SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Fusey]

Dead to you maybe, but it has so much potential to become a vibrant residential neighborhood without a gigantic stadium.

Vibrant for the hobos at Father Joe's, maybe, but not for anyone else.

[tdavis]

OMG, everyone always reverts back to comparing this potential project to Petco Park. NFL STADIUMS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BASEBALL STADIUMS! Why is that so hard to understand. The size, parking requirement, duration and frequency of use is completely different. Building a stadium there due to the existing parking capacity should not be the leading reason to consider this site.

In reading staplesla's comments he was referring to the development around Petco, not the stadium itself. All of the newer football stadiums though around the country are being built with more of a concern to the surrounding area, instead of just a big hunk of concrete/steel in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by massive parking. Just look for example at the development underway around the new Dallas Cowboys stadium (condos, restaurants, shopping) - it will transform Arlington.

And to imply that football stadiums are less used in comparison to baseball stadiums is a fallacy. This is true when you consider just the games, but football stadiums due to their size hold many more events year-round that baesball stadiums don't - i.e., soccer, rugby, bazars, festivals, flea markets, convetions, auto shows, monster truck stuff.

You need to stop thinking about the stadiums of old.

[S.DviaPhilly]

In reading staplesla's comments he was referring to the development around Petco, not the stadium itself. All of the newer football stadiums though around the country are being built with more of a concern to the surrounding area, instead of just a big hunk of concrete/steel in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by massive parking. Just look for example at the development underway around the new Dallas Cowboys stadium (condos, restaurants, shopping) - it will transform Arlington.

And to imply that football stadiums are less used in comparison to baseball stadiums is a fallacy. This is true when you consider just the games, but football stadiums due to their size hold many more events year-round that baesball stadiums don't - i.e., soccer, rugby, bazars, festivals, flea markets, convetions, auto shows, monster truck stuff.

You need to stop thinking about the stadiums of old.

Well Stated!!

[Derek]

x2

[kpexpress]

You need to stop thinking about the stadiums of old.

Notice how the list of characteristics first listed size, parking requirements, then frequency of use.

I'm sure they will sell it with the possibility of other uses, and if they can use it for more uses than that's great. The core of my argument is that the scale of this project does not match the scale of the neighborhood (walkability, street-scale, etc.).

[kpexpress]

Can someone please open the discussion to comparing this possible EV football stadium to other urban stadiums that were built within an urban grid similar to San Diego? I hear people talk about Dallas - this stadium is not in a downtown area zoned for residential mixed use. Pitsburgh, Seattle, etc. Can anyone else list some downtown stadiums within a grid zoned for mixed use

[mongoXZ]

The new Cowboy Stadium isn't a good example. They've built it in an area equivalent to our Mission Valley at a time when "San Diego Stadium" aka Jack Murphy Stadium was brand new. Nothing much in that area at the time but now it's suburbia heaven.

Baltimore put an NFL stadium in an area similar to where the Chargers want to put theirs in downtown. In the further outskirts, near the freeways, next to the baseball stadium. I've never been to Baltimore but we all know that city's success in revitalizing their city center and waterfront.
http://www.stadiumpanoramics.com/images/football/m&t_bank_stadium_aerial.jpg

If anything I think the new East Village stadium would give reasons to bring people to that part of downtown and surrounding areas INCLUDING Barrio Logan. Blocking access to Barrio? I think not. I can't imagine the stadium NOT being built and seeing a vibrant Little Italy like neighborhood. I don't see the same kind of development (hotels/mixed use/offices) happening there w/out the stadium other than some ho-hum mediocre soon-to-be run down 4 story(max) housing.

[mongoXZ]

As for the parking situation I'm sure public transportation will be heavily pushed (excellent thing, right?). The Padres will share their many parking garages in the area. Hilton, Hyatt, Horton Plaza all have parking space available. More people walking around to the stadium patronizing the surrounding businesses.

New parking garages? Probably one more. No tailgate parks. Use your friggin backyards.

[Marina_Guy]

Can someone please open the discussion to comparing this possible EV football stadium to other urban stadiums that were built within an urban grid similar to San Diego? I hear people talk about Dallas - this stadium is not in a downtown area zoned for residential mixed use. Pitsburgh, Seattle, etc. Can anyone else list some downtown stadiums within a grid zoned for mixed use

Thank you. Obviously there aren't any successful examples. I think one could look to soccer stadiums in Europe or some experiments in Asia.

Right now there is only an emotional argument for this stadium downtown. Our visionless leaders see only a stadium as the use of $200 million in redevelopment dollars. That is very sad.

What is going on with the North Embarcadero these days... NOTHING. That is even sadder.

[tdavis]

Can someone please open the discussion to comparing this possible EV football stadium to other urban stadiums that were built within an urban grid similar to San Diego? I hear people talk about Dallas - this stadium is not in a downtown area zoned for residential mixed use. Pitsburgh, Seattle, etc. Can anyone else list some downtown stadiums within a grid zoned for mixed use

Balitmore Ravens M&T Bank Stadium - wonderful growth to the area.
Nashville Titans LP Field - one block across the Cumberland River (huge development planned to surround the stadium - condos, shopping). The old warehouse and electrical plant is currently undergoing environmental clean-up to get ready for the development.
Indy Colts Lucas Oil Field - 4 blocks south of capital building.

[visionary]

Here is a list of some Urban Stadiums that I have visited:

Denver
Seattle
Baltimore
New Orleans
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Jacksonville
Pitt
Indy
Tenn
Carolina

Most of these places are terrific, and SD has the potential to be more thoughtfully worked into the city than any of them.

[staplesla]

I've been to many of the downtown football stadiums and was impressed with each. The stadiums of old, stuck in the middle of no-where, and surrounded by parking lots are a thing of the past. And I agree with visionary's comment that SD has the greatest potential. It's too early for me to say I'm all for it, considering we are still awaiting studies/design, but in general I think downtown is the best solution.

If it doesn't happen this time I fear that we'll lose the Chargers to LA. And though I'm personally not a Chargers fan, this would be a huge loss for the city in terms of revenue a professional team brings in, etc.

[sandiegodweller]

[QUOTE=tdavis;4615000]In reading staplesla's comments he was referring to the development around Petco, not the stadium itself. All of the newer football stadiums though around the country are being built with more of a concern to the surrounding area, instead of just a big hunk of concrete/steel in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by massive parking. Just look for example at the development underway around the new Dallas Cowboys stadium (condos, restaurants, shopping) - it will transform Arlington.
QUOTE]

Probably another decade away. By that time, the NFL will declare that the Cowboys stadium is inadequate.

