SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[keg92101]

Has anyone here ever been to Portland to Gerding's work?

Fantastic! Their philosophy as a "green" builder is proven by their work in Portland.

http://www.gerdingedlen.com/index.php

[keg92101]

There is no comparison. If Gerding Elden isn't selected, then the system really is fixed.

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/projects.civiccenter_developmentproposals

Proposals are downloadable on the above site!

[bmfarley]

There is no comparison. If Gerding Elden isn't selected, then the system really is fixed.

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/projects.civiccenter_developmentproposals

Proposals are downloadable on the above site!
Thanks for the link. I searched earlier at CCDC... couldn't find anything.

I just downloading the Gerding Plan and am reviewing some of the details. First impression I want to share, it appears it make effecient use of the available verticle limitations. It is approximately 458 feet above ground level; which is already approximately 40 feet above the mean tide level. All told, the top touches 498 feet above the tide level.

Hopefullly the dimensions are clear on this illustration copied from the proposal.

Gerding C Street facade
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/farleybrandon/SD%20Bldg%20Pics/GerdingCStFacade1.jpg

All in all, I prefer Gerding, but I'd be satisfied with either design at this point. Although, the Hines plan could look dated after 20 years... just like the current Civic Center.

[SDCAL]

Wow, Fusey thanks for posting more images

I am REALLY liking the Gerding plan

It's been too long since I've seen a proposal I am this excited about

I agree with Keg, if that is not selected there is something terribly wrong

The Hines building looks like it was just stuck there like a temporary trailer or something. It is also far out of scale for the location

The Gerding plan on the otherhand looks like a true iconic piece of architecture our city can be proud of. The fact that it would be city hall is also very important, it could actually become a symbol of our city

The MUST pick it

Is the decision up to CCDC? I am going to write them a letter asking them to please pick it and others who agree should do the same, they need to hear from the public that we don't want them to pick crap and pass-up this fantastic opportunity for a great piece of architecture

[bmfarley]

I just finished looking over the Hines plan.

I wish there was something more relevant to look at... the proposal is kinda light on the presentation of proposal. Additionally, from what I could tell, it seems as if they came up with a plan that is trying to 'hide' in downtown San Diego.

Nothing really screams that this is a Civic Center. A Center of public work and decision making. If a passerby asked where City Hall was... they couldn't locate it.

[HurricaneHugo]

that is beautiful...

*tear*

[sandiegodweller]

The Gerding Elden project makes a very pretty picture. A portrait of it will look good next to the renderings of imaginary new library and the make believe planned Federal Courthouse.

Hines made it clear in their presentation that the City is not in a position to build a grand new civic monument. I am sure that they could have come up with some cutting edge plans if they really thought that there was money to get it built. The only reason for this exercise is to see if it is more cost effective to replace the existing complex with a new one.

[bmfarley]

The Gerding Elden project makes a very pretty picture. A portrait of it will look good next to the renderings of imaginary new library and the make believe planned Federal Courthouse.

Hines made it clear in their presentation that the City is not in a position to build a grand new civic monument. I am sure that they could have come up with some cutting edge plans if they really thought that there was money to get it built....

If the process to replace the Civic Center moves forward, it's a bit late for Hines to go back and do a do-over. Or claim mulligan.

If the process does not stumble, it seems there are two clear and distinct directions to take. One is 'place setting' and become location of civic pride for the city and its citizens. That's Gerding's Plan. Another is diminutive, fits in with existing activities, it hides, and gets lost. In a sense, some could say that it resembles the current state of affairs in city politics. That's the Hines Plan.

Ironically, Hines is local while Gerding is from elsewhere. A selection of the Gerding Plan could resemble more than a change in physical direction for the city.

...The only reason for this exercise is to see if it is more cost effective to replace the existing complex with a new one.Neither proposal included the financials for us noobs to critique. They would have been interesting to look at. With that said, I believe the Hines plan did not include leasable and mixed-use spaces. That would represent lost revenue to the city. But, you're saying the whole thing was for show? That neither Hines or Gerding would be selected and that was known from the beginning? Seems like conspiracy thinking to me.

[SDCAL]

[QUOTE=sandiegodweller;3691948]
Hines made it clear in their presentation that the City is not in a position to build a grand new civic monument. QUOTE]

So, a developer should be lecturing our city on what we can and cannot build?

Hines can kiss my ass - I find it insulting that they think San Diego is worthy only of a city hall that in their own admission is reserved and cheap.

Any two-bit architect could have come up with the grotesque square office building they shitted out. It looks like a pathetic afterthought.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO PERMANENTLY IMMORTALIZE THIS PERIOD OF FINANCIAL DISPAIR IN OUR CITY HALL? In 25 years people could pass by the Hines-designed eyesore and comment, "oh that was from earlier this decade, you know when the city was poor, corrupt and backwards"

Gerding was able to take finances and state-of-the-art green principles and still create an iconic plan worthy of our city's government nucleus

I don't see the point of building crap that needs to be re-built every 20 years or so when it becomes outdated and space constricted

The financial details have not even been released yet and you are implying the Gerding project as "unattainable"?

I don't think the financial sources of the library and city hall are identicle either

This is not some random office tower or condo tower we are talking about, it's our city hall - it could apper in city websites and other areas that people all over the world view. This WILL be a symbol of our city and will send a message of if we want to be looked at as a progressive, dynamic city of the future or a repressive, uncreative relic of the past

I realize the financial situation is bleak now, but I don't think skimping on a new city hall is the right move. We will regret it in years to come

[SDCAL]

If you look on the UT site you can see comments on the proposals;

you really do get a sense of NIMBYism in San Diego by how many people, like some even on this blog, are claiming the finances don't make sense when they haven't even been released yet.

I am not saying we aren't in a financial mess, but I believe NIMBYs cling to and overblow financial issues in order to further their cause of simply not wanting downtown to develop

If it wasn't finances, I guarantee it would be something else they would be clinging to in their arguments.

[keg92101]

[QUOTE=sandiegodweller;3691948]
Hines made it clear in their presentation that the City is not in a position to build a grand new civic monument. QUOTE]

So, a developer should be lecturing our city on what it can and cannot build?

I don't see the point of building crap that needs to be re-built every 20 years or so when it becomes outdated and space constricted

The financial details have not even been released yet and you are implying the Gerding project as "unattainable"?

I don't think the financial sources of the library and city hall are identicle either

This is not some random office tower or condo tower we are talking about, it's our city hall. This WILL be a symbol of our city and will send a message of if we want to be looked at as a progressive, dynamic city of the future or a repressive, uncreative relic of the past

I realize the financial situation is bleak now, but I don't think skimping on a new city hall is the right move. We will regret it in years to come

There will not be any new spending by the city. Will this project cost less to fund through a bond + private investment then what the city curently pays in rent + what they will have to pay to bring the curent buildings up to code. GE builds self sustaining buildings, which are cost savings to the city.

[sandiegodweller]

[QUOTE=sandiegodweller;3691948]
Hines made it clear in their presentation that the City is not in a position to build a grand new civic monument. QUOTE]

So, a developer should be lecturing our city on what we can and cannot build?

Hines can kiss my ass - I find it insulting that they think San Diego is worthy only of a city hall that in their own admission is reserved and cheap.

