SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[tyleraf]

Let's hope the Jacobs can bring NBA back to San Diego. That would be amazing. A downtown arena akin to LA Live would be amazing.

[mello]

Ok I'm confused what would the Jacobs brothers have to do with the Sacramento Kings, and why would the Clippers move here when they have two stars and are looking like a perennial playoff team for the foreseeable future? Good teams never relocate in any sport. Teams have usually had 3 to 5 consecutive down years before they move.

The only way an NBA team would work here is if they were a solid team with established stars, the Kings or Pelicans coming here would be a disaster and maybe draw 10k per night :( San Diego just does not have the corporate base and enough people with money within a 15 mile drive of downtown to support an NBA team at the average ticket prices most of them charge. If they were SDSU prices then maybe 15k per game but NBA tix aren't too cheap.

[spoonman]

Ok I'm confused what would the Jacobs brothers have to do with the Sacramento Kings, and why would the Clippers move here when they have two stars and are looking like a perennial playoff team for the foreseeable future? Good teams never relocate in any sport. Teams have usually had 3 to 5 consecutive down years before they move.

The only way an NBA team would work here is if they were a solid team with established stars, the Kings or Pelicans coming here would be a disaster and maybe draw 10k per night :( San Diego just does not have the corporate base and enough people with money within a 15 mile drive of downtown to support an NBA team at the average ticket prices most of them charge. If they were SDSU prices then maybe 15k per game but NBA tix aren't too cheap.

As far as I know, the Jacobs' reason for buying into the Kings are unknown, which is what makes it so interesting. Off the top of my head, there are only 3 reasons why they would have made the investment:

1. They just really wanted to invest in a team, even if it's 600 miles away
2. They bought into the team to "cut their teeth" and learn how the sports ownership business works, to prepare for a full stake in another team
3. They plan to eventually move the team once the competition from Seattle cools down.

Could be any one of these, although some scenarios are more plausible than others.

As far as NBA in San Diego goes, I think it's looney that people point back to the 60's/70's with the Rockets and Clippers to say that there isn't an appetite or fan base for NBA in SD. The size of the city has more than doubled, and we are almost 2 generations removed from the 60's/70's.

Again, based on 40-50 years since the last team, we have a lot more in terms of corporate sponsorship now than before. Qualcomm could use the entire team to woo clients while profiting from the venue at the same time. Also, the fact that the facility could be shared with NFL would help lower ongoing operating costs. Not to mention the income/subsidy from redevelopment of the Sports Arena and area surrounding Qualcomm.

Without an expansion team, you're right, the Clippers, Kings or another team would have to move. I'm not sure how likely that is, but I definitely think we could support the team much better than in the past.

[Leo the Dog]

Ok I'm confused what would the Jacobs brothers have to do with the Sacramento Kings, and why would the Clippers move here when they have two stars and are looking like a perennial playoff team for the foreseeable future? Good teams never relocate in any sport. Teams have usually had 3 to 5 consecutive down years before they move.

The only way an NBA team would work here is if they were a solid team with established stars, the Kings or Pelicans coming here would be a disaster and maybe draw 10k per night :( San Diego just does not have the corporate base and enough people with money within a 15 mile drive of downtown to support an NBA team at the average ticket prices most of them charge. If they were SDSU prices then maybe 15k per game but NBA tix aren't too cheap.

If SD gets their act together and can come up with a working plan to build an arena in the East village, they could lure the Clippers from LA. They would love to have their own home and not play on the Lakers' court. I believe Seattle is interested in a NBA team. There are many articles and blogs about why the Clippers should move. All I'm saying is Why not SD?

As for tickets and a fan base, I don't see a problem there. I see conventioneers from an expanded convention center filling the gap. The NBA is successful in many small markets (Salt Lake, OKC, Sacramento, Cleveland, NO, Portland, San Antonio).

[Nerv]

San Diego's history with the NBA is far,far into its past. I'm not sure how a team would do here today and unless we ever get one I don't see any predictions of success or failure being terribly accurate.

The Rockets were originally started back here but that was in 1967-71. The city was tiny compared to today and if a Texas backer hadn't bought the franchise and moved it to Houston I'm not sure the team wouldn't have "grown into" the city like the Chargers and Padres finally did.

The Clippers were more of a passing ship in the night for San Diego. The team wasn't a original San Diego product (the Clippers started in 1970 in Buffalo). We got them years later in 1978 until 1984. The team was terrible and the ownership did nothing to endear themselves to San Diego fans. The negative reaction you get from San Diego basketball fans when you bring up the name Clippers is well deserved. It would have been the same reaction had the team played in any other city.

Hey I know people like to bash on San Diego fans here but both the Chargers and Padres have proved at times when you treat the fans proper and make your best attempt with your product (spelled team) we draw attendance numbers with the best. Treat the fans otherwise as both the Chargers and Padres have at times and you see the opposite.

My point being if a serious owner came to town with a serious attempt to win fans over with a NBA team, I think it might work. You don't have to be in the playoffs every year to draw San Diego fans you just need to stop screwing with them... :titanic:

[mello]

Also, the fact that the facility could be shared with NFL would help lower ongoing operating costs.

Explain this, how could a basketball arena be shared with the NFL? The only NBA team to ever play in a facility that housed football was the Spurs in the Alamo dome?

[spoonman]

Explain this, how could a basketball arena be shared with the NFL? The only NBA team to ever play in a facility that housed football was the Spurs in the Alamo dome?

There are many examples online...here is one.
http://www.vigilantsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Lucas-Oil-Stadium-Midwest-Regional-2013.jpg

Is it perfect? No. Could it make keeping the Chargers and getting an NBA team viable? Maybe.

There could be many benefits to sharing. Naming rights could be worth more due to the 2 sports seasons. Also there would be a better chance of selling seat licenses with 2 sports. High rise condos around the facility could fetch higher prices as they could be marketed to NFL and NBA fans (or both).

[mello]

Spoonman there are no NBA teams who share a facility with a college or pro football team, I don't really know if an NBA team would want to move here to play in a football stadium.

Note on Clippers: They could have had there own identity and Arena in Anaheim at the Honda center years ago. That facility was built with the intention of having the Ducks and Clippers play there and the owner Donald Sterling could take that deal at any time but he chooses to stay in the City of LA and share an arena with the Lakers.

What makes anyone think Sterling would want to come back to SD a place he left so long ago when he could have had his own team identity in OC with easy access to parts of the Inland Empire for the last 19 years?

The Honda center was the premier Arena in all of California for six years until Staples opened in 1999. Would have made a lot of sense for Sterling to go down there but he seems to be an "LA guy".

[dales5050]

Regarding the NBA: I think DT is a perfect location for a NBA arena. It could double as an event center. Putting it in the East Village could really accelerate the build out.

If this were to happen, I would love to see some sort of planned urban village to be constructed on the site of the current sports arena.

Regarding the Charges Stadium: Regardless of where it goes and if it actually gets built, I think people are going to have to give up the idea of having a vast amount of space to tailgate. Simply put, it puts zero money into the coffers of the team or city.

I also really like the Cushman plan (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jan/03/qualcomm-stadium-could-still-be-chargers-home-cush/) for the current site. I know there are issues with pollution but I hope those could be resolved. It would be great to see the gas field cleared in the new build.

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/01/03/dealy--stadium_r620x349.jpg?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8

[mello]

So do you guys really think that if the Qualcomm or Sports Arena site become open for a planned urban village there will really be demand for such a project??

Look at CIVITA: The land has been cleared for what 4 years now and that is a prime Mission Valley location and it is coming along sooo slowly in phases... So will there really be demand for 2000 units on Sports Arena land or 4 to 5k on Qualcomm?? I know there is demand for housing in the County but not at the price point the developers need to make things pencil out.

Of course new 2 bedrooms at 1200 to $1400 per month will lease like hotcakes but Civita is starting at 2k per month and I would assume any urban village on the aforementioned properties would be asking similar prices.

[dales5050]

So do you guys really think that if the Qualcomm or Sports Arena site become open for a planned urban village there will really be demand for such a project??

Look at CIVITA: The land has been cleared for what 4 years now and that is a prime Mission Valley location and it is coming along sooo slowly in phases... So will there really be demand for 2000 units on Sports Arena land or 4 to 5k on Qualcomm?? I know there is demand for housing in the County but not at the price point the developers need to make things pencil out.

Of course new 2 bedrooms at 1200 to $1400 per month will lease like hotcakes but Civita is starting at 2k per month and I would assume any urban village on the aforementioned properties would be asking similar prices.


