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 Sep 4, 2014 5:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6716046)
Looks like 15th & Island is up to the 31st floor. The crane will have to be moved higher to complete the next 14 floors.

You can watch it here.

http://www.discoversd.com/webcams/

I'm so excited about this tower! It's so big already, and it's only going to get bigger! I live in Golden Hill and it's already dominating our skyline. So. Much. Ahh!

:crazy: :cheerleader: :crazy:

travis bickle Sep 4, 2014 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6716158)
Yeah, OTHER people's money. As if those who support preservation don't pay taxes.

I pay plenty of taxes, including property taxes for a place I have downtown.

I think I'm entitled to my opinion, but this "other people's money" argument is pretty disingenuous. If you don't think the theater is worth saving, make a logical argument like SDfan did instead of this ridiculous "other people's money" garbage. It reminds me of the people on Medicare who go around saying they are against their taxes going to socialized medicine. :koko:

Jeez SDCAL, no need to wet your panties. Here’s a newsflash. I also support preservation.

In fact, my firm spent a ton of money in the late 1990s-2000s trying to save… guess what… The California Theatre. We were committed to preserving the theatre and feature it, as a theater, as part of a mixed-use project that we hoped would catalyze the west “C” Street corridor.

But even back then, the building was so structurally degraded that predicting ultimate costs was almost impossible. Hard to get investors to buy in on a project when so many fundamental unknowns remain. So despite years of effort with tax-credits and other possible subsidies, we simply could not get the final financing put together. No bad guys here. We just couldn’t make it work.

We looked at it again just last year. It’s a challenging site. They were asking $10.6mm (not sure what they’re asking now,). That’s a tough nut to crack just to start, but not the only significant difficulty. It will take someone far better at development/redevelopment than I to make it work, if it can work.

Do I think the site’s ownership has deliberately let the structure decay? That’s certainly possible, but they’re the people who put up their hard money when they bought the site. They’re the one’s paying all the carrying costs all these years. If you want to buy them out, have at it and feel free to risk your own money to make it happen. Then you can do whatever you want.

I will applaud you. However, I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. As we all know, talk is cheap and in addition to that, some seems pretty angry. That usually goes hand-in-hand with ignorance.

At present, my firm is involved with a significant preservation project in the East Village. We are working with an ownership group that also values preservation and are optimistic that we can successfully execute our shared vision, one that is completely in accord with the vision of Makers Quarter. This kind of work doesn’t come cheap and we both have to make some financial sacrifices for success. And guess what else, in addition to our own, we are going to use other people’s money to make this happen. We are asking them to share some of these sacrifices. I can be neither frivolous, nor “generous” with it. Why? Because it’s not mine.

We’re also pursuing another historic structure in the Egyptian Quarter in Hillcrest. Again, we are committed to preserving the present building and operating it in its historic use.

Like the California Threatre, it’s a risky site fraught with challenges and will require more equity investment (equity money being more expensive than debt, but I’m sure you knew that). If you’d like to come up with the $5 or so mil in equity we need to raise, we can probably move forward in 60 days. I won’t hold my breath for that either.

I’m sure everyone on these boards would love to just wave a magic wand and add “richness and vitality” to our shared urban fabric. I know I would and occasionally, I get lucky and do precisely that. Unfortunately, magic wands are in short supply. In lieu of wands, we typically need other people’s money.

Yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion, even when you confirm your utter ignorance while doing so. (I have to admit, not sure what your taxpaying status has to do with expressing your opinion.) That’s part of the beauty of America. The right to be an angry idiot and express it in public.

Mission accomplished.

Urbanize_It Sep 5, 2014 5:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travis bickle (Post 6717103)
Jeez SDCAL, no need to wet your panties. Here’s a newsflash. I also support preservation.

In fact, my firm spent a ton of money in the late 1990s-2000s trying to save… guess what… The California Theatre. We were committed to preserving the theatre and feature it, as a theater, as part of a mixed-use project that we hoped would catalyze the west “C” Street corridor.

But even back then, the building was so structurally degraded that predicting ultimate costs was almost impossible. Hard to get investors to buy in on a project when so many fundamental unknowns remain. So despite years of effort with tax-credits and other possible subsidies, we simply could not get the final financing put together. No bad guys here. We just couldn’t make it work.

We looked at it again just last year. It’s a challenging site. They were asking $10.6mm (not sure what they’re asking now,). That’s a tough nut to crack just to start, but not the only significant difficulty. It will take someone far better at development/redevelopment than I to make it work, if it can work.

Do I think the site’s ownership has deliberately let the structure decay? That’s certainly possible, but they’re the people who put up their hard money when they bought the site. They’re the one’s paying all the carrying costs all these years. If you want to buy them out, have at it and feel free to risk your own money to make it happen. Then you can do whatever you want.

I will applaud you. However, I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. As we all know, talk is cheap and in addition to that, some seems pretty angry. That usually goes hand-in-hand with ignorance.

At present, my firm is involved with a significant preservation project in the East Village. We are working with an ownership group that also values preservation and are optimistic that we can successfully execute our shared vision, one that is completely in accord with the vision of Makers Quarter. This kind of work doesn’t come cheap and we both have to make some financial sacrifices for success. And guess what else, in addition to our own, we are going to use other people’s money to make this happen. We are asking them to share some of these sacrifices. I can be neither frivolous, nor “generous” with it. Why? Because it’s not mine.

We’re also pursuing another historic structure in the Egyptian Quarter in Hillcrest. Again, we are committed to preserving the present building and operating it in its historic use.

