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)

keg92101 Dec 2, 2007 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3199979)
I can't tell how big the site for Hotel Indigo by the rendering. From the tax records, it appears that they only own the 3 tax parcels on the SWC of the site (16,000 sf +/-).

They don't own the halfway house with the For Sale sign on it and they don't own the flophouse hotel adjacent to the hole being dug for Strata.


It will be a shame if those two projects remain.

No plans for the flop house. I know the halfway house's CUP expires soon, and it won't be renewed per CCDC about a year and a half ago.

sandiegodweller Dec 2, 2007 2:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 3200132)
No plans for the flop house. I know the halfway house's CUP expires soon, and it won't be renewed per CCDC about a year and a half ago.

The asking price for the halfway house was $400 psf for the dirt. That corner will be a lot less valuable as a stand alone property than it would have been to incorporate it into Strata or Hotel Indigo. Same with the flophouse hotel.

keg92101 Dec 2, 2007 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3200266)
The asking price for the halfway house was $400 psf for the dirt. That corner will be a lot less valuable as a stand alone property than it would have been to incorporate it into Strata or Hotel Indigo. Same with the flophouse hotel.

All these asking prices will come down. Land brokers have manipulated them beyond profitability. Anyways, went to the Hard Rock Woodstock opening last night. It was pretty cool. Cindy Crawford, Fergie, and Ashlee Simpson were all there. They've got some kinks to work out, but that place will be put a dent in Stingaree / Ivy or any other clubs in Downtown. They don't even charge cover!

Derek Dec 3, 2007 2:59 AM

Here's some Chargers new stadium news. (From Chargers.com)

Two artist renderings greeted people that entered the Chula Vista Public Library auditorium Wednesday night for the Chula Vista Stadium Study Town Hall meeting.

One depicted a stadium on the Chula Vista bay front. The other was a similar stadium on vacant land in the east side of town in Otay Mesa along State Route 125.

When both ideas were explained to the audience, the plans were met with applause, especially after Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani and Chula Vista Counsilman John McCann, an advocate of the project, emphasized no public funding would be used for the privately built stadium.

“I’m for a new stadium and keeping the Chargers in San Diego County,” said Mike Cain, a Chula Vista resident that arrived early to sit up front. “I just wanted to know there will be no tax dollars used.”

In Chula Vista, the debate appeared to be more about where to build the stadium than should the city proceed as a partner with the Chargers to build that would be a state-of-the-art stadium. Such a facility would be home to the Chargers, San Diego State football, the Holiday Bowl and Poinsettia Bowl, possible future Super Bowls and other sporting events.

At the end of the meeting, a member of the public called for a vote by a show of hands. Approximately 45 people voted for the bay front site and 20 for the eastside. Seven people voted against the stadium. There were 20 hands raised that to vote they wanted a stadium but didn’t care which site.

McCann said that once the Chargers agreed to pay for the study of the project, at a cost of $200,000, and agreed to not negotiate with any city outside of San Diego County, the city began studying its options.

“We want this process to be transparent,” McCann said. “The bottom line is the city of Chula Vista has not spent any taxpayer money on processing these plans. The Chargers have paid for the study and it has not cost Chula Vista any money.”

Fabiani also explained that it has been the Chargers’ goal since the beginning to privately fund the project.

“We’re going to put everything about this project on the ballot,” Fabiani said. “There won’t be anything left to guesswork.”

McCann discussed plusses and minuses to both sites.

He described the aging power plan on the water front as an eyesore that could be replaced by the new stadium with a 100-acre park surrounding it. He explained the waterfront site offers more existing infrastructure with Interstate-5 and the trolley lines. Another advantage of the site is there are no residential homes to be knocked down and displace people.

The park would be used year-round with cars parking on the grass on game days. This would be in contrast to a paved over parking lot that sits empty most of the year as is the case with the Qualcomm Stadium site where the Chargers play now.

