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)

alasi Nov 9, 2009 2:27 AM

For those interested in the federal courthouse, the groundbreaking is set for Dec.11.

kpexpress Nov 9, 2009 4:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alasi (Post 4548141)
For those interested in the federal courthouse, the groundbreaking is set for Dec.11.

They've been driving piles for the soldier beam and lagging for at least a week now though.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...2/IMG_0954.jpg
(pardon my thumb...lol)

Derek Nov 9, 2009 9:04 AM

Regarding the Chargers' new stadium:


Honestly, as long as they're in the county I'm happy. If it were up to me, I'd rebuild at the Qualcomm site.



Downtown would be cool, too. Or even Escondido.


THE END :D

IconRPCV Nov 9, 2009 8:33 PM

Concerning the Chargers' stadium; I think the best local would be the East Village, then the current site, and as a last resort the Escondido site. I for one wouldn't like to make the drive up or down the 15 during a football game.

The stadium should be located by mass transit. I know the Escondido site is by the Sprinter but for those of us in SD proper that means a Coaster ride then a transfer to the Sprinter, a bit too complicated and time consuming I feel, so the majority of fans would then just drive.

staplesla Nov 9, 2009 9:25 PM

I too would like to see the Chargers in East Village. Downtown is already equipped with the needed various forms of transportation, and it's centrally located for the county's residents. And if built right the location could serve as a sporting/entertainment venue year round for which the crowds before and after the events would spend money at the downtown restaurants, and the garages could serve the daily downtown crowds when events are not in session.

And regarding Escondido, if this location becomes serious you are going to see the NIMBY's coming out of the woodwork fighting this with tooth-and-nail because of "traffic and crime issues."

mongoXZ Nov 10, 2009 2:43 AM

Oh man! A Charger stadium in downtown would be just. . . just awesome!

It seems as if the Chargers were always interested in downtown. They shrugged off the 2 Chula Vista sites like they were nothing and i don't think they're taking Escondido too seriously. Fabiani seems to really like East village pointing out the already existing infrastructure to support it.

Imagine this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/...1af7bfa9c5.jpg

bmfarley Nov 10, 2009 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 4550008)
Oh man! A Charger stadium in downtown would be just. . . just awesome!

It seems as if the Chargers were always interested in downtown. They shrugged off the 2 Chula Vista sites like they were nothing and i don't think they're taking Escondido too seriously. Fabiani seems to really like East village pointing out the already existing infrastructure to support it.

Imagine this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/...1af7bfa9c5.jpg

A football stadium downtown does not appeal to me. They are huge... and the area around them are devoid of energy outside of game days. How many are there each year?

IconRPCV Nov 10, 2009 5:15 AM

^^^^

It would not just be the Chargers using the facility. The Aztecs would use it as would the two bowl games San Diego hosts. Concerts, large conventions, probably a MSL soccer team. So to say it would sit empty, is dare I say it, ignorant.

HurricaneHugo Nov 10, 2009 9:06 AM

Design it so it can double as an arena! :D

eburress Nov 10, 2009 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4550414)
Design it so it can double as an arena! :D

I realize there's some tongue-in-cheek, but that was precisely the mistake San Antonio made with their Alamadome. In designing it so that it could double as an arena, it didn't actually end up working for either purpose. It was a horrible waste of money.

alasi Nov 10, 2009 5:49 PM

I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

S.DviaPhilly Nov 10, 2009 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alasi (Post 4550816)
I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

I love Petco downtown, I think where they put "the dump" makes perfect sense. The park during the day is a great place to bring you pup or throw a baseball of frisbee or football around. So if Petco is only half the reason for this part of East Villages' redevelopment then what is the other half of the reasoning?

Fusey Nov 10, 2009 6:58 PM

Quote:

CCDC to open bids on Seventh and Market site
By CARLOS RICO, The Daily Transcript
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Centre City Development Corp. will start advertising bids Friday for soil remediation and parking lot construction work at Seventh Avenue and Market Street, a site where at one point a $409 million hotel and residential mixed-use project was proposed.