Any two-bit architect could have come up with the grotesque square office building they shitted out. It looks like a pathetic afterthought.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO PERMANENTLY IMMORTALIZE THIS PERIOD OF FINANCIAL DISPAIR IN OUR CITY HALL? In 25 years people could pass by the Hines-designed eyesore and comment, "oh that was from earlier this decade, you know when the city was poor, corrupt and backwards"

Gerding was able to take finances and state-of-the-art green principles and still create an iconic plan worthy of our city's government nucleus

I don't see the point of building crap that needs to be re-built every 20 years or so when it becomes outdated and space constricted

The financial details have not even been released yet and you are implying the Gerding project as "unattainable"?

I don't think the financial sources of the library and city hall are identicle either

This is not some random office tower or condo tower we are talking about, it's our city hall - it could apper in city websites and other areas that people all over the world view. This WILL be a symbol of our city and will send a message of if we want to be looked at as a progressive, dynamic city of the future or a repressive, uncreative relic of the past

I realize the financial situation is bleak now, but I don't think skimping on a new city hall is the right move. We will regret it in years to come


Do you understand the dynamics of this RFP? The City requested proposals from qualified developers to build a new civic center. The private developers will develop the buildings and the city will occupy them. Of course the developer can tell the City what they can and cannot build, it is all dependent on the amount of rent that the City will pay.

If the City was in any decent financial shape, they could build the Tah Majal themselves. Since they are technically bankrupt (they owe more than they are worth) and cannot borrow money, they have to rely on public/private partnerships and they get what they can afford.

If the GE design is financially feasible, great. If not, the City can go with Hines or wait until they get their shit together.

Did you notice that only 4 or 5 developers actually responded to the RFP (and no other big ones besides Hines)? They all know that the the client (City) is broke and they didn't waste their time. If this was at all profitable, you would have had a much more enthusiastic audience.

[sandiegodweller]

Nancy Graham Resigns


Nancy Graham, the president and chief operating officer of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm, has resigned effective immediately, a source close to the organization said.

"She will never come back into the office. That information has been communicated to her board. It has been communicated to certain council members, not all," the source said.

Graham has been on leave in Tennessee, caring for her mother, who has been ill. "She has reassessed her life and priorities and says her first priority is the care of her mother," the source said.

Graham has come under scrutiny lately for her changing story about her involvement in the negotiations with the developer of a $409 million downtown skyscraper. She was a former business partner with a sister company of Related of California, the developer, and met with the company during the deal's negotiation process, despite saying she was not involved.

The source said the series of voiceofsandiego.org stories highlighting Graham's relationship to the developer were not the primary reason for her departure. "While I do not think it is directly related, it was part of her consideration because she just didn’t want to have to deal with these issues any more," the source said.

Graham's resignation comes less than 24 hours after Carolyn Y. Smith, the president of the city's other nonprofit redevelopment arm, Southeastern Economic Development Corp., was fired by her board of directors following a voiceofsandiego.org investigation that revealed a clandestine system of bonuses paid to SEDC employees.



-- ROB DAVIS

[bmfarley]

^^^
Being the chief of CCDC is not easy. Nancy inherited projects from her predessor that were not the easiest to navigate through. Ie... Pedestrian Bridge over Harbor Drive, NBC project, Downtown/Regional Library, Downtown Quiet Zone, and C Street Master Plan. Downtown is extremely busy and not easy!!!

[Fusey]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080724-9999-1m24civic.html

Competing visions vie for City Hall

City will hear comment on the plans at nine meetings
By Jeanette Steele
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 24, 2008

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – Two developers vying to rebuild San Diego's City Hall heard one thing loud and clear from the public: People want a more open city government.

So when the two firms unveiled their proposals yesterday, there was a common thread – transparency.

Both plans enclose the City Council chamber in glass and place it at or near the ground floor. It's a pronounced change from the current, 1960s-era City Hall, where the council meets on the 12th floor of a 13-story building and the mayor's office is one floor below.

Otherwise, the proposals offer two starkly different views on how to overhaul the four-block Civic Center.

One offers a 500-foot iconic saillike building with wind turbines at the top and about 2 million square feet of private development on the surrounding blocks. The complex would generate some of its own energy from wind and solar panels.

The other: Virtually no private development, focusing instead on a new 19-story city office building and a four-story glass City Hall with a public patio on top.

The smaller development firm, Gerding Edlen of Portland, is proposing the grander scale. Spokesman Tom Cody says his company thinks the mix of private offices, housing and a hotel can be viable if it is built over seven to 12 years.

“This is really about vibrancy. How can we take this anchor of the city, this linchpin, and leverage it into a larger, more meaningful district,” Cody said.

International giant Hines Corp., based in Houston, is billing its plan as the more conservative, low-risk bet for a city still struggling with its finances.

“It provides the city with the most certainty. They know what their costs are going to be,” said Paul Twardowski of Hines. “The city should not be entering risky ventures right now. The city should be taking conservative approaches.”

Both developers say they can save the city money, as a consultant has projected that it will cost $1 billion over the next 50 years to run the current city buildings and continue to lease private office space for the overflow of public workers.

Hines and Gerding say their proposals will cost less than that, but no financial details were released yesterday. Those will come in about two weeks, according to the Centre City Development Corp., the nonprofit city agency overseeing the process.

The general structure of each deal was revealed. The Hines scenario involves the city keeping ownership of its land but leasing the new buildings from a financing company, possibly Hines, for 30 years.

In Gerding's version, a nonprofit group could buy the land and the city would lease the civic building from it. Or, if the city wants to keep ownership, the new City Hall could be paid for through tax-exempt financing.

One big difference in the two plans: Treatment of C Street, the rundown trolley corridor that downtown officials have wanted to spruce up for years.

In the Hines proposal, City Hall faces toward B Street with a grassy public plaza in front. C Street would get some shops along the back of the building. Hines' Twardowski said he thinks that's a good fit.

“The charge from CCDC was to activate and stimulate C Street. We think you don't do that by pulling buildings away and having a vast plaza that is not really comfortable to be in,” he said.

Gerding took the opposite approach. Its civic tower and plaza face C Street, meaning they will get better light and embrace the transit system there, Gerding executives said.

More than 3,200 city employees now work in 1 million square feet spread across eight downtown buildings, four of which the city owns.

City officials want to demolish the city-owned towers and build enough office space to house all downtown city workers there.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has said the project won't move forward if it costs the city more than the existing leases and maintenance would cost.

Gerding Edlen
* 2.8 million square feet of new development, including a 1 million-square-foot civic building, 695 apartments, 16 stores including a grocery market and up to four levels of underground parking

* On-site treatment plant to reclaim building's water

* B Street reopened to cars; Second Avenue reopened between A and B streets

* Public “porch” atop stand-alone pavilion housing City Council chambers

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/080723siteplangerding.jpg

Hines
* City office building, 600,000 square feet; City Hall, 115,000 square feet. Only private development proposed is small retail shops because Hines feels downtown market won't support anything more.

* City “Commons”: landscaped plaza and pavilion with cafe

* Renovated parking structure at current site

* B Street reopened to cars between First and Third avenues

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9459/080723siteplanhinesks6.jpg

[malsponger]

What exactly does this project entail? Is it just the construction of new buildings or actually redoing the old ones as well?

The civic center buildings are absolutely hideous. Putting one new building in and a plaza won't change much. I hope they actually renovate the old buildings.

SF is doing this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2678963182_afcb1bb8bf_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2678139599_d0c792421d_b.jpg

[keg92101]

What exactly does this project entail? Is it just the construction of new buildings or actually redoing the old ones as well?

The civic center buildings are absolutely hideous. Putting one new building in and a plaza won't change much. I hope they actually renovate the old buildings.

