'm no lawyer, but from my reading if Manchester starts construction on anything else before the Navy HQ is done it may have to prove, possibly in a court of law, that it didn't delay the Navy HQ's completion date by a single day. If that is the case, I'd be a little cautious about starting on the rest of the project too...

SDfan Mar 4, 2020 2:27 AM

I voted yes on A and no on B. If y'all want density and high-rises in cities, you're not going to get it by permitting and building sprawl

Will O' Wisp Mar 4, 2020 4:59 PM

Update on election results:

Measure A fails by just 1%. No ballot box planning for now.

Measure B fails by a significant margin. Newland Sierra is dead.

Measure C gains a significant majority, but fails to reach the required 2/3rds for a tax measure. The city may decide to litigate this result. The CA supreme court indicated in 2017 that citizen proposed tax increases like Measure C may only require a simple majority to pass.

plutonicpanda Mar 5, 2020 1:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8850624)
Update on election results:

Measure A fails by just 1%. No ballot box planning for now.

Measure B fails by a significant margin. Newland Sierra is dead.

Measure C gains a significant majority, but fails to reach the required 2/3rds for a tax measure. The city may decide to litigate this result. The CA supreme court indicated in 2017 that citizen proposed tax increases like Measure C may only require a simple majority to pass.

That is absolutely ridiculous but not surprising. Thousands and thousands of new homes and people are concerned about the environment? Yeah right... this was defeated by NIMBYs so in this case they seem to be friends with the urbanists who cry fowl due to lack of units but only when it is the type of units they want.

The developer wouldn't be proposing that if the demand wasn't there. Just another example of California stopping the free market and a symptom of the real cause to why people are fleeing this state.

SDCAL Mar 5, 2020 3:50 AM

Re: Measure C

What was the original intent of this 2/3 majority?

It seems ridiculous voters can overwhelmingly at 63.5% support a hotel tax for our city and that’s not good enough. This means a minority of dimwits like Donna Frye get their way even though they are a fringe minority. She was upset at this measure because she said the homeless part was an “afterthought.” Maybe so, but Donna you just flushed a $2 billion revenue source down the toilet for the homeless you moron.

Sorry to be rough, but this really pisses me off.

It shouldn’t be this hard for a city to expand their convention center. You’d think we were asking to secede from the country or something.

Will O' Wisp Mar 5, 2020 5:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 8851056)
Re: Measure C

What was the original intent of this 2/3 majority?

It seems ridiculous voters can overwhelmingly at 63.5% support a hotel tax for our city and that’s not good enough. This means a minority of dimwits like Donna Frye get their way even though they are a fringe minority. She was upset at this measure because she said the homeless part was an “afterthought.” Maybe so, but Donna you just flushed a $2 billion revenue source down the toilet for the homeless you moron.

Sorry to be rough, but this really pisses me off.

It shouldn’t be this hard for a city to expand their convention center. You’d think we were asking to secede from the country or something.

Blame Prop 13.

In addition to its more well known sections freezing property taxes, Prop 13 also requires all tax increases dedicated to a single purpose be approved by a 2/3rds majority. It's suppose to protect taxpayers from... ourselves I guess?

Steadfast Mar 5, 2020 6:38 AM

[QUOTE/]
The developer wouldn't be proposing that if the demand wasn't there. Just another example of California stopping the free market and a symptom of the real cause to why people are fleeing this state.[/QUOTE]

The outcome isn't about demand... It's about curbing sprawl on the fringes of the city, and funneling growth to areas with the infustructure to support it.

mello Mar 5, 2020 7:55 PM

Devils Advocate on Measure B
 
Dont you think most of the people buying in that area would probably work in Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Carlsbad, or the cities that border it San Marcos, Vista etc??

My point is this metro has serious traffic now and serious job sprawl. So the people with money who would be buying in a brand new development on the North end of San Marcos wont do so if their job is in Kearny Mesa, DT, MV, UTC, Sorrento Mesa.

So seeing that there is job growth on the North end of SD metro shouldnt we advocate for a mix of infill and some new single family home growth in that area? Or you guys just say no more single family home developments that is a dead model. If you want it move to Temecula/Murrieta/Wildomar and suffer the long ass commute but here in SD county no more SFH development....

Northparkwizard Mar 6, 2020 3:27 AM

Here’s what the Padres want to do with Tailgate Park

Team partners with real-estate heavy hitters in effort to turn parking lot into a tech office campus with housing and retail

By JENNIFER VAN GROVE
MARCH 5, 20202:56 PM

The San Diego Padres’ vision for the popular parking lot known as Tailgate Park is a 2-million-square-foot, mixed-use project anchored by a technology campus.

The latest pitch, as described during a phone interview with Padres President Erik Greupner, is to convert the Petco Park-adjacent property into an innovation-driven commercial office center complemented by on-site housing and retail.

Ample stadium parking and amenity-rich public plazas are also key project components designed to turn the existing surface lot into an East Village landmark that doubles as a professional calling card for San Diego.

Thursday, the organization said that it has formed a joint venture with local and global real-estate heavy hitters Tishman Speyer, Cisterra Development and Ascendant Capital Partners. The group plans to bid on, buy and remodel the 5.25-acre, city site. Carrier Johnson + Culture, the renowned San Diego-based architectural firm responsible for much of East Village’s design, has also signed on to the project.

