Sounds good to me!

Park lids over the 5
 

Sounds like the long dreamed about lids over the 5 are still in the realm of the possible, and maybe moving slowly forward! http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...fees-increase/

I'm glad to hear that redevelopment will continue downtown with the new system.

The old library tower site was just recently listed for sale. Hopefully whoever buys it develops it to its full potential. http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite...573&StepID=101

Disappointing, I hope they find a buyer who will maximize the FAR on that site. The East Village is at risk of becoming underdeveloped - and its one of the few (if only) place where we can get such projects done in this city, and county.

Doesn't MV have a stupid height limit? Valley's rim no?

Yea. San Diego has a bunch of stupid height limits EVERYWHERE!

San Diego Height Limits:

Downtown = 500'
Mission Valley = valley rim
UTC = unclear, although MCAS Miramar dictates heavily here
West of the 5 = 30' (exceptions for downtown and UCSD)
Mission Hills = 50'
Hillcrest = 65'
Golden Hill/South Park = 30'
North Park = ?

We are screwed.

I believe Bankers Hill and Hillcrest are around 120, but there is a current moratorium on buildings over 65ft until the new community plan is complete. If this is the case, letks hope the com plan is done soon. Please correct me if this is wrong.

Spoonman you are correct on that and if I'm not mistaken Fulton is trying to get the new uptown community plan done by next year. The one shocking thing is just recently I discovered that certain parts of North Park have no height limits. Of course NIMBYs will make sure nothing noteworthy gets built there though.

As far as I'm concerned, any old height limits (i.e. 120ft) are off the table until the new update is established. Once the new CPU is set in (maybe in 2015), then I'll change my listing.

Stadium
 

At the risk of sounding like a NIMBY (read my posts, I'm pro-development :)) I think putting a football stadium in EV would be a terrible idea and would ruin the neighborhood I live in.

I'm all for bringing development to downtown, but what type of development is important.

The thing about large stadiums is that they tend to spur growth designed for visitors to the area who want to come downtown and party as opposed to more organic development for more established locals.

We already have Petco and the Gaslamp that are basically stomping grounds for people who just want to come and get drunk and the leave.

I'm hoping EV develops a more creative vibe - a local arts scene, non-chain cafés and bar venues, something more alternative and art-minded as opposed to the more cheap thrill frat boy atmosphere that already thrives downtown.

That's why I'm excited about the IDEA district, that's more where I'd like to see EV go, as opposed to the come in party and leave without really appreciating the neighborhood football crowd.

I'd much rather see a comprehensive redevelopment of Qualcomm that includes a new stadium and surrounding density there. I think another major sports venue right next to petco would just be too much - it would pretty much define EV as a sports neighborhood above all else, and I think given the history of warehouses and artists it would be a shame if EV lost that for football.

I'm interested to hear how many here agree or disagree ?? ;)

I tend to agree for the reasons you mentioned.

The 2 things I do like about a football stadium downtown is that 1) it helps reverse the decades of exodus from downtown by bringing another institution back to downtown. 2) It would spur additional high rise development around the immediate site.

All that said, I'm not sure that the pros I mentioned outweigh worth the cons that you mentioned. I know additional development will happen over time without the stadium, and high-rise eligible land is becoming a premium.

I don't care where the stadium goes as long as it's in SD.

Put it in Fiesta Island for all I care lol.

If it was downtown, I could just walk to the game! At the expense of tailgating...decisions decisions

I'm not interested in a downtown stadium either. It's funny, I always thought downtown was huge in land area, until I visited the new library. Looking over the East Village you can see how little space we have downtown for dense, urban development. A large football stadium would take away needed land for dense housing that isn't going to go in PB, NP, HC, or any other NIMBY entrenched neighborhoods in the city. Letting the MV site redevelop would at least allow for further density in the valley, while also letting downtown continue to grow organically and allowing for the best use of what little land is left out there.

Yeah, such a premium that there are tons of empty lots still inside the DT core, let alone all that empty space in the east village. Such a premium that the library tower site is for sale, and that anything being built is mid rise. The stadium takes up high rise space in this forum's sim city dream development of SD, but as far as what would realistically built and what the market could bear, the stadium is competing with empty parking lots and isn't causing the exclusion of any development.

Realistically, by the time SD ever got big enough that there was actual NEED for the stadium land (i.e., the rest of the land was built out), we'd be 50 years into the future and the stadium would be demolished for replacement.

I don't have a strong opinion on the stadium either way, but I realize that if the stadium is not built, there will be no development out there. This is SD, not New York. There is an absurd amount of blank parcels in downtown to claim the stadium takes up valuable space for high rises.

IMO whether this happens has nothing to do with a stadium being built or not. It's a matter of convincing new yorkers and san franciscans to move to san diego en masse.

Why are you guys so fixated on taller buildings? I know this is a "skyscraper" forum, but isn't a healthy, urban environment more important?

The market may be soft, but that does not change the fact that there are only 2 square miles in this city in which high rise development isn't scrutinized by NIMBYs. In the past 10 years, there have been at least 50 or more projects, which have taken up 1/2 or more of a city block. Another 10 years in a rebounded economy and yes, most of downtown will be filled out, save for some underutilized developments whose owners may not wish to sell (you can't expect everyone to sell...this is not Sim City after all).

:cheers: San Diego has so much to offer and potential even without supertalls.