SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[staplesla]

Horton Plaza park, the center of so much local history, will undergo a $14.3 million expansion under a plan given final approval Tuesday.

The City Council approved the final design and authorized advertising of bids, but noted a $726,000 funding shortfall that has yet to be bridged.

The plan by Civic San Diego, the city's revitalization arm, calls for mall owner Westfield to demolish the department store building, formerly occupied by Robinson's and then Planet Hollywood restaurant and Sam Goody's record and video store.

A new hardscape plaza will be extended south from the historic park to the Balboa Theater at E Street and result in a 57,000-square-foot park.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/13/horton-park-expansion-gets-final-ok/

https://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2012/11/13/horton_plaza_nov12_r620x349.bmp?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8

[mello]

2015? Wow.....


Wasn't that proposed like 2 years ago?

Utterly pathetic that a large tourist city like SD does not have a signature bridge lit properly. Also did you guys see the Monday Night Football game last night? The Pittsburgh skyline is lit up so much better than ours. Their tall towers have bright colorful lights on the top, and they are not a tourist destination at all. I just don't understand this city sometimes... Oh and its the 40 year anniversary of the "Coastal 30 foot height limit" :slob:

Somewhere Miami is laughing its ass off *30 foot coastal height limit* wtf :haha:

[aerogt3]

I still am a little disappointed in San Diego that this election was more about pensions and unions rather than the future of this city (with very little said by the candidates regarding transportation and land use), and how the city is going to be able to make the necessary changes to bring San Diego into the 21st century.

Pensions and unions are billion dollar issues, I think that warrants trumping talks about how many bike paths to build.

[spoonman]

Also, what's that GIANT hole by 15th and Island? I don't think those towers have broken ground yet right?

Good question. Any have intel on this?

[kpexpress]

Good question. Any have intel on this?

The giant hole at 15th and Island is the Pinnacle Development project. Two towers (phased) each at almost 600 units, and a public park.

[staplesla]

The giant hole at 15th and Island is the Pinnacle Development project. Two towers (phased) each at almost 600 units, and a public park.

So has this development officially started? The CividSD (CCDC) site and others says "no timeline for construction has been established."

[HurricaneHugo]

Passed by again, it said something about environmental cleanup.

Looking at the map it looks like it's the park portion of the development?

The hole is on the west side of the block

[kpexpress]

So has this development officially started? The CividSD (CCDC) site and others says "no timeline for construction has been established."

Yes, they have started excavating.

[SDfan]

Yes, they have started excavating.

For the park, or for the towers?

[kpexpress]

For the park, or for the towers?

The developer has an agreement that if they build and maintain the park they can use a portion of the land for their below grade parking structure. So yes, that means they're excavating to build their parking and also the park...They will build one tower first.

[tdavis]

Here is a video and article about the 15th & Island project. What is going on now is the environmental cleanup. The development won't occur for at least 2 years according to the reporter, and the project was scaled back from the proposed 900+ units, to 230 apartment units with 23,000 sq. feet of retail.

http://www.10news.com/news/grant-awarded-to-sd-to-clean-up-east-village

[Derek]

I remember like 4 years ago, that was my favorite proposed project. Now, after reading how much it's scaled back, it's just.....eh. Plus, another 2 years? Jesus...

[HurricaneHugo]

Finally upgraded my phone...

Downtown from Sherman/Golden Hills.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/54379_10101272192971914_542077793_o.jpg

[SDfan]

Wait. Someone is wrong here.

15th and Island was, and to my knowledge is still, a Pinnacle Development project, as listed here:

http://www.ccdc.com/projects/major-downtown-projects/projects-landing-page/east-village/804-15th-a-island.html

The adjoining park is here:

http://www.ccdc.com/projects/major-downtown-projects/projects-landing-page/east-village/864-14th-a-island-park.html

The article says that OliverMcMillan is the developer, and that the property for their 230-unit project was bought back in 2007.

That's funny, because Pinnacle just resubmitted the two tower project proposal, what? Last year? I'm too lazy to look back through our threads, maybe kexpress knows the time frames better.

So can someone clear this up, because I'm pretty sure someone (either 10news, forumer, developer) is wrong.

[Urbanize_It]

The environmental cleanup they are talking about in the February 2011 video was on the Southeast side of the 15th & Island intersection. (The one that still has a sign on it saying “15th & Island Environmental Cleanup”.) That was old news. The current excavation is occurring on the Southwest side of 15th & Island on the “mega block” that will eventually be a park and two Pinnacle towers. I believe kpexpress is correct that they are building out the underground parking, park and tower one of the project now.

[staplesla]

Anyone know the status of this project? This posting says it is to start contruction in 2013.

http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/first-island-san-diego-bosa-new-construction-condos


http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/wp-content/gallery/new-construction-luxury-condos/firstislandbosa.jpg?9d7bd4

[staplesla]

Civic San Diego, formed in June to take over downtown and Southeastern San Diego redevelopment efforts, added 11 other areas to its portfolio Monday.

The areas covered are: Barrio Logan, City Heights, College Grove, Crossroads (taking in eastern El Cajon Boulevard, University Avenue, College Avenue and other nearby corridors), Grantville, Linda Vista, the former Naval Training Center in Point Loma, North Park, North San Diego Bay (taking in Pacific Highway, Morena Boulevard and parts of Loma Portal and Clairemont), San Diego State University area and San Ysidro.

Mayoral aide David Graham, who has been coordinating the transition, said CivicSD will assume control as of Dec. 1.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/26/civicsds-role-expanded-citywide/

[Derek]

Anyone know the status of this project? This posting says it is to start contruction in 2013.

http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/first-island-san-diego-bosa-new-construction-condos


http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/wp-content/gallery/new-construction-luxury-condos/firstislandbosa.jpg?9d7bd4



Ah, I remember that one....from like 4 years ago.

[spoonman]

Ah, I remember that one....from like 4 years ago.

I believe the next project Bosa will build is Kettner and Ash, which I recall from an article detailing the progression of his projects. If you dig around a bit you should find the info.

[kpexpress]

Anyone know the status of this project? This posting says it is to start contruction in 2013.

http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/first-island-san-diego-bosa-new-construction-condos


http://skyvillagerealty.com/real-estate/wp-content/gallery/new-construction-luxury-condos/firstislandbosa.jpg?9d7bd4

This is a BOSA project, but no the Kettner and Ash project. Here's the latest I know about all BOSA projects:

The two projects on the West side of downtown (Kettner/Ash & Pacific highway/Kettner) are both going through a peer-reviewed performance structural design so they can build taller than 240' without doing a dual structural system. They are blazing the trail in the city for doing this...the process takes about a year but could shorten for subsequent projects.

The project pictured is on Island/3rd....this project is totally up in the air because part of the deal for developing this project was a land swap (or something equivalent) between BOSA and CCDC.....the land is still tied up in the State oversight processes (unwinding redevelopment) and the whole thing is unpredictable. I'd have to do more research and asking..

To my knowledge BOSA is putting their efforts most into Pac/Kettner and would like to see this tower go under construction first. Kettner/Ash is really nice tower as well.

[tdavis]

This is a BOSA project, but no the Kettner and Ash project. Here's the latest I know about all BOSA projects:

The two projects on the West side of downtown (Kettner/Ash & Pacific highway/Kettner) are both going through a peer-reviewed performance structural design so they can build taller than 240' without doing a dual structural system. They are blazing the trail in the city for doing this...the process takes about a year but could shorten for subsequent projects.

