Kind of embarrassing for the City of SD that Oceanside will now have a nice cluster of modern quality buildings on their beach front while The Beach Cottages and Surfrider Hotel still sit on the board walk in PB looking like absolute crap. It is really time for a redo of those two properties and to allow for some height there maybe 15 to 25 floors, nothing crazy Miami style tall but something to make us look modern not like we are stuck in the 60's.

Regarding the Stadium I think max taxpayer involvement should be 300 to 400 million and I would like to see the County involved. I think it will be a good investment if we get an MLS team to play in the stadium. SDSU moves up to the PAC 12 or Big 12 which I think they will in the next 2 years. Some kind of soft roof mechanism is available for the 4 days it would take to host a Final Four.

Hosting Super Bowls is not enough if we also get Final Fours that is a nice amount of exposure for our metro area and makes us look like a can do city which is good overall for our economy. You will say well Indianapolis has hosted a Super Bowl and is in the Final Four rotation but they are not a tourist destination. In the competitive world of tourism and also competing against other metro areas for non tourist business having your city show cased during Super Bowls and Final Fours is a big asset.

It will also be worth it to put in the aforementioned amount of public funds if we get 5000 plus housing units at Qualcomm site, and 1500 to 2200 on the Sports Arena land. We can also bring in SDSU as a development partner as well. I think there is a solution out there but no more then 400 million in public funds should be spent and please get the County in the mix.

The NCAA Final Four HATES the West. There hasn't been a tourney anywhere west of Dallas since 1995, and none are upcoming (2016 is in Texas). I don't know if the West will ever host a Final Four. (Same can be said of East Coast, last tourney there was in 1996)

^^^ And the reason for hating the West it?

Yeah, I already agreed with you on the theater, it's as much a waste as any stadium would be.

And Petco is a completely different animal, but I've already gone over all this so I'll just call it a day before you make the same lame points as last time. :cheers:

I think the main reason being, until the stadium in Phoenix was built, there hasn't been a halfway decent domed stadium to hold it in. And as you mentioned, I think the NCAA picks mid America cities, or those with very easy transportation options to host the Final 4, because nobody knows which fan bases will have to travel. If the FF is all east coast schools, you can't expect them to all fly 6 hours in order to get out here.

With that said, San Diego, in my opinion, would be a terrific Final Four destination town because of the variety of other things to do. Families would come for basketball, but stay and enjoy the city for days on either end of the trip. In all honesty, if you're a Big 10 or Big 12 school from the heartland, where would you want to go take a trip to...Minneapolis in March, or San Diego? No brainer to me.

JP: Every time I have flown to NYC it has taken less then 4:40 minutes in the air no matter which direction I was headed. SAN has a respectable amount of direct flights now much better than 10 years ago. I agree that we would be a welcome addition to the rotation of Minneapolis, St. Louis, San Antonio, Atlanta, and Dallas. We being the only coastal city and with the huge variety of things to do here in the Winter compared to those cities.

The funny thing Mello, is that we were building high rises on the beach in the 60's. We have gone backwards in many respects.

Not to turn a positive into a negative though, we should be very pleased that taller buildings are being constructed in downtown Oceanside, and so far, it seems to have not caused too much of a stir.

We complain a lot about restrictuions, but if places like downtown Oceanside, Mission Valley, UTC, possibly Kearny Mesa, Banker's Hill, Downtown, and areas such as National City can start and/or continue to build taller, we will be in good shape. :tup:

Just to clarify, the downtown Oside development has been in the works for almost three decades, and has been downsized repeatedly. Originally a 4 tower development, it shrunk to twin 12 story towers, and then to a pair of 8 and 6 story mid-rises. It's progress, but only after years of legal and financial wrangling between the city, various developers, and the coastal commission.

I wouldn't rate our high-rise future negatively, but I wouldn't say we would be in good shape, even in the mid-rise category. :(

True. There are definitely things not to like about the challenges of development. That said, I'm pleased that the county is mostly built-out (what is easily accessible) and as a result, developers are seriously focusing on infill for the first time ever. As a result, I think development will be increasingly apparent in this city since it will now be happening vertically in the city, instead of in some far flung exurb.

