SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[alasi]

For those interested in the federal courthouse, the groundbreaking is set for Dec.11.

[kpexpress]

For those interested in the federal courthouse, the groundbreaking is set for Dec.11.

They've been driving piles for the soldier beam and lagging for at least a week now though.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_0954.jpg
(pardon my thumb...lol)

[Derek]

Regarding the Chargers' new stadium:


Honestly, as long as they're in the county I'm happy. If it were up to me, I'd rebuild at the Qualcomm site.



Downtown would be cool, too. Or even Escondido.


THE END :D

[IconRPCV]

Concerning the Chargers' stadium; I think the best local would be the East Village, then the current site, and as a last resort the Escondido site. I for one wouldn't like to make the drive up or down the 15 during a football game.

The stadium should be located by mass transit. I know the Escondido site is by the Sprinter but for those of us in SD proper that means a Coaster ride then a transfer to the Sprinter, a bit too complicated and time consuming I feel, so the majority of fans would then just drive.

[staplesla]

I too would like to see the Chargers in East Village. Downtown is already equipped with the needed various forms of transportation, and it's centrally located for the county's residents. And if built right the location could serve as a sporting/entertainment venue year round for which the crowds before and after the events would spend money at the downtown restaurants, and the garages could serve the daily downtown crowds when events are not in session.

And regarding Escondido, if this location becomes serious you are going to see the NIMBY's coming out of the woodwork fighting this with tooth-and-nail because of "traffic and crime issues."

[mongoXZ]

Oh man! A Charger stadium in downtown would be just. . . just awesome!

It seems as if the Chargers were always interested in downtown. They shrugged off the 2 Chula Vista sites like they were nothing and i don't think they're taking Escondido too seriously. Fabiani seems to really like East village pointing out the already existing infrastructure to support it.

Imagine this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/3869772336_1af7bfa9c5.jpg

[bmfarley]

Oh man! A Charger stadium in downtown would be just. . . just awesome!

It seems as if the Chargers were always interested in downtown. They shrugged off the 2 Chula Vista sites like they were nothing and i don't think they're taking Escondido too seriously. Fabiani seems to really like East village pointing out the already existing infrastructure to support it.

Imagine this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/3869772336_1af7bfa9c5.jpgA football stadium downtown does not appeal to me. They are huge... and the area around them are devoid of energy outside of game days. How many are there each year?

[IconRPCV]

^^^^

It would not just be the Chargers using the facility. The Aztecs would use it as would the two bowl games San Diego hosts. Concerts, large conventions, probably a MSL soccer team. So to say it would sit empty, is dare I say it, ignorant.

[HurricaneHugo]

Design it so it can double as an arena! :D

[eburress]

Design it so it can double as an arena! :D

I realize there's some tongue-in-cheek, but that was precisely the mistake San Antonio made with their Alamadome. In designing it so that it could double as an arena, it didn't actually end up working for either purpose. It was a horrible waste of money.

[alasi]

I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

[S.DviaPhilly]

I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

I love Petco downtown, I think where they put "the dump" makes perfect sense. The park during the day is a great place to bring you pup or throw a baseball of frisbee or football around. So if Petco is only half the reason for this part of East Villages' redevelopment then what is the other half of the reasoning?

[Fusey]

CCDC to open bids on Seventh and Market site
By CARLOS RICO, The Daily Transcript
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Centre City Development Corp. will start advertising bids Friday for soil remediation and parking lot construction work at Seventh Avenue and Market Street, a site where at one point a $409 million hotel and residential mixed-use project was proposed.

The advertised bid calls for environmental remediation work to clean up the 55,000-square-foot lot that was found to be polluted, according to David Allsbrook, Centre City Development Corp. vice president of acquisitions for public works and property management.

The contract is estimated at $2.2 million and will require the winning contractor to remove roughly 9,000 tons of dirt that Allsbrook said contains various hazardous waste like lead, petroleum and burn ash due to an old gas station at the site.

"We were able to get a $1.5 million grant from the state to clean up the area because the responsible party could not be found," explained Allsbrook, who also said that the rest of the money to pay for this work would come from Centre City’s general fund.

Allsbrook said he hopes a "permit to proceed" with this project can be issued by mid-December so that the project can be completed before the grant expires in May.

All but 5,000 square feet of the Seventh and Market site will be turned into a parking lot, as it was before the $409 million hotel and residential property proposal.

Last year, CCDC -- the city’s redevelopment agency -- stopped the proposed 41-story, mixed-use project after it was discovered the agency's former president Nancy Graham had a conflict of interest with the project’s developer.

It was reported that Graham had received $125,000 from The Related Group while in Florida in 2007, which has connections with the now former Seventh and Market developer The Related Cos.

After learning of the conflict, the CCDC board voted to terminate the project.
Graham was fined $3,300 and ordered by the courts she would not be able to run for public office or act as a lobbyist in California for three years for not disclosing her economic gains with the developer of this project.

"As of now, there are no plans to develop this site," Allsbrook said. "Right now the best use for this site is a parking lot."

He added that once the mixed-use market gets stronger, CCDC will look into finding a new developer for the site.

"In the future, we would still want a hotel and residential project," Allsbrook said.
http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm?SourceCode=20091109cyd

[tdavis]

I realize there's some tongue-in-cheek, but that was precisely the mistake San Antonio made with their Alamadome. In designing it so that it could double as an arena, it didn't actually end up working for either purpose. It was a horrible waste of money.

So because San Antonio didn't do it right, we should just forget about it? Many other cities have mixed use entertainment/sporting developments that are very successful and thrive year-round.

[Crackertastik]

How can anyone say that PETCO is anything but a GINORMOUS success while maintaining a straight face.

These people trully are idiots. And i mean to be bemeaning. Capital letters, IDIOTS.

Id say the area around our stadium is as vibrant as you can get, so im a bit confused by these assertions. It is just rediculous.

[IconRPCV]

I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

I am abit offended by your remarks. PETCO is a beautiful ballpark that has transformed a blighted neighborhood into a vibrant 24/7 neighborhood with buisnesses and residents. I know this for a fact because I live next door.

PETCO is just about the only notable piece of architecture that SD has produced in the last decade or two, so if you think it is a dump then you must think SD is a dump.

[mongoXZ]

Chargers, S.D. discussing downtown stadium
15-acre site near Petco Park eyed for $1 billion project

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2009/11/09/chargersmap_t600.jpg?42b0fb247f69dabe2ae440581a34634cbc5420f3

SAN DIEGO — After years of watching other cities tease the Chargers with talk of a new stadium, San Diego has become the team's leading suitor again by dangling the possibility of professional football near Petco Park. Mayor Jerry Sanders discussed the downtown idea in a private meeting with team President Dean Spanos two weeks ago. That prompted Escondido to stop wooing the team while San Diego revisits the stadium issue for the first time since 2006 when the Chargers rejected rebuilding at the Qualcomm Stadium site and began exploring options elsewhere in the county.

The focus on downtown has fueled optimism among community leaders and created anxiety among property owners who might be displaced by a $1 billion stadium project.

The roughly 15 acres being eyed for a stadium includes city-owned Tailgate Park close to Petco Park, the privately owned Wonder Bread building and the bus yard for the San Diego Transit Corp., owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but mayoral spokesman Darren Pudgil said yesterday that the Mayor's Office is looking at all of the ways cities have helped with stadium construction. Pudgil said two options could be infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Everyone from team officials to potentially affected property owners say the project's financing is its main hurdle.

"Somehow, somebody still has to come up with the money to build this big, expensive stadium," said Bob Sinclair, who owns the Wonder Bread building. "I don't know how they're going to get over that delta for the cost."

Sanders and Spanos met for about an hour on Oct. 27 at the La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club. It was their first meeting since Jan. 7, although city and team officials have talked since then. Sanders called Spanos in July and early October, and Sanders' aides met with a team representative in April, May and mid-October. Future meetings will explore the city's role in the project.