The advertised bid calls for environmental remediation work to clean up the 55,000-square-foot lot that was found to be polluted, according to David Allsbrook, Centre City Development Corp. vice president of acquisitions for public works and property management.

The contract is estimated at $2.2 million and will require the winning contractor to remove roughly 9,000 tons of dirt that Allsbrook said contains various hazardous waste like lead, petroleum and burn ash due to an old gas station at the site.

"We were able to get a $1.5 million grant from the state to clean up the area because the responsible party could not be found," explained Allsbrook, who also said that the rest of the money to pay for this work would come from Centre City’s general fund.

Allsbrook said he hopes a "permit to proceed" with this project can be issued by mid-December so that the project can be completed before the grant expires in May.

All but 5,000 square feet of the Seventh and Market site will be turned into a parking lot, as it was before the $409 million hotel and residential property proposal.

Last year, CCDC -- the city’s redevelopment agency -- stopped the proposed 41-story, mixed-use project after it was discovered the agency's former president Nancy Graham had a conflict of interest with the project’s developer.

It was reported that Graham had received $125,000 from The Related Group while in Florida in 2007, which has connections with the now former Seventh and Market developer The Related Cos.

After learning of the conflict, the CCDC board voted to terminate the project.
Graham was fined $3,300 and ordered by the courts she would not be able to run for public office or act as a lobbyist in California for three years for not disclosing her economic gains with the developer of this project.

"As of now, there are no plans to develop this site," Allsbrook said. "Right now the best use for this site is a parking lot."

He added that once the mixed-use market gets stronger, CCDC will look into finding a new developer for the site.

"In the future, we would still want a hotel and residential project," Allsbrook said.
http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm...de=20091109cyd

tdavis Nov 10, 2009 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 4550644)
I realize there's some tongue-in-cheek, but that was precisely the mistake San Antonio made with their Alamadome. In designing it so that it could double as an arena, it didn't actually end up working for either purpose. It was a horrible waste of money.

So because San Antonio didn't do it right, we should just forget about it? Many other cities have mixed use entertainment/sporting developments that are very successful and thrive year-round.

Crackertastik Nov 11, 2009 12:22 AM

How can anyone say that PETCO is anything but a GINORMOUS success while maintaining a straight face.

These people trully are idiots. And i mean to be bemeaning. Capital letters, IDIOTS.

Id say the area around our stadium is as vibrant as you can get, so im a bit confused by these assertions. It is just rediculous.

IconRPCV Nov 11, 2009 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alasi (Post 4550816)
I love the argument that the stadium would be used by all these great events. That is precisely the argument used for PETCO park. As a resident of downtown, I can tell you that hasn't quite panned out.

For those that think all the development happened because we built a stadium, you are only half right. Yes, they built the stadium, after giving Moores half of the East village dirt cheap. If they had been willing to do the same in the beginning, you could have had the same development without this huge empty dump in the middle of downtown.

I am abit offended by your remarks. PETCO is a beautiful ballpark that has transformed a blighted neighborhood into a vibrant 24/7 neighborhood with buisnesses and residents. I know this for a fact because I live next door.

PETCO is just about the only notable piece of architecture that SD has produced in the last decade or two, so if you think it is a dump then you must think SD is a dump.

mongoXZ Nov 11, 2009 2:51 AM

Chargers, S.D. discussing downtown stadium
15-acre site near Petco Park eyed for $1 billion project

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

SAN DIEGO — After years of watching other cities tease the Chargers with talk of a new stadium, San Diego has become the team's leading suitor again by dangling the possibility of professional football near Petco Park. Mayor Jerry Sanders discussed the downtown idea in a private meeting with team President Dean Spanos two weeks ago. That prompted Escondido to stop wooing the team while San Diego revisits the stadium issue for the first time since 2006 when the Chargers rejected rebuilding at the Qualcomm Stadium site and began exploring options elsewhere in the county.

