Amazed how the city decides to put so many affordable units in glitzy downtown high rises. There are 50 affordable units at 15th & Island alone... that has to be one of the least cost effective places.

Wouldn't it be better to offer 80 units in north park rather than 50 in downtown? Not saying all the affordable units should be shoved into a ghetto, but they shouldn't go into one of the most expensive areas in the city, either. It seems like the same amount of money could be used to help a lot more people.

There is a meeting concerning Lane Field South coming up on February 19th.

Did anyone notice 15th and Island phase 2 is listed as condominiums? I also spoke to a realtor that said there were far too few parking spaces. Does anyone recall reading about that?

I don't think the city decided to put those affordable units there. It's likely this,

"The Density Bonus Program allows housing developers to build more units on a property than are otherwise permitted, provided that a certain percentage of the total number of the additional units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households."

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/sdhcd/...incentive.html

I believe developers also have the option to "buy out" of having to provide affordable units. That probably occurs much more in the case of condos.

Yep.

I've wondered about this too before. I read an article where the commentators wondered why SD invests in more expensive locations rather than far-flung areas where land is cheaper. The answer revolved around the realities of those needing affordable housing, and the communities who are unwilling to accept them.

Downtown is ideal for affordable housing development because many of the social services that low-income people/families need are located in the immediate area. Also, a person living in subsidized housing is less likely to have a car, which means you need relatively good transportation services nearby - which is less likely in rural or suburban areas.

Meanwhile, other communities tend to oppose affordable housing (and any market rate housing in general) over fears of crime and property devaluation. Poor people are (unfortunately) the pariahs of many in community planning groups. You can see this in Uptown especially, where newer projects opt for paying the fee, rather than having their projects opposed because they would include two or three affordable units.

Downtown is in a unique situation because it's an already established mix-income community, with reliable mass transit, embedded social services, and a robust, pro-growth planning group. That's what makes affordable housing more likely to appear in some of the most expensive real estate in the county.

And to be honest, that's not bad. It makes for a more egalitarian society, and promotes urban living for all - not just the exclusive right for retired, second home, Arizona sunbirds. The cost per unit is ridiculous (300k+), but the long term benefits are greater. I do think more uptown and urban core neighborhoods should be building more units, both affordable and otherwise. But selfish property owners have a stranglehold on housing development, and that won't change any time soon.

The "???" project is BioMeds' new i3 life science campus, which looks to be a series of low-rise offices. Meh.

Illumnia is building a new parking structure, but I don't know if there is going to be a building expansion along with it.

Does anyone have a rendering of the new Costa Verde project by UTC? I can't find a picture of all 4 towers that are going in there.

IDEA1 has a status of 'pending approval' and start date not available?

I thought this project was ready to break ground soon, anyone know what's going on with this?

IDEA1 is going to break ground in October according to the developer.

I could be wrong, but I didn't think they were still planning to move forward with the former, four-tower project. My understanding was that it was now going to be a shorter, two-building project.

http://www.sandiego.gov/real-estate-...ngproposal.pdf

Finally some real numbers for a new stadium and plan in mission valley. Check it out

Was this in an article?

Where did this come from?

I saw it via bleacher report team stream. ESPN ran a story about county kicking in some money via a pbs article. The pbs article had a link to the San Diego website that has a big list of documents for public viewing. This specific proposal is dated February 2015 so i can only assume it was just released. It's worth reading thoroughly. They have some good ideas.

The problem with this plan is that it leaves a gap of about $200 million for the stadium. The plan looks great for the developer and city, but not the Chargers. Very thoughtful proposal, but seems to miss the point. Spanos would have to be the mixed-use developer to recoup his outlay for the stadium unless revenue from the new stadium was sufficient to cover the gap in funding.

It would be a no brainier solutuion if the NFL said they would cover any funding gap from lack of PSL revenue. If that were the case they could get it done. Spanos will make more than enough money from new suite revenue to cover his portion of the payments and interest.

IMO, that density should be permitted from the beginning. I don't like the idea of bending rules to get what you want. It seems like a pretty stupid to say there is an affordability crisis, and then restrict the number of total units so that supply can't meet demand and economy of scale is lost, driving up prices.

I do agree that downtown is a great place for it because of the services available. But at the same time, it's a center for mostly white collar jobs, and barrio logan, golden hill, etc. are just next door and arguably closer to blue collar job centers.

I think it's good that downtown have mixed incomes. But the goal of affordably housing should be to help as many people as possible afford a place to live, not gift away a la jolla beach estate to one lucky lottery winner. Offering 3 affordable 1bd in a pricey highrise makes no sense to me when just 2 miles away you could build double or more for the same price. And the extra cost passed on the other units in that tower is just making the problem worse for everyone else. Wealthy buyers obiously don't feel much an impact, but housing policies like this feel very much like robbing the almost poor to feed a small percentage of other almost poor citizens. And how do HOA fees work on affordable units?

In general, I would say if housing is unaffordable city wide, there is a big supply/density problem, to which offering up a few units a year below market is not a real solution. It may even drive up prices of the remaining units even faster!

It's a common practice in most cities, here's an interesting article on the subject from The New York Times that I read/watched last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/re...ings.html?_r=0

No street-level commercial space in Urbana?!
 

Urbana on 10th avenue near Petco Park is almost complete, but I was surprised when I walked by tonight to see no place for ground-level businesses (as their building renderings implied they would have).

They have their leasing office and the building's gym taking up the largest spaces. Then, there are two ground level units with kitchens, etc which are either model rental units or actual units for rent.

The Farenheit building directly across from urbana has ground level shops and it would have activated that part of 10th having commercial activity on both sides of the street. It really seems like wasted street level space not having any ground level businesses. Especially the buildings gym, why would they put it right next to the entrance at street level with big windows for everyone to stare into. Being right adjacent to Basic and that close to the ballpark, I'm perplexed as to why they wouldn't want street level commercial space there.