|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 22, 2015 8:28:08 GMT -8
Now that we have a minor league hockey team coming back to the Sports Arena, it seems like the possibility of the Chargers getting the city to sell that property for development in order to fund a downtown stadium is greatly reduced ... Minor league hockey will not stop the train from leaving the station. The city might sell it to Ernie Hahn or someone else who could continue to operate it as an arena, or not. Ernie Hahn senior, the developer, passed away in 1992, his development company was sold to Trizec, a real estate company based in Toronto. Ernie Hahn Jr. Is the GM at the old Sports Arena (now called Valley View Arena) and is not a developer but rather a property manager.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 8:29:26 GMT -8
And the Aztec Stadium would go where? Campus? Now we're back to major infrastructure costs--particularly traffic- and many years of lawsuits with the surrounding neighborhood. The stadium seats 72,000 today, if they build a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on site there will be less traffic. You also have to remember that the stadium will not be in peak use when the campus extension is so the traffic patterns wont line up for the two uses. Also with the trolley connection the school can provide limited on site parking within the extension limiting the number of trips to the site. Finally this will be a state facility so it will be excemt from city standards. I admire those that believe that SDSU should expand the campus but I don't think there's much clarity in the discussion. It will never be as simple as most would like to believe it will be and it will not happen in a vacuum whereby only SDSU's interests will be considered.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 22, 2015 8:33:42 GMT -8
And the Aztec Stadium would go where? Campus? Now we're back to major infrastructure costs--particularly traffic- and many years of lawsuits with the surrounding neighborhood. The stadium seats 72,000 today, if they build a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on site there will be less traffic. You also have to remember that the stadium will not be in peak use when the campus extension is so the traffic patterns wont line up for the two uses. Also with the trolley connection the school can provide limited on site parking within the extension limiting the number of trips to the site. Finally this will be a state facility so it will be excemt from city standards. Technically, you are correct about governmental immunity from zoning/entitlement issues. But rarely, if ever, do they pull that ripcord. They go along to get along---witness the 20-year wait, for what we have now in the greatly down-sized version of the Paseo development at SDSU. And when planning wonks and city officials get another "bite of the apple" to improve roads, access and general infrastructure--or the sudden need for a new police station in Carmel Valley---the reality is, you pay to play. So the city will get a major portion of it's wish list. That's just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 8:34:12 GMT -8
The stadium seats 72,000 today, if they build a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on site there will be less traffic. You also have to remember that the stadium will not be in peak use when the campus extension is so the traffic patterns wont line up for the two uses. Also with the trolley connection the school can provide limited on site parking within the extension limiting the number of trips to the site. Finally this will be a state facility so it will be excemt from city standards. I admire those that believe that SDSU should expand the campus but I don't think there's much clarity in the discussion. It will never be as simple as most would like to believe it will be and it will not happen in a vacuum whereby only SDSU's interests will be considered. Never said it would be simple just said it will most likely not require new freeway ramps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 8:36:37 GMT -8
The site is worth at least $700 Mill now. ($500 Mill in 2007) 166 acres worth $700M?...that's only $4.2M / acre... Considering a developer would need streets, water, utilities, parks, fire houses, schools, (oh and some environmental clean up) in that large of a project...there would probably be only 120 acres net at most to build on...so another $100M for infrastructure The city would never allow super high density houses...but more or less the same type housing that Liberty Station has...with the potential for just a few high rise type buildings... So now your math looks like: $800M of expenses for 120 buildible acres or $6.7M/acre How many housing units do you think would fit on a acre on average?...relatively low density like Liberty Station...about 8...high density like a downtown high-rise...about 40 (a modest high-rise of 15-20 stories). So if a developer built low density houses...the land and infrastructure would add about $825K for a duplex size home before construction costs (about $60/per sq ft) and developer's profit...so the best senerio is a selling cost of $1.2M-$1.5M for a tightly packed 2,000 sq ft duplex in Mission Valley Building a high rise would cost less per acre (approx. $135K per condo)... But the construction cost are triple that of low-rise housing...plus the extra space needed