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)

Leo the Dog Feb 24, 2014 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6465448)
Yeah, I prefer the stadium not be built, so we can enjoy the lively urban core provided by the empty parking lots and bus yard.

If the stadium would be a "dead zone," I'm curious what you call the space it would occupy right now.

I agree that what's there currently isn't a lively area, but I don't think that area will be parking lots til the end of time. It should be developed, just not for football.

Football stadiums are suburban structures. The article says it is "football only", meaning it'll be used 10 times/year, with a Super Bowl maybe every decade. The other 355 days it will just be a behemoth of a structure, occupying precious East Village real estate aka the final frontier for DT expansion.

MLB is an inner-city/DT sport. So comparing PetCo Park success to potential Chargers stadium is Apple to Oranges. The Patriots don't play in Back Bay, the Jets don't play in Manhattan, 49ers are in suburbia. SD isn't a run-down rust belt city like Detroit or Cleveland where an inner city massive demo/redevelopment stadium in the core is needed. It is a successful inner-city that is growing with a high demand for housing.

This would be a monumental mistake. Just my opinion though.

Derek Feb 24, 2014 9:45 PM

It would be a monumental mistake to the lose the Chargers because they want to take over some blocks in the heavily underused/industrial area that's there now.


I agree that Mission Valley is where they should build a new stadium, but if building a stadium downtown allows them to stay then I'm all for it.

spoonman Feb 24, 2014 9:51 PM

^ Lots of good arguments, but I agree with this at the end of the day.

tyleraf Feb 24, 2014 10:16 PM

Yea same with me.

SDfan Feb 24, 2014 10:23 PM

I'd rather lose the Chargers than take valuable urban land off the market. San Diego doesn't have a lot of room for growth, especially for high density development. I've been for the Chargers getting a new stadium, but if it's going to be downtown, I'm voting no. I'm willing to see them pack up and head north, east, or wherever they can sucker some poor community into paying for their new home.

SDfan Feb 24, 2014 10:27 PM

PS, hilarious that an Innout is controversial. So San Diego.

Bertrice Feb 24, 2014 10:35 PM

If the chargers want a new stadium paid 50-75% by taxes/bond then they don't have the right to say where. The buyers should have a choice. 70k people taking the trolley LMFAO. what happens when they overlap on a sunday with the padres? BTW I used to work Charger games at the Q. It can't be done. I'm not a hater just a realist w/the logistics. The Chargers don't want to go to LA and LA besides being a shitty sports town doesn't want them.

Northparkwizard Feb 24, 2014 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6466315)
If the chargers want a new stadium paid 50-75% by taxes/bond then they don't have the right to say where. The buyers should have a choice. 70k people taking the trolley LMFAO. what happens when they overlap on a sunday with the padres? BTW I used to work Charger games at the Q. It can't be done. I'm not a hater just a realist w/the logistics. The Chargers don't want to go to LA and LA besides being a shitty sports town doesn't want them.

That argument is so tired. Over 75,000 people a day work downtown, so it happens everyday. 2 freeways are even closer, countless bus lines, Multiple Trolley lines(not just 1), Amtrak, Coaster, and vehicles all intersect there. Not to mention the Enormous advantage of being in a area that is walkable and bike-able, unlike the Mission Valley site. Downtown seems to be the best location if we're talking about transit, it works in New Orleans.

112597jorge Feb 25, 2014 3:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6466315)
If the chargers want a new stadium paid 50-75% by taxes/bond then they don't have the right to say where. The buyers should have a choice. 70k people taking the trolley LMFAO. what happens when they overlap on a sunday with the padres? BTW I used to work Charger games at the Q. It can't be done. I'm not a hater just a realist w/the logistics. The Chargers don't want to go to LA and LA besides being a shitty sports town doesn't want them.

LA a shitty sports town :koko:, who are we kidding :haha:, hopefully chargers stay in SD, LA might get Rams anyway (im neutral)

Leo the Dog Feb 25, 2014 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 6466241)
It would be a monumental mistake to the lose the Chargers because they want to take over some blocks in the heavily underused/industrial area that's there now.


I agree that Mission Valley is where they should build a new stadium, but if building a stadium downtown allows them to stay then I'm all for it.

I don't think anybody wants to lose the Chargers. It would be a HUGE loss to lose an NFL team. MV is perfect IMO. I'd like to bring the NBA back to SD, personally and MLS too.

