Quote:
Originally Posted by dales5050
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!
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.
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?
|
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?
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.