by Nicklos Bristol
Since 2004, Petco Park has been the home of the San Diego Padres. The ballpark has become an iconic landmark in the city that serves as a destination for San Diegans, tourists, and baseball fans alike. Built in a uniquely San Diego style, it features architectural elements that tie into the surrounding cityscape and reflect the region’s natural environment. One can simply walk around the bustling Ballpark District, highlighted by the historic Gaslamp Quarter, to experience the impact that the stadium has had on the city.
This year the Padres celebrate fifty years of history and tradition in San Diego, an anniversary which provides an opportunity to look back at the history of their current ballpark. This article examines the history of Petco Park, focusing particularly on its development into one of the most renowned ballparks in baseball and considering it in the context of longer-term trajectory of urban renewal in downtown’s East Village.
Baseball in San Diego
San Diego has been the home of professional baseball since 1936, when the Padres began play in the Class AAA Pacific Coast League. The team was in the league from 1936 to 1968 and began play at Lane Field, a 9,600-seat waterfront stadium built in 1936 and financed by the Works Progress Administration. In 1956, C. Arnholdt Smith bought the Padres and moved the team to Westgate Park in Mission Valley. Then, in the 1960s, the city of San Diego developed the dual-use San Diego Stadium, later known as Jack Murphy and then Qualcomm Stadium, to draw major league football and baseball to the city. The Chargers began playing at the Mission Valley venue in 1967, and were followed by the Padres the following year. The 1969 season was the Padres’ first season as a major league franchise. Smith sold the team to Ray Kroc in 1974. Kroc’s wife, Joan Kroc, became the team’s owner until Tom Werner and a group of businessmen bought the team in 1990. Four years later, John Moores bought the Padres and ushered in a new era of success that featured four National League West division titles and a trip to the World Series.
Despite a series of owners, the Padres continued to struggle economically due to the dual-use stadium agreement. The issues with the stadium stemmed from the agreement that named the Chargers as the priority tenant and granted them a “most favored nations” clause with respect to any other tenant, including the Padres. Beginning in 1967, the Chargers held scheduling priority, thereby limiting the Padres’ use of the stadium during the football season. Furthermore, the Padres’ revenue was limited in part because of the cavernous nature of the seating structure that lacked an intimate atmosphere for baseball. The stadium’s size also restricted the number of premium seat locations and high-quality amenities for baseball games, thus further affecting the team’s revenue. The expansion of the stadium in 1995 only accentuated these issues by strictly regulating the Padres’ ability to gain revenue from suite sales and advertising. This lack of stadium-based revenue and the Padres’ small local television contract left the team in a tight economic situation.
These economic woes led Mayor Susan Golding to initiate two task forces to examine the Padres’ requests for a new stadium heading into the 1996 season. The first task force, the Mayor’s Task Force on Padres Planning, concluded that the team could not generate the revenue necessary to become economically viable and that a new ballpark was the only hope for an improved fiscal situation. In response to these findings, the Task Force on Ballpark Planning was charged with selecting a site, creating a financing plan, and preparing a preliminary cost estimate. The committee targeted the East Village warehouse district as the site for the ballpark and suggested that a public-private partnership should fund the project. These decisions laid the foundation of the upcoming eight-year journey.
In response to the task forces’ findings, the Padres and the city council created a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in July 1998 that presented a comprehensive plan for the construction of a Ballpark District that made the stadium the focal point of the redevelopment of the East Village. The MOU identified the four main organizations involved in the project: the City, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego, the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), and the Padres. The Padres, and later JMI Realty, were named the master developers of the Ballpark District. The MOU and subsequent ballot measure named Proposition C focused on the project’s downtown redevelopment, with the Padres promoting the idea that the stadium would be “more than a ballpark.” The promise of a transformation of this long-neglected portion of downtown into a vibrant sports and entertainment center was a key element to the popularity of the plan. Peter J. Hall, president of the Centre City Development Corporation, even compared the ballpark’s potential as a catalyst for development extending to Horton Plaza, which was “a bold stroke of urban renewal that transformed downtown south of Broadway.”
