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)

HurricaneHugo Jan 2, 2008 8:38 AM

First post of 2008!

sandiegodweller Jan 2, 2008 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 3247703)
Does anyone know what WalMart is calling their urban prototype going into TR Produce?

The working name is "Project Fresco". Wal-Mart should be announcng the new concept soon.

Trvlr Jan 3, 2008 5:39 AM

Predictions for the Property Market in 2008...
 
An excerpt from the Daily Business Report of the San Diego Daily Transcript, reviewing Grubb & Ellis's predictions for the office/retail/industrial/residential markets in 2008.

Given the climate in the rest of the country, things aren't really that bad here.

----

The 2008 San Diego office market is expected to be a year of moderate growth and positive activity, but tempered with weakening in several market fundamentals, reports George Gramm, v.p. of research at the San Diego affiliate of Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial. Average asking rates for CBD Class A office space in San Diego are projected to be $37.56 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up slightly from $36.12 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego 17th of 77 CBD markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007, says Gramm. Average asking rents for suburban office space in San Diego are projected to be $41.77 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $39.78 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego fourth of 81 suburban markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007.

Gramm says the San Diego industrial market is expected to run in maintenance mode during 2008 as excess new supply is leased or sold, fueled by lower sales prices, concessions and flattening rental rates. Average asking rates for warehouse/distribution space in San Diego are projected to be $7.70 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, consistent with $7.68 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego seventh of 79 industrial markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007

Construction of new retail centers in San Diego area will remain low, keeping vacancy levels below 5 percent during 2008.

“The San Diego retail market is expected to be impacted slightly from the housing downturn, however, the rebuilding from the San Diego fires of 2007, as unfortunate as they were, are expected add a boost to the local retail scene,” says Gramm. Average asking rates for well-located inline shop space in San Diego are projected to be $43.26 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $42 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego eighth of 61 retail markets ranked in North America.

Gramm predicts that investor interest in the San Diego multihousing market will be maintained during 2008 despite a variety of forces that will be pulling demand in opposite directions. San Diego's lack of available land for new development will keep supply low while positive population and job growth projections will keep demand high. Occupancy rates are expected to maintain levels above 95 percent throughout 2008.

bmfarley Jan 3, 2008 5:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trvlr (Post 3257177)
An excerpt from the Daily Business Report of the San Diego Daily Transcript, reviewing Grubb & Ellis's predictions for the office/retail/industrial/residential markets in 2008.

Given the climate in the rest of the country, things aren't really that bad here.

----

The 2008 San Diego office market is expected to be a year of moderate growth and positive activity, but tempered with weakening in several market fundamentals, reports George Gramm, v.p. of research at the San Diego affiliate of Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial. Average asking rates for CBD Class A office space in San Diego are projected to be $37.56 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up slightly from $36.12 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego 17th of 77 CBD markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007, says Gramm. Average asking rents for suburban office space in San Diego are projected to be $41.77 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $39.78 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego fourth of 81 suburban markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007.

Gramm says the San Diego industrial market is expected to run in maintenance mode during 2008 as excess new supply is leased or sold, fueled by lower sales prices, concessions and flattening rental rates. Average asking rates for warehouse/distribution space in San Diego are projected to be $7.70 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, consistent with $7.68 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego seventh of 79 industrial markets ranked in North America at year-end 2007

Construction of new retail centers in San Diego area will remain low, keeping vacancy levels below 5 percent during 2008.

“The San Diego retail market is expected to be impacted slightly from the housing downturn, however, the rebuilding from the San Diego fires of 2007, as unfortunate as they were, are expected add a boost to the local retail scene,” says Gramm. Average asking rates for well-located inline shop space in San Diego are projected to be $43.26 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from $42 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2007, placing San Diego eighth of 61 retail markets ranked in North America.

Gramm predicts that investor interest in the San Diego multihousing market will be maintained during 2008 despite a variety of forces that will be pulling demand in opposite directions. San Diego's lack of available land for new development will keep supply low while positive population and job growth projections will keep demand high. Occupancy rates are expected to maintain levels above 95 percent throughout 2008.

Who is Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial? Is this organization similar to a realestate broker for homes... but for commercial/industrial/retail space? If so... I'm very skeptical . It would be like a cheerleader saying their team is the better one on the field. no?

