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)

SDfan Aug 6, 2014 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6681788)
There was an opinion piece in VOSD today where someone was bitching about lack of parking for a mixed use project in La Jolla (oh, the humanity). Someone in the comments section gave a fantastic response/rant which seemed to hit the issue spot-on. Just thought I'd share...

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/0...-of-residents/
__________________________________

Matthews
1 day ago

Get out of your car and walk. Hop on a bicycle and peddle. Take an uber lift. Welcome to the 21st century, where urban development in the form of mixed-use projects are taking over car dominated cities across the country. We have a long way to go, but these developments -and the many more to come- are going to transform San Diego for the better, whether stalwart community planning groups like it or not.

You argue that these commercial spaces are planned in order to reduce the need for residents to commute to more distance places for retail, etc. Well, when you place housing on top of commercial space, locating them closer to surrounding neighborhoods - you get just that! More people will walk, bike, carpool to these locations, because they are so close, while they are less likely to drive - because who needs to drive when the hardware store or market is right downstairs or down the street? And this is all localized retail - not destination. Very few people are going to commute across town to Turquoise Street for a convince store, dry cleaner, or nail salon when there are numerable closer options nearby.

And using "community character" (whatever that means) to defend a particular planning restriction/regulation/red tape is not a justifiable argument in the face of our region's growing housing affordability and availability crisis. Particular neighborhoods (*cough La Jolla cough OB cough Clairemont cough Uptown*) want to weasel their way out of contributing to the only viable solutions we have (developing mulit-family, mulit-use, transit oriented development by increasing density and promoting urbanization), but it's only going to cost them in the long run as housing prices become asphyxiating and development stagnates, which would not only effect young families and professionals (the future) but a network of industries tied to real estate, construction, and more related services (big chunks of the local economy). And all because "I can't drive down the street to go to 7-11 because it'll take me 15 minutes to find parking around the block!" The travesty! The inhumanity!

Just because a planning guide was good for 1960 doesn't mean it's good 50+ years later. Time to evolve. Time to start addressing problems. Time to stop clinging on to old regulations that make no sense today. Embrace change and the future.

And thank you for sharing! Your opinion is an important part of community discussion and civic debate about our city's future

I don't mean to brag, but... I can't just complain on this forum. haha. Thank you!

spoonman Aug 6, 2014 5:03 AM

Well stated my friend. It seems that many of the NIMBY posts are beginning to be counter-balanced by advocates for transit and mixed use development.

Keep fighting the good fight!!! :cheers:

aerogt3 Aug 7, 2014 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6681307)
I'm not happy about the bus yard either, but it's definitely not stopping development in the area (there is a 40+ story tower going up a few blocks away, if you hadn't noticed). The transients aren't there because of the buses. The site should be redeveloped for mixed-use, high-density purposes. Not a once-in-a-while stadium.

And if there were a stadium in place of the bus yard, there would be MORE 40 story towers because - guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium but don't want to live near a bus yard.

The question isn't "should be we build a stadium or should we build some towers." Because the answer would clearly be towers. The question is "do we build a stadium, or do we keep empty lots and a bus yard."

spoonman Aug 7, 2014 2:31 PM

Not speaking for or against the stadium in this post, but either way I believe we are going to have a problem with homeless in that area regardless of what is there. Many of the city's homeless services are in that area (as I understand it). I'm not sure that the homeless can continued to be pushed east into Golden Hill or Barrio Logan, as they wouldn't be able to easily access these services (on foot).

Could someone with more knowledge on this please chime in.

SDCAL Aug 7, 2014 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6683275)
....guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium....."

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.

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.

Anyone who has been around somewhere when a huge event happens and then it ends, all the commotion leaves, and you're left with this depressing energy knows what I mean. It's hard to put into words, but it's definitely not a pleasant feeling if you call that neighborhood home.

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. EV is better than being a place that just hosts big sports events and parties and then has the energy sucked out of it afterwards.

The key should be bringing jobs to the area, tech jobs and the like, so people can live AND work in the area, not just flood in to watch football games then flood out of it.

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.

Northparkwizard Aug 7, 2014 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6683835)
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.

As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

nezbn22 Aug 7, 2014 11:00 PM

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.

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.

Anyone who has been around somewhere when a huge event happens and then it ends, all the commotion leaves, and you're left with this depressing energy knows what I mean. It's hard to put into words, but it's definitely not a pleasant feeling if you call that neighborhood home.

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. EV is better than being a place that just hosts big sports events and parties and then has the energy sucked out of it afterwards.

The key should be bringing jobs to the area, tech jobs and the like, so people can live AND work in the area, not just flood in to watch football games then flood out of it.

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.

