SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Derek]

Cool. Now only another 8 years!

[HurricaneHugo]

Lane Field is so ugly.

[eburress]

Lane Field is so ugly.

The existing parking lot or the proposed new hotel towers...or both? hahaha

[Lipani]

I honestly can't believe Lane Field has been a worthless parking lot for decades. With all of the cruises that come to San Diego you would think our political leaders would want a good first impression of the city.

[brantw]

I honestly can't believe Lane Field has been a worthless parking lot for decades. With all of the cruises that come to San Diego you would think our political leaders would want a good first impression of the city.

The approval on the project has been delayed by another month.

[SDfan]

The approval on the project has been delayed by a month.

Way to go San Diego...

[Lipani]

Looks like we can breath easy (for another year at least):

Chargers commit to S.D. for 2011, but not beyond
By Nick Canepa, UNION-TRIBUNE

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.

The Chargers will not be playing football in Los Angeles — at least not next year.

In a mild effort to snuff rumors that the team is headed north and hold off lame-duck status, the NFL franchise informed the city Wednesday it is not triggering the termination clause in its Qualcomm Stadium lease for 2011. The Chargers have the option to do that every year from Feb. 1 through May 1 until their contract expires in 2020.

But the team stopped short of any guarantees past 2011 — no one thought it would be going anywhere before 2012 anyway — as it continues its attempt to get a new downtown stadium built.

“(Club President) Dean Spanos notified me today that the Chargers would not in 2011 exercise the exit provision in its lease with the city,” Mayor Jerry Sanders said in a statement. “I very much appreciate the commitment that Dean, his family, and the Chargers have shown throughout the team’s eight-year search for a new stadium.

“The Chargers understand, as we all do, the tremendous challenges now facing our region during these historically difficult economic times. But, even in the face of these challenges, we will be able to work through 2011 with the Chargers on a stadium solution downtown that works for both taxpayers and the team.”

All this really means is that the Chargers will play football next season in Qualcomm Stadium — if there is a season. The NFL’s collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union has expired and there has been talk of a lockout by owners, so there are no guarantees there, either.

As for 2012 and beyond, Spanos and Chargers counsel Mark Fabiani, his point man on new stadium dealings, refuse to commit.

“There is just so much economic uncertainty,” Spanos said in an interview with the Union-Tribune. “No good businessman is going to lock himself up unless there’s certainty. You wouldn’t do it in your personal life. You’re never going to say never. It’s unfair to ask any businessman to make a long-term commitment. It’s not good business practice.

“We’re making a serious commitment here — we have made a serious commitment here — and I think people realize we’re sincere. It’s not a question of our commitment, but can the city get something done.”

Rumors that the team could be headed to Los Angeles have heated up since the Spanos family hired Goldman Sachs to find a buyer for 36 percent of the franchise, saying it needed the sale to help pay for estate taxes when owner Alex Spanos and wife Faye die.

Sixty percent of the team would still be owned by Alex and Faye’s four children. Dean claims the decision to do this probably happened 15 years ago.

“We expected capital gains taxes to go up by the end of the year,” Fabiani said, “and that’s why we wanted to sell it by then. But it’s back to where it was now that the Bush tax cuts have been extended for two years, so it takes some of the pressure off having to sell a minority stake in the team right away.”

One of the suitors is said to be AEG, the Los Angeles-based sports and entertainment conglomerate known to be seeking permission from that city and the state to tear down part of the L.A. Convention Center and build a new stadium after it knows it can attract an NFL franchise.

“It’s no different now that when Ed Roski said he was building a stadium (in the City of Industry) two years ago and we were moving there then,” Fabiani says. “No different. Every time somebody comes up with a new stadium idea in L.A., people think we’re moving. We can talk until we’re blue in the face. This is exactly the same as 2008.

“Just as it’s tough to do in San Diego, it’s tough to do in L.A., tough to do in San Francisco, tough to do in Oakland. Building a Super Bowl stadium in California is a tough thing to do. That project in L.A. has to make financial sense. So much would have to be done. It’s so far off.”

The team claims AEG has not purchased a part of the team; a sale to AEG is not imminent, and that Alex and Faye Spanos have been selling other assets for some time for estate purposes. Fabiani also said potential buyers are not limited to AEG or anyone from Los Angeles.

“Thery’re in San Diego, too,” he said. “I got a call from one this morning.”

There even have been rumors Dean Spanos has purchased a home in Los Angeles, which he vehemently denies.

“If I’ve purchased a home in Los Angeles, I’ll give you the deed right now,” Spanos said. “I have not purchased a home in Los Angeles and have no intention to purchase a home in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in a long time we have a good relationship with the city and the mayor’s office. There are some smart people there, like Fred Maas (the CCDC chief who is leaving the job at the end of the month) that really want to get something done.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/08/chargers-commit-sd-2011-not-beyond/

[HurricaneHugo]

I don't know why they're so keen on having a public vote when it's not necessary...

[Derek]

...and that's what's wrong with this city...

[brantw]

Some new steel up at the Broadway end of the new courthouse
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5245254581_8f5849675f_b.jpg

The core
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5281/5245254695_ce198e204d_b.jpg

Library through the fence
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5162/5245254739_126b2031f3_b.jpg

That 3rd crane thing that was there last week, is now gone. I think it was to help setup the cranes, but just looked like a skinnier crane.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5245254789_eea82a685a_b.jpg

The new Father Joe's Village building
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5245254841_41026cabbf_b.jpg

[HurricaneHugo]

Where's the Father Joe's village?

[Lipani]

^ Across the street from the MTS bus depot on Imperial.

[HurricaneHugo]

You mean the FUTURE home of the San Diego Super Chargers?!

[kpexpress]

A better East Village - NO CHARGER'S STADIUM

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/suggblkcontdesign2.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/perspectivefrompetco.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/topoflibrarydome.jpg

The possibilities! Charger's Stadium = no village

[tdavis]

A better East Village - NO CHARGER'S STADIUM

The possibilities! Charger's Stadium = no village

Would never happen in the next 20-30 years. The stadium would act as a catalyst to spur development, similar to Gaslamp/Petco. Given the economic mess, and seeing that things won't change for a very long time, the Charger's Stadium is the best bet to help jump start this blighted area of downtown.

[HurricaneHugo]

that looks really ugly

[SDfan]

Kpexpress, I don't know what that is (the upper east village development?), but there aren't enough high-rises (real high-rises) in that alternative plan.

