SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

Either these journos have a very different definition of "downtown" than everyone else on the planet, or they've gotten some very erroneous information. Downtown SD, as defined as everything west of the 5, north of the Coronado bridge, and south of Midway only covers 4.53 square miles. When you take out the airport, the recruiting depot, the 10th Ave marine terminal and the port tidelands (which legally can't have permanent housing built on them) that's an area of just under 2.3 square miles. Every survey I've seen gives a current pop of under 40k, and the latest housing plans don't anticipate a pop of over 100k until after 2050. 200k would mean we currently have a greater population density than Manhattan....

Commercial real estate brokers like JLL aren't trying to define "downtown." They divide the city so their agents can specialize and to have something for statistics. It might be the same zone as their office stats. In some cities, some brokers even do everything within city limits as "downtown."

That said, everyone else has a similar idea...they divide things for administrative or planning reasons, whether it's the downtown advocacy group or a city planning department. They're not trying to academically ponder what's really "downtown" and what isn't, aside from their specific mission (planning: plan for downtown improvement including future growth into new areas).

[HurricaneHugo]

Wow that's a beautiful skyline picture!

Can't wait until the gaps are filled!

[HurricaneHugo]

Anybody know what's going up on Hotel Circle South, west of the 163?

They took down like 3 hotels and are building something big

[mello]

Hugo: That is the big Christian themed hotel being built by some whack job old televangelist just google : Mission Valley Christian hotel. It will have wailing wall replica and a conference center.

The infill that North Park Wizard just posted in East Village is built on top of that shitty little yellow "Historic Home" some people may challenge because it is being built on top of it so that project is not a go yet just saw article on it in UT today. That house is a peace of crap can't believe what gets designated as historic. Especially when there is the gem of a historic residence right next to it on the corner who the hell would pay attention to the little yellow cottage in the back.

Will O' Wisp: Have you heard anything about Bosa moving forward with Pacific Highway and Broadway? I hope that one gets going soon not sure how much a gap filler it would be. Would you guys rather have Manchesters Project with the tall towers to the South and lowers stuff to North (opposite of how it is arranged)? I think for skyline purposes it would be better.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by mello

Will O' Wisp: Have you heard anything about Bosa moving forward with Pacific Highway and Broadway? I hope that one gets going soon not sure how much a gap filler it would be. Would you guys rather have Manchesters Project with the tall towers to the South and lowers stuff to North (opposite of how it is arranged)? I think for skyline purposes it would be better.

I'm not directly connected with Bosa or the city planning dept, so all I have is my eyes and what other people write. My eyes tell me there's currently several Bosa trailers in that parking lot but no construction equipment, and others have written that city approved the necessary zoning changes in 2016 so they could have started construction by now if they wanted to. My guess is that with Pacific Gate only about half full atm, Bosa is trying to keep from dumping too much too fast into the market. Wouldn't be too much of a gap filler though seeing as One America Plaza already is right behind it, and slightly taller to boot.

While a full row of 20+ story buildings along the waterfront would have been neat, and I'm certain Doug Manchester would have loved to build it, it just was never an option. The marina district was some of the first housing built during downtown's renewal, a lot of it low rise townhomes. They fought like demons over the last 30 years to hold up this project, and managed to win concessions at a very early stage to have a stepdown to the level of the Embassy Suites.

By all rights we're lucky to get what we have, you wouldn't have something been able to build something nearly this big if it were proposed today. In the mid 2010 the Coastal Commission even tried to renege on the approval they gave back in the 90s, back when the area residents were less well connected and the CC more development friendly, but eventually were forced to settle for Manchester replacing some of the office space with a museum.

[mello]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

.

Fascinating stuff about the Marina District people in those crappy town homes fighting development at the Navy Site. I had never heard that before. Any links to articles elaborating on that?

Regarding BOSA tower in front of One America Plaza, if they began digging today it wouldn't be move in ready for what 2.5 years? Pac Gate is ready now so how would that be dumping too many units on the market. Logically now seems to be a great time to start because he loves to space out his projects, Savina will have residents moving in 8 months from now so hopefully he gets going on that tower soon.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by mello

Fascinating stuff about the Marina District people in those crappy town homes fighting development at the Navy Site. I had never heard that before. Any links to articles elaborating on that?