The project pictured is on Island/3rd....this project is totally up in the air because part of the deal for developing this project was a land swap (or something equivalent) between BOSA and CCDC.....the land is still tied up in the State oversight processes (unwinding redevelopment) and the whole thing is unpredictable. I'd have to do more research and asking..

To my knowledge BOSA is putting their efforts most into Pac/Kettner and would like to see this tower go under construction first. Kettner/Ash is really nice tower as well.

I'm confused. Pacific Highway and Kettner run parallel to each other. Which Pac/Kettner building are you refering to?

[kpexpress]

I'm confused. Pacific Highway and Kettner run parallel to each other. Which Pac/Kettner building are you refering to?

my bad. correction: broadway/pachighway. This is the tower designed by KPF.

[spoonman]

We need this...

http://earthtechling.com/2012/11/a-vertical-farm-for-san-diego/#comments

http://c276521.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/vertical-market-sandiego.png

[SDfan]

^^ I would die of joy.

[Urbanize_It]

This is huge! Why was it not in the UT (do I need to ask)? ...or did I just miss it?

http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/12/04/judge-rules-transportation-plan-in-san-diego-violates-state-greenhouse-gas-laws/

[aerogt3]

This is huge! Why was it not in the UT (do I need to ask)? ...or did I just miss it?

http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/12/04/judge-rules-transportation-plan-in-san-diego-violates-state-greenhouse-gas-laws/

This anti-car mentality is pointless. Socal and public transit are incompatible - the population density doesn't support it, and in 10-20 years pollution from cars will be a non-issue anyways. Opponents want to have rail expansion instead of widening I5. Who would ever take that? Once you get to OC/LA, you're going to be stuck without a car.

Trying to make socal mass transit based is as stupid as making New York or London car based.

[202_Cyclist]

This anti-car mentality is pointless. Socal and public transit are incompatible - the population density doesn't support it, and in 10-20 years pollution from cars will be a non-issue anyways. Opponents want to have rail expansion instead of widening I5. Who would ever take that? Once you get to OC/LA, you're going to be stuck without a car.

Trying to make socal mass transit based is as stupid as making New York or London car based.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. First, the Los Angeles area is the densest metropolitan area in the United States: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/23/opinion/oe-bruegmann23 . Amtrak's Surfliner, connecting LA and San Diego is the second highest ridership route in the US.

Second, you can't have population density without decent transit because the amount of parking required to accommodate automobiles will prevent this. Similarly, without transit, the political opposition to auto congestion will prohobit any significant density.

Finally, the notion that once you get to LA, you'll be stuck without a car is completely absurd. Other than Pasadena, USC, Long Beach, Anaheim Stadium and Disneyland, LAX, Hollywood, Irvine, Century City, the Whilsire corridor, and Burbank, nope, you can't get around at all by rail in California. LA is investing billions in its subway and light rail network and has something like four subway and light rail projects under construction currently (http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/).

Yes, some of San Diego County is undoubtly too low-density for rail transit (although the Sprinter and Coaster commuter rail has seemed to work pretty well so far) but bus rapid transit could work in these areas, as it has in city after city around the world.

[TGBinSD]

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. First, the Los Angeles area is the densest metropolitan area in the United States: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/23/opinion/oe-bruegmann23 . Amtrak's Surfliner, connecting LA and San Diego is the second highest ridership route in the US.

Second, you can't have population density without decent transit because the amount of parking required to accommodate automobiles will prevent this. Similarly, without transit, the political opposition to auto congestion will prohobit any significant density.

Finally, the notion that once you get to LA, you'll be stuck without a car is completely absurd. Other than Pasadena, USC, Long Beach, Anaheim Stadium and Disneyland, LAX, Hollywood, Irvine, Century City, the Whilsire corridor, and Burbank, nope, you can't get around at all by rail in California. LA is investing billions in its subway and light rail network and has something like four subway and light rail projects under construction currently (http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/).

Yes, some of San Diego County is undoubtly too low-density for rail transit (although the Sprinter and Coaster commuter rail has seemed to work pretty well so far) but bus rapid transit could work in these areas, as it has in city after city around the world.

i agree with you that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but the article you attached is an op-ed piece. to say that LA is the densest metro is ludicrous. LA is the epitome of sprawl. while i agree it has improved, and expanding rail has a lot to do with it, LA has a long way to go to be considered amongst the densest metro areas. SD is no different; it's sprawling as well, and has a long way to go.

[SDfan]

i agree with you that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but the article you attached is an op-ed piece. to say that LA is the densest metro is ludicrous. LA is the epitome of sprawl. while i agree it has improved, and expanding rail has a lot to do with it, LA has a long way to go to be considered amongst the densest metro areas. SD is no different; it's sprawling as well, and has a long way to go.

Actually, Los Angeles is second only to New York in terms of population density by metro.

I know its Wikipedia, but its based on official census data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

So you're wrong.

I think you're confusing density with tall buildings. LA might have only a fraction of New York's high-rises, but there are plenty of high-density areas in LA that make it the second most crowded metro in the U.S.

While LA is a sprawling monster, its a dense sprawling monster, which is why they have been investing in mass transit so much. LA knows it can't keep building freeways, its impractical.

As for San Diego, we should be doing the same as LA. Freeway expansion will only lead to more problems. People need to get out of their cars on onto mass transit.

[aerogt3]

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. First, the Los Angeles area is the densest metropolitan area in the United States: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/23/opinion/oe-bruegmann23 . Amtrak's Surfliner, connecting LA and San Diego is the second highest ridership route in the US.

Sure, you can pick an arbitrary patch of land extending well outside NYC's core such that it's less dense than LA, but everyone with any common sense knows that, realistically, the bounds of what define both LA and NYC as cities give NYC a MUCH larger population density. That is exactly why NYC is well suited to mass transit and LA simply isn't.

The fact is LA epitomizes sprawl and the city occupies such a large area that delivering the kind of point to point service you can get in Stockholm or New York or Madrid requires a level of transit density that simply couldn't be supported. The metro in Madrid is extremely convenient and highly used because stations are seldem further than 500m from where you are. Cities like this have millions of people in areas only 10 or 15km across, so its quite easy to cover large populations with relatively small transit systems. While there are PARTS of LA that have high density, any real transit system needs stations not just close to this area, but close to everywhere people might go. Covering LA with the transit density that would actually attract real ridership would be impossible, and doing anything other than that is spending exorbitant amounts of money serving a small subset of the population.

As far as the surfliner, you just highlight my point. Amtrak claim 7,000 rider per day for the entire segment spanning San Diego to San Luis Obispo. So SD to LA is certainly less than 7,000, while I5 covering the same route carries over 700,000 vehicles a day. It may be the "busiest line in the country," as you would like to spin it, but the reality is that it's market share is just under 1%.

Second, you can't have population density without decent transit because the amount of parking required to accommodate automobiles will prevent this. Similarly, without transit, the political opposition to auto congestion will prohobit any significant density.

Exactly, and guess what? That parking and low density setup has already been built in LA. It's called LA. To make LA become transit ready you would have to rebuild the city. The city has been build and expanded dependent on private cars since the beginning. Trying to turn it into a mass transit example is as inefficient as trying to make NYC a car city.