I mean, you fit at least three in there...

[mongoXZ]

With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?

[bmfarley]

With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?
IMO, San Diego needs to keep the Chargers. And, I am not, or was ever, a native of San Diego.

The thing is... a Professional Football team adds a lot of character for the city and really helps market the region.

No Chargers = Sacremento perception. Or, San Jose, Portland Oregon, San Antonio Texas. Basically, second rate cities not committed to big things.

It means no aerial views that are nationally broadcast of the downtown skyline or Mission Valley on Sundays or Mondays. It means less marketing to the liesure and travel industry, and, quite possible fewer conventions... in the long run.

[brantw]

Sacrificing the Chargers and a new stadium just for some densification of East Village is ridiculous.

[bmfarley]

Is this for real.... an alternative to the Charger Stadium at the MTS yard? As if.... MTS was going along anyway?

Unless someone is coming forward with money to relocate MTS... and benefit the agency and public... they are staying right there. Whether it is the Chargers or Father Joe's.

[kpexpress]

With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?

I am not a San Diego native, and I'm not a huge fan of many football teams, but I would hate to see the Chargers leave.

[kpexpress]

Sacrificing the Chargers and a new stadium just for some densification of East Village is ridiculous.

There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.

There's a strong argument for the stadium, but it's hard to have a healthy debate over it in this town with the thick fanfare bias. But that's not unexpected.

[Derek]

A new stadium would pretty much have a million other uses besides being the home of the Chargers.

[HurricaneHugo]

There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.


Yeah because the MTS bus yard is hip and happening right now.

[Lipani]

A new stadium would pretty much have a million other uses besides being the home of the Chargers.

Ideally we'd get an MLS team. However, MLS has been trying to get soccer-specific stadiums built recently. The only team I know of that currently plays in an NFL stadium and wants to stay in one is Seattle (Kansas City, New England and DC are either building new stadiums or lobbying for one).

[staplesla]

There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.

There's a strong argument for the stadium, but it's hard to have a healthy debate over it in this town with the thick fanfare bias. But that's not unexpected.

I have to agree with the others. And I'm not biased at all for football or the Chargers - I for one could care less about either. But to lose the team would be devastating for the city, financially.

And to think that a stadium would create a massive dead zone is incorrect. If I remember correctly don't you serve on a CCDC committee? If so I'm worried. You obviously haven't paid attention to the downtown stadium plans and are considering stadiums of the past. "Massive dead zones" involve stadiums from the 60's-90's. The majority of the new stadiums incorporate a multi-use aspect that help create a vibrant, livable area; which is exactly what the Chargers and the city have been discussing here.

[kpexpress]

I have to agree with the others. And I'm not biased at all for football or the Chargers - I for one could care less about either. But to lose the team would be devastating for the city, financially.

And to think that a stadium would create a massive dead zone is incorrect. If I remember correctly don't you serve on a CCDC committee? If so I'm worried. You obviously haven't paid attention to the downtown stadium plans and are considering stadiums of the past. "Massive dead zones" involve stadiums from the 60's-90's. The majority of the new stadiums incorporate a multi-use aspect that help create a vibrant, livable area; which is exactly what the Chargers and the city have been discussing here.

I have actually paid a little attention to the plans for SD and have had my ear to the ground as to what other teams are proposing and have done in the NFL.

Can you be more specific about the locations you are talking about in your reference to mixed use stadium vibrancy? How are these stadiums 'vibrant' on non-game-day days? Are they urban like ours here? I've looked at many of the more urban stadiums in the NFL today to compare them with our setting here in downtown San Diego because I'm writing a report on this exact topic for my Urban History class. I've found some trends, but first would like to hear which locations you're talking about here.

So far, all we've seen in SD is an artist's rendering of the project - no specific contextual suggestions on mixed use and city integration.

I do serve on the CCAC representing a portion of the East Village residents. Why this would make you nervous I have no idea. To my knowledge I'm the only one on the board who actually tries to reach out to the community on this forum asking for their input. I love a healthy debate - especially on design topics. So far we, as a committee, have not been asked to give our input on the project. I have discussed the issue with many professionals prominent in the SD architecture and planning community, so far, few are stoked about it in terms of how it will effect the city.

[kpexpress]

Yeah because the MTS bus yard is hip and happening right now.

the charger's stadium would be even larger than the MTS site.

[HurricaneHugo]

the charger's stadium would be even larger than the MTS site.

No it would not.

That's one of the knocks against it.

Have to design a SB capable stadium in such a small site.

[Lipani]

Fabiani to field Chargers queries online Wednesday
By Matthew T. Hall

Mark Fabiani, the point person for the Chargers stadium search, will hold an online chat Wednesday with the friendly crowd over at www.sdstadium.org, a website whose tagline is "America's Finest City deserves America's finest stadium."

The San Diego Stadium Coalition is hosting the chat on its website starting at 11:30 a.m. The group's mission? Ensuring a world-class stadium is built for Chargers games and other events.

Fabiani will doubtless use the opportunity, one in a series of chats on the website in recent years, to discuss the Chargers' desire to build in downtown San Diego with an infusion of public money, the threat posed by two potential stadiums in the Los Angeles area and the impact of the torn Metrodome roof on the mix of teams that could move to Los Angeles. Beyond Fabiani's well-worn comments, what should be most interesting is the live question-and-answer session.

Word was being spread on Twitter Tuesday via @ChargersPRGuy aka Bill Johnston, whose actual title is, wait for it, Chargers PR Guy. Brian McCarthy, whose Twitter handle is NFLprguy (one guess what his actual title is) also retweeted Johnston's message.

The NFL has been coy about whether a team in Los Angeles is something it would welcome and some pundits speculate L.A.'s most useful to the league not as a team base but as as a relocation threat for other teams interested in building stadiums in their hometowns.

In any event, everyone seems to agree that no team would relocate to Los Angeles until the Ghost of No Football Next Season goes away. People on either side of ongoing labor negotiations between owners and players have said some or all of next year's NFL games may not be played if a Collective Bargaining Agreement resolution is a long time coming. The current agreement expires at the end of February and players are being told to stash away their pay for a worst-case scenario.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/14/fabiani-to-field-chargers-queries-online-wednesday/

[kpexpress]

No it would not.

That's one of the knocks against it.

Have to design a SB capable stadium in such a small site.

The rendering I've seen shows the stadium taking up MTS entirely (wonder bread bldg) and half of Tailgate park. I assume they won't build out over tail gate park fully because of the fault line that runs North South through that block.

