SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[eburress]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Mmm.... me too. I live near Love Field for a year, then near Forest & Marsh Lane... then in Denton Tx. I have family in Mansfield.

See, I really do think half the people in San Diego used to live in Dallas...and if not in Dallas, somewhere in Texas. Not to get too off-topic, but when I bought my house in Carmel Valley, it turned out that the people I bought it from were moving to Dallas, the neighbors on both sides were from Dallas, and the guy in the house behind mine was a childhood friend of mine who grew up in the same neighborhood in Richardson. Weird.

[Marina_Guy]

Originally Posted by tdavis

The waterfront of downtown San Diego is right now honestly a joke. I love San Diego and with our wonderful climate and ability to be outdoors 24/7 this city is lacking in vision. New York City has the amazing Battery Park with ferry's, restaurants, and streets vendors. Australia has beautiful waterfront parks with beaches, open lawns. Miami has South Beach. And San Diego, which arguable has the better climate than all, has a fairly narrow sidewalk full of homeless people running between a run-down cruise ship terminal area to the convention center.

And personally, though I like the design of the convention center, I think it walls off a large portion of our bay from downtown. In reality, when convention center attendees go to the halls they are stuck inside and don't see the bay anyway. It should have been designed a few blocks inland, allowing for that area to be accessible by all downtown residents and visitors to enjoy the bay.

And the failed deck near the Hilton, though very flawed in the way it was presented to the public and thrown together at what seemed the last minute, at least offered a glimpse of what could be offered for downtown residents and visitors.

I've had 3 friends visit in the past 6 months. Each loved the beaches, Balboa Park, and the weather of course. But, when I took them downtown each mentioned that they felt the area was uninviting and was boring (minus Gaslamp to Petco), and I caught myself having to defend things that in the long run I guess I agreed with them on.

My best-friend from college said last week - "I thought San Diego was supposed to be a great coastal city. Coronado and La Jolla have obviously embraced the coast, but San Diego seems to not care about the waterfront at all."

Thanks for your comments. Very well put. These issues have been around for decades downtown and the vision to embrace the waterfront has never been articulated by our leaders. View corridors continue to be compromised, public spaces are poorly designed, and those who show up for public meetings on these issues are just NIMBYs or conspiracy theorists. Just think about this... The council district that represents downtown also represents Pt Loma and the Beaches... Good god.

[kpexpress]

Originally Posted by eburress

See, I really do think half the people in San Diego used to live in Dallas...and if not in Dallas, somewhere in Texas. Not to get too off-topic, but when I bought my house in Carmel Valley, it turned out that the people I bought it from were moving to Dallas, the neighbors on both sides were from Dallas, and the guy in the house behind mine was a childhood friend of mine who grew up in the same neighborhood in Richardson. Weird.

I worked in Dallas over the summer. I lived on Mockingbird Lane next to the DART Station. Interesting town.

[SDCAL]

Originally Posted by tdavis
"The waterfront of downtown San Diego is right now honestly a joke"

Well, it looks like it's going to stay a joke much longer. Now Lane Field is stalled by the state coastal commission:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The California Coastal Commission has failed to approve a Coastal Development Permit for two high rise hotels on San Diego’s downtown waterfront. KPBS reporter Alison St John has more.


Port District officials say they’re disappointed. They believe the 200 foot high hotel/retail project at Lane Field will jump start improvements on San Diego’s Embarcadero.

Back in the 1950s, Lane Field was a stadium: the home of the Padres.
Currently, it’s a 5 acre parking lot at the foot of Broadway, next to the cruise ship terminal.

San Diego City councilman Ben Hueso sits on the Coastal Commission. He says the project needs to offer more solutions to increased traffic and less parking.

Hueso : We’re looking at a very large scale development along the water front, and I think all these issue regarding mass transit and parking, that all those lose ends be completely resolved when this project is approved.

The Port District’s plan offers underground parking with nearly 1300 spaces. It includes a shuttle service from the Embarcadero to downtown, and other tourist spots.

The Coastal Commission may consider the project again at their January meeting in San Diego.

Alison St John, KPBS news.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WRITE BEN HUESO A LETTER OF OUTRAGE

I am all for environmental issues, and I see the problems with Navy Broadway Complex, but come on - Lane Field? The buildings aren't even that high and they were going to put 1,300 underground parking spaces.

How the hell is leaving this a litter-collecting parking lot better for the environment???????