Another worry of mine is the parking situation. By building a DT stadium, additional surface lots could start to appear in surrounding 'hoods. We might develop a few East Village surface lots with the new stadium, but we might create many more in adjacent neighborhoods.

Leo the Dog Feb 25, 2014 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6466307)
PS, hilarious that an Innout is controversial. So San Diego.

I agree...so strange. :koko:

SDCAL Feb 25, 2014 6:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6466315)
If the chargers want a new stadium paid 50-75% by taxes/bond then they don't have the right to say where. The buyers should have a choice. 70k people taking the trolley LMFAO. what happens when they overlap on a sunday with the padres? BTW I used to work Charger games at the Q. It can't be done. I'm not a hater just a realist w/the logistics. The Chargers don't want to go to LA and LA besides being a shitty sports town doesn't want them.

Your first sentence hits the nail on the head.

This is what I found so strange about the article that was posted, it sounds like the Chargers are making all the calls.

This is a result of poor leadership by the city.

Why is the location entirely up to the Chargers, why is it their call to take redeveloping the MV site off the table?

We need better leadership in local government to steer this.

And I agree with those saying they would rather the chargers leave than ruin (in my opinion) east village.

Even some who support a downtown stadium are saying MV would be better, so why settle?

I think it's doing a great disservice to one of the most promising neighborhoods in our city to say, "well it's better than nothing so I'm for it."

Trust me, as a resident down here I hate the vacant store fronts and parking lots with a passion. But, I also realize we have been in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression over the past 5 years, and I think that more than anything is the cause for stalled development in EV. With the economy picking up, I'm confident development would progress in EV even without the stadium being erected there.

SDCAL Feb 25, 2014 6:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6465710)
I just received an email back from Lankford and associates concerning Lane Field. They plan to break ground in early April.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7372/1...75f7e9f4a2.jpg

Great news, thanks for investigating and sharing :). Are the hotels that will occupy expected to be the same ones that were announced previously (I think it was a Homewood Suites and something else)?

aerogt3 Feb 25, 2014 8:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6466029)
I agree that what's there currently isn't a lively area, but I don't think that area will be parking lots til the end of time. It should be developed, just not for football.

Realstically, that land will sit for a VERY long time before it's ever developed. If someone wants to build a tower or whatever, there are already dozens of empty lots in much better locations for them to build on.

DT is way more constrained by demand for buildings than space for them.

Quote:

Football stadiums are suburban structures. The article says it is "football only", meaning it'll be used 10 times/year, with a Super Bowl maybe every decade. The other 355 days it will just be a behemoth of a structure, occupying precious East Village real estate aka the final frontier for DT expansion.
There are lots of non-baseball events held at petco. Considering baseball has a lot more games and occupies the prime seasons for out door events, it's likely a chargers stadium would host a lot more.

Quote:

MLB is an inner-city/DT sport. So comparing PetCo Park success to potential Chargers stadium is Apple to Oranges. The Patriots don't play in Back Bay, the Jets don't play in Manhattan, 49ers are in suburbia. SD isn't a run-down rust belt city like Detroit or Cleveland where an inner city massive demo/redevelopment stadium in the core is needed. It is a successful inner-city that is growing with a high demand for housing
The 49ers move there next season. Demand for housing is so high that depite probably a hunderd empty lots in DT, there are what, 3 or 4 towers going up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6466298)
I'd rather lose the Chargers than take valuable urban land off the market. San Diego doesn't have a lot of room for growth, especially for high density development.

Look at google maps and see just how much of downtown SD is empty lots and surface parking. That there's not a lot of room for growth or that high rises will be built at the bus depot if the stadium is defeated is nonsense. There is at least 20-30 years worth of vacant lots to build on that are in a much better location before the stadium would even begin to compete for space.

The only way that empty space will realistically be developed is if there's a stadium there to make it desirable.

dales5050 Feb 25, 2014 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6466298)
I'd rather lose the Chargers than take valuable urban land off the market. San Diego doesn't have a lot of room for growth, especially for high density development. I've been for the Chargers getting a new stadium, but if it's going to be downtown, I'm voting no. I'm willing to see them pack up and head north, east, or wherever they can sucker some poor community into paying for their new home.

This has been a common theme here that downtown is running out of room for high density development. As someone who lives downtown, I just don't see it.