A New Kind of Ballpark
To further expand the appeal of the project, the Padres sought to create a ballpark “San Diego style.” The team hired Larry Lucchino as President and CEO to help spearhead the team’s push for a new ballpark. Lucchino worked for the Baltimore Orioles before moving to San Diego and was a key player in the development of Camden Yards, the first of the retro revival ballparks built in the 1990s and early 2000s. With the task at hand, Lucchino outlined a vision of a ballpark “that looked and felt and reflected San Diego, not a classical Eastern red brick ballpark, but something that was distinctive, perhaps the next generation of ballparks.” Lucchino and the Padres teamed up with Antoine Predock, an internationally acclaimed design architect, and Joseph Spear of HOK Sports Facilities Group to bring this vision to life.
The Padres and Predock incorporated San Diego’s weather and outdoor lifestyle into the design, which led to a stadium linked to San Diego’s land and sea. The exterior of the ballpark was a defining feature of the stadium that made it unique from any other in America. The design team used a combination of stucco and sandstone, now referred to as “Padres Gold,” to mimic the color, texture, and height of the sandstone bluffs at Torrey Pines. The design also reflected local attractions such as the flower fields of Carlsbad and the botanical gardens at Balboa Park by featuring “garden buildings” on the first- and third-base sides of the park that featured flowering plants, palm trees, and mixed greenery. The gaps and bridges between the “garden buildings” and the stadium were intended to mimic San Diego’s canyons and the bridges that spanned them. Another key element to the design was the exposed white steel structure that was intended to recall San Diego’s nautical history and evoke the idea of a cruise ship in the harbor. The angles and latticework of the light towers reflected the nautical theme as well by mimicking the maritime cranes that lined the harbor. The final touch was the use of Pacific blue seats to further represent the sea and sky, important elements of this new San Diego style.
Along with capturing San Diego’s environment and lifestyle, Predock’s design gave a nod to the region’s man-made history, in particular San Diego’s mission and industrial heritage. The design called for mission-style towers to be built atop the stadium, one of which included a bell that would ring when the Padres hit a home run. In an effort to preserve some of the old warehouse buildings that characterized the East Village, the design integrated the Western Metal Supply Company Building into the northwest corner of the ballpark. The structure, built in 1909, was part of the industrial center of San Diego, and tied the stadium to San Diego’s commercial growth over the previous century. The Padres planned to restore the building and to transform its interior into suites and a restaurant overlooking the playing field.
Although much of the focus was on the regional aesthetics of the stadium, the Padres also highlighted how the new ballpark would meet the needs and desires of baseball fans. The new stadium countered the cavernous, open seating bowl at Qualcomm Stadium by creating an intimate seating structure. Not only did the proposed 41,000-seat facility accommodate roughly 19,000 fewer fans than Qualcomm Stadium, but it also pushed the seating forward to place fans as close to the field as possible. For example, the distance from home plate to the nearest field-level seat was 61 feet at Qualcomm Stadium compared to 49 feet at the new ballpark. Along with creating an intimate setting, the Padres angled the seats toward the pitcher’s mound and home plate to give fans the best possible view of the game. Furthermore, the seating was divided into subareas, “akin to neighborhoods of a city, allowing Padres fans to feel that they are among hundreds, not tens of thousands, of attendees.” These various design elements culminated in a stadium with “an intimate, fan-friendly facility dressed up with Mission-style towers, waterfalls and airy concourses, all ensconced in a garden setting.”
The final piece to the design puzzle was an outfield park, now known as the Park at the Park. When Padres executives released the plans for the Park at the Park, they stated that the eight-acre park would “look, feel and taste like San Diego.” The Padres wanted to create a space that made the ballpark accessible for everyone, especially families. Predock noted, “We always said you would be able to bring your kids and have a picnic, pay five bucks, and enjoy baseball.” The park’s design allowed fans and families to picnic, frolic in a “sandy beach” near the outfield wall, and play baseball on a children’s diamond, all in the midst of a botanical garden setting.
While the Park at the Park enhanced the aesthetics and fan-friendly nature of the stadium, it also tied the stadium back to the greater redevelopment of the East Village. Architecture critic Ann Jarmusch wrote about the potential park in 1997, noting that it “would double as an oasis in a part of the city, Centre City East, that desperately needs more green space. The integration of the ballpark with the surrounding community was so important that the Park at the Park was opened to year-round uses including small concerts and street fairs, and about 480,000 square feet of retail and office development was planned to line the green space.