If we wait for all the mass-transit to come together perfectly before moving forward, we will be waiting 100 years

Has Hueso ever thought that development will help speed-up mass transit projects, not vice-versa??

ugh, this city makes me ill

[bushman61988]

Originally Posted by SDCAL

Originally Posted by tdavis
"The waterfront of downtown San Diego is right now honestly a joke"

Well, it looks like it's going to stay a joke much longer. Now Lane Field is stalled by the state coastal commission:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The California Coastal Commission has failed to approve a Coastal Development Permit for two high rise hotels on San Diego’s downtown waterfront. KPBS reporter Alison St John has more.


Port District officials say they’re disappointed. They believe the 200 foot high hotel/retail project at Lane Field will jump start improvements on San Diego’s Embarcadero.

Back in the 1950s, Lane Field was a stadium: the home of the Padres.
Currently, it’s a 5 acre parking lot at the foot of Broadway, next to the cruise ship terminal.

San Diego City councilman Ben Hueso sits on the Coastal Commission. He says the project needs to offer more solutions to increased traffic and less parking.

Hueso : We’re looking at a very large scale development along the water front, and I think all these issue regarding mass transit and parking, that all those lose ends be completely resolved when this project is approved.

The Port District’s plan offers underground parking with nearly 1300 spaces. It includes a shuttle service from the Embarcadero to downtown, and other tourist spots.

The Coastal Commission may consider the project again at their January meeting in San Diego.

Alison St John, KPBS news.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WRITE BEN HUESO A LETTER OF OUTRAGE

I am all for environmental issues, and I see the problems with Navy Broadway Complex, but come on - Lane Field? The buildings aren't even that high and they were going to put 1,300 underground parking spaces.

How the hell is leaving this a litter-collecting parking lot better for the environment???????

If we wait for all the mass-transit to come together perfectly before moving forward, we will be waiting 100 years

Has Hueso ever thought that development will help speed-up mass transit projects, not vice-versa??

ugh, this city makes me ill

With the economy and credit markets as bad as they all are, it would not surprise me one bit if this project did get approved just to be shelved for a few years until everything improves.


Hopefully, with the Lane Field developers having to kind of go back to the drawing boards to correct some errors, they will come back with the original proposal with the two sail towers and not this twin-tower crap. Frankly, it's almost better that nothing be there at all than the current proposal of a bland, short, sad pair of high-end, bougie luxury towers for elite tourists on one of the most prime waterfront locations on the west coast...which is so San Diego...

[staplesla]

3:37 p.m. November 17, 2008
CHULA VISTA – Gaylord Entertainment, the developer that Chula Vista hoped would finally turn around the city's bayfront with a $1 billion hotel and convention center, has pulled out of the project citing funding hurdles.

In a letter to Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox and Port District president Bruce Hollingsworth, Gaylord vice president Bennett Westbrook said he is disappointed with the outcome.

Even though the company made strides in smoothing community conflicts and negotiating the regulations governing bayfront development, it was not enough, Westbrook said in the letter.

“We have been unable to overcome perhaps the biggest hurdle of the project – funding the enormous infrastructure costs associated with the bayfront redevelopment in a manner that will generate adequate financial returns for Gaylord, the port and the city,” the letter says.

Councilman Steve Castaneda said the news is unfortunate.

“This community has banded together and worked very hard and has been very supportive (of Gaylord),” he said. “I think it was important to know exactly what the future was with Gaylord.”
Last week Castaneda raised questions about whether Gaylord was still coming to Chula Vista in light of its recent decision to build in Arizona. Gaylord officials said they were still committed to Chula Vista.

In a memo to the Mayor and City Council, interim City Manager Scott Tulloch said he would be meeting with staff to review Gaylord's decision and determine the next steps for the bayfront.

Gaylord was proposing a resort hotel of 1,500 to 2,000 rooms, 400,000 square feet of meeting space, shops, a spa and fitness center, six restaurants and a rooftop bar.

“We need to get back on the horse and start over,” Castaneda said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...17gaylord.html

[Crackertastik]

Originally Posted by staplesla

3:37 p.m. November 17, 2008
CHULA VISTA – Gaylord Entertainment, the developer that Chula Vista hoped would finally turn around the city's bayfront with a $1 billion hotel and convention center, has pulled out of the project citing funding hurdles.

In a letter to Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox and Port District president Bruce Hollingsworth, Gaylord vice president Bennett Westbrook said he is disappointed with the outcome.

