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)

mello Jun 23, 2010 7:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4886115)
The people at CCDC say that banks aren't lending on hotel projects due to the recent collapse of that market (W, and The Se San Diego both went back to the banks within the last year). ouch.


It seems like nothing can get going in this county. Ball Park Village, that huge resort planned for years now at the mobile home park on Mission Bay, The Gaylord Chula Vista Project, Lane Field.

I also remember walking by a site for a proposed 12 or 15 floor hotel in Oceanside near the pier, does anyone know if that ever started construction?

And any info on that Mission Bay project would be appreciated - renderings?? How many rooms... Etc. Thanks.

HurricaneHugo Jun 24, 2010 1:09 AM

Well, at least the City Council approved the study on raising the CCDC's cap, a hurdle that the new Chargers stadium NEEDED to clear.

http://www.10news.com/news/23998684/detail.html

:D

SDfan Jun 24, 2010 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4888545)
It seems like nothing can get going in this county. Ball Park Village, that huge resort planned for years now at the mobile home park on Mission Bay, The Gaylord Chula Vista Project, Lane Field.

I also remember walking by a site for a proposed 12 or 15 floor hotel in Oceanside near the pier, does anyone know if that ever started construction?

And any info on that Mission Bay project would be appreciated - renderings?? How many rooms... Etc. Thanks.

Pretty much all of the Oside projects are put on hold for now, but once the economy spurts up again they should all start construction. Luckily many prominent projects were already finished before the economy tanked.

As for the mission bay project, I've never even heard of it.

brantw Jun 24, 2010 7:56 PM

Mayor plans smaller new City Hall for San Diego
 
19-story building would save millions over 34-story version :(

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...34634cbc5420f3

The proposed San Diego City Hall that will likely go before voters in November is much smaller and less expensive than the version first contemplated three years ago.

The project is also expected to save more taxpayer money than originally thought, a factor that supporters hope will sway skeptical voters frustrated with past financial decisions from city leaders.

After eight months of negotiations with a developer, Mayor Jerry Sanders plans to announce a deal today that caps taxpayer costs at $293.5 million — far less than the initial $432 million estimate. He said the deal will allow the city to consolidate operations at a central location and save millions that could channeled to fire service, parks and libraries.

The proposal calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, where Golden Hall sits just west of the current City Hall. It includes two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat City Council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,300 city office workers.

The original proposal by Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen called for a 34-story structure with 1 million square feet. The developer had also hoped to obtain nearby city properties for a retail project, but those plans were scrapped because of the recession.

Sanders said the new proposal is a practical solution to the current City Hall, which opened in 1965 and is considered by many to be a money pit.

“With this template that we have now, this is certainly not a Taj Mahal,” he said. “It’s a very functional building that I think will serve the city well and it saves us money every single year.”

Charles Black, the city’s lead negotiator with the developer, said the current proposal is smaller than the original because the city workforce has been reduced by roughly 1,400 positions, which means less space will be needed.

“We wanted to configure a project that made the most sense for the city,” Black said.

City officials project the new City Hall will save $28 million during the first 10 years because the city won’t need to make repairs at the current facility and eliminate leases for office space to house its workers throughout downtown. The savings include the cost of financing and paying back municipal bonds to fund the project. After 50 years, the savings over and above the debt service are expected to swell to $237 million. An earlier estimate on the taller building predicted a 50-year savings of $232 million.

The other option is to stay in the current building — which needs $37 million in mechanical, electrical, roof and plumbing repairs to get through the next decade — and continue paying $13 million annually in leases. A review by two auditing firms showed that the “hold steady” option would still require the city to build a new complex in 10 years.

So the question before voters will be whether it makes financial sense to build a new City Hall when the city continues to cut services or wait until the city emerges from its budget woes before moving forward.

The choice comes as the city considers several other major downtown projects, including a new main library, a Chargers stadium and a convention center expansion.

Sanders said he plans to campaign on behalf of a new City Hall and tell voters it will free up millions of dollars over the next decade that could be used to restore cuts, such as the recent decision to idle up to eight fire engines a day.

“It’s not whether we tear (the current City Hall) down,” he said. “It’s when we tear it down. So I think it makes much better business sense to do it now.”

So far, much of the opposition to a new City Hall has focused largely on putting the project up for a public vote. That issue became moot this year when four City Council members said they wouldn’t support the project without a public vote, guaranteeing that no deal could be passed without voter input.

The most outspoken opponent of the project has been Councilman Carl DeMaio. He has urged city leaders to look at short-term, low-cost solutions such as renegotiating leases because he doesn’t believe the city can afford spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a major civic project.