McCann and Fabiani also said the trolley lines could be expanded to the stadium site and the Coaster commuter trains from North County could be extended to Chula Vista. He also said people could enter the stadium site on a ferry from Coronado.

“Can we be the impetus that finally results in the elimination of the power plant on the bay front more quickly than it would otherwise?” Fabiani said. “If so, is that worth something to you? Can we be the the reason a park is built around the stadium instead of a parking lot?”

Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition and Jim Peugh of the Audubon Society both spoke at the meeting, objecting to building projects of any kind on the bay front site.

McCann said a benefit of building the stadium on the east side of town is the stadium would fit in with the nearby Olympic Training Center. He also said a stadium, that would also be used by San Diego State, could be an anchor to a south campus for San Diego State or another four-year school campus.

“There is no four-year university south of Highway 94,” McCann said. “I don’t know of another population area as large as ours without a four-year university for the community.”

Most of the questions raised at the town hall meeting centered on assurances there would be no public funding and the appropriate infrastructure would be included in the planning to prevent traffic congestion.

Victor Contreras was another citizen attending the meeting. He wanted to know if the stadium construction project could be connected to the Sweetwater Union High School District to provide vocational training as well as jobs for local construction companies.

“I think this can be a win for the school district and a win for the community,” Contreras said. “I would be extremely interested in seeing that kind of development. And it’s a win for the Chargers.”

Contreras’ idea was met with applause, and Fabiani, who opened the town hall meeting by saying he was there to hear ideas from the public, asked him for his card to explore his ideas.

“One of the things that’s exciting about this project is we’ll be starting from scratch,” Fabiani said. “We can do things that have never been done before. We can build a “green” stadium that is environmentally neutral. It’s been done in Europe with soccer stadiums with current technology. We want to design something for the community that makes a lot of sense.”

bmfarley Dec 3, 2007 3:54 AM

^^^^
Don't get me wrong, I want the Chargers to remain in the county. I am not enthralled by the idea of a stadium in Chula Vista... too far south.

But my main observation is that Fabiani is saying that the Chargers' goal is that no public funds used for the project, yet cites that the Trolley could be expanded at the site and Coaster could be extended. Mmmm.... on who's dime? The same question holds true for a ferry terminal at the bayfront stadium location.

What kind of language is going to be that supposed ballot measure?

I am wondering if Fabiani is trying to sell snake oil.

And... if no public funds is the goal... well, couldn't that be done in San Diego too?

sandiegodweller Dec 3, 2007 4:56 AM

I sit in meetings every week where we see residential development projects pitched. The idea of a new stadium being financially feasible in the region is a pipe dream. There is no legal product type (Residential, office, commercial) that could generate enough income to finance a new $1 billion facility except maybe a new mega casino. The interest payments alone on $1 billion @ 5% is $137,000 per DAY. That doesn't pay any of the principal.

The costs for these projects has doubled since the last outdoor stadium (Qwest Field Seattle) was built. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. He has 15x more money than Spanos and he wouldn't spend his own money to build the stadium ($450 million).

I predict that the Chargers will be in Qualcomm for another 10 years. Not because they want to but because the economy and the economics of building a new stadium anywhere in the country will prevent them from finding a better deal.

bmfarley Dec 3, 2007 8:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3201931)
I sit in meetings every week where we see residential development projects pitched. The idea of a new stadium being financially feasible in the region is a pipe dream. There is no legal product type (Residential, office, commercial) that could generate enough income to finance a new $1 billion facility except maybe a new mega casino. The interest payments alone on $1 billion @ 5% is $137,000 per DAY. That doesn't pay any of the principal.

The costs for these projects has doubled since the last outdoor stadium (Qwest Field Seattle) was built. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. He has 15x more money than Spanos and he wouldn't spend his own money to build the stadium ($450 million).

I predict that the Chargers will be in Qualcomm for another 10 years. Not because they want to but because the economy and the economics of building a new stadium anywhere in the country will prevent them from finding a better deal.