Seriously, the REALISTIC option to curb pollution in socal is to push for cleaner cars, not push transit that no one will use.

Finally, the notion that once you get to LA, you'll be stuck without a car is completely absurd. Other than Pasadena, USC, Long Beach, Anaheim Stadium and Disneyland, LAX, Hollywood, Irvine, Century City, the Whilsire corridor, and Burbank, nope, you can't get around at all by rail in California. LA is investing billions in its subway and light rail network and has something like four subway and light rail projects under construction currently (http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/).

Last year I flew to LA and was carless. Do you know what a nightmare that is? The entire city was developed around personal transport. It was over 2 hours to go point to point from Culver City to Long Beach. Its awful. Sure, I took the Expo line to the Staples center, but it took me 20 minutes to get to the Culver City station. If I pick two points in the region at random (not two transit stations but two actual destinations) the likely hood of walking + transit getting me to them in any kind of sensible time period is 1 in a hundred or less. It sucks, because I WAY prefer, walkable, transit oriented cities (I live in Europe), but I realize how ridiculous it would be to try and force LA into that mold.

Look at this route, lets say a friend visiting another friend. 2 hrs by beloved transit,. Or a 15 minute drive. Guess which one average people are going to choose https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Culver+City,+CA,+United+States&daddr=N+Lucia+Ave,+Redondo+Beach,+CA+90277&hl=en&ll=33.945923,-118.330994&spn=0.272561,0.415764&sll=33.934625,-118.382265&sspn=0.272598,0.415764&geocode=FQIfBwIdzmnx-Cmdc3fbHrrCgDH-WetL0emFMQ%3BFQaCBAIdzKLx-CnZVIR4mLTCgDEOVoo1OjOGhQ&oq=culver+city&dirflg=r&ttype=now&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&mra=ltm&t=m&z=12&start=0

Yes, you can probably give me a few pre-selected routes on which I could travel efficiently using only transit. But even with the 4 new projects completed, getting me from a home in ______ to a point of interest in _________ (not a major tourist attraction, or a metro station, but somewhere normal residents go often) will still take hours. The way forward for the environment is to switch to cars running on anything but fossil fuels (TLSA anyone?), and the way forward for congestion is to get creative, but to recognize that the car is going to be the major component. Some cities in Europe have "off days" where cars with registration beginning with certain numbers/letters don't drive on certain days, typically 1 or two weekdays.

Yes, some of San Diego County is undoubtedly too low-density for rail transit (although the Sprinter and Coaster commuter rail has seemed to work pretty well so far)

Yes, <1% market share is really something to brag about. Clearly, we are ready to just shut down the freeway and save the planet with rail that nobody rides. In fact, we can leave I5 as it is. And the 300,000+ new travelers expected by 2030? We can just shove them all onto the new rail line (even though the existing one carries only 7,000) and then they can navigate LA's fragmented rail and bus systems all day.

Actually, Los Angeles is second only to New York in terms of population density by metro.

I know its Wikipedia, but its based on official census data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

So you're wrong.

I think you're confusing density with tall buildings. LA might have only a fraction of New York's high-rises, but there are plenty of high-density areas in LA that make it the second most crowded metro in the U.S.

You really are trying to tell me that you believe NYC is more dense than LA? You would be the first person I've ever heard that from. I am talking "real world" density, not the density of an arbitrarily drawn boundary that includes wooded areas well outside what normal people would call the city.

As for San Diego, we should be doing the same as LA. Freeway expansion will only lead to more problems. People need to get out of their cars on onto mass transit.

Sure, so every 10 mile car ride can turn into a 1.5 hr transit excursion. And why do people NEED to get out of their cars? We are much closer to cars that don't pollute than we are to mass transit that can really replace cars. In the end, SANDAG is spending residents' money, and that money needs to go into whatever provides the greatest benefit to people living there. Expanding I5, which is how 98% of people make the trip, makes a hell of a lot more sense than adding additional train services considering the current trains are not even full and only serve 1% of the LA to SD market.

[202_Cyclist]

aerogt3:
Sure, you can pick an arbitrary patch of land extending well outside NYC's core such that it's less dense than LA, but everyone with any common sense knows that, realistically, the bounds of what define both LA and NYC as cities give NYC a MUCH larger population density. That is exactly why NYC is well suited to mass transit and LA simply isn't.



Sure, Manhattan is denser than downtown LA, but as a region, metro-LA is denser than the New York or Washington metropolitan regions. I live in Washington, and while our downtown is the second or third densest downtown in the United States, just two or three miles from downtown, there are plenty of large single-family homes on half-acre lots. The same suburban development pattern can be found in much of the New York region. The LA metro region, on the other hand, has mile after mile of very high-density suburbs-- the densest suburbs in the nation.

Out West, a Paradox: Densely Packed Sprawl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081002110.html

What Density Doesn't Tell Us About Sprawl
http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml

This doesn't mean that high-frequency subways should cover every last inch of LA County (or San Diego). There are some areas in the center cities and the densest corridors where heavy rail might make sense but you match your transportation investments with the built environment and geography. Elsewhere, bus rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail have proven very successful. There are at least 1.2 million daily bus boardings in LA County and over 360,000 daily rail passengers (light rail and subways). In response to your question, 'who would ever take' transit, it looks like plenty of people do.

Ridership Statistics
http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/

[aerogt3]

Sure, Manhattan is denser than downtown LA, but as a region, metro-LA is denser than the New York or Washington metropolitan regions. I live in Washington, and while our downtown is the second or third densest downtown in the United States, just two or three miles from downtown, there are plenty of large single-family homes on half-acre lots. The same suburban development pattern can be found in much of the New York region. The LA metro region, on the other hand, has mile after mile of very high-density suburbs-- the densest suburbs in the nation.

Up to what boundaries? Transit discussions aren't really centered around covering the "way out there" suburbs, which require the longer distance solutions and offer up the lowest ridership. The "greater metro LA" is irrelevant here. No one is talking about building subway lines to Santa Clarita. Transit is going to apply to the denser core areas, and we all know that. In that regard, central LA cannot compare with central NYC (Manhattan, Brooklyn, etc.)

My major point is that I-5 between LA and SD is never going to be a major transit corridor (which I think is the most contentious point of SANDAG's plan). It is ridiculous to refuse to expand a freeway that sees 700,000 cars a day for a projected increase to 1,000,000, and instead demand that rail be expanded, when rail currently carries less than 7,000. This is a blind ideological push to "kill the car" without any touch of reality, especially considering that cars will be environmentally friendly well before any socal transit system will be able to fight them. I am quite pro-environment, but technology is going to solve the vehicle pollution problem way before transit will.

Elsewhere, bus rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail have proven very successful. There are at least 1.2 million daily bus boardings in LA County and over 360,000 daily rail passengers (light rail and subways). In response to your question, 'who would ever take' transit, it looks like plenty of people do.

And I am all for transit when it makes sense. BART in SF, the west end subway in LA, the trolley in SD going to la jolla. Great ideas. But not expanding the 5 between OC and SD is a terrible idea. 1% is just about nobody. Nobody takes the train between those cities. Having done it myself, only to land in downtown LA without a car, I can see why. Seriously, pick two random points in the LA metro area and see how badly you wish you had a car. That is why not expanding the 5 makes no sense.