Officials in the Mayor’s Office say they have repeatedly tried to renegotiate leases, many of which expire in 2014, with minimal success.

The proposed ballot measure for a new City Hall will go before a council committee Wednesday with an eye toward full City Council approval in July.

If voters support it in November, construction is scheduled to begin in January 2012 and doors would open in July 2014.

HurricaneHugo Jun 24, 2010 11:11 PM

I hate this city.

Derek Jun 25, 2010 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4890309)
I hate this city.

x2.



I love it, but hate it at the same time. It's horrible. :(

spoonman Jun 25, 2010 3:04 AM

What a turd...

sandiegodweller Jun 25, 2010 2:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4888545)
It seems like nothing can get going in this county. Ball Park Village, that huge resort planned for years now at the mobile home park on Mission Bay, The Gaylord Chula Vista Project, Lane Field.

I also remember walking by a site for a proposed 12 or 15 floor hotel in Oceanside near the pier, does anyone know if that ever started construction?

And any info on that Mission Bay project would be appreciated - renderings?? How many rooms... Etc. Thanks.

None of those things are being built because there is negative demand for the foreseeable future.

Do you really think San Diego County (especially Downtown San Diego) needs anymore condos, office space, commercial space or hotels right now (or anytime in the next decade)?

SDfan Jun 25, 2010 4:49 PM

I'm not that upset. At least its symbolic of smaller city government and the design is still great. Plus, its replacing the shiza hole we have now, and its more likely to pass.

I approve.

SDfan Jun 25, 2010 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 4891032)
None of those things are being built because there is negative demand for the foreseeable future.

Do you really think San Diego County (especially Downtown San Diego) needs anymore condos, office space, commercial space or hotels right now (or anytime in the next decade)?

You really think it would be a decade before any major residential, commercial, or hospitality space is built downtown, let alone in the entire county?

sandiegodweller Jun 25, 2010 7:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 4891222)
You really think it would be a decade before any major residential, commercial, or hospitality space is built downtown, let alone in the entire county?

I've been saying this since 2006 that I beleive that no major projects will be built in Downtown San Diego until after 2017 at the soonest.

The only big projects that MIGHT be built in downtown San Diego will be government subsidized (stadium, courthouse, city hall, library, convention center). No private money is going to build a new office tower, condo tower or hotel anytime soon (unless they have some huge money to launder).

What new hotel, condo or office building (built since 2000) is thriving right now? What type of real estate is underserved right now and doesn't need some strong recovery to even stabalize?

Countywide, maybe?

I don't think anything will get built at the Ponto site in Carlsbad for years. La Costa and Aviara are stagnant.

Ocenaside is a pipe dream for both the luxury hotel (Malkin) and the luxury condos (Citimark).

I think that Manchester will be giving up control of his resort in Carmel Valley soon. That will be another white elephant property (along with the W and Se').

Chula Vista bayfront is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Kilroy MIGHT break ground on their site in Del Mar but they have private money.

brantw Jun 26, 2010 5:21 PM

‘One-of-a-kind’ foot bridge still an everyday construction site
 
The $26.8 million pedestrian bridge over Harbor Drive, designed as an iconic gateway into the city, is running more than a year behind schedule.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...34634cbc5420f3

Among other problems, the span was built 7 percent heavier than called for, requiring recalibration of the cables that will hold it up. Engineers on the project say such fluctuations are not uncommon.

The project — which will connect Petco Park to the Convention Center — broke ground in October 2008 and was supposed to be done in 12 months. Instead, it’s now scheduled to be finished by November.

“It should have been completed by now,” said San Diego Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who represents downtown. “It’s been very frustrating, not just to me but to my constituents.”

Downtown redevelopment officials say it’s a complicated, unusual project, which doesn’t foster quick construction. It’s a 530-foot curved, self-anchored suspension bridge — one of the few of its kind in the nation. Some parts had to be custom made and couldn’t be acquired quickly.

For instance, a special stainless steel able to avoid rust in marine climates was needed.

In hindsight, the original construction time frame was “much too ambitious,” said Derek Danziger, a spokesman for the Centre City Development Corp., the nonprofit city agency behind the project.

“We quickly realized it was going to take longer than a year,” he said. “It’s not a typical Caltrans overpass over the freeway.”

The bridge will ease access from the new Hilton hotel and a 2,000-space parking structure to the ballpark, over a six-lane road and several rail lines. Now, one has to walk several blocks to get to a crosswalk.

The lead engineering firm says forces beyond its control have led to delays.

