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)

tdavis Dec 14, 2009 2:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4606049)
I'm not sharing the Chargers with the rest of SoCal.

Screw them.

Anyways, anything going on with the Gaylord site?

Gaylord pulled out a while back saying that "CA's attitude toward business wasn't conducive for it to move forward" - meaning taxes. To date no other projects have been announced for the area.

staplesla Dec 14, 2009 3:23 AM

I'm not sure about any new proposals, but here is the info on Gaylord pulling out.

http://www.tradeshowweek.com/article/CA6619279.html

And for those new here, here are some photos of what Gaylord had proposed:
http://photos.signonsandiego.com/album151

eburress Dec 14, 2009 8:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdavis (Post 4606081)
Gaylord pulled out a while back saying that "CA's attitude toward business wasn't conducive for it to move forward"

I wonder if it has occurred to anybody that maybe we ought to fix that little attitude toward business problem.

HurricaneHugo Dec 14, 2009 11:08 PM

The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

Derek Dec 15, 2009 8:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4607419)
The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

I concur.

tdavis Dec 15, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4607419)
The reason I asked is that that site is a good a site for an NFL stadium IMO.

Unfortunately I don't think it will happen there. Chula Vista already backed out earlier this year.

HurricaneHugo Dec 15, 2009 9:14 PM

Well wasn't that from the other site?

tdavis Dec 15, 2009 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4608918)
Well wasn't that from the other site?

Yeah, but it didn't have to do with the site. It was because Chula Vista is in more of a fiscal mess than SD, and the leaders of CV decided they didn't have the financial clout to go up against SD or LA and ceased all talks.

staplesla Dec 16, 2009 5:53 AM

Chula Vista / Gaylord
 
Perfect timing for this story considering the recent comments.


Considered an eyesore and an environmental nightmare, community leaders Tuesday demanded the demolition of the South Bay Power Plant, which sits on the south side of Chula Vista's bayfront.

However, 10News learned with the city's high hopes for the property, developer Gaylord Entertainment could be a part of the property's future.

More than a year ago, Gaylord pulled out of their plans for a billion-dollar hotel and convention center project on the bayfront. Now, work is under way to specifically attract them back to the table.

more after the jump.......

http://www.10news.com/news/21978297/detail.html

HurricaneHugo Dec 16, 2009 7:04 AM

So why would this work when they pulled out of the other site?

staplesla Dec 16, 2009 7:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4609854)
So why would this work when they pulled out of the other site?

It sounds to me that the Chula Vista leadership is just hoping. It's hard for me to imagine any $1 billion projects getting off the ground in this economic climate, but who knows.

kpexpress Dec 18, 2009 2:03 AM

I talked to one of my professors today about his thoughts on a downtown chargers stadium. His response was very negative toward having it put downtown and extremely negative to having public money spent to get it built.

I think I agree with him on the public money part, especially when the roads and sidewalks are crumbling around the center city and it severely lacks green space. Since when does the public give to private for something, should be the other way around if any giving is going to happen. And I think I agree with him that downtown is not a fitting location for an NFL stadium, just think about the massive dead zone this stadium would create downtown, and kill the walkability factor of the neighborhood that it sits in.

This will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out in the upcoming months. The issue will likely be raised at the CCAC meeting (Jan 20) and I thought I heard that CCDC has started to conduct a financial feasibility and market impact study on the construction of a downtown stadium. Should be very interesting.

HurricaneHugo Dec 18, 2009 4:17 AM

It's already a dead zone...

kpexpress Dec 18, 2009 4:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4612889)
It's already a dead zone...

Dead to you maybe, but it has so much potential to become a vibrant residential neighborhood without a gigantic stadium.

Plus, can someone please share with me why that would be a good place for a stadium? And I don't want to hear "cause it would be so cool! I love the chargers"

Seriously, think about the amount of parking surface needed to facilitate those events and the tailgating culture.

