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 10, 2014 4:01 AM

On another note, here is a link to an online petition trying to get the Uptown Planning Committee chair (Leo Wilson) to resign.

http://www.change.org/petitions/leo-...share_petition

He has been the chair of the community organization for 9 years (more of an oligarchy if you ask me). He and his allies on the UPC have been against bike lanes, active transportation, and increasing housing opportunities in Uptown for nearly a decade. It's time to pressure UPC to start adopting more urban-minded and forward thinking policies in order to address the growing problems we have.

Please sign and share if you care about San Diego's future! Thank you!

tyleraf Aug 10, 2014 2:23 PM

Signed!

ArquitectoMontenegro Aug 10, 2014 5:13 PM

It's funny how none of the proposals even dare mention that the downtown Chargers stadium plan involved demolishing the historic Wonderbread Factory, a beautiful brick warehouse which houses Mission Brewery, and it would displaced 3 architecture and landscaping businesses and the NewSchool of Architecture Domus Academy Campus (they of course can move to other locations, but don't we want to preserve historic architecture)? Petcopark worked because they integrated the historic buildings into the stadium, but this Chargers Stadium just displaced everything existing there.

The worst thing that this part of East Village has going for it is the Bus Depot. It is a megablock with no pedestrian penetration. The bus depot needs to move, and be replaced with smaller blocks for residential and commercial infill. A stadium here isn't really doing anything to improve the neighborhood other than to solidify an impenetrable block as far as pedestrianism goes.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2014 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArquitectoMontenegro (Post 6686355)
It's funny how none of the proposals even dare mention that the downtown Chargers stadium plan involved demolishing the historic Wonderbread Factory, a beautiful brick warehouse which houses Mission Brewery, and it would displaced 3 architecture and landscaping businesses and the NewSchool of Architecture Domus Academy Campus (they of course can move to other locations, but don't we want to preserve historic architecture)? Petcopark worked because they integrated the historic buildings into the stadium, but this Chargers Stadium just displaced everything existing there.

The worst thing that this part of East Village has going for it is the Bus Depot. It is a megablock with no pedestrian penetration. The bus depot needs to move, and be replaced with smaller blocks for residential and commercial infill. A stadium here isn't really doing anything to improve the neighborhood other than to solidify an impenetrable block as far as pedestrianism goes.

I wasn't aware of all that, thanks for posting. How would they even be able to get approval for this. Wonder bread factory is a pretty well known and significant historical structure in EV.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2014 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6685851)

Are they going for 70's revival here? Not only would a football stadium downtown kill EV as a neighborhood, the design is pretty lame. Would the convention center literally be attached to the stadium? What would happen to the old one? A major convention when there's a game going on in a city with poor mass-transit? Yikes.

Northparkwizard Aug 10, 2014 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.
:titanic:

I don't speak for anyone here but I'm fairly certain the folks on this particular message board are familiar with community planning groups and what the realities are in San Diego.

I guess my question is; is there a currently-on-the-table proposal for the area (Lower East Village) other than what we're talking about? To supplant the city owned and operated bus yard, a few small warehouses, and parking lots for Petco via some type of piecemeal multi-developer project seems far more unlikely than any stadium idea. Suggesting that the properties in question would ever be developed in that kind of cooperative way is really far-fetched, No?

Since you seem to know so much more than I do about, "how land-use works". Please explain why the City of San Diego would every displace a operational bus yard for anything less than a mega-complex of some type.

Furthermore, half of the property we're talking about is already owned by the private developer that ordered those renderings. I'd be very surprised if JMI and the Spanos' haven't already put a bow on this thing.

My only other big question is who's going to be the corporate sponsor? My vote is for, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap Stadium."

dales5050 Aug 10, 2014 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6685972)
I've noticed those who want a stadium downtown continually use the argument that it's just "parking lots" and a bus depot implying that if a stadium isn't build there it will always be parking lots and a bus depot, which is ridiculous.