Ridership Statistics
http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/

Cut the boardings in half for round trips, and you're down to 700k. Those numbers double count connections, etc. Unique ridership is probably 300k-ish. A few percent of the regional population.

Of course for MTA I am sure it feels better to count "number of boardings" rather than "number of riders,"or better yet, ridership miles, but it's disingenuous.

[Crackertastik]

What LA needs to do is be strategic about their public transportation. As stated, it makes little sense to try to implement a rail system that reaches everywhere. For one it will not be financially viable, nor will it actually work, the distances are too vast. Walking to ride would still not work everyone, or even most places. The total area of the region is simply too big.

BUT, what they should do is create a very dense network of rail for LA's "Manhattan" that would make it so that if you lived/worked in this area, you could go carless. The area I am assuming everyone is familiar with, Santa Monica to Downtown LA, Hollywood Hills to as South as Culver City. You could fill that area with a very nice and dense transit system that would work extremely well. Every other place could have fingers of service, like the long beach rail connector, connector to LAX, but really, the idea would be to drive to the "island" (the area i mentioned) park and then ride for outsiders. Or if you lived on the
"island" live carless. That would be ideal, and would actually work.

San Diego can do something similar. Decide which areas are strategic for dense living/working. Provide a dense network of transportation, and the rest, provide fingers of service, and park and ride options.

[bmfarley]

What LA needs to do is be strategic about their public transportation. As stated, it makes little sense to try to implement a rail system that reaches everywhere. For one it will not be financially viable, nor will it actually work, the distances are too vast. Walking to ride would still not work everyone, or even most places. The total area of the region is simply too big.

BUT, what they should do is create a very dense network of rail for LA's "Manhattan" that would make it so that if you lived/worked in this area, you could go carless. The area I am assuming everyone is familiar with, Santa Monica to Downtown LA, Hollywood Hills to as South as Culver City. You could fill that area with a very nice and dense transit system that would work extremely well. Every other place could have fingers of service, like the long beach rail connector, connector to LAX, but really, the idea would be to drive to the "island" (the area i mentioned) park and then ride for outsiders. Or if you lived on the
"island" live carless. That would be ideal, and would actually work.

San Diego can do something similar. Decide which areas are strategic for dense living/working. Provide a dense network of transportation, and the rest, provide fingers of service, and park and ride options.
I agree with you in Spades. But, the decision making process does not allow it. Politics. Politics leads to a geographic equitable distribution of benefits or improvements. But, LA certainly has more leverage than the SF Bay Area.

[kpexpress]

seriously we're debating whether LA is more dense than NY....on an SD city forum. The market can't be THAT bad.

[tdavis]

I agree with you in Spades. But, the decision making process does not allow it. Politics. Politics leads to a geographic equitable distribution of benefits or improvements. But, LA certainly has more leverage than the SF Bay Area.

This is ridiculous!!! This particular thread (SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2) is for just that, NOT some argument regarding LA/SF/NYC density. Take it to another appropriate part of the forum.

[SDfan]

While I sympathize with those of you who are terribly distraught over the lack of SD emphasis (in the last 10 posts of 7,436), if you read the argument at hand you should be able to note that it stems from a discussion over whether SD should further its freeway-first plans, or adopt a more transit-oriented future for transportation development.

Maybe contributing to that discussion instead of lamenting the loss of focus would be more productive?

Here, I'll do it. I believe San Diego should adopt more mass transit in conjunction with urban planning and development rather then build 10 lane freeways.

There.

:rolleyes:

[HurricaneHugo]

^^ Pretty much.

If there's nothing SD related to talk about then talk about whatever.

[HurricaneHugo]

News:

Ariva Apartments by Sunroad office tower

https://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2012/11/30/park_persp_r620x349.jpg?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8

[HurricaneHugo]

And BRT planned for El Cajon Boulevard, probably pre-cursor to a trolley extension.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/dec/07/el-cajon-blvd-changes-precursor-revitalization-reg/

https://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2012/12/06/el_cajon_blvd_view-12.2012_r620x349.jpg?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8

[staplesla]

Brandon Martella's design for a proposed skyscraper in downtown San Diego has apartments on one side, and veggies on the other. Produce would be sold in an open-air market downstairs.

http://www.brandonmartella.net/p/live-share-grow.html


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dWz4hr_LEmA/UKnGRKQXfrI/AAAAAAAAAyU/5b0Jjnbv7fs/s1600/eastern+exposure.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q9NiSybHW_w/UKnGYW56gqI/AAAAAAAAAy8/9sHgHu0rIPM/s1600/site.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cd1mfPP--eo/UKnGbnwqNNI/AAAAAAAAAzM/-YOwgtzL97w/s1600/vertical+context.png

[mongoXZ]

Dude, build it. Screw whatever BOSA box that's proposed over in that lot.

[Dale]

Wait, so they would need to acquire the lot from Bosa ?

[spoonman]

This architect does some amazing renderings. This is what we need to stand out from other cities

Here's another one proposed for the Newschool of Architecture

http://www.brandonmartella.net/p/3-block.html

[staplesla]

The site is located in the Columbia district of downtown San Diego. It is sandwiched between two large commercial office buildings, One America Plaza and Emerald Plaza.

http://www.brandonmartella.net/p/farmed-services.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r_Jk_iB87Gc/TvJyk3GAqxI/AAAAAAAAARA/RGLUyZfoC60/s1600/farmed+services1.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cc9HLP0em1E/TvJzfuV1bwI/AAAAAAAAAR4/DnFUVgLNJmI/s640/farmed+services+4.png

[HurricaneHugo]

Great idea!

The first design looks ugly but the second one looks gorgeous!

Make it bigger and maybe move it to another lot since that one might be too small and build it!

[phillyskyline]

Stunning and beautiful!

[staplesla]

http://www.sandiegorailproject.com/


PDF Version (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/San_Diego_Rail_Project_Map.pdf)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/San_Diego_Rail_Project_Map.pdf/page1-879px-San_Diego_Rail_Project_Map.pdf.jpg

[HurricaneHugo]

#6 needs to be build like yesterday

[JG573]

This anti-car mentality is pointless. Socal and public transit are incompatible - the population density doesn't support it, and in 10-20 years pollution from cars will be a non-issue anyways. Opponents want to have rail expansion instead of widening I5. Who would ever take that? Once you get to OC/LA, you're going to be stuck without a car.

Trying to make socal mass transit based is as stupid as making New York or London car based.

The problem with this is we are trying to shape our cities for the future not think short term by just widening the I5. Your whole argument is basically that LA doesn't have the density right now so lets just stay on the same path and support cars. No, they are trying to shape LA into a more denser place in the future which starts with investing in rail transit and to encourage infill and transit oriented development.

I agree that right now LA is not the densest right now compared to cities like new york but like San Diego the people are trying to put our city on a denser, livable, more transit oriented city and to say f**k it just keep supporting more cars is not the right way to go for San Diego or LA.

[bobbyv]

The problem with this is we are trying to shape our cities for the future not think short term by just widening the I5. Your whole argument is basically that LA doesn't have the density right now so lets just stay on the same path and support cars. No, they are trying to shape LA into a more denser place in the future which starts with investing in rail transit and to encourage infill and transit oriented development.

