SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 - Page 96

HurricaneHugo · #**1901** Posted **Jul 12, 2007, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress

Am I missing something...what's new (or news) about this? We had an idea of the project's scale already. Is the project any more likely to happen now than before?

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?

sandiego_urban · #**1902** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 12:42 AM**

Hey, 2 new forumers in the last couple of days - Welcome!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller

I am not trying to argue the value of developing the current East Village site for civic uses but I do question the need for an expensive new library.

I think you'd change your opinion if you were ever to go into a new, state-of-the-art library in another city. Even the one in Phoenix had plenty of people in it when I was there, and I'm not talking about homeless or elderly people either. When the library branch in Mission Valley stayed open till 10:00pm, it would be packed until closing.

IMO, a new library is just what East Village needs to add more vibrancy to the streets. It already has condos, an office tower, restaurants, a park, a ballpark, the trolley runs through it, and it seems to be the only thing missing

I'd much rather have something open to the public situated on the site instead of another condo project.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman

Here's an old rendering of Ballpark Village which shows the future Marriott site on the bottom. To the right of it (the white buildings) is the Transportation Center.

If the position of the new Marriott towers remain the same, check out how one tower would be situated almost perfectly behind home plate. They's be smart to include a rooftop lounge so people can watch the game from there. Although from 500' up, the people may look more like ants than players.

eburress · #**1903** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?

There was a lot of uncertainty (just like Cosmo, Library Tower, and the rest of our proposed projects), but I didn't see anything that indicated the project was any more likely to happen than before. It's been "proposed" for some time.

mello · #**1904** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 3:04 AM**

^^^ Nah man "its gunna happen" *cracks knuckles*

San Diego Urban: You are right that would be the ultimate rooftop deck, you would still be able to tell what is going on from that high up. And that would be a huge attraction for sheezy. Damn just imagine how sick the skyline will be with these towers.... Oh yeah East Village comin up!

sandiegodweller · #**1905** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo

Well wasn't there some uncertainty whether the project was going to go forward?

The uncertainty lies in the residential developer. Lennar disbanded their San Diego Urban Division so I doubt that they are still involved.

sandiegodweller · #**1906** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 4:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban

Hey, 2 new forumers in the last couple of days - Welcome!

I think you'd change your opinion if you were ever to go into a new, state-of-the-art library in another city. Even the one in Phoenix had plenty of people in it when I was there, and I'm not talking about homeless or elderly people either. When the library branch in Mission Valley stayed open till 10:00pm, it would be packed until closing.

IMO, a new library is just what East Village needs to add more vibrancy to the streets. It already has condos, an office tower, restaurants, a park, a ballpark, the trolley runs through it, and it seems to be the only thing missing

I'd much rather have something open to the public situated on the site instead of another condo project.

If the position of the new Marriott towers remain the same, check out how one tower would be situated almost perfectly behind home plate. They's be smart to include a rooftop lounge so people can watch the game from there. Although from 500' up, the people may look more like ants than players.

Maybe they can put a Super Wal*Mart on the first few stories to help pay for the new library.

spoonman · #**1907** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 5:08 AM**

I have more information...

I have a link to the Marriott's Project Application with the city. It mentions that the towers will be at opposite ends of the site, as seen in the old renderings. Also it vaguely mentions the towers looking somewhat different, although I personally believe they will still look like twins from a distance.

Here's the link:

http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/Ballpark%20Village%20Project%20%20Application_Marriott.pdf

spoonman · #**1908** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 5:45 AM**

Here are blueprints of the towers too
http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/Marriott%20Convention%20Hotel%20Blueprints%20(206%20KB).pdf

SDCAL · #**1909** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 6:18 PM**

so I guess it will be another regular Marriott, not a JW marriott or anything? The plans just say "Marriott Convention Hotel"

I really hope they decide on a JW to set it apart, we have too many Marriott's already

sandiego_urban · #**1910** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 6:48 PM**

^^Well, not necessarily. They could just be calling it that now, and branding it a different name later on. I'd like to see them make each tower a different hotel, but I don't think that will happen.

...and speaking of towers, those blueprints make it look like another set of rectangular-shaped twin towers.