In an interview last week, Sanders said contacts are more frequent now because the political landscape has changed since April 2006 when he said San Diego lacks the time and money to focus on a new Chargers stadium.

In particular, Sanders said, the city has a less combative city attorney since Jan Goldsmith replaced Michael Aguirre and the team has stopped exploring sites in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside.

"I don't want to say the Chargers were not important because they were, but I think that after four years, we certainly have to give them a signal on what we intend to do or how we want to do it or what we can do," Sanders said. "And then start working together to see if we can achieve a solution."

Sanders and Spanos have met privately three other times, once in January 2006, about six weeks after the mayor took office, and twice in October 2006.

Building a football stadium downtown has been kicked around San Diego before. In 2003, the year before Petco Park opened, then-Mayor Dick Murphy's citizens task force on Chargers issues examined a downtown stadium site while studying a replacement or upgrade of Qualcomm Stadium.

At the time, the task force noted that building on the large bus storage facility in East Village was an option but would require a relocation of the fleet and likely an environmental cleanup. On the plus side, it found, the area has 57,000 parking spaces within 1.5 miles.

Property owners in the area are mixed on the idea of a downtown stadium. Sinclair, whose Wonder Bread building on 14th Street dates to 1898 and is about 20 percent leased, said the location makes sense for a stadium because it is accessible, has ample parking, is made up of only a handful of parcels and probably isn't too contaminated from the buses.

While some people believe the team may eventually give in to the temptation of a new stadium proposed for the Los Angeles-area City of Industry, Sinclair expects the team to stay local.

"If they're reasonable enough, they could make a deal with everybody on our little block," he said.

Yet Eddie Zaitona, the longtime owner of Logan Market & Liquor on 16th Street, which could be in the stadium's footprint, doesn't want to leave.

City officials have not ruled out using their eminent domain powers for the stadium, Pudgil said yesterday. For now, the city and team are agreeing to a series of regular meetings to study the stadium concept.

Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said she will stand by in case talks break down in San Diego, but she isn't hoping for that outcome.

"The way I see it, we're all engaged in trying to make sure the Chargers stay in San Diego," she said. "I think (the downtown San Diego location) is a beautiful site."

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the point person on the team's stadium search, has long said a downtown stadium makes financial sense because infrastructure improvements to accommodate a stadium of up to $1 billion elsewhere could cost $200 million, but they are a fraction of that downtown.

Both Fabiani and Sanders said they want to know quickly if the site is economically feasible for the team. A site of that size would be among the National Football League's smallest stadium footprints.

One of the first matters of business will be conducting a financial analysis to figure out how a project might be financed and to what extent the city might be involved. One possibility is some of the money for the project could come from selling or developing the city-owned 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site, which the team would leave vacant.

Fabiani attended the Oct. 27 meeting between Sanders and Spanos with Kris Michell, Sanders' chief of staff, and Fred Maas, board chairman of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm.

The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money.

Richard Rider, a longtime taxpayer advocate who ran for mayor in 2005 against Sanders, said the Chargers shouldn't count on any handout, including redevelopment bonds.

"I don't think the taxpayers are going to want to subsidize a new football stadium when we have a perfectly good football stadium more centrally located in Mission Valley," he said.

But Ben Haddad, board chairman at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, is excited that Sanders and Spanos are again in regular contact.

"If folks can agree at the highest levels on a particular course of action, then I want to be in there right behind them as a business leader trying to get that done," Haddad said.

Library researchers Anne Magill and Merrie Monteagudo contributed to this report.

Matthew Hall: (619) 542-4599; matthew.hall@uniontrib.com

[OneMetropolis]

I don't get it, wasn't this plan already shot done by voters in 2008 when there was a ballot for the measure to do the exact same thing they're doing now? Why do they think it would work again? Even if they do get this site, who's paying for it? The tax payers? The stadium up in LA is fully privately financed and can begin construction whenever, not so much this plan. Also that Fabiani person he's not the head or owner of the chargers, what does his aspirations have to do with what the chargers really want?

He allready regarded that a move to LA would be best.

If another NFL team occupies a new stadium under consideration in City of Industry in the Los Angeles market, "It would be financially catastrophic for the Chargers," Mark Fabiani, the team's spokesman, told Gene Cubbison of KNSD-TV yesterday (Oct. 22). "We're in a bad financial situation now; we'd be in a much worse situation if there was a team in Los Angeles," Fabiani intoned. Of course, he was not telling the truth. The Chargers are not in a bad financial situation. They are making plenty of money at Qualcomm Stadium. It's just that they want to rake in more money. The Chargers deny it, but they want to occupy that City of Industry stadium, if it is ever built. The Chargers can never get the kind of money they want from luxury boxes, club seats, advertising, and sponsorships in San Diego. Teams get to keep such revenue -- not having to share it with other teams. Fabiani told Cubbison that the team gets 30% of such revenue from the L.A. market -- another dubious statement.

There are 17.1 million people in the L.A. market, compared with 3.1 million in San Diego. L.A. has many more companies and superrich families that would put bodies in the luxury boxes and seats. Fabiani's remark means that he is putting pressure on the league to let the Chargers move. Other teams, such as Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland, covet L.A.

Fabiani's statement "makes the obvious obvious," says former Councilmember Bruce Henderson. "It's basically over with, although the team may not yet have made a deal with other owners." Other owners no doubt fear an uprising in San Diego, such as the one that mushroomed in Cleveland when the Browns left.


Site Link:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4552211&posted=1#post4552211

[Marina_Guy]

This is the saddest thing about this...

"The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money."

First the City Council takes its chunk of redevelopment dollars, now the State is taking $45 million and with this it looks like struggling multimillionaire Spanos will take some too. I have never experienced a community so vision-less as to not spend $$$ on its downtown when it actually has it! Living downtown for many years now, we continue to be devoid of activated parks, recreational facilities, and economic development initiatives to bring more jobs and retail downtown. While I understand the community loves its Chargers, I don't think it is appropriate to spend/borrow against redevelopment $$$ to keep them here. There are other priorities.

[tdavis]

FYI - just saw this on CBS-8. A group has been formed to push the CA High-Speed Rail Authority to change the proposed route in SD. This group wants the rail line to bypass UTC, the airport, and downtown; but instead travel all the way down the I-15 to the border.

This group doesn't want the line traveling through the Rose Canyon/UTC area. My personal opinion is that UTC which is one of the most populated areas outside of downtown must be served, as well as downtown.

Anyway, public comment is being accepted by the High Speed Rail Authority:

Email: comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line LA-SD HST and cc. comments to rosecanyon@san.rr.com
Mail: Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director
ATTN: HST Project EIR/EIS
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814

[bmfarley]

^^^^

It would not just be the Chargers using the facility. The Aztecs would use it as would the two bowl games San Diego hosts. Concerts, large conventions, probably a MSL soccer team. So to say it would sit empty, is dare I say it, ignorant.The area around Qualcomm is dead. I wouldn't want something like that in downtown San Diego.

[IconRPCV]

Qualcomm is surrounded by the largest parking lot west of the Mississippi, The new stadium will not be, thats the point to put the stadium into an urban setting to avoid the mistake of qualcomm.

[HurricaneHugo]

Qualcomm is surrounded by the largest parking lot west of the Mississippi, The new stadium will not be, thats the point to put the stadium into an urban setting to avoid the mistake of qualcomm.

Actually they're going to turn all of east village into a huge parking lot.

[Fusey]

FYI - just saw this on CBS-8. A group has been formed to push the CA High-Speed Rail Authority to change the proposed route in SD. This group wants the rail line to bypass UTC, the airport, and downtown; but instead travel all the way down the I-15 to the border.

This county seems to have a surplus of idiotic leadership.

[mongoXZ]

I saw this on channel 8 also.

