SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

SDCAL Aug 2, 2014 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6678202)
You may not care about the Chargers, but many do. The Chargers need a solution almost as bad as Comic-Con. Remember that at 8 games a year times 70,000 seats, that's 560,000 attendees. If 15% are from out of town, that is 84,000 attendees that may need hotel accommodations, dining, etc. Like Comic-Con, an NFL team provides us a lot of exposure and brings people here.

Unfortunately our citizenry is too short sighted to make any of these projects happen, and people on the city council will not pass measures to make this a reality for fear of reprisal. Face it, the same people that don't want you to have increased density and better transit, also don't want you to have an airport, convention center, or stadium. (NIMBY's -and their appointees-are why we can't have nice things!)

My opinion is that it is worth it to pony up a couple large underutilized mega-blocks only IF it helps get a convention center and stadium done and IF the project can be done to blend into the existing area and further accelerate growth in EV. But, the design has to be good for this to work. We don't want to waste space for additional density, or ruin/wall off sections of downtown. If given a choice, I would build a new Chargers stadium in MV and add development on that site, while moving ahead on the CC plan. But i'm open to downtown if it is the only way to get it done

The big question is will the city have an easier, or harder time getting voters to approve a dual-use project?? At least Spans would be kicking in some money, but the total cost is much higher.

I guess the thing I am most confused/irritated about is why everything needs a vote?

Maybe someone with more civic/city government understanding can shed some light on this, but can't the city council and mayor put certain taxes into place without a public vote if they impact critical infrastructure or economic vitality?

We live in a representative democracy, meaning we elect people who are supposed to evaluate with experts and determine whether things like a larger convention center is needed or not and then act on it based on their research.

Can they NOT move forward without a vote, or are they simply being spineless?

The reason I was drawing a distinction between a football stadium and a convention center is because I see a clear line there.

A football stadium should be something that the public weighs-in on because it's an entertainment venue and, even if it does generate some revenue for the city, it is still not a necessity. The public has a right to give input especially since wherever it is build could have a large impact on traffic, parking, future growth, etc.

A convention center expansion, on the other hand, is something that is vital to downtown's economy, it is a necessity, it is what keeps downtown hotels running, and it's in a location that is specifically for this type of activity - conventions and conferences.

The reason I said these should not be combined is because I think the city should be able to move forward on the convention center independently of a public vote because it's core infrastructure, but a charger's stadium is something that requires public input/a public vote.

I mean we don't decide to add more fire departments by tying them to plans for an amusement park. We don't have the public "vote" on if more hospitals are needed and then to "entice" them to vote yes tie it to plans to build a water park.

tyleraf Aug 2, 2014 8:23 PM

Nope according to the california state constitution, citizens must approve every new tax regardless of whether it directly affects them.

SDfan Aug 2, 2014 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6678407)
I guess the thing I am most confused/irritated about is why everything needs a vote?

Maybe someone with more civic/city government understanding can shed some light on this, but can't the city council and mayor put certain taxes into place without a public vote if they impact critical infrastructure or economic vitality?

We live in a representative democracy, meaning we elect people who are supposed to evaluate with experts and determine whether things like a larger convention center is needed or not and then act on it based on their research.

Can they NOT move forward without a vote, or are they simply being spineless?

The reason I was drawing a distinction between a football stadium and a convention center is because I see a clear line there.

A football stadium should be something that the public weighs-in on because it's an entertainment venue and, even if it does generate some revenue for the city, it is still not a necessity. The public has a right to give input especially since wherever it is build could have a large impact on traffic, parking, future growth, etc.

A convention center expansion, on the other hand, is something that is vital to downtown's economy, it is a necessity, it is what keeps downtown hotels running, and it's in a location that is specifically for this type of activity - conventions and conferences.

The reason I said these should not be combined is because I think the city should be able to move forward on the convention center independently of a public vote because it's core infrastructure, but a charger's stadium is something that requires public input/a public vote.

I mean we don't decide to add more fire departments by tying them to plans for an amusement park. We don't have the public "vote" on if more hospitals are needed and then to "entice" them to vote yes tie it to plans to build a water park.