Law and Order: Ballpark Edition
While the details of the new stadium were being ironed out in 1998, the Padres experienced a resurgence on the field. They were one of the National League’s best teams throughout the season and ended the year with a franchise record ninety-eight regular season wins and a trip to the World Series. This on-field success translated to fan support with a franchise record for total season attendance. The growing support of the fans and San Diego’s cultural institutions, news media, and voters pushed Proposition C forward. The few oppositional voices that could be heard criticized the project’s economic projections. The opponents argued that the city overestimated the economic stimulus and that public funding for private businesses was wrong. These arguments largely fell on deaf ears since the “Stop C” campaign consisted of only fifteen volunteer members who lacked the experience and funding to run a professional campaign like that organized by the city and the Padres in favor of Prop. C.
In a final attempt to stop the ballot initiative, opponents filed a lawsuit—the first of seventeen targeting the ballpark project—against the city and Prop. C on August 17, 1998. Bruce Henderson, a former city councilmember turned lawyer, filed the lawsuit, which sought to have the proposition removed from the ballot by alleging—among other things—that the measure, MOU, and the ballot materials contained misleading statements, violated the California Constitution by conferring rights and imposing duties on a private entity, and broke the California Constitution’s and the San Diego City Charter’s “one subject” rule. The court denied Henderson’s case in September 1998, which represented the first of many legal victories for the city and the Padres. Although Henderson lost his first lawsuit, he continued to challenge the city and the Padres after the election.
In addition to the lawsuit, a civil grand jury began looking into allegations that Prop. C and the MOU were misleading to voters. The civil grand jury issued three reports regarding the proposition. The first report, issued in the fall of 1998, articulated concerns about the city not providing voters with sufficient information regarding the financial implications of the project. The second report, issued on November 2, 1998, condemned the project for not educating voters and assuming that Transient Occupancy Tax revenue would be enough to sustain the project. The third report, issued in June 1999, admonished city officials for attempting to persuade the jury to delay the release of its second report and for failing to inform voters of the economic assumptions forming the foundation of the project. The key finding in the report involved a charge that Mayor Susan Golding helped channel $4 million to the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association in exchange for its support on Proposition C. Despite Henderson’s lawsuit and the grand jury reports, on November 3, 1998, when the measure went to the polls, voters supported the redevelopment plan by a margin of 60% to 40%. Although the passage of Prop. C appeared to clear the way for the stadium’s development, the journey was just beginning.
Henderson spurred a series of legal challenges following the passage of Prop. C which focused on the public financing obligations and the environmental impact report the City needed to complete. As in the first lawsuit, the courts sided with the measure. Henderson’s final and most threatening challenge came in August 2000 when he filed his last legal claim against the city and the Padres after corruption allegations involving the city council surfaced in April 2000. The allegations surrounded Councilwoman Valerie Stallings after she reportedly invested approximately $5,000 in Moores’s company at an initial public offering. On March 31, 1999, Stallings sold the stock at its all-time high, and on the same day she, along with the rest of the city council, voted to move forward with the ballpark project. City Attorney Casey Gwinn was adamant that Stallings’s dealings were legal and that there no conflict of interest; nevertheless Henderson filed a lawsuit alleging that Proposition C, the MOU, and the city’s business transactions with the Padres were void because of conflicts of interest involving Stallings and the city council. In January 2001, the court again ruled in favor of the Padres and the city, which marked the end of Henderson’s legal challenges to the project.
The criminal investigation into Stallings concluded that same month and found that Stallings received gifts from Moores and the Padres, including airline tickets for her family members, use of a car and vacation home, an answering machine, Padres memorabilia, and cash toward the purchase of a camera. Along with these gifts, Stallings reported selling her stock in Neon Systems after consulting with Moores. Stallings resigned from the city council and pled guilty to two misdemeanors, one for not reporting the gifts and one for not disqualifying herself from votes on the ballpark. The findings brought into question the votes in which Stallings was involved, therefore prompting the city council to re-vote and again approve all of the matters pertaining to the development of the ballpark. However, the vote did not appease some opponents and another wave of lawsuits ensued. Eventually, on January 30, 2002, the courts dismissed the final lawsuit, clearing the way for the stadium’s completion.