It depends on what kind of timeline you're looking at. If you look at it over say 20 years...that's not to far of a reach.

I also wonder if the build out could have a more diverse housing stock and thus maybe tap into various funding sources. I know some county support buildings are around the corner and there is already a good mix of low end retail like Target and Vons.

A PUD does not have to be high end in my opinion. In fact, if low income was better developed we would all be better off.

[spoonman]

^ I agree.

I'm for building as much housing in SD as possible. Low priced housing would instantly reduce pent up demand for affordable structures. Even at high prices, you would have residents "moving up" vacating less desirable units for less affluent buyers.

In the papers, this city keeps debating over "Linkage Fees" which tax developers, in order to build "low income" housing. Problem is that this scares away developers (worsening the job market/and incomes), and creates very little subsidized housing.

The city needs to come to the realization that regulations should be reduced, and massive housing complexes need to be build somewhere to reduce pressure on prices. Let's pick an uncontentious area and build tons of low-med income housing that is only subsidized in that developers can fast track the projects, and receive lienency on restrictions and red tape.

[aerogt3]

^ I agree.

I'm for building as much housing in SD as possible. Low priced housing would instantly reduce pent up demand for affordable structures. Even at high prices, you would have residents "moving up" vacating less desirable units for less affluent buyers.

In the papers, this city keeps debating over "Linkage Fees" which tax developers, in order to build "low income" housing. Problem is that this scares away developers (worsening the job market/and incomes), and creates very little subsidized housing.

The city needs to come to the realization that regulations should be reduced, and massive housing complexes need to be build somewhere to reduce pressure on prices. Let's pick an uncontentious area and build tons of low-med income housing that is only subsidized in that developers can fast track the projects, and receive lienency on restrictions and red tape.

Absolute +1 :notacrook:

Just have a look at San Francisco to see how badly the "robin hood" principle of affordable housing has gone. It's simple demographic fact that developer fees on the few units built for the rich cannot pay for housing for everyone else. What would have been one of the most highly taxed developments in SF was 134 luxury condos bringing $8M in affordable housing. That isn't a ratio that will ever make an impact.

Volume in new locations is the way to bring down prices.

[Leo the Dog]

Hey guys, just a quick question. I'm not originally from SD so I'm not sure on the history of how things developed here (but I'm learning).

Does anyone know why Regents road does not connect from University City to UTC area? Was it a NIMBY issue, or does it have to do with the RR tracks?

It seems like this would ease congestion and provide another access point to the region via the 52.

Same question for Balboa/Tierrasanta rd to Mission Gorge in Allied Gardens...seems like it was planned, but never completed.

[tyleraf]

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article regarding the bridge. Regents Road Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_City,_San_Diego#Regents_Road_bridge) Also it's a little old but the Marriott ballroom project gained coastal commission approval and is moving forward. It's expected to start in 2015. http://www.portofsandiego.org/san-diego-marriott-marquis-marina/3295-san-diego-marriott-marquis-marina-project-moves-forward.html

[spoonman]

Hey guys, just a quick question. I'm not originally from SD so I'm not sure on the history of how things developed here (but I'm learning).

Does anyone know why Regents road does not connect from University City to UTC area? Was it a NIMBY issue, or does it have to do with the RR tracks?

It seems like this would ease congestion and provide another access point to the region via the 52.

Same question for Balboa/Tierrasanta rd to Mission Gorge in Allied Gardens...seems like it was planned, but never completed.

I believe Regents was going to be completed "soon", but there was NIMBY pushback. I had thought that the NIMBY's were not going to win this one because completing Regents was tied to the redevelopment of UTC, which is to include multiple towers of residential, hotel, office. Not sure though.

[HurricaneHugo]

What are you guys' thoughts on the mayoral race?

[tyleraf]

Faulconer will probably be the best for downtown development and in my opinion is the best choice.

[spoonman]

What are you guys' thoughts on the mayoral race?

I don't like Alvarez because he seems anti-jobs & anti-development. I did not like his stance on Barrio Logan. Shipbuilding brings in high paying jobs, and is the major use of our harbor (as opposed to being a cargo port). We shouldn't have to mess that up to appease people that bought houses in a sh!tty neighborhood. I shouldn't be able to move somewhere crappy, then have the legislature fix it to get my property values up. Sorry for the rant.

Falconer supported my stance on the Barrio Logan issue. That said, he came out in favor of the 30ft coastal height limit in Voice of SD. His explanation rubbed me the wrong way, in that he seemed in lock step with the aging boomer set, intent on preserving "their" views, and driving up home prices. I believe the coastal limit should not stretch to the 5, but maybe only 1/2 a mile. All that said, he is a republican, and so he may be a friend to developers (which is good), but may not be a friend to well planned development (not good).

Fletcher seems a wild card. Despite what people say, I like the fact that he is in the pocket of Qualcomm. If nothing else, just to see what Qualcomm is looking to get out of the city. No single company has done more for the city in recent history. He may be the guy to push a stadium or arena through...than again, who knows.

If I had to vote today, I would pick Fletcher, with Falconer as second choice.

[Leo the Dog]

Re: Regents Road: thanks Tyler/spoonman.

Regarding the mayoral race, I'm for Faulconer. Fletcher has some unknowns and Alvarez isn't a realistic option.

[dales5050]

I don't like Alvarez because he seems anti-jobs & anti-development. I did not like his stance on Barrio Logan. Shipbuilding brings in high paying jobs, and is the major use of our harbor (as opposed to being a cargo port). We shouldn't have to mess that up to appease people that bought houses in a sh!tty neighborhood. I shouldn't be able to move somewhere crappy, then have the legislature fix it to get my property values up. Sorry for the rant.

Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.



Falconer supported my stance on the Barrio Logan issue. That said, he came out in favor of the 30ft coastal height limit in Voice of SD. His explanation rubbed me the wrong way, in that he seemed in lock step with the aging boomer set, intent on preserving "their" views, and driving up home prices. I believe the coastal limit should not stretch to the 5, but maybe only 1/2 a mile. All that said, he is a republican, and so he may be a friend to developers (which is good), but may not be a friend to well planned development (not good).

Fletcher seems a wild card. Despite what people say, I like the fact that he is in the pocket of Qualcomm. If nothing else, just to see what Qualcomm is looking to get out of the city. No single company has done more for the city in recent history. He may be the guy to push a stadium or arena through...than again, who knows.

If I had to vote today, I would pick Fletcher, with Falconer as second choice.

My challenge with Falconer is not only has he been 'purchased' by the aging boomers but also is a pawn for the Downtown Partnership. A group that while serving a crucial need for downtown is horribly corrupt.

[spoonman]

Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.




My challenge with Falconer is not only has he been 'purchased' by the aging boomers but also is a pawn for the Downtown Partnership. A group that while serving a crucial need for downtown is horribly corrupt.

Yeah, it's tough to know with these guys. I guess that is nothing new.

Even Filner had his good moments. He was ultra combative, but seemed at least a straight shooter. (no harassment puns intended). I really liked what he was trying to do with Tijuana, and believe that some of that mentality has carried on to a lesser extent under Gloria. Of course, the next thing you know the guy is shutting down a Jack in the Box, and scolding the developers of One Paseo. It's always a mixed bag...

[Northparkwizard]

Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.

Here's the Shipbuilding industry's response to the new community plan which was approved by a majority of city council members, VOSD (http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/11/12/why-shipbuilders-are-still-collecting-barrio-logan-signatures/).

Seems like the Shipbuilding industry/General Dynamics and, something that they don't mention in the article, a little thing called the United States Navy are going to fight tooth and nail to try and keep things status quo in Barrio Logan and National City. Which is going to be interesting to say the least, seeing that there's so many majorly interested parties involved; Developers, Shipbuilders/Longshoremen, US Navy, Port of San Diego, City of SD, and the general community, etc..

I think we're still a long way from any type of consensus on the future of Barrio Logan, and unfortunately with all those groups involved I doubt the winners will be those who live there now.

[202_Cyclist]

Cross the Border, Then Fly

By Conor Dougherty
Nov. 17, 2013
Wall Street Journal

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BY954_TIJBRI_D_20131117190609.jpg
Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

"SAN DIEGO—This city has spent decades looking for ways to expand its cramped, one-runway airport. Today the region is edging closer to a solution, but it comes with a catch: It's in Mexico.

Developers backed by a group of U.S. and Mexican investors said they are close to breaking ground on a privately owned pedestrian bridge that would allow Americans and foreign travelers to cross the border directly into and out of Tijuana's General Abelardo L. Rodriguez International Airport, or TIJ.