The convention center is not core infrastructure. As fundamental as it may seem to San Diego's economy (particularly downtown), it isn't a necessity by any means. If that was the case, every city would have one. Essential services include fire, police, streets, sewage, garbage, etc. And even those services could be theoretically privatized, and if they need more funding we need to vote on raising taxes (like a few years ago when Sanders tried getting a voter approved sales tax hike for police and firefighters approved - it failed).

Whether or not we expand the convention center isn't a given, its a discretion, which the state of California has decided needs to be voted upon by the general public.

Most hospitals, while heavily regulated by government, are private operations and entities. UCSD doesn't ask for voter approval for their new facilities because they receive new construction funds from large donors, corporate entities, and federal grants. The new hospital being built off the five is named after Qualcomm's Jacobs because he's the one who foot the bill.

While I wish this process was different, it's what we have. San Diego government might decide to put this on the ballot - but it isn't likely to pass. If the city could reject a sales tax increase for essential services like police and fire, I doubt that it would approve a tax for a non-essential like the convention center.

The Chargers are another story though. Sports teams carry a lot of clout in that they connect at a personal level to many individuals who would otherwise be against tax increases. My tea party minded father wouldn't vote yes on a school bond measure to build my charter school, but he would gladly vote yes on a stadium deal if it meant keeping his beloved Chargers in San Diego (priorities much?).

So I'm not confident that the city will find another source of income for the center anytime soon. If they appeal, they will lose. If they put it on the ballot, the will lose.

mello Aug 2, 2014 10:50 PM

^^^ But this is a tax for hotels not a sales tax increase or a bond measure. This is a tax the hoteliers are already ok with, no money is coming out of the general fund and obviously the convention center helps bring in more money to the coffers so why would people vote against it?

Another question for you is if the land downtown was used up for a new stadium (And hopefully used for a whole lot more than football, maybe MLS, other events, Final Fours, etc.) but 6000 plus housing units were constructed on the Qualcomm Stadium site would that be a decent trade off for you?

spoonman Aug 3, 2014 12:08 AM

As others have said, "taxes" require voter approval. I think Jerry Sanders previously tried to get a "conv. center surcharge" (a fee rather than a tax) added to hotel bills in the city. For some reason that didn't take.

Regarding not being able to pass a higher hotel tax, I can't believe that people have a problem with raising taxes on tourists when the hotels don't even seem to mind. If the hoteliers thought it would hurt business, they would not have voted "yes".

This city has one of the lowest TOT rates of a major city. Yet people seem to think it's too high even though they don't pay it. People really will bitch about anything. I think some people have such contempt for the city, developers, progress, etc that they will say virtually anything to derail a project. It's almost a religion.

spoonman Aug 3, 2014 6:50 AM

Possible good news. Looks like Oceanside may be getting a new hotel downtown, which will include an 8-floor and 6-floor buildings on 2 adjacent blocks.

I thought that the Coastal Commission precluded development over 30 feet that close to the coastline. However there are other recently constructed buildings within a few blocks. Does anyone understand how this works in Oceanside??

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...in-properties/

SDfan Aug 3, 2014 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6678517)
^^^ But this is a tax for hotels not a sales tax increase or a bond measure. This is a tax the hoteliers are already ok with, no money is coming out of the general fund and obviously the convention center helps bring in more money to the coffers so why would people vote against it?

Another question for you is if the land downtown was used up for a new stadium (And hopefully used for a whole lot more than football, maybe MLS, other events, Final Fours, etc.) but 6000 plus housing units were constructed on the Qualcomm Stadium site would that be a decent trade off for you?

The city tried to get the hotel tax raised a few years back, and it failed to meet the two-thirds threshold required. That's California for you! We are such a tax hungry state that we apparently had to stop ourselves by setting higher passage thresholds to contain our grubby little tax hands. The hotels could say they love higher taxes, local government could be all for it, but San Diego is San Diego and it wouldn't get past us!

As for 6000 units at Qualcomm, ha! That would make me cry for joy... and hysteria because it ain't happening. Civita is 230 acres (minus 60-70 acres for open space... so really 170-160 acres) and it's putting in 4780 housing units. The qualcomm site is 166 acres, and I can bet you that at least 30-50% of the site would need to be open space in order to accommodate CEQA, NIMBYS, and the general public. So that's, what, 100 to 80-ish acres of land for 6000 housing units? Civita was barely tolerable to its neighbors and it has a much lower density than Qualcomm would ever be allowed (if it's even allowed, Donna Frye and far left allies would push for 100% parkland - Navy Broadway Complex lawsuits x10 + Cory Briggs = not going to happen quickly or without a fight).