[Lipani]

What will local transportation look like in 2050?
It's crystal ball time for SANDAG board, which votes on plan Friday that contains $100 billion in projects
By Robert J. Hawkins
Originally published December 15, 2010 at 6:09 p.m., updated December 15, 2010 at 7:14 p.m.

What will transportation in San Diego County look like by the year 2050?

That’s a big question, calling for bold answers and a huge amount of faith in public policy prognosticators, arcane computer formulas and reams and reams of data.

And that is just the roll of the dice that the board of directors of the regional planning agency San Diego Association of Governments will be making Friday morning as it is asked to endorse a document called the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

This document has been years in the making and essentially sets the region’s agenda for future highway expansion, transit, trains, trolleys, bike paths and border crossings. And it tries to do this within scenarios that project how fast and where the county population will be growing over the next 40 years.

If this document were a crystal ball, a peek inside would see a county knitted together by speedy buses, trolleys, streetcars, trains and hundreds of miles of bicycle paths. Highways would be wider but chances are you will be paying more as you drive, in tolls and FasTrak fees.

This is more than an exercise. More than $100 billion in transportation funding is at stake. Granted, most of it is already committed, thanks to the TransNet funding tax approved by voters (and expiring in 2048). But there is still up to $3.5 billion in non-earmarked funding in play.

This has all been done before. SANDAG is currently guided by the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, completed in November 2007. And this one builds upon that foundation.

But there are fresh forces at play in this new document.

• There is a growing momentum for more emphasis on mass transit and public transit projects – more trolley lines, more rapid bus services, more bus lines, rail projects that will boost Coaster trains.

• There is also strong momentum for expanded and interconnected bicycle paths that would serve commuter cyclists, walkers and recreational bikers. And indeed, with a recently passed regional bicycle plan in place, the 2050 plan includes $2.58 billion for putting the system in place.

• This is the first regional transportation plan in California to reach this stage while trying to comply with new state-mandated pollution reduction goals. Everything in the plan was introduced with meeting greenhouse gas emission targets in mind.

• While most of the money has been linked to existing transportation projects, many advocates have been urging SANDAG to create a hierarchy for spending that puts mass-transit and bicycle/walking path projects at the head of the list – ahead of highway expansion projects.

The current proposal, is an outgrowth of four scenarios devised by SANDAG planners, each emphasizing a different strength – transit, highways, rail/freight and a blend of all three called the Fusion. With guidance from the board and public commentary, the staff has built the latest model, called the Hybrid.

This plan got the blessings of the Metropolitan transit Systems board and the SANDAG Transportation Committee last week. Some key local advocacy groups like Move San Diego and the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition have given provisional endorsements.

Key aspects of the plan will not please many residents along the North County I-5 corridor who have been opposing the extensive expansion of the highway. Those proposals and funding are included in the 2050 plan.

Some of the key projects identified in the plan are:

• Double-tracking of the Coaster line between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, and the Sprinter line between Oceanside and Escondido.

• Construction of a downtown tunnel – essentially creating a subway – for the trolley.

• Construction of four new trolley lines.

• Construction of three streetcar projects in San Diego.

• There are numerous freeway expansion and improvement projects – but no new highways --many focusing on managed lanes, toll lanes and commuter lanes all of which could mean drivers of the future may be living in a pay-as-you-go world.

The vote on Friday is important. Transit advocates like Elyse Lowe, director of Move san Diego are urging their followers to turn out in numbers and contact their SANDAG representatives.

“Please ask them to expand transit first -- not freeways,” she wrote in a missive this week. “Making transit times competitive with the car will help us realize economic, environmental and quality of life benefits and this is where our investment will pay off with the highest dividends.”

Her stance has been echoed by Pamela Epstein of the Sierra Club and a coalition of groups under the baner Sustainable San Diego.

Others, like Duncan McFetridge of Save Our Forests and Ranchlands and environmental lawyer Marco A. Gonzalez, have been regularly chiding SANDAG for refusing to disclose the code behind to the complex computer formulas that help shape many of its decisions.

Friday’s session in SANDAG’s boardroom at 401 B Street, Downtown, promises to be lively and sprawling but however it comes out, it isn’t the end.

The final 2050 plan will be the subject of public hearings in early 2011 and the board will adopt a final plan by mid-year.

And even then, if they don’t get it exactly right, observes SANDAG executive director Gary Gallegos, by law they go back into the document every four years and make course corrections.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/15/crystal-ball-time-sandag-set-future-transportation/

PDF of the plan:
http://media.signonsandiego.com/news/documents/2010/12/15/2050rtpfinal.pdf

[202_Cyclist]

There is also strong momentum for expanded and interconnected bicycle paths that would serve commuter cyclists, walkers and recreational bikers. And indeed, with a recently passed regional bicycle plan in place, the 2050 plan includes $2.58 billion for putting the system in place.


I am very supportive of more bike paths and bike lanes-- I ride to work 3-4 days per week when the weather permits-- but isn't $2.5B a lot for bike paths? DC is planning a 37-mile streetcar system for $1.5B. This is more than five percent of the total expected cost of high speed rail between SF - LA.

[psychotron]

More public transportation and bike lanes are very encouraging. :tup: The end of the document lists all the projects involved in the 2050 plan. Notables include:

High Speed Rail (HSR) Intercity - Temecula to Lindbergh Field ITC (Intermodal Transit Center)
does this mean the HSR alignment has already been decided?

Sprinter - Branch extensions to North County Fair

Trolley - Downtown tunnel between Park/Island and Ash

Trolley - Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU

Trolley - UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Cyn

Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown Loop

Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown via North Park/Golden Hill

Streetcar - Downtown: Little Italy to East Village

[Derek]

Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown Loop

Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown via North Park/Golden Hill







Too bad this can't happen anytime soon... :(

[HurricaneHugo]

I'm just glad it's being talked about. :)

Screw the bike paths though lol

[Lipani]

^ Indeed. So many of our city leaders seem content to keep the status quo rather than even consider positive developments.

[Lipani]

Public invited to opening of cruise ship terminal terminal
By Lori Weisberg
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 6 a.m.

The public on Saturday will get its first up-close look at the new $28 million cruise ship terminal at Broadway Pier, which is being transformed into an old-fashioned amusement park to commemorate the Port Pavilion.