“We have assembled an exceptionally qualified team of experts to transform the Tailgate Lot into an iconic destination filled with high-paying jobs, workforce housing, retail experiences and open space,” Greupner said.

The organization’s ambitious endeavor, however, is not a given. It is subject to an ongoing city-run process that could see the land transferred to someone else for a completely different purpose.

In December, the city of San Diego formalized its intent to sell or lease the four stadium-adjacent blocks — bounded by 12th and Imperial avenues, and K and 14th streets — that it has owned since the formation of the ballpark district. Interested developers were given until earlier this week to respond to what’s known as a request for qualifications.

The city, which has marketed the asset as “East Village Quarter” to international buyers, has said that it wants to maximize its financial return on the land. It’s entertaining bids that incorporate office, hotel, retail, residential and entertainment space.

“The city is currently reviewing the submittals,” said Christina Chadwick, a city spokeswoman. “Once a short list of qualified development teams is established, the city will disclose the number of responses and the short-listed teams.”

Although still conceptual, the Padres and team partners view their live-work-play vision as the best way to round out East Village, a neighborhood that already owes much of its newfound character and many of its high-rises to the baseball club’s presence.

The proposed project, which would be completed in phases and likely exceed $1 billion in total cost, would theoretically further serve as a catalyst for the region, particularly in the office arena. If successful, it will attract high caliber, out of town tech and biotech firms that have yet to plant roots in San Diego, Greupner said.

That would be, in no small part, because of the team’s joint-venture partners.

For instance, Tishman Speyer is in a similar relationship with the San Francisco Giants. The firm is the co-master developer of the Mission Rock neighborhood near the team’s Oracle Park stadium. The 28-acre waterfront project has many of the same components envisioned for Tailgate Park, including office, housing, retail and park space.

Elsewhere, Tishman Speyer’s rolodex includes Pfizer, the anchor tenant of its Spiral skyscraper in New York, digital marketing firm Dentsu Aegis Network and LinkedIn.

The Padres may also have a leg up on the competition because of its existing ties to Tailgate Park. The organization holds a long-term lease with the city that runs through 2042 when including options. Lease provisions allow for modification of the property so long as the Padres are compensated for lost revenue and the parking spaces are replaced.

The Padres recently formed a development entity called Padres Next Fifty to serve as the real estate investment subsidiary of the San Diego Padres and its affiliates. Padres Next Fifty is the lead developer in the joint venture.

The city’s Request for Qualifications process ended Tuesday. Top prospects will be asked to submit formal proposals, with City Council expected to sign off on a winning bidder in October.

ucsbgaucho Mar 11, 2020 3:22 PM

With $330 million in the bank, Horton Plaza owner ready to overhaul empty mall
Horton Plaza Redevelopment


Previously on hiatus, the first phase of the mall-to-office-campus conversion project is now fully funded and on track for completion in early 2022

By JENNIFER VAN GROVE
MARCH 10, 20201:39 PM

Downtown’s retail ghost town is on the cusp of construction activity with Horton Plaza’s owner now financially equipped to convert the property into a mixed-use office campus for elite tech tenants.

Los Angeles-based Stockdale Capital Partners, which purchased the property in 2018, said this week that it has closed a $330 million construction loan, meaning the first phase of the redevelopment project is fully funded on track for completion in early 2022.

The latest capital infusion is comprised of a group of funds managed by investment services firm AllianceBernstein. It puts Stockdale’s phase-one project cost at more than $500 million when including the $175 million the developer spent to buy the site from Westfield.

“Three hundred thirty million dollars is a lot of money,” said Dan Michaels, who is managing director of the real estate investment firm. "(The loan) shows the extreme amount of confidence that best-in-class lenders like Alliance have in the downtown San Diego market.”

Known as the Campus at Horton, the high-profile conversion project calls for a bulk of the 10-block property, or 772,000 square feet, to be remade into office space for tech firms and as many as 4,000 of their workers. Another 300,000 square feet will be reserved for ground-floor retail tenants that cater to workers’ needs and appetites. The remade facility will feature an abundance of natural light, solar panels on most rooftops, a blackwater recycling system and a carbon-neutral design.

Although the campus project was approved by San Diego’s City Council in May, it met with legal pushback from long-time mall tenant Macy’s. In October, the retailer filed suit to stop the project, with the threat jeopardizing Stockdale’s ability to secure financing. The firms settled their dispute in January and Macy’s agreed to vacate the mall this month.

With money in the bank, Stockdale will soon erect a perimeter fence and begin exterior construction, while also preserving visitor access to Jimbo’s Naturally and 24 Hour Fitness. The firm anticipates that 600 to 800 construction workers will be on-site, and that the campus’ office and retail spaces will be ready for tenant improvements in around 18 months.

No tenants have been announced, but Michaels said that his discussions with big-name, out-of-town firms have intensified since the loan was secured.

Next up, the real estate investment company will also need to finalize the terms of a lease to operate and redo the city’s adjacent Horton Plaza Park. The contract requires City Council approval.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...aul-empty-mall

spoonman Mar 12, 2020 4:39 AM

Seems like a lot of money for 700k sf of office.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.