I still think they should revisit the idea of building it at Qualcomm. Or has that been exhausted too?

HurricaneHugo Dec 18, 2009 6:58 AM

The parking is already there. That's one of the appeals of the site. There won't be any more surface parking lots added.

Petco Park has enough parking for 45k people, so they would need to add maybe two parking structures to the area.

As for a "dead zone," do people complain about Petco Park October-March?

And no it's not my first choice site, I'd prefer the Qualcomm site but the soil there is A LOT more contaminated that the bus yard site.

I see this as the Chargers last chance to stay in SD vs the POSSIBILITY of the SE East Village becoming a "vibrant neighborhood."

I'll pick the former easily.

staplesla Dec 18, 2009 4:34 PM

The mentioning of a new stadium creating a dead zone is ridiculous. Consider what the area around Petco looked like just 10 years ago to today. And this is with an average to poor team. Imagine how many people would be down there if the Padres were on top of their game.

Also, there are ways to build the stadium to incorporate it with the surrounding area, without blocking off too much space as well. This is one of my complaints about the convention center, but it seems that the Chargers are attempting to do this by utilizing existing Petco parking....granted we'll have to wait and see the designs/studies.

And building a stadium that would take out 4-6 blocks of a neighborhood wouldn't destroy the entire neighborhood. Look at the area surrounding Wrigley Field. It's a pretty hip area with sports bars, shops....one that many people wish to live in.

I would rather have it in downtown though considering that people who go to the Q simply go to watch the game, then drive home. However many who would go to a downtown game, would then walk around, dine out, shop - which puts more money into the city's coffers. And the 5 is one block away for those wish to see the game only for quick access out of the area.

Here is an interesting article I found. Obviously the scope of the projects are a bit smaller, but still - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10013847/

S.DviaPhilly Dec 18, 2009 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4612905)
Dead to you maybe, but it has so much potential to become a vibrant residential neighborhood without a gigantic stadium.

Plus, can someone please share with me why that would be a good place for a stadium? And I don't want to hear "cause it would be so cool! I love the chargers"

Seriously, think about the amount of parking surface needed to facilitate those events and the tailgating culture.

I still think they should revisit the idea of building it at Qualcomm. Or has that been exhausted too?


That area is dead, i live right there and never walk east out of my place (unless The Mission.) I think there is a real huge opportunity here to build the stadium and extend "The Ballpark Area" east. I do not see the "potential" being developed there for years and years unless the stadium is built there. As was said above, look what Petco did for that area of downtown. It went from a pretty crappy area, to a fun vibrant neighborhood. Plus I bet if the new stadium passes downtown, snowball development would definitely happen. Projects like Ballpark Village would get off the ground too to accommodate Super Bowl needs. Also downtown you have the harbor. When Jacksonville had the Super Bowl they had luxury cruise ships parked in the harbor for people to stay at. Plus the S.B would bring millions to the city every 5 years or so.

I wonder if the Chargers make a huge run in the playoffs (knock on wood), if the stadium has a better shot of getting passed?!?!? Like when the Padres were in talks about a new ballpark and then went to the World Series in '98, and then got their ballpark downtown.

kpexpress Dec 19, 2009 8:00 AM

OMG, everyone always reverts back to comparing this potential project to Petco Park. NFL STADIUMS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BASEBALL STADIUMS! Why is that so hard to understand. The size, parking requirement, duration and frequency of use is completely different. Building a stadium there due to the existing parking capacity should not be the leading reason to consider this site.

tommaso Dec 19, 2009 9:11 AM

Uploaded on December 8, 2009
by ww_whist

New office building set inside/atop old brick building's walls

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2715/...f77440d4_b.jpg

tommaso Dec 19, 2009 9:20 AM

Uploaded on August 28, 2009
by So Cal Metro

Market Street

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/...81fa5185_b.jpg

New highrises along Market Street in downtown San Diego. From front to back, they are Alta, The Mark, and Strata.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM.

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