The 52,000-square-foot facility is designed to do double duty as both an auxiliary cruise ship terminal and a public events space.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/11/05/terminal_1_t593.jpg?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/17/public-invited-to-celebrate-opening-of-cruise-ship/

Not as bad as I'd thought it would look, but not great either. Now if only projects to redevelop the Embarcadero would forward!

[brantw]

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/11/05/terminal_1_t593.jpg?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/17/public-invited-to-celebrate-opening-of-cruise-ship/

Not as bad as I'd thought it would look, but not great either. Now if only projects to redevelop the Embarcadero would forward!

How are they gonna do this if it rains tomorrow?

[bmfarley]

More public transportation and bike lanes are very encouraging. :tup: The end of the document lists all the projects involved in the 2050 plan. Notables include:

High Speed Rail (HSR) Intercity - Temecula to Lindbergh Field ITC (Intermodal Transit Center)
does this mean the HSR alignment has already been decided?

Sprinter - Branch extensions to North County Fair

Trolley - Downtown tunnel between Park/Island and Ash

Trolley - Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU

Trolley - UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Cyn

Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown Loop

Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown via North Park/Golden Hill

Streetcar - Downtown: Little Italy to East Village
Although welcome, this is BS. The report identifies $1.3 ish billion for transit improvements. That is definately not enough. The downtown underground alignment alone would consume all of that... about $500-$600 million per mile! Also, there appears to be a slight of hand at work... One or two or more of the four "LRT" lines, is really BRT.

Where are the maps?

Additionally, 1) HSR to Lindbergh vs. to Downtown, and 2) No commuter overlay (= additional stations and operating funds) is very short-sighted. It is akin to an osterich sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the addictions brought my auto's and implications for a vibrant and prosperous downtown.

[HurricaneHugo]

HSR to Lindbergh is even dumber than Qualcomm.

[kpexpress]

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2718.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2721.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2723.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2724.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2725.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2727.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2730.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2732.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/IMG_2733.jpg

[bmfarley]

As I felt before, this is a dumb place to put a cruise ship terminal. The Pier at the end of Broadway should be open for complete public use. A park.

A better place for a cruise ship terminal would have been opposite the County Admin Bldg.... whihc is a place surrounded by a celebration of "the car".

[bmfarley]

Here's my concept for a Downtown Underground Alignment for the Trolley. It would only be for the Blue & Orange lines; the Green Line and Mid-Coast Line would come down from Old Town and continue along the Bay side to 12th/Imperial.

For the tunnel, beginning at 12th/Imperial, each line would arrive at the station on different platforms before coming together for the trunk segment. Southbound does not matter, except to avoid conflicting moves.

Afterwards, each proceeds north in a new alignment across Tailgate Park toward K & 14th street. And, then begin a slight downward grade. Combined with the natural grade/terrain, the alignment could easily reach sufficient depth to be underground before K Street. A 12th Street/Park or 13th Street alignment is not desirable (more on why later).

Once underground, it would proceed up 14th Street to E Street. At E Street, it would begin a 90-degree curve to line-up with Broadway. Once along Broadway, it would continue west and end adjacent to Santa Fe Depot at a terminal station where all Blue and Orange Line trains would end. No entry from the North or along the Bay side would be provided. The existing at-grade alignment would remain for Green Line service and the proposed street-car service. The Mid-Coast project would do the same as the Green Line... Bay side to 12th/Imperial.

Subway stations could be at:
- 14th/Market
- Broadway/12th
- Broadway/5th
- Broadway/Kettner

The benefits of a tunnel are substantial to downtown. They include, 1) quicker trains into the core of downtown, 2) a doubling of capacity (12 TPH today vs. up to 24 TPH), and 3) reducing train frequency at street-level crossings at numerous streets and intersections - only a streetcar would remain.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1880/sandiegobasetunnel3.jpg

A North-South alignment on 12th is not desirable for constructability reasons; the Trolley is already there. On 13th Street, I believe a large box culvert is there that provides stormwater runoff from Balboa Park. There might also be remanants of a fault line that runs generally north-south (running parrallel within 100 feet is not advisable, but crossing perpendicularly is constructable and done elsewhere).

Los Angeles and San Francisco are each moving forward on new subway alignments. More information on those can be found at:

Los Angeles Regional Connector: http://www.metro.net/projects/connector/
San Francisco Central Subway: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm

I suppose after San Diego, Sacramento would be next???

[mello]

I wanted to see if you guys think that downtown needs something like the Disney Concert Hall in LA. This decade both that facility and the Nokia theatre opened. The Nokia theatre has quite a large capacity as well. I know that the Balboa theatre is open, has anyone been in there, is it nice? Just wanted to get your thoughts on if SD should step up and build another entertainment/concert facility downtown.

[Lipani]

I suppose after San Diego, Sacramento would be next???

Due to the levees it's doubtful a subway system would ever happen in Sac. As a Sacramento native I don't think the density is there right now or in the foreseeable future. For several years they've been trying to follow the Portland model; mostly without success, as major projects stalled at the beginning of the financial crisis. Plus Nimbys in East Sac and Curtis Park would sue to stop anything costing more than $20.

[HurricaneHugo]

I wanted to see if you guys think that downtown needs something like the Disney Concert Hall in LA. This decade both that facility and the Nokia theatre opened. The Nokia theatre has quite a large capacity as well. I know that the Balboa theatre is open, has anyone been in there, is it nice? Just wanted to get your thoughts on if SD should step up and build another entertainment/concert facility downtown.

I want a new stadium and a new sports arena before that lol.

The arena can double as a concert facility lol

[mello]

I want a new stadium and a new sports arena before that lol.

The arena can double as a concert facility lol

I was thinking that as well. SD really does not have a quality large scale concert facility. Is Cox Arena nice for that? I'm surprised Qualcomm hasn't stepped up and tried to work with other investors to bring a state of the art arena to the San Diego area.

[HurricaneHugo]

Or hell just make the new Chargers stadium with a tent-like retractable roof AND movable seating so it can double as an arena.

Too innovative for this city I know.

[kpexpress]

I was thinking that as well. SD really does not have a quality large scale concert facility. Is Cox Arena nice for that? I'm surprised Qualcomm hasn't stepped up and tried to work with other investors to bring a state of the art arena to the San Diego area.

Surprisingly downtown SD has a strong theater area. Although no one's heard of anyone calling anything a 'theater district' in Downtown. Balboa, Lyceum, Civic, Spreckels, and Symphony Tower Theater.

