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)

Nerv Feb 24, 2015 7:53 AM

Does anyone know why when the cost of a new stadium is brought up outside of rebuilding Qualcomm (which would cost far less than the billion+ dollars since the land is already owned) that there is never a peep of using the money from the sale of the Qualcomm site to finance it? That's a hell of lot of money that could go toward any new site or is the city thinking it should be able to keep the money from its sale?

It seems logical that any money from the sale of the old stadium site should be applied to any new site to greatly reduce the costs. Over 160 acres of Mission Valley land has to be worth a fair amount and yet I never hear much of that money to be included in any deal. When you buy a new home you always use the money from your old home to help pay for a new one, right?


Also can someone explain to me how a city like Carson which is smaller and poorer than a city like Carlsbad can handle not one but two NFL teams? They don't have the tax base to support it so unless someone else is paying for that stadium the two NFL teams are paying most of the costs? The plan to pay for it seems very sketchy.

eburress Feb 24, 2015 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6926640)
Wow, first Briggs is under fire, now One Paseo passes. Today was a good day.

I'm pleasantly surprised about One Paseo! It's about time too! :)

spoonman Feb 24, 2015 3:43 PM

Hope fully this win against the NIMBYs helps to break their spirits across the county and make them realize that they cannot oppose every project.

Nerv Feb 24, 2015 6:50 PM

The One Paseo project had more supporters than opposition. I'm not surprised it passed. Opposition is almost always louder though giving the impression at times that there are more against something than there really is.

I think it will turn out to be one of those projects after its built that will be a staple for that area.

The irony is that Carmel Valley was known at one time as North City West and was hard fought against to even exist. So now some of the people who exist in a project that others before tried so hard to stop are doing their own fighting. If every project was shot down those people wouldn't even be here today to argue the point.


Either way I think it will turn out to be a positive project for the area. Maybe it can give the city a bit more identity beyond rows of nice homes.

Bertrice Feb 25, 2015 3:41 AM

5-7 years to move bus yard

[IMG]https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6...plr5/images/1-
cde8210517.jpg[/IMG]
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6...9310b35de3.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6...ed8bb1ef4e.jpg

dtell04 Feb 25, 2015 5:06 AM

[QUOTE=Bertrice;6927846]5-7 years to move bus yard

Do you have that MTS letter?

tyleraf Feb 25, 2015 2:46 PM

Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

Leo the Dog Feb 25, 2015 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6928131)
Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

DT site won't be available until 2025 according to Fox 5.

As for the Carson site, I'd imagine it'll be tied up in court for a long time. The site is an old city dump, there are definitely issues with the site. I'm sure environmentalists will file suits.

spoonman Feb 25, 2015 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6928131)
Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

This sounds like a power play by the head of the MTS, Paul Jablonsky, to hold onto his bus yard. Paul Jablonsky is the same guy who has worked with and been scammed by the group of "investors" who are "trying" to revive the Pacific Imperial Railroad (that goes east from SD).

I believe this report (and Paul Jablonsky-who is involved in a federal investigation) have little credibility and that he may have been put up to this by he hoteliers who would rather have the stadium in MV or not at all.

The county and SDSU have both expressed interest in helping get this done. That gives any plan a much better chance.

dtell04 Feb 25, 2015 3:58 PM

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/18...vandalized-do/
No permanent plan do do anything with the old library apparently......

spoonman Feb 25, 2015 5:55 PM

I'm surprised that nobody here is dancing on the ceiling about One Paseo. Sure it's a project in a suburban area, but it represents a huge win against the NIMBY contingent (the red balloon guy from Bay Park was one of the biggest protesters) and sets a precedent.

mello Feb 25, 2015 8:56 PM

Trust me Spoon I'm dancing I'm holding a One Paseo Approval party at my house this weekend you are all invited :cheers: You are right this is a giant precedent and will get suburban people accustomed to looking at tall buildings near them and their residence.

The MTS busyard is such a waste of space look at that pic on UT article what a black hole. SDFAN I know you are against a DT stadium and so am I at this point what is your opinion on how we can move forward and do something about that busyard?

tyleraf Feb 26, 2015 12:19 AM

Trust me I am thrilled about One Paseo. Now I just hope the NIMBYs were right by claiming that the passage of this project would set a precedent.
Mello: In my opinion, the best use of the MTS yard would be an arena. Maybe SD could convince the NBA to give us an expansion team alongside Seattle and if the
Gulls do well we could even end up with an NHL team.

SDfan Feb 26, 2015 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6928677)
Trust me Spoon I'm dancing I'm holding a One Paseo Approval party at my house this weekend you are all invited :cheers: You are right this is a giant precedent and will get suburban people accustomed to looking at tall buildings near them and their residence.