It's not a done deal, but if the final hurdles are cleared, the for-profit project—whose investors include real-estate mogul Sam Zell—would be the latest in a series of border improvements that have strengthened the economic ties between the neighboring cities..."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196370226844190

[spoonman]

Cross the Border, Then Fly

By Conor Dougherty
Nov. 17, 2013
Wall Street Journal

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BY954_TIJBRI_D_20131117190609.jpg
Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

"SAN DIEGO—This city has spent decades looking for ways to expand its cramped, one-runway airport. Today the region is edging closer to a solution, but it comes with a catch: It's in Mexico.

Developers backed by a group of U.S. and Mexican investors said they are close to breaking ground on a privately owned pedestrian bridge that would allow Americans and foreign travelers to cross the border directly into and out of Tijuana's General Abelardo L. Rodriguez International Airport, or TIJ.

It's not a done deal, but if the final hurdles are cleared, the for-profit project—whose investors include real-estate mogul Sam Zell—would be the latest in a series of border improvements that have strengthened the economic ties between the neighboring cities..."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196370226844190

This is an exciting project. This project actually broke ground back in September, and is supposed to be completed in late 2014. The Wall Street Journal is a little late on this.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/oct/08/construction-cross-border-airport-terminal-ground/

http://www.airport-technology.com/news/newsconstruction-commences-on-tijuana-to-san-diego-cross-border-terminal

[tyleraf]

Yea. The cross border terminal is exciting. Also it'll be interesting to see the results of the Mayoral election tomorrow.

[Derek]

I don't like the WSJ's declaration of this being a "solution".

It helps people who are flying into or out of destinations in Mexico (or Shanghai), but Tijuana in general is a tiny airport with a single runway similar in size to San Diego's.


This is far from a "solution". After reading the articles, this project benefits people flying into TIJ more so than alleviating any traffic at SAN.

[eburress]

This is an exciting project. This project actually broke ground back in September, and is supposed to be completed in late 2014. The Wall Street Journal is a little late on this.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/oct/08/construction-cross-border-airport-terminal-ground/

http://www.airport-technology.com/news/newsconstruction-commences-on-tijuana-to-san-diego-cross-border-terminal

What I would consider to be exciting would be a new airport built at Miramar that brings in billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the local economy, while at the same time allowing the city to close Lindbergh, removing downtown building height limits and allowing the Little Italy neighborhood to expand northward, essentially all the way to Liberty Station. That's exciting.

I really fail to see anything exciting about a pedestrian bridge to TJ's airport though. Maybe I just need to have a more San Diego-appropriate level of expectations about things. haha

[spoonman]

What I would consider to be exciting would be a new airport built at Miramar that brings in billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the local economy, while at the same time allowing the city to close Lindbergh, removing downtown building height limits and allowing the Little Italy neighborhood to expand northward, essentially all the way to Liberty Station. That's exciting.

I really fail to see anything exciting about a pedestrian bridge to TJ's airport though. Maybe I just need to have a more San Diego-appropriate level of expectations about things. haha

Haha, yeah. Manage your expectations...lol.

I would love to see the airport move, and get all of the benefits you outlined. BUT, the Tijuana airport project is cool because it will allow people in this area to get access to numerous intra-Mexico flights. It could also be useful for certain international destinations not offered at SDIA, such as China. On the flip-side, business people in China may be more encouraged to come do business in the SD/TJ area, instead of LA, due to the improved access that the bridge and US terminal affords them. The additional international access at San Diego Int'l hasn't hurt either.

I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

[Streamliner]

Derek's right that this isn't a solution to our airport troubles. It's very good for San Diego, but it's not some savior for SAN.

I am very excited for this project. It's such a simple idea that should bring a lot of benefits. Now they just need to finish the San Ysidro crossing expansion and make smoother transitions between our two cities. Also, fix the rail line from SD-Imperial via Mexico. There's so much potential on our border.

[eburress]

Haha, yeah. Manage your expectations...lol.

I would love to see the airport move, and get all of the benefits you outlined. BUT, the Tijuana airport project is cool because it will allow people in this area to get access to numerous intra-Mexico flights. It could also be useful for certain international destinations not offered at SDIA, such as China. On the flip-side, business people in China may be more encouraged to come do business in the SD/TJ area, instead of LA, due to the improved access that the bridge and US terminal affords them. The additional international access at San Diego Int'l hasn't hurt either.

I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

I'm not meaning to be a Debbie Downer about this, but I just don't see it. If I were a business person, Asian or otherwise, a pedestrian bridge to a Mexican airport would further underscore/reinforce the reasons I am NOT doing business in San Diego.

Is flying into TJ, making the LONG walk over a pedestrian bridge to Chula Vista, and then driving up to Sorrento Valley really easier than flying directly into LA, Dallas, Chicago, etc? Of course not.

[spoonman]

I'm not meaning to be a Debbie Downer about this, but I just don't see it. If I were a business person, Asian or otherwise, a pedestrian bridge to a Mexican airport would further underscore/reinforce the reasons I am NOT doing business in San Diego.

Is flying into TJ, making the LONG walk over a pedestrian bridge to Chula Vista, and then driving up to Sorrento Valley really easier than flying directly into LA, Dallas, Chicago, etc? Of course not.

I really don't see it. SD is a pacific rim city, and the walk doesn't seem worse than any other airport. While it is a deficiency that we could not just go ahead and build a single new airport due to our land availability issues, in time I think that the bridge to TIJ could be viewed as positive. It should be marketed as a new SECONDARY gateway to SD.

[Leo the Dog]

I really don't see it. SD is a pacific rim city, and the walk doesn't seem worse than any other airport. While it is a deficiency that we could not just go ahead and build a single new airport due to our land availability issues, in time I think that the bridge to TIJ could be viewed as positive. It should be marketed as a new SECONDARY gateway to SD.

Agreed.

San Diegans don't know what an asset the location of SAN really is.

[dales5050]

I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

I like the 'idea' of the terminal in TJ but you're correct on the cost making the airport useless to many.

Searched flights.google.com from SAN to EWR (Newark) between 1/10 > 1/17 and found a ticket for $356. Modified the search to TIJ to EWR (Newark) for the same dates and the cost was $1172.

I know the last thing the various authorities are going to want is for TIJ to go into a price war with SAN but 3X the cost is nuts.

Maybe they could pass some type of legislation that allows for TIJ flights to US cities to not pay the same international rate as they currently do. Maybe tack on a $150 fee or something. So the price point would be $350ish US to $500 TJ?


Regardless, while I love the new Terminal 2....they really. missed. the. boat. on moving the entire terminal set over to the other side of the runway and adding a second lane. :(

I know some want the airport to be in Miramar but honestly, the proximity to downtown is one of the main selling points for conventions.

While it would be nice to have taller buildings downtown if the airport restrictions were removed...consider that the trend to build massive towers really does not exist anymore. If DT were to add 1 70 story tower, odds are that would prevent two other blocks from being filled in. Personally, I would be fine with every block being filled with buildings that were between 5-30 floors with a couple 40 mixed in.

[Urbanize_It]

Agreed.

San Diegans don't know what an asset the location of SAN really is.

I could not agree with you more Leo. The only "solution" I will ever support keeps SAN up and running. Although, I know that’s not a popular statement here…

For anyone wanting to see how inconvenient a brand new mega hub airport placed in the middle of nowhere is, move to Denver for a year. It sucks. We have TJ close to the south and OC/LA to the north. We don’t need a hub airport. We only need an efficient rail line connecting each of these from downtown LA through to TJ. Period.

:notacrook:

[eburress]

Lindburg's location is convenient, but it's definitely not an "advantage." LAX, O'Hare, DFW, and Hartsfield are HUGE economic growth engines, and are not hurt in the least by the fact that they're not immediately adjacent to those cities' downtowns.

Speaking on the topic of economic growth, I just read that Fort Worth's alliance airport has had a $38.5 billion economic impact on Tarrant and Denton counties since 1990. Now that is an advantage. :)

[Northparkwizard]

Interesting topic. SAN is an outlier, you can't judge it on the same metric as other airports because there really isn't (as far as I know) another standard to judge it against. Denver, SF, LA, JFK, they're all miles away from the city core. Does that help or hurt those airports? I think the answer is both.

When I visit those cities it's a pain in the ass to get to the "city" that I supposedly flew into. Cab, train, or rental it's going to take at least an hour+. SAN doesn't have that problem. Once you land, even with the lack of light rail or subway, you're in the heart of the city in less than an hour (you actually land in the city you're flying into which is nice).

