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)

The Flying Dutchman Feb 24, 2016 6:20 AM

A standalone stadium and a standalone convention center expansion could feasibly be combined to lower costs dramatically. In effect, the new project would essentially be a non-contiguous expansion with a lid on top able to have football games.

My bet is that all the powers to be are colluding to conspire to get this done, since they all know they stand a much greater chance of success if they combine their efforts/interests.

2/3 votes is a vote on tax increases, and there are plenty of tricks to avoid this, I think. I'm not a tax expert nor do I follow this closely, I'll admit.

In any case, I agree with your position that Spanos is in a do-or-die mode, trying to extract whatever he can by playing the fiddle to the city, apologizing and acting the 'good guy'. LOL.

Whatever direction this takes in the upcoming year, one thing is for sure: It will be entertaining. Cheers. :cheers:

The Flying Dutchman Feb 24, 2016 6:23 AM

Article kinda says it all:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...own-san-diego/

HurricaneHugo Feb 24, 2016 7:20 AM

Love how people villainize the Chargers for trying to leave to LA while praising Comic Con who's trying to do the same thing if they don't get their way.

I pick the Chargers over Comic Con. 8 days vs 4 days (well 2 because I work weekdays).

And really, Comic Con is making a huge deal over non-contiguous space? It's maybe half a mile from the proposed site to the Convention Center.

Maybe we can use the really expensive bridge we built!

And it looks like they'll proceed without the $350 million from the city/county, what else do you want? Very eager to see the financials for this!

dales5050 Feb 24, 2016 2:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7346723)
Love how people villainize the Chargers for trying to leave to LA while praising Comic Con who's trying to do the same thing if they don't get their way.

I pick the Chargers over Comic Con. 8 days vs 4 days (well 2 because I work weekdays).

The reason for this is pretty simple. There is not a face to Comic Con. There is not an owner to dislike because he's wealthy and should pay for it.

Without a head people are forced to just look at the body and the body is the economic impact of the event itself.

If the owner of the Chargers was liked, similar to say a Paul Allen or The Rooney family, the conversation would be much different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7346723)
And really, Comic Con is making a huge deal over non-contiguous space? It's maybe half a mile from the proposed site to the Convention Center.

Maybe we can use the really expensive bridge we built!

Based on what I have read and been told by those who have gone, the current 'campus model' is a logistical nightmare and was only viewed as a temporary solution.

I have walked that half mile without needing to be anywhere during Comic Con and it's a bitch. Can you imagine someone trying to make an event from one exhibit hall to another?

Each venue requires it's own setup from security to staging...all the way down the line. It's one thing to have some events that are secondary to the exhibit hall space events scattered but the request for contiguous space was to expand the exhibit hall space in one location.

SDCAL Feb 24, 2016 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7346723)
Love how people villainize the Chargers for trying to leave to LA while praising Comic Con who's trying to do the same thing if they don't get their way.

People have stronger opinions about the Chargers because what they want is vastly different and has far more impact on downtown. Comic Con is already DT and they want the existing convention center expanded. In the bigger scope of things, that won't fundamentally change downtown. The Chargers want to put another large stadium next to existing Petco Park and turn East Village into a sports-entertainment complex that synergizes with the Gaslamp and other entertainment areas downtown. Whether one agrees with this vision or not, there is far more at stake for the future direction of EV and DT as a whole than there is for simply expanding the existing convention center.

I know I posted this before and the pro DT stadium crowd ignored it, but I'll say it again. Right now, well over a decade since Petco opened, there are tons of for lease retail spaces right next to it and in the surrounding area of Petco Park. One day when I have time I'll go take a picture of them all. I know we have at least one real estate agent who posts here saying he/she is in favor another stadium downtown, and many people talk about how great another stadium would be for the area. How do you explain the fact businesses can hardly stay open in the immediate vicinity of Petco Park, and what would be different with a Charger's stadium?? Other than chain stores who have enough collective financing to weather the off-season, non chain restaurants and stores go out of business constantly. TR produce, a prime location, is JUST NOW getting Underground Elephant in after sitting completely vacant and boarded up for over a decade. Commun was praised as an innovative restaurant and the guy who owns it appeared on Top Chef as a contestant and the show featured an episode in San Diego about SD's culinary scene. His restaurant had closed and became a vacant storefront before the episode even ran, and now it is not only vacant but the restaurant right next to it (formerly Toast) is vacant as well as the restaurant across the street in the old carnation building. Kitchen Showroom Bulthaup closed what about 5 years ago right in front of Petco Park, and it's remained vacant since, nobody is eager to move in there. Wine Steals is tremendously successful in Hillcrest and I believe Pt Loma too but they failed right next to Petco. And the list could go on .. These stadiums create a very specific type of foot traffic that comes in only at certain times. Expanding this "model" further into East Village would be bad, in my opinion.