So while a trade off would be better than just a wall of a stadium downtown, I'd still prefer nothing because Qualcomm as a development site is assuredly going to be both underwhelming (height restrictions, neighborhood opposition, litigation, etc.) and a long time coming. Meanwhile you would have land already designated for high-density uses being gobbled up by a "multi-purpose" stadium (hey guys! we have used car sales sometimes!).

In a perfect world there would either be A) enough land downtown to house another large stadium or B) enough land zoned in the city for high-density development. Unfortunately one is impossible and the other is nearly impossible to change.

It's sad, but it's our city. Like the airport, like our transit system, like our land-use decisions, like our political system, like the outside forces at the state and federal level - they all suuuck.

But we have beaches! And a zoo! Yay?

I will have actual positive things to say soon, I promise! I just see these specific issues as distractions needing to be shot down while we should be dealing with real issues of greater implications for our region - like SANDAG's new proposals for transportation or the community plan updates going on throughout the city. More to come on that later though.

spoonman Aug 3, 2014 7:21 AM

More good-ish news regarding additional places for density. Here is a link to National City's downtown plan which specifically mentions adding high-rise and mid-rise mixed-use and residential in the downtown area. In fact there are NO stated height limits in certain areas, only a FAR of up to 6:1 that must be conformed to. The plan seems to be all about getting growth going. Sounds like they just need to get some momentum.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...72197243,d.cGU

SDfan Aug 3, 2014 7:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6678776)
Possible good news. Looks like Oceanside may be getting a new hotel downtown, which will include an 8-floor and 6-floor buildings on 2 adjacent blocks.

I thought that the Coastal Commission precluded development over 30 feet that close to the coastline. However there are other recently constructed buildings within a few blocks. Does anyone understand how this works in Oceanside??

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...in-properties/

Nice to see Oside moving on this one. I remember being in middle school reading about this project.

SDfan Aug 3, 2014 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6678783)
More good-ish news regarding additional places for density. Here is a link to National City's downtown plan which specifically mentions adding high-rise and mid-rise mixed-use and residential in the downtown area. In fact there are NO stated height limits in certain areas, only a FAR of up to 6:1 that must be conformed to. The plan seems to be all about getting growth going. Sounds like they just need to get some momentum.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...72197243,d.cGU

This is really interesting. Thank you for posting!

I'm not sure how tall they could go with an FAR or 6 though. But this is at the very least more progressive then most of the rest of the county.

tyleraf Aug 3, 2014 4:17 PM

I'm glad to hear about some good mid rises in Oceanside. Also, it will be interesting to see how National City does with its new highrise zoning.

spoonman Aug 3, 2014 9:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6678795)
This is really interesting. Thank you for posting!

I'm not sure how tall they could go with an FAR or 6 though. But this is at the very least more progressive then most of the rest of the county.

I have tried to calculate what type of heights could realistically come from this FAR requirement in National City.

An acre lot is 43,560sf. So a FAR of 6 would provide for a building of up to 261,360sf. As a model for building square footage, I looked at the Executive Complex tower downtown (I was able to find the sf easily), which seems to have a mass similar to a residential tower. The Executive Complex has 346K sf in 25 floors, or an average of 14K sf per floor. Based on this assumption, a building on an acre lot could reach 18 or 19 floors. The building could possibly break into the 20's if thinner.

What I don't know about are lot sizes. Is an acre a realistic size for a tower? It seems to be. A DTSD block is about 1.35 acres (200X300ft), so if the base of a tower took up 70% of a DTSD block (for example), that project would be using an acre of land.

