First post of 2008!

The working name is "Project Fresco". Wal-Mart should be announcng the new concept soon.

Predictions for the Property Market in 2008...
 

An excerpt from the Daily Business Report of the San Diego Daily Transcript, reviewing Grubb & Ellis's predictions for the office/retail/industrial/residential markets in 2008.

Given the climate in the rest of the country, things aren't really that bad here.

----

The 2008 San Diego office market is expected to be a year of moderate growth and positive activity, but tempered with weakening in several market fundamentals, reports George Gramm, v.p. of research at the San Diego affiliate of Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial. Average asking rates for CBD Class A office space in San Diego are projected to be $37.56 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up slightly from $36.12 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego 17th of 77 CBD markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007, says Gramm. Average asking rents for suburban office space in San Diego are projected to be $41.77 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $39.78 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego fourth of 81 suburban markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007.

Gramm says the San Diego industrial market is expected to run in maintenance mode during 2008 as excess new supply is leased or sold, fueled by lower sales prices, concessions and flattening rental rates. Average asking rates for warehouse/distribution space in San Diego are projected to be $7.70 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, consistent with $7.68 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego seventh of 79 industrial markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007

Construction of new retail centers in San Diego area will remain low, keeping vacancy levels below 5 percent during 2008.

“The San Diego retail market is expected to be impacted slightly from the housing downturn, however, the rebuilding from the San Diego fires of 2007, as unfortunate as they were, are expected add a boost to the local retail scene,” says Gramm. Average asking rates for well-located inline shop space in San Diego are projected to be $43.26 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $42 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego eighth of 61 retail markets ranked in North America.

Gramm predicts that investor interest in the San Diego multihousing market will be maintained during 2008 despite a variety of forces that will be pulling demand in opposite directions. San Diego's lack of available land for new development will keep supply low while positive population and job growth projections will keep demand high. Occupancy rates are expected to maintain levels above 95 percent throughout 2008.

Who is Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial? Is this organization similar to a realestate broker for homes... but for commercial/industrial/retail space? If so... I'm very skeptical . It would be like a cheerleader saying their team is the better one on the field. no?

I say this b/c I believe there are several opinions forwarded that I believe... are bunk.

[QUOTE=bushman61988;3250778]:haha:

[QUOTE=Urban Sky;3261470]
LOL, i sound like im on crack, but when I first saw this I was really going "What the hell?" cuz it looks like those mountains in the background are Point Loma...

I still can't figure out which mountains these are in the background...

[QUOTE=bushman61988;3261591]That terrain... really is Pt Loma. And the viewable landcape in the foreground, but beyond Ap et al.. is Coronado or North Isl.

Yeah, that view is directly southwest.

I never trust the real estate industry's view of their own industry. People listening to their BS which totally ignored economic realities the past few years should have learned by now.

[QUOTE=bmfarley;3261607]lol im not the one who said it. dont gotta tell me :P

Something quirky got started with the auto-quote feature. Tracking back, it appears my response should have had bushman as the quoted poster; not Urban Sky.

My San Diego pet peeve #1. Why is there no trolley going up the median of hwy 163 to link downtown uptown and mission valley? That seems the best alignment to me but a trolley going up park blvd and then down into the valley to fashion valley would work too. We need to stop adding lanes to freeways, all this does is allow for more cars and therefore more gridlock.

So I used MTS for the first time in three years and....WHAT THE FUCK??!!

Since when did they stop giving transfers?!

I used to be able to go on the bus then take the trolley using the same ticket but now i have to buy an all-day pass?!

I've wondered why the trolley doesn't extend up into the densely populated areas for a long time.

are the chargers leaving SD? What is the update?



By Ronald W. Powell
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 16, 2007

The Chargers are huddling with Chula Vista officials to see if they can agree on a site for a new stadium by the end of this month.

Graphic:
Stadium options
in Chula Vista
If they don't, it's not clear what the team will do next. Many believe the Chargers might leave the San Diego region, since they scouted other locations in the county before narrowing the search to Chula Vista.

And despite pressure from some prominent business executives, team officials have ruled out a deal with the city of San Diego – specifically a plan to rebuild at the Qualcomm Stadium site, where the team has played for 40 years.