While these lawsuits played out, progress continued on the site development. In February 1999, the same month that the city appropriated $225 million in bonds for the redevelopment project, the Padres unveiled a “white model” of the proposed ballpark. This model allowed the Padres and the city to begin the process of acquiring land, building the infrastructure for redevelopment, and selling bonds to finance the project. On March 31, 1999, the city council voted to proceed with the $1 billion development project in the East Village after receiving “significant assurances” from the Padres that the project’s development and financing were on track. The vote confirmed that a 26-square block Ballpark District would be created, which required the Padres to develop “three new hotels, an office tower, a technology campus, retail outlets and a new residential neighborhood” expected to cost $466 million.
With the road cleared for the project to move forward, the next step involved the acquisition of land and the relocation of East Village businesses and residents. The city budgeted $81.9 million for land and relocation expenses; however, the CCDC could also obtain the land through the power of eminent domain. As the city acquired the land for the ballpark, it also prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. In accordance with the MOU the city was required to complete an environmental impact report before it could “deposit, from its initial financing proceeds, at least $215,000,000 into the Design & Construction Fund.” In July 1999, the city completed its EIR.
The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the new ballpark would change downtown San Diego. The impacts listed in the report included traffic snarls downtown on game days, noise and light pollution from games, displacement of the homeless, air pollution from construction, contamination of the ballpark land, and cultural loss from the destruction of historic buildings. Arguably the most controversial impact cited in the EIR focused on the loss of historic resources in the Centre City Redevelopment Project Area. However, the issue was settled in September 1999 when the Padres, the Save Our Heritage Organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the city of San Diego agreed to a deal that preserved historic buildings threatened by the proposed ballpark. The agreement saved the buildings slated for demolition by requiring the Padres to incorporate the structures into the development plan or to move them to new locations. Despite lingering concerns from opposition groups, the San Diego City Council certified the environmental impact report with an 8-1 vote in October 1999. The vote removed a key barrier preventing physical work from beginning on the project. The next task for the city and the Padres was to begin the development phase of the project.
On January 25, 2000, the CCDC announced that it controlled all the land needed to construct the core of the project—the ballpark itself. Meanwhile, JMI Realty and the CCDC continued to acquire more land for the Ballpark District. A day after the CCDC announced that it controlled the land for the stadium, the Padres released the design for the Park at the Park. With the plan for the Park at the Park in place, construction began. Demolition for the ballpark began on February 10, 2000, when John Moores provided the initial blow of a wrecking ball to the San Diego Gas and Electric fleet maintenance service building. Two days later the Padres raised a 70-foot ceremonial right field foul pole to mark the site. Construction continued until October 2001 when further legal challenges led to a suspension in work. The stoppage continued until the courts dismissed the final lawsuit in January 2002, which allowed the city to sell the necessary bonds for the project. Once the project was restarted, the stadium’s construction accelerated into the next year.
On February 14, 2003, ten and a half months after the stadium first went vertical, the highest piece of steel was affixed to the left field light support during the “Topping Out” ceremony. A few weeks later, the first tile of “Padres Gold” was installed, and from then on roughly 1,300 square feet of tile was installed every day. The final steps in the ballpark’s construction included the installation of the seats in May and the playing surface in September. With the stadium largely complete, the development team turned its attention toward the Park at the Park, and on September 22, crews relocated the Showley Brothers Candy Factory to allow the construction of the outfield park to begin. In February 2004, Petco Park was completed, and the Padres received the keys and certificate of occupancy for the stadium. San Diego finally had a baseball stadium and on April 8, 2004, the Padres christened their new home with an Opening Day win over the Giants.
In the end, the total cost for the ballpark came to $474 million. Although the cost of the stadium was $63 million over budget, the city only paid a small fraction of the overages since the MOU obligated the Padres to pay for any construction cost overruns. In the MOU, public financing was expected to total $296 million. However, public funding accounted for $301 million of the final total with the city paying $205.9 million, the CCDC investing $73.9 million and the San Diego United Port District providing $21 million. The Padres’ share of the project, which was $115 million in the MOU, increased to $173.2 million because of the overruns. Along with paying for the construction overruns, the Padres claimed they lost $52 million in ballpark and hotel revenue because the project was delayed for 16-months.