I say this b/c I believe there are several opinions forwarded that I believe... are bunk.

Urban Sky Jan 5, 2008 6:58 AM

[QUOTE=bushman61988;3250778]
Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban (Post 3249963)
^^^Whatever it is, I just hope it doesn't have the word "Mart" in it.



Electra's impact
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...2505909181.jpg

Something is VERY VERY wrong w/ this picture and it's driving me crazy!!!

You edited this, right? Because it looks like the webcam is facing northwestish, but there is NO WAY in hell, if it's facing northwest that the Emerald Plaza can be LEFT of One America Plaza, Electra can be behind and Left of One America Plaza, and...yea, this makes no sense for the buildings to be this disordered...

But of course, I think you did an EXTREMELY well job of cutting and pasting...but damn, I almost went crazy trying to think of how everything got mixed up!!

:haha:

bushman61988 Jan 5, 2008 8:42 AM

[QUOTE=Urban Sky;3261470]
Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 3250778)

:haha:


LOL, i sound like im on crack, but when I first saw this I was really going "What the hell?" cuz it looks like those mountains in the background are Point Loma...

I still can't figure out which mountains these are in the background...

bmfarley Jan 5, 2008 9:02 AM

[QUOTE=bushman61988;3261591]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 3261470)


LOL, i sound like im on crack, but when I first saw this I was really going "What the hell?" cuz it looks like those mountains in the background are Point Loma...

I still can't figure out which mountains these are in the background...

That terrain... really is Pt Loma. And the viewable landcape in the foreground, but beyond Ap et al.. is Coronado or North Isl.

Derek Jan 5, 2008 5:21 PM

Yeah, that view is directly southwest.

PadreHomer Jan 5, 2008 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3257200)
Who is Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial? Is this organization similar to a realestate broker for homes... but for commercial/industrial/retail space? If so... I'm very skeptical . It would be like a cheerleader saying their team is the better one on the field. no?

I say this b/c I believe there are several opinions forwarded that I believe... are bunk.

I never trust the real estate industry's view of their own industry. People listening to their BS which totally ignored economic realities the past few years should have learned by now.

Urban Sky Jan 5, 2008 7:30 PM

[QUOTE=bmfarley;3261607]
Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 3261591)
That terrain... really is Pt Loma. And the viewable landcape in the foreground, but beyond Ap et al.. is Coronado or North Isl.

lol im not the one who said it. dont gotta tell me :P

bmfarley Jan 5, 2008 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Sky (Post 3262132)

lol im not the one who said it. dont gotta tell me :P

Something quirky got started with the auto-quote feature. Tracking back, it appears my response should have had bushman as the quoted poster; not Urban Sky.

IconRPCV Jan 5, 2008 11:25 PM

My San Diego pet peeve #1. Why is there no trolley going up the median of hwy 163 to link downtown uptown and mission valley? That seems the best alignment to me but a trolley going up park blvd and then down into the valley to fashion valley would work too. We need to stop adding lanes to freeways, all this does is allow for more cars and therefore more gridlock.

HurricaneHugo Jan 6, 2008 1:53 AM

So I used MTS for the first time in three years and....WHAT THE FUCK??!!

Since when did they stop giving transfers?!

I used to be able to go on the bus then take the trolley using the same ticket but now i have to buy an all-day pass?!

Derek Jan 6, 2008 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IconRPCV (Post 3262510)
My San Diego pet peeve #1. Why is there no trolley going up the median of hwy 163 to link downtown uptown and mission valley? That seems the best alignment to me but a trolley going up park blvd and then down into the valley to fashion valley would work too. We need to stop adding lanes to freeways, all this does is allow for more cars and therefore more gridlock.

I've wondered why the trolley doesn't extend up into the densely populated areas for a long time.

SantaCruzGuy Jan 6, 2008 2:46 AM

are the chargers leaving SD? What is the update?



By Ronald W. Powell
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 16, 2007

The Chargers are huddling with Chula Vista officials to see if they can agree on a site for a new stadium by the end of this month.

Graphic:
Stadium options
in Chula Vista
If they don't, it's not clear what the team will do next. Many believe the Chargers might leave the San Diego region, since they scouted other locations in the county before narrowing the search to Chula Vista.

