CCDC updated their project list and interactive map. However, I failed to see any substantially new information.

Courthouse looks like it will be delayed
 

Courthouse tab jumps to $310 million

More funding sought as bids exceed budget
By Jeanette Steele
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

November 24, 2007

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The price of a new federal courthouse for downtown San Diego has ballooned to $310 million, making it the third-most expensive U.S. courthouse on the books.
Court officials are asking for an additional $80 million from Congress, after all bids exceeded the existing $230 million construction budget this year.

Meanwhile, federal officials have streamlined the Richard Meier & Partners design to cut costs. The glass entry rotunda is smaller, the building's foundations and framing have been simplified and the exterior will lose some flourishes.

Previously, court officials lowered the height to 16 stories from the 22 in the original design, unveiled in April 2005. Fourteen courtrooms would be built instead of 18.

The cuts mean the courthouse would fill the San Diego judiciary's need for only 10 years, instead of the 30 years that the original building was designed to address.

“We're trying to make it a lean building,” said Judge Irma Gonzalez, U.S. District Court chief judge. “I mean a building where it's still very nice – it's a wonderful place to do business, for the public to come to – but one that's utilitarian and one that certainly is not wasteful.”

Federal officials blame spiraling construction costs in Southern California for the increase. Only a $315 million courthouse that opened last year in Brooklyn, N.Y., and a $399 million federal complex planned for Los Angeles would come with higher price tags.

If Congress awards the extra funding, court officials want to begin construction in the spring, with completion in mid-2011.

If Congress doesn't approve the extra funding by year's end, court officials estimate that costs will rise by $2 million to $3 million a month next year.

The $80 million is in the Senate version of an appropriations bill, but not in the House version. Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, who supports the funding, said a decision probably will be made next month.

Federal officials said the courthouse – technically an expansion – is a priority because of the heavy local caseload. Filings were up 70 percent in August and 50 percent in September, compared with the same months last year.

Gonzalez said spikes happen whenever Congress allocates more money for the U.S. Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies. Others credit interim U.S. Attorney Karen Hewitt with filing more drug and immigration cases after her predecessor, Carol Lam, was fired amid complaints that she didn't file enough.

The federal court system has reined in its court-building costs after the U.S. Government Accountability Office called it out in the 1990s for high-priced courthouses that came in over budget.

The courts imposed a moratorium on new projects between 2004 and 2006. This year, the federal judiciary put out a new design guide, which calls for smaller judges' chambers with a standardized layout, smaller libraries and less public space.

Federal officials blame the high costs of the San Diego and Los Angeles projects on earthquake standards and the hot commercial construction market in Southern California, which has pushed up the price of steel and concrete.

Despite the revisions in design, David Allen, a court district architect, said San Diego isn't getting a bargain-bin building. He said a casual observer won't notice a big change from the original design.

The original blueprint called for a 20,000-square-foot civic plaza between the new building and the Edward J. Schwartz federal courthouse to the east. That plaza hasn't been decreased, Allen said.

“We have fought very hard to maintain the form of this building, primarily to keep that plaza space in play, and it's all still there,” Allen said. “I think the average person on the street will not see the difference, except for the height.”

The 2-acre site is on Broadway between State and Union streets. For nearly 100 years, that block was home to the Hotel San Diego, a 1914 building that housed low-income, weekly renters before it closed.

Since the hotel was demolished in April 2006, the property is just a hole in the ground.

If the money doesn't flow from Capitol Hill, Gonzalez said the federal judiciary will probably ask the General Services Administration – the government's real estate arm – to find the money elsewhere.

Davis said she's hopeful of success, in part because San Diego got five new federal judgeships in 2002.

“I think it's really problematic if they don't get it, and we will have to think creatively,” Davis said. “At this point, we are not looking at a Plan B.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Steele: (619) 293-1030; jen.steele@uniontrib.com

It doesn't say that the courthouse will be delayed, only that the appropriations will be voted on before congress leaves for the Holidays. I sure hope that they issue the $80 million. Construction costs almost never go down.

kinda sad how we went from building it to fit the needs for the next 30 years to fitting the needs for the next 10 years.

san diego loves to plan ahead!

Blame D.C. for this one not SD this is funded by the feds not the local gov.

Where is the blame?
 

The budget was probably put together in 2004-05 based on the plans designed at that time. I am sure that the Construction Managers and the Architects told Congress that the building should cost $230 million based on the knowledge at that time. Congress then approved $230 million.

The MARKET is to blame for the increased costs.

Looks like the snags with Miramar have been untangled... The tower is moving up again. Hopefully this means that the hotel and condo towers will start soon.:cheers:

http://www.ljcommons.com/web_cam.asp

That and the fact that pricing was based on Schematic Prints. The price for construction docs was over $400 million, and when the floors were chopped off, it dropped to $310.

I guess we can look at the glass half emty or half full.