The Ballpark District Past & Present
The completion of Petco Park was just the beginning of the revitalization of the East Village. Yet the ballpark’s construction story also offers a glimpse into the efforts of earlier redevelopment projects in San Diego. The process of downtown redevelopment started in the 1970s and 1980s when the city’s “improvement project to refurbish San Diego’s historic town plaza mushroomed into one of the major downtown redevelopment plans” of the time period. In 1972, the city council approved plans to move forward with several redevelopment projects, the most notable of which was the construction of a multi-level retail shopping center—Horton Plaza. Horton Plaza became the city’s first successful attempt at developing a downtown retail center to draw middle-and upper-class citizens to the urban core. The redevelopment effort continued from 1974 to 1991 into the Gaslamp District, as the city council sponsored an effort to rehabilitate San Diego’s red-light area. The city’s plans included the requirement to preserve the district’s historic look, and obligation that included the dedication of the Gaslamp Quarter Archway.
The successful development of Horton Plaza and the revitalization of the Gaslamp District made the area next to the proposed stadium site a popular destination for tourists and San Diegans. By March 2004, about $550 million worth of private projects were under construction or had been completed in the East Village, with additional projects in the planning stage totaling nearly $665 million. The total investment in the area reached $1.2 billion, which transformed the area from being about 70% vacant land in 1998 to a thriving redeveloped region in 2004. By 2007, the redevelopment project had spread to a roughly sixty-block area around the stadium. Ultimately, the transformation of the Ballpark District resulted in the CCDC and JMI Realty receiving a development award from the Urban Land Institute in 2007 for using a public-private partnership to transform the blighted East Village into a thriving mixed-income community.
For fifteen years, Petco Park has been an iconic piece of the San Diego skyline that has provided San Diegans and tourists alike with a unique downtown experience. The ballpark serves as an epicenter of the transformation of the East Village, which was deeply rooted in the success of the 1970s and 1980s redevelopment projects of Horton Plaza and the revitalization of the Gaslamp District. Although the Padres were close to striking out multiple times during the stadium’s planning and construction, the team and the city came through in the clutch and hit a home run with the development of Petco Park and the Ballpark District.
 David Hoyt, George Foster and Antonio Davila, “San Diego Padres: PETCO Park as a Catalyst for Urban Redevelopment” (Academic case study, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2008), 2.
 Now known as SDCCU Stadium.
 Mayor’s Task Force on Padres Planning, “The Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Padres Planning: September 19, 1997” (San Diego, CA: The Task Force, 1997), 44
 Ibid., 40.
 Ibid., 44.
 Tom Shepard, “City’s Chargers Task Force Could Learn from the Ballpark Planning Process,” Daily Transcript, August 5, 2002, accessed May 1, 2014, http://www.sddt.com/Search/article.cfm?SourceCode=20020805tza#.U2H1-l6aJuZ.
 Mark S. Rosentraub, Major League Winners: Using Sports and Cultural Centers as Tools for Economic Development (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010), 102.
 Hoyt, Foster and Davila, “PETCO Park as a Catalyst,” 5.
 Philip J. LaVelle and Gerry Braun, “Heading for home? Mayor, Padres Agree on Ballpark,” San Diego Union-Tribune, August 2, 1998.
 JMI Realty is a subsidiary of John Moores’ JMI Services, Inc.
 Fox Sports San Diego, “Spotlight: A Ballpark for San Diego.”
 Ann Jarmusch, “A Game Plan that Works, Ballpark Could be East Village’s Field of Dreams for Revitalization,” San Diego Union-Tribune , December 14, 1997.
 Hoyt, Foster and Davila, “PETCO Park as a Catalyst,” 6.
 Lori Weisberg and Roger M. Showley, “Padres’ Field of Dreams a Reflection of Region,” San Diego Union-Tribune, June 7, 1998.
 Ann Jarmusch, “Petco Packs in Energy, Excitement and Essence of San Diego,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 10 2004; Weisberg and Showley, “Padres’ Field of Dreams.”
