SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[SDfan]

Excellent point SDfan, I completely agree that these planning groups could totally screw the future or "Greater Uptown". But aren't developers chomping at the bit to get in there and they have powerful interests. I swear I have been down in Chula Vista a lot lately and I know it isn't hip and happening but it has great coastal weather and really is not that far from downtown at all and there is so much land there that is either totally underused or vacant.

Palomar, Main street exits especially. I think there is big potential there, if developers and people open their mind and some height is allowed to take advantage of views. And there are actually a lot of cool older nabes in the heart of Chula Vista that have good bones.

I'm not sure if you remember, but back before the recession hit, downtown Chula Vista had a proposal for set of twin towers maybe 15 stories high? I can't remember the details, I just remember the community being in an uproar over them. I even remember reading a ridiculous article at the time comparing Chula Vista to Oakland, and how CV shouldn't build high-rises otherwise it would become just like lowly raider nation. It made no sense, but it was a convincing enough argument to get the project shut down.

Now in terms of mid-rise development, I think there might be more leeway down there. But it only takes one bad project to turn an area into a 30ft, 3 story cap zone.

Side note: If anyone is looking for any potential high-rise development outside of downtown SD the only place you should look to is National City. Yes the CV bayfront is happening, and UTC and MV are still there (and I don't count millenia or cevita because those are mid-rise developments), but for something maybe a little more exciting/surprising, look to NC. The city is built out and starving for new development. Before the recession they had two separate towers planned between 15-20 stories. Unfortunately NC is also one of the poorest and undervalued in the county, and it's going to take much longer for them to get their property values to the point where these projects would pencil out.

Outside of that, everywhere else is a no-go. Nope. Nothing. Nada.

Unless someone knows anything I don't...

[SDfan]

As for the power of developers, I don't think they carry the same influence they had before, which is good in some ways and bad in others. Developers wrecked parts of this town (MV anyone?) but they also provide the very housing that is the foundation of middle class wealth in our society. I this era of "neighborhoods first" -things are quickly turning against urban and progressive development (so much hate for anything relating to downtown as of late) and carrying a strong NIMBY undertone. These are the same people advocating for increasing parking requirements and down zoning urban neighborhoods. Yikes.

So developers as power players is a little bit of a stretch at the moment. They're not down and out, they're just not able to pull the same sway in the face of more community opposition, regulation, and demands. Hopefully the new administration can keep placating these NIMBY forces, while also getting shiza done.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

I'm not sure if you remember, but back before the recession hit, downtown Chula Vista had a proposal for set of twin towers maybe 15 stories high? I can't remember the details, I just remember the community being in an uproar over them. I even remember reading a ridiculous article at the time comparing Chula Vista to Oakland, and how CV shouldn't build high-rises otherwise it would become just like lowly raider nation. It made no sense, but it was a convincing enough argument to get the project shut down.

Now in terms of mid-rise development, I think there might be more leeway down there. But it only takes one bad project to turn an area into a 30ft, 3 story cap zone.

Side note: If anyone is looking for any potential high-rise development outside of downtown SD the only place you should look to is National City. Yes the CV bayfront is happening, and UTC and MV are still there (and I don't count millenia or cevita because those are mid-rise developments), but for something maybe a little more exciting/surprising, look to NC. The city is built out and starving for new development. Before the recession they had two separate towers planned between 15-20 stories. Unfortunately NC is also one of the poorest and undervalued in the county, and it's going to take much longer for them to get their property values to the point where these projects would pencil out.

Outside of that, everywhere else is a no-go. Nope. Nothing. Nada.

Unless someone knows anything I don't...

I also believe National City had no height limit around the area?? Correct me if im wrong?

[wadams92101]

I have no idea but I hope it is prep for a building to finally go up there. I'm going downtown probably on Sunday so I'll check it out.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this but the word from CivicSD is "Irvine is doing some interim improvements to the plaza. . . they intend to improve it and add some benches, trellis etc.. for a more useable area"

[SDfan]

I also believe National City had no height limit around the area?? Correct me if im wrong?

I do not believe they do. Which would mean they are our only hope. :titanic:

[Derek]

Honestly, a new tallest tower in National City is the last thing San Diego needs. How pathetic would the tallest tower in the metro area being located in National City be?

[tyleraf]

I hope eventually Lindbergh moves and we get a new tallest in downtown. I do think that Chula Vista and National City would benefit from some nice vertical density though. Also thanks wadams for the response regarding two America plaza. I'm glad that they're at least making the area a little more pedestrian friendly.

[spoonman]

Some height in Natty City would be a nice complement to the Chula Vista redevelopment projects, and the new-ish base developments at 32nd St.

[SDCAL]

I still think it may be possible to go >500 ft in the SE area of east village.

Many years ago someone posted a map, I'm not sure if it was created by the FAA or the city but it didn't show a blanket height limit downtown. It showed different zones for height limits throughout downtown and it seemed like the SE most area was not under the <500 ft zone.

I wish I could find this map, maybe someone has it or something similar?

I think chances are good we will get a building >500 ft downtown, but it will take:

(1) an influential developer willing to push for it for a desirable project
(2) the city creating an updated height zone map since, as far as I know, the existing ones are over a decade old and pre-date downtown's building boom - also I'm not sure if aviation restrictions have changed since the height limit was enacted
(3) note that if it does happen, it won't be a super tall. We will probably have to start with a battle just to get a building that goes *slightly* above 500 ft then incrementally go up from there.

In any case, I hope this is re-visited soon, the plateau effect on San Diego's skyline is not attractive.

[spoonman]

I still think it may be possible to go >500 ft in the SE area of east village.

