The Union Tribune keeps having these articles with headline: Should UCSD build a 5 to 6k bed "Student Village"? I don't pay so I can't read the article but aren't they already have one approved to start soon at that "Pepper Canyon" site that was discussed here on the forum a couple of months ago with renderings for a new Student Union or some amenities besides just the dorms?

Is there another giant student housing project that is being thrown around besides that one? Thanks.

Yes there is another student housing project in the works. The Pepper Canyon project is already under construction (I was at UCSD today and one of the towers is already at 20 stories, the other is in the teens).

The new village would be east of the Pepper Canyon project on the other side of the Blue line trolley tracks right on I-5. They're saying it would be a multi-high-rise project, though exact heights have not been shared.

A crane up at 3rd and Nutmeg St. in Bankers Hill

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8e5f81ec_h.jpg

Here is a video of the current work from the developer: https://www.cast-dev.com/kaya-virtual-tour

There are three major student housing projects currently u/c at UC San Diego. The Pepper Canyon West one which you can see by the Trolley is 1,400 beds or so. There's a larger one (Ridge Walk north) just west of Geisel Library that's 2,400 beds.

The Theater District project is about to be complete. It's also quite large.

I think SDFan is right that Pepper Canyon East is the one that's being hinted at by the U-T. It will be larger than these three I believe.

Looks like Target is pulling out of its planned EV location, citing crime & rising homelessness in the area. Such a shame that downtown just can't have nice things...

I haven't heard about downtown having rampant shoplifting issues. I know Bay Area and LA for sure have them in their urban areas maybe Target thinks SD will go that way in downtown especially with a massive recession looming...

I know Target has been closing stores in urban areas in Chicago, Philly, Bay, and possibly other places. Anyone have any Intel about this issue and Target being worried?

https://i.imgur.com/lw6squu.jpg
Source: reddit

I saw this pic on reddit. It's a nice view, but it made me realize how little impact the Pacific Gateway/RaDD has on the skyline itself. I had to zoom in to check if it was a recent pic or not.

Don't get me wrong I'm glad something's there instead of that parking lot, and I hope it adds some much needed street activity, but I'm a little disappointed how bland it looks.

Did they cite these as reasons for canceling the SD location? From what I saw that was only the rationale for closing the existing locations elsewhere, and they didn't give a reason for canceling this one. I was under the impression East Village has actually been seeing a lot of growth and renewal, so it's weird that Target would want to pull out.

East Village IS seeing a lot of growth and renewal. And it's true that Target is closing a bunch of it's tiny urban stores... it's a failed model that they are scrapping. Organized shoplifting (not homeless people, btw) is indeed a problem in general, but Target wouldn't be the first company to try to justify their failings or shady motivations (Starbucks) on homeless people / crime.

I was just out in Chicago this past weekend for the Chicago Marathon, and despite all the negative news you hear in the media about the Chi-town, I was impressed by how clean the whole city was. Running a marathon through it and spending a few extra days gave me some time to really get a good feel for it.

The pros:
- Very little homeless, didn't see any at public transit spots or under bridges.
- Clean streets, well paved, good lighting at night, beautiful landscaping
- Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, wide sidewalks everywhere
- Great public transit - comes frequently and takes you wherever you need to go.
- LOTS of new development on the north side of downtown where we stayed

Cons:
- Chicago can't compete with the natural beauty & weather of San Diego
- Crime still exists, but seems to be very concentrated in particular neighborhoods from my experience. Downtown & surrounding areas felt very safe.

Downtown San Diego has UNLIMITED potential to grow if you alleviate homelessness and ensure public safety. (1) Got the best weather in the country, (2) we're among top desirable cities for young professionals, and (3) remote work means anyone can live and work in San Diego. In today's day and age, the employee is determining where the employer should set up shop. If people heavily prefer to live in San Diego, we will see more employers move here. We have a strong educational base here (SDSU, UCSD, USD + more) to support more businesses and industry growth.

I think San Diego has some real issues with the homeless (& drug) crisis that need to be properly handled if we are to see downtown continue to excel. The feedback I receive from people I know living downtown is very similar - something along the lines of "it's fun... BUT there are lots of homeless and it's dirty." Even if you live in Little Italy, the second you go to cross the 5 freeway or head south toward C street, you're greeted with lines of homeless tents. I would rather live downtown, but I live in Pacific Beach for this reason... wouldn't want my GF walking at night downtown. I think you're going to see vacancy rates start to rise in the coming months due to the homeless issue.