Still, don't get me wrong... I want to see the Chargers remain in San Diego County... but that same phrase came to mind with the thought of no public funds to finance the project as a goal with the suggested transportation improvements... It's a 'pipedream.'

Makes me wonder if Mark Aquire was correct in his approach with the Charger's? Maybe he knew something that wasn't conveyed in the press? But I still will not vote for him on the next go-round.

mello Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3201931)
I sit in meetings every week where we see residential development projects pitched. The idea of a new stadium being financially feasible in the region is a pipe dream. There is no legal product type (Residential, office, commercial) that could generate enough income to finance a new $1 billion facility except maybe a new mega casino. The interest payments alone on $1 billion @ 5% is $137,000 per DAY. That doesn't pay any of the principal.

The costs for these projects has doubled since the last outdoor stadium (Qwest Field Seattle) was built. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. He has 15x more money than Spanos and he wouldn't spend his own money to build the stadium ($450 million).

I predict that the Chargers will be in Qualcomm for another 10 years. Not because they want to but because the economy and the economics of building a new stadium anywhere in the country will prevent them from finding a better deal.


It was very interesting how the article we just read on the last page didn't talk about the "surrounding development" that would help "pay for" the stadium. Usually articles discuss the nearby 4 to 6000 condos to be built by Spanos or a "retail village" etc. This article only discussed the stadium itself and not the added the development the Spanos family would use to off set stadium costs... Very strange.

So they are saying just the cost of building the *stadium* is 1 billion??? Just stadium nothing else??? Holy shit. This is crazy. Looks like they should have just done the Qualcomm site years ago when the cost might have only been 450 or 500 million $ :haha:

sandiegodweller Dec 3, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 3202350)
It was very interesting how the article we just read on the last page didn't talk about the "surrounding development" that would help "pay for" the stadium. Usually articles discuss the nearby 4 to 6000 condos to be built by Spanos or a "retail village" etc. This article only discussed the stadium itself and not the added the development the Spanos family would use to off set stadium costs... Very strange.

So they are saying just the cost of building the *stadium* is 1 billion??? Just stadium nothing else??? Holy shit. This is crazy. Looks like they should have just done the Qualcomm site years ago when the cost might have only been 450 or 500 million $ :haha:

Since there is no actual plan proposed yet, only pretty renderings, I don't know what the $1 billion is paying for. All I know is that the new Cowboys Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Cowboys_New_Stadium) and the new NY Giants and NY Jets stadium (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...140&refer=home) have both exceeded that number.

ShekelPop Dec 7, 2007 6:23 PM

Well, if no one's got anything, here's a photo from a couple of weeks ago I was able to snap from the Bay, showing Electra, completed.

http://lh6.google.com/ahmeyers/R0FCE...JPG?imgmax=512

keg92101 Dec 7, 2007 7:36 PM

Hotel Indigo site has begun to mobilize. Excavator and Dozer are on site. Strata was setting soldier beams last night for the shoring.

eburress Dec 7, 2007 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3212461)
Well, if no one's got anything, here's a photo from a couple of weeks ago I was able to snap from the Bay, showing Electra, completed.

http://lh6.google.com/ahmeyers/R0FCE...JPG?imgmax=512

I am really disappointed in the color of Electra's glass. Green...blue...silver...anything would have been better than BROWN! This isn't 1975.

ShekelPop Dec 7, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 3212671)
I am really disappointed in the color of Electra's glass. Green...blue...silver...anything would have been better than BROWN! This isn't 1975.