Many years ago someone posted a map, I'm not sure if it was created by the FAA or the city but it didn't show a blanket height limit downtown. It showed different zones for height limits throughout downtown and it seemed like the SE most area was not under the <500 ft zone.

I wish I could find this map, maybe someone has it or something similar?

I think chances are good we will get a building >500 ft downtown, but it will take:

(1) an influential developer willing to push for it for a desirable project
(2) the city creating an updated height zone map since, as far as I know, the existing ones are over a decade old and pre-date downtown's building boom - also I'm not sure if aviation restrictions have changed since the height limit was enacted
(3) note that if it does happen, it won't be a super tall. We will probably have to start with a battle just to get a building that goes *slightly* above 500 ft then incrementally go up from there.

In any case, I hope this is re-visited soon, the plateau effect on San Diego's skyline is not attractive.

I believe you are correct as far as the compliance with the FAA's wishes. However I recall from the same map that there was a city imposed limit over all of downtown (which is superfluous). The only area I remember being exempt is the blocks leading to Barrio Logan. However that is a problem too as I believe the old and new community plans set low limits in the area.

To your point about factors to pressure the passage of taller buildings, the city could certainly increase heights outside of the airport approach zone in certain parts of southeast downtown.

[Bertrice]

great shot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5DuMCFfhdo

[tyleraf]

Wow! That is an amazing view.

[tyleraf]

Wow, I totally missed this but ground was broken last month on the New Courthouse. http://www.cbs8.com/story/24936735/ground-broken-for-central-courthouse

[spoonman]

Here's an article in the UT abut the new LPL Financial tower in University City. The building is the greenest commercially leased building in the U.S. The article also mentions that the last of the 3 towers planned for the site may commence toward the end of the year with a target date of 2016. The building with either be another office tower or hotel.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/02/lpl-hines-tower-utc-net-zero-energy/

[tyleraf]

Good article. Im glad office growth is continuing in UTC even though there hasn't been any activity downtown. I'm glad they're about to start on the third tower. I hope it's a hotel, as it would be good for the area. Also, hopefully they opt for a more interesting design for the last tower, it'd be nice to have a signature tower in UTC.

[SDCAL]

Wow, I totally missed this but ground was broken last month on the New Courthouse. http://www.cbs8.com/story/24936735/ground-broken-for-central-courthouse

I'm really liking the design of this more and more. That's the first night rendering I've seen of it, I like it.

The video talks about criticism that it's not architecturally interesting, but I think it looks better than many of the planned projects downtown. Sure it could be better but given some of the designs we get I'm just thankful it's not hideous.

[Erip]

I'm really liking the design of this more and more. That's the first night rendering I've seen of it, I like it.

The video talks about criticism that it's not architecturally interesting, but I think it looks better than many of the planned projects downtown. Sure it could be better but given some of the designs we get I'm just thankful it's not hideous.

Aside from the design, this will also hopefully help activate the dead zone that is C street.

[tyleraf]

The developer of The Grove and The Americana malls in Los Angeles, has been buying up land in Carlsbad for their next project. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/05/carlsbad-caruso-grove-developer-mall-proposal/

[tyleraf]

Has anyone else noticed that Emerald Plaza hasn't been lit at night for a while? I wonder what's up.

[tyleraf]

I saw this in one of the other forums and I thought I would share it here seeing as San Diego has the second highest score for venture capital going into urban set start ups. Speaking of people working in or near dense downtowns, I thought this was an interesting chart. It lays out what percentage of startup venture capital goes toward "urban"-set startups vs suburban ones.

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2014/03/28/startup%20city%20chart.jpg


http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2014/03/urban-shift-us-start-economy-one-chart/8749/

[HurricaneHugo]

What are they building on the northeast side of the airport?

Lots of concrete pillars rising

[SDfan]

What are they building on the northeast side of the airport?

Lots of concrete pillars rising

The new rental car facility for the airport. It's consolidating all of the rental car companies into one facility, reducing the number of buses and traffic on Harbor Drive. I believe there is a rendering somewhere on this thread a bit back.

[Streamliner]

What are they building on the northeast side of the airport?

Lots of concrete pillars rising

I think that's the new rental car center. They're consolidating all the rental car agencies north of Harbor Island into this new facility.

http://www.san.org/sdcraa/airport_initiatives/north_side/default.aspx

http://www.sundt.com/ProjectPictures/13380_N5_1.jpg

Source (http://www.sundt.com/projects/san-diego-international-airport-conrac-precon/)

[Northparkwizard]

That should free up a ton a real estate for redevelopment that will be vacant around the airport. :tup:

[tyleraf]

Exactly my thought. I would love some high density residential buildings to be built on the old rental car lots. They would have an amazing view.

[SDfan]

I don't think so. That's port land. If anything it would go to commercial (hotel) development or open space/recreation/park land. The Coastal Commission wouldn't allow high-density residential there, at least from what I gather.

[Bertrice]

waterfront park progress


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3709/13768997495_b67858c298_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/13768992015_ba17054f27_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2808/13769350594_5c66f45204_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2936/13768989603_907468a448_b.jpg

[Derek]

Wow. I'm heading down there next weekend, I can't wait to see it in person.

[Northparkwizard]

I find it hard to believe that it'll be ready for it's ceremonial public unveiling on May 10th.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/05/waterfront-san-diego-county-park-roberts/

[Dale]

I find it hard to believe that, when I was in San Diego, in 1989, they were talking about this (and Lane Field) as if it was close to happening.

They were also talking about airport relocation.

Question: which moves faster, San Diego or a tectonic plate ?

[Bertrice]

From what I can tell the south side needs landscaping. I couldn't get a good look at the north side.