Northparkwizard Feb 24, 2016 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7346973)
People have stronger opinions about the Chargers because what they want is vastly different and has far more impact on downtown. Comic Con is already DT and they want the existing convention center expanded. In the bigger scope of things, that won't fundamentally change downtown. The Chargers want to put another large stadium next to existing Petco Park and turn East Village into a sports-entertainment complex that synergizes with the Gaslamp and other entertainment areas downtown. Whether one agrees with this vision or not, there is far more at stake for the future direction of EV and DT as a whole than there is for simply expanding the existing convention center.

I know I posted this before and the pro DT stadium crowd ignored it, but I'll say it again. Right now, well over a decade since Petco opened, there are tons of for lease retail spaces right next to it and in the surrounding area of Petco Park. One day when I have time I'll go take a picture of them all. I know we have at least one real estate agent who posts here saying he/she is in favor another stadium downtown, and many people talk about how great another stadium would be for the area. How do you explain the fact businesses can hardly stay open in the immediate vicinity of Petco Park, and what would be different with a Charger's stadium?? Other than chain stores who have enough collective financing to weather the off-season, non chain restaurants and stores go out of business constantly. TR produce, a prime location, is JUST NOW getting Underground Elephant in after sitting completely vacant and boarded up for over a decade. Commun was praised as an innovative restaurant and the guy who owns it appeared on Top Chef as a contestant and the show featured an episode in San Diego about SD's culinary scene. His restaurant had closed and became a vacant storefront before the episode even ran, and now it is not only vacant but the restaurant right next to it (formerly Toast) is vacant as well as the restaurant across the street in the old carnation building. Kitchen Showroom Bulthaup closed what about 5 years ago right in front of Petco Park, and it's remained vacant since, nobody is eager to move in there. Wine Steals is tremendously successful in Hillcrest and I believe Pt Loma too but they failed right next to Petco. And the list could go on .. These stadiums create a very specific type of foot traffic that comes in only at certain times. Expanding this "model" further into East Village would be bad, in my opinion.

Using Petco park as the Bogeyman behind why so many businesses fail or why there's an abundance of vacancies is East Village is wrong in my opinion.

There's a TON a vacant storefronts and failed businesses in North Park where there is a TON of foot traffic. Don't even start on Hillcrest, the turnover for stores and restaurants there is nuts too.

I have a pretty hard time buying the Bogeyman theory when the same thing is/has been happening for many years in the most walkable of neighborhoods in the city, nowhere near Petco.

My theory is that all those ugly condos in East Village are 50% full of folks that use them as income properties or vacation homes and 50% empty. Seems like the real estate people down there are shooting themselves in the foot if you ask me. And, no, I don't think Petco is to blame for that either.

SDCAL Feb 24, 2016 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 7347621)
Using Petco park as the Bogeyman behind why so many businesses fail or why there's an abundance of vacancies is East Village is wrong in my opinion.

There's a TON a vacant storefronts and failed businesses in North Park where there is a TON of foot traffic. Don't even start on Hillcrest, the turnover for stores and restaurants there is nuts too.

I have a pretty hard time buying the Bogeyman theory when the same thing is/has been happening for many years in the most walkable of neighborhoods in the city, nowhere near Petco.

My theory is that all those ugly condos in East Village are 50% full of folks that use them as income properties or vacation homes and 50% empty. Seems like the real estate people down there are shooting themselves in the foot if you ask me. And, no, I don't think Petco is to blame for that either.

If the "boogeyman theory" shouldn't be used, then neither should the promise of stadiums being magic catalysts to perfect revitalization of blighted neighborhoods, which some people do when advocating these things get built. My post was not intended to imply there aren't similar problems in other neighborhoods, but rather that this idea that stadiums always produce desirable outcomes in the neighborhoods they are built in isn't true. I lived in North Park before I moved downtown and while you are correct that there is a lot of turnover and vacancies, it didn't seem like things stayed vacant the same amounts of time I see near the ballpark (5-10 years). Little Italy doesn't seem to be as bad as EV either, and I think (just my opinion here) one reason is Little Italy has more of a neighborhood feel to it and less of a transient feel which comes with a stadium that's only used a fraction of the year.