“The numbers at Qualcomm just don't pencil out today,” said Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' general counsel and spokesman. “Real estate prices have gone down and construction costs have gone up. What's the breakthrough idea that makes that site work?”

In 2002 the team introduced a development plan that would have worked at the Qualcomm site, Fabiani said. The plan included more than 6,000 condominiums, offices, retail space, a hotel and road improvements – all on the 166-acre property. Any profit would have paid for a new $400 million stadium. The team dropped the proposal in 2006.

OVERVIEW

Background: A 19-month search around San Diego County has led the Chargers to two possible sites for a new stadium – both in Chula Vista.

What's changing: Chargers executives are planning to meet with Chula Vista officials this week to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed sites, as well as information the team received from residents in two town hall meetings and several other community forums.

The future: Team executives say they want to choose a site this month. If neither Chula Vista site is selected, the team's future in the county is in doubt because Chargers officials have ruled out a deal with the city of San Diego.
Today a new stadium at the Qualcomm site would cost $1 billion, and the road improvements, which the team previously calculated at $175 million, have more than doubled in cost, he said. The escalating prices of concrete, structural steel and other building materials account for much of the increase. Added to that, the market for condominiums has gone cold, eliminating the underpinnings of the team's strategy for generating revenue.

“I don't know what kind of development you could build (at Qualcomm) to support the kind of debt you would have,” said Fabiani, who is planning to meet with Chula Vista officials this week. “These are huge numbers. It's not theoretical.”

Others, however, are still working to keep the team in San Diego if the South County effort collapses. County Supervisor Dianne Jacob and several San Diego business executives have been pushing for a Qualcomm plan.

Jacob said San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Council President Scott Peters have shown no interest in working with the Chargers, but she has not given up on the Qualcomm idea.

“If Chula Vista is no longer an option, I hope the city of San Diego will come to the table,” she said.


Advertisement
San Diego businessman Ted Roth also supports a Qualcomm deal, although he said the Chargers are sincerely considering a move to Chula Vista. But in case the effort comes up empty, he is working to remove what he considers a major roadblock to the team making a U-turn for “the Q” – City Attorney Michael Aguirre.

Team executives have repeatedly blamed Aguirre for sabotaging their Qualcomm plan. Aguirre maintains that the city's previous agreements with the team were bad deals for taxpayers and that he is trying to be fiscally responsible.

“I think you need to listen to what the Chargers are saying,” said Roth, an investment banker and former chairman of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. “I don't think they can enter into any negotiation involving the city because they think he (Aguirre) will be subversive. He'd find a way to kill anything they'd negotiate.”

Aguirre is up for re-election next year, and Roth said the Chargers issue is one of the reasons he is pushing for his defeat.

But it will take more than Aguirre's ouster to revive a deal in San Diego, Fabiani said.

While the city attorney is a key figure, “the one that counts is the mayor,” Fabiani said. “If the mayor is not pushing for it (a stadium deal), it won't happen.”

Sanders said in 2006 that his priority is mending the city's fractured finances – including the employee's pension system, which has a $1 billion deficit. Since then, Sanders has disengaged from the stadium search.

“I'm not getting involved because I want to give Chula Vista every chance to succeed,” Sanders said.

The Chargers have a lease with the city of San Diego to play at Qualcomm until 2020 but can leave before then. However, a financial clause in the lease is a huge incentive to keep the team here for at least two years.

If the team leaves at the end of the 2009 season, it must pay off the entire debt for the city's 1997 expansion of Qualcomm Stadium, which would total $56.2 million. But if the team leaves after the 2010 season – when the balance will be more than $55 million – it will only have to pay $24 million.

That would leave the city with a debt of more than $30 million, an old stadium, and no National Football League team.

The City Council approved the bond payoff plan in July 2004 when it renegotiated the Chargers' contract to play at Qualcomm Stadium.

Team executives say they aren't looking outside the county. But if they do, a handful of cities, including Los Angeles, San Antonio and Las Vegas, are in the market for a team.

Andrew Zimbalist, who writes extensively on the business of professional sports, said he believes the league's owners want to keep a franchise in the San Diego market. But that doesn't mean they would stop a move.