[spoonman]

I find it hard to believe that, when I was in San Diego, in 1989, they were talking about this (and Lane Field) as if it was close to happening.

They were also talking about airport relocation.

Question: which moves faster, San Diego or a tectonic plate ?

A tectonic plate...I think they move a few inches each year...we are jealous :titanic:

[tyleraf]

Hahaha Spoonman, unfortunately it's true though. I'm glad to see the CAC Park coming together and I can't wait to visit it when it opens.

[SDfan]

I find it hard to believe that, when I was in San Diego, in 1989, they were talking about this (and Lane Field) as if it was close to happening.

They were also talking about airport relocation.

Question: which moves faster, San Diego or a tectonic plate ?

San Diego is heaven, and everyone has an opinion about what heaven should look like.

Nothing moves quickly here. Except opposition.

[tyleraf]

The Urban Discovery school is moving from Bankers Hill into the I.D.E.A. District. It will be in between IDEA1 and Makers Quarter. https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/13799038945_43a0191fb3.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7390/13799389004_c5df0db04a.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/13799038535_78e0ffc2d1.jpg

[spoonman]

The Urban Discovery school is moving from Bankers Hill into the I.D.E.A. District. It will be in between IDEA1 and Makers Quarter.

Good news for families looking to move downtown.

[spoonman]

Some changes to 11th and Broadway. The developer is looking to preserve a historical apartment building on the site.

http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2014/04/11/revised-11th-broadway-pinnacle-project-in-design-review-san-diego/

http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/files/2014/04/View-from-11th-E-St-Pinnacle.jpg

[SDfan]

I can't wait for those towers to go up. Not because they are spectacularly interesting, but their height and massing (not the typical 240' or 470') will add a lot to that end of the skyline, which has been dominated by Vantage Pointe for too long.

[spoonman]

I can't wait for those towers to go up. Not because they are spectacularly interesting, but their height and massing (not the typical 240' or 470') will add a lot to that end of the skyline, which has been dominated by Vantage Pointe for too long.

Definitely. This along with projects like 15th& Island, are helping push the skyline eastward.

Also nice that this borders the City College train station on Park Blvd.

[tyleraf]

Yea, I really like these towers. They will add a lot to the skyline when they eventually go up.

[Leo the Dog]

Pretty intersting snapshot of California's demographics broken down on the "6 Californias".

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/11/six_Californias/

[tyleraf]

I would love this to actually happen. It would be better for us as a city to be separated from San Francisco's and Los Angeles' interests.

[Northparkwizard]

That's just a wacky idea from the right to gain more electoral votes for the GOP, not going to happen.

[Dale]

That's just a wacky idea from the right to gain more electoral votes for the GOP, not going to happen.

Read much ?

[ozone]

Oh god it's another dumb attempt to break up the state. Clearly Tim Draper does not have a firm grasp of state's socioeconomic and geopolitical realities. This guy was born into a family of privilege and position with a history of being involved in social engineering issues along with venture capital.

Dividing up the state would most likely end up sending more Democrats to Washington than Republicans- even if the San Joaquin Valley and South California (sans LA) were dominated by Republicans (as they are now). I do not think San Diego would actually benefit that much. Certainly the San Joaquin Valley and far north would not fair well. And just think of our state's enormous water system and how that would be affected.

His argument that California is too big to be governed is absurd. Italy is about the size of California. As it is, major subdivisions already function somewhat independent of Sacramento. Still despite libertarian's utopian fantasies the best run governments balance centralized planning with localized implementation. I think we could decentralize some top-down agencies but over all I think we have a balanced system, especially compared to many of the other states.

We have much more to gain as a strong unified state that a bunch of smaller, less influential ones.

[Dale]

Oh god it's another dumb attempt to break up the state. Clearly Tim Draper does not have a firm grasp of state's socioeconomic and geopolitical realities. This guy was born into a family of privilege and position with a history of being involved in social engineering issues along with venture capital.

Dividing up the state would most likely end up sending more Democrats to Washington than Republicans- even if the San Joaquin Valley and South California (sans LA) were dominated by Republicans (as they are now). I do not think San Diego would actually benefit that much. Certainly the San Joaquin Valley and far north would not fair well. And just think of our state's enormous water system and how that would be affected.

His argument that California is too big to be governed is absurd. Italy is about the size of California. As it is, major subdivisions already function somewhat independent of Sacramento. Still despite libertarian's utopian fantasies the best run governments balance centralized planning with localized implementation. I think we could decentralize some top-down agencies but over all I think we have a balanced system, especially compared to many of the other states.

We have much more to gain as a strong unified state that a bunch of smaller, less influential ones.

Hehe, using Italy as a prime example of sound governance. Love your wry sense of humor!

[ozone]

Hehe, using Italy as a prime example of sound governance. Love your wry sense of humor!

:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

[Dale]

:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

Do you believe the US would be better governed if it were just one state ? Do you believe that Norway and Sweden and Portugal and Spain should reunite ?

I do want to say that I appreciate your ability to discuss this in a calm manner.

[ozone]

Do you believe the US would be better governed if it were just one state ? Do you believe that Norway and Sweden and Portugal and Spain should reunite ?

I do want to say that I appreciate your ability to discuss this in a calm manner.

Oh I agree that scale can be an issue. I would not say that bigger is better any more than I would suggest smaller is inherently better. There's plenty examples of smaller states/nations which are run very poorly. But of course there are other factors like social cohesion and economics. The USA's population is too large and socially fragmented so no the US wouldn't work as a single state.