Of course it won't always be parking lots. But what it becomes should be up to everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6685972)
As a resident of East Village, I don't think it's "close minded" to want smart development in my neighborhood, things like the IDEA district to attract tech jobs, instead of making it the county's sports complex.

Let's face it - this is a pivotal decision for EV. If a football stadium is erected next to a baseball stadium, that will define the neighborhood - it will be a mega-sports themed area and the development that surrounds it will be geared to that.

If that's what you want, fine, but I'm not going to call you close minded for it the way you have to people who don't share your vision for EV.[/QUOTE]

First, this is just YOUR opinion. Just as I have mine.

Second, I am for a diverse downtown where everything is included. I love the IDEA district, as well as, the sports complex district. I am not one to say something should not exist.

Third, sports are a huge part of the culture in a city. They are not for everyone but neither are the Museums, Theater or the Zoo. To each their own but I find it closed minded when some who are not a fan of sports want to block that aspect of the cultural base. Great cities have everything.

Fourth, the EV is massive. It's almost 2x to 3x the size of any other section of DT. The reason for this is that until recently, everything west of 10th and South of Broadway was a 'no go' zone. Petco Park changed this. So it's great that you love your part of DT but it seems as if you can't come to terms with how it came to be. Without Petco, IMHO, all of the development would have been focused to the West in Columbia, Core and LI.

Frankly, I think the 'East Village' really needs to be redefined and broken up into 2 or 3 areas. Why not make have a 'Sports' District in the South, an 'Idea' District in the North and something else in-between? It's not like there isn't enough room.


http://i.imgur.com/1oarTqd.gif

dales5050 Aug 10, 2014 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
I love how people seem to believe downtown land is limitless. Or that rezoning other parts of the city for high-density development is as easy as flipping a light switch. Does no one know how to look at a map or notice how small downtown's footprint is compared to the rest of county? Has no one been paying attention to the density fights going on all around the city, none of which have resulted in significant density increases, anywhere?

I love how some people can't grasp that San Diego is not, nor will ever be, a city with a centralized core. The commercial development in La Jolla and Sorrento Valley, in addition to, the extensive freeway infrastructure has put San Diego on a trajectory where it will never have a centralized DT.

If you want to play SimCity..go ahead. It's not real. Downtown San Diego has plenty of room to grow for what is needed over the next 50 years.

People like to cry about how not every building being constructed today is a shiny new tower but fail to understand that NOTHING is permanent. Until there comes a day, and it won't, where every single parcel in downtown contains a dense structure...it's a pointless conversation.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
"Don't worry, we'll just upzone other parts of the city, because that's been working out so well for us in Clairemont, Bay Park, Uptown, Golden Hill, etc."

Heh, before you even get to changing the zones you first have to upgrade what exists. In each of the locations you listed there are countless opportunities to improve the density, walkability and quality of the neighborhood before you even look at upzoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
There is a huge assumption on the part of downtown stadium proponents that the city will just magically upzone the old-Q site, or make UTC or some other location another downtown. I read the community planning agendas for these areas. I go to these meetings. It's not going to happen. The idea that San Diego can have multiple downtown's or new, large urban areas on the scale of downtown is a laughable lie, and shows the ignorance many have with regards to how land-use works in San Diego.

Nice detail. I guess because you say so it's true. I guess you have some pictures of the planning agenda for San Diego that has been etched into stone to share? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
UTC = 95% built out, and the community up there is fighting all growth
Mission Valley = while promising, will never reach its full potential because of geographic and NIMBY constraints
Uptown = :haha:
Kearny Mesa = really? If the future of urban San Diego is KM then we have more serious problems then I thought

You people keep talking about NIMBY constraints as if they are some evil empire or Oligarchy. That's ignorant. Everything changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686020)
It's sad how the UT can flash some renderings and all of a sudden our need for mixed-use, high-density neighborhoods is trumped by mega-sports and convention complexes. I guess since the East Village doesn't have anything like that already, its okay... Oh, wait! It does!