Arlington will have to wait for Glorypark development near stadiums

09:11 AM CDT on Thursday, May 15, 2008
By JEFF MOSIER and STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News
jmosier@dallasnews.com; stevebrown@dallasnews.com

ARLINGTON – Arlington's half-billion dollar answer to Victory Park has been put on hold because of the troubled financial and retail markets, billionaire Tom Hicks said Wednesday.

Mr. Hicks, owner of the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars, said Hicks Holdings has been unable to secure financing for the 1.2 million-square- foot Glorypark. The giant mixed-use development was scheduled to open in March 2010.

"We're in the most difficult credit crunch I've seen the last 20 years," Mr. Hicks said.

Also, co-developer Steiner + Associates was unable to get a firm commitment from an anchor tenant after months of negotiating with Dillard's department stores, Mr. Hicks said.

Mr. Hicks' announcement comes just a week after developer Ross Perot Jr. confirmed that his Hillwood firm has delayed construction of the 43-story Mandarin Oriental hotel and condo tower in Dallas' Victory project.

Mr. Perot said the decision not to go forward with the project was due in part to the challenging financial markets. Mr. Hicks is also a partner in the overall Victory development.

Since last summer, lenders have increased requirements for virtually all types of real estate loans. And some debt sources that previously financed office buildings, hotels, high-rise condos and such have exited the market.

The so - called credit crunch is expected to significantly reduce the amount of speculative development this year in Dallas and cities across the nation.

Construction was scheduled to start this spring on the Glorypark project adjacent to The Rangers Ballpark in Arlington and a few blocks from the Dallas Cowboys new $1.1 billion stadium. The completion of Glorypark, which would have included restaurants, retail, office space and residential, had been delayed at least twice previously. The project was to be built on the parking lots to the south and west of the Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

A special taxing district would have been used to pay for parking garages to replace the surface lots. Mr. Hicks said he'll work on a new, scaled-back version of Glorypark that could be built gradually instead of in large phases.

A previously announced 310-room Westin Hotel developed by Mr. Hicks and Gatehouse Capital should still open in time for the 2011 Super Bowl at the new Cowboys stadium. A 140-room Aloft hotel, which was announced at the same time as the Westin, has been cut from the project, at least for now, Mr. Hicks said.

[tdavis]

That news though has nothing to do with the development itself, but is a reaction to the economic downturn. One the economy comes back, these projects will most certainly move forward.

[SDDTProspector]

Noticed that there are some new projects that seemed previously dead, alive again... here are some projects that I haven't seen any activity in years, until now.... Is this a sign of things to come???

india & beech - I was sure this project was dead, but I web page had pop'ed up a month or two ago.... still the same design...

http://www.indiaandbeech.com/

Columbia Tower - A nice mixed use project, with 2 hotels/ office / residential. To be completed in 2011???

here is some pics

http://www.acm-architects.com/img/PHP/content/10157_09-0126%20CCDC%2024x36-4.jpg

http://www.acm-architects.com/img/PHP/content/10156_night%20shot.jpg

Vista Azul and Vista Verda - I don't know if this one is in Downtown but it would be nice if it was.....

http://www.acm-architects.com/img/PHP/content/10070_highrise-sky.jpg

[kpexpress]

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/article_935f817c-eeae-11de-8867-001cc4c03286.html

[staplesla]

Nice find SDDTProspector!

[SDDTProspector]

I was always interesting in these two small developments, I think they will really postively impact the view driving into Downtown SD from the 163 south...

It will have a nice stepping effect of a 9 story hotel, to a 12 story hotel, to a 24 story condo, finally across the steet Vantage Point..

The 9 story Staybrige Hotel,is the bottom image, "it might be cancelled though, not on CCDC anymore"

http://www.jwdainc.com/images/2008AprNewsImage.jpg

Then the 12 Story SpringHill Suite, I am pretty shure this one going foward.....

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs235.snc3/22280_245080249049_758079049_4409671_7171959_n.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs235.snc3/22280_245080274049_758079049_4409673_4751512_n.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs235.snc3/22280_245080269049_758079049_4409672_3834207_n.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs235.snc3/22280_245094994049_758079049_4409754_5080655_n.jpg

On a side note, I really think this development will look nice downtown, even though it is low-income they made it look a little up-scale.. Agree?

That area of Broadway, really needs some help....I don't see ghostbuilder building their 500Ft condo, across the street anytime soon!!

http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyImages/Ninth%20and%20Broadway.jpg

[staplesla]

I'm all for the these developments and the progress. I have a concern though about building new projects right now when we have an abundant amount of vacant residential and commercial space. Just curious of your thoughts.

[SDDTProspector]

I'm all for the these developments and the progress. I have a concern though about building new projects right now when we have an abundant amount of vacant residential and commercial space. Just curious of your thoughts.

Well I assume the market for hotels in San Diego is still strong, if they can fill them, build them!!!! The two hotel in cortex hill area are small under 130 rooms each and are the extended stay variety. It seems the only development in the pipeline for the next two years are hotels...... It funny how districts within downtown get hot. Right now it seems cortez hill is getting the most proposals, they actually might get built within the next year too!!!

I am actually happy that the developer Chhatrala Group is creating more realistic/ attractive designs.. They have toned down there designs:slob:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070707/news_1m7tower.html

[tdavis]

Well I assume the market for hotels in San Diego is still strong, if they can fill them, build them!!!! The two hotel in cortex hill area are small under 130 rooms each and are the extended stay variety. It seems the only development in the pipeline for the next two years are hotels......

The SD hotels are actually struggling. The W recently chose to go into foreclosure rather than make the payments required. The Marriott (can't remember which brand) canceled plans for another hotel in the Gaslamp area. This caused the City Council to seek reimbursement to the city for monies allocated to this project - still in legal rangling.

The occupancy rates have fallen to 10 year lows, and projections are that 2010 will see 64% occupancy (an 8 year low).

You can google to find many of the stories. Here's just one (which includes some of the projects): http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/oct/25/california-hotel-owners-fighting-survival/

[voice of reason]

Well I assume the market for hotels in San Diego is still strong, if they can fill them, build them!!!! The two hotel in cortex hill area are small under 130 rooms each and are the extended stay variety. It seems the only development in the pipeline for the next two years are hotels...... It funny how districts within downtown get hot. Right now it seems cortez hill is getting the most proposals, they actually might get built within the next year too!!!

I am actually happy that the developer Chhatrala Group is creating more realistic/ attractive designs.. They have toned down there designs:slob:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070707/news_1m7tower.html

No private projects have any chance of breaking ground in SD in the near future. The commercial, leisure and residential sectors are extremely weak.
Nice to be positive though.