Balboa is quite nice, a bit small, but nice. I think Civic is the largest. Full disclosure - I've only been in a few of them.

[kpexpress]

Here's my concept for a Downtown Underground Alignment for the Trolley. It would only be for the Blue & Orange lines; the Green Line and Mid-Coast Line would come down from Old Town and continue along the Bay side to 12th/Imperial.

For the tunnel, beginning at 12th/Imperial, each line would arrive at the station on different platforms before coming together for the trunk segment. Southbound does not matter, except to avoid conflicting moves.

Afterwards, each proceeds north in a new alignment across Tailgate Park toward K & 14th street. And, then begin a slight downward grade. Combined with the natural grade/terrain, the alignment could easily reach sufficient depth to be underground before K Street. A 12th Street/Park or 13th Street alignment is not desirable (more on why later).

Once underground, it would proceed up 14th Street to E Street. At E Street, it would begin a 90-degree curve to line-up with Broadway. Once along Broadway, it would continue west and end adjacent to Santa Fe Depot at a terminal station where all Blue and Orange Line trains would end. No entry from the North or along the Bay side would be provided. The existing at-grade alignment would remain for Green Line service and the proposed street-car service. The Mid-Coast project would do the same as the Green Line... Bay side to 12th/Imperial.

Subway stations could be at:
- 14th/Market
- Broadway/12th
- Broadway/5th
- Broadway/Kettner

The benefits of a tunnel are substantial to downtown. They include, 1) quicker trains into the core of downtown, 2) a doubling of capacity (12 TPH today vs. up to 24 TPH), and 3) reducing train frequency at street-level crossings at numerous streets and intersections - only a streetcar would remain.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1880/sandiegobasetunnel3.jpg

A North-South alignment on 12th is not desirable for constructability reasons; the Trolley is already there. On 13th Street, I believe a large box culvert is there that provides stormwater runoff from Balboa Park. There might also be remanants of a fault line that runs generally north-south (running parrallel within 100 feet is not advisable, but crossing perpendicularly is constructable and done elsewhere).

Los Angeles and San Francisco are each moving forward on new subway alignments. More information on those can be found at:

Los Angeles Regional Connector: http://www.metro.net/projects/connector/
San Francisco Central Subway: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm

I suppose after San Diego, Sacramento would be next???

Few things:
1) I like the idea of burying transit downtown, but if you burry anything it should be the Orange line along the waterfront and throw in the heavy rail (santa fe) in there too to allow little to few obstructions between residents and the bay front (let's not talk about the convention center - another discussion I guess).

2) Not sure if you can have the line cross tailgate park cause of the larger fault line that runs through that block - that's why it's a parking lot now and not built out, or planned to be built out.

3) I would rather see a double loop system downtown and not a singular running down Broadway serving both North and South sides of B street (being the heavy commercial density and the heavy concentration of state bldgs along font street.)

[kpexpress]

incorporating the line that circles Balboa Park into a central station type place (built into horton plaza...perhaps in the soon-to-be-approved urban plaza)

Curious on peeps thought's on this diagram. Would be cool to further a series of these diagrams and see how well we can get this thing.

Input please.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/Screenshot2010-12-19at104622PM.jpg

[HurricaneHugo]

Needs a line going up Park Blvd to da Zoo

[kpexpress]

Needs a line going up Park Blvd to da Zoo

Like fairly said the park blvd rails should remain intact and expanded up park into the park and zoo and onto university and north. It could be an at grade trolley system. I'll throw it in the diagram and expand

[bmfarley]

incorporating the line that circles Balboa Park into a central station type place (built into horton plaza...perhaps in the soon-to-be-approved urban plaza)

Curious on peeps thought's on this diagram. Would be cool to further a series of these diagrams and see how well we can get this thing.

Input please.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/Screenshot2010-12-19at104622PM.jpg

Both the Blue and Orange Lines need to penetrate the core; that is where people are destined. Forcing a transfer is NOT good service.

Concerning the Bay side alignment being placed below grade... there needs to be a very good argument - ones supported by policy and performance measures - to successufully argue that public funding should be used to create the grade separations. At least, transit funding. It is also challenging to do something like that when an existing line is already operating above. Same with frieght.

That said, CCDC did a study 10-15 years ago concerning the cost of putting the freight stuff below grade. I believe two options were considered, each costing in excessive of $100 million. Costs have certainly increased since then.

Btw, how much is the new library going to cost?

[kpexpress]

Both the Blue and Orange Lines need to penetrate the core; that is where people are destined. Forcing a transfer is NOT good service.

Concerning the Bay side alignment being placed below grade... there needs to be a very good argument - ones supported by policy and performance measures - to successufully argue that public funding should be used to create the grade separations. At least, transit funding. It is also challenging to do something like that when an existing line is already operating above. Same with frieght.

That said, CCDC did a study 10-15 years ago concerning the cost of putting the freight stuff below grade. I believe two options were considered, each costing in excessive of $100 million. Costs have certainly increased since then.

If the purple line existed, I would ride it everyday! Oh and the Red dashed line running up Pershing would be a rapid bus link option.

Btw, how much is the new library going to cost?

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn60/kpexpress42/Screenshot2010-12-20at103100PM.jpg

I think when one looks at the transit system as of now, its easy to see that most all the riders on the Orange and Blue Lines are people coming in from the suburbs into downtown.

I've lived in the East Village for more than 5 years now (all within four blocks) and I rarely (sadly) take the trolley. It's designed to cater to people coming into the city from the suburbs.

Its not really designed for someone already in the downtown area to use it, unless you want to head to an area outside of downtown. You would need to walk of the central part of the city (say the gaslamp or something) to get to a stop then ride the trolley to the opposite (another edge) get off then walk back into the central part of downtown to where you wanted to go. It's easier and quicker to just walk.

I think the purple line (and transfers) would cater mostly to people who already live downtown. And when you look at it from a broader angle (see purple line) people living in the Mid City areas (North Park, South Park, Golden Hill, Hillcrest, Bankers Hill, and MIssion HIlls) who don't have rail service would benefit greatly from having a direct connection to the heart of downtown and not to an edge of downtown. People in downtown want a direct connection to these neighborhoods as well. Welcome Purple line...

Oh and the Red dashed line running up Pershing would be an optional bus rapid.

[Lipani]

Here's more on the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=349&fuseaction=projects.detail).