I just reject the argument that California is unmanageable and question the motives of some people who promote this fallacy. Of course we can and should do better. And some things that are now directed at the state level should be left to local control. However, local governments found out the hard during the recent fiscal crisis that programs cost money and when they were force to fund these programs without the help of the state they couldn't. What is true of the nation as a whole is true of California. The wealthier counties/states help subsidize the less well off ones. That is why I wouldn't so quick to split the state up. I suspect that the people would not benefit as much as the special interests and political bottom-feeders.

[Dale]

Oh I agree that scale can be an issue. I would not say that bigger is better any more than I would suggest smaller is inherently better. There's plenty examples of smaller states/nations which are run very poorly. But of course there are other factors like social cohesion and economics. The USA's population is too large and socially fragmented so no the US wouldn't work as a single state.

I just reject the argument that California is unmanageable and question the motives of some people who promote this fallacy. Of course we can and should do better. And some things that are now directed at the state level should be left to local control. However, local governments found out the hard during the recent fiscal crisis that programs cost money and when they were force to fund these programs without the help of the state they couldn't. What is true of the nation as a whole is true of California. The wealthier counties/states help subsidize the less well off ones. That is why I wouldn't so quick to split the state up. I suspect that the people would not benefit as much as the special interests and political bottom-feeders.

We definitely agree on the room for improvement. And I agree that the bottom-feeders will naturally oppose any initiatives that force them to, well, take initiative. I would hasten to add that Draper is not a Republican, at least not at last check.

[Northparkwizard]

Read much ?

It's risky to engage a well thought out comment like your rectorial question, so I'll just point out that this subject is far from being a new one, here's an article about proposing a split from 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/13secession.html?_r=1) and here's one from last century (http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-30/news/mn-255_1_splitting-california). It was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now, no matter who's proposing it.

[Dale]

It's risky to engage a well thought out comment like your rectorial question, so I'll just point out that this subject is far from being a new one, here's an article about proposing a split from 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/13secession.html?_r=1) and here's one from last century (http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-30/news/mn-255_1_splitting-california). It was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now, no matter who's proposing it.

Oh no, mine was an earnest question. I was just interested to know why a Democrat, now unaffiliated, had managed to get pressed into service to steal votes for the Republicans.*

*sarcasm*

[SDCAL]

SD County as our own state.

Who would govern us, the County Board of Supervisors? They can't even handle a bad wildfire season. San Diego, both city and county, have more registered Dems than Repugs and Latinos and Asians are amongst our fastest growing groups. Yet, the county board of supervisors are all white Republicans. Not to mention, one of them - Mr. Horn - has been embroiled in many scandals. They are so homogenous I believe every one of them also went to SDSU.

They draw up their own districts and fight against term limits to keep themselves around like dinosaurs.

That's just one of MANY problems I could see if we were our own state - non-representative backwards local politicians.

If SD wasn't part of CA, we would be a backwards cesspool (Alabama on the Pacific??) and I would sell my condo downtown and move, most likely to LA.

Ok, now that the fantasy talk is over, can we get back to talking about projects? ;)

[Northparkwizard]

I thought there was a proposed public park at 13th and G street awhile back. Is that still in the works? I mention it because of the new school going in on 14th, that's a good combination of school and park. The only thing that's a little scary is that it borders the two feeder streets (G and F) for the 94 and I know how fast traffic moves on those two.

I used to work in the old brick building at 13th and G in the 90's next to the Urban Corps. It was sad to see them scrape that building so fast with no immediate plans for replacement.

[Leo the Dog]

:D But seriously. The theory is that smaller states would be more manageable and therefore better run. I do not see the evidence for this.

I'm not exactly for this, but it's interesting to think about.

"South CA" would have a population around 11 million. It would rank as the 7th or 8th most populous state. Not exactly small. Many successful states are small in area and much smaller in population. Ie: Massachusetts 6.5M.

I think this would actually increase Dems in Congress.

Imagine if SD didn't have to listen to the CA coastal commission and all the other regulations from Sacramento that limit development and create artificially high rents...

[ozone]

Imagine if SD didn't have to listen to the CA coastal commission and all the other regulations from Sacramento that limit development and create artificially high rents...

Actually the Coastal Commission is headquartered in San Francisco with district offices up and down the coast. This is not a Sacramento-lead commission. Even if you got rid of some of the regulations you'd still have a hell of time with the local NIMBYs.

[SDfan]

Actually the Coastal Commission is headquartered in San Francisco with district offices up and down the coast. This is not a Sacramento-lead commission. Even if you got rid of some of the regulations you'd still have a hell of time with the local NIMBYs.

Regardless where the commission is headquartered, it's a California State institution, i.e. developed, legislated, and authorized by Sacramento bureaucrats.

And agreed. NIMBY's won't go away with a dissolution of California.

But not to worry, it's not going to happen. California enjoys its influence over Washington by it's sheer size. Local governments could function better with a reformed state government, they don't need an entire redrawing of the west coast.

[SDfan]

I don't know about you guys, but this North City project came out of nowhere for me. The first link is a promotional video with a lot of renderings. The second link is the master plan website for the project.

http://www.northcityoffice.com/

http://www.northcity.co/#/home

[mello]

I don't know about you guys, but this North City project came out of nowhere for me. The first link is a promotional video with a lot of renderings. The second link is the master plan website for the project.

http://www.northcityoffice.com/

http://www.northcity.co/#/home

Yep San Marcos is actually very pro development kind of like a burgeoning "Irvine of the Future" for North County. Too bad this is in their dreams. Where is the demand for the office space going to come from. Hundreds of acres of graded land lay a few miles to the west of this site off of Palomar Airport road and hardly any commercial space has gone in there over the last 8 years or so....

I love the ambition I just see it taking a long time to get built out. Just to the west of this is also a large "San Marcos Creek District" proposal that has been around for ten years and still nothing has gotten going. My mom lives tucked up against the hills in Lake San Marcos and this would be great for her property values.

