SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 - Page 369

Derek · #**7361** Posted **Oct 10, 2012, 6:37 AM**

That would work better in La Jolla, but at this point as long as the hideous parking lots are gone I'm satisfied.

aerogt3 · #**7362** Posted **Oct 10, 2012, 9:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress

At least Vantage Pointe doesn't have 4 levels of exposed parking screened by a green wall, that won't be kept up and will die off, that's anchored by a shitty shimmering wall that they stole from the Sparkles van.

This is the worst project proposed in downtown on the books currently. You guys need to look more into the ground level... or lack thereof.

It's appropriate for the neighborhood.... do you think a sleek high end tower with nice ground level frontage is necessary for a quiet, boring residential quarter, or even appropriate? The plan reflects what prices in that area will cover. I think it's a lot better than an old tire shop and a dirt lot....

mongoXZ · #**7363** Posted **Oct 10, 2012, 11:11 PM**

Re: Lane Field

Mid rise looks ok. I'm happy that it's a mid-rise so the design doesn't actually focus attention to itself from far away. But I do mind that it's a Homewood Suites. WTH? Can't it be some sort of higher end boutique hotel such as a Kimpton or at least a Marriott Rennaisance?

bushman61988 · #**7364** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipani

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/09/lane-field-hotels-approved-port/

I don't really like it, but at least it's unique and not that twin-tower concept they had earlier... even though I liked the sails design, we already have at least 4 different sets of twin towers on our skyline.

Are any of you planning on going to the San Diego Housing Federation conference? It's tomorrow and I went to the first day today and it was extremely informative and had great presentations about housing downtown and in the San Diego region in terms of financing, upcoming projects, developers, development process, etc. I really recommend you guys go!

http://www.housingsandiego.org/events-training/annual-conference/

LosAngelesDreamin · #**7365** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 3:56 AM**

Thats iconic????? I think we should go for another design.. i always thought something sleek looking like the proposed mixed use residential tower planned in front of electra, would look better... but oh well

TGBinSD · #**7366** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Thats iconic????? I think we should go for another design.. i always thought something sleek looking like the proposed mixed use residential tower planned in front of electra, would look better... but oh well

I agree. This would be a good proposal for east village, but definitely not waterfront. I, too, think it sucks this is a homewood suites. kimpton would be great. hell, most anything would be great compared to homewood suites.

spoonman · #**7367** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 2:46 PM**

Looks like another 2 years, and those lots will be gone.

The 880 Broadway office tower (also an empty lot) just got it's last extension for the design, so hopefully they'll have to bite the bullet and build as well.

Crackertastik · #**7368** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGBinSD

I agree. This would be a good proposal for east village, but definitely not waterfront. I, too, think it sucks this is a homewood suites. kimpton would be great. hell, most anything would be great compared to homewood suites.

The problem is that the feasibility a luxury brand doesn't pencil. I do Hotel feasibility analysis for a living, and upscale to luxury full service hotels are simply not penciling without some other component.

The alternative to this project isnt a nicer hotel, a luxury brand, even a nice full service brand. It is a parking lot, or offices or residential. I would personally argue that we should then sit tight or switch typology away from hospitality. The waterfront deserves better, even as a fan of the named brands. BUT, if hotels are wanted, the types of projects you want wont pencil.

San Diego, for better or worse has a rate ceiling downtown. $200 Average rate for upscale stuff. Give or take $20. Because of that, luxury product does not pencil. Downtown LA is seeing proposals for hotels with development cost of 350-400k per key. That is for upscale. DT SD would be as or more expensive, due to a higher land cost on the waterfront. The revenue doesnt provide enough top line to support development cost. Remember, luxury hotels operate at about low 30s profit margin. The homewoods, etc. operate much more profitable and are cheaper to build.

mello · #**7369** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 4:58 PM**

^^^ Ok then why hasn't a mixed use project been proposed there? Maybe 20 floors of hotel and 15 to 10 of office or residential, I think that would be great.

Crackertastik · #**7370** Posted **Oct 11, 2012, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

^^^ Ok then why hasn't a mixed use project been proposed there? Maybe 20 floors of hotel and 15 to 10 of office or residential, I think that would be great.

Great question. I have no idea why.

Id guess it is either zoned for Hospitality, or you have a developer who is thinking dollars and not legacy. There is probably a height restriction on that block lower than typical to not limit water views. So going tall may not be realistic.

What stinks is the for the developer this is a home run. Two well performing brands, with great following, that will do fantastic specifically at this site. They will be built probably a tad nicer than a typical for the brand. Trophy versions. But still cheap enough. For the company, Hilton, these are franchised properties. So fees on the top line will be great. This deal is a homerun.