I agree that right now LA is not the densest right now compared to cities like new york but like San Diego the people are trying to put our city on a denser, livable, more transit oriented city and to say f**k it just keep supporting more cars is not the right way to go for San Diego or LA.

Actually LA is the second densest city after NYC, don't let the 470 sq miles fool you.

[Valyrian Steel]

The problem with this is we are trying to shape our cities for the future not think short term by just widening the I5. Your whole argument is basically that LA doesn't have the density right now so lets just stay on the same path and support cars. No, they are trying to shape LA into a more denser place in the future which starts with investing in rail transit and to encourage infill and transit oriented development.

I agree that right now LA is not the densest right now compared to cities like new york but like San Diego the people are trying to put our city on a denser, livable, more transit oriented city and to say f**k it just keep supporting more cars is not the right way to go for San Diego or LA.

Agreed. People will adapt to public transit. Widening freeways doesn't reduce traffic, it only encourages more people to drive on it. And when there's an accident, you'll still be there for 3 hours trying to merge into the right lane.

From someone who enjoys driving, I like having alternative ways to get around.

[Derek]

Agreed. People will adapt to public transit. Widening freeways doesn't reduce traffic, it only encourages more people to drive on it. And when there's an accident, you'll still be there for 3 hours trying to merge into the right lane.

From someone who enjoys driving, I like having alternative ways to get around.



I couldn't have said it better myself.

[kpexpress]

Brandon Martella's design for a proposed skyscraper in downtown San Diego has apartments on one side, and veggies on the other. Produce would be sold in an open-air market downstairs.

http://www.brandonmartella.net/p/live-share-grow.html


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dWz4hr_LEmA/UKnGRKQXfrI/AAAAAAAAAyU/5b0Jjnbv7fs/s1600/eastern+exposure.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q9NiSybHW_w/UKnGYW56gqI/AAAAAAAAAy8/9sHgHu0rIPM/s1600/site.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cd1mfPP--eo/UKnGbnwqNNI/AAAAAAAAAzM/-YOwgtzL97w/s1600/vertical+context.png

Martella graduated with me. All of his renderings were great...models were better if you could imagine.

[spoonman]

Martella graduated with me. All of his renderings were great...models were better if you could imagine.

It would be great if Bosa could pick up on this and get it to pencil out.

[XtremeDave]

The problem with this is we are trying to shape our cities for the future not think short term by just widening the I5. Your whole argument is basically that LA doesn't have the density right now so lets just stay on the same path and support cars. No, they are trying to shape LA into a more denser place in the future which starts with investing in rail transit and to encourage infill and transit oriented development.

I agree that right now LA is not the densest right now compared to cities like new york but like San Diego the people are trying to put our city on a denser, livable, more transit oriented city and to say f**k it just keep supporting more cars is not the right way to go for San Diego or LA.

Exactly. San Diego or LA will never have the transit service of New York or any East Coast city, and I'm not expecting a subway to Rancho Bernardo anytime soon, but this is about future growth, and where this region is going to channel the growth through its infrastructure spending. Are we going to widen I-5 and continue to fill in every empty acre of land from Tijuana to Temecula with auto-dependent subdivisions just because that's what we did yesterday? Or are we going to make investments that encourage people to live in denser, walkable neighborhoods while giving them the option to not have to drive to every destination?

Building more trolley lines to San Diego's densest, most walkable neighborhoods (specifically along El Cajon Blvd and University Ave, plus lines out to PB and OB) will allow this region to change its sprawling habits for the future and allow future residents to live without being reliant on a car for every trip. Upgrading the Coaster to provide regular reliable service (atleast 20 min frequencies both ways during peak times, 30 min off-peak) will open up places like Solana Beach, Encinitas and Carlsbad to transit oriented development that will give new suburban commuters a real alternative to I-5.

San Diego can either embrace these choices to create a real alternative to the mess that currently exists (just try and get on the 5 or 805 during rush hour in Sorrento Valley and argue against me on this), or people here will continue to suffer with congestion while billions are spent to sustain the status quo.

[SDfan]

Merry Christmas!

[SDCAL]

#6 needs to be build like yesterday

EXACTLY, couldn't agree more.

[SDCAL]

Martella's vertical farm plan is awesome, and exactly what SD needs.

He illustrates that even with height limits, original, interesting, iconic development that could grab international attention is possible.

And maybe it's bold enough to give all the NIMBY's heart attacks so we don't have to worry about them whining about it. :). (Kidding of course).

[SDCAL]

Anyone know the timing of this project on 10th Ave. next to Basic near the ballpark? I took the below photos from the balcony of a friend's condo across the street - - looks like they are close to breaking ground.

According to CCDC website it's going to be rentals called Urbana

http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y534/sdcal/543bbe82cc5d4616d5076674f6ffa12a_zps4f9ceb39.jpg

http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y534/sdcal/d0afe6b771ee321bcf6c3e3cf7e89ab8_zps4e39d0ba.jpg

http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y534/sdcal/1b5ce327410a2870e2f29ce0d6e74dd4_zps42ab2516.jpg

http://www.ccdc.com/component/content/article/87-new-projects/1163-urbana.html

http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y534/sdcal/22e086184234da8760599d97bb161d1e_zps49f48b1b.jpg

[Chapelo]

The hotel/third tower for LJC is back on the drawing board. It's in the design phase, so I won't have drawings/specs for a few weeks. Expect a 15-20 story building to match the other two towers, that's all I know at this point.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7132/img0853gv.jpg

[SDfan]

La Jolla Commons is such a... uhhhhhh.

I hope it's 20 stories, that site had so much potential before the recession.

[Chapelo]

Very disappointing, considering this is what was originally planned.

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/3674/ljcommonsgq2.jpg

I like the office buildings, but the site really had more potential. And the worst part is I'll be spending 10 hours a day in that building once it's completed :rolleyes:

[spoonman]

Very disappointing, considering this is what was originally planned.

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/3674/ljcommonsgq2.jpg

I like the office buildings, but the site really had more potential. And the worst part is I'll be spending 10 hours a day in that building once it's completed :rolleyes:

It's interesting that some of the building sites have been shifted around. For example, the land under the large building on the left, in pictures 2, and 3, is still vacant. Perhaps this site will be utilized down the road, if nothing esential is built there.

[PadreHomer]

Anyone know the timing of this project on 10th Ave. next to Basic near the ballpark? I took the below photos from the balcony of a friend's condo across the street - - looks like they are close to breaking ground.


They're doing more work on the site this morning. There's a backhoe and they are cutting asphalt on the street in front. Might actually start moving now.

[SDfan]

^^ That is Urbana, right?

Also, does anyone know what's up with Stadium View? I haven't seen anything on it besides on the CCDC map.

[spoonman]

Are any of you following this project in Carmel Valley. It's a great fit for the area, but the NIMBY's are out for blood. That street (El Camino) is lined with mid-high rises, but somehow this project is an issue because it incorporates residential. The project has already been scaled back and the NIMBY's want more (or less rather).

http://onepaseo.com/concept/community-vision/

http://www.cvsd.com/sites/default/files/KRC1.jpg

[eburress]

Are any of you following this project in Carmel Valley. It's a great fit for the area, but the NIMBY's are out for blood. That street (El Camino) is lined with mid-high rises, but somehow this project is an issue because it incorporates residential. The project has already been scaled back and the NIMBY's want more (or less rather).

http://onepaseo.com/concept/community-vision/

http://www.cvsd.com/sites/default/files/KRC1.jpg

Yeah, I live right down the street from this and I really hope it happens, but the freaking people here in Carmel Valley are the worst when it comes to development. Busybody NIMBYs of the highest order. It's ridiculous.

