I'm impressed...that's a pretty badass tower, especially for UTC! If I'm looking at that correctly, that's going in on the corner of Genesee and Nobel, in the Macy's parking lot?

Qualcomm lot valued at $150 million, not sure how that changes things

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...427105943.html

Probably the biggest problem in terms of walkability is the huge blocks, rather than a lack of a street grid. Once rail transit is online, there should be a focus on creating mid-block pedestrian paseos. Given the existing built environment and property ownership, this will be challenging, but it's not impossible. A combination of eminent domain and convincing land owners that it will help to increase rents would be a way to get it done. There would be great opportunities for kiosks and cafes to increase revenue as well.

Found this veiled anti-development hit piece in the Reader/garbage:

Two more downtown high-rises — 800 Broadway and 6th & A
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/...ors_picks=true

I can't find info on these projects on the CivicSD website. Any help?

Typical Reader garbage. As if building government subsidized housing is going to solve high prices in California. Unreal.

Anyone know what the status is of the Ritz project at 7th/Market? It seems impossible to find any current information on the Internet. I know it's been reported they are involved in legal challenges, does anybody know the nature of these challenges and the date(s) courts are expected to rule on them? That project seems pivotal for downtown, it would be the largest building in San Diego County, would change the viewscape from the stadium, and would bring downtown our first 5 star luxury hotel. It will be a huge loss of it's dead.

I hadn't seen them before either. Here are the pictures from the article for reference:

6th and A
https://media.sandiegoreader.com/img...ebf11d604414e5

800 Broadway
https://media.sandiegoreader.com/img...08e3fa67d9af9d

Looks like the convention center expansion will have to wait until the 2018 ballot. As for SoccerCity, it depends whether or not adopts their proposal a week from today.

San Diego council rejects November special election on convention center expansion
By David Garrick

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...612-story.html

I don't understand, the article says they voted today to reject any special ballot election in November but then it goes on to say they will still consider the soccer city ballot measure. Am I missing something or is this an inconsistency/error in the article?

By the way, some interesting comments in there, including this classic Nimby post:

"The only thing that should be in the MV area is nothing. Putting anything there just increases traffic and congestion."

:haha:

It really irks me whenever an article (Reader or otherwise) fails to mention what affordable housing actually means in a policy context. "Affordable Housing" is based off a HUD definition of a dwelling costing no more than 30% of AMI (Area Median Income), all-inclusive. The city uses a lower number than the county, but it still comes to about $1,500 for rent based on AMI. Easily found in many of the new apts. downtown...

If this is a hit piece as some say, it's a poorly done one that fails to mention that "affordable" is still quite high in desirable places. In any case, it's sloppy journalism.

sources:
https://www.sandiego.gov/housing/resources/whatis
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/conten...imits-ami.html
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD...rdablehousing/

If I recall correctly, the petition by FS Investors gathered enough signatures to take it directly to the city council. Putting it on a ballot would have been better PR, but MLS votes on the next expansion teams in November. Unlike the convention center expansion FS Investors can't wait several months until the 2018 primary or general elections.

After reading the above mentioned article in the Reader I did some clicking through some old articles and found this one from April 15, 1982.

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/...r/15/top-city/

It was fun to get a 1982 perspective of the downtown office market, but what really struck me was this:

"It is also limited in architectural stature because of the FAA’s restrictions — 380 feet above sea level — in regard to the city’s proximity to the airport."

380ft height limit in 1982! It is obviously 500ft now, but does that mean there is a chance it could be raised in the future? Anyone know the history of the height limit over time?

Some pics of the Mid-Coast expansion progress in UTC...

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...601_082618.jpg
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...601_082809.jpg
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...601_083252.jpg

The progress is quite amazing. It can also be seen while riding the COASTER between Old Town and Sorrento Valley. I am somewhat surprised that it is not set to open until 2020/2021.

^ 2020 is probably accurate. I was at UTC last week and noticed construction hasn't started in that area yet, although a few segments were fenced off. There's a Facebook page for the Trolley extension that seems to be regularly updated. Maybe they'll post a clearer timeline on there.

Sure it has, there are actually only two very small sections that do not have active construction ongoing: 1) Genesee south of La Jolla Village Drive and 2) The segment where the tracks will cross over the 5 just South of Nobel to the current COASTER tracks.

I'm sure the stated completion goal of 2020/2021 (completion 2020; service beginning 2021) is accurate and appropriate, but I'm just saying I am very (happily) surprised by the amount of visible progress. It has been fun to watch this city FINALLY adding to the trolley network!

I feel the opposite, seems like it's taking forever.

It's been planned for the like the last 2 decades lol

wow, will the line from downtown be grade separated?

Yes, one of the best things about our trolley network is that most of it is grade-separated. Now only if it went to more areas where people go (beach, Balboa Park/Zoo, etc.)

I had a professor who lamented the new UTC line because the cost/benefit ratio of this new 2 billion line is low, in terms of ridership. He said it is to appease politicians. He may be right, but I believe this line is 100% necessary.

I'm not a transportation expert by any stretch, but my view is that building a mass transit network is about investment and long-term strategy as opposed to a quick profit/ total solution to everything. Each line that's built makes the system more relevant and more useful to the community as a whole and will help contribute to ridership/ relief from traffic congestion. As someone who lives downtown and works in the ucsd area, I can say this will be a game changer for me. I never take the trolley because, as you mention, it fails to go to basic places within the core like Balboa park/Hillcrest/North Park, the airport, the beach, etc. With the utc line I would consider using it daily to commute to work. Going from not using it at all to being a regular daily user is huge, and I'm sure there are others like me. It won't solve everything but it will be a major piece to build on for our mass transit. What scares me is that after this extension is complete, SANDAG doesn't have anything else that looks like it will be built on the trolley line for another decade plus.

San Diego getting Lufthansa flight starting next year
 

This is great news for our region!!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...614-story.html