Quote:
Originally Posted by dales5050
(Post 6687173)
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 ideal but it's there.
|
I mean development in any form, either new or redeveloped. UTC mall already has a development map laid out, they're starting phase two as we type, and while it includes new housing, it's not as significant as it could have been. I will say that while the community in UTC may not be accepting of towers now, that could change in the future. It's just unlikely, and assuming otherwise isn't being realistic about the situation at hand.
I could hope and fantasize that other areas in SD will up density, but that's not coming up with actual solutions.
Quote:
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.
|
You might "envision" a sea of Pinnacle-type developments, but many of those blocks north of the bus yard are parts of city college, future green space, or already have redevelopment plans listed for them (namely the idea district and makers quarter, which from what I've seen aren't anywhere near 15th and Island in scale).
Dreaming big is fine, but it's not what's actually happening.
Quote:
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.
|
Mission Valley isn't out on the edge, but in the center of the city. Chula Vista is 20 minutes south of downtown SD. And considering the sizable market for the Chargers in OC and LA (up to 40% of season ticket holders hail from the mega region up north), even Oside isn't out on the edge.
Ideally, the stadium site would be in MV. It has easy freeway access and trolley connections. It's been designated for this land-use, making the hassle of rezoning downtown and MV not an issue.
I'm sure the stadium could be used for other events, but it's not going to provide a wide range of options. Football, monster trucks, bmx, maybe soccer, or random rugby or international sports events. There won't be a massive parking lot for the giant used car tent sale anymore (tragedy). Eh. In the end, I'm not sure a stadium is the best use for this land.
Quote:
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.
|
We agree that these folks are wrong, but I don't see their sentiments simply being set aside in favor of new urbanism. Why? Because they're the ones setting the agenda for the next 30+ years in the community plan updates and they have the state (via-CEQA) supporting their NIMBYism through threats of lawsuits and regulatory actions. San Diego won't shift quickly, or even moderately on this issue. Property is too valuable to people here to just let things change dramatically or timidly, even when we desperately need it to.
Quote:
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.
|
The stadium would be a plus on game day, but it's not a ballpark with dozens of games a season. And, yes, the ballpark may have been an added benefit for Sempra, but having a state-of-the-art office tower located near the gaslamp, and a workplace attractive to younger workers (ie in an urban area), along with an eager developer willing to accommodate their every need probably had 90% more to do with it than signage over PETCO. It was just a plus.
And you can take the Coaster, trolley or Rapid bus to downtown, and the trolley or local buses to Mission Valley or Fashion Valley. It's not efficient but you don't have to drive. A downtown stadium doesn't mean people will be any more or any less willing to take transit in the region - that has more to do with our transit system in general. People don't ride the subway in New York because Yankee Stadium is on the line, they ride it because it's efficient.
Quote:
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.
|
A few towers might spring up around a new stadium, but that doesn't take away the fact that the stadium ate up blocks and blocks and blocks from mixed-use housing and workplaces.If development in EV will happen with or without a stadium, why eat up land if it's going to happen anyways? 15th and Island isn't the direct result of PETCO, in fact it's right next to a homeless encampment. If it didn't need a stadium to come around and it's developers were willing to risk their money on further gentrification in the area, why assume only a stadium could result in more high-density development?
Quote:
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.
|
They would deliver high-rises in the
near future but that doesn't mean they won't come in the long term, which we both keep stressing. Meanwhile those short term gains would come from land being locked out of development for an even longer period of time.
Quote:
We both agree that 3-5 story complexes are bad overall for the future.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
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.
|
I agree to disagree. I think the office to stadium argument is overstated, and that views of a football stadium are different than regular PETCO. It's more of a novelty really, and much less of a game changer.
The EV doesn't need a "beacon," it needs smart land-use decisions, which it already does and doesn't need to be changed. The EV is not that big, I can walk from Golden Hill to City College in 15 minutes, and from City College to the library in 20. And that's just walking, it's even faster by bus or car! There doesn't need to be a draw when the area already has other "draws" so close by, and when there are new projects already going on (again, Makers, IDEA, EVG, etc.).
But, again, difference of opinion.
Prev