SF is doing this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2678963182_afcb1bb8bf_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2678139599_d0c792421d_b.jpg

Are you serious? Look at the GED proposal. It is phased with all new buildings, LEED Platinum for City Hall, and LEED Gold for the rest.

[bmfarley]

"...LEED Platinum for City Hall, and LEED Gold for the rest."

Is that a bad thing? Is that an issue? I honestly don't know. However, I am not concerned about the City taking a lead role in developing sustainable buildings. And, if they do, it sets a precidence for developers to do the same. No?

[sandiegodweller]

Is that a bad thing? Is that an issue? I honestly don't know. However, I am not concerned about the City taking a lead role in developing sustainable buildings. And, if they do, it sets a precedence for developers to do the same. No?


I think the comment referred to the site plan. Both proposals would demolish all of the existing structures and rebuild new ones. No rehab.

The City is not taking a lead role in developing sustainable buildings, they are merely the tenant (and potential land owner).

LEED certification is a noble endeavor. The initial building costs will be higher (and more difficult to finance) and rents will need to be adjusted to pay for it but the long term cost savings should be measurable.

[bmfarley]

I think the comment referred to the site plan. Both proposals would demolish all of the existing structures and rebuild new ones. No rehab.

The City is not taking a lead role in developing sustainable buildings, they are merely the tenant (and potential land owner).

LEED certification is a noble endeavor. The initial building costs will be higher (and more difficult to finance) and rents will need to be adjusted to pay for it but the long term cost savings should be measurable.I'd concur. fwiw.

[mello]

Looks like this city could finally be on the verge of getting an iconic structure. Too bad it is kind of in the middle of the skyline and can't be seen from the water front. The only truely classic structure built in the last ten years is Petco. Some of our new buildings are nice but nothing great.

This Gerding project looks to be something that San Diego can really be proud of, something that is somewhat unique.

Does anyone have any recent photos of downtown from Harbor Island so we can see the impact that Bayside and Sapphire are having on the skyline? If so it would be a nice addition to the thread, thanks. I'm not living in SD now so I can't just go down and look ;)

[malsponger]

Both proposals would demolish all of the existing structures and rebuild new ones. No rehab.

Answered my question. I like the location of the area but it is utterly hideous and unless I worked for the city i'd never want to step foot near it. Good to know itll start with a clean slate and bring some life to the area.

[keg92101]

I think the comment referred to the site plan. Both proposals would demolish all of the existing structures and rebuild new ones. No rehab.

The City is not taking a lead role in developing sustainable buildings, they are merely the tenant (and potential land owner).

LEED certification is a noble endeavor. The initial building costs will be higher (and more difficult to finance) and rents will need to be adjusted to pay for it but the long term cost savings should be measurable.

LEED certification doesn't cost a dime more (other than the registration fees) here in California. With title 24 requirements, we have found that certification doesn't add any costs, Silver/Gold maybe .5% higher. Its Platinum that starts to push the costs into the 1-2% of additional cost. However, GED, since all they do are LEED buildings, probably have a handle on the additional costs.

[Kingofthehill]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154976

[Derek]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154976

A break from the madness! :D

[Marina_Guy]

The same old, Same old in San Diego. San Diegan's keep electing people like this. We get what we vote for. I really think it is about time to break up the City of San Diego. The City is too large and you have people who have no interest in a 'City' making decisions for the City. We must have the 'largest non-city geographic area' of any large city. Thoughts?

=====
New City Hall: Wrong Project, Wrong Priority
By Carl DeMaio



Monday, July 28, 2008 | What's wrong with this picture? The city of San Diego is still in its worse financial crisis in its history, faces billions in debt for pension and retiree healthcare obligations, is $900 million behind on maintenance of public infrastructure, and only 37 percent of our city's roads are rated in "acceptable" condition by national benchmarks.

So what are city leaders poised to do? Build a new City Hall!
Carl DeMaio

This week the city of San Diego released designs from two competing developers proposing the construction of a new civic complex -- complete with new offices for the mayor and City Council and 700,000 square feet of office space for city workers. A private developer would be given development rights to a portion of the civic complex in exchange for building (and then renting to the city) a new City Hall.

Project backers are making the bold claim that the entire project will actually end up saving the city money in the long run.

While I have long been a champion of public-private partnerships, I have serious reservations about proceeding forward with a new City Hall.

Not only do I question the financial assumptions being used to make the claim that the project "saves money," but I strongly believe our top priorities in infrastructure investment should be repairing streets and improving public safety facilities and equipment. In short, I fear that a new City Hall is the wrong project at the wrong time.
Related Links


CCDC Civic Center Project Links

The project explicitly assumes long-term "cost avoidance" savings to justify the financial projections. Translation: the city is taking a "stop me before I spend" approach to projecting cost savings on this project.

Let me put this approach to financial forecasting in everyday terms:

Your spouse wants to buy a brand new house. To convince you it is actually financially advantageous, your spouse gives you a list of improvements to remodel your current house. Your spouse then projects an increase in the family and presumes a need for more storage space. Your spouse therefore adds a rental unit to the forecast.

At the same time, you are financially in over your head as it is -- your car is broken, your kids do not have money for college, and you face massive credit card debt. Do you make the leap, buy the house, and hope the financial savings materialize? Or do you question your spouses' assumptions, raise the need to fund other priorities first, and suggest alternatives?

Let's take a closer look at the financial assumptions being made by project backers.

First, the project assumes a staggering $125 million price tag to renovate the existing City Hall complex. Anyone who has visited City Hall will readily admit the building is in sad shape. No doubt some of these improvements need to be made to extend the life of the facility, but the list of repairs and improvements is loaded up like a Christmas tree. Certainly we do not have to make all of the proposed renovations, and as such the $125 million figure ought to be questioned before being blindly accepted in any project financial assessment.

The second element of purported financial savings comes in the form of "lease savings" projected over the next 50 years.

The city currently leases $13.5 million worth of office space in commercial buildings -- leases that expire in the next four years and may be subject to rent increases. The project presumes not only the base $13.5 million but hefty escalators to inflate the cost of not building a new City Hall.

However, there are several problems with that rationale. First, a recent study indicates that the city currently uses 30 percent more space downtown than it actually needs. The city currently rents 1 million square feet when it could get by on 700,000 square feet.

Second, the long-term financial forecast assumes a 0.6 percent increase in the size of the city workforce annually. At a time when the city faces a structural budget deficit, we need to be cutting the size of the city workforce, not expanding it.

The city recently committed to managed competition -- wherein we can reduce the size of the city workforce. An added benefit of managed competition is in many cases it shifts the financial responsibility for providing offices for staff to contractors who win the competitions for city functions.
*

Instead of debating the design of a new City Hall to house a large city workforce, let's get aggressive with cutting back the size of the city workforce today, and in four years, we may be ready to actually give up those leases that are slated to expire.

Finally, the city ought to consider harnessing the potential of all of its office space across the city and redeploying some staff outside of downtown. Take the criminal division of the city attorney's office for example. How about locating them in the new court complex being planned? Or how about co-locating our criminal division with the district attorney's criminal division to not only save office space, but encourage mentorship and coordination between the two law enforcement entities.

Like other cities across the nation, we need to embrace new thinking about how and where we deploy our city workforce. Let's get city workers closer to the citizen and into front-line service positions, rather in a big centralized building downtown.

Switching gears from the financial assumptions, I question the appropriateness of making a new City Hall a priority when we are so far behind on community infrastructure. The city ought to be looking at all of its assets to generate resources to fund street repairs and public safety infrastructure in our neighborhoods.