I totally agree with your last paragraph except for the part of Petco not to blame. It may not be the sole culprit, but I think it has a role in why EV is like it is - how could it not? A development that major has shaped the area. Stadiums encourage development and amenities geared towards visitors (be they from far away or just other parts of the city) as opposed to locals living in the neighborhood. BTW, I'm not arguing Petco is bad, I'm trying to point out that it wasn't a magical solution to EV regentrification that many touted it would be. Having a stadium downtown is fine, but wanting to build another right next to it seems like major overkill. We need a better mix of different venues and amenities

dales5050 Feb 24, 2016 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7347702)
If the "boogeyman theory" shouldn't be used, then neither should the promise of stadiums being magic catalysts to perfect revitalization of blighted neighborhoods, which some people do when advocating these things get built.

Sorry but no.

If a store front one of those buildings is empty, that's merely an inconvenience and a point of frustration for others.

But an empty or unused condo still pays the same taxes as if it's full. The building is still an improvement from what was there before. Now I don't know what you consider revitalization and removal of blight, but if you can convert a parking lot and/or single story abandoned structures to mid or high rise buildings that pay a MASSIVE increase in property taxes, that's about as close as you can get for me.

The Flying Dutchman Feb 24, 2016 11:49 PM

After reading these comments, I have to say there's some truth to everything that is being said.

My hope is that Downtown will continue to mature. Signs point to yes.

gjime196 Feb 25, 2016 2:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dales5050
Based on what I have read and been told by those who have gone, the current 'campus model' is a logistical nightmare and was only viewed as a temporary solution.

I have walked that half mile without needing to be anywhere during Comic Con and it's a bitch. Can you imagine someone trying to make an event from one exhibit hall to another?

Each venue requires it's own setup from security to staging...all the way down the line. It's one thing to have some events that are secondary to the exhibit hall space events scattered but the request for contiguous space was to expand the exhibit hall space in one location.




I have walked that half mile without needing to be anywhere during Comic Con and it's a bitch. Can you imagine someone trying to make an event from one exhibit hall to another?

I have walked that even, smooth paved route (from the downtown library to the Gaslamp area or Seaport Village) plenty of times and its not at all a bitch. There will be very few conventions were people would have to take such a journey and am sure that Comic Con would provide busses or shuttles for those unable or unwilling to. Most event goers walk that distance easy, going to events or meals all around the Gaslamp and adjoining downtown areas. In Las Vegas there are conventions like CES that are not at contiguous locations, and they are able to still hold them with out issue.

gjime196 Feb 25, 2016 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B
Dales5050[/B]
Based on what I have read and been told by those who have gone, the current 'campus model' is a logistical nightmare and was only viewed as a temporary solution.

I have walked that half mile without needing to be anywhere during Comic Con and it's a bitch. Can you imagine someone trying to make an event from one exhibit hall to another?



I have walked that even, smooth paved route (from the downtown library to the Gaslamp area or Seaport Village) plenty of times and its not at all a bitch. There will be very few conventions were people would have to take such a journey and am sure that Comic Con would provide busses or shuttles for those unable or unwilling to. Most event goers walk that distance easy, going to events or meals all around the Gaslamp and adjoining downtown areas. In Las Vegas there are conventions like CES that are not at contiguous locations, and they are able to still hold them with out issue.

dales5050 Feb 25, 2016 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjime196 (Post 7347945)
I have walked that even, smooth paved route (from the downtown library to the Gaslamp area or Seaport Village) plenty of times and its not at all a bitch. There will be very few conventions were people would have to take such a journey and am sure that Comic Con would provide busses or shuttles for those unable or unwilling to. Most event goers walk that distance easy, going to events or meals all around the Gaslamp and adjoining downtown areas. In Las Vegas there are conventions like CES that are not at contiguous locations, and they are able to still hold them with out issue.

Las Vegas is a different animal. To start, you never need to go outside.

Back to San Diego, I am not talking about the walk being physically difficult. I am talking about it being difficult to maneuver at a quick pace. Then you have to factor in passing security again.

At the end of the day it's pretty clear that if they split the convention centers Comic Con will leave. What I am shocked about is that nobody has seem to run the numbers on what having 2 convention centers would look like the rest of the year.

Comic Con has about 130,000 attendees. The next largest is the Society for Neuroscience at 32,000. Several are 20,000 and most are less than 10,000. What I would be interested in seeing is what the total attendance would look like if San Diego could run two large conventions the same week during peak season.

