I don't either care about Downtown. Their actions speak louder than words. All they want to do is raid CCDC funds to pay for things the City general fund should. Sanders is probably a little more pro Downtown than Francis, but they are light years away from the kind of leadership a growing, vibrant city needs.

Damn, I was hoping than Francis would be a bit better but I guess not. =(

Both are better than Donna Frye lol.

Nothing really new here, just some construction progress shots from the webcams -

The L-shape of Vantage Pointe is finally starting to show
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...bCam/vp1-1.jpg

Hilton pretty much looks like the original rendering
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...bCam/hilt1.jpg

Sapphire and Bayside rising
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...am/saphbay.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...am/saphby1.jpg

Strata
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...am/strata1.jpg

Father Joe's project
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...atherjoe-1.jpg

That's it for now!

Those construction pictures make me so excited. I have a summer job in OC, but am hoping my next summer job will be in SD. Anyone else see the tallship (old sailing ship) under full sail in the Bayside/ Strata Pic.

http://www.10news.com/news/16093294/detail.html

SAN DIEGO -- A federal judge ruled that the California Coastal Commission cannot require developer Doug Manchester to obtain a coastal development permit for the proposed redevelopment of the Navy Broadway Complex site in downtown San Diego, it was announced Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller issued the ruling on Monday, according to an outside attorney for Manchester Financial Group.

In a statement, Manchester applauded the decision, saying it "removes an important hurdle and moves us forward with development of this landmark project which will revitalize and invigorate San Diego's Waterfront."

The developer brought the lawsuit against the Coastal Commission last June, arguing that the state agency does not have jurisdiction over the 15-acre site because it is located on Navy land.

Legal challenges brought by opponents of the project in state and federal courts on the adequacy of environmental documents are still pending.

Manchester signed a 99-year lease with the Navy last year to redevelop the waterfront Navy Broadway Complex site, which is located between Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive south of Broadway.

In addition to 2.9 million square feet of office, hotel and retail space, the plan calls for the construction of a building to serve as the future headquarters of Navy Region Southwest.

Good news.:previous:
While Im totally disappointed with the dull architecture proposed for the complex I'm glad that it'll soon move forward and I'll be able to see it completed in my lifetime.

Thanks for the updates.

The Hilton looks as if somebody took a giant ninja sword and chopped the building in half.:frog:

PDX - Pear District
 

My wife and I took a trip to Portland last weekend, and all I can say is...

WOW!

We in the East Village are being roally screwed over by the retail brokers / landlords and the extorting rates they are demanding for retail space in our hood. My wife and I spent most of our time in the Pearl District, which is way further along and way, way higher end than the East Village, and their most expensive retail is $3 per SF per month. They truley have everything you need within a 4-6 block radius of any building in that area; Whole Foods, REI, Rite Aid, martini lounges, cafes, botuiques, restaurants, etc... I am very concerned that the way the retail is going in the East Village, especially when you look at Burnham's marketting fliers, is that it is marketted for tourists, not those of us that live in the neighborhood. Who is going to want to live in an extension of the gaslamp. East Village needs its own unique identity!

This is ultimately going to kill the whole appeal of the neighborhood, at least in my humble opinion. Any other opines?

Not To Rain on the parade
 

Manchester's win over the Coastal Commission removes a huge, possibly fatal hurdle. Now the project can go forward as planned. But notice the end of the article says environmental challenges still pending. (I am actually working on a law take home final that includes a question I am outlining on California Environmental Quality Act Challenges aka CEQA challenges) Such challenges can take a minimum of 6 months at the trial court level. Assuming it is won, the other party, if it has the money, can appeal and that will delay the project another 2 to 3 years after that. Or Manchester loses, and has to redo the EIR and that will take another year at least. Or make an adendum and that is 6 months. Moral of the story is do not hold your breath on a ground breaking anytime soon. The only way for the project to move forward quickly would be for Manchester to settle with the parties. That is unlikely to happen because Manchester is not the settling type given his ego, and the market is not so good right now that developers are willing to make concessions left and right to get their projects through.

