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 11, 2014 6:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686551)

I'm not sold on much that JMI is offering, as an annex alone would be just as bad as a stadium or stadium-convention center in my opinion. :uhh:

Agreed. The city claims convention center expansion is necessary to keep comic con and to attract more large clients. People who organize these events want a contiguous space big enough to accommodate their convention - nobody wants to deal with the logistics of multiple venues, getting people back and forth, etc., if there are cities who already have the space under one roof.

If the city decides to support any plan with "multiple convention centers" to solve the space issue it would be a total waste of money. They won't attract the big convention clients they are targeting.

aerogt3 Aug 11, 2014 9:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6683835)
I don't. And neither does anyone I have talked to. Traffic, noise, hauling drunk people back and forth. I'd rather live in an urban neighborhood with walkable streets and businesses and venues geared towards residents as opposed to businesses and venues geared towards people who only come downtown during games.

You mean like the entire gaslamp? FYI the gaslamp is full of drunken people who mostly do not live in downtown. And you forget how EV started.... first it was a place no one would ever want to live (like the football area now), then Petco brought in a small population to live there, but businesses were still mostly geared towards the game attendees. Then it grew to enough residents to sustain full time businesses geared towards residents. But the neighborhood needed a start.

Quote:

As someone who lives in EV, I can tell you that after baseball games are over and people have scattered, maybe gone to a restaurant or two then left downtown, it really sucks the vitality out of the area and leaves a sort of lifeless depressing vibe to the neighborhood.
I would rather have an NFL stadium provide a little bit of a boost on occassion than have the year round lifeless, depressing vibe that the bus yard and parking lots have.

Quote:

I really want EV to transform into a place that has things going 24-7 all year, a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood that's not dependant on a few large events scattered throughout the year.
So you want to keep the bus yard and parking lots? Because no one is going to buld the neighborhood you want there. There is no demand. No one wants to live east of the bus yard, but people would live on the east side of the stadium (just like Petco.)

Quote:

I 100% believe that a football stadium in the EV will kill the neighborhood, and I for one would sell my condo and move if it ever came to be.
Kill what neighborhood? In the area where the stadium would sit, there IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD!

aerogt3 Aug 11, 2014 9:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686845)
I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The development you want, on city land, only exists in our dreams. If there was a proposal to build a real neighborhood there instead of the stadium, I would be all for it as I would way prefer a city environment to a stadium. But other than the stadium, what is proposed for the bus yard? Nothing.

Here in reality, it's stadium, or bus yard.

dales5050 Aug 11, 2014 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
I don't think San Diego will ever have a centralized core either, but downtown is by far the closest neighborhood we have to it - neither Sorrento Valley (an office bedroom community home to Qualcomm and kind of a train station?) nor UTC (which isn't La Jolla by the way, and is locked-in in terms of future development) are anywhere near downtown in infrastructure, transit options, zoning, and community support for growth. Even if the 2050 regional plan is fully implemented (non-constrained option) these areas aren't going to be close to downtown in terms of potential.

Downtown San Diego is not going to be Manhattan, the Loop, or even DTLA - and comparing our quaint hamlet to larger cities is preposterous. But Sorrento Valley and UTC are never going to be downtown San Diego, and it's illogical to assume these neighborhoods are going to somehow mitigate our urban growth problems in the same capacity downtown could.

It seems as if you're only talking about new development and not redevelopment. We are talking about the next 50 years right? When I look at space like that, I see a much different San Diego.

Take for example the UTC Mall. Today, you have a nice mall in a sea of parking lots. In the future, I see towers on top of parking ramps that line both Genesee and La Jolla Village Drive.

Then I look at the apartment communities in UTC. They are nice and they are dense..at least to San Diego standards...but they can also be rebuilt. A lot of those communities are already 20+ years old. Do you think they were built to last another 50 years? I don't.

There is opportunity to redevelop. It's not idea but it's there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
I think this is difference of perspective. I look out from the new central library and I see the 5, Golden Hill, Sherman Heights, Barrio Logan, the Bay, the Gaslamp, and City College hemming in a small, compact space.

There are only 6 city blocks from the central library on Park Blvd to I-5. Keep in mind, a block downtown is smaller than a block in say Hillcrest or North Park as downtown was designed by Alonzo E. Horton with smaller blocks so alley ways would be unnecessary and they're easier to develop on.

From my perspective, that's not a lot of room at all. Others (assuming you) might look out over the reading room into the EV and see endless opportunities for development on parking lots and older structures. I don't agree at all, but again, difference of perspective.