Regarding BOSA tower in front of One America Plaza, if they began digging today it wouldn't be move in ready for what 2.5 years? Pac Gate is ready now so how would that be dumping too many units on the market. Logically now seems to be a great time to start because he loves to space out his projects, Savina will have residents moving in 8 months from now so hopefully he gets going on that tower soon.

Most newspaper articles are going to be generous and just say "community members" or "local residents" but lets face it, the people down in Mission Valley aren't the ones complaining this development will wall off the waterfront or something like that. I don't have the time to go digging through years old newspaper articles about the 8+ lawsuits the project survived, but google "San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition" and "Cory Briggs" for some highlights.

I'm just going to restate that I'm not affiliated with BOSA or city planning, so honestly I have no idea. There's been almost total radio silence on this project, so it's anyone's guess until we get some new info. I've found a few sites which say 2020 (example), but I wouldn't take that as the gospel personally though.

[embora]

Here's a link to a proposal being called "The Post." I think it's the redevelopment of the Post Office in Midway: http://www.postcoastal.com/wp-conten...Brochure_2.pdf

Here's a UT article about the same:

Upscale office complex could spur revitalization of sports arena area

David Garrick,Contact Reporter, San Diego Union Tribune

Developers have unveiled plans to transform the long-vacant Midway postal complex into an upscale and modern office campus that could serve as a catalyst to redevelopment of the entire area around San Diego’s sports arena.
The same developers are expected to soon unveil plans for dense housing – apartments or condos – next to the proposed office campus, but those plans are still taking shape. None of the plans have been submitted to the city for approval yet.

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-midway-complex-20180511-story.html

[S.DviaPhilly]

[QUOTE=

The infill that North Park Wizard just posted in East Village is built on top of that shitty little yellow "Historic Home" some people may challenge because it is being built on top of it so that project is not a go yet just saw article on it in UT today. That house is a peace of crap can't believe what gets designated as historic. Especially when there is the gem of a historic residence right next to it on the corner who the hell would pay attention to the little yellow cottage in the back.

Will O' Wisp: Have you heard anything about Bosa moving forward with Pacific Highway and Broadway? I hope that one gets going soon not sure how much a gap filler it would be. Would you guys rather have Manchesters Project with the tall towers to the South and lowers stuff to North (opposite of how it is arranged)? I think for skyline purposes it would be better.[/QUOTE]

That infill project in East Village is shittier than that yellow house. Its a joke really. No parking with the project and there is already two buildings being renovated that offer no parking on that block. Plus the space seems to small to accommodate a building like that, it really encroaches on the beautiful historic home that the developer said may be moved (yeah right). The building offers 200-400sqft boxes with common area showers and only 6 of the 48 are designated low income. This is a developer trying to do the bare minimum and make a quick buck. I get we need housing especially more affordable units but we deserve buildings that do more than the bare minimum requires.

As for Bosa, was at the Savina sales center and Pacific Gate Building today. Savina is almost 50% sold out and Pacific Gate is around 70% sold out so the units are moving. When I was there, I did ask the sales people that work there what lot is next to be developed and asked if the lot across the street would be it. Salesperson said probably not, because that building would directly compete with sales at Pacific Gate. The Block is going up now at 8th and Boradway and is Bosa's first rental building ever. My guess would be a lot in East Village will be next on the docket for development so it will not be competing with P.G or Savina.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Kitchen/Living area model on the 22nd floor


Pacific Gate lobby


Pacific Gate lobby

Such an impressive building! Should of taken more pics of the exterior and interior but just did not think to

[mello]

S.Dvia Philly: are you sure you aren't one of the condo owners in the building right next to it mentioned in the UT article that are against the project. Its funny hearing downtown residents bitch about a project not having parking do you really think anyone will ever find parking in downtown residential areas anyway? The only parking downtown is right near the 5 in Skid row or up 5th/6th ave North of the 5. Other than that where in the hell can you realistically expect to ever consistently find surface parking downtown? And that is how it is i ANY successful downtown in the US.

How can the developer do underground parking and save that yellow shitbox house? Or do you suggest he move the yellow house like most other developers end up doing?