Driving around downtown this week I realized that even though things have slowed, we still have a decent number of things going up - - Vantage Point (I did observe construction activity there yesterday, I think someone thought it might have stopped), Strata, Hotel Indigo, several projects on the marina

I have also noticed more and more lights starting to come on in new developments like Alta and the Mark (even though a majority are still not on)

Let's hope that this is as bad as the "lull" gets. It could be much much worse, for example Bangkok in the 90 s when Thailand's economy tanked left the city with numerous "ghost buildings", large condo skyscrapers simply abandoned and the shells left up to serve as havens for rodents and crime

I am optimistic San Diego won't get to that point

what's up with this new project called quarry hills or something in mission valley?

read about it in the newspaper

Quarry Falls (to be constructed in that massive Quarry pit you see at the terminus of Qualcomm Way) is actually a really interesting project, its pretty large too in terms of housing, I want to say around 4000-5000 dwelling units (give or take a couple thousand)? I had some other numbers on it that I can't remember right now. Its by Sudberry properties who is the developer whose Ikea/Costco parking lot you might stealthily use during Chargers games.

you can take a look at the site plans at www.quarryfalls.com - it contains the usual PR nonsense about LEED, public spaces, living and working in the same place, and raising children who like vegetables.

To my understanding, the project has been tied up mostly because of negotiations over traffic impacts and the improvements needed to handle the daily trips of all the residents. Resident opposition has also been a stumbling block but surprisingly from what I'm told, as of around a year ago, Donna Frye has actually been willing to work with the developer on moving the project forward.

if anyone else has any new info on it, please let us know. as much as I hate mission valley and continue to wish it floods again like it did 20 or 30 years ago, i really did want to see this thing built.

:ack:

That looks like a really nice project though. I found the number of homes, too, with 4,780 targeted.

This board is slower because there's less development news to discuss. Somehow I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

I did hear a 'rumor' of a 'market' signing a lease at TR produce. My contact is supposed to give me more info next week. Only thing I know is that it is not for the ENTIRE vacant space. Stay tuned...

Bud's Closed
 

I got this email earlier last month. Sorry to see Bud's go. I think others have commented on commericial rents...and here is a victim. Now I am sure that space will sit vacant for 3 years as the owners try to get someone to pay $4 a foot.

=============

It saddens us to have to tell you that we have closed Bud’s effective Saturday November 17th, 2007. Our rent has more than doubled in the last year and we decided to move on and try to find another location. In the meantime we will be doing private and corporate catering.

How did this happen? When we originally leased the space in 2004 we had a set rent that was reasonable for the area. Our lease was supposed to have been for twelve years; however our attorney who approved the lease failed to notice some fine print. As a result we did not have the twelve years we expected, merely two; thus when the property was recently sold the new landlord more than doubled the rent. We are in litigation against the attorney who set this up and it appears that we will win, but the judgment has not been determined. When it is all over and we know the settlement amount it is our plan to use the money for a new location. As many of you know this is our eighth restaurant and the first one that we have ever had to close (all the previous ones have been sold to employees). It has been very difficult operating the last two years with all the uncertainty around the lease as well as with the litigation.

Again, the good news; while we look for another space Bud is still cooking – hopefully for your next party or catered event.

You can go to our website, www.budsfoodshoppe.com to find information on our catering menus. Please give Bud a call to discuss any of your Cajun food needs (619-239-4210 or 619-540-0671).

While Bud knows what he’ll be doing next (more cooking!), Rob is job hunting with the intention of going back into a more traditional work environment as well as painting of course. Rob’s art can still be seen at www.artbyrobadams.com .

A great big “Thank You” to you, our great guests these last three years for the support you’ve given us. It’s you that made it work as long as it did…and we hope to see you in the near future.

Bud & Rob

This is ridiculous. Landlords are going to kill the renaissance that downtown is experiencing with the extortion like rates. Brokers are willing to let the space sit vacant, since they are paid based on the lease rate signed. In the mean time, the "City" we moved into and want to experience, doesn't have the feel of a true city like SF or DC. My wife and I were talking about how the best thing for our local housing market would be to have ALL the retail surrounding the ballpark filled by opening day. People sitting on the fence about moving downtown, would see all the activity and that may just tip them in the right direction. I think it sucks that retail tenants have to pay for what the neighborhood is "going to be". Who knows when it is going to be a true city environment? It sure isn't now, so tenants shouldn't have to pay for some "future environment".

Everyone has to pay a premium downtown. Residents and business owners. I work downtown and I WISH I could afford to live there, but I can't.

Padre Pizza (8th and Market) is empty now for the same reason. Landlord doubled the rent.

I realize that the value of the building is determined by the revenue it generates but having viable businesses leave because rent is too expensive is counterproductive.

The Hotel Indigo site is painted out for demolition. I bet they start within the month...

I can't tell how big the site for Hotel Indigo by the rendering. From the tax records, it appears that they only own the 3 tax parcels on the SWC of the site (16,000 sf +/-).

They don't own the halfway house with the For Sale sign on it and they don't own the flophouse hotel adjacent to the hole being dug for Strata.


It will be a shame if those two projects remain.