--- I would recommend you guys to check out the trails on top of the hills that the San Elijo developers put in, on a clear day the views are stunning kind of like a Mt. Soledad for North County because you can drive to the top of Double Peak and its 1700 feet. I go walking up there all the time :tup:

San Marcos Creek District update: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Feb/27/creek-development-ready-flow/

[spoonman]

Yep San Marcos is actually very pro development kind of like a burgeoning "Irvine of the Future" for North County. Too bad this is in their dreams. Where is the demand for the office space going to come from. Hundreds of acres of graded land lay a few miles to the west of this site off of Palomar Airport road and hardly any commercial space has gone in there over the last 8 years or so....

I love the ambition I just see it taking a long time to get built out. Just to the west of this is also a large "San Marcos Creek District" proposal that has been around for ten years and still nothing has gotten going. My mom lives tucked up against the hills in Lake San Marcos and this would be great for her property values.

--- I would recommend you guys to check out the trails on top of the hills that the San Elijo developers put in, on a clear day the views are stunning kind of like a Mt. Soledad for North County because you can drive to the top of Double Peak and its 1700 feet. I go walking up there all the time :tup:

San Marcos Creek District update: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Feb/27/creek-development-ready-flow/

Some valid points, but I think this won't be that big of an issue. The offices would be Class A space located next to a major university, light rail, and would include a host of amenities, not to mention freeway access and proximity to the coast.

I could easily see this becoming the IDEA District of North County (or as close as North County could get). I could see "hip" employers moving over from Carlsbad, while the boss-man can still live closeby in his McMansion in San Elijo or wherever.

[tyleraf]

I like that North City project. I'm glad that they are finally starting to build some transit oriented developments around the sprinter which should increase ridership.

[spoonman]

Looks like the cross-border airport terminal is finally beginning construction. This was supposed to break ground in November or December, but has apparently been delayed.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/17/border-crossing-airport-tijuana-san-diego/2/?#article-copy

https://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/09/10/bridge_t420.PNG?e2839eb8a119d4fa52c4ed1e5a2462d1b2132cb5

[SDfan]

That's good news. I hope it really grows into something useful for both sides.

[nezbn22]

Because more development limitations is exactly what this city needs:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/18/san-diego-airport-authority-little-italy-rules/

[SDCAL]

Because more development limitations is exactly what this city needs:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/18/san-diego-airport-authority-little-italy-rules/

I find this paragraph interesting (from the article):

'Based on guidelines issued by the state Department of Transportation, the authority adopted a land-use plan restricting the size of new buildings in a handful of San Diego communities so less people will be vulnerable to injury and death if planes crash.'

If I read this correctly they are saying the area is more prone to an aviation disaster so they want to restrict development so fewer people are there to be injured/killed?

This makes no sense. Either the airport is in a bad location and needs to be moved or it doesn't. If these places are so dangerous why do they want ANY people being vulnerable to injury??

Trying to clear areas in the middle of the city so "less people are vulnerable to injury" seems backwards and ignorant to me when the gorilla in the room is MOVING THE AIRPORT.

How many concessions is San Diego willing to make before they realize the airport must be relocated?

[spoonman]

I find this paragraph interesting (from the article):

'Based on guidelines issued by the state Department of Transportation, the authority adopted a land-use plan restricting the size of new buildings in a handful of San Diego communities so less people will be vulnerable to injury and death if planes crash.'

If I read this correctly they are saying the area is more prone to an aviation disaster so they want to restrict development so fewer people are there to be injured/killed?

This makes no sense. Either the airport is in a bad location and needs to be moved or it doesn't. If these places are so dangerous why do they want ANY people being vulnerable to injury??

Trying to clear areas in the middle of the city so "less people are vulnerable to injury" seems backwards and ignorant to me when the gorilla in the room is MOVING THE AIRPORT.

How many concessions is San Diego willing to make before they realize the airport must be relocated?

Good points. It would be nice if they would raise the height limit in the area deemed "safe". I understand that the FAA recommended max downtown is 700ft, as opposed to the self mandated limit of 500ft.

[mello]

This article about the State Dept of Transportation and how they are trying to dictate what can be built on specific blocks is appalling. How can Faulconer go along with this? I see lawsuits coming for sure, this is ludicrous and not based in any kind of common sense what so ever. As long as a project is obeying the height limits for a given area who cares what the density of the housing units is in said development??

What is the purpose of this?? I am so pissed off.... :hell: And Mission Hills, how is that neighborhood in the flight path at all? Not that any big projects would ever get built there anyway.


(State and Hawthorne btw isn't even that close to where the planes come directly over head so if they are trying to limit height in that block the area they are trying to impose these new limits on must be very big) I spoke with the writer for UT who wrote this and he said it is about height not density. So he said the 5 floor residential proposals will get knocked down to 3!!! We have to fight this!!!

[nezbn22]

Yeah...I know the San Diego voters turned this down a number of years back, but I still don't see why everyone doesn't get behind converting Miramar into a larger, modern airport. If you look at a map, it looks like it'd be very easy to run the trolley out there, too.

As a military supporter and Top Gun fan, I'd be sad to see Miramar go. But it just seems like it makes too much sense. But I digress...

In other news, it looks like they put fresh sod down at the CAC Waterfront Park yesterday: http://www.countynewscenter.com/video?v=154015

[SDfan]

Little Italy is one of the few neighborhoods in this city actively trying to embrace more density and smart growth policies. This is extremely disappointing.

I need to move.