This group headed by nazi-environmentalist Don Frye plan to make Qualcomm Stadium the transit hub of San Diego not downtown or the airport. Reason being is they want the HSR to avoid the Rose Canyon fault.:shrug::haha: :rolleyes:

First of all whatever high speed rail system California gets, the best earthquake-resistant technology will be taken into account *cough cough* SHINKANSEN *cough*
San Francisco, LA, Inland Empire and the Central Valley all run along the mother of all fault-lines (San Andreas) so if HSR can route thru that, Rose Canyon is no problem.

I don't understand the logic of Qualcomm as a transit hub. This group wants an environmentally responsible HSR route but wants to turn SUBURBAN Mission Valley into a hub? Not urban downtown? Didn't Frye talk against the Qualcomm Stadium redo (a dense collection of condos, hotels, and offices) proposed a few months ago because of congestion issues? And now she wants to turn it into a destination hub? Huh?!?!?

Get out, Donna Frye. Seriously. Get the f**k out.

[IconRPCV]

I saw this on channel 8 also.

This group headed by nazi-environmentalist Don Frye plan to make Qualcomm Stadium the transit hub of San Diego not downtown or the airport. Reason being is they want the HSR to avoid the Rose Canyon fault.:shrug::haha: :rolleyes:

First of all whatever high speed rail system California gets, the best earthquake-resistant technology will be taken into account *cough cough* SHINKANSEN *cough*
San Francisco, LA, Inland Empire and the Central Valley all run along the mother of all fault-lines (San Andreas) so if HSR can route thru that, Rose Canyon is no problem.

I don't understand the logic of Qualcomm as a transit hub. This group wants an environmentally responsible HSR route but wants to turn SUBURBAN Mission Valley into a hub? Not urban downtown? Didn't Frye talk against the Qualcomm Stadium redo (a dense collection of condos, hotels, and offices) proposed a few months ago because of congestion issues? And now she wants to turn it into a destination hub? Huh?!?!?

Get out, Donna Frye. Seriously. Get the f**k out.

Yea she is lame.

[mongoXZ]

The California HSR blog shares my exact sentiments.

"Dropping passengers in the Qualcomm parking lot would be a cruel joke, a sign that San Diego isn't willing to truly embrace sustainable transportation or smart growth principles."

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/

[ShekelPop]

wouldn't the money we're gonna spend on HSR be able to build every county in the state their own new airport? wouldn't the regional economy as a whole benefit more from having better regional air transportation versus being able to get to san francisco (when I don't work or live in San Francisco) in an hour?

[dl3000]

I saw this on channel 8 also.

This group headed by nazi-environmentalist Don Frye plan to make Qualcomm Stadium the transit hub of San Diego not downtown or the airport. Reason being is they want the HSR to avoid the Rose Canyon fault.:shrug::haha: :rolleyes:

First of all whatever high speed rail system California gets, the best earthquake-resistant technology will be taken into account *cough cough* SHINKANSEN *cough*
San Francisco, LA, Inland Empire and the Central Valley all run along the mother of all fault-lines (San Andreas) so if HSR can route thru that, Rose Canyon is no problem.

I don't understand the logic of Qualcomm as a transit hub. This group wants an environmentally responsible HSR route but wants to turn SUBURBAN Mission Valley into a hub? Not urban downtown? Didn't Frye talk against the Qualcomm Stadium redo (a dense collection of condos, hotels, and offices) proposed a few months ago because of congestion issues? And now she wants to turn it into a destination hub? Huh?!?!?

Get out, Donna Frye. Seriously. Get the f**k out.

Maybe because Qualcomm is in her district and Downtown isn't. Just sayin'...ulterior motives.

And ShekelPop, I would be the first to agree with you that San Diego needs a new airport, it's why I got into civil engineering in the first place, but the HSR has already been approved and the airport has already been shot down. Besides, the whole state and Fed is dumping money into the HSR whereas SD would cover much of the costs of its own airport. I know the state and fed might help on an airport but what SD spends on train is less than for an airport. I'm for taking what opportunities there are. PLUS, a huge amount of traffic out of the airport is California based. Put in a train, you alleviate that pressure on the capacity.

[alasi]

To the following gentlemen,

Your comments deserve answers.

To SDviaPhilly(which strangely enough also describes me), the other half of the reason was that they had a huge junk of real estate and someone who promised to develop the East Village. But the Ballpark was not the reason that the Horizon,Renaissance, Electra, Park Row or City Walk were developed in the Marina District. They were developed because we made it easy for Bosa and friends to develop these properties. Ditto for Little Italy.
If we had done the same for the East Village, we coud have had similar development without the current 25-30 million bond servicing we face with PETCO. I have yet to see any study that indicates that PETCO has paid for itself.

To IconRPCV,

Yes there is life, but the same could have been had if we had used the same approach used in other parts of downtown. I also frequent the area.In fact, some of you may not realize that the Western Metal was going to be developed into luxury lofts and there was talk of developing the other Tom Hom property to the south before the ballpark became all the rage in development. These developments could have fostered the same excitement that you attribute solely to the ballpark(this I know because I had plunked down an earnest money deposit on the development in 1992). The very building you live in was the home of artists lofts and one of the theater companies had already been interested in using space (When it was the Reincarnation Bldg had was famous for Torres's eyes).

To Mr Crackertastik,

I was hoping that you were being tongue and cheek. It probably is not very persuasive to call people idiots, particularly since you seem incapable of using spell check.

[IconRPCV]

^^^

I understand that some people don't value professional sports, and no amount of arguing will change this. I for one am one who does value professional sports and no amount of persuasion will change this.

[kpexpress]

This is the saddest thing about this...

"The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money."

First the City Council takes its chunk of redevelopment dollars, now the State is taking $45 million and with this it looks like struggling multimillionaire Spanos will take some too. I have never experienced a community so vision-less as to not spend $$$ on its downtown when it actually has it! Living downtown for many years now, we continue to be devoid of activated parks, recreational facilities, and economic development initiatives to bring more jobs and retail downtown. While I understand the community loves its Chargers, I don't think it is appropriate to spend/borrow against redevelopment $$$ to keep them here. There are other priorities.


As much as I would love to see a world class stadium built around a dense urban village that's woven into a web of mixed use, cultural areas, etc. If it came down to a choice, I would much rather see the money spent on parks, affordable housing, public art, and business development downtown.

[Marina_Guy]

As much as I would love to see a world class stadium built around a dense urban village that's woven into a web of mixed use, cultural areas, etc. If it came down to a choice, I would much rather see the money spent on parks, affordable housing, public art, and business development downtown.

Thank you. I could not agree more. Glad to see you are stepping up with your election to the CCAC.

I see little evidence that a football stadium will lead to an improved day to day urban experience. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, give me some examples. There might be a few and I think it would be useful to share the case studies.

[Marina_Guy]

FYI - just saw this on CBS-8. A group has been formed to push the CA High-Speed Rail Authority to change the proposed route in SD. This group wants the rail line to bypass UTC, the airport, and downtown; but instead travel all the way down the I-15 to the border.

This group doesn't want the line traveling through the Rose Canyon/UTC area. My personal opinion is that UTC which is one of the most populated areas outside of downtown must be served, as well as downtown.

Anyway, public comment is being accepted by the High Speed Rail Authority:

Email: comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line LA-SD HST and cc. comments to rosecanyon@san.rr.com
Mail: Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director
ATTN: HST Project EIR/EIS
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814

Oh my.. I just read the blog piece on this... I just don't know what to say. High Speed rail to the Qualcomm parking lot? These council people represent the City of San Diego. That is embarrassing.

[tdavis]

^^^

I understand that some people don't value professional sports, and no amount of arguing will change this. I for one am one who does value professional sports and no amount of persuasion will change this.

It shouldn't matter if you like or don't like sports. I don't see why people can't be for better development because of the benefits to the area. Plus studies show that having a professional team attracts more businesses and people.

[Fusey]

I see little evidence that a football stadium will lead to an improved day to day urban experience. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, give me some examples. There might be a few and I think it would be useful to share the case studies.