Look, I think it was a silly choice in the first place to put the airport where it is but having a 1 runway airport in the center of a city, as a visitor is probably optimal. As a resident and business owner, not so much.

My pie in the sky idea is to take over 1 runway at North Island and use it exclusively for international and cargo operations with underground transportation... that's never going to happen.

[Bertrice]

http://djcoregon.com/files/2012/05/0515_horton_plaza_walker_macy_01.jpg

This article article claims the park is to be completed by december 2013. any new info?

http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/05/15/walker-macy-designs-san-diego-plaza-with-inspiration-from-pioneer-courthouse-square/

[eburress]

Interesting topic. SAN is an outlier, you can't judge it on the same metric as other airports because there really isn't (as far as I know) another standard to judge it against. Denver, SF, LA, JFK, they're all miles away from the city core. Does that help or hurt those airports? I think the answer is both.

When I visit those cities it's a pain in the ass to get to the "city" that I supposedly flew into. Cab, train, or rental it's going to take at least an hour+. SAN doesn't have that problem. Once you land, even with the lack of light rail or subway, you're in the heart of the city in less than an hour (you actually land in the city you're flying into which is nice).

Look, I think it was a silly choice in the first place to put the airport where it is but having a 1 runway airport in the center of a city, as a visitor is probably optimal. As a resident and business owner, not so much.

My pie in the sky idea is to take over 1 runway at North Island and use it exclusively for international and cargo operations with underground transportation... that's never going to happen.

The question isn't about Lindbergh Field vs. other similar airports because that's a debate about who's the tallest vertically challenged person* in Dubuque and the question also isn't which airport is hurt by its location because all of the World's most economically "valuable" airports are far from their respective cities' downtowns. The question is what is Lindbergh Field's effect on San Diego...what is its economic impact vs. the economic impact of a larger, world-class airport.

It might be convenient to us having the airport so close to downtown, but what's good for some people in the region isn't necessarily what's good for the region as a whole, and frankly it's that thinking (what's good for me vs. what's good for the whole) that has left SD with such a turd of an airport to begin with.


*Gotta be PC

[SDfan]

I could not agree with you more Leo. The only "solution" I will ever support keeps SAN up and running. Although, I know that’s not a popular statement here…

For anyone wanting to see how inconvenient a brand new mega hub airport placed in the middle of nowhere is, move to Denver for a year. It sucks. We have TJ close to the south and OC/LA to the north. We don’t need a hub airport. We only need an efficient rail line connecting each of these from downtown LA through to TJ. Period.

:notacrook:

I agree to a point. I don't think a huge airport in the Imperial Valley would not be ideal either.

But I don't think San Diego is going to reach it's optimal economic potential by relying on Tijuana and LAX for it's air transport needs. It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline. If you mean high speed, you might as well be asking for an off shore airport - at least that's what I gather from most of the transportation planners I've talked to.

The debate is pretty much divided between whose interests do we want to serve? The communities preference for direct access to SAN, or the business/economic communities need for greater air transport growth?

That's a tough call. I'm not sure I have an answer just yet. :shrug:

[SDfan]

The question isn't about Lindbergh Field vs. other similar airports because that's a debate about who's the tallest vertically challenged person* in Dubuque and the question also isn't which airport is hurt by its location because all of the World's most economically "valuable" airports are far from their respective cities' downtowns. The question is what is Lindbergh Field's effect on San Diego...what is its the economic impact vs. the economic impact of a larger, world-class airport.

It might be convenient to us having the airport so close to downtown, but what's good for some people in the region isn't necessarily what's good for the region as a whole, and frankly it's that thinking (what's good for me vs. what's good for the whole) that has left SD with such a turd of an airport to begin with.


*Gotta be PC

I'm leaning more this way though.

[Bertrice]

I'm leaning more this way though.

If there was more industry here I'd agree but the only time the airport is busy is during holidays or maybe comic-con. Speaking from someone who spent my childhood in airports.

[spoonman]

If there was more industry here I'd agree but the only time the airport is busy is during holidays or maybe comic-con. Speaking from someone who spent my childhood in airports.

The only time the airport is busy is during holidays? Let's not make things up here.

The airport, particularly T1, has been chronically congested, and I'm not sure what your childhood has to do with this. There are numerous reasons why people fly. Business, health, leisure, military, sports, government,etc. There may not be that many Fortune 500 companies in SoCal these days, but there are still plenty of companies creating travel demand, in addition to the other sources I mentioned.

As others have said, there are a clash of interests here.

Forward looking people see the airport, and say gee-whiz, we would have more international flights if we had a runway that didn't require long-haul flights to be weight restricted. This would be good for the city AND citizens, by offering more destinations, and bringing in more foreign travelers. With a larger facility, there would also be more room to support more overnighting, and maintenance facilities for aircraft, creating more opportunities to become a focus city for more airlines, and cargo.

Instead, many people say gee, the airport can still get me back to Timbucktoo at Christmas, so it must be meeting all of our city's needs.

[Bertrice]

The only time the airport is busy is during holidays? That is nonsense.

The airport, particularly T1, has been chronically congested, and I'm not sure what your childhood has to do with this. There are numerous reasons why people fly. Business, health, leisure, military, sports, government,etc. There may not be that many Fortune 500 companies in SoCal these days, but there are still plenty of companies creating travel demand, in addition to the other sources I mentioned.

As others have said, there are a clash of interests here.

Forward looking people see the airport, and say gee-whiz, we would have more international flights if we had a runway that didn't require long-haul flights to be weight restricted. This would be good for the city AND citizens, by offering more destinations, and bringing in more foreign travelers.

Instead, many people say gee, the airport can still get me back to Timbucktoo at Christmas, so it must be meeting all of our city's needs.

I drove through it a couple days ago just to see the new terminal. I couldn't do that in newark or lax. Hell I could bike through it on thanksgiving. I flew out xmas and its was slow as fuck. Southwest terminal security line is crowded at times but that's on southwest.
"numerous reasons why people fly" no shit Sherlock or grimace

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

[Urbanize_It]

It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline.

Not sufficient? How so? SAN currently bears ALL traffic the market can bring. Including non-stops to Asia and and Europe. It will be a long time until SAN is at capacity.

No, I don't mean double tracking, alone at least. I am also not talking about high speed train. I am, however, talking about a true rail NETWORK that could handle express trains from SAN to LAX without having to go through DT LA. Maybe a pipe dream in this SoCal anti rail climate, but would be way better than an airport half way to Arizona.... THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD A TRAIN TO!? :???:

[spoonman]

I drove through it a couple days ago just to see the new terminal. I couldn't do that in newark or lax. Hell I could bike through it on thanksgiving. I flew out xmas and its was slow as fuck. Southwest terminal security line is crowded at times but that's on southwest.
"numerous reasons why people fly" no shit Sherlock or grimace

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

Airports are cyclical in their levels of busyness. I have spent a lot of time at LAX, and have gone there many times to go to the Encounter. There are times that place is dead and slammed, due to scheduling and connections. "Riding a bike" through the throughway does not have anything to do with gate capacity, slotting, runway capacity, overnight capacity, weight restrictions, etc. Your personal anecdotes do not mean that a new airport is not necessary or wanted. I will say that the airport expansion has given the airport more years, but continued expansion will only delay the inevitable.

[Urbanize_It]

Lindburg's location is convenient, but it's definitely not an "advantage." LAX, O'Hare, DFW, and Hartsfield are HUGE economic growth engines, and are not hurt in the least by the fact that they're not immediately adjacent to those cities' downtowns.

Speaking on the topic of economic growth, I just read that Fort Worth's alliance airport has had a $38.5 billion economic impact on Tarrant and Denton counties since 1990. Now that is an advantage. :)

Ok, now I am confused. Alliance airport IS and advantage, but SAN is NOT? You do realize that Alliance only exists because DFW (the huge hub) is not convienient to most of Tarrant County's population, right? You kind of helped prove my point.

LAX, DFW and O'Hare are huge economic engines because of their locations and timing to the market. They were built due to favorable locations in the air transportation network (geographic) AND were already huge employment centers. Not the other way around. I.e. I think it is magical thinking at best to suggest a huge hub airport built here,even if conveniently located, would lure businesses here. Again, look at DIA as an example. That was the plan, but it just didn't pan out...so the residents and avid skier ex-residents (me) suffer. I now ski in Utah and California almost exclusively. :-(

Just to make it clear, I am not against adding a huge airport out in the desert (if it is not a money drain), but it would be insane to retire Lindburgh. Just like all the examples you gave above, their old closer in airports are still being used and are vital to the local economy.