“It’s a one-of-a-kind structure,” said Joe Tognoli of T.Y. Lin International. “It’s a lot more complex than one might think.”

Work on the project has slowed to such an extent that some residents have wondered whether an engineering miscue occurred. But nothing is wrong with the bridge, Tognoli said.

The heavier bridge weight is not a concern or unusual for such a project, he said. Pouring concrete is an inexact science. It’s easy to be off by one-eighth of an inch, either way.

So the cable system holding the bridge will have to be tweaked to make the bridge hang properly. “This is very typical,” Tognoli said. “It’s an aesthetic issue, really.”

William Ibbs, an engineering and project management professor at the University of California Berkeley, agreed that the weight difference is hardly unusual.

“No, it’s not surprising,” he said. “The engineer you cite is right.”

David Allsbrook, who heads public works for CCDC, said it’s too soon to say whether the agency will seek financial recourse against contractors for the delays.

The delays haven’t been the only controversy with the bridge. Some objected to the $26.8 million price tag. When the bridge was envisioned in 2005, the cost was pegged at $12.8 million. But as the project moved along, the estimates started soaring. Rising construction costs were blamed.

City leaders wanted a striking structure given the high-profile location. And they didn’t back off, even when the costs rose. Despite the holdups, the project is still on budget.

David Hazan, president of the East Village Association, says he believes in giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to delays such as these. They can and do happen, he said.

“It’s going to be worth the wait.”

Others agree. This was a gutsy project, which was supported by much of the downtown community, said Gary Smith, president of the San Diego Downtown Residents Group. So the delays aren’t shocking, given the project’s scope, Smith said.

HurricaneHugo Jun 27, 2010 1:12 AM

OMG a delay in a construction project?!!

you don't say?!!

OneMetropolis Jun 27, 2010 2:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4890309)
I hate this city.


Already been there.

mello Jun 28, 2010 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 4891430)
I've been saying this since 2006 that I beleive that no major projects will be built in Downtown San Diego until after 2017 at the soonest.

The only big projects that MIGHT be built in downtown San Diego will be government subsidized (stadium, courthouse, city hall, library, convention center). No private money is going to build a new office tower, condo tower or hotel anytime soon (unless they have some huge money to launder).

What new hotel, condo or office building (built since 2000) is thriving right now? What type of real estate is underserved right now and doesn't need some strong recovery to even stabalize?

Countywide, maybe?

I don't think anything will get built at the Ponto site in Carlsbad for years. La Costa and Aviara are stagnant.

Ocenaside is a pipe dream for both the luxury hotel (Malkin) and the luxury condos (Citimark).

I think that Manchester will be giving up control of his resort in Carmel Valley soon. That will be another white elephant property (along with the W and Se').

Chula Vista bayfront is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Kilroy MIGHT break ground on their site in Del Mar but they have private money.

What is this Kilroy project in Del Mar you are speaking of?

What about the proposed Hotel/Time Share at the very Northern end of Encinitas on the bluff above Ponto? Do you think that will start anytime soon? Are all of those big resorts built on the Orange County coast in the last 5 to 6 years hurting too?

I'm really interested in this SD Dweller, I didn't know the 4 Seasons, La Costa, and the Grande Del Mar were doing poorly.

Oh and did Sony every build that midrise up in Rancho Bernardo or did that die?

Thanks guys. I live in Brooklyn now so I'm not up to date on what has been happening in the County.

psychotron Jun 28, 2010 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4894035)
Oh and did Sony every build that midrise up in Rancho Bernardo or did that die?

It's done and occupied. Nice addition to the area. Pics aren't mine...

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...34634cbc5420f3
http://aucoti.files.wordpress.com/20...pg?w=499&h=363

mongoXZ Jun 29, 2010 12:20 AM

Did I read this correctly? Our city council approved to break ground on the new library? O-------M--------G!!
http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...95d379f58af1c4

City leaders plan to break ground next month on a new $185 million main library in downtown San Diego despite concerns that the project could leave taxpayers on the hook should private donors fail to raise enough money to pay for it.

The City Council voted 6-2 Monday to move forward with library construction under the promise that a fundraising campaign will be able to collect the additional $32.5 million needed to finish the job. If donors don’t emerge, the city would have to either use taxpayer money to fill the gap or leave the library’s interior unfinished.

The financial risk to taxpayers was the chief concern among opponents, including former City Attorney Michael Aguirre, who questioned the wisdom of committing to a brand-new library when the city has been forced to make significant cuts to public safety, parks, beach maintenance and existing libraries. But it wasn’t enough to dissuade a council majority from proceeding.