In that case we should look at NFL stadiums in urban cores. A stadium could be pretty downtown here, but that doesn't mean it would be functional with the neighborhood.

[Marina_Guy]

In that case we should look at NFL stadiums in urban cores. A stadium could be pretty downtown here, but that doesn't mean it would be functional with the neighborhood.

Exactly. I know the hotel interests will be all over it. But I don't think a lot of people could argue that surrendering that much land in East Village will contribute to an improved 24 hour environment. I don't think one could argue that the stadium would sit empty at least 5 days of each week. Is that an appropriate land use for what should be a dense, urban land area? This will be a 1 billion dollar investment. I think Petco was around a 1/3 of that and it is used a bit more than a football stadium.

[Fusey]

MLB also benefits from having 81 homes games each year; NFL is 1/10 of that. I think the Aztecs plays 5 or 6 home games. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand that parking lot at Qualcomm seems like a waste of space. On the other, football stadiums are so massive and hard to build around. Even in very urban Barcelona the area around Camp Nou isn't very walkable.

[alasi]

It shouldn't matter if you like or don't like sports. I don't see why people can't be for better development because of the benefits to the area. Plus studies show that having a professional team attracts more businesses and people.

Actually,when PETCO was first being debated, studies leaned more towards stadiums having either a neutral or negative benefit. The author of one of the more respected studies against public funding of stadiums was then hired by the pro-stadium group, and lo and behold, he suddenly seemed to feel that maybe he was being too harsh in his analysis. So if you start indicating that studies are for something, I'd also want to be sure that the research is unbiased.

[ShekelPop]

Maybe because Qualcomm is in her district and Downtown isn't. Just sayin'...ulterior motives.

And ShekelPop, I would be the first to agree with you that San Diego needs a new airport, it's why I got into civil engineering in the first place, but the HSR has already been approved and the airport has already been shot down. Besides, the whole state and Fed is dumping money into the HSR whereas SD would cover much of the costs of its own airport. I know the state and fed might help on an airport but what SD spends on train is less than for an airport. I'm for taking what opportunities there are. PLUS, a huge amount of traffic out of the airport is California based. Put in a train, you alleviate that pressure on the capacity.

it is a good point about the need to alleviate the capacity taken up with interstate travel

[pesto]

trains vs. planes: the HSR concedes that very little of their ridership will come form airplane traffic; almost all from car trips (see their website).

I would guess that zero percent of SD to Bay Area and Sacto. travellers would switch to train (4 hrs. if you can find expresses, which will be rare). And about zero percent of traffic to the OC or the south part of LA county because you will have to connect through Union Station and then circle back south.

IE traffic is not taking airplanes to begin with so really only the Central and SGV part of LA County would be pulled out of airplanes.

[kpexpress]

Love the stadium dialog here, been awhile since we've seen this type of action on this left-for-dead-not-long-ago-forum. Keep it up.

[Marina_Guy]

Love the stadium dialog here, been awhile since we've seen this type of action on this left-for-dead-not-long-ago-forum. Keep it up.


Another Stadium update... Seems this on a fast track now... Don't you love how they can design a stadium overnight.



=======

Voice of San Diego.

Chargers Near to Releasing Downtown Stadium Drawings

To prepare for my interview on the Chargers stadium search today on KPBS' "San Diego Week," I called team special counsel and stadium point man Mark Fabiani. He ran down what's been a busy couple of weeks for the team and downtown San Diego site. The site is about 15 acres, located east of Petco Park and is the current home to the Wonder Bread building.

Here's what he had to say:

Fabiani met this week with Mayor's Office policy man Phil Rath and downtown redevelopment agency head Fred Maas. Maas, the chairman of the city-run Centre City Development Corp., is the team's main contact with the city, Fabiani said.
"It was important to us because Fred has pulled off big projects like this," Fabiani said.

Maas' participation also is significant because his agency could be involved in the stadium's financing through redevelopment tax revenue.



Fabiani pegged the cost of the project as $750 million to $1 billion. He has long touted that a site downtown saves money because transportation infrastructure, such as roads and parking, are already in place.

The team is having its environmental consultants examine the site. There's likely to be some level of contamination because of the San Diego Transit Corp.'s bus yard included in the site. The team isn't concerned about a geological fault line that runs through the western portion of Tailgate Park, also included in the site plans.


Fabiani also met this week with the team's Kansas City-based stadium architects, Populous (formerly HOK). The plans are for 64,000 seats. Preliminary designs put all the luxury boxes on one side of the stadium. Shops, bars and restaurants will be on the first floor. Unlike other football stadiums, this one would be right along the city street.

"We're not that far away from releasing drawings," Fabiani said.


The team hopes to complete a preliminary financial analysis in two months, Fabiani said. For context's sake, that's around the time, L.A. developer Ed Roski plans to shop financial plans to the Chargers and other team for his stadium project in the city of Industry.

[leftopolis]

trains vs. planes: the HSR concedes that very little of their ridership will come form airplane traffic; almost all from car trips (see their website).

I would guess that zero percent of SD to Bay Area and Sacto. travellers would switch to train (4 hrs. if you can find expresses, which will be rare). And about zero percent of traffic to the OC or the south part of LA county because you will have to connect through Union Station and then circle back south.

IE traffic is not taking airplanes to begin with so really only the Central and SGV part of LA County would be pulled out of airplanes.

Interesting...because that's not the case in Europe: Many flights have been canceled due to HSR. Personally, even if the times were comparable, I'd choose HSR over the hassle of the airport--the being frisked, taking off one's shoes, the having to be there 2 hours early...If it's 4 hours from SD to Sac by HSR, it's certainly not less by plane, given the travel time to/from airports, the being there 2 hours early, and the flight time itself. Also, my guess is that there'd be far more traffic between SD and Silicon Valley than to Sac. On that trip HSR would easily beat planes(time-wise).

Additionally, I think there's a perception by many that traveling through the air is riskier than travel on the ground. It may be unwarranted statistically, but ancdotally it's a common enough perception.

As for an idea of a station at a ballpark instead of downtown--that's inane. How many people travel from LA or SF to watch the SD sports team? Why would they unless their home team was playing them--and that would still be just the small percentage of uber-fans. DT to DT is the proven track record when it comes to HSR which has been around for decades in other nations.

[pesto]

Interesting; my sense is just the opposite. 18 stops from SD to SF by HSR (more if the East LA and Central Valley stops are added); zero by plane. In either case you have to get to the station with luggage, check luggage, get seated, off-board, pick-up luggage, arrange for transportation. But the plane does it in 1 ¼ hrs. and the train in 4 IF you aren’t delayed at one of the many stations and make your connection onto an express.

HSR figures 5 out of 6 riders will not be from planes (mostly former car users). This is also a tough competition for the train since cars are so much cheaper for families and take you door to door and don’t require a rental on arrival. But this is more for the transit discussions.

[tdavis]

I would personally rather go by HSR then plane any day. I used to live in Germany and would hop on the train often for short trips to other European cities.

It's an easier way of travel, you don't feel cramped, you can get up and walk around, cell phone/pc internet works since you are on the ground, and pesto - you have to lug your luggage around in an airport, and check it as well, so I'm not understanding your statement.

[pesto]

This is more for the transport threads, so my final post:

You took a train with 18 stops in Europe? From where to where? The three big differences between the US and Europe: air fares are kept artificially high; cars are impractical in most large European cities, so they don't compete; stops are very few (not 18+ like from SD to SF).

Even then, check how long it takes to go 300-400 miles in northern Europe (say, Berlin to Munich or Frankfurt; Munich to Paris; etc. Most trains will be 5 hrs. plus. The Paris-Lyon-Marseilles TGV trip is 200 mile legs; these make sense for rail. HSR in Spain is legitimately very successful.

[Fusey]

You took a train with 18 stops in Europe? From where to where?

There are about 9 or 10 stops between Gothenburg and Copenhagen (200 miles). The trip takes a little less than four hours. There are probably more if you go from Copenhagen to Oslo (around 380 miles).