[PadreHomer]

^^ That is Urbana, right?

Also, does anyone know what's up with Stadium View? I haven't seen anything on it besides on the CCDC map.
Yeah, Urbana. Nothing was going on for awhile, but its picked up again.

Where is Stadium View?

[HurricaneHugo]

Second LJC tower starting to rise

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/740950_10101348774965984_1269388613_o.jpg

[bushman61988]

I was on the Trolley yestserday in downtown and is anyone else really bothered by the exposed concrete look at the Main New Library under construction?

It's so ugly to me and it just seems like pure laziness and cost savings... not an architecutral or aesthetic statement. I just don't see why they can't paint it some neutral color, even if it's gray it's better than the blotchy concrete.

Other than the color the building is gorgeous go.

[Derek]

I like it as-is.


I saw it up close in person for the first time last month and I was blown away by how cool it looks. I wish we could have a library like that here in Portland.

[S.DviaPhilly]

13th and Market is really coming along. This picture was taken from the 31st floor of The Mark.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/photo-222_zps7d6e2631.jpg

[Flyer75]

I love the new main library. It's perfect the way it is. You most definitely don't want to paint a masterpiece. It will be an iconic structure when it opens.

[202_Cyclist]

Push for trolley to airport not simple

By Chris Nichols
January 16, 2013
San Diego Union-Tribune

https://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/01/16/trolley_r620x349.jpg?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8
Mayor Bob Filner wants to speed up a planned Trolley link to the airport as part of "multimodal" transportation access that has been on the drawing board for a while. (photo courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune)

"There’s no easy, direct way to San Diego International Airport without a car or shuttle.

Mayor Bob Filner, like others before him, wants to change that frustrating fact, and soon. He called for building a trolley link to the downtown airport during his State of the City address on Tuesday, while pledging to push for more resources for alternative transportation.

Long-term plans already call for creating a transit hub on the north side of the airport, also known as Lindbergh Field, where buses, trolleys, Amtrak and Coaster trains and possibly bullet trains could one day drop passengers..."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/16/mayor-bob-filner-trolley-san-diego-airport/?page=1#article

[Leo the Dog]

Another idea: look to Phoenix's Sky Train (automated people mover) that connects to their light rail, economy parking lots, terminal 4 and eventually terminals 2 and 3 and the rental car facility on the west end of the airport. First phase to open Q1 2013.

It cost $1 billion all paid for by airport fees and I believe rental car fees. (airport users, no new taxes).

A loop connecting to Old Town or perhaps Santa Fe Depot would really help with accessibility to the airport.

[spoonman]

Off topic question. Does anyone know why the San Diego MSA is listed as "San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos", when Chula Vista, Oceanside, and Escondido are larger principal cities?

[spoonman]

Another idea: look to Phoenix's Sky Train (automated people mover) that connects to their light rail, economy parking lots, terminal 4 and eventually terminals 2 and 3 and the rental car facility on the west end of the airport. First phase to open Q1 2013.

It cost $1 billion all paid for by airport fees and I believe rental car fees. (airport users, no new taxes).

A loop connecting to Old Town or perhaps Santa Fe Depot would really help with accessibility to the airport.

How this project is done likely depends a lot on how soon the Terminals will be moved to the north side of the airport. Based on the current layout, there are likely a few options:

1. Run a spur from California/Laurel St to the airport. If the old Teledyne buildings are scrapped, that area could be a staging area somehow
2. Create a van-type shuttle to take people to an existing station (Palm/Washington/Santa Fe), then beef up the station to handle shuttles
3. Create a underground railway/shuttle under the runway to hook up at the Washington St station
4. Run a spur around the end of the west end of the runway to Barnett connecting near PCH


These options vary in liklihood, but it seems to me that these are the choices...

[mello]

^^^ I don't know why they through in Carlsbad and San Marcos. Carlsbad is kind of like SD's Ft. Lauderdale in that it has the airport, large employment center, and tons of Hotels and resorts. Im sure Carlsbad brings in the second most revenue of any city in the county after SD seeing that tons of business parks/lego land/hotels are located in its city limits.

I think it should be called the San Diego/Rosarito Beach/Temecula MSA lol. Covering the whole Megalopolis from North to South! 6 million strong.

[HurricaneHugo]

I think it should be called the San Diego/Rosarito Beach/Temecula MSA lol. Covering the whole Megalopolis from North to South! 6 million strong.

Great picture from space of the MSA.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBFecuCCAAAiUNx.jpg:large

[llamaorama]

Being not from San Diego I have to wonder.

That airport is borked in it's layout and size. There's only one runway that has an approach right over the center of the city, and the USMC boot camp* walls off the northern side. If the US had an airport as badly located as Kai Tak, it would be Lindbergh. But I guess there is literally nowhere to put a big Denver sized new airport anywhere because of the mountainous terrain.

*could they move it the way they closed the it's navy counterpart next door, and add a second runway and big northern terminal?

[Derek]

The most viable option is building a new airport at MCAS Miramar, about 10 miles north of downtown San Diego, but county residents rejected it. I don't think the military would want to give it up either.


Also, the runway isn't "directly over center city", it's about a half mile north of it. The buildings aren't as close as people actually think they are. Las Vegas has more 350+ foot towers (Mandalay Bay, THEhotel, MGM Grand Towers, New York, New York etc.) closer to their runways and approach/departure paths than San Diego does.

[mello]

Great pic Hugo, weird how the urbanized areas North of La Jolla show up much less grayish in color than those from LJ south... And TJ must be so dense to have 2 million plus residents in that area you see in this shot. The urbanized part of Tijuana looks to be only 300 square miles or so. It really isn't that big especially North to South.

Regarding the airport in that shot from Hugo Miramar looks to be less than 10 miles from SAN as the crow flies. And we don't need a "Denver sized Airport" just two parallel runways and we are fine. I mean look at LAX it really isn't that big at all compared to DIA when you take in to account its runway layout yet it is handling twice as many passengers as DIA.

The only other option I see for SD is turning Palomar Airport in Carlsbad in to a Fort Lauderdale type situation so it can handle say 8 to 10 million passengers a year. This would take tons of pressure off of SAN and it would be fine with just its one runway.

[202_Cyclist]

mello:
The only other option I see for SD is turning Palomar Airport in Carlsbad in to a Fort Lauderdale type situation so it can handle say 8 to 10 million passengers a year. This would take tons of pressure off of SAN and it would be fine with just its one runway.


California Pacific Airlines, a low-cost airline that will serve regional destinations, plans to begin scheduled passeger service this March from McClellan-Palomar Airport.

California Pacific Airlines Plans Spring Launch Date
http://encinitas.patch.com/articles/california-pacific-airlines-plans-spring-launch-date

Additionally, Palm Springs International Airport served over 1.7 million passengers in 2012 and the airport now has a non-stop flight to JFK. I've thought of this airport serving tourists and local passengers in the immediate area but perhaps with better marketing and more flights, this could serve some of the Temecula/western Riverside Co. residents who might use San Diego instead.