Not only is community infrastructure lost in this discussion, but the city bureaucracy's handling of this project -- and several other high profile projects -- demonstrates they lack a global view to asset management. We have one group working on a new downtown library. We have another group proposing expanding the convention center. Yet another group is starting to talk about the Sports Arena. And of course we have a whole team working on this new City Hall project.

Yet no one is talking to each other to see how to leverage these existing assets to not only achieve some of the individual project objectives, but free up resources to invest in community infrastructure. We need a global and strategic view -- and it is my hope that the questions I am raising on the new City Hall will get that kind of creative thinking going.

The city taxpayers have been burned in the past on rosy financial projections. Instead of taking its time to conduct adequate financial reviews, the city is slated to approve this project in the next 75 days -- yes, 75 days.

What's worse, the outgoing City Council scheduled to vote on the project in November -- the same City Council that has dropped the ball on so many financial issues during the past eight years. The questions surrounding this project require more time to review the financial assumptions as well as time to explore more creative alternatives. That job should be left to the incoming City Council.

While raising questions on the proposed new City Hall may upset some who want to see quick action on what they consider a magnificent revitalization project around the civic complex, I ran on a platform of being the taxpayers' watchdog and asking tough questions. That is exactly what I am going to do on this and other high-risk projects: ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, and hopefully produce a better and more financially responsible outcome for the taxpayers.

Carl DeMaio was elected to the San Diego City Council on June 3, 2008 and assumes office in December. You can e-mail him at carl@carldemaio.com. Or set the tone of the debate with a letter to the editor.

[Fusey]

I really think it is about time to break up the City of San Diego. The City is too large and you have people who have no interest in a 'City' making decisions for the City.

San Ysidro should be its own suburb. The far northern areas of San Diego (Mira Mesa) as well.

[bmfarley]

Carl has a couple points.

However, I would like to see city personnel and functions remain downtown and not dispersed elsewhere. Downtown personnel add to the vitality and business climate of the city center.

I'd support, at least personnally, an accounting or audit effort of the existing city center to identify appropriate fixes and associated costs. The city council should also decide which fixes would be pursued for the purpose of providing a financial comparison of the Gerding or Hines plans. But keep in mind... the intangibles of creating and revitalizing the city center with something awesome.

[staplesla]

Email I got today from the CCDC regarding the Harbor Dr. pedestrian bridge:

In deference to the pending grant request before the California Transportation Commission that will be heard in late August, the groundbreaking ceremony for the Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge is being postponed.

We sincerely apologize for the short notice and appreciate your understanding and cooperation.


PROJECT BACKGROUND: Fulfilling a California Public Utilities Commission requirement, the Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge is being built across Harbor Drive at Park Boulevard . When complete, the stylized bridge will appear to sail into San Diego ’s skyline as it unites downtown’s urban core. Designed to be one of the longest self-anchored pedestrian suspension bridges in the world, the iconic structure will:

Realize the 100-year vision to link two important regional assets: Balboa Park and San Diego Bay
Reopen Harbor Drive at Park Boulevard
Provide a safe pedestrian crossing over Harbor Drive and existing train and trolley tracks
Add public open space and art.

The Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge is a uniquely funded project and is a collaboration of local, state, regional and federal agencies, including the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), California Transportation Commission, CCDC, working on behalf of the City of San Diego and its Redevelopment Agency, JMI Realty, the Federal Highway Administration, SANDAG and the Unified Port of San Diego. Submissions for additional funding continue.



For more details about the bridge including design elements, timelines, project team members and more, visit www.ccdc.com and click on the Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge Link.

[SDCAL]

Carl Demaio sounds like an idiot

Dispersing governement employees in different areas in an already spread-out non-dense city is a terrible idea

Downtown is centrally located when you consider people coming in from Chula Vista, Encinitas and El Cajon. If try and bring an office closer to some people, you will just be making it that much further for other people

Downtown is also the mass-transit hub of the county, where the precious little mass transit our city has is located. Spreading this offices all over will just create more sprawl and traffic with less mass transit options

I am scared to think this guy was just elected. I hope the rest of the city council shuts him up

[Marina_Guy]

Carl Demaio sounds like an idiot

...

I am scared to think this guy was just elected. I hope the rest of the city council shuts him up

Oh he and Donna Frye are new buddies. This City has a long way to go before it can become 'progressive'. This pension mess EXCUSE will just leave San Diego far behind its West Coast counterparts.

[sandiego_urban]

Some good news outside of downtown is that the UTC expansion plan passed unanimously with surprise, surprise, only Donna Frye voting against it.

Check out the plan here - http://westfield.com/thenewutc/vision/plan/overview.html


Article from today's U-T -

City Council approves plan to expand UTC

By Ronald W. Powell
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 30, 2008

LA JOLLA – The $900 million plan to transform the Westfield University Towne Center mall into a walkable village received the approval of the City Council yesterday after public testimony showed how much the proposal has divided the community since it was submitted seven years ago.

Residents told the council how they feared the project would exacerbate traffic congestion and noise. They said it should be redesigned in a way that satisfies more neighbors.

Supporters said the project is a rare opportunity to provide north San Diego with a true town center, complete with shopping, housing, movie theaters, restaurants and other attractions.

They said remaking the 1970s-era shopping center into a modern mixed-use community would prompt people to leave their cars at home and walk.

After a four-hour hearing, council members decided 7-1 that the plan should proceed, approving a master plan development permit, a general plan amendment, the environmental impact report and other requirements. Councilwoman Donna Frye voted against it.

Westfield Corp. still has to work out several issues to obtain a construction permit from the city, but its revitalization plan for UTC is in motion.

Council President Scott Peters, whose district includes the property, said he is happy to see the project approved as he nears the end of his final term. He said the creation of a walkable town center will greatly benefit the area.

All development will take place on the current 76-acre site, bounded by Towne Centre Drive, La Jolla Village Drive, Genesee Avenue, and Nobel Drive. It will include:

- 750,000 square feet of new retail space, including three new anchor stores and 150 shops and specialty boutiques. The center now has 1 million square feet of retail.

- 250 to 300 condominiums, with 10 percent of them reserved as affordable. There will be two condo towers with one rising as high as 23 stories and the other as much as 15 stories.

- A movie theater.

- As much as 5,000 square feet of office space.

- At least 3,000 new parking spaces, many of them in three new parking garages.

- Five new restaurants, a wine bar and bistros.

- A transit center for buses.

Westfield is donating land it says is worth $8 million for the transit center, but financing for the facility has not been worked out.

The revitalized UTC is expected to bring an additional 18,000 car trips daily to the area.

George Lattimer, a member of the University Community Planning Group, which voted 14-2-1 against the project on June 10, said any additional traffic in the community should be reserved for the development of more science and research firms.

“It should be for technology, not for the sale of shirts and blouses,” he said.

But groups lined up behind Westfield. The supporters included the San Diego Economic Development Corp., the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, the California Restaurant Association, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the Asian Business Association and the Cinema Society of San Diego. Carpenters and other construction workers jammed the council chambers in lime-green shirts provided by Westfield to cheer the proposal to passage.

Greg Fitchitt, Westfield's director of development, said the project will feature solar power and water.

“We're turning a '70s style mall into a sustainable community,” Fitchitt said.

[keg92101]

What does Donna Frye believe in? She is pro-environment, yet against EVERY SINGLE infill project that is ever before the city council? It will be a great day when she is no longer part of our city council.

[SDCAL]

What does Donna Frye believe in? She is pro-environment, yet against EVERY SINGLE infill project that is ever before the city council? It will be a great day when she is no longer part of our city council.