for parking and common areas...so figure a selling price of $500K-$600K for a 800 sq ft condo... Plus add in all of the permit fees, selling costs, financing costs, and city requirements for affordable housing thrown in the mix... Yup...I can see developers lining up around the corner trying to buy the Qualcomm site for $700M... Now I'm wondering if the site is even worth the $200M that people have bandied about... Did you even try to do the math before you thought about writing $700M in your post?...don't answer...it was a rhetorical question... I think you need to take a trip down Friars Rd and look at the density of the new construction to the west. They are building $800,000, 2400sq/ft homes with 600sq/ft footprints and 5 feet of space between them. Those are the spacious/ single family detached models. The $500,000 condos have about a 300sq/ft footprint and no space between them. Never thought I'd see 4 story homes in Mission Valley.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 22, 2015 8:37:39 GMT -8
The stadium seats 72,000 today, if they build a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on site there will be less traffic. You also have to remember that the stadium will not be in peak use when the campus extension is so the traffic patterns wont line up for the two uses. Also with the trolley connection the school can provide limited on site parking within the extension limiting the number of trips to the site. Finally this will be a state facility so it will be excemt from city standards. I admire those that believe that SDSU should expand the campus but I don't think there's much clarity in the discussion. It will never be as simple as most would like to believe it will be and it will not happen in a vacuum whereby only SDSU's interests will be considered. There's not much clarity because the Chargers are clouding the picture with their extortion threats... Once we can rid ourselves of the Chargers distraction...we can focus on creating SDSU West Or...we can just ignore the Chargers temper tantrum now and start turning our attention to the real project in San Diego that will bring our city high-paying university jobs and more educational opportunities for all San Diegans.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 8:40:51 GMT -8
The stadium seats 72,000 today, if they build a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on site there will be less traffic. You also have to remember that the stadium will not be in peak use when the campus extension is so the traffic patterns wont line up for the two uses. Also with the trolley connection the school can provide limited on site parking within the extension limiting the number of trips to the site. Finally this will be a state facility so it will be excemt from city standards. Technically, you are correct about governmental immunity from zoning/entitlement issues. But rarely, if ever, do they pull that ripcord. They go along to get along---witness the 20-year wait, for what we have now in the greatly down-sized version of the Paseo development at SDSU. And when planning wonks and city officials get another "bite of the apple" to improve roads, access and general infrastructure--or the sudden need for a new police station in Carmel Valley---the reality is, you pay to play. So the city will get a major portion of it's wish list. That's just the way it is. Well as a civic planner and engineer i can tell you that the State actualy pulls that "ripcord" quite a bit, its just for mundane things like prisons, state office facilities (like Caltrans offices) and expansions of state campuses, like the density increases that have occurred at SDSU over the past 20 years (new Chem building, stutdent union center expansion, new student dorms etc...).
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 22, 2015 8:43:23 GMT -8
166 acres worth $700M?...that's only $4.2M / acre... Considering a developer would need streets, water, utilities, parks, fire houses, schools, (oh and some environmental clean up) in that large of a project...there would probably be only 120 acres net at most to build on...so another $100M for infrastructure The city would never allow super high density houses...but more or less the same type housing that Liberty Station has...with the potential for just a few high rise type buildings... So now your math looks like: $800M of expenses for 120 buildible acres or $6.7M/acre How many housing units do you think would fit on a acre on average?...relatively low density like Liberty Station...about 8...high density like a downtown high-rise...about 40 (a modest high-rise of 15-20 stories). So if a developer built low density houses...the land and infrastructure would add about $825K for a duplex size home before construction costs (about $60/per sq ft) and developer's profit...so the best senerio is a selling cost of $1.2M-$1.5M for a tightly packed 2,000 sq ft duplex in Mission Valley Building a high rise would cost less per acre (approx. $135K per condo)... But the construction cost are triple that of low-rise housing...plus the extra space needed for parking and common areas...so figure a selling price of $500K-$600K for a 800 sq ft condo... Plus add in all of the permit fees, selling costs, financing costs, and city requirements for affordable housing thrown in the mix... Yup...I can see developers lining up around the corner trying to buy the Qualcomm site for $700M... Now I'm wondering if the site is even worth the $200M that people have bandied about... Did you even try to do the math before you thought about writing $700M in your post?...don't answer...it was a rhetorical question... I think you need to take a trip down Friars Rd and look at the density of the new construction to the west. They are building $800,000, 2400sq/ft homes with 600sq/ft footprints and 5 feet of space between them. Those are the spacious/ single family detached models. The $500,000 condos have about a 300sq/ft footprint and no space between them. Never thought I'd see 4 story homes in Mission Valley. That would be $800K just for the land alone...the 2,000 sq ft homes would need to sell for $1.2M - $1.5M to make any money for a developer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 8:46:14 GMT -8
Minor league hockey will not stop the train from leaving the station. The city might sell it to Ernie Hahn or someone else who could continue to operate it as an arena, or not. Ernie Hahn senior, the developer, passed away in 1992, his development company was sold to Trizec, a real estate company based in Toronto. Ernie Hahn Jr. Is the GM at the old Sports Arena (now called Valley View Arena) and is not a developer but rather a property manager. Right. That's why I included him. He currently operates it on a lease. If it's a moneymaker, he may choose to buy it and continue to operate it as an arena. The most likely scenario, IMO is that the city sells it to a developer who will tear it down and put something else in its place. Minor league Hockey or indoor soccer will not even be considered in the decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 8:49:34 GMT -8
I think you need to take a trip down Friars Rd and look at the density of the new construction to the west. They are building $800,000, 2400sq/ft homes with 600sq/ft footprints and 5 feet of space between them. Those are the spacious/ single family detached models. The $500,000 condos have about a 300sq/ft footprint and no space between them. Never thought I'd see 4 story homes in Mission Valley. That would be $800K just for the land alone...the 2,000 sq ft homes would need to sell for $1.2M - $1.5M to make any money for a developer. I'm not sure I understand your point. You do realize I'm not making anything up. I'm describing what is actually there.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 22, 2015 8:55:40 GMT -8
Technically, you are correct about governmental immunity from zoning/entitlement issues. But rarely, if ever, do they pull that ripcord. They go along to get along---witness the 20-year wait, for what we have now in the greatly down-sized version of the Paseo development at SDSU. And when planning wonks and city officials get another "bite of the apple" to improve roads, access and general infrastructure--or the sudden need for a new police station in Carmel Valley---the reality is, you pay to play. So the city will get a major portion of it's wish list. That's just the way it is. Well as a civic planner and engineer i can tell you that the State actualy pulls that "ripcord" quite a bit, its just for mundane things like prisons, state office facilities (like Caltrans offices) and expansions of state campuses, like the density increases that have occurred at SDSU over the past 20 years (new Chem building, stutdent union center expansion, new student dorms etc...). First, you are undoubtedly talking about condemnation, a different topic. Can you give a single example of the "immunity" from zoning laws, in a densely populated seasoned community, happening in San Diego County? An example where a governmental project was rammed down a city's throat, a project dramatically contrasting to the existing zoning and general plan mandates? If it were viable, SDSU would have done it in 1987, when the massive Paseo project on campus was first announced. But they didn't. Poor judgment on the Administration's part? The city and the community "blocked" it. Witness the US Navy. It has been blocked from developing its 15 acres on Broadway at the waterfront--for over 30 years. And the Navy already OWNS it's entitlements which it processed in partnership with the city years ago. They were playing nice with the city and they're still getting blocked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 8:58:30 GMT -8
I think you need to take a trip down Friars Rd and look at the density of the new construction to the west. They are building $800,000, 2400sq/ft homes with 600sq/ft footprints and 5 feet of space between them. Those are the spacious/ single family detached models. The $500,000 condos have about a 300sq/ft footprint and no space between them. Never thought I'd see 4 story homes in Mission Valley. That would be $800K just for the land alone...the 2,000 sq ft homes would need to sell for $1.2M - $1.5M to make any money for a developer. OK I think I understand your position and I think we agree somewhat. I don't think the site is worth 700mil either. But don't think for a second that if it was worth that much, and someone came in and built a bunch of little cracker boxes for 1.2 mil apiece that they wouldn't sell like hotcakes. This is SD. 1.2 mil doesn't scare anybody.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 9:06:43 GMT -8