[ShekelPop]

The SD hotels are actually struggling. The W recently chose to go into foreclosure rather than make the payments required. The Marriott (can't remember which brand) canceled plans for another hotel in the Gaslamp area. This caused the City Council to seek reimbursement to the city for monies allocated to this project - still in legal rangling.

The occupancy rates have fallen to 10 year lows, and projections are that 2010 will see 64% occupancy (an 8 year low).

You can google to find many of the stories. Here's just one (which includes some of the projects): http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/oct/25/california-hotel-owners-fighting-survival/

I wouldn't use the W to illustrate the effects of a bad economy, they overpaid for that property and took on more debt than they should have. They'd be drowning even in a good economy. But your point is still well taken that travel is unfortunately down overall.

[bmfarley]

Supply and Demand!

More supply will bring prices down. Haven't many folks complained about how expensive san Diego is and that high prices drive people and businesses away? Yes, they have.

Nothing is wrong with more supply..... unless of course, you have already jumped in to the market.

[pesto]

Actually, there are a lot of things wrong with excess supply: developer bankruptcies; landlord bankruptcies, which leads to poor maintenance; deserted neighborhoods, with vandalism and crime; unemployment; the cessation of urban renewal projects; cutting off of funding for nearly complete projects; adverse publicity for cities and neighborhoods; the snowball effect. And that's without mentioning the hit the owners take on their mortgages or banks being hyper-cautious about lending, which effectively cuts-off the benefits of lower prices.

In other words, everything that has happened in the last three years.

[staplesla]

Actually, there are a lot of things wrong with excess supply: developer bankruptcies; landlord bankruptcies, which leads to poor maintenance; deserted neighborhoods, with vandalism and crime; unemployment; the cessation of urban renewal projects; cutting off of funding for nearly complete projects; adverse publicity for cities and neighborhoods; the snowball effect. And that's without mentioning the hit the owners take on their mortgages or banks being hyper-cautious about lending, which effectively cuts-off the benefits of lower prices.

In other words, everything that has happened in the last three years.

I agree totally. We've seen the fall in the residential market, but have yet to experience the full defaults in the commercial market just yet.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Parkside (low income residential w/church) on island between 13th and 14th is on the verge of being done. Not a bad looking building, I like the greens.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09016.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09017.jpg
Thomas Jefferson Law School - Island between 11th and Park........
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09008.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09007.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09014.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09015.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09005.jpg
The Strata - (Luxury Rental Highrise) 10th and Market. Almost Done!
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09012.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09009.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09010.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09011.jpg
Project on 10th between G and Market, between Cowboy Star and EVT. Have no idea what they are doing?!?
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09013.jpg
The downtown stadium site!! As you can see a lot of hustle and bustle there!!!!
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09001.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09002.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09003.jpg
The Library Site, HA!
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/constructiondec09006.jpg

[SDDTProspector]

No private projects have any chance of breaking ground in SD in the near future. The commercial, leisure and residential sectors are extremely weak.
Nice to be positive though.

I dont think the staybridge and spring hill hotel are going after the same market as the W-hotel., They are focusing on the business needs versus the hip vactioning traveler, who is willing to spend $300 a night.... Don't be too shocked to see the spring hill to start in 2010, my buddy at Morely as put a bid out, for work to start in 2010... How about the Residence Inn San Diego Downtown/Gaslamp Quarter, completed in late 2009? I gues you forgot that one.....

I wouldn't say being postive, more like realistic, with construction prices down, players that were staying on the sideline are begining to look at old opportunities..... while other live with there heads in the sand:haha:

[tdavis]

I dont think the staybridge and spring hill hotel are going after the same market as the W-hotel., They are focusing on the business needs versus the hip vactioning traveler, who is willing to spend $300 a night.... Don't be too shocked to see the spring hill to start in 2010, my buddy at Morely as put a bid out, for work to start in 2010... How about the Residence Inn San Diego Downtown/Gaslamp Quarter, completed in late 2009? I gues you forgot that one.....

I wouldn't say being postive, more like realistic, with construction prices down, players that were staying on the sideline are begining to look at old opportunities..... while other live with there heads in the sand:haha:

It's ridiculous for anyone to proceed in this economic environment, unless they have a bunch of capital and can eat losses for a while. And regarding your business traveler comment - business travel is down 15% for 2009, and it's predicted to be down 18% in 2010. Companies have looked for ways to cut costs, and travel was one of the first to be impacted. The continued expansion of Skype, video conferencing, etc. allow for businesses to interrelate that they just couldn't do before.

And regarding the Residence Inn. It was almost scraped at the last minute, but they chose to go forward stating that they had already spent a lot of money and "would lose less by going forward than scraping the whole thing." Either way...not good.

I too agree with the other commenter that it's good to be positive, but you do have to be realistic. When you keep building for the sake of building, creating more glut in the market (whether it's commercial space, residential, hotel), you not only hurt the new project, but you increase the likelihood of older projects defaulting. Many are struggling, and by not allowing them to fill back up with tenants/residents/visitors due to more options, you hurt their bottom line.

[sandiegodweller]

I dont think the staybridge and spring hill hotel are going after the same market as the W-hotel., They are focusing on the business needs versus the hip vactioning traveler, who is willing to spend $300 a night.... Don't be too shocked to see the spring hill to start in 2010, my buddy at Morely as put a bid out, for work to start in 2010... How about the Residence Inn San Diego Downtown/Gaslamp Quarter, completed in late 2009? I gues you forgot that one.....

I wouldn't say being postive, more like realistic, with construction prices down, players that were staying on the sideline are begining to look at old opportunities..... while other live with there heads in the sand:haha:

Why would any reasonable investor/lender make investments in new developments when exisiting new projects can be bought at a fraction of replacement costs?

Buy the debt at a discount. I am sure that you will be able to pick up some of the failed San Diego-based banks' debt on projects throughout downtown for a fraction of par value in the near future. You will end up owning the porperty at a lower basis once the owner loses it to foreclosure.

[S.DviaPhilly]

[QUOTE=sandiegodweller;4622034]Why would any reasonable investor/lender make investments in new developments when exisiting new projects can be bought at a fraction of replacement costs?



Which existing new projects are you talking about that can be bought? Just curious

[S.DviaPhilly]

It's ridiculous for anyone to proceed in this economic environment, unless they have a bunch of capital and can eat losses for a while. And regarding your business traveler comment - business travel is down 15% for 2009, and it's predicted to be down 18% in 2010.

I love percentages and predictions! 85% of people agree with me

[sandiegodweller]

[QUOTE=sandiegodweller;4622034]Why would any reasonable investor/lender make investments in new developments when exisiting new projects can be bought at a fraction of replacement costs?



Which existing new projects are you talking about that can be bought? Just curious

Several of the recent projects in San Diego were financed by local banks that have since been siezed by the FDIC. I doubt that man of those assets have gone thru the dispostion process yet but they will be coming.