Yes. You have 6 blocks going East but you also have 7 blocks going North. What I envision is each of those 42 blocks looking like 15th and Island. But this is just the EV. Then you have the A and Ash street corridors, which are severely underdeveloped. After that it's the Park Blvd corridor.

Once you fill those in, you can then look at redeveloping all of the 1-4 story structures. If you don't see the opportunity to redevelop these types of structures...we're never going to see the same page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
Nothing is permanent, but Qualcomm (Jack Murphy, San Diego Stadium) has been sitting on that site in MV for nearly 50 years, meaning whatever is built downtown will be with us through the next century. You don't just demo a 1.4 billion stadium after a couple decades, especially not in California where such projects take decades to process and construct.

What's wrong with having a 'sports district' being downtown for the next 50 years? Other cities are trying everything they can to try and bring stadiums downtown because of the awful results of putting them out on the edge. San Diego needs to learn from those mistakes.

It's not like the stadium would be empty all of the time. People like to say it's just for 8 NFL games a year but that's false. Especially considering that it's San Diego and the weather allows for year round stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
Duh. Adding trolleys, adding bike lanes, creating better pedestrian and transit friendly environments have been the infrastructure projects opposed by community groups throughout the city and in these neighborhoods because they know it could potentially lead to higher densities, which makes the upzoning of these and other areas a comical fantasy, and my original argument even stronger. :whistle:

Power shifts.

We're talking about a San Diego in the future right? A San Diego populated by millennials who don't purchase large homes and want to live a different lifestyle than what a lot of the current population wants.

They are talking about a growth of 1 Million people by 2030. That's enough of a shift to push the NIMBYs from power.

At least you and I agree that the mindset of these folks who are anti-density is wrong. Where we don't agree is the ability to eventually take the power away from them. So there is that.



Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
Here is a link to the meeting agendas for every community planning group in the city:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/com.../agendas.shtml

I'm not going to hold your hand or do your work, you can stop being lazy and go over them for yourself. These aren't etched in stone as you would like, but they are on pdfs, if that's acceptable? :tup:

Thank you for the link. I look forward to doing my research.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
Oh, things are changing, but for the worse as we down zone the urban rings and promote no-growth and auto-centric design principals. These groups are typically represented by individuals who are more keen on protecting their property values and imposing their conservative ideologies on planning (no growth, auto-centrism, suburban model) then leading us into a more sustainable future. It's not ignorant to question these groups legitimacy, philosophies, or relevance. Welcome to democracy. They aren't an "evil empire" but they have been detrimental to our future.

We agree on this. We just don't agree on the solution.

I think a stadium adds to the overall experience of (and I dislike this phrase) live/work/play downtown. Make no mistake that the ballpark is a key factor for Sempra.

The best way I see to get some of the first ring communities to want to connect to DT via smart transit is to make it the most diverse community possible. Since these folks already have housing..it's employment, shopping, arts, dining and entertainment that are going to be selling factors for them.

When you have to drive to DT to see the Padres, Drive to Mission Valley (or your suggestion Temecula) to see the Charger, Drive to Fashion Valley to shop...when you have to drive all over San Diego to get some of the things you want...you want to stay car centric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
There is no doubt about that, I never said otherwise - thus never lied. What I did state was that we don't need a stadium in EV to stimulate growth today. It's unnecessary with all of the current, planned, and future development going on in EV now. My point is that there are other, less problematic options for stimulating growth in EV (IDEA District, Makers Quarter, East Village Green, etc.) We don't need a stadium to catalyze the area.

I disagree in part. The EV will grow regardless..that we agree upon. However, EV would grow UP more if their was a stadium. Take a look at the height directly around Petco and then consider how it goes down the farther you get. Obviously that's not all due to Petco but it has a lot to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
My personal tastes don't rest on this issue, I'm looking at this from a logical perspective. If we have very little land for high-density mixed-use development in the region, and upzoning other areas is nearly impossible that means we should be maximizing what we have rather than limiting said space for a limited-use stadium.

We both agree on High Density. Where we disagree is on the tools to create that. My personal opinion is that a Stadium would essentially deliver high rises in the near future for the blocks surrounding the stadium. Without the stadium, you would get some but you would also have several 3-5 story complexes.

We both agree that 3-5 story complexes are bad overall for the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686548)
There aren't any calls to limit development in EV, correct, which is why we should be saving as much of that space and opportunity for useful development (housing, workspaces, high-density, etc.) rather than throwing it away for a stadium. I'll stand on my own legs and make my own case here, thank you.

And I need to clarify something, while I don't believe the Chargers are as significant as they or the city claim they are economically, and while I am not an ardent sports fanatic (I have more important things to do), I do see the value in sports to the greater community.