And despite pressure from some prominent business executives, team officials have ruled out a deal with the city of San Diego – specifically a plan to rebuild at the Qualcomm Stadium site, where the team has played for 40 years.

“The numbers at Qualcomm just don't pencil out today,” said Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' general counsel and spokesman. “Real estate prices have gone down and construction costs have gone up. What's the breakthrough idea that makes that site work?”

In 2002 the team introduced a development plan that would have worked at the Qualcomm site, Fabiani said. The plan included more than 6,000 condominiums, offices, retail space, a hotel and road improvements – all on the 166-acre property. Any profit would have paid for a new $400 million stadium. The team dropped the proposal in 2006.

OVERVIEW

Background: A 19-month search around San Diego County has led the Chargers to two possible sites for a new stadium – both in Chula Vista.

What's changing: Chargers executives are planning to meet with Chula Vista officials this week to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed sites, as well as information the team received from residents in two town hall meetings and several other community forums.

The future: Team executives say they want to choose a site this month. If neither Chula Vista site is selected, the team's future in the county is in doubt because Chargers officials have ruled out a deal with the city of San Diego.
Today a new stadium at the Qualcomm site would cost $1 billion, and the road improvements, which the team previously calculated at $175 million, have more than doubled in cost, he said. The escalating prices of concrete, structural steel and other building materials account for much of the increase. Added to that, the market for condominiums has gone cold, eliminating the underpinnings of the team's strategy for generating revenue.

“I don't know what kind of development you could build (at Qualcomm) to support the kind of debt you would have,” said Fabiani, who is planning to meet with Chula Vista officials this week. “These are huge numbers. It's not theoretical.”

Others, however, are still working to keep the team in San Diego if the South County effort collapses. County Supervisor Dianne Jacob and several San Diego business executives have been pushing for a Qualcomm plan.

Jacob said San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Council President Scott Peters have shown no interest in working with the Chargers, but she has not given up on the Qualcomm idea.

“If Chula Vista is no longer an option, I hope the city of San Diego will come to the table,” she said.


Advertisement
San Diego businessman Ted Roth also supports a Qualcomm deal, although he said the Chargers are sincerely considering a move to Chula Vista. But in case the effort comes up empty, he is working to remove what he considers a major roadblock to the team making a U-turn for “the Q” – City Attorney Michael Aguirre.

Team executives have repeatedly blamed Aguirre for sabotaging their Qualcomm plan. Aguirre maintains that the city's previous agreements with the team were bad deals for taxpayers and that he is trying to be fiscally responsible.

“I think you need to listen to what the Chargers are saying,” said Roth, an investment banker and former chairman of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. “I don't think they can enter into any negotiation involving the city because they think he (Aguirre) will be subversive. He'd find a way to kill anything they'd negotiate.”

Aguirre is up for re-election next year, and Roth said the Chargers issue is one of the reasons he is pushing for his defeat.

But it will take more than Aguirre's ouster to revive a deal in San Diego, Fabiani said.

While the city attorney is a key figure, “the one that counts is the mayor,” Fabiani said. “If the mayor is not pushing for it (a stadium deal), it won't happen.”

Sanders said in 2006 that his priority is mending the city's fractured finances – including the employee's pension system, which has a $1 billion deficit. Since then, Sanders has disengaged from the stadium search.

“I'm not getting involved because I want to give Chula Vista every chance to succeed,” Sanders said.

The Chargers have a lease with the city of San Diego to play at Qualcomm until 2020 but can leave before then. However, a financial clause in the lease is a huge incentive to keep the team here for at least two years.

If the team leaves at the end of the 2009 season, it must pay off the entire debt for the city's 1997 expansion of Qualcomm Stadium, which would total $56.2 million. But if the team leaves after the 2010 season – when the balance will be more than $55 million – it will only have to pay $24 million.

That would leave the city with a debt of more than $30 million, an old stadium, and no National Football League team.

The City Council approved the bond payoff plan in July 2004 when it renegotiated the Chargers' contract to play at Qualcomm Stadium.

Team executives say they aren't looking outside the county. But if they do, a handful of cities, including Los Angeles, San Antonio and Las Vegas, are in the market for a team.

Andrew Zimbalist, who writes extensively on the business of professional sports, said he believes the league's owners want to keep a franchise in the San Diego market. But that doesn't mean they would stop a move.