As for AVE in Spain, that service has not reached Alicante (2012) so I can't judge it yet. Alvia lines are okay. If I'm going to Madrid I'll take it; for Barcelona I'll fly.

[tdavis]

This is more for the transport threads, so my final post:

You took a train with 18 stops in Europe? From where to where?

Many of the HSR rail lines in Europe have 15+ stops. Note, there are 10 different HSR trains in Europe and I think you are only thinking about the Eurostar which is limited in stops.

I've been on the the Thalys probably 50 times from Koln to St. Maurice which has about 15 stops, the Eurostar Italia has numerous stops on lines from Brindisi to Bolzano, and the AVE from Malaga to Barcelona has 13 stops.

[staplesla]

I travel to various locations in Europe roughly every 6 weeks or so. And whoever is stating the rail doesn't have numerous stops is flat out wrong.

And I personally love the rail over there. It's roomy, allows for me to relax or do some work while awaiting my destination.

When I'm in the EU I choose to take rail over plane any day. It's easier for me, they don't get delayed like planes, the hauling around of bags is pretty much the same as you'd have to do in any airport, it's easier to get on and off due to the multiple doorways, but most important to me is that I don't like being in cramped spaces, and I love that I can get up, walk around, check out the other compartments.

[HurricaneHugo]

Another Stadium update... Seems this on a fast track now... Don't you love how they can design a stadium overnight.



=======

Voice of San Diego.

Chargers Near to Releasing Downtown Stadium Drawings

To prepare for my interview on the Chargers stadium search today on KPBS' "San Diego Week," I called team special counsel and stadium point man Mark Fabiani. He ran down what's been a busy couple of weeks for the team and downtown San Diego site. The site is about 15 acres, located east of Petco Park and is the current home to the Wonder Bread building.

Here's what he had to say:

Fabiani met this week with Mayor's Office policy man Phil Rath and downtown redevelopment agency head Fred Maas. Maas, the chairman of the city-run Centre City Development Corp., is the team's main contact with the city, Fabiani said.
"It was important to us because Fred has pulled off big projects like this," Fabiani said.

Maas' participation also is significant because his agency could be involved in the stadium's financing through redevelopment tax revenue.



Fabiani pegged the cost of the project as $750 million to $1 billion. He has long touted that a site downtown saves money because transportation infrastructure, such as roads and parking, are already in place.

The team is having its environmental consultants examine the site. There's likely to be some level of contamination because of the San Diego Transit Corp.'s bus yard included in the site. The team isn't concerned about a geological fault line that runs through the western portion of Tailgate Park, also included in the site plans.


Fabiani also met this week with the team's Kansas City-based stadium architects, Populous (formerly HOK). The plans are for 64,000 seats. Preliminary designs put all the luxury boxes on one side of the stadium. Shops, bars and restaurants will be on the first floor. Unlike other football stadiums, this one would be right along the city street.

"We're not that far away from releasing drawings," Fabiani said.


The team hopes to complete a preliminary financial analysis in two months, Fabiani said. For context's sake, that's around the time, L.A. developer Ed Roski plans to shop financial plans to the Chargers and other team for his stadium project in the city of Industry.

Damn it's moving very fast I'm loving it. :D

[IconRPCV]

Perhaps the HSR rail at Qualcomm is an olive branch to Fry for support for a new downtown stadium. Once the new stadium is built they will turn Qualcomm into a transit oriented development of some sort with the HSR and the trolley as the centerpiece, plus a San Diego State addition.

[Fusey]

^ Having dealt with Donna Frye on numerous occasions I'd be surprised if she'd like anything get built at the Qualcomm site -- even a nature preserve.

[Marina_Guy]

^ Having dealt with Donna Frye on numerous occasions I'd be surprised if she'd like anything get built at the Qualcomm site -- even a nature preserve.

I believe her term is up soon as well and she is termed out. I understand she was considering the Board of Supervisors...

[dl3000]

I don't think she would make concessions or a compromise. Downtown should get both the stadium and transit hub. Somehow she let Fenton Marketplace get built and thats in her district. Anybody know how that was pulled?

[Fusey]

The Qualcomm site will never be a hub of any sort. It's too suburban for anything practical.

A football stadium is debatable for downtown, but the central station for HSR in the county makes perfect sense. Buses, light rail, freeways, hotels, the airport, cruise ship terminal -- everything is there. I'm not crazy about the scenic route San Diego gets to Riverside on HSR, but from my understanding some funds from Prop 1A will be used to upgrade the existing rail connection to Orange and Los Angeles Counties.

[staplesla]

I'm flat out against moving the HSR line to follow the 15 to Qualcomm from the current proposed route through UTC/Rose Canyon, mainly for the following reasons:

* Improvements to the trolley lines (tunneling, canyoning, raised rail) through around I-8 to downtown are to be included as part of the building of the HSR line. If the HSR line is moved to the I-15 we will lose all of the improvements to the trolley lines which are designed so traffic would no longer be affected by rail.
* UTC is the 2nd largest business center outside of downtown, and should be served by rail.
* The council has already approved for the new Westfield/UTC to serve as the area's transit center. The dollars spent are to be incorporated in the rebuilding of Westfield, and is to include a rail stop.
* The Mid-Coast Extension of the Trolley is to follow the same lines from Old Town to UTC, and is scheduled to take advantage of the HSR construction so that it could all be done at the same time to lessen the financial burden. Should the HSR be moved, the Mid-Coast extension will most likely not happen.
* Downtown should have a direct stop on the HSR line.
* Traffic in the Qualcomm area is already a nightmare. Should this serve as a future terminus for HSR the traffic problem will only increase.

They are asking that everyone who is against the change of HSR to I-15 email the following as those who are in favor of the change are sending in a large number of emails:

comments@hsr.ca.gov
rosecanyon@san.rr.com
JerrySanders@sandiego.gov
SherriLightner@SanDiego.gov
benhueso@sandiego.gov

[HurricaneHugo]

I can't believe we're having a lot of discussion about this...it just doesn't make sense at all...

[Fusey]

San Diego sets a big goal: World Cup
BY HELEN GAO
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2009 AT MIDNIGHT

SAN DIEGO — San Diego has played host to a number of marquee sporting events over the years, including the Super Bowl, the America’s Cup, the X Games, the World Baseball Classic and the U.S. Open.

Now the city wants to add one more bragging right by hosting World Cup soccer matches in 2018 or 2022.

Mayor Jerry Sanders announced the city’s bid yesterday, and the City Council is scheduled to consider it today.

San Diego is one of 27 cities that have passed initial screening by the U.S. Bid Committee, a consortium trying to bring the event to the United States. Games would be played in 12 to 14 cities in the host nation.

The World Cup is one of the world’s largest and most prestigious sporting events. By one estimate, if San Diego succeeds in its bid, it could reap $350 million to $500 million in tourism revenue.

“The economic impact that the World Cup games generate cannot be overstated,” Sanders said.

Hotel industry leaders have pledged to work with the city to raise money privately to offset host-city costs, estimated to be $12 million to $15 million.

News of the city’s bid excited Tom Nickel, owner of O’Brien’s pub in Kearny Mesa, a hangout for soccer fans. He said San Diego is a good candidate because of its proximity to soccer-mad Mexico.

“You think about the number of people we can draw across the border,” he said. “I think it makes for a very multicultural experience in terms of the uniqueness of us being a border town for an event that is so revered worldwide.”

In December, the U.S. Bid Committee will winnow the list to 18 cities and then make a bid later on behalf of the United States to the Federal Internationale de Football Association to be a host nation. Other nations vying to be hosts include Australia, Russia and England.

FIFA, soccer’s world governing body in Switzerland, will choose the host nations for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups in December 2010.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/17/city-sets-big-goal-world-cup/

[OneMetropolis]

I seriously hope that they don't build a charger football stadium downtown.

