It's a good question but I'm guessing there is an answer since they clearly list it as expandable to 40,000 seats. Without the actual specs it's hard to say how they could expand it from that drawing.

I'm more curious how much space would be left for a possible NFL stadium. Like how many seats it could be if ever done.

Any future parking needs to be addressed with high rise parking lots. The whole concept of a giant parking lot with a stadium in it like the Q currently is doesn't work anymore.

Sorry SDSU. Beggars can't be choosers.

7th & Island Hotel site prep
 

Live in the area and noticed that site prep has been underway for the dual brand hotel from J Street Hospitality:

http://jstreethospitality.com/portfo...opy-san-diego/

16 acres set aside for a stadium. In comparison, the "bowl" of the Cowboys stadium is 13-14 acres (couldn't find data on stadium footprints), so 16 probably would be enough to fit a stadium.

They'll obviously build to Super Bowl specs for attendance, or build with ways to temporarily expand seating for a Super Bowl if needed.

Parking is listed at 16,700 spaces in the whole complex. The new Vikings stadium lists "20,000 spaces within a 20 minute walk". It also has light rail stop at the stadium. So mass transit would be a high priority for CHarger games, and tailgating looks like it'd be pushed out of parking lots. Not sure if there are open spaces to allow tailgating or if it'll just be a thing of the past. The Minnesota stadium has 600 spaces designated for tailgating.

I don't see structures in the rendering either, so maybe lots of underground structures that don't rise up above ground level too much.

I walked by yesterday. It is being paved to become a parking lot. :hell:

How Can this Stone Group proposal be land grab?
 

The Qualcomm site is not prepped and ready to go for massive development. I've heard that huge portions of the site need to be raised by 20 feet due to the flood plane. The old stadium will have to be demolished. The 55 acre park in a major flood zone will take some expensive engineering before the park can even be built. Tons of soccer fields don't make the Group much money.

My point is the community is getting a lot on a site that isn't shovel ready for development and they estimate huge tax revenues for the city. So its either sit around for years and quibble about this being a land grab and fair market value for the site or move forward get major amenities and tax revenue. Also the longer we sit here and do nothing the city continues to lose money on maintaining the current decrepit stadium.

Regarding parking heard Nick Stone on interview last night say there will be 10% less parking on the site then there currently is now so there will be plenty of parking don't worry about that :cheers:

The initiative is needed to fast track it, it won't actually go for a vote, just a council decision

Apparently the site has almost as many spots as there are now

You've got to be kidding me...ugh:uhh:

New development slated for Little Italy
 

https://ocbj.media.clients.ellington...2dbd7491934c06

Source: http://www.sdbj.com/news/2017/feb/19...property-buys/

"The properties are at 210 W. Ash St. and 1400-1430 Front St."

"A preliminary architectural site study — performed by Joseph Wong and Chris Fassler of Joseph Wong Design Associates (JWDA) —- indicates that the project may include a multifamily tower with approximately 260 units."

"No development timeline has been announced. The acquired land currently includes one parking lot and three single-story office buildings, which would be cleared away for future development."

"Current tenants in the office buildings include Aladdin Bail Bonds and the San Diego County Office of Education."

I saw it looked like this too. So what's this mean? Project dead? Project delayed? Project up in the air? Project still on schedule but there was going to be a certain gap before groundbreaking and they thought it was worth it to get money for parking in the meantime?

Meanwhile the Ritz-whole foods site remains an eyesore parking lot as well. I'm nervous about these coming to fruition.

Given Whole Foods current performance along with their other "issues" (store closings to quality control problems) they are probably not in a big hurry to get that store opened anytime soon. They have much bigger problems to address.

I wouldn't think that would delay the entire project though? It's not expected to be complete for 5 years, if they don't have their problems solved by then they have much bigger problems :)

There are other, smaller high end grocery stores they could
Possibly look at. I've been to Erewhon Market in LA, they have a couple locations in LA area, it's like a more upscale version of Jimbos or WF. Point being I'm sure they could find an alternative if WH didn't work out. Maybe they could even look at a TJs?

Ballpark Village visible from inside petco.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5YvkvmVMAIHkOM.jpg

Nice!

How many more floors does it have to go?

Nice shot Bertrice! I wonder how the new building will effect the wind/gameplay at Condo Canyon (PETCO).

A few more

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/776/32...1c09c253_b.jpg


https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3862/3...63097def_b.jpg

Anyone else love the Skyspire observation deck idea?? I think it's awesome! :D

Driving on the 5 into downtown, I noticed the crane on Pacific Gate is well over 500', clearly taller than OAP. It's been that way for weeks. If having a tower >500' is so "dangerous" to aviation safety, why is the crane allowed to be that high? And that's right along the bay. I don't see how a 600 or 700' tower east of petco park would be any danger to airline safety. Was kind of hoping that during this current building boom we are in at least one development would challenge this height restriction.

^ I believe that the developers currently have to get FAA and Airport Authority approval to put up cranes (at least ones over 500').

The point you raise seems very valid to me. Based on what I've seen of the FAA's airport approach area maps, building heights SHOULD be able to gradually increase as you get farther from the airport. Under this scenario, areas such as Ballpark Village/Barrio Logan should be able to go past 500', however the city restricted the entire downtown area to a 500' max a long time ago (probably under FAA pressure or cooperation).

I believe that it would be possible (though perhaps not politically wise) to increase the city's height limit in certain areas of downtown WITHOUT violating the FAA's rules. That said, the FAA and the city would probably both prefer not to go down this path. One has to wonder though if the height limit issue will finally be discussed as downtown builds out the last of the "low-hanging-fruit" land parcels.

I thought it was tacky but now I'm warming up to the idea