The focus on downtown has fueled optimism among community leaders and created anxiety among property owners who might be displaced by a $1 billion stadium project.

The roughly 15 acres being eyed for a stadium includes city-owned Tailgate Park close to Petco Park, the privately owned Wonder Bread building and the bus yard for the San Diego Transit Corp., owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but mayoral spokesman Darren Pudgil said yesterday that the Mayor's Office is looking at all of the ways cities have helped with stadium construction. Pudgil said two options could be infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Everyone from team officials to potentially affected property owners say the project's financing is its main hurdle.

"Somehow, somebody still has to come up with the money to build this big, expensive stadium," said Bob Sinclair, who owns the Wonder Bread building. "I don't know how they're going to get over that delta for the cost."

Sanders and Spanos met for about an hour on Oct. 27 at the La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club. It was their first meeting since Jan. 7, although city and team officials have talked since then. Sanders called Spanos in July and early October, and Sanders' aides met with a team representative in April, May and mid-October. Future meetings will explore the city's role in the project.

In an interview last week, Sanders said contacts are more frequent now because the political landscape has changed since April 2006 when he said San Diego lacks the time and money to focus on a new Chargers stadium.

In particular, Sanders said, the city has a less combative city attorney since Jan Goldsmith replaced Michael Aguirre and the team has stopped exploring sites in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside.

"I don't want to say the Chargers were not important because they were, but I think that after four years, we certainly have to give them a signal on what we intend to do or how we want to do it or what we can do," Sanders said. "And then start working together to see if we can achieve a solution."

Sanders and Spanos have met privately three other times, once in January 2006, about six weeks after the mayor took office, and twice in October 2006.

Building a football stadium downtown has been kicked around San Diego before. In 2003, the year before Petco Park opened, then-Mayor Dick Murphy's citizens task force on Chargers issues examined a downtown stadium site while studying a replacement or upgrade of Qualcomm Stadium.

At the time, the task force noted that building on the large bus storage facility in East Village was an option but would require a relocation of the fleet and likely an environmental cleanup. On the plus side, it found, the area has 57,000 parking spaces within 1.5 miles.

Property owners in the area are mixed on the idea of a downtown stadium. Sinclair, whose Wonder Bread building on 14th Street dates to 1898 and is about 20 percent leased, said the location makes sense for a stadium because it is accessible, has ample parking, is made up of only a handful of parcels and probably isn't too contaminated from the buses.

While some people believe the team may eventually give in to the temptation of a new stadium proposed for the Los Angeles-area City of Industry, Sinclair expects the team to stay local.

"If they're reasonable enough, they could make a deal with everybody on our little block," he said.

Yet Eddie Zaitona, the longtime owner of Logan Market & Liquor on 16th Street, which could be in the stadium's footprint, doesn't want to leave.

City officials have not ruled out using their eminent domain powers for the stadium, Pudgil said yesterday. For now, the city and team are agreeing to a series of regular meetings to study the stadium concept.

Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said she will stand by in case talks break down in San Diego, but she isn't hoping for that outcome.

"The way I see it, we're all engaged in trying to make sure the Chargers stay in San Diego," she said. "I think (the downtown San Diego location) is a beautiful site."

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the point person on the team's stadium search, has long said a downtown stadium makes financial sense because infrastructure improvements to accommodate a stadium of up to $1 billion elsewhere could cost $200 million, but they are a fraction of that downtown.

Both Fabiani and Sanders said they want to know quickly if the site is economically feasible for the team. A site of that size would be among the National Football League's smallest stadium footprints.

One of the first matters of business will be conducting a financial analysis to figure out how a project might be financed and to what extent the city might be involved. One possibility is some of the money for the project could come from selling or developing the city-owned 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site, which the team would leave vacant.

Fabiani attended the Oct. 27 meeting between Sanders and Spanos with Kris Michell, Sanders' chief of staff, and Fred Maas, board chairman of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm.