The Chargers should build a new stadium, but it should not be in EV or anywhere downtown. I wouldn't vote yes on any direct public monies for it, but I would support the project if it made economic sense (i.e. NFL, Spanos, hotel tax, tourism surcharge, ...as in I'm not paying for it) and if it was in another location outside downtown.

See the previous comment. Again, we both agree that DT needs to go UP and it needs to a mix of everything. That said, the main focus IMHO should be to get more people working downtown.

What we disagree on is the best way to accomplish this.

Look at the office development in the EV. It's all based on views of Petco. Now look at the stadium plan. The stadium would create the opportunity on 7-10 blocks, DIRECTLY off the 5 and walking distance to Mass Transit for office towers...all with AMAZING views of the stadium. That's the opportunity here. A game changer IMHO.

Without the stadium, there is no 'beacon' drawing people to this section of DT. Instead, you're just looking at parcels that are on the outside radius from other drawing points.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

dales5050 Aug 11, 2014 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686845)
Another argument for "it's better than what's there now".

That's how mediocre urban areas get built, by settling.

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The choice is not a stadium or a bus yard.

A stadium would probably take half a decade or more as things go, to assume the bus yard is there for eternity is simply ridiculous.


Here is the thing about organic development...it does not exist. Every parcel downtown is influenced already.

Let's look at the parcels north of the bus garage. They are already influenced by the proximity to the 5, which could be a good or a bad thing right now, and their proximity to the Gaslamp/Petco...which really is a bad thing.

Going further, I think most here want density downtown and for that to happen it means consolidating parcels on a block to a single parcel. The likelihood of that happening on the outer edges of DT without a massive influence like a stadium is slim IMHO. So what you would get is smaller developments that are not the correct use of land.

Lastly, speaking to the bus yard specifically, as others have mentioned that's a massive 4 block parcel. In order for it to be redeveloped it's going to require a very large environmental remediation process. As we all know, this is not cheap in California. So the only way this parcel sees an environmental remediation is having it done all at once. The only way to have it all done at once is to develop it all at once. That's a large project like a stadium.

There is no way the city is going to move the bus garage to another location AND do an environmental remediation for land speculation. It just will not happen.

So unless someone has a Qualcomm type campus construction project up their sleeve or know of SDSU wanting to build a downtown campus extension...this is really the only option when you think about it.

Well, you could develop around the bus terminal but we all know what that would look like in the long run.

SDCAL Aug 12, 2014 1:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6686876)
So you want to keep the bus yard and parking lots? Because no one is going to buld the neighborhood you want there. There is no demand. No one wants to live east of the bus yard, but people would live on the east side of the stadium (just like Petco.)



Kill what neighborhood? In the area where the stadium would sit, there IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD!

Your reply implies that a football stadium would only influence development on the parcel of land it sits on or that immediate area.

Forget the damn bus yard, I'm talking about the wider neighborhood - having a football and baseball stadium right next to each other would make the wider EV area be predominately a sports-themed entertainment complex. I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

If the other areas of EV develop, then eventually something would be done with those parcels of land.

I'm just not into the let's build a football stadium because we hate the bus yard idea.

If the bus yard stays in lieu of a stadium, development might be slower in the area, but it would be better quality in my opinion.

aerogt3 Aug 12, 2014 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6687696)
I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

That's a fantasy. There are no proposals to build anything out there, other than the stadium. It is literally the stadium or the bus yard. There is no interest or money to build anything else.

I would rather have a 2nd stadium anchor a "sports themed" neighborhood than have no neighborhood at all.

dales5050 Aug 12, 2014 2:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6687696)
Your reply implies that a football stadium would only influence development on the parcel of land it sits on or that immediate area.

Forget the damn bus yard, I'm talking about the wider neighborhood - having a football and baseball stadium right next to each other would make the wider EV area be predominately a sports-themed entertainment complex. I'd rather see other development (tech jobs, creative industry) develop, I think a football stadium would hinder this.

So what you're saying is the 'creative industry' has some form of ownership over the EV? How does this faction have any more rights to the lower half of the EV over any other group.

Additionally, what is the issue with a 'sports-themed entertainment complex'? We have a food & beverage themed entertainment complex in the gaslamp. Do those who do not drink or dine out often have the right to claim a better use for that area?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6687696)
If the other areas of EV develop, then eventually something would be done with those parcels of land.

I'm just not into the let's build a football stadium because we hate the bus yard idea.

If the bus yard stays in lieu of a stadium, development might be slower in the area, but it would be better quality in my opinion.

Just what does better quality mean to you? From the sounds of it, this is subjective at best and elitist at worst.

