Thanks for the info!

That's a pretty large spectrum of what's possible. I would much rather see nice office space than light industry and storage. At least with office space you would not have traffic on nights and weekends.

That said, it could have been so much more.


I wonder if the NIMBY's will file the same number of lawsuits for their access over here....

The most amusing part of it is they are fighting to solve a problem that they are creating. If they would just let a couple of towers go up on even just one beach...you would not have rooms going for so much.

Take Pacific Beach for example. They could open up development on several parcels for large hotels. In exchange for allowing the beachfront to go up they could demand a rebuilt boardwalk, public parks and public parking. Hell, if they really had some vision they could run a branch of the light rail to the beach. That would lower traffic and bring even more access to the public at large.

I am sure some NIMBYs in PB would have an issue but you can't please everyone.

Exactly you could put a nice cluster of towers on the Beach Cottages and Surfrider properties which are so outdated and ready for the wrecking ball. Plus across the street they could do two towers at the Burger King and CVS on Mission Blvd. So I envision 4 modern glassy towers that would completely revamp Pacific Beach and like you said add inventory which will drop rates for both hotels and vacation rentals in the area.

Garnet Ave to Pacific Beach Drive and Bayard St to the beach. Make this a development zone. It's already about 30% parking lot and 50% commercial.

A pretty basic plan:

1 - Build a large public parking ramp with a park on the top, similar to what's next to county hall. This would reduce parking on the side streets which is a major pain for residents.
2 - Force hotels to also include a 20% increase of spaces needed for their hotel for the public as well.
3 - Force hotels to keep 10% of their rooms at a lower accessible rate that is defined by the local market. Obviously these would not have a view but would come with beach access.

I'd be in favor of allowing more density along the coast, too, and agree that it would have a beneficial effect on housing affordability.

Here's the Draft EIR for the proposed replacement football stadium, for your reading enjoyment!

http://www.sandiego.gov/cip/newscenter/stadiumeir.shtml

San Diego just needs to give up on the Chargers. They are gone.

I agree. I realize for many it will be a big loss, but do we really want a team here who doesn't want to be here? Who is forced to be here because the NFL told them they have to stay? I think the discussion should shift from trying to keep a team who is already one foot out the door to what the best use of that site could be.

It's going to be a loss for everyone...just to different degrees. But chasing after the Chargers is now, after so many years, a fools errand.

San Diego is going to be left with the Q. Both in cost and lack of development opportunity and it will take a hit in other areas as well. I think the loss of opportunity in development is huge.

I think the best path forward for the Q is still a new stadium, as something needs to exist for SDSU, but it does not have to be an NFL stadium.

Maybe San Diego can land a MLS team in the next 10 years. This would allow for a new stadium to be built and provide most of the benefits of the proposed Q redevelopment but at a fraction of the cost.

We can now add a third option for the site. Anthony's Fish Grotto was allowed into the competition:

http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img...15c2d8bc4ecd52

Port adds Anthony's back into eatery competition
Union-Tribune
Roger Showley
August 12, 2015
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...gantine-lease/

I like the Brigantine design the best.

Sunroad is bland and doesn't fit right on the ocean.

Anthony's looks cheesy. The "wave" on the side looks terrible.

I totally agree about the Sunroad one. It looks like something that would become dated really quick.

I can't tell from the rendering if the wave is good or bad. It could go either way. If it is just some cheesy painted mural,or cheap material design then yes I agree with you. But if it's some sort of transparent glass type artwork that really draws you in I could see it working. I'd have to see more renderings of it and understand the materials they are using.

Does anyone know when they are planning on completing the next phase of the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan? If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't yet extend to Anthony's, but it looks like in the rendering above it includes the gardens associated with the extension.

As it is now, it's kind of bizarre because you have this short improvement area with the landscaping, then it just abruptly ends when walking north along the harbor. I tried looking on the Port website but couldn't find any timelines for it.

"Looking to the future, the state's end to redevelopment has thrown into question how the rest of the Embarcadero public improvements will be financed."



So after the Gov stole all the cities money for wasting it on stupid projects like this so they could use it on more useful projects like the already outdated high speed rail between LA and SF that no one cares about.

The least they could have done is build the LA to SD section first since its the second busiest train corridor in the US but since they don't give a crap about us down here because they are having their butts greased on money up there. :yuck:

Just sayin' :D

Yeah, not a fan of wall murals since most look cheap. I wouldn't expect Anthony's "Hail Mary" plan to have an expensive one on it either.

Wall murals usually only look good to me on older buildings that could use the love.

You guys still think this Chargers/Raiders Carson proposal is for real? Or you think Spanos will just go be Kroenke's tenant in the Wood or jump ship for STL or San Antonio? Kroenke will not let the bumpling broke stooges of Spanos/Davis beat him to LA, he is worth 12 billion not going to happen. I still think Spanos has to play his cards like this to make it look like he is protecting "his market" so he can milk money out of Kroenke in a "grand bargain" so many journalists have written about in the last few months where one owner gets kicked down cash for not be included in the party.

You really think Spanos and Davis are going to put up there own money for a 1.7 billion dollar stadium PLUS relocation fees.... No way. These guys have no money outside of their franchises. Oakland is a "failed state" they will tag along with Kroenke and Spanos will get kicked down some cash and stay right here. I think they can get 23 million per year from Kia for naming rights sell 250 to 350 million in PSL and be just fine.

If they want to milk as much as they can from City/County/NFL/Kroenke unfortunately this is how they need to act, it is silly and childish but when you look at it from their perspective it is affective look at everyone running around like crazy trying to "Save the Chargers".

The closest thing I could find was a quote from Councilman Todd Gloria in this Union-Tribune article from July 2014:

So who knows.

The impact of phase 1 is undeniable. It's amazing and what the front porch of the bay should be.

That said, why in the hell did they break it up into 3 phases. It's not that big of a project.

maybe it has to do with parking. extending it north would remove all those metered spots

^^ Re: everyone's replies about North Embarcadero.

That's really sad that we are left with this half-completed (or 1/3 completed) landscaping project along the bay. The part they did is nice, but it seems so short. You walk along and them it suddenly just ends. I know a huge part of it was relocating the road, do they still need to relocate more of the street for the rest of it? If not, I'd think it would be a relatively simple project.