The new Downtown Circulator Shuttle...what does everyone think of the routes? I think they are ok, but wish one line went down Market and then up into Golden Hill. Oh, and the "green" line doing a huge loop around Petco is kinda lame.

<a href="http://s1110.photobucket.com/user/MDUNCAN10/media/CirculatorMap.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h443/MDUNCAN10/CirculatorMap.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo CirculatorMap.jpg"/></a>

http://www.civicsd.com/images/storie...or_Shuttle.pdf

I guess the lines are good enough. Hopefully ridership is good enough to merit eventual replacement by streetcars.

Me too.:D

It will be so nice to see the east village finally get a little height to it and a good looking building as well.

I really hope tower two gets built as well.:tup:

Thanks for the photos. :D


Is there any word as to what the ground level retail might be?

Nice to see some old projects come back.

According to the article, there will be a park across the street on 4th Avenue. Anyone have info on this?

Love the old house in the foreground.

How would a football stadium make the East Village a lively place? I understand the need for more modest developments, but a behemoth football stadium would just create a mega-block dead zone.

Football stadiums are suburban structures. They require huge amounts of open land for surface parking to tailgate. They're used maybe 10 times/year. This would do the exact opposite of what you desire.

Edit: if you're referring to PetCo, then I'm totally with you. MLB/NBA venues are great in urban locations. NFL, not so great.

No one is seeing it from the sports fan perspective.
65-68K taking the trolley :haha:

According to this source http://www.comic-con.org/about 130,000 make it to comic con annually over consecutive days without much grief. The bus system is pretty darn good however we can do a lot better. Additionally, most folks stay in the city during that weekend. What makes you think that our MTS can't support a stadium downtown? Speculation? Honest question.

Its great to see this new development in SD. I stayed at the Doubletree in Mission Valley around Christmas and took a walk through Downtown. Its a great sign seeing those cranes! Also, the new Holiday Inn Bayside tower looks great. Hadn't been past it since July.

Btw, this new Architecture blog will have a ton of information about architecture in San Diego. Its brand new and only has 4 posts as of yet but it will cover projects and developments all across the west coast :cool:

http://westcoastarch.blogspot.com/

Have you ever tail gated before? It's an all-day event...long before kickoff. The NFL is a different species than MLB. Tailgating requires open space...ie: parking lots.

it's not a question of MTS being able to handle game day traffic, we know this is the case bc MTS serves the Q already.

Agree with this 100%.

There is some brief information and renderings/floorplans of the new Convention Center expansion at:

http://westcoastarch.blogspot.com/20...l?view=classic

:rolleyes:

I think both height and a healthy urban core are both important for different reasons.

When you are actually downtown, height doesn't matter so much, what does matter is the street environment/experience.

I think height becomes important more when talking about skyline views - how the world who can't visit sees us in photos. Also, how we view the downtown skyline from other neighborhoods within the city (though this may be less important for SD due to our many hills which segment the city and block out skyline views from many areas, as opposed to a flat city like Chicago where you see the visual impact of the skyline all around it).

My worry is that the height limit is giving us a "plateau" effect to the skyline. It would look better to have more variety and more height.

But I totally get what you mean about the ground level urban experience. Other than the Gaslamp and Little Italy which seem to have little vacant storefronts, EV still has many and it does hinder the urban experience.

One example, TR Produce building - approaching a decade since it was redeveloped (7 or 8 years?), prime location right across from Petco park, and not a single tenant in the ground level ever since it was redeveloped :???::???:

The Q has some 19,000 spaces. The somewhat "proposed" EV site has??
Its not just the fans that attend games. I worked at charger games so there are several thousand working the event. Media ,food ,security etc. chargers/nfl can build a new concrete bowl next to the old one with the trolley and 3 major freeways next to it.

Yes I have tailgated before and I understand the differences between the culture surrounding the two sports however massive parking lots aren't necessary, ideal, but not necessary. ie: the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans has a larger capacity than the Q with very limited parking. It seems to work fine there.

That being said you can also drink in the streets on New Orleans which basically makes the entire city a tailgate parking lot. Nice.