Anyone have thoughts on this???

tyleraf Aug 4, 2014 2:06 AM

Here is a link with more info about the project in Oceanside which Spoonman mentioned. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...in-properties/

dtell04 Aug 4, 2014 4:11 AM

Seattle and SD share some characteristics. They have 2 downtown stadiums. Take a look at their schedule for century link field for the rest of the year....
If anyone thinks a stadium would only be used for football games please read it carefully.
http://www.centurylinkfield.com/event-calendar/






CenturyLink Field Events Calendar





August 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Aug 10 7:30pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Houston Dynamo CenturyLink Field
Aug 15 7pm Preseason Week 2: Seahawks vs Chargers Seattle, WA
Aug 20 7pm Seattle Sounders FC vs San Jose Earthquakes CenturyLink Field
Aug 21 6pm Ed Sheeran with Rudimental WaMu Theater
Aug 22 7pm Preseason Week 3: Seahawks vs Bears Seattle, WA
Aug 28 7pm NCAA Football: Washington State University vs. Rutgers CenturyLink Field
Aug 29 8pm Porter Robinson WaMu Theater
Aug 30 1pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Colorado Rapids CenturyLink Field

September 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Sep 1 7am 5K Run: NFL Kickoff Run CenturyLink Field
Sep 4 5:30pm Regular Season Week 1: Seahawks vs Packers Seattle, WA
Sep 11 11am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 12 11am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 12 7:30pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Real Salt Lake CenturyLink Field
Sep 13 10am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 14 10am Seattle Fall RV Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Sep 19 7pm benefit 2014 for pediatric cancer research WaMu Theater
Sep 20 7pm Dada Life: Dada Land Compound Seattle WaMu Theater
Sep 21 1:25pm Regular Season Week 3: Seahawks vs Broncos Seattle, Washington
Sep 27 1pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Chivas USA CenturyLink Field

October 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Oct 3 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 4 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 5 10am Seattle Home Show 2 CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 10 7pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Vancouver Whitecaps FC CenturyLink Field
Oct 12 1:25pm Regular Season Week 6: Seahawks vs Cowboys Seattle, Washington
Oct 15 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 16 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 17 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 18 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 19 Seattle Auto Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Oct 25 12pm Seattle Sounders FC vs Los Angeles Galaxy CenturyLink Field
Oct 25 7pm Safe in Sound Tour WaMu Theater
Oct 31 2 Days FreakNight 2014 WaMu Theater

November 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Nov 2 1:25pm Regular Season Week 9: Seahawks vs Raiders Seattle, Washington
Nov 9 1:25pm Regular Season Week 10: Seahawks vs Giants Seattle, Washington
Nov 14 2pm Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 15 10am Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 16 10am Ski Dazzle: The Seattle Ski & Snowboard Show CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 19 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 20 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 21 8am Pacific Marine Expo CenturyLink Field Event Center
Nov 23 1:05pm Regular Season Week 12: Seahawks vs Cardinals Seattle, Washington

December 2014




Date

Time

Event

Location

Dec 14 1:25pm Regular Season Week 15: Seahawks vs 49ers Seattle, Washington
Dec 28 1:25pm Regular Season Week 17: Seahawks vs Rams Seattle, Washington

Events calendar powered by Trumba


Printed: Sunday, August 03, 2014 at 9:08 PM PDT Calendar events displayed in Pacific Daylight Time/Pacific Standard Time

mello Aug 4, 2014 10:09 PM

^^^ Some good points, question about a stadium downtown that is crucial. We are talking about the stadium itself having a footprint that will take valuable high density land away from downtown but what about parking garages that would otherwise not be built were it not for a stadium??? I might be ok with a stadium taking up land if we had an MLS team playing in it and tons of more quality events plus some kind of cover on it that would allow for Final 4's.

I am not cool with more land being gobbled up by parking structures unless 35 floors of some mixed use are added on top of them.

If we look at the Stadium you have 10 Chargers games total (maybe playoffs), 17 MLS Games, 6 SDSU Football games, 2 Bowl Games, then you have possible international Soccer games or "Friendlies between MLS team and INTL Teams". After this you will have to get creative and find other ways to use the Stadium. With MLS combined with football you almost have as many guaranteed events as an NBA team would have, I count 35 and an NBA team plays 41 home games.

aerogt3 Aug 5, 2014 8:27 AM

It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

Leo the Dog Aug 5, 2014 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6680547)
It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

You're assuming that the bus yard/parking lots will be there for 50+ years (the lifespan of a football stadium). You can't compare MLB to NFL in regards to stadiums in urban settings. PetCo did clean up the area, but this doesn't mean an even larger stadium is the best use of available land left. The EV isn't exactly a slum in desperate need of some kind of stimulus. It has some very exciting projects and is growing at an phenomenal pace. Why would we want to limit it's growth?