The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money.

Richard Rider, a longtime taxpayer advocate who ran for mayor in 2005 against Sanders, said the Chargers shouldn't count on any handout, including redevelopment bonds.

"I don't think the taxpayers are going to want to subsidize a new football stadium when we have a perfectly good football stadium more centrally located in Mission Valley," he said.

But Ben Haddad, board chairman at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, is excited that Sanders and Spanos are again in regular contact.

"If folks can agree at the highest levels on a particular course of action, then I want to be in there right behind them as a business leader trying to get that done," Haddad said.

Library researchers Anne Magill and Merrie Monteagudo contributed to this report.

Matthew Hall: (619) 542-4599; matthew.hall@uniontrib.com

OneMetropolis Nov 11, 2009 4:16 AM

I don't get it, wasn't this plan already shot done by voters in 2008 when there was a ballot for the measure to do the exact same thing they're doing now? Why do they think it would work again? Even if they do get this site, who's paying for it? The tax payers? The stadium up in LA is fully privately financed and can begin construction whenever, not so much this plan. Also that Fabiani person he's not the head or owner of the chargers, what does his aspirations have to do with what the chargers really want?

He allready regarded that a move to LA would be best.

Quote:

If another NFL team occupies a new stadium under consideration in City of Industry in the Los Angeles market, "It would be financially catastrophic for the Chargers," Mark Fabiani, the team's spokesman, told Gene Cubbison of KNSD-TV yesterday (Oct. 22). "We're in a bad financial situation now; we'd be in a much worse situation if there was a team in Los Angeles," Fabiani intoned. Of course, he was not telling the truth. The Chargers are not in a bad financial situation. They are making plenty of money at Qualcomm Stadium. It's just that they want to rake in more money. The Chargers deny it, but they want to occupy that City of Industry stadium, if it is ever built. The Chargers can never get the kind of money they want from luxury boxes, club seats, advertising, and sponsorships in San Diego. Teams get to keep such revenue -- not having to share it with other teams. Fabiani told Cubbison that the team gets 30% of such revenue from the L.A. market -- another dubious statement.

There are 17.1 million people in the L.A. market, compared with 3.1 million in San Diego. L.A. has many more companies and superrich families that would put bodies in the luxury boxes and seats. Fabiani's remark means that he is putting pressure on the league to let the Chargers move. Other teams, such as Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland, covet L.A.

Fabiani's statement "makes the obvious obvious," says former Councilmember Bruce Henderson. "It's basically over with, although the team may not yet have made a deal with other owners." Other owners no doubt fear an uprising in San Diego, such as the one that mushroomed in Cleveland when the Browns left.
Site Link:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=1#post4552211

Marina_Guy Nov 11, 2009 5:11 AM

This is the saddest thing about this...

"The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money."

First the City Council takes its chunk of redevelopment dollars, now the State is taking $45 million and with this it looks like struggling multimillionaire Spanos will take some too. I have never experienced a community so vision-less as to not spend $$$ on its downtown when it actually has it! Living downtown for many years now, we continue to be devoid of activated parks, recreational facilities, and economic development initiatives to bring more jobs and retail downtown. While I understand the community loves its Chargers, I don't think it is appropriate to spend/borrow against redevelopment $$$ to keep them here. There are other priorities.

tdavis Nov 11, 2009 7:14 AM

FYI - just saw this on CBS-8. A group has been formed to push the CA High-Speed Rail Authority to change the proposed route in SD. This group wants the rail line to bypass UTC, the airport, and downtown; but instead travel all the way down the I-15 to the border.

This group doesn't want the line traveling through the Rose Canyon/UTC area. My personal opinion is that UTC which is one of the most populated areas outside of downtown must be served, as well as downtown.

Anyway, public comment is being accepted by the High Speed Rail Authority:

Email: comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line LA-SD HST and cc. comments to rosecanyon@san.rr.com
Mail: Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director
ATTN: HST Project EIR/EIS
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:57 AM.

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