The Mission Valley site obviously makes more sense and I'm not advocating for either site but building in the EV wouldn't be unprecedented. I'd just ride my bike to games.

To digress for a moment, anyone know if the "sky park" at the proposed convention center expansion would be open to the public year-round or only for conventioneers?

Although I'd favor the Q still as the best site to keep the Chargers I think both the city and the Chargers need to build the new stadium in the place that is the most likely to get done.

Regardless of where it gets built the tailgating in San Diego IS going to change from what it currently is. Downtown would give you tailgating in the city as noted but even if the Q is the site where they rebuild the new stadium no way in hell is any project going to work rebuilding the new stadium with all that existing parking space we have today. They'll build the new stadium with a parking structure and develop the rest of the space. It's the only way to make the $$$ work. Tailgating in a parking structure? Yeah, tailgating is going to change one way or another.


As to the cities height limit I blame the lame FAA. There's no reason not to exceed the 500 foot limit in parts like East Village.

How smart is it to have your emergency landing go through one of the 10 largest cities in the US with 500 foot buildings already? The thought of placing a plane that is having "issues" going through downtown high rises has never given me warm fuzzy feelings...:runaway:

That said, even if San Diego could build taller it doesn't mean anyone would be lining up in large numbers to build 500+ structures. We aren't New York. Don't need to be either. San Francisco and Los Angeles both have buildings over 500 feet and both pale in comparison to cities like New York or Hong Kong. They'll never have a skyline close to it either. So yeah, like everyone here I'd love to see a building one day break that 500 foot limit but I also know the quality of San Diego's downtown and how it's viewed by others depends on many other factors.


I've never heard anyone say I'm not going to San Diego ever cuz' the buildings there are to short. Lol

It's about the weather,the sights, the food, what there is to do and how much fun it is. Downtown needs to give people a reason to want to visit or live there. I lived in New York and when I visit it's because it's fun and there's a lot to do. Not because I have the urge to see some really massive buildings....:D

I think a stadium "mega block dead zone" is still better than a bus maintenance yard and a square mil of blank asphault.

Keeping in mind that it can be developed in a way that it serves multiple purposes. The "park in the park" at Petco is a good example. It's pretty well integrated into the city, and if you take a satellite view look of it, it's not taking up much space.

What's amazing is that the city set the 500ft limit. The FAA only requires that no building is over 700 ft within 2 miles of the runway. So maybe we can start a good lobbying effort and get at least a small boost.

Height isn't everything. Phoenix doesnt have height but downtown Phoenix is awful because there are no lowrises or midrises in between the highrises. Compare that to San Diego, which has many diverse neighborhoods that are dense and modern. I love Downtown San Diego, it is very contemporary but also allows for a sense of place. An urban football stadium has its pros and cons, and compromises would have to be made.

Im not saying that an urban setting is better than a suburban setting, but in the right place, with the right design, a stadium will succeed. Take University of Phoenix Stadium for example. Most didn't like the idea of having a stadium 25-30 miles from Downtown Phoenix, especially with the potential revenue from Super Bowls and BCS championships and such. However, the stadium opened in an area of Glendale that was rural farmland, and now it is quickly turning into a center for sports, entertainment, and food. Following the construction of UofP Stadium, Westgate (an entertainment district), a 5 star hotel, a brand new outlet mall, condos and lofts, 2 movie theaters, lifestyle centers, and hotels were built, with much more under construction now. The parking lot for the stadium keeps getting torn up to build more hotels, restaurants, or apartment complex and no one complains about a potential lack of tailgating space. A casino and resort has been proposed across the freeway and Glendale will host it's 2nd Super Bowl in 7 years.

Anyways, my point is that a NEW stadium will urbanize an area quickly. It will pump money into the economy, give publicity to a neighborhood, and draw visitors to an area. U of P Stadium hosts exhibitions, concerts, high school tournaments, college bowl games, etc during the times when the Cardinals arent in town. Before it, that area of Glendale was dead. And now, it is an important economic, sports, and entertainment center for Metro Phoenix and the West Valley.