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)

bmfarley Dec 12, 2010 11:29 PM

Is this for real.... an alternative to the Charger Stadium at the MTS yard? As if.... MTS was going along anyway?

Unless someone is coming forward with money to relocate MTS... and benefit the agency and public... they are staying right there. Whether it is the Chargers or Father Joe's.

kpexpress Dec 13, 2010 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 5089835)
With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?

I am not a San Diego native, and I'm not a huge fan of many football teams, but I would hate to see the Chargers leave.

kpexpress Dec 13, 2010 1:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brantw (Post 5090142)
Sacrificing the Chargers and a new stadium just for some densification of East Village is ridiculous.

There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.

There's a strong argument for the stadium, but it's hard to have a healthy debate over it in this town with the thick fanfare bias. But that's not unexpected.

Derek Dec 13, 2010 2:24 AM

A new stadium would pretty much have a million other uses besides being the home of the Chargers.

HurricaneHugo Dec 13, 2010 3:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 5090561)
There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.

Yeah because the MTS bus yard is hip and happening right now.

Lipani Dec 13, 2010 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 5090611)
A new stadium would pretty much have a million other uses besides being the home of the Chargers.

Ideally we'd get an MLS team. However, MLS has been trying to get soccer-specific stadiums built recently. The only team I know of that currently plays in an NFL stadium and wants to stay in one is Seattle (Kansas City, New England and DC are either building new stadiums or lobbying for one).

staplesla Dec 13, 2010 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 5090561)
There are lots of great things that could come to that area - a vibrant, lively, family-oriented densified village. Many attributes that come with an NFL stadium in that area are unhealthy (urbanistically) - MASSIVE dead zone, that alienates people due to inhumane scale that caters to the entertainment of those who don't live in the neighborhood four times a month six months out of the year all while cutting off connections to surrounding neighborhoods to name a few.

There's a strong argument for the stadium, but it's hard to have a healthy debate over it in this town with the thick fanfare bias. But that's not unexpected.

I have to agree with the others. And I'm not biased at all for football or the Chargers - I for one could care less about either. But to lose the team would be devastating for the city, financially.

And to think that a stadium would create a massive dead zone is incorrect. If I remember correctly don't you serve on a CCDC committee? If so I'm worried. You obviously haven't paid attention to the downtown stadium plans and are considering stadiums of the past. "Massive dead zones" involve stadiums from the 60's-90's. The majority of the new stadiums incorporate a multi-use aspect that help create a vibrant, livable area; which is exactly what the Chargers and the city have been discussing here.

kpexpress Dec 13, 2010 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 5091391)
I have to agree with the others. And I'm not biased at all for football or the Chargers - I for one could care less about either. But to lose the team would be devastating for the city, financially.

And to think that a stadium would create a massive dead zone is incorrect. If I remember correctly don't you serve on a CCDC committee? If so I'm worried. You obviously haven't paid attention to the downtown stadium plans and are considering stadiums of the past. "Massive dead zones" involve stadiums from the 60's-90's. The majority of the new stadiums incorporate a multi-use aspect that help create a vibrant, livable area; which is exactly what the Chargers and the city have been discussing here.

I have actually paid a little attention to the plans for SD and have had my ear to the ground as to what other teams are proposing and have done in the NFL.

Can you be more specific about the locations you are talking about in your reference to mixed use stadium vibrancy? How are these stadiums 'vibrant' on non-game-day days? Are they urban like ours here? I've looked at many of the more urban stadiums in the NFL today to compare them with our setting here in downtown San Diego because I'm writing a report on this exact topic for my Urban History class. I've found some trends, but first would like to hear which locations you're talking about here.

So far, all we've seen in SD is an artist's rendering of the project - no specific contextual suggestions on mixed use and city integration.

I do serve on the CCAC representing a portion of the East Village residents. Why this would make you nervous I have no idea. To my knowledge I'm the only one on the board who actually tries to reach out to the community on this forum asking for their input. I love a healthy debate - especially on design topics. So far we, as a committee, have not been asked to give our input on the project. I have discussed the issue with many professionals prominent in the SD architecture and planning community, so far, few are stoked about it in terms of how it will effect the city.

kpexpress Dec 13, 2010 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5090663)
Yeah because the MTS bus yard is hip and happening right now.

the charger's stadium would be even larger than the MTS site.

HurricaneHugo Dec 14, 2010 4:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 5091717)
the charger's stadium would be even larger than the MTS site.

No it would not.

That's one of the knocks against it.

Have to design a SB capable stadium in such a small site.