[eburress]

I agree to a point. I don't think a huge airport in the Imperial Valley would not be ideal either.

But I don't think San Diego is going to reach it's optimal economic potential by relying on Tijuana and LAX for it's air transport needs. It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline. If you mean high speed, you might as well be asking for an off shore airport - at least that's what I gather from most of the transportation planners I've talked to.

The debate is pretty much divided between whose interests do we want to serve? The communities preference for direct access to SAN, or the business/economic communities need for greater air transport growth?

That's a tough call. I'm not sure I have an answer just yet. :shrug:

Agreed. An airport in the IE isn't a viable option and neither is a Lindbergh/TJ combo. What is an option though...the only option...is Miramar. It's plenty accessible to downtown and the rest of the region, especially once the trolley is extended north, and it has plenty of room to actually be an economic growth engine.

[eburress]

Ok, now I am confused. Alliance airport IS and advantage, but SAN is NOT? You do realize that Alliance only exists because DFW (the huge hub) is not convienient to most of Tarrant County's population, right? You kind of helped prove my point.

LAX, DFW and O'Hare are huge economic engines because of their locations and timing to the market. They were built due to favorable locations in the air transportation network (geographic) AND were already huge employment centers. Not the other way around. I.e. I think it is magical thinking at best to suggest a huge hub airport built here,even if conveniently located, would lure businesses here. Again, look at DIA as an example. That was the plan, but it just didn't pan out...so the residents and avid skier ex-residents (me) suffer. I now ski in Utah and California almost exclusively. :-(

Just to make it clear, I am not against adding a huge airport out in the desert (if it is not a money drain), but it would be insane to retire Lindburgh. Just like all the examples you gave above, their old closer in airports are still being used and are vital to the local economy.

That's incorrect in almost every way.


Alliance airport is a 100% industrial airport and offers no consumer passenger service.
Its advantage is its economic impact, which is enormous.
It was built in the middle of nowhere, like DIA, and while it may have been "magical" thinking to expect it to lure businesses there, but that's precisely what has and continues to happen.
No, it wasn't built because DFW was inconvenient to Tarrant County, and frankly no, DFW isn't inconvenient to anyone in the Metroplex, unless maybe you live East of Dallas or West of Fort Worth.

[Bertrice]

Airports are cyclical in their levels of busyness. I have spent a lot of time at LAX, and have gone there many times to go to the Encounter. There are times that place is dead and slammed, due to scheduling and connections. "Riding a bike" through the throughway does not have anything to do with gate capacity, slotting, runway capacity, overnight capacity, weight restrictions, etc. Your personal anecdotes do not mean that a new airport is not necessary or wanted. I will say that the airport expansion has given the airport more years, but continued expansion will only delay the inevitable.

Its on curfew, even with that limitation its still slow. Once downtown breaks 100k in population come talk to me.

[SDfan]

Not sufficient? How so? SAN currently bears ALL traffic the market can bring. Including non-stops to Asia and and Europe. It will be a long time until SAN is at capacity.

No, I don't mean double tracking, alone at least. I am also not talking about high speed train. I am, however, talking about a true rail NETWORK that could handle express trains from SAN to LAX without having to go through DT LA. Maybe a pipe dream in this SoCal anti rail climate, but would be way better than an airport half way to Arizona.... THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD A TRAIN TO!? :???:

I stand corrected. I should have said not sufficient for future and further needs. SAN includes one non-stop to Asia and one non-stop to Europe; hardly a plethora to say that it's sufficient for an aspiring global city. SAN bears all the traffic it can... for now.

That is unless San Diego wants to settle into a Santa Barbra and San Luis Obispo kind of existence. No dynamism, no growth. Just a town preserved in an aesthetic for the privileged few who want to keep it manicured for their our selfish preferences.

Lets hope the LOSSAN actually comes up with a solid plan for the socal rail system. But from what it seems, Sacramento will have HSR gobble up all of the attention, funds, and political capital that would have otherwise gone into more practical projects.

So, realistically, the day LAX gets a direct, express link to SAN is after HSR is completed through Riverside (umm, that's 2030+). Meanwhile SAN will only become more congested ... but hey! We got a bridge to TJ! *wipes hands* Problem solved.

[SDfan]

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

What would you like to talk about?

[Urbanize_It]

That's incorrect in almost every way.


Alliance airport is a 100% industrial airport and offers no consumer passenger service.
Its advantage is its economic impact, which is enormous.
It was built in the middle of nowhere, like DIA, and while it may have been "magical" thinking to expect it to lure businesses there, but that's precisely what has and continues to happen.
No, it wasn't built because DFW was inconvenient to Tarrant County, and frankly no, DFW isn't inconvenient to anyone in the Metroplex, unless maybe you live East of Dallas or West of Fort Worth.


I apologize for the completely incorrect assumptions that Alliance was a new passenger airport created to service the demand of western Tarrant County. I should have at least Googled the thing before I spouted off. Rookie mistake. :runaway:

I also concede to your view that DFW is pretty convenient to most of the Metroplex. However, you also have to give me the fact that airports like Love Field, Midway, and Hobby are crucial amenities to the central business areas of those cities. I guess it is just my view that Lindbergh is an amenity that our tourism and central core would suffer greatly without.

I also agree that Miramar would be the perfect location for an airport to REPLACE Lindbergh, but from what I hear there is zero chance of that happening in our lifetimes. IMHO Without the possibility of Miramar our only option is making Lindbergh as efficient as possible while, utilizing and expanding the TJ airport, moving some smaller regional service to Palomar, and creating more efficient ground travel to our VERY established neighbors to the north. :)

[Urbanize_It]

I stand corrected. I should have said not sufficient for future and further needs. SAN includes one non-stop to Asia and one non-stop to Europe; hardly a plethora to say that it's sufficient for an aspiring global city. SAN bears all the traffic it can... for now.

That is unless San Diego wants to settle into a Santa Barbra and San Luis Obispo kind of existence. No dynamism, no growth. Just a town preserved in an aesthetic for the privileged few who want to keep it manicured for their our selfish preferences.

Lets hope the LOSSAN actually comes up with a solid plan for the socal rail system. But from what it seems, Sacramento will have HSR gobble up all of the attention, funds, and political capital that would have otherwise gone into more practical projects.

So, realistically, the day LAX gets a direct, express link to SAN is after HSR is completed through Riverside (umm, that's 2030+). Meanwhile SAN will only become more congested ... but hey! We got a bridge to TJ! *wipes hands* Problem solved.

Agree to disagree on this one. The only reason for the limited international flights is limited demand. It is proven the flights can exist and that the runway deficiency argument is a fallacy. 100% If there were more demand there would be more international service. Period. With improved airliner efficiency (like the Dreamliner), moving of puddle jumper regional services to Palomar and major international services (south/centeral America and beyond) through TJ Lindbergh has a loooooong way to go before being maxed out.

Again, I don’t think this will happen, but completely agree that is a danger in this city under some of the current policy decisions. That said, still a way better existence than becoming LA#2!

Completely agree! :cheers:

I concede that my “hope” for a real and super efficient rail network throughout Socal is a very long way off. Probably not in my lifetime. This would be an example of MY “magical thinking”.

[Urbanize_It]

This is an article about the Sempra HQ being approved, but it also discusses Ballpark Village and its construction timeline being moved UP 1 year. “Due for completion in mid-2017…” Let’s hope so!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/20/sempra-jmi-ballpark-designs-civicsd/

[spoonman]

Agree to disagree on this one. The only reason for the limited international flights is limited demand. It is proven the flights can exist and that the runway deficiency argument is a fallacy. 100% If there were more demand there would be more international service. Period. With improved airliner efficiency (like the Dreamliner), moving of puddle jumper regional services to Palomar and major international services (south/centeral America and beyond) through TJ Lindbergh has a loooooong way to go before being maxed out.

Again, I don’t think this will happen, but completely agree that is a danger in this city under some of the current policy decisions. That said, still a way better existence than becoming LA#2!

Completely agree! :cheers:

I concede that my “hope” for a real and super efficient rail network throughout Socal is a very long way off. Probably not in my lifetime. This would be an example of MY “magical thinking”.

I will give you the fact that we would not presently have DOZENS of international flights with a longer runway, however the runway does have a real impact. The short runway (and terrain which can't easily be cleared with a short runway) means that long haul airliners are weight restricted at takeoff. This causes the airlines to not be able to take as much air cargo, significantly reducing the profitability of a flight. A flight could be full (load factor), but the plane could be losing money (yield). Until the dreamliner came about, long haul service to Tokyo (farther than London) was not possible from a profitability standpoint due to severe weight restrictions. It remains to be seen if the dreamliner will solve all our woes for long haul routes once every airline has a dreamliner or equivalent aircraft type.