[SDfan]

From Uptown, to Golden Hill, to La Jolla and College Area, this city is doing everything possible to STOP new home construction and development. It's frustrating living in a community that thinks it's much smaller and inconsequential than it really is. Where do these people think their children are going to live? This is a community of stalwarts who call 3-story buildings "high-rises" and consider public transportation a poor mans trend. No wonder a majority of my millennial generation is leaving San Diego. My friends have gone to Texas (cheaper, less regulatory burden), San Francisco, Portland, or the East Coast (more expensive, but more opportunities and/or options). I understand. People moved here from the Midwest and found a paradise of orange groves. However, just as they moved here with the hope of opportunity there are others today -born here and otherwise- who are being denied that same opportunities because those old farts refuse to admit that their sleepy surfing village has become the 8th largest city in the United States.

This regulation wouldn't be so hard to swallow if their were other places in this city where this type of development could occur. But their really aren't many, and where they are allowed their are rigorous hurdles and hostile communities waiting to stop any progressive development plans, all because they were lucky enough to buy in when they had the chance and don't want to embrace the future.

Change is hard. And change in San Diego is harder. This is not a city for innovation. This is not a city for opportunity. This is a city for a privileged few who sit comfortably on their high chairs denying the growth and opportunity they themselves received decades ago. When this region becomes and overgrown Florida, an exaggerated Santa Barbara, for the old and wealthy only, no one should be surprised.

[mello]

^^ Great post SD Fan, you should right that as a letter to the UT and demand that Manchester and Lynch do all they can to fight this. Shouldn't the UT be super pro development? Why aren't they doing more to show the idiotic stance this city is taking on growth? Can you please outline the situations going on in La Jolla, Golden Hill, etc that you were referring to in your post, thanks :cheers:

Oh and where is Bill Fulton while all of this is going on? I thought he was a huge density advocate.

[tyleraf]

It would be nice if they would raise the height limit in the area deemed "safe". I understand that the FAA recommended max downtown is 700ft, as opposed to the self mandated limit of 500ft.
Unfortunately we have some misinformation about the height limit because it is the FAA. Here is a quote from this LA Times article from when OAP first opened http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-31/news/vw-693_1_america-plazaFor the sake of pleasing proportions, it's too bad the Federal Aviation Administration turned down the developers' request to build to 600 feet. At 500 feet and 34 stories, the tower looks a mite squatty..

[tyleraf]

I totally agree with you SDfan I look forward to when the old farts who seem to have a DISPROPORTIONATELY loud voice in this city die off so we can actually build up more density. I feel bad for Little Italy. Finally one of our few urban communities coming together and the airport authority causes a disaster. Also, other than expanding the airport and such, what power do they have to make regulations? On a different note, I'm glad to see the CAC park start to wrap up. I'm glad that we finally are embracing one of the gems of our city rather than isolating it in between a sea of parking lots.

[eburress]

Little Italy is one of the few neighborhoods in this city actively trying to embrace more density and smart growth policies. This is extremely disappointing.

I need to move.

God, I know what you mean. This spot in the world, geographically speaking, is tough to beat, but this "city" blows.

[eburress]

I totally agree with you SDfan I look forward to when the old farts who seem to have a DISPROPORTIONATELY loud voice in this city die off so we can actually build up more density. I feel bad for Little Italy. Finally one of our few urban communities coming together and the airport authority causes a disaster. Also, other than expanding the airport and such, what power do they have to make regulations? On a different note, I'm glad to see the CAC park start to wrap up. I'm glad that we finally are embracing one of the gems of our city rather than isolating it in between a sea of parking lots.

It's not just the old farts. My experience is that it's everybody property owner in this entire city. They care only about their property values and have zero regard for the needs of the region as a whole -- and nobody in the city government has the balls to stand up to these NIMBYs, so they run wild, stopping development at every turn. You can't hardly build anything anywhere. It's ridiculous.

[tyleraf]

Ok, I'll rephrase that the NIMBYS have way to much power. Unfortunately until progressive people outnumber the ones who don't want the status quo to change, we will never progress.

[Erip]

Yeesh:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/21/the-height-of-trolley-tensions/

[POPsee]

What will happen to projects like the Fat City Lofts?

[LosAngelesDreamin]

From Uptown, to Golden Hill, to La Jolla and College Area, this city is doing everything possible to STOP new home construction and development. It's frustrating living in a community that thinks it's much smaller and inconsequential than it really is. Where do these people think their children are going to live? This is a community of stalwarts who call 3-story buildings "high-rises" and consider public transportation a poor mans trend. No wonder a majority of my millennial generation is leaving San Diego. My friends have gone to Texas (cheaper, less regulatory burden), San Francisco, Portland, or the East Coast (more expensive, but more opportunities and/or options). I understand. People moved here from the Midwest and found a paradise of orange groves. However, just as they moved here with the hope of opportunity there are others today -born here and otherwise- who are being denied that same opportunities because those old farts refuse to admit that their sleepy surfing village has become the 8th largest city in the United States.

This regulation wouldn't be so hard to swallow if their were other places in this city where this type of development could occur. But their really aren't many, and where they are allowed their are rigorous hurdles and hostile communities waiting to stop any progressive development plans, all because they were lucky enough to buy in when they had the chance and don't want to embrace the future.

Change is hard. And change in San Diego is harder. This is not a city for innovation. This is not a city for opportunity. This is a city for a privileged few who sit comfortably on their high chairs denying the growth and opportunity they themselves received decades ago. When this region becomes and overgrown Florida, an exaggerated Santa Barbara, for the old and wealthy only, no one should be surprised.


Agree... I'm moving to Los Angeles in June close to the Metro red line subway. LA is doing a good job embracing transit and density. I do love San Diego but its transit network sucks.. Yes LA's is still small as well... But growing at a fast pace... Only city building more than 3 rail lines at the same time right now.

