I think the B Street Pier is the primary Cruise Ship Terminal, so I'm not sure how willing the Port would be to give it up for park land.

I thought the new cruise ship terminal was built on Broadway Pier?

here's a blog about kettner exchange. pretty cool. sd needs more rooftop venues
http://www.justluxe.com/travel/san-d...s__1955751.php

http://cdn.justluxe.com/articles/galleries/69068.jpg
http://cdn.justluxe.com/articles/ima...ain1955751.jpg

Broadway is an axillary facility. Carnival helped pay for it before the recession killed the cruise ship industry here. They wanted something better than B Street while the Port planned more long term fixes or revamps for B Street as a cruise ship terminal later.

The Port master plan is under review and will be updated in the next couple years. Be on the look out to see what they want to do to B Street - our dumpy cruise gateway.

Ditto for L.A.! Why? Why not? Big time development in the eastern L.A. suburbs?

Long Beach! How on earth were they able to get high rises along the beach in that city? And not in the coastal communities to the north or south of there? Coastal commission excludes Long Beach?

Yes, it does seem weird, if you've ever been to the Miami area, to see single family homes so close to the ocean in SoCal!

Throw out the coastal commission, and you've got decades of construction activity ahead up and down the southern CA coastline, and hopefully, the result of overbuilding, more affordable housing!

That's an interesting point. The economy would get an ENORMOUS boost if high rises were suddenly aloud to be build along the coast in California.

I don't think this is any surprise but Omnitracs is also moving to TX. I didn't realize Websense relocated as well though...that was news to me. They were a silly company but it's still a bummer.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/ne....html?page=all

I like the renders for the Kettner Exchange. That building has sat vacant for too long. I'd love to see the Coastal Commission removed as it would make everything a LOT easier when it comes to development up and down the coast.

All companies mentioned were bought out by the same equity firm with the intent to move them to Texas with the help of millions of dollars from the Texas Govt.

When you can't create an innovative and creative environment like California can . . .then you buy their table scraps using tax payer funds! (instead investing it into higher education).:shrug:

. . . .and on to some more relevant San Diego redevelopment news . . .

I'm not so sure if highrises would just start flying up if there were no coastal commission NIMBY's would still be in full force, look at One Paseo where a 12 floor building built at the base of a hill so it won't poke up very prominently at all is being fought tooth and nail. Also La Mesa with that 18 floor proposal there.

Even look at J Street Marina where towers are basically green lighted with no opposition and do you see any cranes in the air with Marina Del Rey type towers sprouting up?

Check out that Toronto thread in the my city photos section. Now there is a market where high rise demand everywhere is producing a burgeoning urban area. Check out the cluster of towers around the Marina near the end of the pics :slob: That is how Chula Vista Bayfront should look.

Keep telling yourself that.

I knew someone would rebut

High speed rail
 

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/ne...bove-i-30.html

We need to rethink the high speed rail. Texas has a much smarter idea and my guess is that their plan will be constructed before any California bullet train will be. California should build something that will get high ridership and will be profitable. I feel like it would be a much smarter plan to build high speed rail just through socal. Or even on a smaller scale and just orange county to north la or in san diego county with stops oceanside, Carlsbad, utc, downtown etc. High speed rail with be much more popular if it is an alternative to a car as opposed to a plane. It will be used heavily if it is an alternative to car commuting, as it will dodge the car traffic and get people to work much sooner. In order to be used heavily it needs to go [Ithrough[/I] all the urban areas and connect residential to business corridors. Texas has a much smarter plan of starting out just building from Fort worth to downtown Dallas. I see this as quite similar to much of socal. I think if california started out with just building one segment in southern california, the public would see the benefit and it could be later expanded. I think the plan currently has much to big of a price tag to be feasible. The train would be a great boost for our economy if they go about it correctly.

^^^Honestly I agree with starting with LA-SF since that is the busiest US air route...

Well, LA-SD is the 2ND busiest rail route.

SF-LA is the busiest? That's the route they'd probably take the HSR anyway, but like the original poster was suggesting that probably wouldn't be the costlier route and wouldn't help us (down here in SD) anytime soon.

No, NYC-PHL-DC is the busiest rail route in the US. LA-SD is the second busiest.

southwest is the high speed rail. why not a government subsidized airline . call it cali jet or not

First off, what's with all these people posting about Texas lately?? I think it's healthy to look at various other places and see what works, what doesn't - but lately it seems like this board has been infiltrated with people who think Texas is some type of utopian model for which CA should base our government and infrastructure on.

If Texas is so great, have at ...... free to move (I'm not directing this to the person I'm replying to, just to people in general who seem to think Texas is a paradise - - I'm really perplexed by this recent "Texas is perfect" tone on a San Diego development blog of all places).

As far as HSR, you have to keep in mind LA and SF are the major economic and cultural hubs of the state. That is the real target of HSR and makes the most business sense and I think other lines in OC, SD, etc are afterthoughts.

According to this NYT article about Texas' business incentives:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us...anted=all&_r=0

- Texas spends $19 billion per year (more than any other state) using tax payer money, to lure companies, of course some will leave CA and other states. And the money used to do this has to come from other sources, like public education which Texas cut by 5.4 billion.

- Texas still has the third-highest proportion of hourly jobs paying at or below minimum wage and has the 11th-highest poverty rate among states despite the lower unemployment rates

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument nor do I necessarily disagree with many of the points you have made, but there are pros and cons to both the Texas and CA models. This article is a good read and definitely looks at the down-sides of Texas' approach to business growth.

A lot of people get upset about social welfare, but what about corporate welfare? Isn't that what Texas is basically doing ?