“If they can find a good city and a good stadium deal, the NFL might allow them to move as long as the team pays a relocation fee,” which can be tens of millions of dollars, said Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College.

Fabiani said the team is focusing on Chula Vista because its elected officials are willing to negotiate. The city also has two sites to choose from – the current South Bay Power Plant on San Diego Bay and a 500-acre vacant parcel on the city's east side.

If the eastern site is chosen for the stadium, a public vote would probably take place in November. The bayfront site is more problematic, since the power plant would have to be demolished first, and there is no set date for that.

San Diego businessman Malin Burnham, who has been part of the group pushing the Qualcomm site, said he believes a joint powers authority should be formed to help fund the stadium. The authority would include the county, the city of San Diego, the Port District, the city of Chula Vista and perhaps other local governments.

County Supervisor Ron Roberts said he supports forming a joint powers authority, which in other cities has imposed car-rental and other taxes to help pay for sports facilities. Roberts said the local authority would decide what form of assistance, if any, should be provided.

Talking about the chargers, who'll be there tomorrow?

I know i'll be. :)

I hope they build on the waterfront in Chula Vista.



Go Chargers. :)

January 1st, 2008. SANDAG and MTS approved the changes in October or so.

The transfer system was abused... it's theoritically suppose to allow people to complete a trip to wherever they were going, one way. And then they'd pay again to ride home. But people took advantage of the 3-hour time limit and used it for two-way travel... only buying one ride and then using the tranfer slip to complete their errand and return home or to wherever they came from. I presume only a small number of people did this, but I also here several transit agencies across the country have done away with it for that reason, or similar.

The San Diego system is one of the most expensive in the country. I presume it is because of low or non-existent financial support from local governments and the need to find $ from riders. The City/County of SF supports the transit agency to the tune of $100m to $200m each year out of the general fund(it may be more) ... and fares only recently went from $1 to $1.50.... with transfers allowed (I use to live up there). Los Angeles, maybe San Jose too, have passed sales tax measures and have directed many of those collected $ toward transit. The local Transnet tax only directs a small fraction of those collected $ to transit.. and as you may recall, Transnet was a re-authorization whereas the original version already had $ to transit; so it was NOT NEW $ for transit operations (running buses and trains).

I am sure those cities that help fund tranist... actually end up getting more transit service AND have a more vibrant area and/or a bit less traffic.

its so expensive because it sucks. its inefficient, it relies too heavily on buses and no one rides it. i used to use public transportation here in san diego to commute to work and it was absolutely ridiculous. and now that there are no more transfers, it's makes even less sense for the casual rider to give public transportation a try. the only people who will ride are those who dont know anything about the system or those who have no other choice. :hell:

Even though the system does suck, it's still the fourth most ridden light rail system in the country with about 124,300 boardings per day.

What's even more hideous is that it doesn't even go up the hill to Uptown (Hillcrest---North Park). In most major cities, the uptown areas are often creative enclaves adjacent to downtown that offer a wide variety of entertainment, dining, retail, arts, etc. Our Uptown is no different, with the dining and nightlife in Hillcrest and the bohemian art scene in North Park. A trolley link that goes up the hill, with a stop at the zoo, then up to a stop in Hillcrest and North Park seems like a no-brainer.

I know the logistics make it difficult, but it's not impossible. It amazes me that our pathetic trolley system goes to the border and SDSU, but not even up the hill to Uptown.

While I'm griping, it is also disgusting that it doesn't go up to UTC/La Jolla/Sorrento Valley where alot of the biotech and professional jobs are.

San Diego is a nice town, but in terms of mass transit we have a long, long, LONG way to go. And unfortuantely, SANDAG continues to focus on building more far-flung freeways and toll-roads instead of mass transit. With their incompitance we are destined to be another LA, endless sprawl and strip-malls. Even thought it will never happen because it's too "radical" for our conservative city, I think heavy rail (subway) would make our city thrive in terms of urban expansion

I'm not really even talking about the trolley. That is actually the one part of the system that is working fairly efficiently. But as I am sure you noticed, the Trolley doesn't really even go anywhere. It connects very few of all possible communities in the urban/suburban San Diego region. And 124k? It pales in comparison to a rail system that is actually done correctly. NYC's subway ALONE has over 635,000 riders daily and they also have an effective bus system that carries over 2.28 million people daily. Their BUS system is even more used than their rail system.
And THAT is what I am talking about. San Diego obviously has no real plans to extend the light rail to other communities, therefore leaving the rail system lacking service area. One would think that they would in stead, beef up their buses to compensate, but their bus system is horrible. San Diego is trying really hard to be a world class city, scaled down. They are never going to get there if they get complacent with the crap they call public transportation here.