I am in favor of the UTC expansion (I would be even happier about a HORTON PLAZA renovation),

but I have to admit Donna Frye has a legitimate gripe - they delivered the environmental impact report which was 71 pages literally minutes before the vote. There is no way the council could have read and considered it when voting - and Frye claims she tried to read it during the hearing. Regardless of what side we are on, that was pretty inappropriate. I always figured the city council looks at ALL relevant documentation before rendering decisions, but this shows they don't

While I think Frye is in the right in her complaint and I admire her environmental stance, I do agree that some of the infill projects she is against make no sense because they actually help the environment by focusing on density

[bmfarley]

I am in favor of the UTC expansion (I would be even happier about a HORTON PLAZA renovation),

but I have to admit Donna Frye has a legitimate gripe - they delivered the environmental impact report which was 71 pages literally minutes before the vote. There is no way the council could have read and considered it when voting - and Frye claims she tried to read it during the hearing. Regardless of what side we are on, that was pretty inappropriate. I always figured the city council looks at ALL relevant documentation before rendering decisions, but this shows they don't

While I think Frye is in the right in her complaint and I admire her environmental stance, I do agree that some of the infill projects she is against make no sense because they actually help the environment by focusing on density
Also irksom... and consistent with the no positions on density... she opposes tall buildings. That would likely put the Gerdin Civic Center Plan in her gun sights.

[OCtoSD]

Isn't downtown la Jolla kind of a center for north county. Relative to what we have in OC seems like a center to me.

[bmfarley]

Isn't downtown la Jolla kind of a center for north county. Relative to what we have in OC seems like a center to me.It depends what you consider downtown La Jolla. It could be one of two places... on the cove or in UTC area. The later has more taller buildings.

[PadreHomer]

Why does every good, iconic, smart, lasting and great project become the scapegoat for San Diego's problems when the major one remains the public employees unions and their pension boondoggle?

I thought thats why San Diegans elected Mike Aguirre, to go after the PENSION deals. What the hell happened?

[mello]

Isn't downtown la Jolla kind of a center for north county. Relative to what we have in OC seems like a center to me.

No I wouldn't really say it is a center for North County. To me North County really starts around Carmel Valley Road or Del Mar Heights.

UTC and to some extent the office district in La Jolla right by the coast is a large employment center for the county. I don't think anyone would really say that UTC is "North County" it is actually right in the middle of the population. From Oceanside it is a 25 minute drive and to the border it is a 25 minute drive (without traffic) so it is a very central part of the county.

I would say without traffic it is about 25 minutes from both Escondido and El Cajon as well. I am waiting for a North County city to really develope in to some kind of Second City for the County similar to Santa Monica, Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena in LA County those 4 cities are much more built up then any non core city in SD County.

[laguna]

I always feel like I am getting into north county when I pass Del Mar Racetrack. I think Carlsbad is the real powerhouse economically in the north.

[dl3000]

Yeah, otherwise the second city by size is Chula Vista I think, right?

[Derek]

San Diego - about 1,315,000
Chula Vista - about 228,000
Oceanside - about 173,000
Escondido - about 141,000
Carlsbad - about 90,000

[bmfarley]

I feel I am entering North County when passing the I5/I805 merge.... and the SR 56.

[SD-pmbs]

Hello,

I am new to this forum (awesome forum) and found out that the search option is unavailable. I tried looking through the pages but there is so much information (all great information) to filter through. Does anyone know what is going on with the Pier project in Little Italy?

Thanks

[bmfarley]

Hello,

I am new to this forum (awesome forum) and found out that the search option is unavailable. I tried looking through the pages but there is so much information (all great information) to filter through. Does anyone know what is going on with the Pier project in Little Italy?

Thanks
I like that poject and have followed it in the past. Very little has been discussed here. Personally, I do know that construction documents were distributed for project review.... transportation, water, electricity, other departments/agencies for their input. That was several months ago; 6-12. I don't know where it is now.

[SD-pmbs]

Thanks bmfarley. I have not heard anything in a while and just assumed that I some how missed it.

[Marina_Guy]

Thanks bmfarley. I have not heard anything in a while and just assumed that I some how missed it.

I understand Citymark has the land up for sale...

[HurricaneHugo]

pier project?

[Jobohimself]

I always feel like I am getting into north county when I pass Del Mar Racetrack. I think Carlsbad is the real powerhouse economically in the north.

Escondido and Oceanside definitely eclipse Cbad.

I am from Escondido, and we continue to grow, economically and by population.

[mello]

Ok guys here they are, my dream towers for downtown
San Diego perfect for the Marriot site. They are almost
twins but not really. Circle on Caville -- Gold Coast. Another
forumer had a night time shot of these a couple pages back
but here is what they really look like.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2642034646_7148ce6404_o.jpg
:righton:
This could even work on the NBC or Lane Field site in my
opinion if they were placed back far enough from the bay
then you could have open space in front of them. I think I would
be satisfied if San Diego got these towers and no other talls for
a couple years. :cheers:

[sandiegodweller]

Escondido and Oceanside definitely eclipse Cbad.

I am from Escondido, and we continue to grow, economically and by population.

As an interested party who owns two rental properties in Escondido, I will say that Escondido is the biggest cesspool in the region. To compare it to Carlsbad is a joke.

The dregs of society that congregate there are alarming.

If you don't believe me, come along next time I go and collect rent.

[SDCAL]

As an interested party who owns two rental properties in Escondido, I will say that Escondido is the biggest cesspool in the region. To compare it to Carlsbad is a joke.

The dregs of society that congregate there are alarming.

If you don't believe me, come along next time I go and collect rent.

not surprising - wasn't Escondido ranked one of the top 10 most conservative/Republican cities in the country a year or so ago?

[laguna]

Actually, Carlsbad is mostly conservative and Escondido is mostly democrats. Take your political crap to Daily Kos.

[SDCAL]

Actually, Carlsbad is mostly conservative and Escondido is mostly democrats. Take your political crap to Daily Kos.

care to site your source?

from the UT

"A new study, which ranks the largest U.S. cities from most liberal to most conservative, dubbed Escondido the 11th most conservative city in America.

The city of 140,000 joins a list topped by red-state stalwarts Provo, Utah, and Lubbock, Texas.

Oceanside ranked 46th and Chula Vista landed 78th on the conservative list. The moderate award, however, went to the city of San Diego, which ranked 119th – smack in the middle of the 237 cities examined"

That was from 2005, but I doubt Escondido went from being the 11th most conservative city in the nation to "mostly Democrats" in 3 years

I didn't mean to offend anyone by mentioning something political, but compare skylines in the liberal cities - Seattle, SF, Chicago, NY, etc, then look at it here in this conservative city

[sandiegodweller]

care to site your source?

from the UT

"A new study, which ranks the largest U.S. cities from most liberal to most conservative, dubbed Escondido the 11th most conservative city in America.

The city of 140,000 joins a list topped by red-state stalwarts Provo, Utah, and Lubbock, Texas.

Oceanside ranked 46th and Chula Vista landed 78th on the conservative list. The moderate award, however, went to the city of San Diego, which ranked 119th – smack in the middle of the 237 cities examined"

That was from 2005, but I doubt Escondido went from being the 11th most conservative city in the nation to "mostly Democrats" in 3 years

I didn't mean to offend anyone by mentioning something political, but compare skylines in the liberal cities - Seattle, SF, Chicago, NY, etc, then look at it here in this conservative city

Per your own source, San Diego is moderate.

Escondido probably does have more registered Republicans because illegal aliens, unemployable minors, the homeless and methamphetamine addicts don't vote (but they love breaking into my properties and tagging my exterior walls).