Library supporters, including former Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs, who has pledged $20 million to the project, promised the money would be raised to complete the project. While the city is taking a $32.5 million risk, they said the city would lose $80 million in outside money committed to the project if it didn’t approve the plan Monday.

Former professional basketball player Bill Walton, a San Diego native whose mother had a 21-year career as a city librarian, said there is no greater mission and no grander goal than building a new library.

“The argument against this library is that it’s too expense and that we can’t afford it,” Walton said. “In reality, we can’t afford not to do this. We can either start building this library today or start building prisons tomorrow.”

Aguirre, who lost a re-election bid in 2008, said the city doesn’t have enough money to keep its current libraries open and questioned whether it was legal for the city to start construction on a project that wasn’t fully funded. He also criticized Jacobs for his donation, a comment that drew boos from the crowd.

“You’re hurting our city because you are helping to push this city into doing something that is financially irresponsible just like you did with the ticket guarantee,” Aguirre said.

Aguirre was referring to the city’s past deal with the Chargers that called for taxpayers to ensure the sale of 60,000 seats for the team’s home games at Qualcomm Stadium. The deal cost the city $36.4 million between 1995 and 2003.

The new library would be built at the corner of Park Boulevard and J Street in the East Village. It would be a nine-story domed centerpiece and twice the size of the existing 1954 library on E Street. Two floors would be used for a charter school serving about 400 students.

Funding for the library would come from several sources, including $80 million in city redevelopment funds, $20 million from the San Diego Unified School District and a $20 million state grant.

The rest would be covered by private donors, who have already pledged nearly $41 million. That includes $10 million to pay for the library’s operating costs for the first five years.

The city has enough money for the first phase of the library but needs an additional $32.5 million by January 2012 to start the second and final phase. The library is projected to open in July 2013.

Council members Carl DeMaio and Sherri Lightner voted against the project, saying the city couldn’t afford to build a central library at a time when the 35 branch libraries have seen their hours reduced significantly because of budget cuts.

“I’m afraid this project contains too many risks to our city’s general fund, too many shoes that may drop,” DeMaio said. “We cannot afford to build this project at this time. We have to get our city’s financial problems fixed first. We have to make sure that when we invest in our library system that all branches benefit equally.”

The project needed six votes for approval and Frye, who had opposed the library in the past, provided the swing vote to win passage. She didn’t explain her vote during the hearing.

Craig Gustafson: (619) 293-1399; craig.gustafson@uniontrib.com; follow Craig on Twitter at @gustafsoncraig

sandiegodweller Jun 29, 2010 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4894035)
What is this Kilroy project in Del Mar you are speaking of?

What about the proposed Hotel/Time Share at the very Northern end of Encinitas on the bluff above Ponto? Do you think that will start anytime soon? Are all of those big resorts built on the Orange County coast in the last 5 to 6 years hurting too?

I'm really interested in this SD Dweller, I didn't know the 4 Seasons, La Costa, and the Grande Del Mar were doing poorly.

Oh and did Sony every build that midrise up in Rancho Bernardo or did that die?

Thanks guys. I live in Brooklyn now so I'm not up to date on what has been happening in the County.

1. KSL isn't building the Ponto site anytime soon. It is a condohotel, not timeshare. ZERO demand. They aren't even selling new units at their existing resort let alone developing a new one.

2. St Regis in Monarch Beach was foreclosed last year.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul...is-foreclose21

All of the rest (Ritz Carlton, Montage, Pelican Hill) are running with large occupanices.

3. Four Seasons Aviara is now Hyatt Aviara
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...-hyatt-aviara/

The Se' is in bankruptcy
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...28-709089.html

What do you think will happen?

voice of reason Jun 29, 2010 1:14 AM

Former professional basketball player Bill Walton, a San Diego native whose mother had a 21-year career as a city librarian, said there is no greater mission and no grander goal than building a new library.

“The argument against this library is that it’s too expense and that we can’t afford it,” Walton said. “In reality, we can’t afford not to do this. We can either start building this library today or start building prisons tomorrow.”

What a truly embarrassing and inane statement. Obviously the council liked it better than fixing the roads or fixing the budget.

I am sure the unfortunate people who bought in East Village will be glad that it fills one of many ugly voids. At least the bums will have a place to hang out during the day.

dl3000 Jun 29, 2010 5:47 AM

Oh, voice of reason, I was starting to miss you...

...NOT.

The library is one of the great American social inventions and is still relevant. I seriously doubt you have any civic pride or a concept of keeping adolescents out of trouble. Go get a cabin in South Dakota.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:20 AM.

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