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)

Northparkwizard Aug 8, 2014 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6684881)
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.

Good question. The "high paying" jobs i'm talking about are the folks who work in the offices of the Chargers. Professionals that will actually live and work in the neighborhood instead of the bedroom community that exists in EV now. We're talking about bringing in a billion dollar business HQ to EV with hundreds of high paying and yes, low paying jobs too.

Yes, players for both the Padres and the Chargers do live very close to both the Q and Petco. How do I know that? Interviews with players that have said, "I walk to work" also I've seen one or two walking to Petco. But you're right, The very rich ones live elsewhere (poway, rancho santa fe, etc). Also a family member of mine works in the front offices of the Padres along with 100's of contemporaries that make great money... along with all the low paying jobs too.

As far as Bub's in concerned, that is a bummer. Although I can't afford the stuff in that place it was fun to window shop. However I'd bet a dollar that Bub's makes far more money that DWR did, pays more in taxes and employs more people. Maybe I'm wrong but the condos high rises seem to be the culprit that sucks jobs from design/creative areas.

SDfan Aug 8, 2014 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6684919)
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!"

Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order for the East Village to get back it's small-town, small-business, neighborhood vibe (as since been lost in Golden Hill - minus all the community that's there now, because it's not circa 1990-blahblahblah) it needs to build a large, corporate, taxpayer subsidized stadium devoid of small-businesses and to-scale development?

What planet do you live on that this makes sense?

Yes, the Chargers and a massive $1 billion stadium with the backing of corporate America will restore the East Village to a small, community-based ideal, while promoting small-businesses and neighborhood identity.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Yeah, okay man. If only I had been around all the way back in 1990, then maybe any of this would make a sense.

Northparkwizard Aug 8, 2014 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6684962)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order for the East Village to get back it's small-town, small-business, neighborhood vibe (as since been lost in Golden Hill - minus all the community that's there now, because it's not circa 1990-blahblahblah) it needs to build a large, corporate, taxpayer subsidized stadium devoid of small-businesses and to-scale development?

What planet do you live on that this makes sense?

Yes, the Chargers and a massive $1 billion stadium with the backing of corporate America will restore the East Village to a small, community-based ideal, while promoting small-businesses and neighborhood identity.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Yeah, okay man. If only I had been around all the way back in 1990, then maybe any of this would make a sense.

Not at all, I think you're misunderstanding. I never suggested that EV could get back any of the neighborhood qualities that it lost. They're gone, probably forever. There's nothing, really, we can do about that now.

What I am suggesting is that building a stadium in East Village wouldn't destroy, take away, or change anything substantial because 99% of what use to be there is already gone.

You're getting the late nineties which I'm referring to and 1990 mixed up. The late nineties/early 2000's were awesome in EV. For example Shepard Fairey and Dave Kinsey owned and operated Black Box on Park/12th street, what we now know as OBEY. Shit was pretty rad.

We might as well have some high paying jobs at a stadium instead of none at condo high rises. I'm just trying to think along those lines.

To suggest that a premeditated neighborhood like the Makers Quarter OR a billion dollar EV stadium (both of which might never be built) can/would be a good idea is yet to be seen. I'm just not a fan of doing things half-assed. If EV is going to be the sort of place that it's trying to be then let the reigns go loose and let the market dictate it, i guess.

I'm happy that we're arguing about it thought, it means that at least we all give a shit about the future.

:cheers:

eburress Aug 9, 2014 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chapelo (Post 6684929)
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.

Several years ago four rather tall apartment towers were planned for that spot. The NIMBYs nixed that project (big surprise) but one would think this is also bound to be high-rise residential of some sort.

spoonman Aug 9, 2014 4:36 AM

Does anyone know which corner of Genessee & La Jolla Village the excavation was on? It may be Phase 1 of the UTC plan, which will build a new underground parking garage and demolish and rebuild the Nordstrom. Not sure if I'm citing the correct project, but here is a link.

http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-m...future-of-utc/

SDfan Aug 9, 2014 8:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6685313)
Several years ago four rather tall apartment towers were planned for that spot. The NIMBYs nixed that project (big surprise) but one would think this is also bound to be high-rise residential of some sort.

From what I understand, the project you're describing was a part of Costa Verde . It was downsized from four, 32-34 story towers to four 22-24 story towers. They got approval from the community planning group and city after the downsizing, and were put on hold after the recession crashed the real estate market.

I think the project going on at Genesse and LJVD is related to UTC, but if its CV I would be thrilled!

eburress Aug 9, 2014 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6685461)
Does anyone know which corner of Genessee & La Jolla Village the excavation was on? It may be Phase 1 of the UTC plan, which will build a new underground parking garage and demolish and rebuild the Nordstrom. Not sure if I'm citing the correct project, but here is a link.

http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-m...future-of-utc/

It's the southwest corner of that intersection, across Genesee from UTC.

eburress Aug 9, 2014 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6685539)
From what I understand, the project you're describing was a part of Costa Verde . It was downsized from four, 32-34 story towers to four 22-24 story towers. They got approval from the community planning group and city after the downsizing, and were put on hold after the recession crashed the real estate market.