Here is an article on the disposition process:

FDIC Has $30Bln of Assets to Sell
Sep 25, 2009 - CRE News
Despite seizing 118 failed banks with $476.4 billion of assets since the start of last year, the FDIC has only about $30 billion of assets to sell.

But some $4.7 billion is in the market for sale via three massive structured offerings that are being shopped by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Deutsche Bank and the team of Pentalpha Capital Group and Midland Loan Services, respectively. Another nearly $2 billion of loans are being offered through the agency's whole-loan sales channel. And $5 billion of assets from Corus Bank are being shopped that the agency initially had hoped to sell at the same time it transferred the bank's deposits to MB Financial.

Factor those assets out of the equation and the agency's left with only about $18 billion of assets to liquidate.

That's not much given the massive volume of assets that were on the balance sheets of banks that have failed. It could be explained in large part by its practice of entering into loss-sharing agreements with bank acquirers.

To be sure, the agency will see continued growth in the volume of assets it needs to liquidate - it has identified 416 institutions with $299.8 billion of assets as troubled banks. But because its loss-sharing arrangements generally result in lower costs to the agency's fast-depleting Deposit Insurance Fund, it's a good bet more such deals will be completed going forward.

Under the loss-sharing arrangements, a bank's acquirer is insulated from 80% of the losses against assets subject to the agreement. That insulation level could climb to 95% under certain circumstances.

Even though the FDIC has to take capital reserves for the potential losses, it is able to keep assets on the balance sheet of a bank, which could continue to manage them and ultimately liquidate them when market conditions improve.

The agency has found that it takes anywhere from 90 to 120 days from when it takes over an institution to determine exactly what it owns, what it's worth and how to sell it. During that time, assets could deteriorate. So keeping them in the hands of a bank benefits asset values as well.

The agency tried to structure a loss-sharing arrangement when it sold Corus Bank, a Chicago lender to the residential condominium sector that had $7 billion when it failed earlier this month. But because of the complexity of the institution's assets, the due-diligence process took longer than anticipated. The thinking now is that the agency will sell an interest in the bank's remaining $5 billion of assets, keeping a stake itself.

It also kept about $3 billion of assets from Colonial Bank, a $25 billion asset institution in Montgomery, Ala., that failed in August. BB&T Corp. took over the institution's deposits and $22 billion of its assets, with $15 billion of those subject to a loss-sharing arrangement. The remaining $3 billion of assets are related to Colonial's residential mortgage lending operation, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation.

Until recently, its whole-loan sales advisers, DebtX and First Financial Network, had been selling a variety of assets that were dominated by commercial real estate loans. But recent offerings from those advisers have involved only consumer, agricultural and business loans as well as loan participations. The agency has since added Eastdil Secured, Garnet Capital Advisors and Mission Capital Advisors to its lineup of loan-sales specialists.

The thinking has been that the FDIC would rely more on its structured offerings, where it sells only a stake in a portfolio of assets and provides financing, to dispose of residential and commercial mortgages, along with acquisition, development and construction loans.

But an agency spokesman indicated it would continue to rely on a variety of sales channels to dispose of assets. "You can't pigeonhole any asset," he said. "Every portfolio is different." He indicated that the agency might also consider using its structured offerings to dispose of foreclosed properties.

[bmfarley]

Actually, there are a lot of things wrong with excess supply: developer bankruptcies; landlord bankruptcies, which leads to poor maintenance; deserted neighborhoods, with vandalism and crime; unemployment; the cessation of urban renewal projects; cutting off of funding for nearly complete projects; adverse publicity for cities and neighborhoods; the snowball effect. And that's without mentioning the hit the owners take on their mortgages or banks being hyper-cautious about lending, which effectively cuts-off the benefits of lower prices.

In other words, everything that has happened in the last three years.... a bit dramatic, but at the end of the day... prices are lower. No?

[TonyAnderson]

Great update.

[Austinlee]

I really love this development; Any word on what the latest is for it?

Lane Field
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Jaygergon/LaneFieldAerialFinal.jpg

[S.DviaPhilly]

Or what about the Metro Center Project on 13th and commercial? Is that going to happen? http://www.metrocentersandiego.com It seems like a project that downtown needs.

Also if this does get built and (a long shot now, I know) the stadium downtown progresses this project includes lots of parking attached to it that I am sure could service a lot of the people/cars that are going to the football game

[Fusey]

I really love this development; Any word on what the latest is for it?

Lane Field

It got killed by the Coastal Commission. I f***ing hate California politics.

[tdavis]

It got killed by the Coastal Commission. I f***ing hate California politics.

My office is working on part of Lane Field - It hasn't been killed. There was a lawsuit file by a neighborhood group which stalled the initial groundbreaking due to this suit. The court stated that a public review period needed to be held, and this was held. In the meantime the economy tanked and things have been slowed, but it's still moving forward.

[Derek]

It better be. That parking lot is ugly as fuck. Tell your company that. Do they know that? :P

[Fusey]

I stand corrected. The last I heard anything about Lane Field was that Coastal Commission decision from a year or so ago.

[Marina_Guy]

December 25, 2009
Stadium Boom Deepens Municipal Woes

By KEN BELSON
CINCINNATI — Years after a wave of construction brought publicly financed stadiums costing billions of dollars to cities across the country, taxpayers are once again being asked to reach into their pockets.

From New Jersey to Ohio to Arizona, the stadiums were sold as a key to redevelopment and as the only way to retain sports franchises. But the deals that were used to persuade taxpayers to finance their construction have in many cases backfired, the result of overly optimistic revenue assumptions and the recession.

Nowhere is the problem more acute than in Cincinnati. In 1996, voters in Hamilton County approved an increase of half of one percent in the sales tax that promised to build and maintain stadiums for the Bengals and the Reds, pay Cincinnati’s public schools and give homeowners an annual property tax rebate. The stadiums were supposed to spur development of the city’s dilapidated riverfront.

But sales tax receipts have fallen so fast in the last year that the county is now scrambling to bridge a $14 million deficit in its sales tax fund. The public schools, which deferred taking their share for years, want their money.

The teams have not volunteered to rewrite their leases. So in the coming weeks, the county plans to cut basic services, lower its legal bills and drain a bond reserve fund with no plan for paying it back.

“Anyone looking at this objectively knows it’s a train wreck,” said Dusty Rhodes, the county auditor. “I told them they were making a big mistake, but they didn’t want to hear me.”

Cincinnati is hardly alone. In Indianapolis, the Capital Improvement Board spent 2009 trying to find $32 million to run the Lucas Oil Stadium and convention center. In Milwaukee, a drop in sales tax receipts may delay by several years the date for paying off the bonds issued to build Miller Park, the home of the Brewers.

