SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

dales5050 Feb 26, 2014 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erip (Post 6467676)
Most of the merchants and people working at restaurants downtown that I've heard from all say that business suffers on game days. I don't really think the people going to the games spend all that much money elsewhere, and with all those spectators taking up parking and adding to traffic, everyone else tends to stay away on those days. Adding a second stadium event would probably only increase this effect of game day sales losses for downtown businesses.

I am not sure the Padres are a good measuring tool. Couple of reasons...

1 - The team sucks and thus the fans suck and are fair weather fans. What I have been told is Padres fans suck. One bartender told me that they staff 6 bartenders for after a game. By the 7th if the Padres are down, they send 2 home. If the Padres lose, they send home another 2.

If you have ever been downtown when Boston, LA or St. Louis is in town..it's a different story. Charger fans are different. I also think things would change if the Padres were better.

2 - The times of Padres games are bad. 7pm is much different than 1pm. I think the game times for the Padres is what makes traffic so bad. That said,
I don't see the traffic as being as big of an issue as people make it out to be honestly. Traffic is always going to be there for anything worth going to. It's just a reality. I think the product is more of a problem than traffic.

3 - Last and most important, I think the biggest reason why a lot of places don't see a boost from games is how they are setup. Places that cater to sports fans (cheap beer/food) are slammed. Places that cater to the club scene ($15 drinks) or tourists (cheesy) are not.

I think a football stadium would force a 'Second Gaslamp' if you will..where bars would be less pretentious and thus more profitable.

SDfan Feb 26, 2014 2:31 AM

I haven't seen any reasons for a downtown stadium that are all that convincing. It's either "build it because nothing else will be built" (development for the sake of development is not smart development, take a look at Mission Valley for that case study), "build it because it will boost the downtown economy" (downtown has been doing just fine this past decade without football), or "build it because we need to keep the Chargers," (okay, but weigh the scales, large sports complex downtown or actual neighborhood growth?). And the sad thing is, there is a viable alternative to downtown (ie, Mission Valley).

I know there is a lot of land left downtown, but I'm actually thinking long term (more than 50 years). As my generation (millennials) push for more urban housing and amenities in the coming decades, and as less and less space becomes available for development in other neighborhoods (either physically or by regulation, and fun side note, my neighborhood is fighting to downzone, YES DOWNZONE the area... way to go Golden Hill/South Park) there won't be a whole lot of land for high-density housing left in our region.

Yes, there is a lot of space now, but go to the top of the new library and look out over the East Village. It's not that big. It's actually quite small. And yes, there are numerous low-rise/mid-rise structures that could be demolished, but with how San Diego operates in terms of historical preservation/NIMBYism I don't realistically think it's going to be a piece of cake tearing things down.

A football stadium, even if designed well, is a waste of space in an urban environment like downtown San Diego. Yes, Petco has been lovely, it was a catalyst (debatable as that is) and it's aesthetically pleasing. But we don't need a repeat. The East Village can hum along quite nicely. It has been, and continues to be.

In terms of traffic and parking, whatever. Central city areas are always congested. However, building more parking garages would be a waste of space and counter to pro-transit efforts. If a downtown stadium were to be approved I would at least stipulate that no new parking structures be built to accommodate Charger fans. Take the train bolts.

Is a stadium more glorious and flashy than organic urban growth. Yeah. Is it better? Meh. The voters will decide (maybe).

I'm predicting the Los Angeles Chargers or Southern California Chargers before the EV gets a stadium.

SDfan Feb 26, 2014 2:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6468055)
Here are three new hotels proposed in East Village by the company that developed the Residence Inn in the Gaslamp.
Courtyard: 2015 Completion. Already Approved
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7325/1...b0b4021ea1.jpg
Fairfield Inn: 2016 Completion. Just filed with CivicSD
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3696/1...ac52e1f2f5.jpg
Hampton Inn: 2017 Completion. This one I just found on their website.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/1...b694d1ffdf.jpg
Here is a link to their website. http://www.jstreethospitality.com

Awesome infill. Thank you for posting.