Also, just how do you see the bus yard being developed outside of a single project? Again, would love to see the steps, either now or in 40 years, as to how the single bus yard was moved, remediated and then built out as multiple parcels.

If anything, you would be looking at another Navy Broadway Complex, which would not be organic. It would simply be the vision of a single developer.

dtell04 Aug 12, 2014 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686845)
Another argument for "it's better than what's there now".

That's how mediocre urban areas get built, by settling.

I'd rather have more organic development take place, even if it's slower and even if it means the bus yard remains longer - again I'm thinking long-term.

The choice is not a stadium or a bus yard.

A stadium would probably take half a decade or more as things go, to assume the bus yard is there for eternity is simply ridiculous.

I was saying that if not a stadium or bus yard, it will be something for public use. San Diego doesn't often (if ever) sell off it's property.

nezbn22 Aug 12, 2014 4:52 PM

If anyone's looking for a breather from the stadium talk, I found a few pretty cool videos showing the Lane Field site. They're not that updated (latest is July 31st), but cool nonetheless:

http://vimeo.com/groups/263780/videos

nezbn22 Aug 12, 2014 4:58 PM

Also, it appears that Landmark Aviation has opened its newly finished private jet terminal off Pacific Highway.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/08/11/t...#axzz3ACByDLXv

http://timesofsandiego.com/business/...minal-airport/

Northparkwizard Aug 12, 2014 5:35 PM

Sorta seems like we can have our cake and eat it too.

North to South:
"College" bounded by Broadway to the south, "East Village/Idea/Makers" between Broadway and Market, "Ballpark/Lower East Village" between Market and Imperial? I know... armchair urban planner over here... I'm just sayin'

Speaking of a breather from stadium talk, I got a notice about "Kettner Lofts" yesterday.

Here it is.

Anybody have renderings?

spoonman Aug 12, 2014 8:28 PM

^ Wow...look at a map...this project is totally going to kick-off more development on the north side of Little Italy where today is is somewhat detached from the rest of LI and downtown. This will be a huge catalyst for that area.

SDCAL Aug 12, 2014 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6688112)
That's a fantasy. There are no proposals to build anything out there, other than the stadium. It is literally the stadium or the bus yard. There is no interest or money to build anything else.

I would rather have a 2nd stadium anchor a "sports themed" neighborhood than have no neighborhood at all.

It's fantasy to think that those particular parcels of land will eventually be developed if a stadium doesn't go in?

That's absurd.

I'm not talking about something springing-up right away, but to say they will forever be undeveloped parking lots/bus yards and that a stadium is the ONLY option is ridiculous.

SDCAL Aug 12, 2014 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6688199)
So what you're saying is the 'creative industry' has some form of ownership over the EV? How does this faction have any more rights to the lower half of the EV over any other group.

Additionally, what is the issue with a 'sports-themed entertainment complex'? We have a food & beverage themed entertainment complex in the gaslamp. Do those who do not drink or dine out often have the right to claim a better use for that area?



Just what does better quality mean to you? From the sounds of it, this is subjective at best and elitist at worst.

Also, just how do you see the bus yard being developed outside of a single project? Again, would love to see the steps, either now or in 40 years, as to how the single bus yard was moved, remediated and then built out as multiple parcels.

If anything, you would be looking at another Navy Broadway Complex, which would not be organic. It would simply be the vision of a single developer.

I agree with you when you say that a lot of this is subjective, which is why we have varying opinions :) I agree with you about the Gaslamp, and that's one reason I am against the football stadium downtown - I DON'T want EV becoming another Gaslamp.

By that, I mean I don't want it to be simply a place people come to party, drink, watch sports, then leave. I'd like to see it develop into more of a neighborhood where people live and work and that's less commercial. I'm thinking a more dense more urban North-parkish type area, a place that has mostly non-chain venues. I also like neighborhoods that do retain a bit of their historical grit. I don't think all of EV needs to be polished and without warts to be great, in fact sometimes the warts make the neighborhood better. I am totally willing to admit that's my personal vision for the neighborhood, and it's impossible that I would ever see it develop exactly the way I want it to, but isn't that what these forums are for - to pitch ideas and give our opinions?

I mean the same arguments you make can be used towards the sports idea too. Why does sports have supreme reign over dictating development in the area?

Any major development is a risk, even a A football stadium. Even things I am in favor of could end up not doing what they are supposed to do (i.e. the IDEA District could end up being a flop, I don't think it would but it's possible).