Well said, I really do agree. :tup:

They [SANDAG] actually are planning the "Mid-Coast Extenstion" line up to UTC. Keyword: "planning"


As for an extension to Hillcrest and the zoo and the other urban communities in the area, an underground trolley system (similar to the route running underneath SDSU) running from maybe One America Plaza sounds good doesn't it?

that does sound good - or even on the east side of Balboa Park.

The trolley already goes as far north as Smart Corner, which CCDC dubs part of it's "Park to Bay link", the only problem is the attractions at the park are much further north. Nobody is going to ride the trolley to Smark Corner then walk up to Balboa Park, it's not a very padestrian friendly stretch.

An underground line that goes up Park with a stop at the zoo and then a stop at Park and University would be great. It would link one of our most famous destinations (zoo) as well as the other attractions at Balboa Park, then provide a stop right at the Hillcrest/North Park border. Since University Ave is pretty pedestrian oriented, passengers could depart the trolley and walk to areas in Hillcrest to the West and NP to the East. Just two trolley stops and it would really link up some important areas of the city

ah, if only SANDAG, the politicians, CCDC and other decision makers read this blog to see what the citizens actually think! :irked:

Their 4th out of I wonder how many of its size? Who are they behind? Portland, Denver, etc...? This system totally sucks. The DTSD Partnership wants to do a DT loop, that is more frequent and only uses two cars so that it won't block traffic along C street. Do you know how many people would use the DT loop if they new it would run every 3-5 minutes and it wouldn't stop at traffic signals (they simply coordinate the lights with the trolley)? I know we would use it for every inner DT trip! We got a Vespa because the trolley is so unreliable, and most times, if you miss it, you have to wait a half-hour for the next one.

SD needs to rezone the inner city for more density (Bankers Hill, University Heights, Golden Hill, North Park, etc..) and then begin planning a subway system similar to Washington DC.

GO BOLTS!
GO JAGS!
Here's to a home AFC Championship!

635K? I thought it was well over 1 million. The 2nd avenue subway project is anticipating 500K alone.

It's behind Boston (with 255,100 daily ridership), San Francisco (with 146,200 daily ridership, and Los Angeles (with 134,400 daily ridership). Portland is fifth, with 107,900 daily ridership. All of these have similar track lengths, with the exception of Boston, which only has 25.4 miles of track. San Diego, Los Angeles, San Franciso and Portland have 53.5, 55.7, 66.1 and 50 miles of track, respectively.


Go Chargers. :)

Is that mileage for the San Diego system including the Sprinter? Because that will add about 17 miles of track!! Btw, is that open yet. I'm actually back in SD (San Marcos) so I will go check it out if it is open..... Yep New York didn't quite work out as I had thought so I'm back LOL!!! :haha:

Yea it just opened, take pics!

It doesn't include Sprinter, but that's technically another system.

Relative to the size and what we have, I think the Trolley is great for the San Diego region and downtown. Obviously others do too as it's riden a lot; fourth in the country and comparable to San Francisco and Los Angeles in terms of riders! Wow!

I don't think a train that went in a tiny circle in a loop makes sense at all. Who'd ride it? Where would people get on? Or off? Sounds like a big hassle with no benefit.

Either way, it looks like the DTSD Partnership no longer is behind that idea:
#1 This one is the proposal, dated March 2007.
#2 Is a Dec 2007 endorsement of 3 downtown projects, none include the loop.

It's going to open up sometime in February and it'll be run by the transit system in north county, NCTD. I believe I heard that they anticipate 15,000 to 17,000 daily riders after a transitionary period. I don't know how long such a period would be.

But, maybe some will be trying to connect to the Coaster in Oceanside and will get commuters off the highway for trips to dontown San Diego. Crazy commute, but some people are doing it.