Very true. Having the geographic constrictions is both a blessing and a curse. While it has made housing more difficult to build, it has kept sprawl from growing even further. What is also good to know is that regional leadership understands how important infill is to our regions future.

Where they have failed is in convincing a majority of locals to support the future vertical growth. Without better communication and campaigning, San Diego will end up in neutral; holding a plan to move forward but failing to implement it at all.

The nimbys against growth are just worried about their property values i.e. baypark and their view of the bay. In PB they are against anything youth i.e. pot shops , liquor liscences, vape, hookah bars. They (pbtc/pbpg) just ok'd a senior center on Grand like they have any clout, please!

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws....urplecafe2.jpg


http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_stor...tance=business

By your logic, charger's fans should use their own personal money and pay for a new stadium themselves.

Historic buildings are not just for aesthetics, they can generate income.

A relative of mine that came to SD a few years ago was so excited to go downtown. Not because of Petco Park or the new high rise developments, or because she wanted to go to clubs. Her reason was because she read about the historic buildings in the Gaslamp and couldn't wait to see the area. Not everybody's cup of tea I realize, but history does appeal to a lot of people and you seem pretty narrow minded to assume only things YOU like provide utility and benefit, be it economic or otherwise.

It generally takes a pretty significant stand-alone historic structure to generate large economic interest, but when you have many historic structures in a certain area it can certainly be a draw for people to open businesses, live, and visit the area.

The relative I speak of wanted to go downtown to see these historic buildings, she took her husband along, they spent the day down there eating, shopping, and spending money.

There were people who wanted to completely level the Panama Exposition buildings, and many were destroyed, but those that were saved are now iconic SD structures. You don't think they serve any benefit to our city, not just economically but culturally and aesthetically?

I realize these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis and not all historic structures may be in a position to realistically be saved. I would like to see the CA theater somehow incorporated into a new development, but I'm willing to listen to logical arguments about why this may not be feasible or may not be the best thing to do for this particular building.

But your arguments are not logical. Saying preservationists should pay for historical preservation themselves and being against even developers doing their part to help incorporate historical structures into new projects seems like a pretty unfortunate stance to take and one I fundamentally disagree with.

Speaking of historical buildings, there is one building I've always been curious about - the post office downtown in EV.

It's actually a very cool depression-era building (I am guessing - there is a plaque in the entrance that documents it being built during the F. D. Roosevelt administration) The building is unfortunately in disrepair, and I hope it isn't allowed to rot like the CA theater. It's still in use as a post office, but I'm wondering for how long? It seems like a perfect candidate for a high rise development that incorporates the historical building as a grand 1930s style lobby.

Then there's the old library across the street. Anyone heard of what will happen there?

I believe there was a proposal to build a tower either next to or on top of (a la Bosa's Electra) the post office site. Don't remember much more,

Here is an article on the old plans, from back in 2011:

Obviously, something fell through.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...south_t730.png

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2..._2011_t730.png

As for the old library across the street, here are some articles from 2013:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/16...town-library-/

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/07/1...-next-chapter/

It's not the waterfront food/fish market I was hoping for, but I'll take it:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...?#article-copy

I am looking forward to projects moving forward that incorporate the old post office and library think that would be great for our urban fabric. I would like to see something higher than 20 floors at the post office site though. The 19 floor project on Broadway is looking a little stumpy wish they had gone higher with that one.

Regarding public market: This will need a lot of support from people driving in to the site, Point Loma doesn't have enough juice to support this alone and with how saturated San Diego's food scene has become I just don't know if its a good idea. The added hotel rooms that will come at Harbor Island and Liberty Station will help. Do you see hipsters from North Park and Suburbanites from Clairemont and Carmel Valley driving down Rosecrans to go to this thing :shrug:

^ I was thinking the same thing. Seems like a silly location. That location is too suburban. Might as well go to whole foods.

I like the idea but I think a market would be much better off in the Seaport Village area.