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3294/2050mapzoom.gif
http://www.sdmts.com/marketing/regionaltransitplan2050.asp

Looks like there's a lot to love. If I had one complaint, it's that this looks more like a 2030 plan rather than a 2050 plan. Many of these ideas should've been done years ago.

On a side note: Doing anything in Sorrento Valley/Mira Mesa would be great. I usually take the Coaster from downtown to work. On these rare, rainy days I'll drive as a matter of convenience. Raining or not, this area is a nightmare during commuting hours. You could add another on-ramp, but then people will just get stuck on the 805 a little earlier (maybe). :haha:

[HurricaneHugo]

Seriously what's up with this rain? :(

[Derek]

I LOVE this rain! :D

[Lipani]

^ Just move to Portland already, you little bastard! :haha:

Coaster service was canceled today due to the storms; so was Battle of the Bands. This weather needs to go to hell already.

[HurricaneHugo]

I'm going to need a boat to finish my christmas shopping. :\

[Lipani]

^ You can always sail around the Q's parking lot:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8987/qtrolley.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1898/qparking.png

Or inside the stadium!

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7859/theqd.jpg

And play a round of golf in a lake later on:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7484/valley4t593.jpg

(All pics from the Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/galleries/2010/dec/21/storm-drenches-san-diego/))

[Lipani]

Not much of a surprise here...

SANDAG Board Endorses 14 Lanes For 1-5
By Maureen Cavanaugh, Pat Finn
December 22, 2010

The proposal to widen a 27-mile stretch of Interstate 5 from La Jolla to Camp Pendleton has gotten a big push forward from the San Diego Association of Governments. Last Friday, SANDAG members overwhelmingly approved the Regional Transportation Plan which includes the proposal to widen I-5 by 6 lanes from Del Mar to Carlsbad.

The I-5 expansion plan has run up against strong opposition in recent months. Environmentalists have warned about the impact of the construction on sensitive areas; North County residents are concerned about noise; and about 30 homeowners will be forced to move if the SANDAG-approved expansion plan goes forward.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/dec/22/sandag-board-endorses-14-lanes-1-5/

[HurricaneHugo]

THIRTY HOMEOWNERS will lose their freeway views?!

[eburress]

THIRTY HOMEOWNERS will lose their freeway views?!

Those homes probably also have ocean views, but nevertheless, they need to quit their bitching. If they have to move, they would be doing so for the good of the region. In order to make a better city, some people are going to have to make sacrifices, and San Diegans' unwillingness to do so is a big part of the reason why this city is in the state its in.

[HurricaneHugo]

I'll gladly move out of my home if they ever decided to put a lid on the 805 between the 94 and Imperial Avenue. :)

As long as they pay me of course. :D

[mello]

Is that huge Mission Valley development on the old quarry site going through? I saw an aerial of the flooding East of the 805 and noticed a huge chunk of graded land on the North end of the valley. I know that was a giant and controversial development and hadn't heard any news about it in this thread.

About the 5 widening my question to the detractors is how are you really going to put in decent transit to get people to SD's scattered and sprawling office parks all over the county? Especially in hilly and super sprawly North County. It is not going to happen, so yes the 5 does need to be widened.

I bet all of those people who fought to have the 805 end where it does are kicking themselves. The reason North County's traffic is so horrendous is due to just having the 5 right on the coast and then the 15 so far inland with no N/S highway in between.

[HurricaneHugo]

Wait what about the 805?

[mello]

Wait what about the 805?

I mean that in hindsight it would have been much better for North County transportation and infrastructure had the 805 continued on up through Oceanside and either merged with 5 there or just hit the 76 where you could either go east to the 15 or west to the 5 on that highway.

Back when the 805 was built planners did not envision North County booming, you really had nothing east of 5 until you got all the way up to Vista and Escondido. San Marcos was nothing. East of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Carlsbad was all open land until the mid 70's. Vista and Escondido were the only population centers in Inland North County. Poway was maybe 5000 people if that. No Rancho Bernardo, Penasquitos, Carmel Valley, etc.

I have lived in Central San Diego (Bay Park and Hillcrest) and grew up in Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe. The traffic flows much better in central SD because you have 5, 805, 163, and 15 all so close to each other. In the North you just have I-5 right along the beach and the 15 was inland with nothing in between.

[bmfarley]

Due to the levees it's doubtful a subway system would ever happen in Sac. As a Sacramento native I don't think the density is there right now or in the foreseeable future. For several years they've been trying to follow the Portland model; mostly without success, as major projects stalled at the beginning of the financial crisis. Plus Nimbys in East Sac and Curtis Park would sue to stop anything costing more than $20.

Levees do not preclude underground alignments, after-all, BART is under the Bay and countless systems are under rivers. Btw, a rail system does not need to be underground through an entire system; only where needed. And, a 1-3 mile portion in downtown Sacramento could be a possible location.

"Need" is through the necessity to effeciency and/or capacity of a system.

By the way, Sacramento RTD already runs some 4-car trains on a light-rail system... this provides some evidence that rider demand is present. They probably cannot run shorter trains more often because they cannot process any more??? (Research needed on that one)

Brings up the question, at least in my mind, which of California's largest cities that have rail service will put their system underground for the purpose of improving effeciency or capacity? San Francisco and Los Angeles already have underground alignments downtown. And, each is further expanding their systems. Is Sacramento next? Or San Diego next? Someone has to be next.

Just for fun:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1880/sandiegobasetunnel3.jpg

[eburress]

^^ I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be San Diego. :haha:

[eburress]

Since we're talking about rail and all that (and there's not much else going on), I thought I'd post the "future" SD rail system map I made a few years ago. It's large so sorry for the scrolling. :)

http://www.mondomorphic.com/sandiego/sdrail.png

I had another version in which the 805 didn't merge with the 5. It was glorious.

[HurricaneHugo]

Makes me cry that it'll never look like that. :(

[eburress]

Makes me cry that it'll never look like that. :(

hahaha - me too! It's fun to imagine but depressing at the same time.

[kpexpress]

Since we're talking about rail and all that (and there's not much else going on), I thought I'd post the "future" SD rail system map I made a few years ago. It's large so sorry for the scrolling. :)

http://www.mondomorphic.com/sandiego/sdrail.png

I had another version in which the 805 didn't merge with the 5. It was glorious.

Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, and Golden Hill (all the mid cities with the most density) gets the shaft.

