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)

tdavis Jun 29, 2009 8:51 PM

I agree that is the best location as well. You already have the services of Petco, access to light rail, and the crowd could spill over into downtown after the games to help the city.

The only way this site would happen if there is pressure on the city leaders/Chargers. I've sent an email to all to encourage them to strongly consider this location.

bmfarley Jun 30, 2009 2:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdavis (Post 4332403)
I agree that is the best location as well. You already have the services of Petco, access to light rail, and the crowd could spill over into downtown after the games to help the city.

The only way this site would happen if there is pressure on the city leaders/Chargers. I've sent an email to all to encourage them to strongly consider this location.


Downtown would be sweet... if you like large sites sitting unused for the majority of the year. The site in question also has existing public uses... notably a large bus yard. Relocating that function would be a huge cost to taxpayers... and have its own relocation efforts that would need to be answered first.

I like another site... on the waterfront at the 10th Avenue Terminal IF IF marine and stadium uses can coexist in a postive and functional way.

But, I think the northwest quadrant of I-5 and I-8 is best. Light-rail is there.. or soon will be. And, I can imagine a little teraforming and some new marine docs and townhomes to go along with the site. Being Mission Bay would be pretty sweet.

ShekelPop Jun 30, 2009 7:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4332973)
But, I think the northwest quadrant of I-5 and I-8 is best. Light-rail is there.. or soon will be. And, I can imagine a little teraforming and some new marine docs and townhomes to go along with the site. Being Mission Bay would be pretty sweet.

If I'm not mistaken, Farley's mentioned and promoted this site potential before. (and if not you, then someone else surely has). I've always liked this idea ever since it was mentioned. I felt if you considered the low impact on the number of residents (from what I can picture it affects very few residential homes compared with all other site proposals - am i wrong?), then because its not directly near as many homes as other sites, this location has a good argument on its side.

bmfarley Jun 30, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 4333358)
If I'm not mistaken, Farley's mentioned and promoted this site potential before. (and if not you, then someone else surely has). I've always liked this idea ever since it was mentioned. I felt if you considered the low impact on the number of residents (from what I can picture it affects very few residential homes compared with all other site proposals - am i wrong?), then because its not directly near as many homes as other sites, this location has a good argument on its side.

If you say something often enough... sooner or later it will make sense. :)

Do I know you?

Crackertastik Jun 30, 2009 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4333514)
If you say something often enough... sooner or later it will make sense. :)

Do I know you?

Why would a new stadium remain largely unused? Most modern stadium have TONS of activities year round. Concerts, conventions, trade shows, football, basketball, soccer, etc.

They aren't just football stadiums. Hell you can use the floor as convention center space if its that close by.

I think downtown makes the most sense. And if there is a public transportation spot on the land needed, that is why we have designers who can utilize the space for multifunction.

SD_Phil Jul 1, 2009 6:44 AM

^the economics of large stadiums just don't work that way. it takes a lot of money to rent out a huge venue like a football stadium. Very few concerts would make a profit because of those costs and those bands that could pencil out at a football stadium already have several large venues in the San Diego area that are well established.

The same economic problems would plague using a football stadium for most of the things you've listed: SD doesn't have a basketball team and no amateur teams could make money using a stadium that large as a venue, same goes for soccer. Convention space is equally baffling as a use given the multitude of convention specific spaces in SD. So far as I know only the very largest conventions have found the convention center lacking (I know we may lose Comic-Con for this reason).

Land downtown is very valuable. A football stadium just doesn't make sense there...at all.

staplesla Jul 1, 2009 4:29 PM

SD Falls to 9th Largest City
 
"As population rankings go, San Diego's descent this decade has been swift. First it was Phoenix that knocked the city down a notch from its No. 6 berth, and a few years later along came San Antonio, dislodging it from No. 7. Now, Texas has struck again."

I'm not surprised. The DFW metroplex is growing like crazy. Also, the city of Dallas has a team of people going to Fortune 500 businesses trying to entice them to move their headquarters to Dallas, stating the "economy is better, lower unemployment, lower cost of living, and lower cost to do business." AT&T and others recently made the move. And I didn't know till yesterday that TX has the most Fortune 500 companies, with NY being second, and CA third.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ce-population/

ShekelPop Jul 2, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4333514)
If you say something often enough... sooner or later it will make sense. :)

Do I know you?

ha. no we don't know each other, but for whatever reason i remembered the stadium discussion from a while ago and recalled that you mentioned the mission bay location at that time as well. im always a sucker for a little rail rerouting and harbor fill projects.

S.DviaPhilly Jul 2, 2009 3:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil (Post 4335240)
^the economics of large stadiums just don't work that way. it takes a lot of money to rent out a huge venue like a football stadium. Very few concerts would make a profit because of those costs and those bands that could pencil out at a football stadium already have several large venues in the San Diego area that are well established.

The same economic problems would plague using a football stadium for most of the things you've listed: SD doesn't have a basketball team and no amateur teams could make money using a stadium that large as a venue, same goes for soccer. Convention space is equally baffling as a use given the multitude of convention specific spaces in SD. So far as I know only the very largest conventions have found the convention center lacking (I know we may lose Comic-Con for this reason).

Land downtown is very valuable. A football stadium just doesn't make sense there...at all.



I think the stadium downtown is a great idea. Look what Petco Park did for East Village. I do not think all these new condo buildings would exist if it were not for the ballpark. Having the football stadium downtown would do the same further east. Since the new football stadium will be a super bowl caliber stadium, downtown has a lot of hotels for people to stay in and downtown has the harbor for ships/boats to dock. And don't forget the fun gaslamp quarter.