The wonderful density in the East Village is due in large part to Petco Park. You're either naive or lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

This stadium plan is about as compact as you can get. If located where they are suggesting, it will be surrounded by block after block of 1 story structures that will eventually be converted to high rise developments. Just because your personal taste does not find value in overlooking at stadium does not mean you get to undervalue it. Go as a Real Estate agent how much a view overlooking Petco Park goes for.

Now if there were calls to prevent every. single. project. in downtown that did not follow your 'mixed-use, high-density' litmus test with the tenacity...you might have a leg to stand on but this is not the case.

Northparkwizard Aug 10, 2014 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686371)
A major convention when there's a game going on in a city with poor mass-transit? Yikes.

Something like a comic themed convention with 150K people happening in the midst of a Baseball and tourist season in Downtown San Diego? Seems work out just fine year after year.

Also, major conventions here usually use Sunday (most football days during Fall) as break-down/get-away days. Not to mention it's the least traffic congested day of the week Downtown. Other conventions outside of Comic Con really aren't a traffic/mass transit issue because of there relatively low attendance,

"... fantasy fans ranked first in terms of the convention center’s attendance, far outstripping the combined total of its next four largest conventions, expected to be about 62,500 people." - NYT

As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

I also signed the petition to recall Leo Wilson, as every good member of BikeSD should.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6686496)
As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

The #2 is my neighborhood bus, and my primary mode of transport in and out of Golden Hill as well. Saying "it could be much better" is an understatement. We have transit in San Diego that is debilitating our communities, we need more LRT, streetcars, and increased frequency. The #2 isn't cutting it.

Yay! Again, everyone, please share and sign!

SDCAL Aug 10, 2014 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6686496)
Something like a comic themed convention with 150K people happening in the midst of a Baseball and tourist season in Downtown San Diego? Seems work out just fine year after year.

Also, major conventions here usually use Sunday (most football days during Fall) as break-down/get-away days. Not to mention it's the least traffic congested day of the week Downtown. Other conventions outside of Comic Con really aren't a traffic/mass transit issue because of there relatively low attendance,

"... fantasy fans ranked first in terms of the convention center’s attendance, far outstripping the combined total of its next four largest conventions, expected to be about 62,500 people." - NYT

As far as public transportation is concerned... my #2 bus arrives on time everyday, runs on natural gas, and gets from A to B within the inner city as fast as any NYC or European bus i've ridden. Admittedly it could be much better though, we all know more light rail would help tremendously.

I also signed the petition to recall Leo Wilson, as every good member of BikeSD should.

I meant if they are literally part of the same structure. Maybe I don't understand the proposal, but is it to have the convention center and charger's stadium be one structure? The conv center rendering appears to be a completely different building than the current structure. If this is the plan, then what will happen to the current convention center? If the thinking is expansion by having two convention centers, that would be idiotic. Convention clients - those we have and those we want to attract - overwhelmingly say they want somewhere that has contiguous space and not be broken up into events at different locations.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2014 8:59 PM

Dales5050, I don't hate sports. Your assumption that people who don't want to see a sports stadium downtown are not into sports is not correct.

I do realize sports is an important cultural aspect of the city, I just don't think having another stadium dt would be good for dt at all. I would much rather see a new stadium/mixed-use development in mission valley.

I will say, however, that trends show American football losing popularity. With all the controversy about head injuries, and changing demographics that are drawing people away from American football and towards soccer, I'm skeptical football will remain as big as it is today long-term.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2014 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6686392)
Furthermore, half of the property we're talking about is already owned by the private developer that ordered those renderings. I'd be very surprised if JMI and the Spanos' haven't already put a bow on this thing.

My only other big question is who's going to be the corporate sponsor? My vote is for, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap Stadium."

I think there are MANY more hurdles besides finding a corporate sponsor.