The MTS busyard is such a waste of space look at that pic on UT article what a black hole. SDFAN I know you are against a DT stadium and so am I at this point what is your opinion on how we can move forward and do something about that busyard?

I don't think there is anything MTS or the city can do about the site in the near or midterm. They would have to select a new site, clean up the old site, and find a developer to partner with. That could take decades in this city. And with our region's transit network expected to expand in the years ahead, I'm not sure it would be wise to get rid of the property just yet. It's not pretty, but it's a necessary part of our infrastructure, like a power plant or highway, so I'm less upset at the idea of it sitting there for a while. Would I like it to go away eventually? Yes. But I won't cry if they tell me it's staying put. :shrug:

SDfan Feb 26, 2015 2:26 AM

I'm happy about One Paseo (still erked that it had to take a 30% reduction in sqft, but whatevs), but I'm waiting for the lawsuits. I don't think there will be a referendum drive, because (for better or worse) our city's business community kicks ass at swaying public opinion towards them. If Barrio Logan couldn't get their community plan update approved because "jobs" I can only imagine the blitzkrieg Jerry Sanders and the establishment at the Chamber of Commerce would unleash on Carmel Valley. *evil laughter*

As for Cory Briggs, lolololololololololz! I hope they throw the entire Stanford Law Library at him.

SDCAL Feb 26, 2015 6:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6928433)
I'm surprised that nobody here is dancing on the ceiling about One Paseo. Sure it's a project in a suburban area, but it represents a huge win against the NIMBY contingent (the red balloon guy from Bay Park was one of the biggest protesters) and sets a precedent.

I guess I'm waiting for a ground breaking to get too excited.

I'm still not clear on a few things.

First, how binding is a city council approval? Is this the last hurdle?

I heard on the radio, I believe it was KPBS radio, that the people against it are threatening more legal actions. Whether they are just bitter and throwing out threats after losing at the council hearing or whether they do have legal maneuvers up their sleeve that could continually delay this project remain to be seen, but it IS SD so more legal limbo wouldn't surprise me.

I'm hopefully wrong though - anyone heard of a possible ground break timeline?

mello Feb 26, 2015 6:56 AM

SDCAL: Kilroy is a major developer who has already spent 10's of millions on this project and it is the only large office development ready to go right now in the City of SD other than the 500k sq. feet behind Scripps Ranch High that is going in. I'm sure he will work with the city to see this has a quick ground breaking he has already been waiting for years.

Fan - I'm surprised you don't have a proposal for some kind of vertical storage of the MTS buses to open up half the space on the site? You were so set against a stadium going there and now you are cool with it staying for 20 years? I think we need to dream a little bigger than that. What are your thoughts about an Arena there?

I guess there still are tons of empty lots waiting to be filled and approved projects aren't really coming online very quickly (11th Broadway, Blue Sky, etc.) Maybe you are thinking the bus yard is something nice to have open up in the long term when there are less lots left to build on.

HurricaneHugo Feb 27, 2015 8:10 AM

County chipping in money for stadium via loans?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...loan-qualcomm/

aerogt3 Feb 27, 2015 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6929103)
I don't think there is anything MTS or the city can do about the site in the near or midterm. They would have to select a new site, clean up the old site, and find a developer to partner with. That could take decades in this city.

Stadiums don't have such a long shelf life anymore. So it'd be a lot better to have a stadium there for a few decades than a bus yard. At least people will want to build towers and live/work near a stadium. A bus yard not so much.

dales5050 Feb 27, 2015 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 6926718)
Also can someone explain to me how a city like Carson which is smaller and poorer than a city like Carlsbad can handle not one but two NFL teams? They don't have the tax base to support it so unless someone else is paying for that stadium the two NFL teams are paying most of the costs? The plan to pay for it seems very sketchy.

The Carson stadium would be home to two NFL teams. Similar to the meadowlands for the Jets and the Giants.

The Carson stadium would be 100% privately financed and not take any money from the community. The reason for this is based on the projection of revenue from having 2 NFL teams share a single stadium.

MetLife pays $16M a year for naming rights. Citi pays $20M a year for the home of the Mets. I think it's safe to say they are projecting naming rights to be in the range of $20M to $25M. Over 20 years,$25M is $500M

Outside of this, you look at suites. MetLife gets $10k to $20k per luxury suite/per event. With 218 suites like this, you have $4.3M per NFL game. If the Carson stadium had at least the same amount of suites, with at least 16 games (8home for each team) that's another $70M per year. Over 20 years, $70M is $1.4B.

You take just licensing and suite sales over 20 years and you have $1.9B, which is $200M more than the cost of the stadium.

Obviously financing has costs but banks are lined up already for this. Besides, these are just two of the revenue sources. This does not include suites for other events like concerts and such. Those would be the $10K range. An for ticket sales in general.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:54 PM.

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