If people think congestion is a problem take a look at Philadelphia's 4 stadiums all right next to each other. South Philly is now building "Philly Live", which is going to be shops, restaurants, and entertainment in South Philly. Downtown has public transportation available right now, with highways only blocks away. I do agree that downtown's land is valuable, but not when it is abandoned and filled with the homeless. DEVELOP DOWNTOWN, DEVELOP!!!!!!

bmfarley Jul 2, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly (Post 4336797)
I think the stadium downtown is a great idea. Look what Petco Park did for East Village. I do not think all these new condo buildings would exist if it were not for the ballpark. Having the football stadium downtown would do the same further east. Since the new football stadium will be a super bowl caliber stadium, downtown has a lot of hotels for people to stay in and downtown has the harbor for ships/boats to dock. And don't forget the fun gaslamp quarter.

If people think congestion is a problem take a look at Philadelphia's 4 stadiums all right next to each other. South Philly is now building "Philly Live", which is going to be shops, restaurants, and entertainment in South Philly. Downtown has public transportation available right now, with highways only blocks away. I do agree that downtown's land is valuable, but not when it is abandoned and filled with the homeless. DEVELOP DOWNTOWN, DEVELOP!!!!!!

Well, we know football and baseball are very different. Baseball has 81 games a season, many are in the evening and can be matched to after-game festivities and drinks... and extending a date with a hottie. Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are prime.

Football, on the other hand, has 8 home games a year, add about 2 for pre-season and maybe a playoff game if the team is good, then you have 10-12 in a good year. But, all but 2-4 games are on Sunday afternoons.

Sunday afternoon games do not seem to have a good opportunity to greatly benefit downtown businesses. The best thing that can be said... for retail that is... is that football draws about 60,000 fans at a time. For a season... that's probably about 600,000 butts. I think baseball draws over 2 million a season. Maybe 3 million.

tdavis Jul 2, 2009 6:20 PM

Ok, those that think a downtown stadium would sit vacant for most of the year are flat out wrong. The stadium last year hosted over 150 events, including obviously the Chargers games, but also conventions such as the Jehovah Witness convention, soccer games including the recent Mexico vs. Guatemala match, drag racing, and the numerous trade shows and conventions.

The stadium is host to:
* San Diego Chargers Football
* San Diego State University Aztecs Football
* Pacific Life Holiday Bowl
* San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
* San Diego Auto Connection
* OMBAC
* Big 3 Auto Parts Exchange
* RaceLegal

Derek Jul 2, 2009 6:30 PM

A new stadium in this region could also attract more bowl games. :)

SD_Phil Jul 2, 2009 6:33 PM

^Right and many of those functions can happen at Qualcomm given it's current age and location and it's current costs. A brand new stadium, downtown, wouldn't be able to support the same kinds of activities at a cost that's competitive with competing venues with a far lower cost structure. I mean it seems like a strange comparison to compare what an aging (though by no means 'old') stadium 15 miles outside downtown on relatively cheap land could afford to do relative to a brand new stadium downtown and it's associated cost structure...

HurricaneHugo Jul 3, 2009 4:42 AM

I just want a new stadium to keep the Chargers and perhaps host a World Cup match or two. :)

OneMetropolis Jul 3, 2009 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4335662)
"As population rankings go, San Diego's descent this decade has been swift. First it was Phoenix that knocked the city down a notch from its No. 6 berth, and a few years later along came San Antonio, dislodging it from No. 7. Now, Texas has struck again."

I'm not surprised. The DFW metroplex is growing like crazy. Also, the city of Dallas has a team of people going to Fortune 500 businesses trying to entice them to move their headquarters to Dallas, stating the "economy is better, lower unemployment, lower cost of living, and lower cost to do business." AT&T and others recently made the move. And I didn't know till yesterday that TX has the most Fortune 500 companies, with NY being second, and CA third.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ce-population/


Sad :no::(

Derek Jul 3, 2009 7:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4338744)
I just want a new stadium to keep the Chargers and perhaps host a World Cup match or two. :)



I just wish it wasn't too much to ask. :(

SD_Phil Jul 3, 2009 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis (Post 4338816)
Sad :no::(

Not entirely sure why this is sad. So long as growth is healthy (or at least so long as there is growth) then why should we care whether other cities are growing faster or whether SD is the 7th or 9th largest city in the country? It's not clear that San Antonio or Phoenix or etc are doing better just because they have more people, in some cases it seems like the opposite is true.

PadreHomer Jul 3, 2009 6:04 PM

The bus depot is a terrible use of space in that area.

The choice is to build something truly fantastic or something merely great, I say reach for fantastic.

bmfarley Jul 5, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PadreHomer (Post 4339373)
The bus depot is a terrible use of space in that area.

The choice is to build something truly fantastic or something merely great, I say reach for fantastic.

I agree there is opportunity to improve southeast San Diego. Starting with that yard is a logical place. However, the function of the yard would need to relocate elsewhere first.

Filambata Jul 6, 2009 5:59 AM

I believe lots of federal funds are apportioned according to population and population ranking...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil (Post 4339369)
Not entirely sure why this is sad. So long as growth is healthy (or at least so long as there is growth) then why should we care whether other cities are growing faster or whether SD is the 7th or 9th largest city in the country? It's not clear that San Antonio or Phoenix or etc are doing better just because they have more people, in some cases it seems like the opposite is true.



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 PM.

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