Bottom line: Escondido sucks.

[Fusey]

I didn't mean to offend anyone by mentioning something political, but compare skylines in the liberal cities - Seattle, SF, Chicago, NY, etc, then look at it here in this conservative city

You are aware of height limits due to downtown San Diego's proximity to the Lindbergh Field, correct? Keep in mind that San Diego is also a very young city compared to NYC and Chicago -- not to mention huge land-wise.

Bottom line: Escondido sucks.

National City is much worse. At least Escondido has nice beaches.

[sandiegodweller]

You are aware of height limits due to downtown San Diego's proximity to the Lindbergh Field, correct? Keep in mind that San Diego is also a very young city compared to NYC and Chicago -- not to mention huge land-wise.



National City is much worse. At least Escondido has nice beaches.

Downtown Escondido is about 14 miles from the coast along the 15 freeway.

Encinitas has nice beaches.

[Fusey]

Oops, my bad. Brain farts.

[Derek]

:jester:

[SDCAL]

[QUOTE=Fusey;3720691]You are aware of height limits due to downtown San Diego's proximity to the Lindbergh Field, correct? QUOTE]

yes, because our conservative military town won't move the airport and voted down the proposal of using Miramar

[SDCAL]

Bottom line: Escondido sucks.

why did you buy property there?

[kpexpress]

Don't you think that the airport is vital to Downtown's economy? Southern California isn't particularly a downtown friendly area.

[sandiegodweller]

why did you buy property there?

You live and learn.

Both projects should have been demolished and redeveloped by now but they aren't.

With the numerous failed projects littering the area (DR Horton's Paramount and Vue, Barratt's City Square, Micheael Crew's and his giveaway units along with the mistake that Lennar/Centex is plodding through, Eureka Ranch), it will be years until that market stabilizes.

[staplesla]

Don't you think that the airport is vital to Downtown's economy? Southern California isn't particularly a downtown friendly area.

The airport is vital to San Diego as a whole, not just downtown. You don't have to have the facility located blocks from downtown for it to be viable. Look at Dallas/Fort Worth, NYC, Atlanta. Each of those cities airports are located 15+ minutes from downtown. And each has a much bigger facility with the capacity to handle much larger planes and more planes at any given time via longer runways, more runways, and more terminals.

It really irks me that people think that renovating the current terminals or building a new one off of I-5 will solve future issues. Though there is a current downturn in air travel, things will bounce back, as will the economy eventually. People will always be flying and as the metro region continues to grow so does the need for more gates and planes.

If San Diego leaders were smart they would move the airport to a large enough space suitable for future growth. Look at what Dallas/Fort Worth did. They purchased 18,000 acres thinking about future growth. Now the airport has grown to 7 runways and 5 terminals with plans for more.

San Diegans are missing out on much needed revenue that could come from a true international airport, justified by San Diego’s proximity to Mexico, the cruise ship terminals, convention business, and best climate in the nation. Plus the great climate would mean little to no travel delays in comparison to other international airports.

It would take bold actions though which I don’t think our current leaders are willing to undertake.

[laguna]

It isnt that nobody is smart enough to think that the city needs a larger airport, its been a topic of discussion for over 40 years. The problem has always been where do we put a new one, not 'do we need a new one', obviously we do. When land was available in the past, money wasnt. Now there is not a piece of land big enough to do the job properly that is available in a good location. If you go further east toward the desert, the environmentalist's lawyers will tie it up forever and that is about the only unoccupied land of that size left in the area.

The Miramar idea has been debated ad nauseum. The Navy said emphatically NO! You cant vote to take it away, just because you want it, that is naive, they own it. The referendum was only to use as a bargaining tool with congress, who had little interest in the subject. Also, the neighbors to Miramar were emphatically in favor of the Marines staying put. Unless you have a dictatorship, you have various peoples interests to consider in any possible location.

The plans to expand Lindbergh is a poor idea. Doing nothing to expand capacity is an even worse idea.

Wishful, unrealistic thinking is what got us into the mess we are in.

[Jobohimself]

As an interested party who owns two rental properties in Escondido, I will say that Escondido is the biggest cesspool in the region. To compare it to Carlsbad is a joke.

The dregs of society that congregate there are alarming.

If you don't believe me, come along next time I go and collect rent.

Oh, please. It's not like this place is Elsinore, Fallbrook, or Vista.

I will totally compare it to Carlsbad. We have a vibrant downtown, nice art galleries... Carlsbad is largely recent, bland suburban sprawl.

It may not be a Bellevue or Astoria, but it's a nice little city. Because a few irresponsible renters inconvenience you doesn't mean you should attribute their actions to 142,000 other people.

[dl3000]

It isnt that nobody is smart enough to think that the city needs a larger airport, its been a topic of discussion for over 40 years. The problem has always been where do we put a new one, not 'do we need a new one', obviously we do. When land was available in the past, money wasnt. Now there is not a piece of land big enough to do the job properly that is available in a good location. If you go further east toward the desert, the environmentalist's lawyers will tie it up forever and that is about the only unoccupied land of that size left in the area.

The Miramar idea has been debated ad nauseum. The Navy said emphatically NO! You cant vote to take it away, just because you want it, that is naive, they own it. The referendum was only to use as a bargaining tool with congress, who had little interest in the subject. Also, the neighbors to Miramar were emphatically in favor of the Marines staying put. Unless you have a dictatorship, you have various peoples interests to consider in any possible location.

The plans to expand Lindbergh is a poor idea. Doing nothing to expand capacity is an even worse idea.

Wishful, unrealistic thinking is what got us into the mess we are in.

Then what do you propose?

[NYC2ATX]

Then what do you propose?

I'm not from San Diego, but has anyone ever considered building it on a manmade island out in the water? ...something similar to the very successful Kansai Int'l Airport near Osaka, Japan, perhaps...

A LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport) to the Wikipedia page on Kansai. :tup:

[dl3000]

I'm not from San Diego, but has anyone ever considered building it on a manmade island out in the water? ...something similar to the very successful Kansai Int'l Airport near Osaka, Japan, perhaps...

A LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport) to the Wikipedia page on Kansai. :tup:

Tough to do in the open ocean, Kansai is in Osaka Bay where currents aren't as strong as the open coast off San Diego. The big idea there is the megafloat idea of having like a giant aircraft carrier anchored out there. This site has the proposal specific to san diego to give you an idea of what they have in mind, check out the slide show. It's pretty cool. San Diego is too short sighted to pull something like this off, they shot this idea down in the first phase of the comprehensive Airport Authority study and tried to bring it back to phase two where it was declined again. Every study looks to Miramar without fail. Apparently way back in the day they had set aside some land for a bigger airport which was downsized and became present Montgomery Field, but then the adjacent land must have been sold to developers.
http://www.euphlotea.com/

[laguna]

Its easy to say 'if they were smart, they would do this or that with the airport.' I gave you a very brief history of some of the problems and events that put us where we are. The biggest event that has happened over the years is that San Diego has grown and available space has disappeared. There are no easy solutions at this point in time. Hopefully, wiser people than you and me are making the plans.

[sandiegodweller]

Oh, please. It's not like this place is Elsinore, Fallbrook, or Vista.

I will totally compare it to Carlsbad. We have a vibrant downtown, nice art galleries... Carlsbad is largely recent, bland suburban sprawl.

It may not be a Bellevue or Astoria, but it's a nice little city. Because a few irresponsible renters inconvenience you doesn't mean you should attribute their actions to 142,000 other people.