Well as a civic planner and engineer i can tell you that the State actualy pulls that "ripcord" quite a bit, its just for mundane things like prisons, state office facilities (like Caltrans offices) and expansions of state campuses, like the density increases that have occurred at SDSU over the past 20 years (new Chem building, stutdent union center expansion, new student dorms etc...). First, you are undoubtedly talking about condemnation, a different topic. Can you give a single example of the "immunity" from zoning laws, in a densely populated seasoned community, happening in San Diego County? An example where a governmental project was rammed down a city's throat, a project dramatically contrasting to the existing zoning and general plan mandates? If it were viable, SDSU would have done it in 1987, when the massive Paseo project on campus was first announced. But they didn't. Poor judgment on the Administration's part? The city and the community "blocked" it. Witness the US Navy. It has been blocked from developing its 15 acres on Broadway at the waterfront--for over 30 years. And the Navy already OWNS it's entitlements which it processed in partnership with the city years ago. They were playing nice with the city and they're still getting blocked. Sure, pick any state prison you like. The public never wants prisons in their community but the State still builds them with impunity. Another example is BLM land, most jurisdiction's would love to develop BLM land and get property tax income off of it but they have no control of it once the state buys it and restricts the zoning. Finally the last example I will give is the UCSD medical center which the surrounding neighbors hate but continues to expand with no environmental clearance. Also as far as the Navy Broadway Complex that's actually on Port land an would be entitled through the Port. The Port has been trying to buy that land from the Navy for years now in order to develop it but the Navy dies not want to give it up because it is still active. I don't need to get into a pissing contest, you can either listen to my professional oppenion or not, I really don't care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:22:10 GMT -8
I admire those that believe that SDSU should expand the campus but I don't think there's much clarity in the discussion. It will never be as simple as most would like to believe it will be and it will not happen in a vacuum whereby only SDSU's interests will be considered. There's not much clarity because the Chargers are clouding the picture with their extortion threats... Once we can rid ourselves of the Chargers distraction...we can focus on creating SDSU West Or...we can just ignore the Chargers temper tantrum now and start turning our attention to the real project in San Diego that will bring our city high-paying university jobs and more educational opportunities for all San Diegans. If the Chargers suddenly raptured into the sky this afternoon, a new SDSU campus on the Qualcomm site would only be a very slim possibility. I have no idea why this notion has taken hold so firmly in some folks mind. But it's good to have a goal, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 22, 2015 9:23:58 GMT -8
First, you are undoubtedly talking about condemnation, a different topic. Can you give a single example of the "immunity" from zoning laws, in a densely populated seasoned community, happening in San Diego County? An example where a governmental project was rammed down a city's throat, a project dramatically contrasting to the existing zoning and general plan mandates? If it were viable, SDSU would have done it in 1987, when the massive Paseo project on campus was first announced. But they didn't. Poor judgment on the Administration's part? The city and the community "blocked" it. Witness the US Navy. It has been blocked from developing its 15 acres on Broadway at the waterfront--for over 30 years. And the Navy already OWNS it's entitlements which it processed in partnership with the city years ago. They were playing nice with the city and they're still getting blocked. Sure, pick any state prison you like. The public never wants prisons in their community but the State still builds them with impunity. Another example is BLM land, most jurisdiction's would love to develop BLM land and get property tax income off of it but they have no control of it once the state buys it and restricts the zoning. Finally the last example I will give is the UCSD medical center which the surrounding neighbors hate but continues to expand with no environmental clearance. Also as far as the Navy Broadway Complex that's actually on Port land an would be entitled through the Port. The Port has been trying to buy that land from the Navy for years now in order to develop it but the Navy dies not want to give it up because it is still active. I don't need to get into a pissing contest, you can either listen to my professional oppenion or not, I really don't care. You manifestly are not a planner in San Diego. Sorry, the Navy owns that land. The Port, the City and Coastal Commission all have bites. You are probably thinking about old Lane Field to the north, which is Port property. Prisons, etc. are a diversion, as they are nearly exclusively dropped into a desolate area where there is no zoning, or simply the holding zone of "open space". But I agree with you, this is way off topic and I'm sure very boring. So take care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:24:27 GMT -8