I think the project going on at Genesse and LJVD is related to UTC, but if its CV I would be thrilled!

This is on the site of the project you're speaking of. Who knows if the project is the same as before (the downsized four 22-24 story towers), but unless the mall is spanning Genesee, my guess is that this isn't mall-related.

dales5050 Aug 9, 2014 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6685015)
What I am suggesting is that building a stadium in East Village wouldn't destroy, take away, or change anything substantial because 99% of what use to be there is already gone.


Excellent point. We are talking about parking lots and a bus depot. But there is no point in debating with closed minded folks. Just because they don't see the benefit of sports or conferences or can't afford the ticket...they feel that they somehow 'own' downtown and should have the right to keep it as they see fit.

It's funny that people complain about $80 NFL tickets but have no problem paying $10 for 'craft cocktails' or $15 for a 'farm to table sausage sandwich'....it's just a personal closed minded perspective.

Interestingly enough, the UT just put out a post on a new convention center / stadium hybrid plan. I think this makes perfect sense.

San Diego is NEVER going to become a Chicago or NYC. It's never going to have a single downtown core. Rather, it's going to have multiple and that's great if you ask me. Why not try and focus the redevelopment of the old Q site into the next La Jolla type development? Maybe find a way to bring a mix of residential, retail and commercial/research to partner with SDSU?


http://i.imgur.com/YYf4tLa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ugYzoKj.png

Derek Aug 9, 2014 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6685851)

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

dales5050 Aug 9, 2014 9:17 PM

Wanted to add a comment on the density. As someone who lives Downtown and walks almost everywhere...there are PLENTY of sites that can accommodate the dense development that others want.

There are the parking lots we all know about. There are also the older run down buildings. But what most people don't consider are some of the 'newer' builds that simply are not quality.

A perfect example are the apartments at 900 F Street. http://www.900fstreet.com/

These were build in 2002 and IMHO are simply 'place holder' housing until something much bigger comes along. When you consider some of the towers that are going up around this project...it's not that far of a reach to see a developer in the next 10-15 years doing the math and saying lets do a tower here.

SDCAL Aug 9, 2014 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6685851)
Excellent point. We are talking about parking lots and a bus depot. But there is no point in debating with closed minded folks. Just because they don't see the benefit of sports or conferences or can't afford the ticket...they feel that they somehow 'own' downtown and should have the right to keep it as they see fit.

It's funny that people complain about $80 NFL tickets but have no problem paying $10 for 'craft cocktails' or $15 for a 'farm to table sausage sandwich'....it's just a personal closed minded perspective.

Interestingly enough, the UT just put out a post on a new convention center / stadium hybrid plan. I think this makes perfect sense.

San Diego is NEVER going to become a Chicago or NYC. It's never going to have a single downtown core. Rather, it's going to have multiple and that's great if you ask me. Why not try and focus the redevelopment of the old Q site into the next La Jolla type development? Maybe find a way to bring a mix of residential, retail and commercial/research to partner with SDSU?

What does the price of tickets have to do with whether or not a football stadium downtown is a good idea? Your post seems to imply that anyone who doesn't see *your* vision of downtown is being close-minded. If someone prefers spending money on good food as opposed to a football ticket, that's their personal preference it doesn't mean they are "close minded".

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.

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.

Crackertastik Aug 9, 2014 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6685885)
Wanted to add a comment on the density. As someone who lives Downtown and walks almost everywhere...there are PLENTY of sites that can accommodate the dense development that others want.

There are the parking lots we all know about. There are also the older run down buildings. But what most people don't consider are some of the 'newer' builds that simply are not quality.

A perfect example are the apartments at 900 F Street. http://www.900fstreet.com/

These were build in 2002 and IMHO are simply 'place holder' housing until something much bigger comes along. When you consider some of the towers that are going up around this project...it's not that far of a reach to see a developer in the next 10-15 years doing the math and saying lets do a tower here.

To add...look at the areas that can be built out. Look to the South there. Huge amounts of area that can be an entire new neighborhood of density, still extremely underdeveloped. Look to the South of the Hilton west of Harbor Drive, on the waterfront. Do we really think that area will be a working (barely) port in 30 years? It shouldn't be. It will be exactly what San Francisco is doing with Mission Bay. A new urbanist midrise mixed use community and dense. There is room for 40 - 50 towers and high density developments in those two areas alone. Not to mention the parking lots all over the rest of EV and Downtown in general.

That plan for the stadium looks fantastic. It is very tight for a football stadium. If you look, it has a good street presence along two sides (east and west), which allow for restaurants of street activation. The north side has a plaza. What more do you really want? Condo towers are as closed off as anything. Giant Podiums with Parking structures like the east village development they have rendered here? Look at that giant podium of death. Not much better to me.