Columbus, Ohio, is considering using public money to keep the Blue Jackets in town. Glendale, Ariz., has fought to hold the Phoenix Coyotes to their long-term lease. In New Jersey, a ticket surcharge may be added to help resolve a tenant-landlord dispute between the Devils and Newark.

Mark Rosentraub, the author of the book “Major League Losers,” said that many of the stadium deals included “revenue bombs,” with financial traps like balloon payments on debt in later years and sweeteners like the Hamilton County property tax rebate to win public support.

In many cases, the architects of the deals are long gone by the time the bill comes due.

“This is one of the effects of the economic tsunami sweeping through,” Rosentraub said of the deficits.

The 1996 proposal to build stadiums for the Bengals and the Reds had plenty of proponents. The economy was growing, Riverfront Stadium was outdated and the Bengals were hinting that they would move, as the Browns had done.

The plan went awry almost from the start. The football stadium exceeded its budget by $50 million, forcing the county to issue more bonds. Forecasts for growth in the sales tax turned out to be too rosy. The teams received sweetheart leases. In 2000, voters threw out the county commissioners who cut the deal.

That year the sales tax grew 1.8 percent, the first of many years below the 3 percent forecast. Both stadiums were originally expected to cost $500 million combined. Yet Paul Brown Stadium alone cost $455 million and the Great American Ballpark, the Reds’ home a few hundred yards down the Ohio River, cost $337 million by the time it opened in 2003.

The generous deal for the Bengals has been a sore spot. The team had to pay rent only through 2009 on its 26-year lease, and has to cover the cost of running the stadium only for game days. Starting in 2017, the county will reimburse the team for these costs, too. The county will pay $8.5 million this year to keep the stadium going.

The Bengals keep revenue from naming rights, advertising, tickets, suites and most parking. If the county wants to recoup money by taxing tickets, concessions or parking, it needs the team’s approval.

Compared with the lucrative deals for teams in Baltimore, St. Louis and elsewhere, the Bengals won a particularly lopsided lease.

Bob Bedinghaus, the commissioner who spearheaded the stadium project, said as much in 2000.

“They’re an organization that’s run by lawyers, and they look for every penny around every corner,” he told The Cincinnati Enquirer. “It’s going to be a difficult relationship going forward for the next 30 years.”

Bedinghaus lost his re-election bid soon after. He now works as the Bengals’ director of stadium development. Through a team spokesman, Bedinghaus declined to be interviewed. The Bengals also declined to comment. Several telephone and e-mail attempts to reach the Reds’ management were unsuccessful.

Hamilton County started using some of the proceeds from the sales tax fund to jump-start construction of a redevelopment district with the stadiums as bookends. After years of delays, cranes dot the riverfront that will eventually include a hotel, shops and hundreds of homes.

Critics like Rhodes contend that the tax was never meant to pay for the real estate project. But Cincinnati business leaders, eager to reverse the flow of money to the suburbs, say the stadiums were just the beginning of a transformation of the riverfront.

“We need to build this neighborhood so that it becomes the center of someplace you want to go,” said Thomas L. Gabelman, the outside counsel for the county on the riverfront development.

Gabelman said that most of the money for the $1.2 billion project comes from federal and state grants and private financing. No more than $3 million annually comes from the sales tax fund, which brings in about $60 million a year.

Problems persist. In 2004, Todd Portune, the commissioner who unseated Bedinghaus, sued unsuccessfully to change the Bengals’ lease. In 2006, the Cincinnati public schools agreed to defer their payments from the sales tax fund for three years to help cover shortfalls.

Still, the gap between expected and actual sales taxes continues to grow, something the county administration had been warning for years. In August, the administrator predicted not only a $14 million shortfall next year, but also a $94 million gap in 2014, a year after interest payments on the stadium bonds rise 44 percent. By then, the Reds will no longer be paying rent.

Last month, two of the three commissioners voted against cutting the property tax rebate, fearing a voter backlash. Raising the sales tax again was not proposed for the same reason.

“It can’t be 100 percent on the backs of taxpayers,” said Greg Hartmann, the lone Republican commissioner. “We gave away too much to keep the Bengals in Cincinnati. There has to be some middle ground.”

Hartmann and Portune want to introduce a tobacco tax, but lawmakers in Columbus, the state capital, may be unwilling to approve it.

So they have ordered more cuts in basic county administrative services, something that creates a slippery slope, said David Pepper, the commissioner who voted against the proposal.

“It’s like the movie where the blob keeps growing and eating away at other elements of county government,” Pepper said. “We’re beginning to cross a line in the sand by taking money from the general fund to pay for the stadiums. Once you put that money in jeopardy, you put the whole county at risk.”

[HurricaneHugo]

Have the Charger even said how much they need from public funds?

[kpexpress]

I heard the NFL will put up 200 million, so deduct what the team is willing to out forth from the cost (600-900 million).

Are these numbers wrong? Anyone?

[dl3000]

Well we're looking at $1.3+ billion for the whole facility minus legal costs and all that stuff that slows it down. I read the 1 billion plus a couple hundred million somewhere. Nobody has said specific numbers of public input to my knowledge, Fabiani just said there would be some. Did not know the NFL contribution.

[staplesla]

I just think it is way too early to talk about $'s. We need to wait for the reviews and designs to be done before anything will be known for sure.

[tdavis]

Well we're looking at $1.3+ billion for the whole facility minus legal costs and all that stuff that slows it down. I read the 1 billion plus a couple hundred million somewhere. Nobody has said specific numbers of public input to my knowledge, Fabiani just said there would be some. Did not know the NFL contribution.

$1.3 billion is ridiculous. The Cowboys stadium (arguably the most advanced of its time) cost $1.15 billion, and you think the SD stadium will cost more? The stadium here will be smaller, most likely won't have the multi-million dollar, record breaking in size video screens, and won't have all of the amenities (restaurants, sport shops), etc.

Lets just wait for the final projections before stating inaccurate numbers.

[SDDTProspector]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/11/chargers-focusing-stadium-site-downtown/

An edition of the "round table", stated that the stadium would cost beween.. 500 to 700 million to build d-town.... about 200 million cheaper than other locations in San Diego County... Because of existing infrastructure in place ... We shall see, what I figure we shall see soon within a couple of months.... God, I hope its not 1.3 Billion....

Also, read that the NFL would contribute 200 million to the pot

[dl3000]

$1.3 billion is ridiculous. The Cowboys stadium (arguably the most advanced of its time) cost $1.15 billion, and you think the SD stadium will cost more? The stadium here will be smaller, most likely won't have the multi-million dollar, record breaking in size video screens, and won't have all of the amenities (restaurants, sport shops), etc.