Lipani Dec 15, 2010 2:42 PM

Quote:

Fabiani to field Chargers queries online Wednesday
By Matthew T. Hall

Mark Fabiani, the point person for the Chargers stadium search, will hold an online chat Wednesday with the friendly crowd over at www.sdstadium.org, a website whose tagline is "America's Finest City deserves America's finest stadium."

The San Diego Stadium Coalition is hosting the chat on its website starting at 11:30 a.m. The group's mission? Ensuring a world-class stadium is built for Chargers games and other events.

Fabiani will doubtless use the opportunity, one in a series of chats on the website in recent years, to discuss the Chargers' desire to build in downtown San Diego with an infusion of public money, the threat posed by two potential stadiums in the Los Angeles area and the impact of the torn Metrodome roof on the mix of teams that could move to Los Angeles. Beyond Fabiani's well-worn comments, what should be most interesting is the live question-and-answer session.

Word was being spread on Twitter Tuesday via @ChargersPRGuy aka Bill Johnston, whose actual title is, wait for it, Chargers PR Guy. Brian McCarthy, whose Twitter handle is NFLprguy (one guess what his actual title is) also retweeted Johnston's message.

The NFL has been coy about whether a team in Los Angeles is something it would welcome and some pundits speculate L.A.'s most useful to the league not as a team base but as as a relocation threat for other teams interested in building stadiums in their hometowns.

In any event, everyone seems to agree that no team would relocate to Los Angeles until the Ghost of No Football Next Season goes away. People on either side of ongoing labor negotiations between owners and players have said some or all of next year's NFL games may not be played if a Collective Bargaining Agreement resolution is a long time coming. The current agreement expires at the end of February and players are being told to stash away their pay for a worst-case scenario.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ine-wednesday/

kpexpress Dec 15, 2010 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5092131)
No it would not.

That's one of the knocks against it.

Have to design a SB capable stadium in such a small site.

The rendering I've seen shows the stadium taking up MTS entirely (wonder bread bldg) and half of Tailgate park. I assume they won't build out over tail gate park fully because of the fault line that runs North South through that block.

Lipani Dec 16, 2010 3:52 PM

Quote:

What will local transportation look like in 2050?
It's crystal ball time for SANDAG board, which votes on plan Friday that contains $100 billion in projects
By Robert J. Hawkins
Originally published December 15, 2010 at 6:09 p.m., updated December 15, 2010 at 7:14 p.m.

What will transportation in San Diego County look like by the year 2050?

That’s a big question, calling for bold answers and a huge amount of faith in public policy prognosticators, arcane computer formulas and reams and reams of data.

And that is just the roll of the dice that the board of directors of the regional planning agency San Diego Association of Governments will be making Friday morning as it is asked to endorse a document called the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

This document has been years in the making and essentially sets the region’s agenda for future highway expansion, transit, trains, trolleys, bike paths and border crossings. And it tries to do this within scenarios that project how fast and where the county population will be growing over the next 40 years.

If this document were a crystal ball, a peek inside would see a county knitted together by speedy buses, trolleys, streetcars, trains and hundreds of miles of bicycle paths. Highways would be wider but chances are you will be paying more as you drive, in tolls and FasTrak fees.

This is more than an exercise. More than $100 billion in transportation funding is at stake. Granted, most of it is already committed, thanks to the TransNet funding tax approved by voters (and expiring in 2048). But there is still up to $3.5 billion in non-earmarked funding in play.

This has all been done before. SANDAG is currently guided by the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, completed in November 2007. And this one builds upon that foundation.

But there are fresh forces at play in this new document.

• There is a growing momentum for more emphasis on mass transit and public transit projects – more trolley lines, more rapid bus services, more bus lines, rail projects that will boost Coaster trains.

• There is also strong momentum for expanded and interconnected bicycle paths that would serve commuter cyclists, walkers and recreational bikers. And indeed, with a recently passed regional bicycle plan in place, the 2050 plan includes $2.58 billion for putting the system in place.

• This is the first regional transportation plan in California to reach this stage while trying to comply with new state-mandated pollution reduction goals. Everything in the plan was introduced with meeting greenhouse gas emission targets in mind.

• While most of the money has been linked to existing transportation projects, many advocates have been urging SANDAG to create a hierarchy for spending that puts mass-transit and bicycle/walking path projects at the head of the list – ahead of highway expansion projects.

The current proposal, is an outgrowth of four scenarios devised by SANDAG planners, each emphasizing a different strength – transit, highways, rail/freight and a blend of all three called the Fusion. With guidance from the board and public commentary, the staff has built the latest model, called the Hybrid.