I couldn't agree more.

There are so few choices for everything except nail salons and yogurt/gelato.

The California Department of Finance released the latest population estimates for the cities, counties and the state pegged on January 1st.

California is over 38 million persons now (+490k over 2007). Assuming the state continues to grow by 400k to 700k each year, we'll surpass 40 million by 2013. Maybe sooner.

San Diego County is now 3.146 million (+46k over 2007).

San Diego city is 1.337 million (+19k over 2007).

Coincidentally, each grew at 1.5% over the previous year.

Go here for more info: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demog...s/e-1_2006-07/

Glad you enjoyed Portland. We love to go up for the weekend. Light rail from the airport right into downtown... What a concept, huh? And the Pearl is very nice and has appropriate retail and eating and drinking establishments. Downtown is so lacking in what the Pearl offers today or even 2 years ago, and I would guess the Pearl has less population. Something is strange about that. I know the retailers have modeling techniques on where to put stores and these are driven off of income and spending power. Maybe that is the problem with downtown is that the economics don't make sense for retailers. I don't know. But I am puzzled by the lack of activity.

The strangest thing was that there were NOT a lot of people on the streets. We picked up an edition of Portlan Weekly, and it had a real estate section in it, breaking up demographics of each neighborhood. The Pearl is the 2nd most dense neighborhood in Portland at only 26 people per acre!!! East village has got to be at least tripple that, at least in areas of concentration. The real hold back in our retail is that it is being strung out to get the most rent possible, which is killing the neighborhood.

They really need to update the city limits signs.

"San Diego-population 1.13 million"

Unfortunately, that takes money.

We have loads of money no?

:D

You would think there is some money some place in the city's budget. No? But the infanticible amount is also competing with other 'like' projects having similar merit.

BTW, I support new/higher fees to pickup my trash and/or recycling. I support higher parking meter rates to pay for things like street lighting and public trash bins. I support higher water/sewer fees to ensure we'll have adequate and clean supplies in the future; and that what we flush down the toilet is cleaned to appropriate levels before being discharged into the ocean.

I don't mind these things because it means a higher and better quality life for myself and people around me. It also means the city will have sufficient resources to fund police fire and other essential services.

I think that the highway signs denoting a city's population, in this case San Diego, actually would be the property of CalTrans. Therefore, CalTrans has to replace the signs - not the city of San Diego. I think it's a safe bet to say that CalTrans has fewer budgetary issues than our beloved city. My guess is that any sign like this anywhere probably won't be replaced until after the next census in 2010; it doesn't make sense to do it before hand.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Caltrans maintains the signs. They wouldn't replace them. But I get your message.

With that said, Caltrans adopted a policy long ago outining when or if they make those changes. It's illustrated by this text I grabbed from a City of Burbank staff report discussing this very subject.

I suspect criteria 'b' and 'c' have been meet. After all, the population figures are about 20% over the existing posted figures (b), which are certainly over 5 years old (c).

Yes, 2010 makes sense. However, the 2010 counts will not be made available until 2013 or 2014... as is always the case with releasing census figures. It takes time.

I would not assume Caltrans has any more flexibility than the state does at this time. Remember, Caltrans is a state department in a state with a $12 to $20 billion projected budget deficit for next fiscal year.

CCDC uploaded new renderings of the proposed Marriot in the Ballpark area, The site is the one bounded by Imperial Avenue, Park, 11th and the Trolley tracks.

Only 2 renderings were provided. I don't know why the south facing view toward the Coronado Bridge was not provided. Seems odd.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...n/Marriot1.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...n/Marriot2.jpg

A 3 pg pdf file of the rendering is here. Included is a plan drawing.

I realize these drawings are preliminary, but, I don't like this look. First, they're twin towers (like we don't have enough of those). And the buildings are just not attractive. If you're going to build a flagship hotel, at least make it look somewhat iconic. Look at what Hyatt did with both the Manchester Grand and the Seaport expansion - at least both of those stand out. This Marriott, not so much.