Mello, As for an NBA arena in the East Village, that makes since. those are often found in downtown locations. NYC, Phx, Miami, DC, LA, Boston, etc...

they have a much smaller footprint, can create an urban streets cape, would host many more events/concerts and the playoffs would create many more than just 41 home games.

SDfan Aug 5, 2014 8:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6680547)
It's funny how people oppose the stadium because it takes away valuable land for development and creates a dead zone.

I would argue that the bus yard bounded by hundreds of drunken transients is much more of a deadzone than a stadium that anchors a neighborhood expansion as did Petco.

I'm not happy about the bus yard either, but it's definitely not stopping development in the area (there is a 40+ story tower going up a few blocks away, if you hadn't noticed). The transients aren't there because of the buses. The site should be redeveloped for mixed-use, high-density purposes. Not a once-in-a-while stadium.

Prahaboheme Aug 5, 2014 8:46 PM

An NBA arena in the East Village doesn't make any more sense than an NFL stadium. Why must the East Village be targeted for additional stadiums/arenas when there are plenty of other neighborhood opportunities around the city? The East Village is thriving ON ITS OWN and has become increasingly diversified. It doesn't need help in the gentrification department. If anything, an NBA arena could build up in a mixed-use development near the downtown transit / train depot (similar to the TD Garden / Boston North Station setup). In that location, you'd at least have all the Gas Lamp bars and entertainment options which would appeal to the masses, and you can leave the East Village to continue to build upon a niche market that preserves its independent nature.

The convention center should build upon itself - it needs to fight for it's own location. It just doesn't make sense to expand the convention center across Harbor Blvd. Fight the coastal commission - go to court.

Meanwhile, the Chargers have a home in Mission Valley and can make much better use of their property than they currently do. If the Patriots can build out Patriots Place way out in middle of nowhere Foxboro, then the Chargers can re-imagine it's current property, which is already central to the metro area, and connected to mass transit. A mixed-use development at Qualcomm, that includes residential, retail / restaurant, a new stadium, even hotel and office space, could really make that a bustling new district in Mission Valley.

The East Village just doesn't make sense to me.

spoonman Aug 6, 2014 4:04 AM

There was an opinion piece in VOSD today where someone was bitching about lack of parking for a mixed use project in La Jolla (oh, the humanity). Someone in the comments section gave a fantastic response/rant which seemed to hit the issue spot-on. Just thought I'd share...

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/0...-of-residents/
__________________________________

Matthews
1 day ago

Get out of your car and walk. Hop on a bicycle and peddle. Take an uber lift. Welcome to the 21st century, where urban development in the form of mixed-use projects are taking over car dominated cities across the country. We have a long way to go, but these developments -and the many more to come- are going to transform San Diego for the better, whether stalwart community planning groups like it or not.

You argue that these commercial spaces are planned in order to reduce the need for residents to commute to more distance places for retail, etc. Well, when you place housing on top of commercial space, locating them closer to surrounding neighborhoods - you get just that! More people will walk, bike, carpool to these locations, because they are so close, while they are less likely to drive - because who needs to drive when the hardware store or market is right downstairs or down the street? And this is all localized retail - not destination. Very few people are going to commute across town to Turquoise Street for a convince store, dry cleaner, or nail salon when there are numerable closer options nearby.

And using "community character" (whatever that means) to defend a particular planning restriction/regulation/red tape is not a justifiable argument in the face of our region's growing housing affordability and availability crisis. Particular neighborhoods (*cough La Jolla cough OB cough Clairemont cough Uptown*) want to weasel their way out of contributing to the only viable solutions we have (developing mulit-family, mulit-use, transit oriented development by increasing density and promoting urbanization), but it's only going to cost them in the long run as housing prices become asphyxiating and development stagnates, which would not only effect young families and professionals (the future) but a network of industries tied to real estate, construction, and more related services (big chunks of the local economy). And all because "I can't drive down the street to go to 7-11 because it'll take me 15 minutes to find parking around the block!" The travesty! The inhumanity!

Just because a planning guide was good for 1960 doesn't mean it's good 50+ years later. Time to evolve. Time to start addressing problems. Time to stop clinging on to old regulations that make no sense today. Embrace change and the future.

And thank you for sharing! Your opinion is an important part of community discussion and civic debate about our city's future


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.