What are the problems with Downtown San Diego? (construction, place to live)

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by moved

He has nothing better to do, bashing is his life. I lived in the EV from 2002-2008, and that was before it was built up. The lease on my place is up at the end of May, and I'm going to looking for another place as close to downtown as I can get. Since I work downtown, I'd rather be closer to work.

Makes sense. I lived downtown for 3 years and I loved it. The only thing I didn't like was the noise. First I lived in Little Italy by the train and that royally sucked. They've put in quiet gates now. Then I lived on Cortez Hill and that was quieter, but not close enough to anything. I like EV, but it's too close to homeless for my tastes (although I think they're getting pushed east) and the apartments are just too damn expensive. All in all though, I prefer the vibe of downtown SD to larger downtowns because it's more laid back and chill. That's what I liked about San Diego overall, the laid back vibe, but to me, it's losing some of that...

[the topper]

Originally Posted by moved

He has nothing better to do, bashing is his life. I lived in the EV from 2002-2008, and that was before it was built up. The lease on my place is up at the end of May, and I'm going to looking for another place as close to downtown as I can get. Since I work downtown, I'd rather be closer to work.

I have tons of things to do rather than bashing downtown. I'm not bashing downtown or trolling. Fix this damn downtown if you want better say on this downtown! I don't make things up! I tell as it is. If you don't like the negativity of your downtown: do something about it. You and I see downtown how it is all the time. You know what I mean.

[moved]

Originally Posted by the topper

I have tons of things to do rather than bashing downtown. I'm not bashing downtown or trolling. Fix this damn downtown if you want better say on this downtown! I don't make things up! I tell as it is. If you don't like the negativity of your downtown: do something about it. You and I see downtown how it is all the time. You know what I mean.

Maybe you should find something else to do...........

[the topper]

Horton Plaza is really sinking Downtown San Diego big time by not doing nothing due to lawsuit. Other than Little Italy: no focal point downtown and really not worth seeing. It's the 70's downtown all over again.

[Axxlrod]

I'm a north county coastal suburb dweller, and I go to DT SD maybe 1x per year. Maybe less actually. So the trials and tribulations of DT SD affect me zero. Sure, I wish it were more vibrant just for the sake of making the overall SD area "better", but SoCal is all about the suburbs and car-culture. There is no hugely "successful" DT in any city in SoCal. DT LA is pretty much a dearth of activity during the day, just people going to work, and mostly filled with homeless. At night it's pretty much the same save for events at LA Live and Staples Center. Why would we expect DTSD to be any different?

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by stablegenius

Hey I actually said I liked San Diego downtown. I'm not bashing. I just said that some of the things he mentioned in that one post weren't untrue...

No, not all of it is untrue. Of course Horton Plaza has gone from an anchor to a blight, and it needs to be redeveloped. I think the plans to create a food Hall, add highrise office space, and convert the entire complex to text offices is going to be a good move. Downtown needs more office space and not just residential and restaurants.

In addition, I think the Gaslamp, while it seems packed pretty much every night of the week for some reason, probably due to tourism, has really gone downhill in terms of quality of establishments. Restaurants only seem to thrive when they are dumbed down to the sports bar level. It's like one giant, architecturally beautiful Fisherman's Wharf. That's the downside of escalating rents. Nevertheless, the addition of the Pendry hotel and its establishments, as well as the remake of the movie theater with the touristy but fun Sugar Factory, are a step in the right direction. Still, the Gaslamp Quarter feels like it doesn't belong to the locals but to the tourists, as most like locals wouldn't set foot in most of those restaurants. There are handfuls of worthwhile places, but for my money, I'd rather go out in North Park, South Park, Little Italy, University Heights, normal Heights, Kensington, or Hillcrest.

And of course, downtown has the homeless problem, which is pretty bad, especially in East Village, despite the ambitious Construction and beautiful changes to the cityscape in general. I do think the idea District is evolving quite nicely and is quieter while retaining some of its original industrial charm. And there are some interesting food establishments along with offices popping up over there. In the next few years, that will be one of the more interesting neighborhoodsy parts of downtown, although I expected to be relatively quiet compared to other established Urban neighborhoods.

The parkway Corridor west of 5th Avenue is coming along really well, with see renovation of numerous historic and high-rise buildings into luxury office space and boutique hotel space. Also looking forward to Blue Bottle Coffee opening on Broadway. And approaching the Waterfront, the level of read about finches significant, with the Intercontinental having just opened, the large Redevelopment of the former Anthony's space Oh, and of course the massive Pacific Gateway project settings for more large highrises with office, retail, and hotel space.

And Next up... Seaport Village. Same fate as Horton Plaza.