[monpetitloup]

Hi everyone--I just moved to San Diego from Portland, OR (and no I did not bring the rain with me). I love it here and have been enjoying your posts on this forum--especially the maps of transit systems both proposed and wished for.
While living in Portland I would ride their streetcar system, which was designed to serve residents within the downtown area with a loop route design connecting the South Waterfront to NW Portland. It's a different system than their light-rail which mostly serves commuters and is entirely city owned and operated. Their streetcar system is a public/private operation with Portland Streetcar Inc. (http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/node/25), a private non-profit that partners with the city of Portland to construct and operate the system. Each streetcar vehicle is also "sponsored" by businesses both local and non-local and each station stop is sponsored by businesses. The streetcar lines go up pretty fast. The second streetcar line which broke ground in August of 2009 is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2011. The original streetcar route spurred 4 billion dollars in investment and redevelopment of once desolate areas like the Pearl district and portions of downtown like the West End and the area near Portland State University.

I think a public-private partnership could work in San Diego and a plan similar to Portland's might speed up approval and construction of a streetcar route or loop linking Balboa Park, Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, and Golden Hill with Downtown. It would spur investment and development in those areas and serve the residents of these communities who for instance might live in South Park and want to leave their car at home and hop on the streetcar to go to Whole Foods in Hillcrest.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this subject. I think the public-private thing is crucial to speeding this type of development along.

[laguna]

Public/Private enterprise? Very interesting concept, consider for a moment:

Private enterprises need to make a profit or at least not lose their money.

Public agencies need funding from tax money or bonds.

Maybe you havent heard the news. Rail systems are money loser on a huge scale. Governments in California (and across the country) are broke and their bonding abilities is nil.

But I am sure you got an A in your college public planning class. You will fit in well on this forum with the other young diddlers.

Welcome! :banana:

[Chaka Khanvict]

Public/Private enterprise? Very interesting concept, consider for a moment:

Private enterprises need to make a profit or at least not lose their money.

Public agencies need funding from tax money or bonds.

Maybe you havent heard the news. Rail systems are money loser on a huge scale. Governments in California (and across the country) are broke and their bonding abilities is nil.

But I am sure you got an A in your college public planning class. You will fit in well on this forum with the other young diddlers.

Welcome! :banana:

Wow what a welcome Laguna. Jeez.

[Lipani]

New City Hall may rise without public vote
New-look council might be willing to forego election and back building
BY CRAIG GUSTAFSON, UNION-TRIBUNE
JEN LEBRON KUHNEY, UNION-TRIBUNE
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2010 AT 7:12 P.M.

The debate over whether to build a new San Diego City Hall is expected to begin anew early next year as city leaders weigh three choices: abandon the project, put it to a public vote or bypass voters and build it.

The $293.5 million project was shelved last summer because city officials didn’t want it to appear on the November ballot alongside a proposed sales-tax hike, a measure that was roundly rejected by voters. Now the project — and its projected taxpayer savings — could be revived by a new-look City Council that may be willing to forego a public vote and break ground.

City leaders have considered proposals to replace City Hall in each of the past three decades. A City Council majority voted against a $370 million plan supported by then-Mayor Maureen O’Connor in 1991, the closest officials have come to realizing the goal.

There’s little debate that the current City Hall has major drawbacks. The building doesn’t have fire sprinklers on every floor; there are frequent plumbing problems; and it could easily be mistaken for a rundown office building instead of the political epicenter of the nation’s eighth-largest city.

None of that is likely to engender sympathy from voters who have been frustrated with decades of financial mismanagement by city officials.

Council members, pointing to recent voter rejection of the sales tax hike, said they expect a similar fate if the City Hall project is put to a public vote.

The city also faces a $73 million budget deficit for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which suggests to some that it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend four times that on a new City Hall. But supporters, including Mayor Jerry Sanders, say the project would save millions in taxpayer money by consolidating city operations into a single building.

Councilman Carl DeMaio, the most vehement critic of the project, said city leaders have much bigger worries than constructing a shiny new building.

“We couldn’t afford it four months ago and we cannot afford it today,” he said.

But much has changed since July when Sanders vetoed a plan to put the new City Hall to a public vote.

Four council members had vowed not to approve the project without an election — DeMaio, Sherri Lightner, Kevin Faulconer and Donna Frye. That blocked the project from getting five votes needed on the eight-member panel to move forward.

But Frye is out of office now.

Two new council members — Republican Lorie Zapf and Democrat David Alvarez — took office this month.

Alvarez said he supports moving forward without a public vote as long as the project makes financial sense.

“People elect us to make decisions to our best ability and I think that if it’s a good deal for taxpayers, it’s our responsibility as their representatives to support it and make that decision,” he said.

During the campaign, Zapf said she opposed the project but was open to a public vote. She was far less committal when her office was asked last week where she stood on the issue.

Zapf’s spokesman, Job Nelson, said the councilwoman thinks there is some merit to the project given potential savings in building maintenance and leased office space but understands why many are struggling with the notion of building a new City Hall while cuts are threatened to public safety and other services.

“We’re kind of stuck in the middle of this one,” Nelson said. “I would say we side with the community and we need to fix the strong distrust they have before we can try.”

The project’s fate likely hangs on Zapf’s final decision.

The current plan calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, where Golden Hall sits just west of the existing City Hall. It would include two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat City Council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,400 city office workers.

It’s a scaled-down version of the original proposal by Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen for a 34-story structure with 1 million square feet.

City officials say the current 13-story building, which opened in 1965, is too small and will require $37 million in repairs over the next decade, at the end of which the structure would have to be replaced. The new building would allow the city to consolidate operations and eliminate about $13 million in annual lease payments at other downtown locations.

Much of that savings would then be used over the next 30 years to pay off the $320 million the city would need to borrow to finance the project. That total is higher than the construction estimate because of the cost of issuing bonds. An estimate from the council’s independent budget analyst said the total cost of the project would be about $613 million over three decades with interest and debt payments factored in.

Sanders said the city would have money left over after paying for the new building. He projects savings of about $24 million over the first 10 years and as much as $232 million during the building’s 50-year life cycle.

“It’s an option that we need to seriously consider,” he said.

Councilman Todd Gloria, who supports moving ahead without a public vote, said he knows voters would be hesitant to approve the project but that doesn’t stop the city from needing it.

“It’s not about just saving money today. We need to think about the future,” Gloria said.

Council President Tony Young, who sets the agenda, said he has not yet set a hearing date to revisit the issue but will address the proposed City Hall in a speech he plans to deliver next month.