Erip Feb 26, 2014 8:26 AM

A look back
 
This page has some amazing pictures of San Diego as it's grown over the years. Fun too look at, downtown has really grown. Hope ya'll enjoy. Voiceofsandiego mentioned this page yesterday: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vinta...ref=ts&fref=ts

tyleraf Feb 26, 2014 10:28 PM

Good news, Lankford and Associates does have an operator for Lane Field, but the lady that I was in contact with said she couldn't say who it was yet.

tyleraf Feb 27, 2014 12:46 AM

Uptown Streetcar Open House this Saturday at St Paul's Cathedral. Hopefully this happens as it will be great for downtown and the surrounding communities.https://www.facebook.com/sdhistorics...944015239079:0

spoonman Feb 27, 2014 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6470317)
Uptown Streetcar Open House this Saturday at St Paul's Cathedral. Hopefully this happens as it will be great for downtown and the surrounding communities.https://www.facebook.com/sdhistorics...944015239079:0

I hope that the design is compatible with the current Trolley, and not a throwback for tourists. I will not be in town, but anyone interested would be wise to attend.

aerogt3 Feb 27, 2014 7:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6468522)
"build it because we need to keep the Chargers," (okay, but weigh the scales, large sports complex downtown or actual neighborhood growth?).

There is no neighborhood growth happening that far outside core DT. There are a few decades of empty lots to be developed before people even think about building out there.

Quote:

I know there is a lot of land left downtown, but I'm actually thinking long term (more than 50 years).
By that time, the stadium would be replaced if it really were taking needed land. Right now (and for quite some time into the future), that land isn't going to be needed or used. The only thing the market will bear is a stadium, or nothing.

Erip Feb 27, 2014 7:58 AM

Ballpark Village approved: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...llage-project/

SDfan Feb 28, 2014 1:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6470909)
There is no neighborhood growth happening that far outside core DT. There are a few decades of empty lots to be developed before people even think about building out there.

So projects like Ballpark Village and 15th and Island (over 900 apartments in that project alone) are either not happening (one just approved and the other at least 7 stories above ground last I saw) or aren't within the geographic confines of your area (one right next door, the other just a few blocks north)

Quote:

By that time, the stadium would be replaced if it really were taking needed land. Right now (and for quite some time into the future), that land isn't going to be needed or used. The only thing the market will bear is a stadium, or nothing.
I doubt any location after a downtown stadium would be built could be allowed. There is barely any available land for a stadium now, let alone 50-60 years from today in a region already constrained geographically.

And the Chargers, not the market, are saying stadium. As far as I can see from development patterns in the east village now (and by all of the cranes in the sky), the market is just fine without a stadium in the neighborhood. It just simply isn't needed. If it was the Chargers would break ground yesterday. So it's not stadium or nothing. You're over simplifying the situation. And it's not even approved yet! It's just a pipe dream for now. :rolleyes:

Mehhhh.

SDfan Feb 28, 2014 1:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6470317)
Uptown Streetcar Open House this Saturday at St Paul's Cathedral. Hopefully this happens as it will be great for downtown and the surrounding communities.https://www.facebook.com/sdhistorics...944015239079:0

I want to go to this just to count how many people complain about how this is going to take away parking spaces and bring homeless people to Hillcrest.

spoonman Feb 28, 2014 5:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6472429)
I want to go to this just to count how many people complain about how this is going to take away parking spaces and bring homeless people to Hillcrest.

I believe this project is the first step in getting the train into the uptown neighborhoods. As I have said, I hope the design is truly functional and compatible with out current system.

Here is a study that was done on the project. The Zoo station is within brisk walking distance from Park & Upas in North Park.

http://www.sdmts.com/documents/City-...Full-Study.pdf

Prahaboheme Feb 28, 2014 6:45 PM

I read through the feasibility study and this does look like a fantastic opportunity to finally connect the Uptown neighborhoods to downtown. However, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a "Phase II" to Uptown in this plan (I may have missed it).

I guess I am just curious as to why the initial phase of the project wouldn't reach Unviersity / Park (and then Phase II could reach El Cajon / Park and possibly further east along El Cajon into North Park / City Heights).

This streetcar line seems to serve mainly tourists who are trying to access the zoo, whereas if this were extended just another mile north into Uptown, the ridership numbers would like double/triple due to the inbound use of residents going to downtown / East Village.

dales5050 Feb 28, 2014 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6468522)
I haven't seen any reasons for a downtown stadium that are all that convincing. It's either "build it because nothing else will be built" (development for the sake of development is not smart development, take a look at Mission Valley for that case study), "build it because it will boost the downtown economy" (downtown has been doing just fine this past decade without football), or "build it because we need to keep the Chargers," (okay, but weigh the scales, large sports complex downtown or actual neighborhood growth?). And the sad thing is, there is a viable alternative to downtown (ie, Mission Valley).