I agree, but I will say, that its only acceptable a) because NBC will soon block it partially anyway, b) its among blue glass buildings which at least gives the view some variety.

here's another shot which shows more of that wonderful 1975 (excellent choice of year by the way) brown:
http://lh4.google.com/ahmeyers/R0FBI...JPG?imgmax=512

ShekelPop Dec 7, 2007 9:16 PM

Civic Center Redevelopment
 
I guess there is news today (besides Indigo geting under way, that's good news too!). From CCDC:

Quote:

SEMI-FINALIST DEVELOPMENT TEAMS IDENTIFIED FOR
CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT

SAN DIEGO, CA — A selection committee has reviewed proposals from eight prospective development teams and narrowed the list of competitors to four, for the possible redevelopment of San Diego’s Civic Center Complex. The semi-finalist firms invited for presentations to the selection committee include:


. Gerding Edlen (Portland, OR)

· Hines (San Diego, CA)

· Lankford & Associates (San Diego, CA)

· Thomas Properties Group (Los Angeles, CA)

The development teams were evaluated based on numerous criteria including relevant experience of the firms and staff, financial capability, commitment to equal opportunity and accomplishments in sustainable design and development.

Following the semi-finalists presentations, the selection committee will choose up to three finalist teams to advance to the next round of competition.

The finalists will then participate in a series of public meetings to be held throughout the city to share their prior development experiences and listen to public feedback, questions and ideas. Final proposals from all firms are currently scheduled to be due in mid-2008. Each finalist will be expected to incorporate ideas and suggestions gained from these public meetings into their submitted proposals. Finalists will also be expected to submit conceptual plans and financial projections in their final proposals.

Selection Committee Members, comprised of professionals from diverse disciplines, are as follows:

Fred Maas, Chair CCDC Board of Directors
Barbara Warden, The Downtown San Diego Partnership
Kent Trimble, Delegate, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
William Sauls, esq., Centre City Advisory Committee Member
Tom Sudberry, Sudberry Properties
David Malmuth, Robert Charles Lesser & Company
Kevin Tilden, San Diego Convention Center Board
Larry Hoeksema, AIA, Moser Drew Watson & Ferguson

Currently, San Diego’s City Administration Building accommodates only 600 employees, and the City has had to lease privately owned space for more than 15 years. City offices are now located within eight downtown buildings (four leased), representing more than one half million square feet of leased space.

Collectively, more than 3,000 employees work in these properties, which comprise annual leasing costs of $13.5 million. Deferred maintenance on the City Administration Building alone is estimated to exceed well above $10 million. Because most of the leases will come due in 2013 and 2014 and rates are projected to increase significantly, this process is seen as a proactive approach to evaluate possible costs savings through redeveloping the site.

The committee is expected to announce the names of up to three finalist teams before the end of the year.

The final determination process will include a thorough financial evaluation to ensure that a project would move forward only if it could clearly demonstrate a significant reduction in operational and capital costs to the City. Similar public/private partnership projects include the new city hall in Austin, Texas, and state-of-the-art courthouse facilities in New York City.

Goals of the redevelopment of the Civic Center Complex include:

• Revitalizing the city’s civic core
• Catalyzing private sector development in the Civic Center area
• Providing more accessible public spaces
• Providing smart growth transit-oriented development
• Opening B Street, closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic for 40 years
• Replacing aging infrastructure
• Constructing a more publicly accessible City Hall
• Increasing tax increment revenues generated to the City
• Utilizing sustainable development techniques.

For questions of further information please contact Jeff Graham at 619-533-7181 or jgraham@ccdc.com.

ShekelPop Dec 7, 2007 9:29 PM

Also, (sorry guys, I'm super bored at work today) - looks like Embassy 1414 is now called Lumina and is going to be what sounds like a Condo-hotel:

http://www.sandiegometro.com/urban/
"Lumina. (Formerly Embassy 1414) Constellation Property Group by Marchese + Partners, a property development company from Australia, is revising its second condominium development in San Diego. The development at West Ash and Columbia streets features 40 condos in a multi-use and hotel project."

and also I did some google work and found on another site: http://logs.hotel-online.com/News/PR...minaTempe.html

"Veteran hotel developers will launch a new hotel-plus condos brand Lumina in downtown Tempe...Constellation Hospitality Group was formed by San Diego-based Constellation Property Group and Australian architectural firm Marchese & Partners to develop the Lumina brand...Tempe will get the first Lumina. Constellation is eyeing sites in San Diego, Honolulu, Las Vegas and Austin, Texas, Marchese said."