 Populous, “Beauty in a Ballpark PETCO Park,” Populous.com, accessed May 1, 2014, http://populous.com/project/PETCO-park/.
 Jennifer Moores, Jim Forni, Andy Hayt, and Carol A. Monk, The Sweet Spot: The Story of the San Diego Padres Petco Park (Solana Beach, CA: Canum Entertainment, 2004.) 36.
 Ibid., 58.
 KGTV ABC10 San Diego, “First Seat Installed in PETCO Park.”
 Weisberg and Showley, “Padres’ Field of Dreams.”
 Moores, Forni, Hayt, and Monk, The Sweet Spot, 121.
 Weisberg and Showley, “Padres’ Field of Dreams.”
 Karen Kucher, “Plans Disclosed for Special Park Next to Ballpark,” San Diego Union-Tribune, January 28, 2000.
 Moores, Forni, Hayt, and Monk, The Sweet Spot, 144.
 Kucher, “Plans Disclosed.”
 San Diego Padres, “Padres Timeline.” Padres.com, accessed May 1, 2014, http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/sd/history/timeline3.jsp.
 San Diego Padres, “Padres Timeline.” The record stood until it was surpassed in the 2004 season.
 Mark Hitchcock. “Welcome to PETCO Park: Home of your Enron-by-the-Sea Padres” (Student paper, Berkeley Law, 2008), 15.
 Padres L.P. v. J. Bruce Henderson, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584 (114 Cal. App. 4th 495, 2003), 2.
 Mark Hitchcock, “Welcome to PETCO Park,” 14.
 P Todd S. Purdum, “Little-known Panel Turns Mayor Into Defendant,” New York Times, July 2, 1999, accessed May 1, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/02/us/little-known-panel-turns-mayor-into-defendant.html.
 County of San Diego, San Diego County-General Election November 3, 1998, San Diego, CA: County of San Diego, 1998, accessed May 1, 2014, http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/199811bull.txt.
 Philip J. LaVelle, “Stallings Resigns, Councilwoman Pleads Guilty,” San Diego Union-Tribune, January 30, 2001; Philip J. LaVelle, “Stallings Profited in Moores Firm IPO,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 21, 2000; Philip J. LaVelle, “Stallings Made $7,600 in Sale of Neon Stock,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 22, 2000.
 LaVelle, “Stallings Made $7,600.”
 Padres L.P. v. J. Bruce Henderson, 4-5.
 Gregory Alan Gross, “Head FBI Agent Here Discuses Stallings,” San Diego Union-Tribune, February 9, 2001.
 LaVelle, “Stallings Made $7,600.”
 Philip J. LaVelle, “City Gives Green Light to Ballpark,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 1, 1999.
 Lori Weisberg, “City Starts Making Offers for Property to Build Ballpark,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 7, 1999.
 Centre City Development Corporation, Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego, San Diego Padres L.P. and San Diego City Attorney, Memorandum of Understanding.
 Philip J. LaVelle, “Padres Downtown Ballpark Effort at Critical Point,” San Diego Union-Tribune, September 15, 1999.
 Ann Jarmusch, “Sweeping Agreement Will Retain Historic East Village Buildings,” San Diego Union-Tribune, October 10, 1999.
 LaVelle, “S.D. Council OKs Ballpark Environmental Report, 8-1.”
 Denise Ward, “City and Padres Move on Ballpark Land Acquisition and Financing,” San Diego Daily Transcript, January 28, 2000.
 Moores, Forni, Hayt, and Monk, The Sweetspot, 14.
 Ibid., 43.
 Ibid., 68.
 Ibid., 146.
[lxiv] Lucinda Eddy, “Visions of Paradise,” The Journal of San Diego History 41, no. 3 (Summer 1995): Horton Plaza Redevelopment, accessed April 28, 2014, http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/95summer/chapter22.htm.
[lxvi] Gaslamp District Association, “History,” Gaslamp.org, accessed April 30, 2014, http://www.gaslamp.org/history.
[lxvii] Mike Freeman. “PETCO PARK, Ball Field Spawns Housing by the Yard, New Office Space, Retail Projects Lagging,” San Diego Union-Tribune, March 26, 2004.
[lxix] Mark Hitchcock. “Welcome to PETCO Park,” 24-25.