Lets just wait for the final projections before stating inaccurate numbers.

Whoa...chill. I remember seeing over a billion quoted on San Diego before. Nobody's memory is perfect and I did not say I was some sort of an expert, I am just recalling what I read. Jeez relax, this forum has no effect on decision making, we are here to discuss, speculate, and share ideas. The costs of building a stadium will certainly not go down and rural Texas is different than Downtown California not to mention site decontamination, which is not MTS's job alone. The video screens most likely did not have a major impact on the cost of the facility if you look at it overall. They just get the most hype. No matter what, a stadium will have large screens, Dallas' are just about 60% larger.

[HurricaneHugo]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/11/chargers-focusing-stadium-site-downtown/

An edition of the "round table", stated that the stadium would cost beween.. 500 to 700 million to build d-town.... about 200 million cheaper than other locations in San Diego County... Because of existing infrastructure in place ... We shall see, what I figure we shall see soon within a couple of months.... God, I hope its not 1.3 Billion....

Also, read that the NFL would contribute 200 million to the pot

Let's say that it'll go over budget and end up around 850 million total..

-200 from the NFL

-600-900 from the Chargers

= 50- 0 from the city.

50 million is a small drop IMO and worth it :tup:

[dl3000]

Ok this article came from the post by staplesla way back that referenced this topic
"Fabiani said a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. Earlier plans had the Chargers and the National Football League contributing $200 million apiece to a stadium, and the gap bridged by revenue from nearby ancillary development, such as hotels, condominiums and retail.

The team is dismissing that concept because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium that could be expanded to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls. It would abut the street, with little room for other development."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/10/chargers-say-they-need-public-money-stadium/




So there. I'm no estimator, but I still say they are lowballing that $800M.

[tdavis]

Ok this article came from the post by staplesla way back that referenced this topic
"Fabiani said a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. Earlier plans had the Chargers and the National Football League contributing $200 million apiece to a stadium, and the gap bridged by revenue from nearby ancillary development, such as hotels, condominiums and retail.

The team is dismissing that concept because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium that could be expanded to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls. It would abut the street, with little room for other development."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/10/chargers-say-they-need-public-money-stadium/

So there. I'm no estimator, but I still say they are lowballing that $800M.

No where does it say that the SD stadium would cost over a billion, that's just your own speculation. As a project engineer I deal with these projects on a daily basis and it's just ridiculous to state numbers like this as fact. There is no way with the scaling down this stadium will need due to space constraints that it will cost more than the Cowboys stadium.

[SD_Phil]

So....who felt it?


link (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/ci14565620.html)

[Derek]

I did. :ack:

[HurricaneHugo]

I was at the Holiday Bowl Parade and was wondering why the ground was moving after the floats stopped. O_o

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

California has a built-in roller coaster... Fun!

I didn't feel it up in San Berdoo, but I saw a couple of news bits on it.

[kpexpress]

I slept right through it, guests at the hotel my wife works at felt it

[tdavis]

The shaking in La Jolla lasted about 20 seconds. It was enough for the chandelier to sway, and for the shades to rattle against the windows.

[Marina_Guy]

No where does it say that the SD stadium would cost over a billion, that's just your own speculation. As a project engineer I deal with these projects on a daily basis and it's just ridiculous to state numbers like this as fact. There is no way with the scaling down this stadium will need due to space constraints that it will cost more than the Cowboys stadium.

Hmmm.. you deal with Stadiums everyday, huh. I missed all these new stadiums going up. I think it is much cheaper to build in Dallas than San Diego/California.

[tdavis]

Hmmm.. you deal with Stadiums everyday, huh. I missed all these new stadiums going up. I think it is much cheaper to build in Dallas than San Diego/California.

sorry, I meant large scale/urban development.

[Derek]

No fucking fireworks over the bay? Fucking environmentalists. What the fuck is next?

[staplesla]

No fucking fireworks over the bay? Fucking environmentalists. What the fuck is next?

All they had to do was file the appropriate permit and the fireworks would have gone forward, but they chose not to stating there wasn't enough time. But if they really wanted to move forward strings could have been pulled to get the appropriate people to sign off. I may not like it either, but the laws on the books have to be followed, and they didn't follow them.

[HurricaneHugo]

No fucking fireworks over the bay? Fucking environmentalists. What the fuck is next?

Seriously?

Good thing I ended up going to the Gaslamp instead.

[Derek]

If it weren't for all the goddamn hippies here shit like that wouldn't even happen in the first place.



Yes I'm a little annoyed. I think it's the weather. The weather here fucking sucks.

[dl3000]

No where does it say that the SD stadium would cost over a billion, that's just your own speculation. As a project engineer I deal with these projects on a daily basis and it's just ridiculous to state numbers like this as fact. There is no way with the scaling down this stadium will need due to space constraints that it will cost more than the Cowboys stadium.

I didn't say that article was where I had read it. That article was a correction of my previous statement that confirmed the 700 or 800M number that was tossed around but apparently you didn't notice. I still say I read over a billion somewhere, but it could have been another forum member for all I know. This forum is all about speculation if you haven't noticed. I said I read the number somewhere, I did not assert myself as some sort of an expert. It's conversation on a discussion board, take it easy.

By the way, construction costs being what they are, I would not be surprised if it was more than a billion.
DISCLAIMER: THAT IS MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ESTIMATE, I AM NO EXPERT. I PROBABLY READ 1.3 ON SSC OR SOMETHING. THOSE WHO HAPPENED TO BE SWAYED BY WHAT I WRITE HERE (NOBODY), TAKE NONE OF WHAT I SAY AS FACT UNLESS I AM WORKING ON THE PROJECT.

[staplesla]

I agree though with tdavis. You have to be careful when you speculate as some people take it as fact if you don't state it is just your speculation. Your comment "Well we're looking at $1.3+ billion for the whole facility" just isn't factual at this moment in time when projections are still being finalized.

[dl3000]

I agree though with tdavis. You have to be careful when you speculate as some people take it as fact if you don't state it is just your speculation. Your comment "Well we're looking at $1.3+ billion for the whole facility" just isn't factual at this moment in time when projections are still being finalized.

Right but I followed it up with the fact that I had simply recalled reading it from somewhere. I didn't say I was involved in the project in any way. I didn't even back it up with an official source, and the source I did post was to correct myself and support the assertions of others including yourself. Right then, I believe it's settled or else we'll go in circles like we are already.

So in more relevant news, anybody know what MTS is up to with regard to decontaminating the site? I know there was some dispute about who was responsible and whether or not they had to do anything so has that been resolved?