Palm Springs airport's rep soars
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130120/BUSINESS/301200011/Palm-Springs-airport-s-rep-soars?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

[mello]

Pretty long drive from Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Elsinore to Palm Springs. I think Palomar would be a better option for serving them. Turning Highway 76 in to a real freeway would have really helped SW Riverside County have access to Coastal North County.... I always thought it was inept planning not to make that a true freeway. As it is now it is such a long drive from the 15 to I-5 on the 76.

[202_Cyclist]

Pretty long drive from Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Elsinore to Palm Springs. I think Palomar would be a better option for serving them. Turning Highway 76 in to a real freeway would have really helped SW Riverside County have access to Coastal North County.... I always thought it was inept planning not to make that a true freeway. As it is now it is such a long drive from the 15 to I-5 on the 76.

It's a long drive but not that much farther than Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Elsinore to SAN. It is 68 miles from Temecula - Palm Springs vs. 60 miles to SAN. When you consider likely congestion going to San Diego, travel time is probably very similar. so with ground travel times roughly comparable, issues like fares, frequencies, parking costs, etc... are important. There are nearly 300,000 people who live in these communties. Making Palm Springs more of a reliever airport for western Riverside County clearly won't solve capacity issues for San Diego but getting some of them to choose other regional airports is part of the solution.

[Derek]

Don't forget about Ontario International Airport, 55 miles from Temecula. It already has destinations to many hubs in the US, as well as Guadalajara.

[202_Cyclist]

Don't forget about Ontario International Airport, 55 miles from Temecula. It already has destinations to many hubs in the US, as well as Guadalajara.

Correct-- Ontario would be the most likely local airport but at 55 miles to Ontario vs. 68 for Palm Springs, the distance and ground travel time is roughly similary (probably less highway congestion driving east towards Palm Springs). The number of destinations served, fares, cost of parking, and choice of airlines are all important considerations for passengers but Palm Springs might be able to serve a larger reliever role for Southern California's aviation system with a concerted marketing effort, increased flights, and improved ground transportation.

[Derek]

I just don't see it as a viable true reliever airport for Southern California, it's 55 miles from San Bernardino, 107 miles from Los Angeles, 91 miles from Anaheim and 123 miles from San Diego. The only people Palm Springs benefits (potentially) is the people of Palm Springs, and the eastern edges of the Inland Empire. Plus, the 79 through Temecula all the way to Beaumont (via Warren Road) and the I-10 junction is mostly a 2-4 lane road with many stop lights, and those streets are frequently congested as well at peak hours.


I think increasing service and accessibility to Ontario would make more sense than Palm Springs. 37 miles from LA, 55 miles from Temecula, 25 miles from San Bernardino, 30 miles from Anaheim and 114 miles from San Diego.

[SDfan]

Does anyone know anything about these office tower proposals?

Sempra moving to new offices?
Energy company also weighing lease renewal

Sempra Energy, downtown's leading corporate headquarters company, is thinking of building a new office tower, even as it weighs renewing the lease at its present site.

Downtown office brokers are betting that Sempra stays put at 101 Ash St, where it and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., have been based since 1968.

But they say Sempra also is thinking of moving to another downtown building or building a new one downtown, near University Towne Centre or in Kearny Mesa.

...

Downtown brokers said three companies are in the running to woo Sempra away from Shapery's building:

Cisterra Development has submitted plans for a 15-story, 300,000-square-foot building just north of Petco Park. Jason Wood, senior vice president, said if Sempra does not pick this option, it will be "tabled" for now as a project to pursue.

Irvine Co. has proposed Sempra relocate to One America Plaza at Broadway and Kettner Boulevard, where several tenants are scheduled to move out in the next two years. Irvine also has proposed Sempra occupy the proposed La Jolla Centre III building at 4660 La Jolla Village Drive. Irvine spokesman Michael Lyster cited confidentiality agreements in not offering a comment on these options.

Sunroad Enterprises proposes Sempra occupy the second office tower planned at the Sunroad Centrum development at the former General Dynamics-Convair missile plant site in Kearny Mesa. Sunroad could not be reached for comment. Such a location might appeal to Sempra since SDG&E's offices are located nearby.


???

[Urbanize_It]

Being not from San Diego I have to wonder.

That airport is borked in it's layout and size. There's only one runway that has an approach right over the center of the city, and the USMC boot camp* walls off the northern side. If the US had an airport as badly located as Kai Tak, it would be Lindbergh. But I guess there is literally nowhere to put a big Denver sized new airport anywhere because of the mountainous terrain.

*could they move it the way they closed the it's navy counterpart next door, and add a second runway and big northern terminal?

Why the heck would we want a DIA sized airport in SD? Being from Denver originally I feel I am qualified to say moving SAN would be a huge mistake. I (and most other Denver residents) lamented the day that Stapleton closed and the Kansas International Airport… er I mean Denver international airport opened. SAN is the most convenient airport I have ever used and I will fight tooth and nail against any plan to move it. Build an additional international terminal somewhere in the desert if you want, but leave SAN alone! Just my opinion…

[SDfan]

Why the heck would we want a DIA sized airport in SD? Being from Denver originally I feel I am qualified to say moving SAN would be a huge mistake. I (and most other Denver residents) lamented the day that Stapleton closed and the Kansas International Airport… er I mean Denver international airport opened. SAN is the most convenient airport I have ever used and I will fight tooth and nail against any plan to move it. Build an additional international terminal somewhere in the desert if you want, but leave SAN alone! Just my opinion…

I agree that SAN is convenient. I also think that SAN will likely play a role in San Diego's air transportation needs for decades to come, even if a new airport is built somewhere else.

I also think that SAN is a reflection of this city's consistent lack of foresight and hostile to progress citizenry. It's 5 minutes from downtown, but isn't connected directly to any major freeway nor the trolley/train system, is one -short- runway, is hemmed in by homes, businesses, the bay, and the Marine Corps, and has no growth potential whatsoever after 2020.

But hey, it's 5 minutes from downtown. I'm sure that's enough of a reason for seniors and directionally challenged citizens to want to keep Lindbergh open, but I don't think so. :p

But again, SAN is not going anywhere. You can count on San Diego's backwater citizenry to keep real progress at bay. ;)

[Lipani]

I expect teleporters from Star Trek to be invented before Lindbergh shuts down. :haha:

[llamaorama]

I should clarify and say "Denver like" in the way of having lots and lots of land. Not in passenger capacity or runway size, obviously.

But you guys are right. Not only is there a place to put anything like that, there's other airports in the region.

[spoonman]

Does anyone know anything about these office tower proposals?


???

I would think that Sempra would be a perfect candidate for the 880 Broadway project, next to Santa Fe station. It would be sad to see them leave downtown.

[aerogt3]

I also think that SAN is a reflection of this city's consistent lack of foresight and hostile to progress citizenry. It's 5 minutes from downtown, but isn't connected directly to any major freeway nor the trolley/train system

It's not "directly" connected but it's very close and very easy to access from the freeway. It's a short cab/bus ride from the trolley, and there are plans to extend trolley service to the airport. In contrast, any proposed alternative is nowhere near the trolley system, and expanding trolley service to a new airport would cost WAY more than connecting SAN. Not to mention SAN has the benefit of being very close to the coaster, which Miramar for example would not.

is one -short- runway, is hemmed in by homes, businesses, the bay, and the Marine Corps, and has no growth potential whatsoever after 2020.