Even though the company made strides in smoothing community conflicts and negotiating the regulations governing bayfront development, it was not enough, Westbrook said in the letter.

“We have been unable to overcome perhaps the biggest hurdle of the project – funding the enormous infrastructure costs associated with the bayfront redevelopment in a manner that will generate adequate financial returns for Gaylord, the port and the city,” the letter says.

Councilman Steve Castaneda said the news is unfortunate.

“This community has banded together and worked very hard and has been very supportive (of Gaylord),” he said. “I think it was important to know exactly what the future was with Gaylord.”
Last week Castaneda raised questions about whether Gaylord was still coming to Chula Vista in light of its recent decision to build in Arizona. Gaylord officials said they were still committed to Chula Vista.

In a memo to the Mayor and City Council, interim City Manager Scott Tulloch said he would be meeting with staff to review Gaylord's decision and determine the next steps for the bayfront.

Gaylord was proposing a resort hotel of 1,500 to 2,000 rooms, 400,000 square feet of meeting space, shops, a spa and fitness center, six restaurants and a rooftop bar.

“We need to get back on the horse and start over,” Castaneda said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...17gaylord.html

This is potentially bad news and potentially good news. I think this may open a flip flop play for Chula Vista and the Chargers. Instead of waiting endlessly for the Powerplant issue (itll be a while) to resolve, the Chargers should move hard to utilize this land for the stadium and development of hotel/living/leisure/park. And then say they will assist with the development of the Powerplant site later once that issue is resolved in the building of a convention center, more hotels, and restaurants/bars, etc.

Basically do the stadium first on the available site with the known entity that wants to do development on the bayfront, and do the development gaylord was to do with an unknown entity on a site that will become free later. flip flop the order and locations.

No need to let the bayfront sit there forever in limbo. Get to work on what wants to be built now.

[ceejay]

How about Lane Field as the new home of the San Diego Chargers? Imagine a beautiful (architecture complimenting the harbor) stadium at the core of downtown, views of the bay and One America Plaza hovering over, and Santa Fe Depot as it's main transportation hub. We can only dream San Diego.....or can we make it happen!!!!! Our one shot at opportunity!

[lakegz]

That company has GOT to change its name!

[tdavis]

Originally Posted by ceejay

How about Lane Field as the new home of the San Diego Chargers? Imagine a beautiful (architecture complimenting the harbor) stadium at the core of downtown, views of the bay and One America Plaza hovering over, and Santa Fe Depot as it's main transportation hub. We can only dream San Diego.....or can we make it happen!!!!! Our one shot at opportunity!

We already have the convention center walling off part of the bay, we don't need another huge building doing the same at the north side of the Embarcadero.

[dl3000]

Yeah Lane Field is no place for a stadium. That property is too prime anyway.

[eburress]

IMO, an even more ideal place for a stadium would be over at Lindbergh Field.

[kpexpress]

The area where Lindbergh field is a zoned NOT for airport use, rather "special zone" indicating that the city, maybe someday, will actually use it for something really "special" as the zoning name indicates. I would love to see a series of canals (being that it is at sea level) sort of like Venice around an impressive multi sports arena (something impressive like what's in Beijing). That way we could finally host a summer games and people could go to the charger games on their boats and restaurant/bar hop on their boats like they do in Ft. Lauderdale. That would be sweet, but the zoning would have to be strict not to bring too much competition to downtown high rises.

With the airport gone (hopefully Miramar, with transit [high speed] to downtown) we would finally see a 1000 footer built in the core. I am betting this will happen on the lot that is currently occupied by the old California Theater (C Street and 5th Ave).

As for the convention center, it IS a wall that really blocks all view corridors to the bay and access (until the harbor bridge pedestrian bridge is completed) for all East Village and most of the Gaslamp from accessing the bay. Any further developments (which I am in support of) should be done like they do in Vancouver (Our city already looks so much like it) there they expand perpendicular to the bay front out on piers into the harbor. This is how it should have been done in the first place. And the railroad/trolley tracks should be built underground and harbor drive too, this will open up more land for development and open park area in that area, but if there was decent access to the bay than we wouldn't need more park space, people would ACTUALLY use those embarcedaro parks that are on the bayside of the convention center.

Okay, i am gettting off my soapbox. Any comments?