[alasi]

Interesting that the pro=stadium crowd is sensitive to misinformation being passed around, but they see nothing wrong with Hurricane Hugo scenario of the stadium costing only 50 million to the tax payers. Sorry guys, but that is not grounded in fact. However, i agree that at present no one knows what this will cost because:
(1) The cost of clean-up of the site nor has the party responsible for the clean up has been determined; (2) no MOU(wemorandum of understanding) have been developed that commit any parties to fiscal arrangements; and (3) no actual proposals have been put on the table.

So, all this mental angst is unnnecessary until we get some real facts. By the way, $50 million is something when you are already facing a $96 million deficit.

[bmfarley]

Interesting that the pro=stadium crowd is sensitive to misinformation being passed around, but they see nothing wrong with Hurricane Hugo scenario of the stadium costing only 50 million to the tax payers. Sorry guys, but that is not grounded in fact. However, i agree that at present no one knows what this will cost because:
(1) The cost of clean-up of the site nor has the party responsible for the clean up has been determined; (2) no MOU(wemorandum of understanding) have been developed that commit any parties to fiscal arrangements; and (3) no actual proposals have been put on the table.

So, all this mental angst is unnnecessary until we get some real facts. By the way, $50 million is something when you are already facing a $96 million deficit.
All arm-chair economist and project estimators should consider the additional cost of relocating existing uses... a la the transit yard. That will not be cheap.

[sandiegodweller]

All arm-chair economist and project estimators should consider the additional cost of relocating existing uses... a la the transit yard. That will not be cheap.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/20/consultants-dont-come-cheap/


The downtown site eyed by the Chargers sits partially on a contaminated metropolitan bus yard. CCDC Chairman Fred Maas said estimates to clean the site and relocate the bus yard reached $100 million several years ago.

“The costs are so significant, it’s hard for any private-sector entity to come here and make that kind of expenditure,” he said. “They’re not just buying a land asset. They’re buying a host of problems.”

[HurricaneHugo]

OK but has anybody said that the city will pay for that?

It would make sense that the Chargers pay for that...

[dl3000]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/20/consultants-dont-come-cheap/


The downtown site eyed by the Chargers sits partially on a contaminated metropolitan bus yard. CCDC Chairman Fred Maas said estimates to clean the site and relocate the bus yard reached $100 million several years ago.

“The costs are so significant, it’s hard for any private-sector entity to come here and make that kind of expenditure,” he said. “They’re not just buying a land asset. They’re buying a host of problems.”

Yeah thats what I'm thinking about. Who's gonna do it?

[bmfarley]

Yeah thats what I'm thinking about. Who's gonna do it?And... certainly not the transit system. They had no plans to move and make un-necessary improvements and cleanup... did they? So, it stands to reason that who ever is proposing a change.. be responsible for whatever cost that is.

[kpexpress]

medical pot

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/05/pot-shop-rules-sent-committee/

[MikeM]

All they had to do was file the appropriate permit and the fireworks would have gone forward, but they chose not to stating there wasn't enough time. But if they really wanted to move forward strings could have been pulled to get the appropriate people to sign off. I may not like it either, but the laws on the books have to be followed, and they didn't follow them.

Ok, so there are fire and life-safety issues but as someone who grew up and was educated overseas before coming to the "Land of the free" I have never seen a place that required so many permits and has so many people telling you what to do and how to do it. :cool:

[PadreHomer]

So the parking lot at Market and 7th has been blocked off, there's a backhoe on the lot and they were putting up a fence around it this morning. Anyone know what's going on there?

It was the one that was originally park it on market south, then some skyscraper project that fell through.

[S.DviaPhilly]

So the parking lot at Market and 7th has been blocked off, there's a backhoe on the lot and they were putting up a fence around it this morning. Anyone know what's going on there?

It was the one that was originally park it on market south, then some skyscraper project that fell through.

From the CCDC website..............

Located in downtown San Diego's East Village neighborhood.

Block bounded by Market Street, Seventh, Eighth and Island avenues

The proposed project consists of parking lot demolition, excavation, shoring, environmental remediation, and parking lot reconstruction of a portion of the Redevelopment Agency-owned block. Project funding will come from a $1.5 million State of California Orphan Site Cleanup SubAccount (OSCA) Grant and private settlement agreement funds.

[Derek]

Yay more parking lots!

[eburress]

Ok, so there are fire and life-safety issues but as someone who grew up and was educated overseas before coming to the "Land of the free" I have never seen a place that required so many permits and has so many people telling you what to do and how to do it. :cool:

That's California for you. Not everywhere in the "Land of the Free" is like that. :)

[HurricaneHugo]

From the CCDC website..............

Located in downtown San Diego's East Village neighborhood.

Block bounded by Market Street, Seventh, Eighth and Island avenues

The proposed project consists of parking lot demolition, excavation, shoring, environmental remediation, and parking lot reconstruction of a portion of the Redevelopment Agency-owned block. Project funding will come from a $1.5 million State of California Orphan Site Cleanup SubAccount (OSCA) Grant and private settlement agreement funds.

wtf

what's the point in that...

[Derek]

The point? More wasted money!

[Fusey]

I love San Diego, but we have to have some of the dumbest leaders in the entire country.

[Derek]

I love San Diego, but we have to have some of the dumbest leaders in the entire country.

I've been saying that for years! :banana:



Seriously though, this fucking weather mixed with this city's leadership is about to drive me out town. I fucking HATE this weather. It's fucking January. If the Chargers don't get their stadium I'm out.

[bmfarley]

wtf

what's the point in that...
I am not saying I agree with CCDC on this; but, I believe the logic is that someone at some point will need to clean the property before it is developed into something. Those costs and additional timeline can be prohibitive and postpone development from ever occurring.

If CCDC cleans the property, at public expense, it will mitigate later costs and possible minimize the time the property is developed. Additionally, the ground is clensed.... reducing human health concerns.... and provides work/jobs.

Heck, maybe I do agree with that logic!

[Fusey]

You know things are going slow in your city when a parking lot is the only notable development.

[dl3000]

You know things are going slow in your city when a parking lot is the only notable development.

Thats true.