[spoonman]

Yeesh:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/21/the-height-of-trolley-tensions/

Here is the contact info for the City Planning Department. I suggest everyone on this board write a few sentences and send it to all of these members.

I also suggest sending something strongly worded to the Clairemont Planning Board letting them know that they do not speak for all residents inside or outside of their area. This nonsense needs to stop. These people are ruining this city, and think that their house entitles them to view corridors for a lifetime at the expense of everyone else. If anyone is good with Twitter, please spread he word that these groups are basically anti-youth.


Mailing Addresses

City Planning Division
1222 First Avenue, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92101
planning@sandiego.gov

Management Team

Department Director
Bill Fulton, bfulton@sandiego.gov, (619)236-6057

Deputy Planning Director
Nancy Bragado, nsbragado@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-4549

Deputy Director, Environmental and Resource Analysis
Cathy Winterrowd, cwinterrowd@sandiego.gov, (619) 235-5217

Senior Traffic Engineer
Samir Hajjiri, shajjiri@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-6551

_____________

Clairemont Planning Group

jeffb@rbf.com

https://www.facebook.com/ClairemontPG

https://twitter.com/clairemontpg

[SDCAL]

Here is the contact info for the City Planning Department. I suggest everyone on this board write a few sentences and send it to all of these members.

I also suggest sending something strongly worded to the clairemont Planning Board letting them know that they do not speak for all residents inside or outside of their area. This nonsense needs to stop. These people are ruining this city, and think that their house entitles them to view corridors for a lifetime at the expense of everyone else. If anyone is good with Twitter, please spread he word that these groups are basically anti-youth.


Mailing Addresses

City Planning Division
1222 First Avenue, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92101
planning@sandiego.gov

Management Team

Department Director
Bill Fulton, bfulton@sandiego.gov, (619)236-6057

Deputy Planning Director
Nancy Bragado, nsbragado@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-4549

Deputy Director, Environmental and Resource Analysis
Cathy Winterrowd, cwinterrowd@sandiego.gov, (619) 235-5217

Senior Traffic Engineer
Samir Hajjiri, shajjiri@sandiego.gov, (619) 533-6551

_____________

Clairemont Planning Group

jeffb@rbf.com

https://www.facebook.com/ClairemontPG

https://twitter.com/clairemontpg

People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

[SDCAL]

^^ Great post SD Fan, you should right that as a letter to the UT and demand that Manchester and Lynch do all they can to fight this. Shouldn't the UT be super pro development? Why aren't they doing more to show the idiotic stance this city is taking on growth? Can you please outline the situations going on in La Jolla, Golden Hill, etc that you were referring to in your post, thanks :cheers:

Oh and where is Bill Fulton while all of this is going on? I thought he was a huge density advocate.

I don't think Manchester is as "pro-development" as people think.

He is definitely pro HIS developments, but you have to keep in mind his bread and butter are older, wealthier folks in the northern suburbs who tend to be the same NIMBYS that don't want density in their neighborhoods.

I speculate that Manchester is more along the lines of "high density is great for downtown/mission valley but keep our suburbs quiet, tree-lined, and car-centric".

[SDCAL]

All cities have NIMBYS who complain about development.

The difference is other cities stick with their master-plans better, but SD coddles the crazies who show up and yell at city council meetings because they care more about their own view than the good of the city as a whole.

I am up in LA quite a bit, there is a huge project being proposed in hollywood near the Capitol records bldg off the 101 that has the nymbys up there boiling over with rage too!! It looks like they might actually win out due to a fault line :

http://la.curbed.com/tags/millennium-hollywood

[spoonman]

People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

Thanks SDCAL. Do you have the contact info for this city council member?

We need to start being louder than these old crackpots that go to these meetings. :hell: I realize that some of these planning groups don't have a DIRECT say in matters, but they do get swayed by citizens to make a recommendation on the issue. By pushing back, we can at least moderate the recommendations.

[tyleraf]

The good thing about Ed Harris that could make him more likely to be open to this is that he cannot be reelected and that he was appointed by the city council to finish Faulconer's term.

[tyleraf]

Lane Field will break ground on May 8th! http://www.portofsandiego.org/real-estate/3527-important-update-on-parking-in-the-north-embarcadero-area.html

[spoonman]

The comments on this trolley article are unreal. One boomer referred to her view as her birthright and claims that a 60ft building would block out the sun killing her plants...you must read the rest of the comments to believe it.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/21/the-height-of-trolley-tensions/

Here is a sample...

"Oh let's see...give up my solar, my sunshine, my bay view in exchange for some gelt? Nah. I think not. People moved here for a reason, not to sell their birthright to a bunch of businessmen for a mess of pottage. If you get my drift..."

[Bertrice]

The comments on this trolley article are unreal. One boomer referred to her view as her birthright and claims that a 60ft building would block out the sun killing her plants...you must read the rest of the comments to believe it.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/21/the-height-of-trolley-tensions/

Here is a sample...

"Oh let's see...give up my solar, my sunshine, my bay view in exchange for some gelt? Nah. I think not. People moved here for a reason, not to sell their birthright to a bunch of businessmen for a mess of pottage. If you get my drift..."

He's right. Bay park doesn't need density. The "Linda vista" the article refers to is bay park. Linda vista needs to be razed but but bay park really? Its bay park. leave it alone.

[nezbn22]

If Bay Park and Clairemont residents really don't want the added density, why not just run the trolley past them without any stops? The purpose of extending the Blue Line is to access UCSD and UTC. Eliminating the stops along the way would actually enhance that access by providing a quicker trip.