The original timeline called for construction to begin in January 2012 with the goal of opening by July 2014.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/06/24/cityhallrendering_t593.jpg?f53c1bb70f629018cec0bd6246c82dae770b93ac
An artist's rendering shows the proposed 19-story San Diego City Hall, which is significantly scaled back from the original proposal.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/26/san-diego-city-hall-project-rises-from-the-ashes/

[Lipani]

Four San Diego parks to be remade for celebrations
Goal is to create centers for public gatherings and special occasions
By Roger Showley

Over the next four years, San Diegans will gain quite a choice of places to celebrate New Year’s Eve.

By Jan. 1, 2015, if all plans unfold as promoters hope, San Diegans will be able to:

• Stroll along the North Embarcadero in a widened, landscaped esplanade.

• Gather in our finest attire in Balboa Park’s car-free Plaza de Panama and celebrate the centennial of its Panama-California Exposition, the 20th century event that put San Diego on the map.

• Follow the fireworks shows on the bay from a five-acre park, atop the expanded San Diego Convention Center.

• Watch the ball drop at the much-enlarged and historically restored Horton Plaza Park.

And in neighborhoods throughout the county and around the nation, other parks are likely to be added, spruced up and ready to party in what national park expert Peter Harnik calls a new “golden age” of parks.

“I think the city parks movement is gaining so much momentum everywhere, it’s just tremendous,” said Harnik, director of the Center for City Park Excellence at the Trust for Public Land in Washington. “There is competition between cities as they’re looking over their shoulders at each other. They’re all looking for something to distinguish themselves.”

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/12/22/parks-map-23dec10_t593.JPG?f53c1bb70f629018cec0bd6246c82dae770b93ac
Four new parks for major civic-gathering events are planned in Balboa Park and downtown, while other parks are sprouting up around the county.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/12/22/balboa_4_t593.jpg?
Balboa Park - Plaza de Panama

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/12/22/conventionCROP_t593.jpg?
Convention Center expansion

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/12/22/Horton_Park_Rendering2_1_t593.jpg?
Horton Plaza Park - expanded

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/12/22/Waterfront_Promenade_312046_rendering_t593.jpg?f53c1bb70f629018cec0bd6246c82dae770b93ac
North Embarcadero Visionary Plan - 1st phase
More from the Union-Tribune article here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/23/four-new-places-coming-ring-new-year/).

[eburress]

Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, and Golden Hill (all the mid cities with the most density) gets the shaft.

Yeah, I maliciously "shafted" those communities with my drawing. Of all the nerve of me.

[Derek]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/26/san-diego-city-hall-project-rises-from-the-ashes/

[Lipani]

Beat you to it, Derek. ;)

[bmfarley]

Public/Private enterprise? Very interesting concept, consider for a moment:

Private enterprises need to make a profit or at least not lose their money.

Public agencies need funding from tax money or bonds.

Maybe you havent heard the news. Rail systems are money loser on a huge scale. Governments in California (and across the country) are broke and their bonding abilities is nil.

But I am sure you got an A in your college public planning class. You will fit in well on this forum with the other young diddlers.

Welcome! :banana:You are right from 10,000 feet. In fact, a closer look reveals that all modes are subsidized.
All transportation modes are subsidized.

[Derek]

Beat you to it, Derek. ;)



Oh oops. :cheers:

[HurricaneHugo]

What's that building on top of the convention center?

[Lipani]

^ I presume it's supposed to be the hotel that is planned to be part of the convention center expansion.

[Lipani]

Here are some better pictures of the Convention Center expansion. Fentress Architects won the bid for project. I honestly don't see how a lot of this space will be used except when the big conventions (i.e. Comic-Con) come to town.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/fentress_san_diego_01.jpg

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/fentress_san_diego_02.jpg

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/fentress_san_diego_04.jpg
http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=5033

[SDfan]

Uptown Trolley Expansion Ideas:

http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42988:lauren-ventura-writing-for-san-diego-uptown-news&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89

[psychotron]

Uptown Trolley Expansion Ideas:

http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42988:lauren-ventura-writing-for-san-diego-uptown-news&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89

The amount of money SANDAG spends on freeway expansion is staggering. I understand the freeway situation needs to be addressed, but just a fraction of those billions of dollars could be used to get streetcars up and running. It would be useful to both residents and tourists, and also become a defining aspect of our city. Maybe those transnet funds can't be used for a project like this.

[HurricaneHugo]

I think they're already a defining aspect of another city (SF).

We need to bring the trolley up there!

[SDfan]

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/fentress_san_diego_01.jpg


Don't you love how Coronado disappeared from this rendering? Imagine the city was just on the ocean...

[HurricaneHugo]

Yeah man lets blow up Coronado!

[mello]

Just read on article in the UT about major projects moving forward in 2011 across the county. UCSD will be building a 10 floor hospital east of the 5. Then I was amazed to read that a giant hospital on Camp Pendleton that has already started construction won't be finished until 2014!!!! How on earth can it take 4 years to build a hospital?? The Chinese could bang it out in 1.5 years tops.

Oh and the Mission Valley "Civita" development at the Quarry site has begun but get this, they will build it out in phases over 12 to 15 years. 4600 townhomes and condos with possible 1 million square feet of commercial space. And there is word that at the Hazard Center expansion they are proposing two 20 floor residential towers. I believe they are approved.

[HurricaneHugo]

Stupid valley's rim!

[HurricaneHugo]

Also cool map showing racial/income breakdowns.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?hp?hp

Dunno but it seems it's a bit off for SD.

I don't there are that many white people south of the MLK lol

In fact, I've only heard white people refer to the 94 as the MLK lol

[SDfan]

Also cool map showing racial/income breakdowns.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?hp?hp

Dunno but it seems it's a bit off for SD.

I don't there are that many white people south of the MLK lol

In fact, I've only heard white people refer to the 94 as the MLK lol

I live right off the 94, in Golden Hill, and you are the first person I've encountered who calls it the MLK. haha.

[SDfan]

And there is word that at the Hazard Center expansion they are proposing two 20 floor residential towers. I believe they are approved.

They're not just proposing, they're approved and waiting for the economy to pick up. I watched the hearing for this project and thank goodness Frye was in the minority for this one... There are renderings for it on the Hazard Center website.

[HurricaneHugo]

I live right off the 94, in Golden Hill, and you are the first person I've encountered who calls it the MLK. haha.

I don't actually call it the MLK I just remembered that the few white people I know here (Mount Hope) call it that lol.

It does sound cool though. 8)