[PadreHomer]

I agree, its basically doing prep work now for what undoubtedly will be a future development down the road.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Pretty cool and could be another reason for a new stadium....hopefully downtown


By Mark Zeigler, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:36 p.m.
Related news:

Chicago, San Francisco get World Cup boot


San Diego moved a step closer Tuesday to hosting the planet’s most popular sporting event when it was included in a list of 18 finalists that will be part of the U.S. bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup of soccer.
FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, will choose host nations for both tournaments in December from formal bids submitted in May. Being on the list of 18 cities does not guarantee hosting matches if the United States is awarded 2018 or 2022, but at least 10 and probably 12 will.
The biggest issue for San Diego is not hotels or restaurants or tourist infrastructure or weather or training facilities or a large soccer following or experience hosting large sports events. It has all that. The problem is the venue. Qualcomm Stadium would be 55 years old in 2022, the tournament the United States most likely would get (a European candidate is favored for 2018).
The Q meets FIFA regulations in terms of capacity and field width, but only one of the other 17 cities — Los Angeles — has older stadiums. And Los Angeles is widely expected to have a new NFL stadium by 2018 to go with the L.A. Memorial Coliseum and Pasadena’s Rose Bowl, which hosted the finals of both the 1994 World Cup and 1999 Women’s World Cup.
Will the Chargers have a new stadium in time?
It’s an issue the U.S. bid committee has been following closely and likely could tip the scales for or against San Diego.
Other cities announced yesterday: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Tampa and Washington, D.C.
The most notable absences are Chicago, the headquarters of the U.S. Soccer federation, and the San Francisco Bay Area, which hosted games in the 1994 World Cup. Two other 1994 hosts, Detroit and Orlando, were also among the nine locales eliminated yesterday.

[kpexpress]

Pretty cool and could be another reason for a new stadium....hopefully downtown


By Mark Zeigler, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:36 p.m.
Related news:

Chicago, San Francisco get World Cup boot


San Diego moved a step closer Tuesday to hosting the planet’s most popular sporting event when it was included in a list of 18 finalists that will be part of the U.S. bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup of soccer.
FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, will choose host nations for both tournaments in December from formal bids submitted in May. Being on the list of 18 cities does not guarantee hosting matches if the United States is awarded 2018 or 2022, but at least 10 and probably 12 will.
The biggest issue for San Diego is not hotels or restaurants or tourist infrastructure or weather or training facilities or a large soccer following or experience hosting large sports events. It has all that. The problem is the venue. Qualcomm Stadium would be 55 years old in 2022, the tournament the United States most likely would get (a European candidate is favored for 2018).
The Q meets FIFA regulations in terms of capacity and field width, but only one of the other 17 cities — Los Angeles — has older stadiums. And Los Angeles is widely expected to have a new NFL stadium by 2018 to go with the L.A. Memorial Coliseum and Pasadena’s Rose Bowl, which hosted the finals of both the 1994 World Cup and 1999 Women’s World Cup.
Will the Chargers have a new stadium in time?
It’s an issue the U.S. bid committee has been following closely and likely could tip the scales for or against San Diego.
Other cities announced yesterday: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Tampa and Washington, D.C.
The most notable absences are Chicago, the headquarters of the U.S. Soccer federation, and the San Francisco Bay Area, which hosted games in the 1994 World Cup. Two other 1994 hosts, Detroit and Orlando, were also among the nine locales eliminated yesterday.

Does it say why SF and Chi were eliminated?

[OneMetropolis]

Wow Chicago just isn't getting a break. First the Olympics now this.

[TonyAnderson]

And that's if the U.S were to get it, as they're going up against many other countries still.

[HurricaneHugo]

And that's if the U.S were to get it, as they're going up against many other countries still.

At this point, it's basically the US and Australia for the 2022 WC.

[dl3000]

Shit man I am really beginning to think Voice of Reason is a legitimate troll. I don't see what he gets from reading this forum and he certainly brings nothing to the table but negativity and mockery. I won't even begin to go into the ignorant stereotypes in there.

That would be awesome if a world cup bid pushed for a new stadium, but I still think Super Bowls would be more enticing since theyre more frequent and I'm guessing almost if not equally profitable.

[S.DviaPhilly]

http://signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/14/road-new-stadium-gets-1st-green-light/


DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO — San Diego’s downtown redevelopment arm yesterday secured the first approval in a series it needs to spend larger amounts of money repairing blight downtown.
Chief among the beneficiaries of the effort would be the San Diego Chargers. The team wants to build a football stadium downtown and needs hundreds of millions of dollars of public money for a venue that could cost up to $800 million.
The Budget/Finance & Administration Committee of the Centre City Development Corp. voted 5-0 yesterday morning, with Director Steven Relyea absent, to embark on a process that could take 15 to 18 months.
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas equated yesterday’s first step to “asking our doctor if we may start the arduous process of training for a marathon.”
Maas said the effort to lift a cap on how much money could be redirected downtown in the form of future property tax revenue owes its momentum to one factor above all else: Plans backed by Mayor Jerry Sanders and the team to build a stadium on land bounded by Imperial Avenue and 14th, 16th and K streets.
“It’s about a stadium,” Maas said after yesterday’s meeting. “But it’s about things bigger than a stadium.”
Under state law, the CCDC could spend nearly $2.9 billion repairing blight and rebuilding downtown through 2043, but officials expect to hit that cap in 2023 or 2024.
Under the cap, they estimate they have $386 million of discretionary spending for a list of anticipated projects.
They don’t yet know how much more money they’ll need for an updated list.
They estimate it will cost $500,000 to hire lawyers, economists, engineers and soil experts to figure that out and to prepare reports required by state redevelopment law to appeal the agency’s cap.
The full CCDC board will take up the issue Jan. 27 and the council is expected
to consider greenlighting the appeals process next month.
Only two people addressed the CCDC committee yesterday.
Jason Everitt of the Center on Policy Initiatives, a local labor-friendly think tank, said the CCDC should be mindful of creating quality local jobs.
Gary Smith, president of the San Diego Downtown Residents Group, advised CCDC officials not to forget downtown’s current needs by focusing on new projects.
Because of another commitment, Councilman Kevin Faulconer showed up to speak at the hearing a few moments after it ended. In a letter to Maas Monday, Faulconer, whose council district includes downtown, urged fast action.
“We have a duty to see this plan through to completion,” he wrote.
Lifting the cap requires the blessing of the City Council, the state departments of Finance and Housing and Community Development and four government entities that have tax-sharing agreements with the CCDC.
They are the county, the San Diego County Office of Education, the San Diego Unified School District and the San Diego Community College District.
Maas said he and Frank Alessi, CCDC’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, discussed the issue once with county chief administrative officer Walt Ekard and are scheduling meetings with the other agencies.

[pesto]

maybe SD could get the Nepal vs. Bhutan match. I hear their fans are pretty calm. The chanting is deadly though.

[Derek]

:laugh:



Good news about the stadium though. Let's hope for more...

[kpexpress]

So how about that new stadium now?

[brantw]

:(

[eburress]

So how about that new stadium now?

hahaha - the Chargers didn't help their case!

[OneMetropolis]

:previous: So typical. All the hype, than a loss. And the most famed cliché to follow it "there's always next year,"