First, is the chargers-convention center proposal within coastal commission impacted area?

What about the destruction of historic buildings, someone mentioned the wonder bread building which is an important historical structure would need to be demolished, I'm sure that would raise lawsuits, and rightfully so.

Then, will city money be used at all? As we saw from the recent hotel tax court decision last week, any use of public funds requires a vote.

Also, questions about the convention center - would this satisfy demand? Would it be a new structure and would the old one also be used? Is this proposal for contiguous convention space for large events? I haven't seen this specified anywhere.

It seems like there is a lot going on here, and years of wrangling either way.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 9:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6686477)
I love how some people can't grasp that San Diego is not, nor will ever be, a city with a centralized core. The commercial development in La Jolla and Sorrento Valley, in addition to, the extensive freeway infrastructure has put San Diego on a trajectory where it will never have a centralized DT.

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.

Quote:

If you want to play SimCity..go ahead. It's not real.
I love SimCity! Particularly SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition. And correct, it's not real at all. Yay, we agree one something! :cheers:

Quote:

Downtown San Diego has plenty of room to grow for what is needed over the next 50 years.
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.

Quote:

People like to cry about how not every building being constructed today is a shiny new tower but fail to understand that NOTHING is permanent. Until there comes a day, and it won't, where every single parcel in downtown contains a dense structure...it's a pointless conversation.
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.

Quote:

Heh, before you even get to changing the zones you first have to upgrade what exists. In each of the locations you listed there are countless opportunities to improve the density, walkability and quality of the neighborhood before you even look at upzoning.
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:

Quote:

Nice detail. I guess because you say so it's true. I guess you have some pictures of the planning agenda for San Diego that has been etched into stone to share? :rolleyes:
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:

Quote:

You people keep talking about NIMBY constraints as if they are some evil empire or Oligarchy. That's ignorant. Everything changes.
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.

Quote:

The wonderful density in the East Village is due in large part to Petco Park. You're either naive or lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
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.

Quote:

This stadium plan is about as compact as you can get. If located where they are suggesting, it will be surrounded by block after block of 1 story structures that will eventually be converted to high rise developments. Just because your personal taste does not find value in overlooking at stadium does not mean you get to undervalue it. Go as a Real Estate agent how much a view overlooking Petco Park goes for.
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.

Quote:

Now if there were calls to prevent every. single. project. in downtown that did not follow your 'mixed-use, high-density' litmus test with the tenacity...you might have a leg to stand on but this is not the case.
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.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686512)
I meant if they are literally part of the same structure. Maybe I don't understand the proposal, but is it to have the convention center and charger's stadium be one structure? The conv center rendering appears to be a completely different building than the current structure. If this is the plan, then what will happen to the current convention center? If the thinking is expansion by having two convention centers, that would be idiotic. Convention clients - those we have and those we want to attract - overwhelmingly say they want somewhere that has contiguous space and not be broken up into events at different locations.

JMI is informally proposing 5 different options to city and business leaders. They all have different pros and cons, but in each one the original convention center would stay open and most of them an annex would be built either alone or as part of a stadium complex.

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:

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6686525)
I think there are MANY more hurdles besides finding a corporate sponsor.

First, is the chargers-convention center proposal within coastal commission impacted area?

What about the destruction of historic buildings, someone mentioned the wonder bread building which is an important historical structure would need to be demolished, I'm sure that would raise lawsuits, and rightfully so.

Then, will city money be used at all? As we saw from the recent hotel tax court decision last week, any use of public funds requires a vote.

Also, questions about the convention center - would this satisfy demand? Would it be a new structure and would the old one also be used? Is this proposal for contiguous convention space for large events? I haven't seen this specified anywhere.

It seems like there is a lot going on here, and years of wrangling either way.

The coastal commission wouldn't be involved since the project wouldn't be on coastal lands, but inland downtown.