Like the California Threatre, it’s a risky site fraught with challenges and will require more equity investment (equity money being more expensive than debt, but I’m sure you knew that). If you’d like to come up with the $5 or so mil in equity we need to raise, we can probably move forward in 60 days. I won’t hold my breath for that either.

I’m sure everyone on these boards would love to just wave a magic wand and add “richness and vitality” to our shared urban fabric. I know I would and occasionally, I get lucky and do precisely that. Unfortunately, magic wands are in short supply. In lieu of wands, we typically need other people’s money.

Yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion, even when you confirm your utter ignorance while doing so. (I have to admit, not sure what your taxpaying status has to do with expressing your opinion.) That’s part of the beauty of America. The right to be an angry idiot and express it in public.

Mission accomplished.

Ummmm, aren't you the one that first brought up the bit about taxes? As you said, every angry idiot is entitled their own public opinion. Thanks for sharing(showing) yours....

nezbn22 Sep 5, 2014 3:37 PM

Sounds like there's some confusion about SDCal's point. Based on the Medicare argument, he's suggesting that taxpayers/City of SD should cover the $50 million restoration costs. If he's not, and he's suggesting the developer should pay it, the Medicare point makes no sense whatsoever and Travis is right on point (albiet strongly worded).

Northparkwizard Sep 5, 2014 5:55 PM

Meanwhile... Pernicano's Hillcrest is now on the market after 30 years of stubbornness. 12 million? What size is that restaurant and parking lot? 20,000 sqft?

For reference.

Northparkwizard Sep 5, 2014 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6718414)
Meanwhile... Pernicano's Hillcrest is now on the market after 30 years of stubbornness. 12 million? What size is that restaurant and parking lot? 20,000 sqft?

For reference.

25K sqft I guess.

spoonman Sep 5, 2014 7:40 PM

^ At 25,000SF, that would be $480 sf. I would think that this pencils out OK given that the project will likely be several floors. I'm not a developer though, so this is just a guess.

tyleraf Sep 5, 2014 7:52 PM

Here is a render of the Alexan for East Village. Before you get down on it, it is at the maximum height limit for the site due to the 15th and Island Park adjacent to it.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3858/...a906a61d6e.jpg

SDfan Sep 5, 2014 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6718629)
Here is a render of the Alexan for East Village. Before you get down on it, it is at the maximum height limit for the site due to the 15th and Island Park adjacent to it.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3858/...a906a61d6e.jpg

Boooooo! :yuck:




JK. It looks alright. Varied heights are welcome.

spoonman Sep 5, 2014 9:19 PM

^Which corner is this?

tyleraf Sep 5, 2014 9:26 PM

Spoonman: 13th and j

spoonman Sep 5, 2014 11:01 PM

Do you know which streetcorner?

tyleraf Sep 5, 2014 11:08 PM

It is across from the old Library Tower site. It is located between 13th, 14th, J, and K streets.

spoonman Sep 5, 2014 11:28 PM

Hope it preserves the building at 14th & J.

tyleraf Sep 5, 2014 11:40 PM

That building isn't part of the site and it will stay. Also they are preserving the small hose that is currently in the middle of the site, but it will be moved onto J st and turned into a restaurant.

spoonman Sep 6, 2014 3:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6718946)
That building isn't part of the site and it will stay. Also they are preserving the small hose that is currently in the middle of the site, but it will be moved onto J st and turned into a restaurant.

Thanks. Glad to hear the older buildings will stay as part of the urban fabric. Makes the area much more interesting.

Bertrice Sep 6, 2014 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6719137)
Thanks. Glad to hear the older buildings will stay as part of the urban fabric. Makes the area much more interesting.

Yeah it adds richness and vitality! :haha:

spoonman Sep 6, 2014 7:25 AM

Personally I don't care about the house, but I would like to see the pre-war building utilized if possible in whatever project is next door.

spoonman Sep 6, 2014 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6718629)
Here is a render of the Alexan for East Village. Before you get down on it, it is at the maximum height limit for the site due to the 15th and Island Park adjacent to it.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3858/...a906a61d6e.jpg

In looking at the map of this lot, this project will border the tailgate park and prospective Chargers stadium site. Regardless of your view on whether the stadium belongs in EV, it is clear that development is intensifying in SE EV.

It would be ideal if the city could increase height limits southeast of 16th & Commercial (north Barrio Logan) down toward Beardsley or the bridge. That would provide downtown more room for density and would allow for buildings over 500ft. (FAA regs soften 2.5 miles away from the airport...16th & Comm is the line of demarcation, which right now is the line for where downtown stops (naturally)) Of course to do this, I think the land would have to be rustled away from being part of BL.

Here is the airport land use information if anyone is interested. See page 52

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...1gVbfdSGKgmRBA

SDfan Sep 6, 2014 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6719514)
In looking at the map of this lot, this project will border the tailgate park and prospective Chargers stadium site. Regardless of your view on whether the stadium belongs in EV, it is clear that development is intensifying in SE EV.

It would be ideal if the city could increase height limits southeast of 16th & Commercial (north Barrio Logan) down toward Beardsley or the bridge. That would provide downtown more room for density and would allow for buildings over 500ft. (FAA regs soften 2.5 miles away from the airport...16th & Comm is the line of demarcation, which right now is the line for where downtown stops (naturally)) Of course to do this, I think the land would have to be rustled away from being part of BL.

Here is the airport land use information if anyone is interested. See page 52

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...1gVbfdSGKgmRBA

I think the airport demarcation line is specific to downtown's radius. If downtown had stretched into Barrio Logan, I think the FAA would have expanded the circle to include it. I don't see San Diego ever escaping the height limit over downtown, or ever building over 500' anywhere in the city/county proper.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:44 PM.

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