We can only hope that it's just a preliminary design.

spoonman · #**1911** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL

so I guess it will be another regular Marriott, not a JW marriott or anything? The plans just say "Marriott Convention Hotel"

I really hope they decide on a JW to set it apart, we have too many Marriott's already

I agree! I'd like to see it have some technical distinction. The good news though is that from what I read, Marriott wants to make it the premier convention center hotel, which would indicate that it will at least be as nice as the Manchester Grand. The only problem with making it a luxury hotel is the size. At close to 1700 rooms, that would be very difficult to support in most cities.

bushman61988 · #**1912** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman

I agree! I'd like to see it have some technical distinction. The good news though is that from what I read, Marriott wants to make it the premier convention center hotel, which would indicate that it will at least be as nice as the Manchester Grand.

Yea, another twin tower type building would be awful! can you imagine, the whole skyline viewed from the waterfront at every, you would seem twin towers...the Grande, Harborview, Horizons, the Beautiful blue marriott.

"At least be as nice as the Manchester Grand"? Regarding the architecture? Because if they mean the architecture of the new Marriott would be at least as nice as Manchester, then that's definitely not saying much...

visionary · #**1913** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 10:25 PM**

http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.projectDetail&propertyID=635

spoonman · #**1914** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 11:21 PM**

DowntownSDJoe · #**1915** Posted **Jul 13, 2007, 11:28 PM**

visionary??whats new about that, we have already seen it.....do you think that this project will actually get started this year??? isnt that taco shop still there

bmfarley · #**1916** Posted **Jul 14, 2007, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DowntownSDJoe

visionary??whats new about that, we have already seen it.....do you think that this project will actually get started this year??? isnt that taco shop still there

Well, I noticed that the project page was updated. Note the new nate; July 12, 2007.

SDCAL · #**1917** Posted **Jul 14, 2007, 1:43 PM**

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site

keg92101 · #**1918** Posted **Jul 14, 2007, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site

If you go back a few pages on this thread, someone informed us that the Cosmo site is being "quitely shopped", meaning the developers are trying to unload the site. I honestly doubt any new residential projects in the East Village will start over the next year and a half. However, Hotel Indigo will break ground at the end of this year, the Marriott Residence Inn has recently broken ground, as has the affordable housing portion of Ballpark Village (16th & Market). The only residential project that could start over the next year and a half would be the 7th & Market site, and that is only because the Related Companies has so much cash, they can get financing when others cannot. I am more excited, living in the area, about more and more retail coming to the area.

http://eastvillagesandiego.blogspot.com/

mongoXZ · #**1919** Posted **Jul 14, 2007, 3:16 PM**

Even if this is true or not about Cosmo Square then I think the lot would be developed at the earliest part of the next building cycle. It's too prominent of a site (next to the ballpark, gaslamp) to not get built on for a long period of time.

bmfarley · #**1920** Posted **Jul 14, 2007, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL

that project, along with half the things on the CCDC site say the project will start in "late 2007". Cosmo square and library tower are among the others, and we know those keep getting pushed-out

I would like to know how CCDC determines what start timeframes to put on these projects???? I am starting to get the impression they just list random timeframes for projects that are stalled to try to keep the interest and make their site look updated. It is VERY annoying, though, because it gives hope that the projects will start and then they don't. If the project is on hold they should just say "on-hold" or "construction dates unknown"

Cosmo Square is a perfect example. Since the beginning of the year it said it would start constuctions in "Spring '07", so March April and May I would walk by each week looking for any signs of activitiy and nothing. Now Cosmo says "Late 2007" start on the CCDC website and I am wondering if there is any credibility to that or if their update at the end of 2007 will assign some other random date.

I can only hope the mulitude of things that say they will start late 2007 actually get started and I hope CCDC isn't just using random phantom dates on their site

Yeah, I noticed that too about the CCDC project listings. And, the project description for the above linked project by visionary.... didn't look any different than when i reviewed it a week or two prior. Just the update date looked .... well, updated. It's a nice looking building tho... hope it gets built.

Onto First & J.... I could have sworn someone wrote that the Marriot at that location had finally started construction. Is that true? because I thought I walked by the site yesterday and saw zero activity had occurred. Do I have the location incorrect? Is there a web cam on the spot?