I'm not sure about historic structure, but San Diego city govt has been able to deal with those types of issues before - they'll probably either incorporate Wonderbread or move it, assuming it is historical.

The public vote on a tax increase is the biggest hurdle to any convention center or stadium construction. Interestingly, conservative penny-pinchers in the county may end up being the progressive EV's saving grace.

And we are years away from any real movement in either direction. After the appellate court shot down the CC funding scheme, we're 3-5 years from resolution.

mello Aug 10, 2014 10:55 PM

I think Dale has brought up some interesting points regarding the future and where dense development could begin to take place if all of existing lots are built up in Downtown. SDfan I do like your arguments, looking at google maps "Tailgate Park" and the Bus Yard basically take up 8 city blocks combined. The Tenth Ave Marine Terminal looks to take up about 14 city Blocks. I also see a lot of land South of Imperial that could be scrapped for higher densities and better use. What is up with that big empty lot on Newton Ave for example?

As you walk around downtown you also see a lot of blocks that have measly "new builds" on them like Dale said and eventually these could be torn down to accommodate towers in the future. Also along G and Market in the Columbia district there are old builds from the late 80's/Early 90's that are only 3 or 4 floors and very suburban in Nature that could see the demolition ball in the next 20 years or so.

I think there is a middle ground that will eventually be reached, look at how the tide of NIMBYism eventually changed and now San Francisco is seeing a lot of construction in the city. National City could step up and really provide a lot of new housing units as well as the Chula Vista Bayfront and they are very close to downtown.

Regarding UTC being built out who controls that giant piece of land just east of the 805 and on the North side of Mira Mar road? It looks to be about 140 to 160 acres of flat land? That could be turned in to a shit load of housing units and eventually the furniture stores could be scrapped and turned in to housing on Mira Mar road as well. There are always options for finding new areas to construct housing.

dtell04 Aug 10, 2014 11:58 PM

Boy what a great way to spend time waiting for a flight reading the discussions. I live in the EV as well, but don't understand how not building the stadium will help in the long run. The city owns over 7,000 pieces of land. Why would the bus yard ever be sold or developed into anything other than something for public use?
It just seems like the real question is bus yard or football stadium. I agree it would be great to eventually live AND work DT, but realistically unless you work for MTS or the chargers (maybe) no one will have a job on that site. Park and market could be built with office space, in the EV. The makers quarter complex could be built with office space. If (fingers crossed) the Salvation Army sold their almost 3 blocks of land that would be a game changer as well.
I personally would like to see a football stadium in the EV. I don't think it should be viewed as something that would ruin the non-existent planned development of our beloved bus yard. The debate should really be titled: maintaining a bus yard bounded by homeless people or build something to put downtown SD higher on the national stage.

SDCAL Aug 11, 2014 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtell04 (Post 6686621)
Boy what a great way to spend time waiting for a flight reading the discussions. I live in the EV as well, but don't understand how not building the stadium will help in the long run. The city owns over 7,000 pieces of land. Why would the bus yard ever be sold or developed into anything other than something for public use?
It just seems like the real question is bus yard or football stadium. I agree it would be great to eventually live AND work DT, but realistically unless you work for MTS or the chargers (maybe) no one will have a job on that site. Park and market could be built with office space, in the EV. The makers quarter complex could be built with office space. If (fingers crossed) the Salvation Army sold their almost 3 blocks of land that would be a game changer as well.
I personally would like to see a football stadium in the EV. I don't think it should be viewed as something that would ruin the non-existent planned development of our beloved bus yard. The debate should really be titled: maintaining a bus yard bounded by homeless people or build something to put downtown SD higher on the national stage.

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.

SDCAL Aug 11, 2014 6:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6686557)
The public vote on a tax increase is the biggest hurdle to any convention center or stadium construction. Interestingly, conservative penny-pinchers in the county may end up being the progressive EV's saving grace.

Politics makes strange bedfellows :)

This could very well be the case.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:10 PM.

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