But hey, it's 5 minutes from downtown. I'm sure that's enough of a reason for seniors and directionally challenged citizens to want to keep Lindbergh open, but I don't think so. :p

But again, SAN is not going anywhere. You can count on San Diego's backwater citizenry to keep real progress at bay. ;)

The short runway is a non-issue. Sure, it prevents fully loaded 747's from landing, but that's an aircraft that would virtually never be landing in SD even if the runway were big enough. I think you underestimate the benefit SAN brings for tourism, conventions, business and to average travelers being SO close to the city. SAN is not just close to downtown, it's the most connected location by existing transit.

Higher capacity aircraft (787, 350), can and will do a lot to expand capacity. If SAN becomes slot restricted airlines will simply load 787's with 250 passangers instead of 737's carrying 120. 30 flights a day are to LA... by 2020 I imagine a lot of that capacity will free up, via shift to rail, consolidation onto larger aircraft, flights from north county, etc. 30 flights a day on a mid size aircraft is 3M passengers a year....

For you a new, expensive, unconnected airport away from the major tourist and population centers is progress, but for the rest of us it's a waste of money.

[SDfan]

It's not "directly" connected but it's very close and very easy to access from the freeway.

Meandering through Laurel, Pacific Highway, and Harbor Drive isn't "very easy to access." The fact is that the 5 is kind of, sort of, not really at all connected to the airport.

It's a short cab/bus ride from the trolley, and there are plans to extend trolley service to the airport.

Transferring takes time and makes the current trolley link unreasonable. The 992 circulates at an alright pace, but again, its not a popular route and only serves downtown. Also, I don't know if you read the article from the UT this past week, but extending the trolley line to the airport isn't so easy, especially since long term plans call for a complete overhaul of the airports configuration anyways.

Not to mention SAN has the benefit of being very close to the coaster, which Miramar for example would not.

Not sure if you have ever ridden the coaster, but it cuts right through MCAS Miramar, and has laid rail that heads towards the main runway already.

The short runway is a non-issue. Sure, it prevents fully loaded 747's from landing, but that's an aircraft that would virtually never be landing in SD even if the runway were big enough.

The short runway was a major reason for the comprehensive 2006 study on airport relocation, to say otherwise is fooling yourself.

I think you underestimate the benefit SAN brings for tourism, conventions, business and to average travelers being SO close to the city. SAN is not just close to downtown, it's the most connected location by existing transit.

I think you overestimate the SAN's convenience to San Diegans. Yes, you can get to SAN easily from downtown, you can take a bus easily from downtown, you can grab a cab easily from downtown... but downtown isn't centrally located in the county. And SAN isn't easily accessible in itself. A myriad of streets are needed to reach it from the 5. The closest trolley stop is nowhere near its terminals. The coaster passes briskly by SAN's back end. Your "its the most connected location by existing transit" claim is true -and a sad reality.

Higher capacity aircraft (787, 350), can and will do a lot to expand capacity. If SAN becomes slot restricted airlines will simply load 787's with 250 passangers instead of 737's carrying 120.

I do have hope for the 787. But it's still going to be inconvenient when only a select number of international flights will be able to take off and land thanks to the single runway and time constraints on the airport (the airport closes in the late evening, flights don't resume until the early morning).

30 flights a day are to LA... by 2020 I imagine a lot of that capacity will free up, via shift to rail, consolidation onto larger aircraft,

Rail isn't going to absorb much, especially with High Speed Rail not coming to San Diego until at least 2030, if ever.

flights from north county, etc. 30 flights a day on a mid size aircraft is 3M passengers a year....

I'm from hoebunk north country. Believe me, the day Palomar Airport becomes a major reliever airport for SAN is the day everyone in Carlsbad is relocated to a reservation. I dare you to tell them an additional 3 million people will be commuting through their tree lined avenues to hop on planes flying over their homes. NIMBYism runs rampant up north, Palomar will not be a major player, let alone reliever for SAN.

For you a new, expensive, unconnected airport away from the major tourist and population centers is progress, but for the rest of us it's a waste of money.

Yes, a new expensive airport would be wonderfully progressive for a city that has put its head in the sands of Mission Beach for years. A new airport at Miramar would be connected by new trolley and rail lines (needed already as highway congestion only gets worse), would be more centrally located in the county (Miramar is smack dab in the middle and surrounded by nearly every major freeway in the region), and would provide greater access to the international markets than SAN ever will.

But, because people continue to be short sighted (ignorant) or, at the very least, reluctant to give up whats easiest for themselves personally (selfish), SAN will continue to be our flagship airport. San Diego has been run by a host of small thinkers and NIMBY appeasers, and that will not change within the next 50 years.

[202_Cyclist]

SDfan:
I'm from hoebunk north country. Believe me, the day Palomar Airport becomes a major reliever airport for SAN is the day everyone in Carlsbad is relocated to a reservation. I dare you to tell them an additional 3 million people will be commuting through their tree lined avenues to hop on planes flying over their homes. NIMBYism runs rampant up north, Palomar will not be a major player, let alone reliever for SAN.


California Pacific Airlines hopes to begin commercial passenger service from Palomar this spring to destinations throughout California and Phoenix and Las Vegas.

http://www.flycpair.com/_images/RoutesPhase1.jpg
Image courtesy of California Pacific Airlines.

At 91, Ted Vallas has a lofty ambition: starting an airline
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/business/la-fi-new-airline-20120822

Additionally, I posted the other day about the possibility of Palm Springs serving more of a reliever airport function to accommodate some of the 300,000 residents of western Riverside County (Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta) who might otherwise use San Diego (SAN). The distance is 68 miles for Palm Springs vs. 60 for SAN for these communities.

[SDfan]

SDfan:


California Pacific Airlines hopes to begin commercial passenger service from Palomar this spring to destinations throughout California and Phoenix and Las Vegas.

http://www.flycpair.com/_images/RoutesPhase1.jpg
Image courtesy of California Pacific Airlines.

At 91, Ted Vallas has a lofty ambition: starting an airline
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/business/la-fi-new-airline-20120822

Additionally, I posted the other day about the possibility of Palm Springs serving more of a reliever airport function to accommodate some of the 300,000 residents of western Riverside County (Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta) who might otherwise use San Diego (SAN). The distance is 68 miles for Palm Springs vs. 60 for SAN for these communities.

I'm well aware of CPA, and I hope they are extremely successful. I'm just not seeing much growth potential after CPA, however.

[202_Cyclist]

SDfan:
I'm well aware of CPA, and I hope they are extremely successful. I'm just not seeing much growth potential after CPA, however.


I think California Pacific Airlines has the chance to be at least moderately successful. The airline will use smaller, fuel-efficient, 70-seat Embraer aircraft. Between North County, southern Orange County, and the Riverside County communities I mentioned, there is approximately 1.5-2 million people within a reasonable drive of Palomar airport.

You're probably correct with Palomar but airlines and passengers will adapt to any future capacity constraints at San Diego. Airlines can use larger aircraft, allowing more capacity at SAN. As noted in other posts above, this can perhaps signficantly increase passenger throughput for the airport. Additionally, as capacity becomes more constrained, ticket prices will rise, further encouraging the use of larger aircraft or encouraging passengers to use other airports (Palomar or Orange County, depending on where the passengers reside).