When I use the word organic I do so realizing nothing (or almost nothing) is 100% organic when it comes to development. Urban planning takes place to spawn more development. It's just my opinion that downtown in general has enough of the type of development you see spawned from large sports venues (sports bars and the like) and I was hoping EV would be sort of a counter-balance to the rest of downtown. Less mainstream, a little more edgy, a little more creative.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussions with everyone and want to stress I am not trying to be a jerk, nor am I any kind of expert in development. I am simply sharing my one person vision of what I'd like to see in my neighborhood. I know I won't see everything i want, but hopefully I'll see some of it down the road.

nezbn22 Aug 12, 2014 10:45 PM

Noticed a structure going up in a little spot wedged in between Hotel Solamar and Ballpark Storage on 6th Ave. Pretty sure it's a Courtyard by Marriott referenced here:

http://www.hotel-online.com/press_re...marriott-to-op

It's not very high yet, but they have the crane on site, and it's moving and shaking...

Leo the Dog Aug 13, 2014 5:41 AM

There's a lot of activity going on in DT/EV (and other awesome infill around town). I'm down there often and I'd love to do photo updates. Sempra is growing fast and 15th/island is HUGE now.

Does anyone have a good free photo sharing site they'd recommend? I used to post photos on Flickr, but just wondering if there are better ones out there?

spoonman Aug 13, 2014 2:39 PM

^ Awesome idea. Not sure what is a good site...flicker?

******

Looks like work has started/resumed at Sunroad Centrum in Kearny Mesa. There is a parking structure being constructed, whichI believe will either be for the office tower, or will be part of the 7 floors of residential that will be above parking.

This article below mentions that the office tower is moving forward.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sunr...nd-kearny-mesa


Here's also a link for the residential development. Looks great for KM. Appears to have ground level retail.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...V2SXzuysRmAluQ

dales5050 Aug 13, 2014 4:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6688793)
I agree with you when you say that a lot of this is subjective, which is why we have varying opinions :) I agree with you about the Gaslamp, and that's one reason I am against the football stadium downtown - I DON'T want EV becoming another Gaslamp.

By that, I mean I don't want it to be simply a place people come to party, drink, watch sports, then leave. I'd like to see it develop into more of a neighborhood where people live and work and that's less commercial. I'm thinking a more dense more urban North-parkish type area, a place that has mostly non-chain venues. I also like neighborhoods that do retain a bit of their historical grit. I don't think all of EV needs to be polished and without warts to be great, in fact sometimes the warts make the neighborhood better. I am totally willing to admit that's my personal vision for the neighborhood, and it's impossible that I would ever see it develop exactly the way I want it to, but isn't that what these forums are for - to pitch ideas and give our opinions?

I mean the same arguments you make can be used towards the sports idea too. Why does sports have supreme reign over dictating development in the area?

Any major development is a risk, even a A football stadium. Even things I am in favor of could end up not doing what they are supposed to do (i.e. the IDEA District could end up being a flop, I don't think it would but it's possible).

When I use the word organic I do so realizing nothing (or almost nothing) is 100% organic when it comes to development. Urban planning takes place to spawn more development. It's just my opinion that downtown in general has enough of the type of development you see spawned from large sports venues (sports bars and the like) and I was hoping EV would be sort of a counter-balance to the rest of downtown. Less mainstream, a little more edgy, a little more creative.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussions with everyone and want to stress I am not trying to be a jerk, nor am I any kind of expert in development. I am simply sharing my one person vision of what I'd like to see in my neighborhood. I know I won't see everything i want, but hopefully I'll see some of it down the road.


OK. I see your perspective now. I don't agree with it at all but I understand it.

If you want another North-parkish type area..there are countless parts of San Diego that could become the next North Park. Hell, even North Park could grow into more of what it already has going on.

But to suggest that the EV should grow out to be nothing more than a collection of gourmet taco shops, craft beer bars and co-working facilities is really short sighted. Don't get me wrong, I love tacos, craft beer and keep hours at a co-working facility myself but that's not what DT and the EV needs to be.

By 2030, San Diego is expected to grow by 1M people and 500K jobs from the 2004 numbers. In order to allow for this, DT needs to go up and be maximized. My personal opinion is that the best way to ensure DT and the EV goes UP is to add development projects that push this. Like it or not, correctly built stadiums do this. Petco Park did it and the new stadium, if constructed, would do it as well.

Bertrice Aug 14, 2014 12:28 AM

well here it comes and not a moment too soon.
I don't want to here a bunch of crap like they should just build more mass transit or something along those lines. drive the 5 everyday and you will see.:yes:

http://media.10news.com/photo/2014/0....0_640_480.jpg

http://www.10news.com/news/calif-coa...medium=twitter


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.