First, you are undoubtedly talking about condemnation, a different topic. Can you give a single example of the "immunity" from zoning laws, in a densely populated seasoned community, happening in San Diego County? An example where a governmental project was rammed down a city's throat, a project dramatically contrasting to the existing zoning and general plan mandates? If it were viable, SDSU would have done it in 1987, when the massive Paseo project on campus was first announced. But they didn't. Poor judgment on the Administration's part? The city and the community "blocked" it. Witness the US Navy. It has been blocked from developing its 15 acres on Broadway at the waterfront--for over 30 years. And the Navy already OWNS it's entitlements which it processed in partnership with the city years ago. They were playing nice with the city and they're still getting blocked. Sure, pick any state prison you like. The public never wants prisons in their community but the State still builds them with impunity. Another example is BLM land, most jurisdiction's would love to develop BLM land and get property tax income off of it but they have no control of it once the state buys it and restricts the zoning. Finally the last example I will give is the UCSD medical center which the surrounding neighbors hate but continues to expand with no environmental clearance. Also as far as the Navy Broadway Complex that's actually on Port land an would be entitled through the Port. The Port has been trying to buy that land from the Navy for years now in order to develop it but the Navy dies not want to give it up because it is still active. I don't need to get into a pissing contest, you can either listen to my professional oppenion or not, I really don't care. So you're saying that the state could mandate that a new state prison be built at the Qualcomm site and there's nothing the city or its residents could do about it?
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 9:25:39 GMT -8
Sure, pick any state prison you like. The public never wants prisons in their community but the State still builds them with impunity. Another example is BLM land, most jurisdiction's would love to develop BLM land and get property tax income off of it but they have no control of it once the state buys it and restricts the zoning. Finally the last example I will give is the UCSD medical center which the surrounding neighbors hate but continues to expand with no environmental clearance. Also as far as the Navy Broadway Complex that's actually on Port land an would be entitled through the Port. The Port has been trying to buy that land from the Navy for years now in order to develop it but the Navy dies not want to give it up because it is still active. I don't need to get into a pissing contest, you can either listen to my professional oppenion or not, I really don't care. So your saying that the state could mandate that a new state prison be built at the Qualcomm site and there's nothing the city or its residents could do about it? You could write your state senator or congressman. This is assuming they own the land of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:27:10 GMT -8
So your saying that the state could mandate that a new state prison be built at the Qualcomm site and there's nothing the city or its residents could do about it? You could write your state senator or congressman. You had some credibility before this response.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 22, 2015 9:32:09 GMT -8
Now that we have a minor league hockey team coming back to the Sports Arena, it seems like the possibility of the Chargers getting the city to sell that property for development in order to fund a downtown stadium is greatly reduced ... Minor league hockey will not stop the train from leaving the station. The city might sell it to Ernie Hahn or someone else who could continue to operate it as an arena, or not. It's highly doubtful that the Ducks would have gone through the trouble of buying and relocating a team from Virginia to San Diego without having certain things in order ... chief among them being a solid lease for home Ice. IIRC, AEG is part of the Ducks equation and probably have built in some steep penalties should the city attempt to sell the ice out from under them. Those penalties may be what shifted the Chargers focus from selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm as a method of funding a new stadium to trying to appropriate convention center expansion funds to pay for their stadium. Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ... Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk. As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-plan
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 22, 2015 9:32:06 GMT -8
Not that hard to buy the site...if you're Larry Ellison, or Bill Gates, or Carlos Slim. Conservatively, it could bring offers of $300 million or more, from multiple developers, EVEN including clean-up, and another $100 million in traffic infrastructure--such as a connecting fly-over ramp out of the site, to I-8. Other than that, a piece of cake. No matter who buys it, they won't be able to unload it for less than fair market value. Meanwhile, our football program is hiring discounts. If the school buys it and uses it as a campus expansion I doubt they will need to build the additional ramps. Considering the property handled 70,000 people at once I don't think it will be necessary.
|
|