What I think most people have a problem with regarding the topper's comments is simply the absurd comparison to 1978. We can all see with our own eyes that downtown San Diego has completely transformed its Skyline, its Waterfront, and it has commercial rents to prove it. The continuation of problems such as homelessness are an unfortunate reminder of their enduring continuity despite transformational Redevelopment, but to equate them with stagnation when the city is booming is just not dealing with reality.

Times change, Horton Plaza and Seaport Village had their Heyday, and now it's time for redevelopment. Every city is constantly redeveloping. No City will ever be finished, and that's what makes Urban cityscapes so interesting. They are living and breathing.

[T. Damon]

All of my favorite cities’ downtowns are so far from perfect it’s laughable. Each of them possess enough great aspects; setting, architecture, parks, cultural institutions, zones and flavor, accessibility and infrastructure enough to get through it with relative ease as well as a distinct feeling of being there. And they all equally possess, in somewhat different ratios, some severe mostly similar problems and issues, some seemingly intractable that are baked into their DNA and contemporary identity. What makes them my favorite cities is that the good parts nonetheless outweigh the bad parts.

Those cities include all the major west coast cities as well as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore, NYC and Boston. I would just describe San Diego’s downtown as having fewer extremes, both positive and negative, than most of those major cities. In that it may have fewer cultural landmarks and zones as the other cities but it nonetheless possesses some top quality examples to match any city. More importantly, San Diego’s stunning setting, compact, approachable and mostly vibrant downtown is accessible with nearly perfect weather and almost none of the crime that plagues most of the country’s favorite cities.

I just don’t see that much of a striking difference between San Diego and its mid-tier City brethren. You are gonna see several to a couple of landmark infrastructure developments and buildings going up in Seattle, Portland, Pittsburgh, Denver, Boston, DC and, San Diego, but mostly there is a fairly standard mid to high-rise pattern of office, mixed use and residential buildings that looks surprisingly similar and formulaic that makes up the bulk of new development in each city. Not bad, just not that striking or moving forward kind of design. The magic is when a city’s planning department smartly incorporates existing quality infrastructure and historic buildings with new development that respects the existing built environment while updating an area to new perhaps denser uses and more flexible zoning, hopefully with high quality design.

As the above post mentions, there are three areas of development that have the potential of being dramatically transformative to a future downtown San Diego. Those areas are the Doug Manchester Pacific Gateway at the old Navy installation, Seaport San Diego at Seaport Village and the former Airport Rent-a-Car facility by the bay just west of the Coast Guard and across from the airport. There is yet some funding and final planning issues to be resolved for all three but they do hold promise to a much more dynamic and better downtown San Diego in just a few short years.

All of these cities, San Diego included, possess some great parts and not so great parts about who and what they are as a city and San Diego is just riding along a mostly similar track, hiccups and all, along with just about all the other growing and dynamic cities in the country.

[tstieber]

Great post, T. Damon. Agree a hundred percent.

[newgensandiego]

Originally Posted by the topper

Horton Plaza is really sinking Downtown San Diego big time by not doing nothing due to lawsuit. Other than Little Italy: no focal point downtown and really not worth seeing. It's the 70's downtown all over again.

Horton Plaza is outdated and blighted, but the notion that it is "sinking" downtown is completely idiotic. Horton Plaza is literally 9 city blocks in a downtown that has approximately 400 city blocks.

Are you a troll because you like attention, conflict, or both? Very sad...

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by sdlife619

True.

The major homeless problem is a given, and many areas of DT still need some work,but beyond that, the long lasting issue that will be permanently imbedded into SD’s downtown in the future is it’s lack of character and charm once everything old is demolished. I really wish more older buildings were saved, and refurbished for other uses, but the city and its developer cronies are quick to just tear everything down.

People that run downtown are one evil group and are doing everything in their power to remove all the poor, and the property owners that aren’t willing to sell their old building or the land they own with the threats of eminent domain or through lawsuits that claims their buildings are inhabitable and are physically damaged due to age and lack of upkeep.

I found this out from an Uber rider that works for the city planning department I picked a couple of days ago, they will send code enforcement officers to targeted sites where they city wants to redevelop badly, and will fine property owners thousands of dollars until they go broke. Forcing the owner to eventually sell his/her property.

It’s corruption at its finest and getting what the city wants to hand over to its developer buddies.

Many of these old buildings you want protected are probably not special in any way. I don't remember wonderful architecture in the East Village. Very gritty.

Why is it evil to remove people who are basically "camping out" on the sidewalk and adjacent properties? Would you like that activity if you sunk your whole life savings into your downtown establishment and have bums in tents camping out?