[staplesla]

Originally Posted by kpexpress

The area where Lindbergh field is a zoned NOT for airport use, rather "special zone" indicating that the city, maybe someday, will actually use it for something really "special" as the zoning name indicates. I would love to see a series of canals (being that it is at sea level) sort of like Venice around an impressive multi sports arena (something impressive like what's in Beijing). That way we could finally host a summer games and people could go to the charger games on their boats and restaurant/bar hop on their boats like they do in Ft. Lauderdale. That would be sweet, but the zoning would have to be strict not to bring too much competition to downtown high rises.

With the airport gone (hopefully Miramar, with transit [high speed] to downtown) we would finally see a 1000 footer built in the core. I am betting this will happen on the lot that is currently occupied by the old California Theater (C Street and 5th Ave).

As for the convention center, it IS a wall that really blocks all view corridors to the bay and access (until the harbor bridge pedestrian bridge is completed) for all East Village and most of the Gaslamp from accessing the bay. Any further developments (which I am in support of) should be done like they do in Vancouver (Our city already looks so much like it) there they expand perpendicular to the bay front out on piers into the harbor. This is how it should have been done in the first place. And the railroad/trolley tracks should be built underground and harbor drive too, this will open up more land for development and open park area in that area, but if there was decent access to the bay than we wouldn't need more park space, people would ACTUALLY use those embarcedaro parks that are on the bayside of the convention center.

Okay, i am gettting off my soapbox. Any comments?

I agree with your comments. For the last 3 years I've worked on a similar canal project for the city of Fort Worth. They are flooding part of the area north of downtown to create a city lake and canals. The army corps of engineers started the change in the waterways a few months ago, and about 15 of the mid to high-rise structures are being built in the area that is now being called "Uptown." Tulsa has a similar project under development called Tulsa Channels.

Anyway, the Trinity River Vision has created a lot of buzz in Fort Worth and developers are lining up right and left to build in the area. Here are some pics of the Uptown Fort Worth Development.

[Crackertastik]

Hey, seeing as we are talking about the airport area...here is my vision.

A forum guy here or on SSC provided a map of uptown that i built upon. (THX) So basically i built out downtown SD 2050 with a big emphasis on greenery and iconic buildings. From the 5 to the waterfront there is a lowrise avenue with green roof parks. Harbor drive is underground with park on top that goes from downtown to uptown and follow it all the way to the convention center. I expanded the convention center with my own idea. Again more greenery.

There is a ton of park space for the transition from downtown to uptown. This is filled with either open space or low rise allowing a great view corridor for the hills. Uptown is like my urban interpretation of central park. A huge park with surrounding urban density. Reverse central park. This is mostly iconic buildings and tall. Tallest of the two areas. Also i added a low to mid level building/canal design. So lots of San Antonio river walk style areas. And of course a huge open waterfront with view corridors open. Lastly, a nice opera house and arena on the bay.

overview...


from overhead...

downtown from northern tip of coronado...


downtown/midtown transition...


uptown from northern coronado...


my convention center idea...stacked level on top, glass walls on both east and west sides and roof park...


Skyline from horizon showing both uptown and downtown...

[kpexpress]

This would be a HUGE disservice to San Diego. We DONT need a central park, we have Balboa Park (the largest urban park in North America) we need transit going up fifth avenue to the park and hillcrest. The model that you have posted here, is great in detail, but all of which would really not go well for the city. First of all, this is San Dubai, not the classic southern california lazy beach city that it is. Now don't get me wrong, I love progressive everything, and the thought of San Diego being called lazy drives me crazy, but this is not the answer. We are a community with our own identity, not an eclectic wannabe.

[Crackertastik]

Originally Posted by kpexpress

This would be a HUGE disservice to San Diego. We DONT need a central park, we have Balboa Park (the largest urban park in North America) we need transit going up fifth avenue to the park and hillcrest. The model that you have posted here, is great in detail, but all of which would really not go well for the city. First of all, this is San Dubai, not the classic southern california lazy beach city that it is. Now don't get me wrong, I love progressive everything, and the thought of San Diego being called lazy drives me crazy, but this is not the answer. We are a community with our own identity, not an eclectic wannabe.

You have no idea how badly you contradict yourself in this statement and past statements. You love progressive everything yet hold firmly onto the classic southern california lazy "beach city" idea. San Diego is not a lazy beach city. It is the home of over a million people with beaches AND urban areas. The conservative mindset you display here is why things NEVER change in our city.

Secondly, you state with a touch of spite that we are a community with our own identity and not an eclectic wannabe, yet throw out ideas of canals like Venice, Italy. SO original and VERY Southern California.