World-class downtowns like Chicago show us that it doesn't have to be this way. You can claim the weather aiding the homeless issue, but if you go to Miami (which is attracting young adults in droves) you'll see they also have a much cleaner downtown and fewer homeless. If we fix the homeless issue, I believe San Diego can compete head-to-head with the likes of Miami, Austin, and other top growth markets in attracting new investment and residents. Provide a clean, safe, downtown for people to work, live and play, and you'll see downtown San Diego truly boom.

I think we are at a fork in the road of either worsening homelessness and stagnating development or alleviating homelessness and allowing the city to boom.

Thought it'd be worth striking conversation, its been quiet on the forum.

Very good points

San Diego is an interesting place. Its easily the most overlooked urban area in the country (San Antonio, TX is a distant second).. I was born there and even I forget it exists. Having lived all over the US, i can say that regarding cities in California: Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, Oxnard, and Eureka have come up more in random conversaton than San Diego. (Even places like Eugene and Salem, OR and Redmond, WA have a higher profile). I can definitively say that the only thing most americans know about San Diego is "Anchorman" and "big zoo". Also nuclear submarines and tijuana.

Its not its fault, of course; its overshadowed on two different levels: on the state level AND WITHIN Southern California. If SD had been in its own state for the last 60 years i think it would have 3x its current population and a reputation that competes with Phoenix, Austin, or Seattle (or Portland.. Portland has the opposite problem, imo; the most psychotically overrated city in the US). Also, the stupid airport certainly doesnt help. A non-trivial skyline would put SD on the map very quickly.

Ironically, I would say Chicago, which you just mentioned, is easily America's most underrated city, because for some reason it became a cultural punching bag to be used as an example of violence, despite having never come anywhere close to the top of the list. St. Louis (where i lived for 10 years) has literally double the violence. Oakland has 40% more. Stockton (where i lived for 2 years.. clearly im not very good at picking locations) has 20% more. On the whole, Chicago has about as much violence as Nashvlle or Houston. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

But if not for this weird thing against Chicago, San Diego would be top of the list as most underrated city

Like you said, the potential of SD is pretty incredible.. its a bit more politically conservative than the other big two california urban areas, so will potentially be more effective in addressing its issues. And as bad as those issues may be, SD hasnt had its reputation ruined by them yet. The silver lining to being overshadowed by LA and SF is that they also overshadow SD in negative stereotypes. I dont think most people in the US would ever think of SD when they think of homelessness. SF and LA (and Portland and Seattle) totally steal the show there.

I could easily see SD being "discovered" soon, especially now that LA seems to have finally blinked in the last census.. some sort of deep structural shift is going on up there and LA may be about to see a period of economic and population decline for the first time in its history.

Just counted up the amount of apartments currently under construction in downtown out of boredom: 3,128. Out of that total, 374 are affordable.

Not bad.

I think Walgreens also tried to justify closures on crime but later it turned out they just weren't doing well.

I wish more people outside of this thread would talk about how much of an issue our airport is. First, it’s small. Been the busiest one-runway airport in the country for years (just now got overtaken by Phoenix Goodyear actually). And we all know about the plateauing effect of its height limit on downtown. Our skyline would probably resemble something closer to SF by now if we had relocated the airport when we had the chance.

But I actually think the biggest negative effect of the airport location is the land it sits on. We’re basically wasting 663 acres of prime developable land right in the center of the city. For context, downtown as a whole is 1450 acres. If the airport were moved, we would open up land the size of 2-3 east villages for high density development. This would do wonders for the affordable housing crisis and eventually give us one of the most beautiful waterfront skylines in the country. Such a shame. Maybe in a a hundred years they’ll put the airport issue up to vote again

I think the Phoenix Goodyear record is a bit of a stretch. It has no commercial flights, and is busy because it's used for general aviation/flight schools.

Given the airport ship sailed a good while back, there's nothing to do but look forward and work with what there is right now by improving the overall experience and update, which is being done incrementally.

And then the whole "tall skyline" argument is so tired and worn out. Yeah, SAN is a major limiting factor to overall height, but that only looks so good on a postcard or backdrop and doesn't tell a whole story at all.

Even then, the skyline around Petco isn't restricted by SAN to 500 feet, that's the city's doing.

All those grand renderings and a decade of discussion (at least) for this premier spot in the skyline and like you said, it's barely visible in the skyline.