Comments on: Del Monte Building development

By: Mark I

Mark I — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:05:53 +0000

Why doesn’t AD start her own blog if nobody else can Do it to her satisfaction?

By: Edmundo Delmundo

Edmundo Delmundo — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:41:04 +0000

Why is AD flaming LD on someone else’s blog?
Bad form…

By: Eve Pearlman

Eve Pearlman — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:22:46 +0000

Hi, AD,

I’m having trouble with my comment management system. I can’t make your earlier comments show properly, but here they are:

Your first comment this afternoon: “Lauren is totally mum about the 150 room hotel that’s part of this proposal. Maybe because they won’t sell fish?”

And your second: “Dear Eve, I clearly remember leaving a comment here earlier. It had to do with the fact that Lauren conspicuously fails to mention in her discussion a 150-room hotel proposed as part of the Del Monte project–perhaps, I reasoned, because she doesn’t find it as exciting as the food court. Was my comment perchance removed, and if so, why?

Sincerely,
AD”

By: Lauren Do

Lauren Do — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:12:01 +0000

Considering that the hotel proposal has changed since Sept 2007 to now and there has been no new information forthcoming about it, it would be premature to discuss the hotel project, particularly if it will undergo more changes as time passes.

The international marketplace, however, is something that could become a reality thanks to the new marketing package and the agressive wooing of Asian businesses via GD Commercial. The retail portion can be approved without needing to approve the hotel portion so, in essence, they are standalone projects even though they are part of the same very large building.

By: AD

AD — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:26 +0000

Dear Lauren,

While I have indeed missed the Warehouse entry on your blog, I still find it remarkable that you would fail to mention the hotel portion, untangible as it is still. A hotel that big and the accompanying parking will likely BE the bulk of the project, if built. As the entire project is still waiting for conditional approval, it was interesting to me to see you getting excited about one proposed portion of it, while completely ignoring another possible and likely more controversial component. I think you’ll only do your blog readers a favor if, when you choose to highlight a project, you try to give an overview of all the parts involved so there’s no confusion about your intentions.

Best,
AD

By: Lauren Do

Lauren Do — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:07:39 +0000

AD, if you are suggesting that I omitted the portion about the 150 room hotel because it wasn't "exciting," perhaps you should revisit my archives when I had initially discussed the Peter Wang project. The reason it was not discussed as part of today's post is because that is not what GD Commercial was brought on to do. Rather, they were hired to lease out the retail portion and not get the necessary approvals for the hotel section. The hotel aspect was, if I remember correctly, one bullet out of the entire package to sell the retail space to potential tenants and not the bulk of the proposal. I will note that from the initial meeting in Sept 2007 to the most recent advertising package today it has changed from a 180 room, 4 star hotel to a 150 room, 5 star hotel. But until those plans have a glossy package trying to sell it whomever, I probably won't be talking much about it anyway because there is nothing tangible so far.

By: Sherman Lee

Sherman Lee — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:34:52 +0000

Back in the 50′s our house was directly across from the old Del Monte packing house. At that time it was a warehouse for Del Monte products. They had a large water tower that you could see all the way from Sherman and Central.
Little John Park was the parking lot for all the trucks that delivered products to the warehouse.