No offense, but a steady stream of residents and visitors contributing to a cool, thriving, energy filled neighborhood = a lot of traffic, noise, and hauling drunk people back and forth. As unfortunate as it may be, those things usually go hand-in-hand, especially with a young, vibrant beer-loving community :cheers:

SDfan Aug 8, 2014 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6683983)
As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

As someone who lives in Golden Hill and frequents the East Village often it's funny to see how wrong you are. Just because these communities have grown and businesses have changed doesn't mean they're worse. Counterpoint, You Are Here and numerous smaller projects and redevelopments have done wonders for the Golden Hill community, adding yoga studios, bars, salon's, wellness centers, offices for insurers, architects, art dealers, and many other small businesses along with the all too important added benefit of more housing options in an urban environment that desperately needs it.

Building a stadium won't do any of that.

And by "100's of millions of dollars in jobs," you must mean the collective salaries of the players and team owners right? Or the wealthy who would own skybox tickets and not give two shiza's about the urban environment around them? Or maybe you mean the collective salaries of the hundreds of seasonal minimum and low-wage service jobs (poor teens who couldn't get gigs at SeaWorld...)? Yeah, great argument there.

There is more life and energy around those mixed-use complexes than would be in a closed, mammoth of a stadium complex.

I don't understand what the huge fascination with the stadium being downtown is? There seems to be an assumption that downtown land is limitless, and that a another massive, seasonally used sports complex will be the only stimulate the rest of the East Village needs for it to build out.

Uh, what's the Idea District again? Makers Quarter? City College expansion? Ballpark Village? East Village Green? The millions of square feet planned, approved, or under construction as we cry over maybe losing the succubus that is the NFL? I guess it's all nothing because apparently only a new home for the Chargers (the people's team!*for an average of $81 a seat* What a deal for a palace we paid for!) is the only savior for the EV.

Build it in Mission Valley. Build it in Chula Vista. Build it in Oceanside. Build it in Temec-u-fu*king-la. But don't build it in the last place we need it: downtown.

Leo the Dog Aug 8, 2014 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6683275)
And if there were a stadium in place of the bus yard, there would be MORE 40 story towers because - guess want - people WANT to live near a football stadium but don't want to live near a bus yard.

The question isn't "should be we build a stadium or should we build some towers." Because the answer would clearly be towers. The question is "do we build a stadium, or do we keep empty lots and a bus yard."

Disagree 100%.

Football stadiums aren't built in neighborhoods to begin with. I've never met one person who moves to an area because of a nice football stadium. Even in Boston (an urbanist's dream) residents of the Fenway neighborhood constantly fought successfully against the city/Sox for a new Fenway Park. On the proposed site were old dilapidated buildings. Now there are high rise condos and major in-fill.

The empty lots will be developed without the football stadium. Not sure how you can say there will be more towers with less available land.

S.DviaPhilly Aug 8, 2014 4:28 PM

Lane Field Construction Update
 
Lane Field is plugging along...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...ps8ea2880f.jpg

spoonman Aug 8, 2014 4:43 PM

^ Wow! This is huge. Thought this would never happen. I hope this project makes that area more walkable. Right now those few blocks are almost suburban the way that everything is spread out.

nezbn22 Aug 8, 2014 4:50 PM

Pumped about Lane Field.

Re: stadium - EV will be great with or without a stadium...as long as they do it right. A crappy stadium can be a massive eye-sore occupying prime real estate for decades. But let's not forget that towers can do that, too. I moved here from Minneapolis, so I'm using this as a cautionary tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_Plaza

These towers were celebrated when they were new, and they probably looked pretty sweet once upon a time. But now they look like sh*t. Total sh*t. And good luck evicting everyone and knocking them down. At least a stadium can be demolished after a period of time.

My point is this: whatever we put there, please consider what will look/function well decades from now. And as pessimistic as it sounds, non-residential structures are way easier to scrap in the future...just ask the city about the De Anza Cove RV Park.

tyleraf Aug 8, 2014 5:15 PM

I'm glad to see Lane Field moving along. I'm starting to lean more against the stadium debate, but I would love to see an arena there. Hopefully this mess gets sorted out soon with the best results for everyone.

eburress Aug 8, 2014 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6684734)
Disagree 100%.

Football stadiums aren't built in neighborhoods to begin with. I've never met one person who moves to an area because of a nice football stadium. Even in Boston (an urbanist's dream) residents of the Fenway neighborhood constantly fought successfully against the city/Sox for a new Fenway Park. On the proposed site were old dilapidated buildings. Now there are high rise condos and major in-fill.

The empty lots will be developed without the football stadium. Not sure how you can say there will be more towers with less available land.

"I've never met one person..." is hardly conclusive evidence. It's anecdotal at best.

Some football stadiums are built in neighborhoods (Cowboys stadium in Arlington) and neighborhoods sometimes rise up around football stadiums (CenturyLink Field in Seattle).