[keg92101]

I seriously hope that they don't build a charger football stadium downtown.

Are you serious? This could potentially be a fantastic benefit to the East Village, as long as it is designed correctly. The location is absolutely perfect.

[bmfarley]

Are you serious? This could potentially be a fantastic benefit to the East Village, as long as it is designed correctly. The location is absolutely perfect.If if if...

I would like to see pictures of street scenes immediately around a downtown football stadium.. on non-event days. Only when I see something cool and livable... would I be persuaded. I have not seen anything yet.

The aerial of the Seattle stadium looks impressive from the air; howevr, even from the air you can tell the street level environment does not appear very welcoming.

[bmfarley]

I can't believe we're having a lot of discussion about this...it just doesn't make sense at all...

It's about time that HSR discussion does get traction here... it's an incredibly influential thing to happen to downtown San Diego.. bigger than the proposed civic center or library by far.

Comments are due to CHSRA on Friday. I hope peeps here forward comments supporting a downtown station location.

[HurricaneHugo]

It's about time that HSR discussion does get traction here... it's an incredibly influential thing to happen to downtown San Diego.. bigger than the proposed civic center or library by far.

Comments are due to CHSRA on Friday. I hope peeps here forward comments supporting a downtown station location.

I mean that a downtown station makes a lot more sense that a station in qualcomm, therefore it doesn't need much discussion in terms of choosing the location of the station.

[Marina_Guy]

If if if...

I would like to see pictures of street scenes immediately around a downtown football stadium.. on non-event days. Only when I see something cool and livable... would I be persuaded. I have not seen anything yet.

The aerial of the Seattle stadium looks impressive from the air; howevr, even from the air you can tell the street level environment does not appear very welcoming.

That is the major concern of mine. Finding a way to activate the site during the 300+ days a year it will NOT be used is an extremely important issue to address. I can see people claiming about how it will eliminate blight, but I have a feeling there will be a few homeless people sleeping under that fancy new Charger Stadium sign.

If they could figure out how to line the walls of the stadium (street side) with active uses (maybe even some housing) that would help. (like how Farenheit covers the Padres parking structure)...

Remember this is a huge investment that will most likely take redevelopment $$$ that could be used somewhere else downtown and dedicate them to one project that has limited quality of life community benefit.

[dl3000]

I think the plan is to have a mixed use street front. I think a stadium would be way better than the convention center in terms of usability and remaining vibrant throughout the year, and it's not too close to the bay.

[eburress]

If if if...

I would like to see pictures of street scenes immediately around a downtown football stadium.. on non-event days. Only when I see something cool and livable... would I be persuaded. I have not seen anything yet.

The aerial of the Seattle stadium looks impressive from the air; howevr, even from the air you can tell the street level environment does not appear very welcoming.

I haven't been to that part of town since the stadium was built and I don't know how it helps/hurts, but I'm sure at least part of what you're noticing is a product of the preexisting neighborhood, which was pretty unwelcoming to begin with. ;)

[eburress]

I think the plan is to have a mixed use street front. I think a stadium would be way better than the convention center in terms of usability and remaining vibrant throughout the year, and it's not too close to the bay.

I completely agree.

[Crackertastik]

I completely agree.

The major difference will be the vitality of the area this Charger stadium would be built. Its very different than Seattle, which is on the outskirts of the downtown area and very much barren regardless of the stadium.

I think that as long as the Chargers are smart in design, creating a large open gathering space and friendly street level design, large sidewalks, and inviting spaces on the edges, then the surrounding area will take care of the traffic around the stadium.

I am praying this takes hold. Seems the whole charger footing the bill idea is gone though doesn't it? Im interested to hear the details of how this will be funded.

[tdavis]

I've been told that the CAHSR committee overseeing the southern line is receiving hundreds of emails to move the I-15 line. Friday is the deadline to email in if you are in favor of keeping the southern proposed line to continue through UTC, by the airport, and ending downtown.

comments@hsr.ca.gov
rosecanyon@san.rr.com
JerrySanders@sandiego.gov
SherriLightner@SanDiego.gov
benhueso@sandiego.gov
toddgloria@sandiego.gov
carldemaio@sandiego.gov

[IconRPCV]

I have read that the stadium will utilize the existing tailgate park that PETCO usues. So no new parking will be built, all of you worring about a stadium in a sea of asphalt can be relieved.

[Fusey]

Yay. San Diego already got ripped off due to the alignment through Riverside and being in the second phase, now these idiots want to build a train station away from everything that makes sense and link it to TJ's airport. The idiocy of this city's leadership never surprises me.

[HurricaneHugo]

I don't see why people complain so much about the location of the stadium.

As if the MTS busyard and the Wonderbread building generated much traffic...

[CoastersBolts]

Are people really that concerned that a new football stadium is somehow going to kill the street life around it when not in use? Two things to keep in mind. First - as has been pointed out already - there is practically no street life there already with just a parking lot, old factory that is possibly only half full, and a bus yard. Also, don't forget about the $400 million elephant in the room located one block west. That thing called Petco Park which will be in use at least for 82 days out of the year. Petco Park events bring in foot traffic to that area which I'm sure will take advantage of any streetside businesses built on the street level of a new stadium.

Get it built!

[mongoXZ]

Other things to think about is what if the downtown Charger stadium never materializes?

1.) Would smart/vibrant development eventually infiltrate these blighted areas?

2.) Is there any other kind of development besides a stadium/arena that would ultimately rejuvenate that area and bring people there while generating decent revenue for the city?

My answers would be:

1.) Maybe in 20-30 years.
2.) Nope

Not only that, but if a stadium doesn't get built chances are we would've most likely lost our NFL team too. I used to say build the Chargers stadium no matter where the site is in the county. Chula Vista. Oceanside. Escondido. Mission Valley. No matter how lame the location.

But ever since these talks of the Chargers playing home games in DOWNTOWN I say "Why not? Why not further centralize the county's major sporting events and bring the occasional Superbowl downtown? Why not put our city center further into the global spotlight? I only see positives in this.

[dl3000]

If there is a lot of street front usage in the building, I bet the uniqueness of that arrangement would attract the super bowl quite a bit.

[bmfarley]

I mean that a downtown station makes a lot more sense that a station in qualcomm, therefore it doesn't need much discussion in terms of choosing the location of the station.

I gotcha. Someone tell Donna Frye and the electeds... they should not be allowed to ruin our future and that of our children, and our children's children.

[bmfarley]

I don't see why people complain so much about the location of the stadium.

As if the MTS busyard and the Wonderbread building generated much traffic...Except, relocating the bus yard will come at taxpayer expense. The entirety of a stadium plan would need to include securing and building a bus yard someplace else. And, a location near downtown is essential to minimize un-necessary dead head moves between yards and where a line begins/ends.

[Marina_Guy]

Are people really that concerned that a new football stadium is somehow going to kill the street life around it when not in use? Two things to keep in mind. First - as has been pointed out already - there is practically no street life there already with just a parking lot, old factory that is possibly only half full, and a bus yard. Also, don't forget about the $400 million elephant in the room located one block west. That thing called Petco Park which will be in use at least for 82 days out of the year. Petco Park events bring in foot traffic to that area which I'm sure will take advantage of any streetside businesses built on the street level of a new stadium.

Get it built!
I do find it very interesting how the 'buzz' is crazy over this downtown stadium and those that want a library are criticized. Hmmm.. A library open 8-10-12 hours a day every day.... a stadium open 5 hours a week 10 times a year... The library needs 20 or 30 million... the Charger Stadium 1 billion... hmm...

[alasi]

My problem with the stadium has nothing to do with developing the area. It would be right next to Father Joe's village, so this area is never going to be the next Marina district.

It wouldn't bother me at all, if the Chargers were going to foot the entire bill, like the Dolphins did when they built Joe Robbie. But considering that Mayor Saunders just announced that our debt is higher than expected, the economy is still down, we are killing our police and firefighters with overtime due to understaffing and our roads are in need of massive repairs, the last thing we need to add to our burden is a stadium. I love football, but I don't need a spanking new stadium to supplement my manhood.