For example, if we look at May-June of this year for multiday events over 3,000 you have:
American Urological Association Annual Convention
May 6, 2016 to May 10, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 18,000

Digestive Disease Week
May 21, 2016 to May 24, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 20,000

Competitor Group - Rock N Roll Marathon Expo
June 3, 2016 to June 4, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 60,000

SNMMI 2016 Annual Meeting
June 11, 2016 to June 15, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 4,000

Private Corporate & Incentive
June 21, 2016 to June 23, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Corporate & Incentive
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 3,000

Esri
June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 14,500
That's 119,500 in attendance over 28 days. Now say the second convention center could hold 20,000. If you double book each of these you have 239,000 over 56 days. That's just for 2 months.

The net gain of having a second convention center might actually allow San Diego to double it's overall tourism from conventions and keep hotels booked on a more consistent basis throughout the prime season.

Personally I think a single convention center on the bay is better for downtown overall but if you want to look at it from the Comic Con perspective, I think having two convention centers may actually be better for tourism.

I would much rather see convention tourism contained to the bay and gaslamp and allow the East Village to become more of a residential neighborhood that is anchored by a stadium. But that's just me.

SanDiego Feb 25, 2016 5:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7348378)
Las Vegas is a different animal. To start, you never need to go outside.

Back to San Diego, I am not talking about the walk being physically difficult. I am talking about it being difficult to maneuver at a quick pace. Then you have to factor in passing security again.

At the end of the day it's pretty clear that if they split the convention centers Comic Con will leave. What I am shocked about is that nobody has seem to run the numbers on what having 2 convention centers would look like the rest of the year.

Comic Con has about 130,000 attendees. The next largest is the Society for Neuroscience at 32,000. Several are 20,000 and most are less than 10,000. What I would be interested in seeing is what the total attendance would look like if San Diego could run two large conventions the same week during peak season.

For example, if we look at May-June of this year for multiday events over 3,000 you have:
American Urological Association Annual Convention
May 6, 2016 to May 10, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 18,000

Digestive Disease Week
May 21, 2016 to May 24, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 20,000

Competitor Group - Rock N Roll Marathon Expo
June 3, 2016 to June 4, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 60,000

SNMMI 2016 Annual Meeting
June 11, 2016 to June 15, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 4,000

Private Corporate & Incentive
June 21, 2016 to June 23, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Corporate & Incentive
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 3,000

Esri
June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2016
EVENT TYPE: Convention with Trade Show
ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 14,500
That's 119,500 in attendance over 28 days. Now say the second convention center could hold 20,000. If you double book each of these you have 239,000 over 56 days. That's just for 2 months.

The net gain of having a second convention center might actually allow San Diego to double it's overall tourism from conventions and keep hotels booked on a more consistent basis throughout the prime season.

Personally I think a single convention center on the bay is better for downtown overall but if you want to look at it from the Comic Con perspective, I think having two convention centers may actually be better for tourism.

I would much rather see convention tourism contained to the bay and gaslamp and allow the East Village to become more of a residential neighborhood that is anchored by a stadium. But that's just me.

A split in the convention center wouldn't make Comic-Con leave, I don't think. The primary issue is we don't have space anymore, and the little land that is left in that area is valuable.

In point, SD would benefit so much more from an expansion of the center - even if Comic-Con left. In January alone, 75% (16 events, total of 160,000 room nights) of the lost business was because our space is too small!

Streamliner Feb 25, 2016 9:12 PM

San Diego Streets tweeted a photo of a new "Downtown San Diego" sign along Harbor Drive:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbxmgRZUAAAEqbL.jpg

Source:
https://twitter.com/sandiegostreets

SDfan Feb 25, 2016 10:00 PM

I've said it a billion times, but a downtown stadium for the Chargers would greatly hinder the East Village and take up valuable land that would otherwise go to much needed housing, commercial and educational development. Yes, the MTS bus yard is sitting there, but we shouldn't just put anything on it to make it go away. We need to be strategic and think about what the best possible use of that, and all of the surrounding land should be. Homes should be our priority - not billion dollar palaces. Education centers that attract talent and tech companies - not low wage employment and seasonal fanfare.

Honestly, stop dreaming and start thinking. Critically thinking. Because if we end up with a dead end in the EV we'll have handicapped one of our few urban development opportunities in this town.