“If they can find a good city and a good stadium deal, the NFL might allow them to move as long as the team pays a relocation fee,” which can be tens of millions of dollars, said Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College.

Fabiani said the team is focusing on Chula Vista because its elected officials are willing to negotiate. The city also has two sites to choose from – the current South Bay Power Plant on San Diego Bay and a 500-acre vacant parcel on the city's east side.

If the eastern site is chosen for the stadium, a public vote would probably take place in November. The bayfront site is more problematic, since the power plant would have to be demolished first, and there is no set date for that.

San Diego businessman Malin Burnham, who has been part of the group pushing the Qualcomm site, said he believes a joint powers authority should be formed to help fund the stadium. The authority would include the county, the city of San Diego, the Port District, the city of Chula Vista and perhaps other local governments.

County Supervisor Ron Roberts said he supports forming a joint powers authority, which in other cities has imposed car-rental and other taxes to help pay for sports facilities. Roberts said the local authority would decide what form of assistance, if any, should be provided.

HurricaneHugo Jan 6, 2008 3:41 AM

Talking about the chargers, who'll be there tomorrow?

I know i'll be. :)

Derek Jan 6, 2008 4:27 AM

I hope they build on the waterfront in Chula Vista.



Go Chargers. :)

bmfarley Jan 6, 2008 4:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 3262754)
Since when did they stop giving transfers?!

January 1st, 2008. SANDAG and MTS approved the changes in October or so.

The transfer system was abused... it's theoritically suppose to allow people to complete a trip to wherever they were going, one way. And then they'd pay again to ride home. But people took advantage of the 3-hour time limit and used it for two-way travel... only buying one ride and then using the tranfer slip to complete their errand and return home or to wherever they came from. I presume only a small number of people did this, but I also here several transit agencies across the country have done away with it for that reason, or similar.

The San Diego system is one of the most expensive in the country. I presume it is because of low or non-existent financial support from local governments and the need to find $ from riders. The City/County of SF supports the transit agency to the tune of $100m to $200m each year out of the general fund(it may be more) ... and fares only recently went from $1 to $1.50.... with transfers allowed (I use to live up there). Los Angeles, maybe San Jose too, have passed sales tax measures and have directed many of those collected $ toward transit. The local Transnet tax only directs a small fraction of those collected $ to transit.. and as you may recall, Transnet was a re-authorization whereas the original version already had $ to transit; so it was NOT NEW $ for transit operations (running buses and trains).

I am sure those cities that help fund tranist... actually end up getting more transit service AND have a more vibrant area and/or a bit less traffic.

Urban Sky Jan 6, 2008 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3263013)
January 1st, 2008. SANDAG and MTS approved the changes in October or so.

The transfer system was abused... it's theoritically suppose to allow people to complete a trip to wherever they were going, one way. And then they'd pay again to ride home. But people took advantage of the 3-hour time limit and used it for two-way travel... only buying one ride and then using the tranfer slip to complete their errand and return home or to wherever they came from. I presume only a small number of people did this, but I also here several transit agencies across the country have done away with it for that reason, or similar.

The San Diego system is one of the most expensive in the country. I presume it is because of low or non-existent financial support from local governments and the need to find $ from riders. The City/County of SF supports the transit agency to the tune of $100m to $200m each year out of the general fund(it may be more) ... and fares only recently went from $1 to $1.50.... with transfers allowed (I use to live up there). Los Angeles, maybe San Jose too, have passed sales tax measures and have directed many of those collected $ toward transit. The local Transnet tax only directs a small fraction of those collected $ to transit.. and as you may recall, Transnet was a re-authorization whereas the original version already had $ to transit; so it was NOT NEW $ for transit operations (running buses and trains).

I am sure those cities that help fund tranist... actually end up getting more transit service AND have a more vibrant area and/or a bit less traffic.

its so expensive because it sucks. its inefficient, it relies too heavily on buses and no one rides it. i used to use public transportation here in san diego to commute to work and it was absolutely ridiculous. and now that there are no more transfers, it's makes even less sense for the casual rider to give public transportation a try. the only people who will ride are those who dont know anything about the system or those who have no other choice. :hell:

Derek Jan 6, 2008 6:29 AM

Even though the system does suck, it's still the fourth most ridden light rail system in the country with about 124,300 boardings per day.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:05 PM.

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