[tyleraf]

In my opinion a new airport would only benefit the area and prepare for future growth. This is an interesting article on San Diego increasing it resiliency. It'd be interesting to see how they would use the grants if we won them. http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/20/rockefeller-resiliency-grant-fulton/ It's also exciting to hear about the expediting of BV East Village is definitely going to be exciting to watch grow over the next few years.

[eburress]

I apologize for the completely incorrect assumptions that Alliance was a new passenger airport created to service the demand of western Tarrant County. I should have at least Googled the thing before I spouted off. Rookie mistake. :runaway:

I also concede to your view that DFW is pretty convenient to most of the Metroplex. However, you also have to give me the fact that airports like Love Field, Midway, and Hobby are crucial amenities to the central business areas of those cities. I guess it is just my view that Lindbergh is an amenity that our tourism and central core would suffer greatly without.

I also agree that Miramar would be the perfect location for an airport to REPLACE Lindbergh, but from what I hear there is zero chance of that happening in our lifetimes. IMHO Without the possibility of Miramar our only option is making Lindbergh as efficient as possible while, utilizing and expanding the TJ airport, moving some smaller regional service to Palomar, and creating more efficient ground travel to our VERY established neighbors to the north. :)

For sure, Love, Midway, Hobby, etc are all still around for a reason, and IF San Diego were to ever build a new airport at Miramar, there could still be reason to maintain SAN. It's unfortunate, but you're probably right about the likelihood of an airport being built at Miramar. There are too many people in this city worried solely about their own needs/property values and not enough vision/leadership to push something like that through. Sometimes I hate this can't do city.

[dales5050]

http://djcoregon.com/files/2012/05/0515_horton_plaza_walker_macy_01.jpg

This article article claims the park is to be completed by december 2013. any new info?

http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/05/15/walker-macy-designs-san-diego-plaza-with-inspiration-from-pioneer-courthouse-square/

Last time I walked by the site a couple of weeks ago, the year 2013 had been replaced with 2014. I think late 2014 is now the goal.

The site is nowhere near being ready this year. They have not even poured the floor.

Really looking forward to it when it's done. Reminds me a lot of Union Square in SF. I just hope they find a way to keep the homeless out of it. Somehow Union Square does.

[mello]

We have already discussed at length on this forum how our limited airport is a symbol of the "Can't do" nature of this metro area as a whole and how it has affected business growth and is a turn off for people looking to possibly establish or expand their businesses here. Plus we lose out on tons of cargo revenue because we can't fly 747 cargo planes out of here and a lot of SD county's air cargo has to be trucked up to LAX/Ontario

Another thing is that SAN location is not very centrally located to where the money is in this county. An airport at Miramar would be much more convenient for the big players who live from La Jolla through Olivenhein and Southern Carlsbad.

--- Side note not forum related --- If anyone has a spare room they are looking to rent or knows of anyone please pm me, may have to move from my current place on a short notice thanks :help:

[dales5050]

The only time the airport is busy is during holidays? Let's not make things up here.

The airport, particularly T1, has been chronically congested, and I'm not sure what your childhood has to do with this. There are numerous reasons why people fly. Business, health, leisure, military, sports, government,etc. There may not be that many Fortune 500 companies in SoCal these days, but there are still plenty of companies creating travel demand, in addition to the other sources I mentioned.

As others have said, there are a clash of interests here.

Forward looking people see the airport, and say gee-whiz, we would have more international flights if we had a runway that didn't require long-haul flights to be weight restricted. This would be good for the city AND citizens, by offering more destinations, and bringing in more foreign travelers. With a larger facility, there would also be more room to support more overnighting, and maintenance facilities for aircraft, creating more opportunities to become a focus city for more airlines, and cargo.

Instead, many people say gee, the airport can still get me back to Timbucktoo at Christmas, so it must be meeting all of our city's needs.

I see where you're coming from and have a couple of points to add. I avoid flying SW for multiple reasons and I am a Delta flyer so take this with a grain of salt...

I think the most issues with T1 can be resolved with a new terminal similar to T2. The UT had a small blurb (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Aug/03/lindbergh-field-SAN-san-diego-airport/) on moving T1 to the other side but I think they could do better than that.

What if they were to demolish the Commuter terminal and build a new T1 there? You could then move the car rental lots either between T1 and T2 or do some sort of sky bridge over N. Harbor to the existing lots. Although, it would be great if those lots and their bay views were repurposed for something better.

As for International flights...what are the odds that even if San Diego built a massive terminal say at Miramar they would come? I am no expert but I know about HUBs and how they try and funnel International flights to those. When you add in the consolidation of airlines, the odds of getting a HUB become smaller IMHO.

Personally, I think the most realistic and best plan moving forward now that $1B was spent on T2 is to rebuild T1 to keep SW customers happy and possibly expand another airline like Virgin America. Currently Virgin only goes to SFO. If they could expand to include the major HUBs like NYC, Chicago, Dallas and Boston...that would be a massive win.

[psychotron]

I think San Diego can definitely support 2 airports and don't think a new airport would signal a death of SAN. I split my time between SD and Houston, so I've flown in and out of IAH and HOU numerous times. Hobby is the home for Southwest/AirTran and JetBlue and basically revolves around domestic flights now that Bush has taken over international and cargo duties. Even with Bush, Hobby is still currently expanding and upgrading. I love flying out of Hobby because it's a lot less congested and much closer to the city center. I can see SAN becoming what Hobby is to Houston, a convenient airport that serves domestic needs through just a few airlines, while a larger airport (ideally at Miramar w/ 2050 RTP transportation) would handle international and cargo operations.

Facing reality though, my hopes for a new airport at Miramar are pretty small. Like others here, I think the focus should be on replacing T1. There is a fantastic thread on airliners.net about the future of SAN, including the placement of a rebuilt T1 and expanded operations.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5900302/

[Derek]

As for International flights...what are the odds that even if San Diego built a massive terminal say at Miramar they would come? I am no expert but I know about HUBs and how they try and funnel International flights to those. When you add in the consolidation of airlines, the odds of getting a HUB become smaller IMHO.

Personally, I think the most realistic and best plan moving forward now that $1B was spent on T2 is to rebuild T1 to keep SW customers happy and possibly expand another airline like Virgin America. Currently Virgin only goes to SFO. If they could expand to include the major HUBs like NYC, Chicago, Dallas and Boston...that would be a massive win.


San Diego would certainly get at least a few more international flights if a new, larger airport were built. It's a very popular tourist for both Europeans and Asians (and Australians). I'm pretty sure SAN would never get a direct flight to Sydney, but I'd say direct flights to Paris, Frankfurt and Beijing (on those country's flag carriers) are very possible.

Portland has even had direct service to Frankfurt on Lufthansa as recently as 2009 and Mexicana had flights to Guadalajara and Mexico City as recently as 2008, but with the collapse of the economy, that service has ended. We still have non stops to Tokyo and Amsterdam on Delta, and there are talks about new Paris, China and Mexico routes as well. I'm sure if the economy picks up, we'll see a couple more international carriers in the near future. Why? Because we have the gate capacity and 2 runways of ample length to accommodate such flights.


One last thing, unless Virgin turns their finances around, they won't be flying anywhere. Just saying. ;)

[dales5050]

San Diego would certainly get at least a few more international flights if a new, larger airport were built. It's a very popular tourist for both Europeans and Asians (and Australians). I'm pretty sure SAN would never get a direct flight to Sydney, but I'd say direct flights to Paris, Frankfurt and Beijing (on those country's flag carriers) are very possible.

Don't get me wrong. I wish they moved the airport to Miramar back in the 90s (I think that's when it was a hot issue) but I just don't see a good return. It looks like the Denver Airport cost $4.8 Billion back in 96. Say the new airport would cost just $4 Billion, would that be justified by 'at least a few more' international flights? Honestly, I don't think it would.

Now if San Diego could land a HUB, with an airline like Delta or on the new combined US Airways/American, where there would be 1,000s of jobs supporting the HUB maybe.

Personally, I think a revamped Terminal 1 with just as much luxury as Terminal 2 and a very easy to access car rental facility would be more than enough to mitigate the majority of the issues.

One last thing, unless Virgin turns their finances around, they won't be flying anywhere. Just saying. ;)

Bummer. Did not know they were in trouble. By far the best domestic coach experience out there.