bushman61988 Dec 7, 2007 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3212823)
I agree, but I will say, that its only acceptable a) because NBC will soon block it partially anyway, b) its among blue glass buildings which at least gives the view some variety.

here's another shot which shows more of that wonderful 1975 (excellent choice of year by the way) brown:
http://lh4.google.com/ahmeyers/R0FBI...JPG?imgmax=512

I hate what they did to the base of this tower...I think this project as a whole came out much worse than the renderings. It's Sooooooooooooooo Nothing to be excited about. THe only thing that's cool is the height...That is it.

But the base of the tower used to be a really beautiful mix of orange and peach color, with emphasis to the little details from back in the old days, when ALL buildings, even power plants were given careful, dedication and attention...

NOw they just painted the whole damn thing one, monotonous brownish color that almost takes away from the historical significance...just disgusting.


Not to mention that Brown glass...but I do agree w/ what ShekelPop said that it's only acceptable b/c NBC will block it AND it does add some variety to the skyline...but not add that variety w/ some Emerald Green?


Our CCDC & Planning really sucks w/ approving these projects which lack any vision or artistic form...They make a tower that's the cheapest possible to make.

Derek Dec 8, 2007 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3212919)
Also, (sorry guys, I'm super bored at work today) - looks like Embassy 1414 is now called Lumina and is going to be what sounds like a Condo-hotel:

http://www.sandiegometro.com/urban/
"Lumina. (Formerly Embassy 1414) Constellation Property Group by Marchese + Partners, a property development company from Australia, is revising its second condominium development in San Diego. The development at West Ash and Columbia streets features 40 condos in a multi-use and hotel project."

and also I did some google work and found on another site: http://logs.hotel-online.com/News/PR...minaTempe.html

"Veteran hotel developers will launch a new hotel-plus condos brand Lumina in downtown Tempe...Constellation Hospitality Group was formed by San Diego-based Constellation Property Group and Australian architectural firm Marchese & Partners to develop the Lumina brand...Tempe will get the first Lumina. Constellation is eyeing sites in San Diego, Honolulu, Las Vegas and Austin, Texas, Marchese said."

As long as it keeps it's original design, I'm cool with it.

SDCAL Dec 8, 2007 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 3212919)
Also, (sorry guys, I'm super bored at work today) - looks like Embassy 1414 is now called Lumina and is going to be what sounds like a Condo-hotel:

http://www.sandiegometro.com/urban/
"Lumina. (Formerly Embassy 1414) Constellation Property Group by Marchese + Partners, a property development company from Australia, is revising its second condominium development in San Diego. The development at West Ash and Columbia streets features 40 condos in a multi-use and hotel project."

and also I did some google work and found on another site: http://logs.hotel-online.com/News/PR...minaTempe.html

"Veteran hotel developers will launch a new hotel-plus condos brand Lumina in downtown Tempe...Constellation Hospitality Group was formed by San Diego-based Constellation Property Group and Australian architectural firm Marchese & Partners to develop the Lumina brand...Tempe will get the first Lumina. Constellation is eyeing sites in San Diego, Honolulu, Las Vegas and Austin, Texas, Marchese said."

This doesn't sound too promising, no start date and they are "eyeing" San Diego?

They were doing more than "eyeing" when they were "Embassy1414", with full plans, a website, etc

eburress Dec 8, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 3212974)
AND it does add some variety to the skyline...but not add that variety w/ some Emerald Green?

I do appreciate that it does add some variety to the skyline, but you're exactly right in that the variety could have been added in the form of a more aesthetically pleasing color. :)

bmfarley Dec 8, 2007 5:53 PM

^^ fwiw, it looks lik a very nice bldg to me. My downtown favorite is still the Hyatt at Harbor and Market, the one with the old-castle type roof.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.