And i never said do a central park, i know of Balboa Park. I said an urban interpretation of central park. Meaning open space surrounding "an island" of urbanism. That is not a wannabe idea as i can't think of many places with that concept. Nothing within the bay of San Diego jeopardizes your lazy beach city dream. As far as i can tell, the crescent area of San Diego as it is now doesn't seem to effect the lazy beach city idea, and its a dang airport right now.

Perhaps it is too Dubai, meaning vertical, for your taste, and that is fine, but let's try to not contradict ourselves and spew gospel that isn't gospel when really its just your opinion that differs.

[SDDTProspector]

Crackertastik nailed it.....

Great vision, Like the fact that its a city, not a tourist destination/ scam.

I could see "sea world proudly presents the canals of italy in san diego", forget the fluff give me some substance, a real city......

[dl3000]

Originally Posted by Crackertastik

You have no idea how badly you contradict yourself in this statement and past statements. You love progressive everything yet hold firmly onto the classic southern california lazy "beach city" idea. San Diego is not a lazy beach city. It is the home of over a million people with beaches AND urban areas. The conservative mindset you display here is why things NEVER change in our city.

Secondly, you state with a touch of spite that we are a community with our own identity and not an eclectic wannabe, yet throw out ideas of canals like Venice, Italy. SO original and VERY Southern California.

And i never said do a central park, i know of Balboa Park. I said an urban interpretation of central park. Meaning open space surrounding "an island" of urbanism. That is not a wannabe idea as i can't think of many places with that concept. Nothing within the bay of San Diego jeopardizes your lazy beach city dream. As far as i can tell, the crescent area of San Diego as it is now doesn't seem to effect the lazy beach city idea, and its a dang airport right now.

Perhaps it is too Dubai, meaning vertical, for your taste, and that is fine, but let's try to not contradict ourselves and spew gospel that isn't gospel when really its just your opinion that differs.

I really like the design. Gives other west coast skylines like San Francisco a run for their money. I had a similar idea, I really like the green belt around the vertical urban core but in my idea there would be a nice intermodal terminal nestled somewhere to the northeast or northwest of where you have the Uptown Green that would converge pretty much all the transportation for the region like high speed rail, trolley, whatever else futuristic transit (subway in my dreams), brt, bus, amtrak. That way they dont need to route the high speed rail through the dense urban street network they can just cut it under the 5 right into this terminal. also an airport express train can depart from here since the airport will obviously be somewhere else, potentially far. it would basically replace Santa Fe and santa fe would be more a landmark trolley station maybe turned museum. just my 2 cents. otherwise i love the layout. just because san diego has awesome beach communities, a vibrant iconic downtown wont take away from that.

[Crackertastik]

Originally Posted by dl3000

I really like the design. Gives other west coast skylines like San Francisco a run for their money. I had a similar idea, I really like the green belt around the vertical urban core but in my idea there would be a nice intermodal terminal nestled somewhere to the northeast or northwest of where you have the Uptown Green that would converge pretty much all the transportation for the region like high speed rail, trolley, whatever else futuristic transit (subway in my dreams), brt, bus, amtrak. That way they dont need to route the high speed rail through the dense urban street network they can just cut it under the 5 right into this terminal. also an airport express train can depart from here since the airport will obviously be somewhere else, potentially far. it would basically replace Santa Fe and santa fe would be more a landmark trolley station maybe turned museum. just my 2 cents. otherwise i love the layout. just because san diego has awesome beach communities, a vibrant iconic downtown wont take away from that.

I think that idea is PERFECT. A hub that heads east for the airport, north for the high speed rail to LA, and is central to both downtown and uptown. That would be THE BEST THING EVER in capital letters. Imagine Tourists coming in to San Diego, by plane and then rail to the hub, or by high speed rail from up north. Both entering the city before embarking and having so many choices. The bayfront is sitting there in site over an expansive green area. A tall viewing tower. The Uptown City to the west or the Downtown City to the south. Local lines to move you around both up and downtown, mission valley, to Chula Vista's waterfront, to Coronado Island, to Mission Bay and to the Beaches.

Why not also create a canal project spanning from the big bay to the little bay. There was an idea floating around about this at one point. That way the canal idea has function and style.

I also envision an iconic bridge in 2100 spanning from north coronado island to the center of the uptown area. If the Navy were to ever unload Coronado Island you would see a HUGE residential boom there, and the need to get those people to uptown and the 5 freeway. That is assuming military strategy in 2100 would be different (and no i don't WISH that would happen, i can just envision it).