[SDfan]

Facing reality though, my hopes for a new airport at Miramar are pretty small. Like others here, I think the focus should be on replacing T1. There is a fantastic thread on airliners.net about the future of SAN, including the placement of a rebuilt T1 and expanded operations.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5900302/

This is awesome! Thank you.

[SDfan]

Agree to disagree on this one. The only reason for the limited international flights is limited demand. It is proven the flights can exist and that the runway deficiency argument is a fallacy. 100% If there were more demand there would be more international service. Period. With improved airliner efficiency (like the Dreamliner), moving of puddle jumper regional services to Palomar and major international services (south/centeral America and beyond) through TJ Lindbergh has a loooooong way to go before being maxed out.

Again, I don’t think this will happen, but completely agree that is a danger in this city under some of the current policy decisions. That said, still a way better existence than becoming LA#2!

Completely agree! :cheers:

I concede that my “hope” for a real and super efficient rail network throughout Socal is a very long way off. Probably not in my lifetime. This would be an example of MY “magical thinking”.

Fair.

[eburress]

Don't get me wrong. I wish they moved the airport to Miramar back in the 90s (I think that's when it was a hot issue) but I just don't see a good return. It looks like the Denver Airport cost $4.8 Billion back in 96. Say the new airport would cost just $4 Billion, would that be justified by 'at least a few more' international flights? Honestly, I don't think it would.

Now if San Diego could land a HUB, with an airline like Delta or on the new combined US Airways/American, where there would be 1,000s of jobs supporting the HUB maybe.

Personally, I think a revamped Terminal 1 with just as much luxury as Terminal 2 and a very easy to access car rental facility would be more than enough to mitigate the majority of the issues.



Bummer. Did not know they were in trouble. By far the best domestic coach experience out there.

I think you're on the right track. It's not just the additional flights (I suspect it would be more than just a few), but the industrial aviation that would become possible as well as San Diego becoming a legitimate business destination. Landing a hub would also become a possibility (Southwest's western hub?).

[dl3000]

If Miramar doesn't happen, then we'll just have to wait until aircraft technology advances to the extent where Lindbergh's present limitations are no longer relevant, say vertical takeoff or something.

[spoonman]

Don't get me wrong. I wish they moved the airport to Miramar back in the 90s (I think that's when it was a hot issue) but I just don't see a good return. It looks like the Denver Airport cost $4.8 Billion back in 96. Say the new airport would cost just $4 Billion, would that be justified by 'at least a few more' international flights? Honestly, I don't think it would.

Now if San Diego could land a HUB, with an airline like Delta or on the new combined US Airways/American, where there would be 1,000s of jobs supporting the HUB maybe.

Personally, I think a revamped Terminal 1 with just as much luxury as Terminal 2 and a very easy to access car rental facility would be more than enough to mitigate the majority of the issues.



Bummer. Did not know they were in trouble. By far the best domestic coach experience out there.

All of the rental car facilities are being combined into a large parking structure off of Washington/PCH on the north side of the airport. This facility is curretly under construction. Once complete, it will free up many acres of space currently occupied by lots (Harbor Island, etc.). This space should allow for either more development, or more space for future terminals/parking.

[202_Cyclist]

If Miramar doesn't happen, then we'll just have to wait until aircraft technology advances to the extent where Lindbergh's present limitations are no longer relevant, say vertical takeoff or something.

Or RNAV and RNP procedures could possibly narrow the flight paths into the airport, leaving room to build taller elsewhere.

[tyleraf]

Great article on the future of San Diego's planning. I'm excited about the prospects. Fulton has mentioned raising the height limit in midway district!!!!!!! Also mention is the fixing of the uptown community plan and the removal of the interim height limits. http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/25/planning-fulton/

[spoonman]

Great article on the future of San Diego's planning. I'm excited about the prospects. Fulton has mentioned raising the height limit in midway district!!!!!!! Also mention is the fixing of the uptown community plan and the removal of the interim height limits. http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/25/planning-fulton/

Wow, that touches on most everything. It is very encouraging that Fulton's plans seem to acknowledge all of the important considerations for density at each location.

[spoonman]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/airline-business/2013/11/san-diegos-new-mexican-gateway-tijuana/

^ According to this article, the operator of TIJ Airport is trying to use the new cross border terminal to leverage a new flight from TIJ to South Korea.

[aerogt3]

What I would consider to be exciting would be a new airport built at Miramar that brings in billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the local economy

You realize it also TAKES billions of dollars out of the economy too, right? Where do you think the money comes from? Hint: it doesn't get dropped off free of charge from a magical direct flight from Berlin.

If I were a business person, Asian or otherwise, a pedestrian bridge to a Mexican airport would further underscore/reinforce the reasons I am NOT doing business in San Diego.

Multi-million dollar decisions on where to do business are not based on the ease of a flight connection. Does it play into the equation? Yes. But international business deals are worth BIG money, and the labor expense of employees spending an extra 2 hours in transit makes up a proportional amount of the decision..... i.e., virtually zero %.

"Should we shift $100 million in manufacturing business to the TJ-SD area? Costs are much more competitive than in the greater LA area, and could save us millions."

"No, the flight that we take for annual contract negotiations to SD requires an extra connection." Right :haha:

San Diego would certainly get at least a few more international flights if a new, larger airport were built. It's a very popular tourist for both Europeans and Asians (and Australians). I'm pretty sure SAN would never get a direct flight to Sydney, but I'd say direct flights to Paris, Frankfurt and Beijing (on those country's flag carriers) are very possible.

They are already possible. BA has been flying to London for what, two years now? That same service could be operated to Paris, Madrid, BCN, FRA, etc. *if there were demand.* I am pretty sure Lufthansa has done the numbers, and found that seats wouldn't be filled flying FRA to SAN. Probably because every German traveler that ever goes to San Diego, also goes to LA or SF as part of their trip. So a direct flight to San Diego isn't really providing much benefit.

I realize this is a skyscraperforum, but some people here let this "if you build it they will come" idea trump the basic principles of economics. You can build the largest airport in the world in the SD area, and you will NOT have the direct flights to any destination until there is economics demand to fill the seats.

Why? Because we have the gate capacity and 2 runways of ample length to accommodate such flights.

So does San Diego. You have AMS and Tokyo, but we have Tokyo and LHR. Again, the SAN-LHR flight could easily to be any other western European airport. You cannot compare PDX and SAN, because Portland does not have LAX, John Wayne, and Long Beach 100 only miles away.

[202_Cyclist]

aerogt3:
You realize it also TAKES billions of dollars out of the economy too, right? Where do you think the money comes from? Hint: it doesn't get dropped off free of charge from a magical direct flight from Berlin.

Correct, but the land currently used by Lindbergh could then be redeveloped. I assume this land is very valuable.

So does San Diego. You have AMS and Tokyo, but we have Tokyo and LHR. Again, the SAN-LHR flight could easily to be any other western European airport. You cannot compare PDX and SAN, because Portland does not have LAX, John Wayne, and Long Beach 100 only miles away.

Fair point but the distance from PDX - SEA is comparable (I think three hours) to SAN - LAX. Portland is also a mini-hub for Alaska Airlines, which had good code-share arrangements with Delta at Seattle. I don't think there is anything similar at San Diego, as it isn't a hub for any carrier.

[spoonman]

Up until this year, there were a few basic reasons why SAN did not have more direct long haul service. Runway length and terrain were the main reasons, as even with the possibility of high passenger demand, many long haul routes could not be profitable with weight restrictions necessary to take off from SAN. The 787 is supposed to make this a moot point once all airlines have them at their disposal. (In the next few years as more airlines take delivery of the 787, we may indeed see additional long haul routes.)

The other major reason would be lack of feeder traffic, as most regional (and national, going east) feeder traffic is routed through LAX. This is where we get into a discussion about whether or not SAN could/should be a hub.

SAN is on the way to very little compared to LAX, SFO, and other airports (think great circle to Asia, or even Europe). As such, SAN has to be a "hub" based on it's own merit (traffic volume) without the feeder traffic that many other airports have the luxury of getting.

As it stands today, I would say that there would be a better chance of pulling in feeder traffic and creating a hub if there were better aircraft overnight and maintenance facilities, and a longer runway which allowed for a greater variety of long haul aircraft. But even given that, I would expect that we wouldn't see much of a shift until the population grew further, as again, we are out of the way.