For me personally, I think clustering sports stadiums near each other makes the most sense. That is why I think DT is the only logical conclusion.

Regarding other points...

I see San Diego differently that most major cities. Unlike places like Chicago or New York..I don't see San Diego ever having a TRUE core. I think the development around UTC has pretty much set the trajectory of San Diego being a city of multiple hubs if you will.

I just don't San Diego is ever going to get a true 'all roads lead to Rome' public transit network and thus should not focus on the 'all roads lead to Rome' downtown. Instead, focus on creating 5-6 hub centers for the area that would resemble a much smaller downtown of mid-size cities.

That said, I think the Sports Arena and current Qualcomm sites are PRIME locations for additional hubs. They would be smaller than the UTC hub but still could be very dense hubs.

Each could have their own focus/flavor/personality. Mass transit could focus on just connecting the hubs, rather than trying to connect everything.

Going beyond that, you then take the neighborhoods and follow the formula of North Park and make each resemble 'Villages' if you will.


It's out there but to me this makes sense.

Streamliner Feb 28, 2014 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erip (Post 6467705)
From what I read on the issue, it was the drive through that was controversial/problematic, not the restaurant per se. Kind of like how residents in North Park were opposed to the Jack N the Box drivethru, this instance had many of the same arguments.

Residents a mere 173 feet away didn't want to listen to the drive thru squack box until 1:30 a.m., or the car stereos, etc. The area for the proposed In n Out was zoned for community neighborhood land use only, and local residents, like most people want a more liveable, walkable, bikeable neighborhood, and a late night drive thru was not that. I think some of the opponents in the area would have been ok if In n Out had been willing to forego the drive thru.

In-N-Out Drive thrus are particuarly popular, so the lines can make a bit of a traffic mess as well if not designed properly. Encinitas is building an In-N-Out and this was a minor issue there as well.

Quote:

Ballpark Village approved: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...llage-project/
Good to hear. Some interesting tidbits in the article, such as that the financiers wanted less parking. Also, I like how they will "frame" the Library dome within the site, preserving the views. I didn't notice that before.

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...8a41b9b1684c1a

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...8a41b9b1684c1a

SDfan Feb 28, 2014 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6473534)
For me personally, I think clustering sports stadiums near each other makes the most sense. That is why I think DT is the only logical conclusion.

Regarding other points...

I see San Diego differently that most major cities. Unlike places like Chicago or New York..I don't see San Diego ever having a TRUE core. I think the development around UTC has pretty much set the trajectory of San Diego being a city of multiple hubs if you will.

I just don't San Diego is ever going to get a true 'all roads lead to Rome' public transit network and thus should not focus on the 'all roads lead to Rome' downtown. Instead, focus on creating 5-6 hub centers for the area that would resemble a much smaller downtown of mid-size cities.

That said, I think the Sports Arena and current Qualcomm sites are PRIME locations for additional hubs. They would be smaller than the UTC hub but still could be very dense hubs.

Each could have their own focus/flavor/personality. Mass transit could focus on just connecting the hubs, rather than trying to connect everything.

Going beyond that, you then take the neighborhoods and follow the formula of North Park and make each resemble 'Villages' if you will.


It's out there but to me this makes sense.

I like the idea of what you're presenting, but there are certain political realities in San Diego that make them unlikely.

San Diegans are resistant to increasing densities where it hasn't existed already. And in even in those areas where greater densities exists, adding more development is very difficult. This is because of years of municipal negligence in planning and infrastructure, and allowing development occur with only short term goals in mind (ie, development for sake of development).

For instance. The Midway area is west of I-5, has a strict 30' height limit. Any developer interested in building would either need to be extremely creative and conciliatory to this ordinance, or push for a voter referendum to get an exception to the law - an initiative unlikely to pass in NIMBY San Diego. Developing a new "hub" out in Midway is extremely unlikely.