Lets put it up to a vote.

All of those in favor of living in Carlsbad, say Aye.

All of those in favor of living in Escondido, say Nay.

[Derek]

Aye. :P

[Jobohimself]

Lets put it up to a vote.

All of those in favor of living in Carlsbad, say Aye.

All of those in favor of living in Escondido, say Nay.

I fail to see how that addresses the point at hand. But if you want to turn this into a pissing contest, go right ahead.

[SDCAL]

The airport problem

We need to focus on the problem, which is the ONE, SHORT runway.

The plans to expand Lindbergh don't address the matter at all, and if you go on the Airport Authorities website it says in black and white there are no plans to add another or extend the current runway. The plans all deal with better transportation, more gates, etc, which is all nice but do we want to sink millions into an airport that will eventually be doomed?

Some may argue that spending millions to make Lindbergh more convinient for the next 20-25 years is a good thing, and that since we can likely get by with the ONE, SHORT runway for about 20 more years we might as well just put off the issue. As others have mentioned, there is no simple solution and if you were a politician knowing you will be retired by the time the ONE, SHORT runway is no longer able to serve our needs, why bother going through the headache now of trying to solve this problem that has no easy solutions.

My theory, however, is that we should step up and address the problem now. As others have mentioned, space becomes MORE of an issue, not less as San Diego grows.

There are basically three options for San Diego after the year 2030

(1) keep Linbergh where it is and use imminent domain or the floating airport to add another runway

(2) move the airport somewhere else in our county

(3) keep Linbergh where it is and don't extend or add another runway, but instead utilize regional airports to absorb the excess international travel; namely, one idea has been using Tijuana airport as San Diego's local ong-haul oversees flight hub


Every one of these scenarios has major road blocks and will take years if not decades of overcoming beurocracy, planning and political cat fights. BUT, wouldn't it make more sense for someone to have the cajones to PICK which route we want to take NOW, and then begin the decades-long struggle to get there?

I'm afraid that if we ignore the issue, we will default to option 3, which in my opinion is the worst option because it will take alot of potential revenue from San Diego and give it to Mexico

Option 2 may still include Miramar, which is in a good position now to resist but may not be in another 15-20 years. Right now, the average passenger at SAN does not really notice the crunch and naive people are content with our "little convinient" airport. In another 10-15 years, people WILL start to notice the crunch. When the average citizen is going through major headaches to fly out of SAN, public pressure could force Mirimar to change it's mind. But, by the time that would happen, we would be in such bad shape that a new airport would need to be constructed quickly and would probably be built as a quick, cheap mess of an airport

If the city decides Miramar IS the best option for San Diego's future, then they should publicly declare that is what our plans are - regardless of what the military says or wants. We have a good 15 years to lobby congress, the military and to educate the public, and it would definately take about that long to have an effect big enough to force the military out

Another option is of ocurse a combination of (2) and (3), building a new airport on the border and sharing terminals with TJ. Again, this would take years of planning and beurrocratic red tape with the governments of two countries, and would need to start being planned out now. So, if THIS is determined as the best option for the city, we should decide NOW as it will take at least a decade to plan, convince the public, work out the logisitcs etc, etc,

If the plan is to keep Lindbergh where it is (which seems to be where public opinion and the city are at now), then serious plans regarding the expansion of the RUNWAY and ADDITION of another runway need to be taken now. If THIS is determined as the best solution for our city, again a decade + years of planning will be needed to either enact imminent domain around Lindbergh, and/or convince the military in the area to leave. If the plan is for a floating ocean runway, again we will need 10-20 years to work out the logistics, planning, finances, public opinion, politics, etc.

Bottom line, ANY option will take 1-2 decades to work out the logistical red tape. We have about 20 years, according to the FDA, before our current ONE, SHORT runway is no longer viable. Wouldn't it make sense for the city and Airport Authority to sit down, decide which option is best, knowing that any option will seem impossible now, and decide on it so the long, difficult process can begin?

By choosing to focus only on cosmetic changes to Lindbergh that themselves will take years to complete, the cowardly city leaders have decided to leave the real challenge of runway space to city leaders of the future while they waste more time with bandaid fixes. It is a disaster waiting to happen and will end up hurting us in the long run by setting an issue aside rather than tackling it now simply because it's a difficult issue

[bmfarley]

This is a sign that things are slow... when posters are vetting the merits of one community over another.

[bmfarley]

Concerning the airport, I use to be in the camp that we needed a new airport; preferably at Miramar.

I am a big advocate of proper planning... it prevents poor performance.

However, I have changed my position of late and I feel more information is needed concerning future passenger demand. Right now, I associate the need for airport improvements with total traveller throughput, rather than bigger planes to reach further locales. An update to future demand is needed and here is why:

1) Energy sector challenges and implications to the cost of air travel and associated passenger demand may put off for many many years when the true need for a larger and longer runway airport is needed.

2) Additionally, high spped rail, if passed by voters in Proposition 1, could/would result in a competing mode that could entirely mitigate in-state demand for air travel. In-state commuter flights could go the way of the Dodo bird.

[sandiegodweller]

I fail to see how that addresses the point at hand. But if you want to turn this into a pissing contest, go right ahead.

"Escondido and Oceanside definitely eclipse Cbad.

I am from Escondido, and we continue to grow, economically and by population."

Your quote started this "pissing contest".

Piss seems an interesting description in relation to Escondido because it basically smells like piss and I would stop to piss on it if it was in flames.

[Jobohimself]

Piss seems an interesting description in relation to Escondido because it basically smells like piss and I would stop to piss on it if it was in flames.

My final reply on this subject:

My statement was based on established fact, whereas yours was based on elementary-school toilet humour and pig-headedness. And before throwing your blanket assumptions onto a city that is one of the powerhouses of North County, whether you like it or not, spend more time here than collecting your rent from crackhead tenants. Those are a definite minority of the population.

[bmfarley]

Where's admin.. It's time to close this thread.

[Jobohimself]

Sorry about the tangent. I hope I was not overly out of line.

Regarding the airport, it's just a shame that SDCC and this county's voters are reactive and not proactive. This problem should have been addressed (and solved?) many, many years ago.

[SDCAL]

[QUOTE=bmfarley;3726478]Concerning the airport, I use to be in the camp that we needed a new airport; preferably at Miramar.

I am a big advocate of proper planning... it prevents poor performance.

However, I have changed my position of late and I feel more information is needed concerning future passenger demand. Right now, I associate the need for airport improvements with total traveller throughput, rather than bigger planes to reach further locales. QUOTE]


I have to disagree.

First off, having only one runway will create problems of back-up even if all the planes are going short distances

But, I still feel distant locals are key in our current global economy. All major industries have operations around the world. China and India are hotspots right now. I work in the biotech industry and have had to go to both many times over the past few years. Yes, maybe we don't need a new airport if we want Lindbergh to be a tourist/vacation travel airport, but that is NOT where airports or the communities they are in make money. They make money on business travel, and the world is getting smaller not larger. Companies (like mine) think nothing of sending employees to a an important meeting in Mumbai or Shanghai whereas just 10 years ago this would have seemed crazy for anyone other than the "big wigs" of the company. Many major industries, including the biotech and pharamceutical companies which is one of our most important high tech sectors are global. San Diego is known as "Biotech Beach" and is in direct competition with "Biotech Bay" up in SF. I have actually known people involved in setting up West Coast offices for Pharma companies and the lack of direct interantional flights is a consideration in choosing SF over SD

HSR may have some impact, but again intra-state flights are not the money makers. It's the SD to New York, SF to Tokyo, LA to Frankfurt BUSINESS travellers who pull in the money. These people spend more on airline tickets as well as more on hotels and restaurants than tourists. Since there are no alternatives to quick long haul travel air travel isn't going anywhere

[Dylan Leblanc]

Jobohimself and sandiegodweller can both clean up their language. Healthy debate is fine, but let's refrain from the toilet talk.