What I see are several parcels that are IMHO under developed. Most are mixed blocks where there are a couple of 1-3 story structures and some parking lots.

A great example is the cluster of blocks around Smart Corner (South/West/North/East):

Broadway/10th/C/11th
Broadway/Park/C/12th
E/9th/Broadway/10th
E/10th/Broadway/11th
E/11th/Broadway/Park

I see all of these as developed now but in the long run, these blocks are all ready for dense development. Another example are the two side by side blocks between Broadway/6th/C/8th that has some historically signifiant but not 'AMAZING' buildings currently.

In 25 years, if and when the need for real estate is there downtown, I feel that a good majority of the existing structures downtown will be valued in such a way that they would be likely for demolition if the land is needed for a high rise.

Long story short, I don't see a good portion of the development downtown being 'developed' if that makes sense.

dales5050 Feb 25, 2014 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6466315)
70k people taking the trolley LMFAO. what happens when they overlap on a sunday with the padres? BTW I used to work Charger games at the Q. It can't be done. I'm not a hater just a realist w/the logistics.


1 - I think a lot of people would take the Coaster DT when they drive now. The Coaster is a much different/better/faster experience than the trolley.

2 - I think it would be AWESOME for both the Chargers and Padres to have games overlap. It would be ideal if it was on a Sunday not a Monday night but even still...

Having 70K-100k sports fans downtown all at the same time would be huge. It would be like having a ComicCon for just a single day but with people who want to drink and eat more.

Every corner of downtown would be packed from morning till night and cash would flow. There would be an energy downtown that is only seen just a couple times a year.

As someone who lives downtown, I don't mind the mess of ComicCon. I know just what it means to the businesses where I live. Sure it would suck for parking and getting in and out but it would only be 1-2 times a year. Instead of being upset about it..I would work with it and enjoy it. Go out and people watch.

Erip Feb 25, 2014 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6467345)
1 - I think a lot of people would take the Coaster DT when they drive now. The Coaster is a much different/better/faster experience than the trolley.

2 - I think it would be AWESOME for both the Chargers and Padres to have games overlap. It would be ideal if it was on a Sunday not a Monday night but even still...

Having 70K-100k sports fans downtown all at the same time would be huge. It would be like having a ComicCon for just a single day but with people who want to drink and eat more.

Every corner of downtown would be packed from morning till night and cash would flow. There would be an energy downtown that is only seen just a couple times a year.

As someone who lives downtown, I don't mind the mess of ComicCon. I know just what it means to the businesses where I live. Sure it would suck for parking and getting in and out but it would only be 1-2 times a year. Instead of being upset about it..I would work with it and enjoy it. Go out and people watch.

Most of the merchants and people working at restaurants downtown that I've heard from all say that business suffers on game days. I don't really think the people going to the games spend all that much money elsewhere, and with all those spectators taking up parking and adding to traffic, everyone else tends to stay away on those days. Adding a second stadium event would probably only increase this effect of game day sales losses for downtown businesses.

Erip Feb 25, 2014 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6466307)
PS, hilarious that an Innout is controversial. So San Diego.

From what I read on the issue, it was the drive through that was controversial/problematic, not the restaurant per se. Kind of like how residents in North Park were opposed to the Jack N the Box drivethru, this instance had many of the same arguments.

Residents a mere 173 feet away didn't want to listen to the drive thru squack box until 1:30 a.m., or the car stereos, etc. The area for the proposed In n Out was zoned for community neighborhood land use only, and local residents, like most people want a more liveable, walkable, bikeable neighborhood, and a late night drive thru was not that. I think some of the opponents in the area would have been ok if In n Out had been willing to forego the drive thru.

tyleraf Feb 25, 2014 8:13 PM

So it looks like the old Spreckels building Downtown is going to become residential. http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-m...america-plaza/

tyleraf Feb 25, 2014 10:43 PM

Here are three new hotels proposed in East Village by the company that developed the Residence Inn in the Gaslamp.
Courtyard: 2015 Completion. Already Approved
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7325/1...b0b4021ea1.jpg
Fairfield Inn: 2016 Completion. Just filed with CivicSD
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3696/1...ac52e1f2f5.jpg
Hampton Inn: 2017 Completion. This one I just found on their website.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/1...b694d1ffdf.jpg
Here is a link to their website. http://www.jstreethospitality.com


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:16 AM.

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