Meanwhile, in Mission Valley things are just as difficult. First, a good portion of the property would have to go to public space, ie. parks, plazas, etc. Next, much of Mission Valley has been developed in a haphazard way, creating odd traffic patterns, road connections, transit options, and an array of different types of development with limited public services and spaces (schools, fire stations, parks, etc.). Many who live in Mission Valley today, and those who frequent it's sporadic strip malls or work in the random office complexes strewn about the valley floor, would not take kindly to a large, urban "hub" where an infrequently used stadium now sits. In fact, there was a similar proposal -stadium, office, hotel, residential, park- that got shot down by civic leaders for being "too dense" for the area.

So, while I would love there to be more than just two urban oasis in San Diego City proper, I doubt either the sports arena or the qualcomm site would become options.

All the more reason to keep downtown open and available for dense, urban development because it's not going to happen anywhere else, and yes, that includes UTC, which has it's own set of limitations and NIMBYism as well.

dales5050 Feb 28, 2014 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6473868)
I like the idea of what you're presenting, but there are certain political realities in San Diego that make them unlikely.

San Diegans are resistant to increasing densities where it hasn't existed already. And in even in those areas where greater densities exists, adding more development is very difficult. This is because of years of municipal negligence in planning and infrastructure, and allowing development occur with only short term goals in mind (ie, development for sake of development).

For instance. The Midway area is west of I-5, has a strict 30' height limit. Any developer interested in building would either need to be extremely creative and conciliatory to this ordinance, or push for a voter referendum to get an exception to the law - an initiative unlikely to pass in NIMBY San Diego. Developing a new "hub" out in Midway is extremely unlikely.

Meanwhile, in Mission Valley things are just as difficult. First, a good portion of the property would have to go to public space, ie. parks, plazas, etc. Next, much of Mission Valley has been developed in a haphazard way, creating odd traffic patterns, road connections, transit options, and an array of different types of development with limited public services and spaces (schools, fire stations, parks, etc.). Many who live in Mission Valley today, and those who frequent it's sporadic strip malls or work in the random office complexes strewn about the valley floor, would not take kindly to a large, urban "hub" where an infrequently used stadium now sits. In fact, there was a similar proposal -stadium, office, hotel, residential, park- that got shot down by civic leaders for being "too dense" for the area.

So, while I would love there to be more than just two urban oasis in San Diego City proper, I doubt either the sports arena or the qualcomm site would become options.

All the more reason to keep downtown open and available for dense, urban development because it's not going to happen anywhere else, and yes, that includes UTC, which has it's own set of limitations and NIMBYism as well.


All great points. Give me a second while I pour your piss out of my cheerios. :)


Regarding NIMBYism, I think (well hope), that will change over time. With the projected growth in population for San Diego over the next 20-40 years...density is going to have to happen.

By then, a lot of the 'old school' who still cling to SD being a sleepy Navy town from the 60s will be gone. My hope is the next generation embrace smart growth. But I think it's going to take some serious leadership as well.

If these people would wake up and realize that height restrictions actually hurt them in the long run...SD can grow not at the expense of neighborhoods. Just imagine if someone in the 70s and 80s told folks in Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach and the like that by preventing dense development all you're going to do is force short apartments. Think of how many streets are 'damaged' for homeowners because other owners have added a cheap apartment complex in the back where a lawn used to be 40 years ago.

Prahaboheme Feb 28, 2014 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 6473850)
In-N-Out Drive thrus are particuarly popular, so the lines can make a bit of a traffic mess as well if not designed properly. Encinitas is building an In-N-Out and this was a minor issue there as well.



Good to hear. Some interesting tidbits in the article, such as that the financiers wanted less parking. Also, I like how they will "frame" the Library dome within the site, preserving the views. I didn't notice that before.

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...8a41b9b1684c1a

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...8a41b9b1684c1a

I think we have a winner in Ballpark Village. The renderings show a quality, pedestrian-oriented development with a focus on aesthetic details. It is designed as a place "to go" with points of interest.

This could easily have become just another condo tower and pedestal, a mid-rise megablock.

tyleraf Mar 1, 2014 2:21 AM

North Embarcadero Visionary Plan Update from the Port. I'm glad to see it coming together. http://www.portofsandiego.org/north-...uary-2014.html

spoonman Mar 1, 2014 6:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6473955)
All great points. Give me a second while I pour your piss out of my cheerios. :)


By then, a lot of the 'old school' who still cling to SD being a sleepy Navy town from the 60s will be gone. My hope is the next generation embrace smart growth. But I think it's going to take some serious leadership as well.

I can't agree with this enough.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.