What is with SD anyway and having to protect super crappy "historic" structures when we have this housing crisis. Frankly its kind of embarrassing seeing some of these old rundown flop house type of structures in our urban core it makes our downtown look quasi quaint and small minded all at the same time. Like someone from Seattle or SF seeing the kinds of structures still standing a few blocks from our bank buildings near Symphony Towers would think "What the hell they have this crap right in their downtown?"

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly

That infill project in East Village is shittier than that yellow house. Its a joke really. No parking with the project and there is already two buildings being renovated that offer no parking on that block. Plus the space seems to small to accommodate a building like that, it really encroaches on the beautiful historic home that the developer said may be moved (yeah right). The building offers 200-400sqft boxes with common area showers and only 6 of the 48 are designated low income. This is a developer trying to do the bare minimum and make a quick buck. I get we need housing especially more affordable units but we deserve buildings that do more than the bare minimum requires.

I call bulls***. We don't need to be encouraging car use downtown, which is transit rich. Our city's climate action goals are legally binding, and if we ever want to reach them we need to stop subsidizing parking for CO2 emitting machines. The fact is, this project provides affordable, climate friendly homes in one of the few places in our entire county where we can put them. And at least the developer wants to keep the thing in place rather than shipping it off to an outer neighborhood. And what may be a "box" to you is a home to others. Better than another Bosa tower barely anyone else can afford.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Originally Posted by SDfan

I call bulls***. We don't need to be encouraging car use downtown, which is transit rich. Our city's climate action goals are legally binding, and if we ever want to reach them we need to stop subsidizing parking for CO2 emitting machines. The fact is, this project provides affordable, climate friendly homes in one of the few places in our entire county where we can put them. And at least the developer wants to keep the thing in place rather than shipping it off to an outer neighborhood. And what may be a "box" to you is a home to others. Better than another Bosa tower barely anyone else can afford.

To each his own, 200sqft is a box - a kitchen, and living space in that amount of square footage is called a box. And climate friendly, what does that mean? This is a quick buck for the developer and that is it. The first rendering of the project showed the yellow house gone, but that house has to stay so now they just built around it. Developer said he thinks the city may move the historic Victorian home on the corner to fit this project. The city will not let him move the crappy yellow house, but he thinks they will move the Victorian - ok?!?! There is not enough room on that parcel for this building. Also, "transit rich" describing downtown is a pretty big reach. I barely drive (< less than 10,000 miles/year) but I still need a place to park my car when I am not driving, just like most people who live downtown.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Originally Posted by mello

S.Dvia Philly: are you sure you aren't one of the condo owners in the building right next to it mentioned in the UT article that are against the project. Its funny hearing downtown residents bitch about a project not having parking do you really think anyone will ever find parking in downtown residential areas anyway? The only parking downtown is right near the 5 in Skid row or up 5th/6th ave North of the 5. Other than that where in the hell can you realistically expect to ever consistently find surface parking downtown? And that is how it is i ANY successful downtown in the US.

How can the developer do underground parking and save that yellow shitbox house? Or do you suggest he move the yellow house like most other developers end up doing?

What is with SD anyway and having to protect super crappy "historic" structures when we have this housing crisis. Frankly its kind of embarrassing seeing some of these old rundown flop house type of structures in our urban core it makes our downtown look quasi quaint and small minded all at the same time. Like someone from Seattle or SF seeing the kinds of structures still standing a few blocks from our bank buildings near Symphony Towers would think "What the hell they have this crap right in their downtown?"

I am pretty sure I was not one of those condo owners at the meeting, you go? And there is more parking than that downtown as you know, I am looking at cars parked on the street outside my window...weird!

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly

To each his own, 200sqft is a box - a kitchen, and living space in that amount of square footage is called a box. And climate friendly, what does that mean? This is a quick buck for the developer and that is it. The first rendering of the project showed the yellow house gone, but that house has to stay so now they just built around it. Developer said he thinks the city may move the historic Victorian home on the corner to fit this project. The city will not let him move the crappy yellow house, but he thinks they will move the Victorian - ok?!?! There is not enough room on that parcel for this building. Also, "transit rich" describing downtown is a pretty big reach. I barely drive (< less than 10,000 miles/year) but I still need a place to park my car when I am not driving, just like most people who live downtown.