Sorry about the tangent. I hope I was not overly out of line.Thank you for the apology.

[dl3000]

I have to disagree.

First off, having only one runway will create problems of back-up even if all the planes are going short distances

But, I still feel distant locals are key in our current global economy. All major industries have operations around the world. China and India are hotspots right now. I work in the biotech industry and have had to go to both many times over the past few years. Yes, maybe we don't need a new airport if we want Lindbergh to be a tourist/vacation travel airport, but that is NOT where airports or the communities they are in make money. They make money on business travel, and the world is getting smaller not larger. Companies (like mine) think nothing of sending employees to a an important meeting in Mumbai or Shanghai whereas just 10 years ago this would have seemed crazy for anyone other than the "big wigs" of the company. Many major industries, including the biotech and pharamceutical companies which is one of our most important high tech sectors are global. San Diego is known as "Biotech Beach" and is in direct competition with "Biotech Bay" up in SF. I have actually known people involved in setting up West Coast offices for Pharma companies and the lack of direct interantional flights is a consideration in choosing SF over SD

HSR may have some impact, but again intra-state flights are not the money makers. It's the SD to New York, SF to Tokyo, LA to Frankfurt BUSINESS travellers who pull in the money. These people spend more on airline tickets as well as more on hotels and restaurants than tourists. Since there are no alternatives to quick long haul travel air travel isn't going anywhere

Do you think it is why they got the state stem cell center?

[keg92101]

My final reply on this subject:

My statement was based on established fact, whereas yours was based on elementary-school toilet humour and pig-headedness. And before throwing your blanket assumptions onto a city that is one of the powerhouses of North County, whether you like it or not, spend more time here than collecting your rent from crackhead tenants. Those are a definite minority of the population.

Esconding-dong as a North County Powerhouse?!?!

Thanks! I haven't laughed so hard in months!!!

[SDCAL]

Do you think it is why they got the state stem cell center?

No, I don't think the airport was a deciding factor there. Research tends to be less dependant on travel than development (where Clincial trials are being conducted). I think that right now our "barely" international airport is not a show-stopper when it comes to businesses setting-up here, it is more of a consideration on the pro/con list. but, i think as time goes by and the business world continues to rely alot on international travel it will become more of a consideration

[staplesla]

No, I don't think the airport was a deciding factor there. Research tends to be less dependant on travel than development (where Clincial trials are being conducted). I think that right now our "barely" international airport is not a show-stopper when it comes to businesses setting-up here, it is more of a consideration on the pro/con list. but, i think as time goes by and the business world continues to rely alot on international travel it will become more of a consideration

I think it depends on the type of business. My friend's company was deciding between San Diego and Seattle. Though they preferred the climate in San Diego, they just chose Seattle as they said the transit options were better. His employees fly out at least once per week to clients.

[sandiegodweller]

I walked by it last night after the Padre game for the first time in months. Is it mothballed? It looks like it is in the same unfinished condition as it was in March.

[keg92101]

Developer is an ex-con and in a slew of lawsuits.

Highland is curently out (cash out of pocket) over $12 million on that job and filing liens

[sandiegodweller]

Developer is an ex-con and in a slew of lawsuits.

Highland is curently out (cash out of pocket) over $12 million on that job and filing liens

I know all about Steve Reibel and his various lawsuits. I was not aware that the project had halted.

That is a big, black eye for that part of town especially when this RFP for the new Civic Center is in the news. North of Broadway is no-mans land right now.

[kpexpress]

There goes the neighborhood (C Street) again....

[staplesla]

Hines Corp. has withdrawn its bid to rebuild San Diego's City Hall, leaving the city with only one proposal on the table.

Hines pegged its withdrawal to a financial analysis released yesterday that showed its proposal as more costly than the competition, Gerding Edlen of Portland.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080815-1358-bn15civic2.html

[PadreHomer]

Hines Corp. has withdrawn its bid to rebuild San Diego's City Hall, leaving the city with only one proposal on the table.

Hines pegged its withdrawal to a financial analysis released yesterday that showed its proposal as more costly than the competition, Gerding Edlen of Portland.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080815-1358-bn15civic2.html
Thank goodness.

EDIT: I think its great that Hines was the one lecturing the city on needing to do a more fiscally responsible plan

[bmfarley]

Hines Corp. has withdrawn its bid to rebuild San Diego's City Hall, leaving the city with only one proposal on the table.

Hines pegged its withdrawal to a financial analysis released yesterday that showed its proposal as more costly than the competition, Gerding Edlen of Portland.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080815-1358-bn15civic2.html

Good for them! The pull-out was probably a strategy to not chalk-up a loss. Pulling out means that they can say with a straight face that they did not loose in future conversations and what-not. Also, why bother expending any more of their resources on a project that they will not get.

[PadreHomer]

Good for them! The pull-out was probably a strategy to not chalk-up a loss. Pulling out means that they can say with a straight face that they did not loose in future conversations and what-not. Also, why bother expending any more of their resources on a project that they will not get.
Their proposal looked really, really awful in comparison with Gerding Edlen.

Now here's to hoping that Gerding wasn't understating costs to land the contract.

[sandiegodweller]

Their proposal looked really, really awful in comparison with Gerding Edlen.

Now here's to hoping that Gerding wasn't understating costs to land the contract.

Congratulations Gerding. You MIGHT get the chance to team up with an insolvent partner that has no clear leadership and will be going through adminstration changes 4 times (2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020) over the life of the build out of the project.

I hate to be syncial but with the false start on the Federal Court House (not enough money budgeted to get it built as planned) and the stalled Library (no funding), Gerding has no idea what they are getting into. Hines (and every other major developer around the country) figured out that the City has no money and it is less than 50% that this deal moves forward.

[sandiegodweller]

Is anyone on this board working on the RFP for a new FBI complex in San Diego?

I know that many of the major architects and general contractors have been contacted by office developers to be on a team to present proposals to the GSA. I just wanted to see which developers are making presentations.

I have heard that Kilroy and Cisterra are in the running.

[OCtoSD]

Where is the FBI Complex sup post to be?

[spoonman]

The current FBI building isn't downtown, but off Aero Drive and the 15.

[PadreHomer]

Congratulations Gerding. You MIGHT get the chance to team up with an insolvent partner that has no clear leadership and will be going through adminstration changes 4 times (2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020) over the life of the build out of the project.

I hate to be syncial but with the false start on the Federal Court House (not enough money budgeted to get it built as planned) and the stalled Library (no funding), Gerding has no idea what they are getting into. Hines (and every other major developer around the country) figured out that the City has no money and it is less than 50% that this deal moves forward.
This is sadly true.

[bmfarley]

I don't feel the federal Courthouse or the City Library are in the same class, although they are each public.

The courthouse is a Federal project and has no partners. It getting built is subject to the Federal budget and no one else.

The Library is questionable in a lot of peoples mind if it is truely needed. It has no private sector participation other than a donation campaign.

The Civic Center, on the other hand, would be a Public-Private joint venture. ... as I understand it. The current facility also has a credible argument for being fixed or replaced. The current site is borderline decripit (sp?) and would cost more in the long run to rehabilitate than to do a joint venture redevelopment project.