The developer, with the exception of being driven by dollars, is not in the wrong. He is making a parking lot into a successful operation. A nice property probably. A home run deal. The hotel company, no fault either. Home run franchise deal.

The city though, MAJOR F. This is a prime property, and this deal is very shortsighted. They should adjust the zoning or their target expectation, and get something more meaningful into that site.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**7371** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

^^^ Ok then why hasn't a mixed use project been proposed there? Maybe 20 floors of hotel and 15 to 10 of office or residential, I think that would be great.

I'm guessing it would be to tall for a lot of people and they would complain about the tower blocking views and sunlight and all that BS

mello · #**7372** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 1:38 AM**

It would only block views for One America Plaza right? Do "people" really care about the view of lawyers in an office building?

kpexpress · #**7373** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3

It's appropriate for the neighborhood.... do you think a sleek high end tower with nice ground level frontage is necessary for a quiet, boring residential quarter, or even appropriate? The plan reflects what prices in that area will cover. I think it's a lot better than an old tire shop and a dirt lot....

4 levels of exposed above grade parking decorated with a green wall. terrible. I certainly think the brake depot sucks, but these suburban architects can do better than that, or hire a consultant that knows how to do it.

I think they got the point since they pulled it off the agenda after getting the CSD Staff report.

SDfan · #**7374** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress

4 levels of exposed above grade parking decorated with a green wall. terrible. I certainly think the brake depot sucks, but these suburban architects can do better than that, or hire a consultant that knows how to do it.

I think they got the point since they pulled it off the agenda after getting the CSD Staff report.

I'm not going to claim to be an architecturally savy guy, but I do know part of the problem with downtown is price point, at least for many young professionals and families. Now underground parking is ideal but it can add tens of millions of dollars to any project, costs that end up inflating the price of apartments and condos. Yeah 4 levels of above ground parking are bad from a visual standpoint, but couldn't their be a way to compromise and mitigate that by wrapping it with retail or apartments? Rather than outright chase these developers out of town with strict aesthetic guidelines?

I'm not saying things shouldn't be pretty, or that ground level retail shouldn't be promoted (although one could make the case that another block of empty store fronts is irritating enough because gawd knows a laundry mat, coffee shop or dry cleaners isn't going to be able to afford that rent...) but I am saying that we should maybe be a little more realistic about costs and benefits. Do we want an active and affordable downtown or do we want a upper-income bracket bedroom community of second and third home retirees?

Just saying. :/

bushman61988 · #**7375** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan

I'm not going to claim to be an architecturally savy guy, but I do know part of the problem with downtown is price point, at least for many young professionals and families. Now underground parking is ideal but it can add tens of millions of dollars to any project, costs that end up inflating the price of apartments and condos. Yeah 4 levels of above ground parking are bad from a visual standpoint, but couldn't their be a way to compromise and mitigate that by wrapping it with retail or apartments? Rather than outright chase these developers out of town with strict aesthetic guidelines?

I'm not saying things shouldn't be pretty, or that ground level retail shouldn't be promoted (although one could make the case that another block of empty store fronts is irritating enough because gawd knows a laundry mat, coffee shop or dry cleaners isn't going to be able to afford that rent...) but I am saying that we should maybe be a little more realistic about costs and benefits. Do we want an active and affordable downtown or do we want a upper-income bracket bedroom community of second and third home retirees?

Just saying. :/

SDFan, I could not agree with you anymore

. I think sometimes we're too picky or critical of projects without realizing the time, effort, and money that goes into getting them designed and approved. It's extremely easy for us to nitpick every detail of a building and talk about what it should look like without considering the economics of the project or the developer.

I think it's OK to have mediocre buildings in the heart of the Core where they're dwarfed by the larger office towers.

And when it comes to above-ground parking, I think that's fairly easily remedied by having it surrounded by retail or at least covered. I'd rather have more affordable housing and more units than forcing projects to build underground parking.

Obviously if it's on a prime location like the waterfront, that's different, though.

mello · #**7376** Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 8:59 PM**

I'm going to have to agree with the last two posts regarding packing in certain sections of downtown with as many units as possible at decent prices. The last two times I've been downtown I have been surprised at how many parcels are still left to be built on. I would say there are still about 50 to 60 at least. We have a long way to go before we can be uber picky on every project especially back by City College.

We aren't Vancouver yet guys so lets try to get critical mass going and pack in residents first. We also do need to address why dry cleaners and other neighborhood retail places can't afford to lease the bottom of these new developments. That is not good and frankly around Petco Park it looks like the "For Lease Village" not the "East Village"

I took my friend from Denver down there to see a Padre game and it was embarrassing walking past countless empty spaces.