The Chargers have put a stake in the ground and it's going to lead them right to LA because this won't pass muster with 2/3 of voters. No way, no how. And whatever "clever" scheme they come up with to bypass it will get shot down in court. So, once again, goodbye Chargers!

dales5050 Feb 26, 2016 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiego (Post 7348707)
A split in the convention center wouldn't make Comic-Con leave, I don't think.

Not sure why you would say this. Comic Con has said almost everything short of 'if you don't build a single expansion we're going to leave' and have not moved on their position for years.

dales5050 Feb 26, 2016 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7349154)
Education centers that attract talent and tech companies - not low wage employment and seasonal fanfare.

If you knew anything about tech companies, not 4 folks starting an app but true employer powerhouse tech companies, you would know the last place they would locate would be in a downtown core.

Tech companies are more inclined to have a campus outside outside of the beat and path.

If you want to talk about education centers, a redeveloped Mission Valley with the Q gone and SDSU and UCSD taking up space would be a good example of an area where spin off companies from the research and programs at those schools would want to locate.

You know..because that's where the talent pool is located....

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7349154)
Honestly, stop dreaming and start thinking. Critically thinking. Because if we end up with a dead end in the EV we'll have handicapped one of our few urban development opportunities in this town.

If you want critical thinking you need to stop looking at the map from such a simple perspective.

The reason why the EV is a popular projection for urban development is two-fold. The first is that's it's underdeveloped at the current time. The second is that it's close to mass transit.

If you put your personal agenda and preferences to the side and think critically, the key to unlocking the solution to the housing and office needs of the region is transit oriented development. Because San Diego is going to need much, much more than the EV to be developed to max capacity to solve the issue it's going to be presented in the future.

Ask yourself why does the opportunity for 'urban development' in the EV end at the 5? Why can't you run a straight line trolley down Market from Santa Fe to the 15? There is block after block of underdeveloped parcels that are just outside of downtown.

Are you saying a developer wouldn't find interest in building a dense urban mixed use project that had easy access to the 5 and 94 freeways, in addition to, a straight line trolley line into the heart of downtown? Because if you are, you really have no business talking about urban development.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7349154)
The Chargers have put a stake in the ground and it's going to lead them right to LA because this won't pass muster with 2/3 of voters. No way, no how. And whatever "clever" scheme they come up with to bypass it will get shot down in court. So, once again, goodbye Chargers!

The Chargers are going to leave. Hooray! You're still left with a problem that the EV is not going to solve but now what are you going to bitch about?

dtell04 Feb 26, 2016 3:42 PM

I think Spanos learned a thing or two from Kronke through this whole ordeal. He is ramming his plan through. Once all the signatures are gathered the only real role the city government has is to either approve the initiative or place it on the ballot. If they can finagle a way to make it a 50% approval in conjunction with the Briggs initiative passing, the Chargers will have successfully sidestepped the mayor and the hoteliers. The Briggs initiative prohibits public dollars from being applied to the stadium portion. I wouldn't be surprised if the hoteliers, seeing no way to build the contiguous expansion, (because the Briggs initiative prohibits it) jump on board with this plan and deduct their 2% from the now 15% tax bill and hand that money over to the convadium project. There is some sort of genius happening right now, I think we should all take the time to admire it. Imagine if Spanos and Briggs managed to pull this off. Tell Faulconer and Roberts to keep OUR money while raising the hotel tax and giving the hoteliers no other option but to pay for the convadium. It has also been rumored that Spanos might put forth a significantly higher dollar amount than if the stadium was in mission valley.

If the city managed to churn out another 10,000 degrees each year by handing off the site to the universities......wow.

However this turns out and however anyone feels. It is kind of nice that all these important decisions about OUR city will be made by a public vote, not special interest deals (namely hoteliers).

Comicon won't leave because of this. They like San Diego just as much as we do. They could possibly have an event that has a 65K person audience at one time? It could be like the opening Olympics ceremony with everyone in costume!

SDfan Feb 26, 2016 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7349728)
If you knew anything about tech companies, not 4 folks starting an app but true employer powerhouse tech companies, you would know the last place they would locate would be in a downtown core.

Amazon, Salesforce, Twitter and Uber are just a few of the tech giants located in urban centers. Downtown San Diego is becoming a startups hub. General Electric and many others are moving into urban centers. Millennials (the talent) prefer urban environments to live and work. A simple google search of articles relating to tech and urbanism will tell you that.