The argument is absurd that the stadium HAS to be a detriment, and especially under this design, absurd to believe the area would markedly better as a collection of condos and office towers.

tyleraf Aug 10, 2014 12:00 AM

I love the plan that the UT has. Although the stadium may be better in MV it seems this may be the most feasible option. Plus it eliminates most of tailgate park and completely rids us of the MTS bus-yards

eburress Aug 10, 2014 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crackertastik (Post 6685981)
To add...look at the areas that can be built out. Look to the South there. Huge amounts of area that can be an entire new neighborhood of density, still extremely underdeveloped. Look to the South of the Hilton west of Harbor Drive, on the waterfront. Do we really think that area will be a working (barely) port in 30 years? It shouldn't be. It will be exactly what San Francisco is doing with Mission Bay. A new urbanist midrise mixed use community and dense. There is room for 40 - 50 towers and high density developments in those two areas alone. Not to mention the parking lots all over the rest of EV and Downtown in general.

That plan for the stadium looks fantastic. It is very tight for a football stadium. If you look, it has a good street presence along two sides (east and west), which allow for restaurants of street activation. The north side has a plaza. What more do you really want? Condo towers are as closed off as anything. Giant Podiums with Parking structures like the east village development they have rendered here? Look at that giant podium of death. Not much better to me.

The argument is absurd that the stadium HAS to be a detriment, and especially under this design, absurd to believe the area would markedly better as a collection of condos and office towers.

I completely agree. The piece of land that Seattle's football stadium (CenturyLink) sits on seems to be about the same size and is in a very similar position in relation to its downtown - and just like you suggested, an entirely new neighborhood is sprouting up around it.

It is incredibly difficult to get anything done in SD...almost as if developers have to subvert the system...so the chances of a stadium happening are remote, but I think this would be tremendous for that part of downtown and for the city in general.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 1:00 AM

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?

"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."

Um... :lmao:

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.

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

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!

And I have no problem paying reasonably for a good meal, good drinks, while supporting small local businesses and entrepreneurs. I wouldn't pay $80 to watch men get concussions, while knowing taxpayers were fleeced to pay for a palace and community dead-zone, while lining the pockets of multi-millionaires.

Where are our priorities here? Obviously not with the community or for future generations. "Sorry you have limited, sustainable or affordable housing and community options, but hey! You can pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch football or wait outside the center in your batman costume!"

But San Diegans are prone to making stupid, short-sighted decisions in terms of urban development and land-use. We need more housing? Build a stadium! We need more urban neighborhoods? Build a convention center annex! We need more high-tech jobs downtown? Add a convention center and a stadium! Yay! We are so smart!

:titanic:

Bertrice Aug 10, 2014 3:20 AM

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?

"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."

Um... :lmao:

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.

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

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!

And I have no problem paying reasonably for a good meal, good drinks, while supporting small local businesses and entrepreneurs. I wouldn't pay $80 to watch men get concussions, while knowing taxpayers were fleeced to pay for a palace and community dead-zone, while lining the pockets of multi-millionaires.

Where are our priorities here? Obviously not with the community or for future generations. "Sorry you have limited, sustainable or affordable housing and community options, but hey! You can pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch football or wait outside the center in your batman costume!"

But San Diegans are prone to making stupid, short-sighted decisions in terms of urban development and land-use. We need more housing? Build a stadium! We need more urban neighborhoods? Build a convention center annex! We need more high-tech jobs downtown? Add a convention center and a stadium! Yay! We are so smart!

:titanic:

what about the hoods to the east of EV? there's nothing great about them ,maybe gentrification would move that way. EV which by the way was the warehouse district 15 years ago is still a dog.

HurricaneHugo Aug 10, 2014 3:47 AM

Lol seriously the East Village still has plenty of run down buildings that can be torn down.

A new stadium/convention center can revitalize the area just like Petco Park did.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 3:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6686106)
what about the hoods to the east of EV? there's nothing great about them ,maybe gentrification would move that way. EV which by the way was the warehouse district 15 years ago is still a dog.

The East Village is a part of downtown, and the community is pro-growth and open to high-density development.

To the east of EV is Golden Hill, which is anti-development and it's community plan is restrictive. Also to the east are Sherman Heights, Logan Heights, and Grant Hill, which are all limited in their acceptance and ability to increase housing and density. Finally there is Barrio Logan, which is more promising than the other four neighborhoods, but is not at the scale of EV at all.

I wish this wasn't the case. I wish we had more options. But unless something drastic changes in both public perception and leadership in government, we will continue having downtown play a disproportionate role in mitigating our housing crisis.

SDfan Aug 10, 2014 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 6686118)
Lol seriously the East Village still has plenty of run down buildings that can be torn down.

A new stadium/convention center can revitalize the area just like Petco Park did.

There are a lot of old buildings and plenty of parking lots, but in the long run, there isn't enough there to meet our housing and employment center needs for the decades to come after.

And the EV doesn't need catalysts for growth. Development will occur without the Chargers or Comic Con. We overstate the benefits these organizations have on our economy, when in reality most of our industry is small-business oriented.

Here is an article from VOSD about the dynamics of our economy:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/0...y-the-numbers/

Here are articles on the overstated benefits of Comic-Con and the nonsense of stadium financing:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/0...aking-numbers/

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/2...conomic-sense/


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:55 AM.

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