This plan got the blessings of the Metropolitan transit Systems board and the SANDAG Transportation Committee last week. Some key local advocacy groups like Move San Diego and the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition have given provisional endorsements.

Key aspects of the plan will not please many residents along the North County I-5 corridor who have been opposing the extensive expansion of the highway. Those proposals and funding are included in the 2050 plan.

Some of the key projects identified in the plan are:

• Double-tracking of the Coaster line between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, and the Sprinter line between Oceanside and Escondido.

• Construction of a downtown tunnel – essentially creating a subway – for the trolley.

• Construction of four new trolley lines.

• Construction of three streetcar projects in San Diego.

• There are numerous freeway expansion and improvement projects – but no new highways --many focusing on managed lanes, toll lanes and commuter lanes all of which could mean drivers of the future may be living in a pay-as-you-go world.

The vote on Friday is important. Transit advocates like Elyse Lowe, director of Move san Diego are urging their followers to turn out in numbers and contact their SANDAG representatives.

“Please ask them to expand transit first -- not freeways,” she wrote in a missive this week. “Making transit times competitive with the car will help us realize economic, environmental and quality of life benefits and this is where our investment will pay off with the highest dividends.”

Her stance has been echoed by Pamela Epstein of the Sierra Club and a coalition of groups under the baner Sustainable San Diego.

Others, like Duncan McFetridge of Save Our Forests and Ranchlands and environmental lawyer Marco A. Gonzalez, have been regularly chiding SANDAG for refusing to disclose the code behind to the complex computer formulas that help shape many of its decisions.

Friday’s session in SANDAG’s boardroom at 401 B Street, Downtown, promises to be lively and sprawling but however it comes out, it isn’t the end.

The final 2050 plan will be the subject of public hearings in early 2011 and the board will adopt a final plan by mid-year.

And even then, if they don’t get it exactly right, observes SANDAG executive director Gary Gallegos, by law they go back into the document every four years and make course corrections.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ransportation/

PDF of the plan:
http://media.signonsandiego.com/news...50rtpfinal.pdf

202_Cyclist Dec 16, 2010 4:13 PM

Quote:

There is also strong momentum for expanded and interconnected bicycle paths that would serve commuter cyclists, walkers and recreational bikers. And indeed, with a recently passed regional bicycle plan in place, the 2050 plan includes $2.58 billion for putting the system in place.
I am very supportive of more bike paths and bike lanes-- I ride to work 3-4 days per week when the weather permits-- but isn't $2.5B a lot for bike paths? DC is planning a 37-mile streetcar system for $1.5B. This is more than five percent of the total expected cost of high speed rail between SF - LA.

psychotron Dec 16, 2010 6:00 PM

More public transportation and bike lanes are very encouraging. :tup: The end of the document lists all the projects involved in the 2050 plan. Notables include:

High Speed Rail (HSR) Intercity - Temecula to Lindbergh Field ITC (Intermodal Transit Center)
does this mean the HSR alignment has already been decided?

Sprinter - Branch extensions to North County Fair

Trolley - Downtown tunnel between Park/Island and Ash

Trolley - Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU

Trolley - UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Cyn

Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown Loop

Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown via North Park/Golden Hill

Streetcar - Downtown: Little Italy to East Village

Derek Dec 16, 2010 6:30 PM

Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown Loop

Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown via North Park/Golden Hill







Too bad this can't happen anytime soon... :(

HurricaneHugo Dec 17, 2010 2:25 AM

I'm just glad it's being talked about. :)

Screw the bike paths though lol

Lipani Dec 17, 2010 3:20 PM

^ Indeed. So many of our city leaders seem content to keep the status quo rather than even consider positive developments.

Lipani Dec 17, 2010 3:28 PM

Quote:

Public invited to opening of cruise ship terminal terminal
By Lori Weisberg
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 6 a.m.

The public on Saturday will get its first up-close look at the new $28 million cruise ship terminal at Broadway Pier, which is being transformed into an old-fashioned amusement park to commemorate the Port Pavilion.

The 52,000-square-foot facility is designed to do double duty as both an auxiliary cruise ship terminal and a public events space.
http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...al_1_t593.jpg?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...f-cruise-ship/

Not as bad as I'd thought it would look, but not great either. Now if only projects to redevelop the Embarcadero would forward!

brantw Dec 18, 2010 5:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani (Post 5096726)
http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...al_1_t593.jpg?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...f-cruise-ship/

Not as bad as I'd thought it would look, but not great either. Now if only projects to redevelop the Embarcadero would forward!

How are they gonna do this if it rains tomorrow?


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:30 PM.

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