By the way, for those that think the redevelopment money means it won't cost us anything, that money was meant to address real infrastructure and development projects that now will have to come from some other revenue stream (in other words, we rob Peter to pay Paul).That's not including the cost overruns that will come out of our pockets (i.e.the development of PETCO).

[tdavis]

I do find it very interesting how the 'buzz' is crazy over this downtown stadium and those that want a library are criticized. Hmmm.. A library open 8-10-12 hours a day every day.... a stadium open 5 hours a week 10 times a year... The library needs 20 or 30 million... the Charger Stadium 1 billion... hmm...

I'm for the library, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A stadium brings in revenue to the area surrounding the stadium, gives stature to a city for attracting businesses, etc. A library does not.

[HurricaneHugo]

If there is a lot of street front usage in the building, I bet the uniqueness of that arrangement would attract the super bowl quite a bit.

That doesn't even matter.

San Diego just needs A new stadium and superbowl will come due to our awesome weather.

[HurricaneHugo]

And yes the city will have to pay for a small percentage of the bill, but nowhere near the total $1 Billion cost of the whole stadium.

Petco Park was a disaster on that end and has left people a bit uneasy about new stadiums...

[dl3000]

That doesn't even matter.

San Diego just needs A new stadium and superbowl will come due to our awesome weather.

That's true. And the Gaslamp will be even closer.


And I'll just come out and say it when it comes to this library v. stadium thing, I'm for it all. Airport, transit, HSR, stadium, library, city hall, something higher than 500 ft. Bring those and I'll be a happy man. Now let someone like "voice of reason" shoot me down as some naive lover of expensive (and apparently useless) pipe dreams who doesn't know what this city needs or its voters want. To me those are the things that will make San Diego reach its potential.

[Derek]

That's true. And the Gaslamp will be even closer.


And I'll just come out and say it when it comes to this library v. stadium thing, I'm for it all. Airport, transit, HSR, stadium, library, city hall, something higher than 500 ft. Bring those and I'll be a happy man. Now let someone like "voice of reason" shoot me down as some naive lover of expensive (and apparently useless) pipe dreams who doesn't know what this city needs or its voters want. To me those are the things that will make San Diego reach its potential.



dl3000 for mayor!!!

[Marina_Guy]

I'm for the library, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A stadium brings in revenue to the area surrounding the stadium, gives stature to a city for attracting businesses, etc. A library does not.

I have to disagree... I think cities with great urban spaces, public buildings, and vibrant retail and residential areas attract business and tourists. I don't think businesses select a city because it has a fancy new stadium. I continue to wonder about the choices being made here. For more than 40 years the city has ignored a central library and it appears the stadium will now get all the energy of the redevelopment agency while the North Embarcadero park sits and waits... To me this illustrates that this region does not learn from great urban areas like Chicago, New York, Barcelona, London, etc These cities have great urban spaces, great public facilities. And yes, they do have stadiums. But they are not known for that. They are known for the vibrancy of their urban cores that include great retail, food, parks, museums, theater and opera houses, etc. If you look at San Diego the only significant investment in the last 10 years downtown has been Petco and now we appear to be moving toward a football stadium public/private investment. Please don't get me wrong, if the Chargers want to spend $$$ to build a stadium that is great, but if we are going to move toward being a great city the evidence suggests we should focus on other public investments. I don't think San Diego has the stomach for that.

[dl3000]

dl3000 for mayor!!!

Hahaha. My rants always sound like I'm laying down a platform for mayor don't they. I'm just saying how certain people on this forum seem to think that we who think San Diego needs a lot more and better infrastructure are completely out of touch with what the voters want. Maybe we are since the leadership that everyone elected can't or won't get the stuff done. It's always bugged me and I used to draw maps in Junior High and then I found this forum and SSC. It's always been fun discussing what could be possible here.

[eburress]

If San Diego loses the Chargers because they were unable to get a stadium built, everything else becomes irrelevant to me. I will be so done with this God forsaken places (yes, San Diego sans the Chargers becomes "God forsaken" in my opinion) that the "city" could fall into the ocean and I wouldn't care.

Also, it seems very short-sighted to me to allow the Chargers to leave because we instead opted to repair some streets. Infrastructure expenses are never going away, but the Chargers might, and once they're gone, they're not coming back. Plus, what's going to raise more money for the local economy - repairing roads and infrastructure or building a downtown stadium?

[kpexpress]

If San Diego loses the Chargers because they were unable to get a stadium built, everything else becomes irrelevant to me. I will be so done with this God forsaken places (yes, San Diego sans the Chargers becomes "God forsaken" in my opinion) that the "city" could fall into the ocean and I wouldn't care.

Also, it seems very short-sighted to me to allow the Chargers to leave because we instead opted to repair some streets. Infrastructure expenses are never going away, but the Chargers might, and once they're gone, they're not coming back. Plus, what's going to raise more money for the local economy - repairing roads and infrastructure or building a downtown stadium?

So here's a question I would like to ask everyone:

What would stimulate the economy more a new stadium, or a new city hall and library (considering the possibility of combining both into one complex to get it built)?

[Fusey]

I'd rather have the stadium. The library would be a hobo hangout and the quality of San Diego politicians matches the architectural beauty of the current city hall perfectly.

[tdavis]

I have to disagree... I think cities with great urban spaces, public buildings, and vibrant retail and residential areas attract business and tourists. I don't think businesses select a city because it has a fancy new stadium. I continue to wonder about the choices being made here. For more than 40 years the city has ignored a central library and it appears the stadium will now get all the energy of the redevelopment agency while the North Embarcadero park sits and waits... To me this illustrates that this region does not learn from great urban areas like Chicago, New York, Barcelona, London, etc These cities have great urban spaces, great public facilities. And yes, they do have stadiums. But they are not known for that. They are known for the vibrancy of their urban cores that include great retail, food, parks, museums, theater and opera houses, etc. If you look at San Diego the only significant investment in the last 10 years downtown has been Petco and now we appear to be moving toward a football stadium public/private investment. Please don't get me wrong, if the Chargers want to spend $$$ to build a stadium that is great, but if we are going to move toward being a great city the evidence suggests we should focus on other public investments. I don't think San Diego has the stomach for that.

I agree with you on vibrancy in retail, availability of affordable housing, and urban spaces including parks which all attract businesses. I was just stating that studies show that professional athletic teams do as well. In fact, just 3 months ago I sat on a selection committee at my company as they decided to leave San Diego and move everything to another city. We reviewed cost of doing business, taxes, education level of local talent, and 7 other categories....one of which was access to sporting events.

As a side note, and without divulging my company, I can tell you what hurt San Diego and was the final cause of our executive team and Board's rationale for leaving San Diego.

* Our reps travel about 40% of the time. The SD airport was a major complaint of our employees. We reviewed the growth plans and felt it wouldn't solve any of the current issues with its one runway.
* cost of doing business regarding EDD unemployment, taxes, etc. have increased at an alarming rate over the past 5 years.
* lack of alternative forms of travel. I grew up in NYC, and could care less about riding a bus, but our employees who mainly resided in La Jolla, Escondido, Rancho Penasquitos, Del Mar, UTC just wouldn't do it, though we offered to pay for monthly passes.
* Lack of Affordable Housing.

We reviewed 34 cities, and eventually chose Dallas, particularly the area locals here call Uptown, considering most of the following reasons:

*Dallas officials approached us and offered incentives we just couldn't turn down.
*The DFW airport better serves our clients and employees.
*The DART rail lines serve a large area of Dallas, and is undergoing the largest expansion of any light-rail system in the U.S. We've purchased DART passes as perks for our employees, and we've received some great feedback from them.
*No income tax.
*business taxes are lower here.
*More cultural amenities.
*Dallas Cowboys, Mavericks, Stars, & Texas Rangers allow for us to "wine-dine" clients in our sky-boxes.