There is no need to spend the gazillions of dollars it would take to put the uptown line underground.

Have the new line travel north from the smart corner up the median of the 163. Cool stairs could then connect stops at the Prado, a zoo stop, and University Avenue. The line could then go down with a stop at hotel circle then on to the transit center at the fashion valley mall.

I was at the game Sunday and it was awesome. It was great to see few if any Titans' fans.

GO CHARGERS!

The loop would service all riders. The Blue would simply terminate at either 1 America Plaza or Santa Fe (why there are two stops one block from each other escapes me) and the Orange would terminate at the Imperial transfer. Read the proposal. The loop would consist of 2 cars, thus eliminating the way the current system blocks traffic along C street, and this loop would be synchronized with traffic signals, increasing the efficiency of the system.

An extension to serve the zoo and park does not seem practical. If the extension is on the way to something else, and the zoo is there on the way... certainly. But with a purpose to serve the park/zoo... I just don't see sufficient demand at times when it counts; morning and evening commute times.. all day demand. Heck, the zoo does not even open 'till 9:30am and closes at 4:30pm.

The loop idea was in the news awhile back. I think you'd be suprised by how many people are on those trains coming into downtown. There is a reason the trolley is the 4th most ridden system in the country and trains are long; they're filled with people heading to and fro with points downtown for work and shopping. Go to the Imperial Station and watch trains come in between 7am and 8am to get an idea. Making thousands of riders get off of one train and wait for a 2nd is not a good service. And, that loop idea actually runs less service than now through downtown; count the trains and their lengths.

Go to DC and transfer at Metro Center or L' Enfant Plaza. Hundreds of thousands of people transfer daily at these stations. I think San Diego could handle the transfer to a downtown loop.

New renderings of Lane Field from Lankford & Associates. The towers aren't bad, but they do lack the "Wow" factor. I hate the bases and that they are twins, despite the different heights. Let's hope they're still tweaking the design -



Proposed IM Pei tower is very visible
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...eld_image0.jpg


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...eld_image1.jpg

Over 10 years of public and private cooperation has been involved in creating the Lane Field opportunity. LFSDD, LLC has created a destination development in-line with the vision of the San Diego Port Authority and the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan. The iconic InterContinental and Vivara hotel towers, combined with the waterfront retail and boutique restaurants will distinguish Lane Field as the anchor development for downtown San Diego's waterfront growth for years to come.

Lane Field will be downtown San Diego's premier waterfront development. Located on 5.69 acres of irreplaceable downtown waterfront property, the destination development will provide a unique hotel experience combined with boutique restaurants and fashionable retail shops, all located on-site. Lane Field is perfectly positioned in relationship to the Embarcadero waterfront attractions, museums, and Cruise Ship Terminal and is within walking distance of all of downtown San Diego's demand generators: San Diego Convention Center, Gaslamp Quarter, Seaport Village, Horton Plaza, Downtown office buildings, and the Ballpark District. Lane Field's 800-hotel rooms and nearly 100,000 SF of retail will provide the waterfront with a critical mass of attractions to draw new visitors, guests, and shoppers to downtown San Diego.



Why not incorporate the crowns seen in the original version below on one of the towers to make it more "interesting"?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...erialFinal.jpg

I don't know what's worse in that first picture. The two Lane Field buildings or 700 West Broadway (IM Pei Tower).

God damn IM Pei tower blows.

Lane Field and Broadway Cruise Ship Developments Approved...
 

As per the U-T article this morning. Does anyone have renderings of the cruise ship terminal?



Waterfront projects gain panel backing


By Maureen Magee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

January 9, 2008

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The Broadway Pier cruise ship terminal and the Lane Field development – two key components of the city's ongoing waterfront makeover – won crucial support from the San Diego Port Commission yesterday.
But questions and concerns about the projects persist. And neither is a done deal.

A sleek and modern design for the cruise ship terminal beat out two less expensive, utilitarian – and widely panned – proposals. Commissioners, though, decided to solicit funding for the project from the city and Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm, before committing to the $23.6 million budget.

Commissioners also supported an environmental review of the nearby Lane Field project. Panel members said the review was within the scope of the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan environmental impact report, and it was consistent with their own master plan.