***

I'm dreaming out loud here, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a true shared airport with Tijuana from a hub perspective (instead of the bridge or SAN). If you look at a map of TIJ, you can see that there is plenty of room on the northeast portion of the airport for new sterile US terminals. If sterile facilities were created, and the two governments agreed to waive customs fees depending on the origination of the flights, this could actually work. This would make TIJ a hub airport servicing an area of over 5 million people, and could seriously contend with other airports in the region, due to additional feeder traffic from Mexico and the US.

[SDCAL]

I'm dreaming out loud here, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a true shared airport with Tijuana from a hub perspective (instead of the bridge or SAN). If you look at a map of TIJ, you can see that there is plenty of room on the northeast portion of the airport for new sterile US terminals. If sterile facilities were created, and the two governments agreed to waive customs fees depending on the origination of the flights, this could actually work. This would make TIJ a hub airport servicing an area of over 5 million people, and could seriously contend with other airports in the region, due to additional feeder traffic from Mexico and the US.

The only problem I see here is that having our regions main international airport in TJ would be pretty far distance-wise for north county. Are people from Carlsbad going to want to drive to the border to catch a flight? If this happened I could see the Carlsbad airport becoming a "shuttle service" up to LA for people to catch their international flights there thus defeating the point of a bi-national airport serving the entire region of 5 million people.

We would need way better mass transit that seamlessly links north county down to the border.

Let's face it, the most logical place for our airport is Miramar.

I am 100% certain that some day Miramar will be relocated. It's basic geography and demographics.

The only question is, will it be in any of our lifetimes - at minimum I would say it's 25 years into the future.

[202_Cyclist]

SDCAL:
We would need way better mass transit that seamlessly links north county down to the border.

If Amtrak can serve Vancouver, Canada, I've wondered why there couldn't either be a station right in Tijuana or right across the border in the US.

The only problem I see here is that having our regions main international airport in TJ would be pretty far distance-wise for north county. Are people from Carlsbad going to want to drive to the border to catch a flight? If this happened I could see the Carlsbad airport becoming a "shuttle service" up to LA for people to catch their international flights there thus defeating the point of a bi-national airport serving the entire region of 5 million people.

This shows, again, what a missed opportunity it was not to turn El Toro into an international airport.

I hope that California Pacific Airlines will begin operating at Palomar. Although small and offering limited service, this airline could accommodate demand in northern San Diego Co, western Riverside, and southen Orange County.

[tyleraf]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you guys all have a nice day with your families.

[tyleraf]

San Diego's Olympic bid is gaining steam. Even Fulton has been talking about the potential benefits it would have on the city. Also, next week the County Board of Supervisors will decide whether to endorse the effort. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/nov/27/san-diego-olympics-2024-supervisors-committee/

[HurricaneHugo]

San Diego's Olympic bid is gaining steam. Even Fulton has been talking about the potential benefits it would have on the city. Also, next week the County Board of Supervisors will decide whether to endorse the effort. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/nov/27/san-diego-olympics-2024-supervisors-committee/

If it includes a new Chargers stadium then I'm in.

[NYC2ATX]

One thing you know is going to skyrocket to the top of the priorities list if they are awarded the games is a new or substantially upgraded airport. ;)

[Prahaboheme]

One thing you know is going to skyrocket to the top of the priorities list if they are awarded the games is a new or substantially upgraded airport. ;)

One that should include a direct rail connection to downtown!

[aerogt3]

Up until this year, there were a few basic reasons why SAN did not have more direct long haul service. Runway length and terrain were the main reasons, as even with the possibility of high passenger demand, many long haul routes could not be profitable with weight restrictions necessary to take off from SAN.

BA to LHR shows that it was possible before this year.

I don't get the obsession with direct intercontinental flights - they are available to a very small portion of travelers. The reality is that even taking off from SFO, I am always making a connection anyways. There are direct flights to 2 german cities, populated with about 7 of 82 million people.

For the entire continent of Europe, and about 500 million people, SFO offers direct flights to 7 cities. Honestly, SFO is only better than SAN if you're traveling to one of them and want to pay a much higher ticket price (seriously, the cheapest direct flights between SFO-FRA or SFO-MUC is way way higher than the cheapest non-direct.)

It goes something like this: spend billions > build new airport > have a flight connection anyways.

[aerogt3]

Correct, but the land currently used by Lindbergh could then be redeveloped. I assume this land is very valuable.

It's not valuable in the billions. And it would be expensive to tear down the airport, too. Relocate all the rental companies, develop transit to central SD, etc. The trolley doesn't currently connect SAN to downtown, but it's a $10 cab ride (or $2.50 by bus) and it certainly won't cost that much to connect them.

A new airport with a functioning link to SD would be many billions, and not much benefit. There are SO many better ways to spend several billion dollars than to fix something that's not really broken.

[Urbannizer]

India and Beech Tower - Saw this for SD while looking around for another project. Dunno the location.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7328/11174167916_cc0f2d347b_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2817/11174310963_19877aae82_b.jpg


28-story apartment high-rise
159 units; 731 square foot average
Mechanical parking system


http://www.humphreys.com/portfolio/on-the-boards-6/

[Derek]

That looks like Long Beach or something. We unfortunately don't have that kind of waterfront park.

[spoonman]

BA to LHR shows that it was possible before this year.



You are correct in that BA's SAN to LHR flight uses different equipment than the 787 (they use 777). The reason I didn't count this tough is that the same 777 going to Tokyo would face heavy weight restrictions (making it unprofitable) due to much greater Jetstream headwind (when it is going east), and slightly further distance. For flights like this, the 787 provides fewer restrictions, and greater profitability.

[tyleraf]

It's India and Beech. The place just makes their renders with a lot of green space added.

[Derek]

Holy crap! I see the County Administration Center now. I wish it actually looked like that...

[Northparkwizard]

India and Beech Tower - Saw this for SD while looking around for another project. Dunno the location.


28-story apartment high-rise
159 units; 731 square foot average
Mechanical parking system


http://www.humphreys.com/portfolio/on-the-boards-6/

I like it, however I don't know what a mechanical parking system is... wait. I just googled it, cool. Will this be the first mechanical parking system in Downtown?

[SDfan]

India and Beech... so pretty!

[SDfan]

Urbannizer, where did you find these renderings?

[spoonman]

Yeah, that building looks great.

[Derek]

That's another reason I didn't think it looked like San Diego at first....



San Diego doesn't get towers that look that nice. :haha:

[Urbanize_It]

You are correct in that BA's SAN to LHR flight uses different equipment than the 787 (they use 777). The reason I didn't count this tough is that the same 777 going to Tokyo would face heavy weight restrictions (making it unprofitable) due to much greater Jetstream headwind (when it is going east), and slightly further distance. For flights like this, the 787 provides fewer restrictions, and greater profitability.

Stronger headwind heading east from San Diego than east from England? Ok, fine. FYI dirct flight on Japan Air to Tokyo started...um today. There is one reason, and one reason only, for the limited direct international flights from SAN, demand. Sorry, it is just the reality of the situation.

[spoonman]

The company developing India & Beech is also developing 11th & Broadway. I'm usually not a fan of twin towers, but this looks sharp.

http://martinezcutri.com/projects/11th-broadway/

[spoonman]

Stronger headwind heading east from San Diego than east from England? Ok, fine. FYI dirct flight on Japan Air to Tokyo started...um today. There is one reason, and one reason only, for the limited direct international flights from SAN, demand. Sorry, it is just the reality of the situation.

Yes, and guess what aircraft JAL is using...a 787. They had to use a 777 for a few months when the 787's were catching fire, and they were weight restricted due to the runway and terrain.

Everyone knows that SD would not be a major hub due to geography and competition from other cities, but many believe that there would be MORE international flights with a better airport, both due to the runway and additional facilities. Some have pointed out (aerogt) that building a new airport may not be worth getting a few additional flights. This math would have to be taken into consideration as well as the remaining lifespan on SAN, future demand, taxes derived from additional flights, consequential economic activity, etc. It may not pencil today, but I know many might argue that the airport will have to be moved eventually. It's hard to have this discussion without knowledge of the numbers, but as skyscraper fans, most would like to see the airport moved if there is any possibility that makes sense.

Do with that whatever you want.

[HurricaneHugo]

India & Beech would look perfect at 500 feet!

[aerogt3]

There is one reason, and one reason only, for the limited direct international flights from SAN, demand. Sorry, it is just the reality of the situation.

Econ 101.

but many believe that there would be MORE international flights with a better airport, both due to the runway and additional facilities.

This really isn't the case. There are 15 airlines with the 787. Only one operates it to SAN. Airlines aren't flying to SAN because of the runway or facilities. They aren't flying to SAN because the planes would be empty.

FYI, BA has 787's also, but are running the 777 to SAN.