I don't think anyone outside of Bay Park and Clairemont particularly want access to those neighborhoods. And if those inside Bay Park and Clairemont don't support it, why cater to them at all? Save money on building those trolley stops, and enjoy a faster commute to UTC.

[Erip]

People should contact their City Councilmember.

It says in the article the council has the power to approve the height increase, this "clairemont planning board" is really powerless from a legal standpoint.

Their power comes from a political standpoint and their intentions to show up at council meetings and complain until they get their way. Ed Harris is the council member for that specific district, so it might be hard to get him to vote for it if he feels like many of his constituents are against it, but hopefully the other city council members will be intelligent enough to realize that these types of development/transit decisions will play a big role in the future of our city and if they fail to approve this it sets up our billion + investment in the UTC trolley extension up for failure.

By the way, I had to laugh - one of the reasons against this sited in the article is "too much traffic and parking". Do these people realize the whole point of this MASS TRANSIT project is to help alleviate what they are saying they are against!!?? :lmao::koko:

Great idea, thanks for compiling this contact info. Would you, or someone, care to post a template or some sample language that we could use for these letters?

[Prahaboheme]

If Bay Park and Clairemont residents really don't want the added density, why not just run the trolley past them without any stops? The purpose of extending the Blue Line is to access UCSD and UTC. Eliminating the stops along the way would actually enhance that access by providing a quicker trip.

I don't think anyone outside of Bay Park and Clairemont particularly want access to those neighborhoods. And if those inside Bay Park and Clairemont don't support it, why cater to them at all? Save money on building those trolley stops, and enjoy a faster commute to UTC.

Only if you assume that all passengers on the trolley need direct access from UTC/UCSD to downtown (vice versus). In my opinion, this extension needs more stops to make it viable, not less.

[tyleraf]

With downtown's class a office vacancy rates at long time lows, let's hope that Irvine will restart movement on 880 w broadway soon, preferably with a new design. Good new though, Hughes Marino has said they are lining up tenants for Pacific Gateway which should be hopefully getting started soon. Hopefully Makers Quarter and the IDEA District can ride this wave as well.http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-marino-blog/downtown-san-diego-now-dominated-two-landlords-manchester-pacific-gateway-moving-closer-to-reality/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonsq%2FLZKXonjHpfsX54%2BgpXLHr08Yy0EZ5VunJEUWy2YQHRdQ%2FcOedCQkZHblFnVoASq2iW6INqaQM Also, here is an article about downtowns tech cluster. I hope things get really moving soon.http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/23/new-tech-companies-old-buildings-and-the-downtown-space-jam/

[spoonman]

With downtown's class a office vacancy rates at long time lows, let's hope that Irvine will restart movement on 880 w broadway soon, preferably with a new design. Good new though, Hughes Marino has said they are lining up tenants for Pacific Gateway which should be hopefully getting started soon. Hopefully Makers Quarter and the IDEA District can ride this wave as well.http://www.hughesmarino.com/hughes-marino-blog/downtown-san-diego-now-dominated-two-landlords-manchester-pacific-gateway-moving-closer-to-reality/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonsq%2FLZKXonjHpfsX54%2BgpXLHr08Yy0EZ5VunJEUWy2YQHRdQ%2FcOedCQkZHblFnVoASq2iW6INqaQM Also, here is an article about downtowns tech cluster. I hope things get really moving soon.http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/23/new-tech-companies-old-buildings-and-the-downtown-space-jam/

^Haha, I just wrote a huge rant in the comments section.

[spoonman]

New development off the 56. Mostly 4 floors, with a parking structure, shops, restaurants, etc.

http://phrvillage.com/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XZs9ezORg6U/UdDZn5ct1HI/AAAAAAAAAGg/nqOZgAgTsw0/s960/photo(1).PNG

[mello]

Good rant Spoonman, who is Bill Foley? I am appalled at the 60 feet thing in Bay Park as well. So that is a 5 floor residential or 6 floor? Don't they have to use concrete and steel above 5 floors or can they use wood on a 6 floor structure?

So the entire IDEA district has only 60k sq ft. of office space??? That is nothing! Or are they just talking about that one building in the rendering. It is many square blocks and this district so that amount of square feet is super small. What do you guys think can be done to give tech companies more attractive space downtown?

I'm totally cool with bottom of TR produce being leased to that one fast growing company it has sat empty for what 8 or 9 years now :( Downtown is obviously saturated with bars and restaurants we need young money down there in the form of tech jobs before more eating/drinking establishments are in demand.

[tyleraf]

I think he meant Bill Fulton. I agree with your rant and I hope others on VOSD agree and hopefully people begin to take action. I sure hope that the TR produce building tech space is approved. I'd hate to lose another tech company. I would love to see Qualcomm do something similar to Amazon's Rufus 2.0. I think IDEA District and and Makers Quarter need to be much more aggressive with getting office space built since a lot of the tenants they are looking to lease to probably arent even large enough yet to lease the space.

[spoonman]

Sorry, yes, I meant Fulton. It seems that the comment section in that article has become pretty heated. I'm finding it interesting to learn what the NIMBY crowd is all about.

[Northparkwizard]

Sorry, yes, I meant Fulton. It seems that the comment section in that article has become pretty heated. I'm finding it interesting to learn what the NIMBY crowd is all about.

That guy Jim Jones... :hell:

[Streamliner]

County Administration Center Waterfront Park

County Supervisor Dave Roberts posted a couple pictures on his facebook account of the southern half of the new CAC Waterfront Park.

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1625529_10152150078668802_8014787791028825543_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1.0-9/10169413_10152150078663802_7611005803520932038_n.jpg

[spoonman]

^Wow. Impressive.