Once home to the Pacific Coast League San Diego Padres, the 5.8-acre Lane Field site – now a parking lot – would be developed into two luxury hotels that would overlook the Broadway Pier. The project would include rooftop terraces, restaurants, shops and underground parking.

Mayor Jerry Sanders attended yesterday's meeting to urge approval of the $400 million project, as did other leaders.

The Port Commission's unanimous decision came over objections by labor unions, environmentalists and the California State Lands Commission.

Port Commissioner Laurie Black pressed the developers, however, to agree to build energy-efficient and environmentally friendly hotels that meet the stringent standards of the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design certification, a national distinction.

Meanwhile, the State Lands Commission, which oversees the agencies that administer California's tidelands, sent a letter to the San Diego Unified Port District warning about the kinds of developments that violate state law.

For example, the shops and services built on the tidelands must serve the public, not just those who can afford to stay in the expensive hotels.

The developers – a consortium that includes Hardage Hotels LLC, Lankford and Associates, Phelps Development Co. and C.W. Clark – promised to make the city proud.

Developers and port officials said the public would benefit from the development by enjoying the project's shops, restaurants and open spaces. Among the features designed for the public are park spaces and a street-access elevator that would give people access to a roof terrace without entering the hotel lobby.

Lane Field is between North Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway, with Broadway at its most southern edge. The project would be split by C Street into north and south sections.

The California Coastal Commission will ultimately decide the fate of the Lane Field project. The panel will consider environmental concerns and legal matters raised.

Meanwhile, the Port District has asked the city and the Centre City Development Corp. to commit to paying for part of the Broadway Pier project. Port officials asked for a response within 30 days.

It's unclear what the port will do if the agencies do not find the money needed for the project. The port had shored up about $12.7 million before design plans were upgraded.

Commissioners Black and Robert “Rocky” Spane had suggested that the port pay the entire bill itself before others suggested that the city contribute because it earns considerable revenue from the cruise ship industry.

Wow...good point...

I think I would say the Lane Field buildings because they're RIGHT at the foot of the waterfront, and I hope and pray they AT LEAST keep that sail pinnacles...I mean, it's bad enough they're TWIN towers at the most prominent site of downtown without being HIDEOUSLY plain.

That Pei building is just sad...I was so disappointed I could've cried when I saw it. Iconic my brown ass!!

Another Pei Cobb & Parnters project, or just a typo

http://www.pcf-p.com/a/i/loc/ca/ca.html

San Diego

880 West Broadway
In progress

when it should be 700 West Broadway

I saw that there is some activity going on at the federal building site on broadway, anyone have any pics?

Lane Field should be renamed Lame Field.

am I the only one who thinks the new Lane Field renderings look decent? Yeah they could be alot more creative, but they seem pretty good to me considering the height. Remember, that close to the water we definately want lower buildings so the view from the bay isn't walled-off. They look like buildings that are kind of boring but that could age well

underground, above ground, a combination of both, either way downtown needs to be better connected to uptown :)

I agree with you on this, especially the part about keeping the buildings shorter the closer you are to the water. I only wish the proposed IM Pei tower behind it, made more of a statement.

I'm not sure how up-to-date this is, but here's a link to a "Lame" Field PowerPoint presentation that has some ground-level and tower (which appear different from the ones posted earlier) renderings. http://www.ccdc.com/events/resources...esentation.pdf



Yeah, it sure looks like something is going on there. Weren't they short on money to be able to get this thing to rise?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...2144140085.jpg



I saw the rendering that accompanied this article in the paper, and thought it looked great, especially compared to what we have now. The City needs to get this thing built so that it can accommodate our growing cruiseship traffic.

I do like them too. They have mid-century LA / South Beach appeal to them. I wonder about the materials being used. The only thing is that they do appear to be much wider than the previous rendition. I looks like the developer went shorter with big floor plates. That does impact view corridors. But, hey, San Diego is about the best city in the nation at blocking view corridors...

I saw a picture of the new cruise ship terminal rendering. For 23 million it looks like a warehouse with a saw-tooth roof. While much better than the box they planned. I think it could be better. Maybe someone can find a picture to share...

Why isnt the public allowed to comment on these designs...?