SDCAL Aug 8, 2014 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6683983)
As someone who worked in EV during the late 90's (13th and G) and lived in Golden Hill it's funny to see that with all the redevelopment that has happened in that span of time that there was more going on in the neighborhood back then, then there is now. I.E. coffee, shops, businesses, magazines, design firms, publications, art gallery's, recording studios, clothing companies, watering holes, etc... All the condo's have done it "wall off" areas more and create just as many "dead zones" as any stadium would do. I don't see much life there anymore besides before, during, and after a Padres game. It's sort of hilarious to me that it's now mostly yuppies living behind security gates and underground garages. A stadium would at least bring a bunch of more high paying jobs(100's of millions of dollars in jobs) to the neighborhood which I think is more important than condos for the future of EV.

I agree with the first part of your comment, but don't agree about the stadium. Yuppies moving in kind of goes with the territory when talking about gentrification, but I think EV is far from doomed. There is still a lot of potential to bring back some of the more local, organic activity you describe back in the late 90s. I think the IDEA District could be one catalyst and that area really has a lot of potential, if done correctly.

I'm curious about what "high paying" jobs stadiums bring in? The players don't live near them, and the people working there don't make much. The development they usually bring is restaurants and service sector low-paying jobs. If we could start bringing tech and creative industry jobs (fashion, music, arts, architecture, etc.) it would be far better than the type of jobs a football stadium brings in, in my opinion. I think stadiums tend to suck out the jobs in design/creative areas - just one small example, Design Within Reach in the Simon Levi building closed and in its place we now have "Bub's B-B-Q". :( I think EV can be better.

SDCAL Aug 8, 2014 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6684827)
^ Wow! This is huge. Thought this would never happen. I hope this project makes that area more walkable. Right now those few blocks are almost suburban the way that everything is spread out.

Any word on what brands the hotels at LF will be? I know originally it was supposed to be a Fairfield Inn and something else (Garden Hilton?) but then I think someone said they were mandating they be higher-end?

I'm all for higher end, but I am also curious if both Lane Field and Navy Broadway Complex go high-end luxury, is there enough demand for it?

nezbn22 Aug 8, 2014 5:30 PM

Pretty sure Lane Field is going to be a Residence Inn/Springhill Suites (Marriott brands).

nezbn22 Aug 8, 2014 5:32 PM

Here's a link citing the brand names:

http://www.portofsandiego.org/lane-f...k-project.html

Northparkwizard Aug 8, 2014 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6684466)
As someone who lives in Golden Hill and frequents the East Village often it's funny to see how wrong you are. Just because these communities have grown and businesses have changed doesn't mean they're worse. Counterpoint, You Are Here and numerous smaller projects and redevelopments have done wonders for the Golden Hill community, adding yoga studios, bars, salon's, wellness centers, offices for insurers, architects, art dealers, and many other small businesses along with the all too important added benefit of more housing options in an urban environment that desperately needs it.

Building a stadium won't do any of that.

And by "100's of millions of dollars in jobs," you must mean the collective salaries of the players and team owners right? Or the wealthy who would own skybox tickets and not give two shiza's about the urban environment around them? Or maybe you mean the collective salaries of the hundreds of seasonal minimum and low-wage service jobs (poor teens who couldn't get gigs at SeaWorld...)? Yeah, great argument there.

There is more life and energy around those mixed-use complexes than would be in a closed, mammoth of a stadium complex.

I don't understand what the huge fascination with the stadium being downtown is? There seems to be an assumption that downtown land is limitless, and that a another massive, seasonally used sports complex will be the only stimulate the rest of the East Village needs for it to build out.

Uh, what's the Idea District again? Makers Quarter? City College expansion? Ballpark Village? East Village Green? The millions of square feet planned, approved, or under construction as we cry over maybe losing the succubus that is the NFL? I guess it's all nothing because apparently only a new home for the Chargers (the people's team!*for an average of $81 a seat* What a deal for a palace we paid for!) is the only savior for the EV.

Build it in Mission Valley. Build it in Chula Vista. Build it in Oceanside. Build it in Temec-u-fu*king-la. But don't build it in the last place we need it: downtown.

I guess you had to be there man, because you had to know what was there before the banal condo's showed up. There was a thriving community that is now gone. Shrinked-to-nothing, gone, left, replaced. I guess that's a matter of fact and taste, both of which you don't seem to concerned with. You're pretty green about your own neighborhood dude, I suggest talking to some folks that have lived and worked there for more than a few years. They might have a history lesson in store for you!

TL;DR It HASN"T grown or changed for the better.

Next thing you know you'll be arguing that Jonathan Segal projects bring communities together...

The rest of your comments about the stadium are funny too. "Not in my brand new condo's back yard!"

Chapelo Aug 8, 2014 5:55 PM

At the corner of La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee, next to the Strip Club, there is a massive excavation underway. The dirt lot where they had the farmer's markets. Maybe another tower for the Costa Verde development.

Didn't see a rendering or job notice posted though.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:22 PM.

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