Climate friendly as in encouraging alternative transportation use and discouraging SOV car use, which is the cause of nearly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in this state. IMO No one should have the right to a parking space, especially downtown. If live downtown and own a vehicle, pay for a parking space at a lot or garage, or better yet, don't own one and save the cash and climate, use the robust transit options and take advantage of the neighborhood amenities instead of driving to far flung strip malls. Just because you don't want to live in this project doesn't mean you should stop others from having the opportunity. That's why we are in this housing crisis.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Originally Posted by SDfan

Climate friendly as in encouraging alternative transportation use and discouraging SOV car use, which is the cause of nearly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in this state. IMO No one should have the right to a parking space, especially downtown. If live downtown and own a vehicle, pay for a parking space at a lot or garage, or better yet, don't own one and save the cash and climate, use the robust transit options and take advantage of the neighborhood amenities instead of driving to far flung strip malls. Just because you don't want to live in this project doesn't mean you should stop others from having the opportunity. That's why we are in this housing crisis.

People who live downtown own cars and want a parking spot. If I could take the trolley to my office then I would but I cannot so I drive there. Parking spaces already exist downtown, so people have the right to park in them. No parking downtown and park in garages, my assumption would be garages would inflate their monthly parking prices and it would be ridiculous. I do take advantage of the amenities downtown and rarely if ever go to strip malls. The transit in SD is not that great or I would use it more. Maybe you use transit more than I do, and do not own a car - wonderful. But most people own cars and need a place to park them - just the reality we live in. I am all for building, try and find another post where I say do not build a structure there. I usually say build more and build higher, but if you dig in and read about this place, to me it does not make sense. This city deserves better whether a Bosa building or low-income being built. Once built, these structures are here for the rest of our lifetime (probably)

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly

People who live downtown own cars and want a parking spot. If I could take the trolley to my office then I would but I cannot so I drive there. Parking spaces already exist downtown, so people have the right to park in them. No parking downtown and park in garages, my assumption would be garages would inflate their monthly parking prices and it would be ridiculous. I do take advantage of the amenities downtown and rarely if ever go to strip malls. The transit in SD is not that great or I would use it more. Maybe you use transit more than I do, and do not own a car - wonderful. But most people own cars and need a place to park them - just the reality we live in. I am all for building, try and find another post where I say do not build a structure there. I usually say build more and build higher, but if you dig in and read about this place, to me it does not make sense. This city deserves better whether a Bosa building or low-income being built. Once built, these structures are here for the rest of our lifetime (probably)

People think because they own a car they are entitled to a parking space, but they aren't. No one has a right to park their car. No one has a right to own a car. It's a personal choice, and a privilege.

Similarly, no one is forced to live in an apartment complex without parking, they can choose to move into a more expensive complex that has one or pay for parking offsite.

When you require onsite parking, especially an underground garage, costs go up. Those relatively affordable 1300-1400/month units would be much more expensive if parking was included, pricing out those who need housing most. And for what? So entitled folks can have a place to park their private property? I think we need more affordable housing for people more than we need free housing for cars.

[JerellO]

Seriously. One of the main reasons people in this city choose to drive is because our transit system isn’t reliable and attractive... driving a car here is still much more attractive and honestly.. faster. We don’t have the same traffic and congestion like NYC or LA to the point we’re a Subway is faster or is a better experience than driving. I’ve taken the trolley to go to the gym and it took me 2 hours when it only takes me 20 min driving.

[mhays]

People can choose to rent or buy parking. But it's great when people aren't FORCED to do so. Obviously a lot of people don't have cars or want them.

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by JerellO

Seriously. One of the main reasons people in this city choose to drive is because our transit system isn’t reliable and attractive... driving a car here is still much more attractive and honestly.. faster. We don’t have the same traffic and congestion like NYC or LA to the point we’re a Subway is faster or is a better experience than driving. I’ve taken the trolley to go to the gym and it took me 2 hours when it only takes me 20 min driving.

That's your reality. No everyone else's. Someone may work, live and gym downtown, and they don't need a car or want to have to pay higher rent for a parking space they don't need. We should have more options for people, and encourage folks who live in urban spaces to use their cars less or not at all. It's better for the environment, our health and the climate. And a reminder all housing built downtown within the last 40 years has required parking and then some. We are not under-parked, we are the exact opposite. This project would provide a great alternative and we shouldn't NIMBY it because it may not fit our own lifestyle choices.