Quote:

GE move could signify larger trends toward cities
But the nature of GE’s Fairfield headquarters — along with details about its preferred landing spots — raise the possibility that costs may only play one role, and that the company leaning toward the kind of centralized, walkable communities that are in fashion now and away from an isolated, suburban office park like its current space.
http://www.ctpost.com/business/artic...es-6746382.php
Quote:

Amazon to begin move into new Seattle campus next week
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/amazon-...pus-next-week/
Quote:

The Joys of Urban Tech
Goodbye, office parks. Drawn by amenities and talent, tech firms are opting for cities
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008...19441778073340
Do your research...

Quote:

Tech companies are more inclined to have a campus outside outside of the beat and path.
Yeah, in the 90's. Where have you been? This is definitely not the case today as tech migrates from the suburbs to downtowns across the nation, again, do your research and you will see this time and time again.

Quote:

If you want to talk about education centers, a redeveloped Mission Valley with the Q gone and SDSU and UCSD taking up space would be a good example of an area where spin off companies from the research and programs at those schools would want to locate.
Yes, because counter to the current trend in the market, tech companies would love to move to suburban environments... :shrug:

Quote:

You know..because that's where the talent pool is located....
Again, please do your research and brace yourself for reality.

Quote:

Millennials Will Live In Cities Unlike Anything We've Ever Seen Before
http://gizmodo.com/millennials-will-...-se-1716074100
Quote:

If you want critical thinking you need to stop looking at the map from such a simple perspective.
Have you looked at a map of where higher density development is permitted in this county? Do that, and you will quickly become educated as to why EV and downtown is so valuable to our future housing supply.

*hint, its the only area that allows such densities*

Quote:

The reason why the EV is a popular projection for urban development is two-fold. The first is that's it's underdeveloped at the current time. The second is that it's close to mass transit.
And three, its actually zoned for growth. Other areas are underdeveloped and close to mass transit, but are not zoned for more. Only downtown and EV are.

Quote:

If you put your personal agenda and preferences to the side and think critically, the key to unlocking the solution to the housing and office needs of the region is transit oriented development. Because San Diego is going to need much, much more than the EV to be developed to max capacity to solve the issue it's going to be presented in the future.
Agreed, except our wonderful communities are nowhere near as embracive of transit oriented development as downtown or EV. Not Hillcrest. Not Golden Hill. Not even North Park or Little Italy. Read any community planning update and you will not find the kind of zoning allowed in their draft documents.

Quote:

Ask yourself why does the opportunity for 'urban development' in the EV end at the 5? Why can't you run a straight line trolley down Market from Santa Fe to the 15? There is block after block of underdeveloped parcels that are just outside of downtown.
Zoning currently and proposed for the future is not going to be significant enough in that area, and changing it to a higher density equal to the EV is never going to happen since the community and city leaders in those areas are not supportive of it.

Quote:

Are you saying a developer wouldn't find interest in building a dense urban mixed use project that had easy access to the 5 and 94 freeways, in addition to, a straight line trolley line into the heart of downtown? Because if you are, you really have no business talking about urban development.
Developers would love to build more homes! That means more money. The problem is with native San Diegans. They are no inclined to support higher densities in their communities. Developers would build up our urban neighborhoods more if they could, but regulations and zoning restrictions keep them out. Whereas in the EV, they don't face such obstacles.

And the area you're specifically mentioning (Sherman Heights, Logan Heights, Grant Hill) just updated its community plan to allow for marginally higher densities along the trolley line. However, those densities aren't even close to what we would need to make it similar to downtown or EV. This just happened, did you not read or hear about it? (surprising...)

Quote:

Southeastern San Diego could get a boost in redevelopment
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...208-story.html
Quote:

The Chargers are going to leave. Hooray! You're still left with a problem that the EV is not going to solve but now what are you going to bitch about?
Based on your responses you do not seem to be aware as to why or how communities develop (or do no develop) in San Diego, nor are you aware as to the current commercial and residential market trends towards urban centers across the nation. Please research and read about land use, community planning, real estate trends and the shifting millennial market before you go off the handle on topics you clearly have very little knowledge of.

Thank you. :tup:

Northparkwizard Feb 26, 2016 6:36 PM

Wow, I can cut the condescension with a knife.

Question for SDfan, what are you doing about your ideas for EV? Are you in the real estate, development, or construction industry? Are you Rob Quigley?

It would be a shame if you were just talking about it and not working towards your vision. It seems like you have everything in place for a proposal that you believe in.

I think you should take that into the bank and develop a spec, tech-hub building or whatever your idea is. If you're right, that's what us in the business call a slam dunk.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:40 PM.

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