I for one miss the beach and perfect weather, but I'm surprisingly loving Dallas. I must state though that my wife and I chose to keep our house in La Jolla in hopes that we will one day return if the state's situation improves.....for now we are renting it out.

The sad thing to me is that with adequate leadership most of the issues that caused our company to leave CA could have been resolved.

[eburress]

So here's a question I would like to ask everyone:

What would stimulate the economy more a new stadium, or a new city hall and library (considering the possibility of combining both into one complex to get it built)?

A stadium...by a mile. The economic impact of hosting one Super Bowl is between $350 and $400 MILLION dollars, and that's just the start.

City halls and libraries are overhead and it seems to me that if anything, they're a drain on the local economy. Edit -> An often-times worthwhile drain, but a drain nonetheless. :)

[eburress]

I agree with you on vibrancy in retail, availability of affordable housing, and urban spaces including parks which all attract businesses. I was just stating that studies show that professional athletic teams do as well. In fact, just 3 months ago I sat on a selection committee at my company as they decided to leave San Diego and move everything to another city. We reviewed cost of doing business, taxes, education level of local talent, and 7 other categories....one of which was access to sporting events.

As a side note, and without divulging my company, I can tell you what hurt San Diego and was the final cause of our executive team and Board's rationale for leaving San Diego.

* Our reps travel about 40% of the time. The SD airport was a major complaint of our employees. We reviewed the growth plans and felt it wouldn't solve any of the current issues with its one runway.
* cost of doing business regarding EDD unemployment, taxes, etc. have increased at an alarming rate over the past 5 years.
* lack of alternative forms of travel. I grew up in NYC, and could care less about riding a bus, but our employees who mainly resided in La Jolla, Escondido, Rancho Penasquitos, Del Mar, UTC just wouldn't do it, though we offered to pay for monthly passes.
* Lack of Affordable Housing.

We reviewed 34 cities, and eventually chose Dallas, particularly the area locals here call Uptown, considering most of the following reasons:

*Dallas officials approached us and offered incentives we just couldn't turn down.
*The DFW airport better serves our clients and employees.
*The DART rail lines serve a large area of Dallas, and is undergoing the largest expansion of any light-rail system in the U.S. We've purchased DART passes as perks for our employees, and we've received some great feedback from them.
*No income tax.
*business taxes are lower here.
*More cultural amenities.
*Dallas Cowboys, Mavericks, Stars, & Texas Rangers allow for us to "wine-dine" clients in our sky-boxes.

I must state though that my wife and I chose to keep our house in La Jolla in hopes that we will one day return if the state's situation improves.....for now we are renting it out.

I completely agree. Aside from the direct economic impact of having a stadium/team, there is also an enormous indirect impact.

[alasi]

I completely agree. Aside from the direct economic impact of having a stadium/team, there is also an enormous indirect impact.

Actually, if you read tdavis' statement, although the presence of a sports team may have been part of the decision matrix of his company, what really seemed to have mattered was the better infrastructure ( airport, public transportation), better financial and tax incentives of Dallas.

I also would ask those who keep saying studies indicate a tremendous economic impact to please site those studies, and who conducted them. I just did a quick search and of those studies that promote stadium building as an economic multiplier, they are mostly financed by those that have an interest in having a stadium built. What is available from academia, however, indicates either a neutral or negative impact.

[tdavis]

Actually, if you read tdavis' statement, although the presence of a sports team may have been part of the decision matrix of his company, what really seemed to have mattered was the better infrastructure ( airport, public transportation), better financial and tax incentives of Dallas.

Haha yes, we didn't leave because of sports. I was just stating that sports does have an impact, though there are many other influences.

[kpexpress]

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/death_to_east_village/8693/

A football stadium in East Village? Architect/developer Graham Downes calls it “an idiotic idea.”

“It will be the death of the area,” he said. “You have this behemoth structure that’s very vertical just sitting there in the middle of town, just sapping all the energy out of the place.”

Downes, a vanguard in East Village’s redevelopment, has long been interested in the area’s industrial past and the potential re-use of its warehouses. He heads Blokhaus, a development company that, among other projects, overhauled the Wonder Bread Factory, the historic building on 14th Street, between Imperial Avenue and K Street, that’s become the reference point for a stadium site but was once part of Downes’ vision for East Village: a hip-yet-gritty live/work area—akin to Vancouver’s Yaletown—that connects seamlessly to Downtown and Barrio Logan, each neighborhood flowing into the next without losing its individual character.

“Somebody should do some visuals so they can see the impact of these two huge stadiums next to each other,” he said. “You can’t walk around them, you can’t walk through them. It’s like a walled city, like you plunked a castle in the middle. It’s somebody’s monument.”

An East Village stadium is far from a done deal, but discussions about its feasibility are moving forward faster than any other proposal put forward in the seven years since the Chargers first expressed interest in moving, arguing in 2002 that continued use of Qualcomm Stadium compromised the team’s “economic viability.”

On Oct. 30, online news site voiceofsandiego.org reported that Mayor Jerry Sanders had met with Chargers President Dean Spanos; Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed for a voice reporter that East Village was discussed. And, on Wednesday, Nov. 18, the board of directors for the Centre City Development Corp., the agency that oversees Downtown redevelopment, will vote on spending $160,000 on a consultant to study the stadium’s feasibility.

Darren Pudgil, Sanders’ spokesperson, told voice that the mayor’s preference was for the Chargers to stay in Mission Valley. It’s Downes’ preference, too.

“We need urban development Downtown,” he said. “A ballpark is not an urban development; it’s suburban development. It needs to be out in the sticks where there’s lots of parking, where cars can queue in line for ages without impacting the area.”

So far, only about 10 acres of land in East Village has been identified for a stadium—miniscule compared to the 592 square acres the City of Industry is making available for its proposed stadium. Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation exempting the L.A. area stadium from environmental review, further putting the pressure on San Diego County to site a new stadium or risk losing the Chargers to L.A.

On Monday, Downes dissolved his interest in the Wonder Bread building—he had been the controlling leaseholder. He did it for multiple reasons, he said, not just the stadium. But, he added, “lots of people have land in that area who are trying to make things happen. No one’s going to come down [to East Village] because they’re going to say, ‘Well, if I set up there, print up business cards and start to get cozy and the Chargers come in, I’m toast.’”

[staplesla]

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/death_to_east_village/8693/

“It will be the death of the area,” he said. “You have this behemoth structure that’s very vertical just sitting there in the middle of town, just sapping all the energy out of the place.”

“Somebody should do some visuals so they can see the impact of these two huge stadiums next to each other,” he said. “You can’t walk around them, you can’t walk through them. It’s like a walled city, like you plunked a castle in the middle. It’s somebody’s monument.”


Really? Is he suggesting that Petco is taller than the other high-rises in the area? And that the footprint takes up more space than other downtown developments? - Horton Plaza, Convention Center, Civic Center, etc. And Petco sapped all the energy out of the area? The Petco area is stronger now than it has been in decades. And once the economy comes back the empty stores will fill in.

This guy's an idiot.

[Marina_Guy]

Actually, if you read tdavis' statement, although the presence of a sports team may have been part of the decision matrix of his company, what really seemed to have mattered was the better infrastructure ( airport, public transportation), better financial and tax incentives of Dallas.

Yep.

I applaud Dallas' investment in transit, parks, a performing arts center...
Oh, I think Jerry Jones built a new stadium too...

Hello San Diego...?

[eburress]

Haha yes, we didn't leave because of sports. I was just stating that sports does have an impact, though there are many other influences.

...and I didn't mean to suggest that sports teams were the reason why the company left, that they are a factor, and that there are a lot of indirect benefits of having them.

[tdavis]

Random question. I voted for her when I lived in La Jolla, but I've heard from some lately that they are frustrated with Councilwoman Sherri Lightner for not doing much, staying behind the scenes. Anyone offer any insight?