SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

SDCAL Aug 8, 2008 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3720624)
Bottom line: Escondido sucks.

why did you buy property there?

kpexpress Aug 8, 2008 3:39 AM

Don't you think that the airport is vital to Downtown's economy? Southern California isn't particularly a downtown friendly area.

sandiegodweller Aug 8, 2008 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 3721462)
why did you buy property there?

You live and learn.

Both projects should have been demolished and redeveloped by now but they aren't.

With the numerous failed projects littering the area (DR Horton's Paramount and Vue, Barratt's City Square, Micheael Crew's and his giveaway units along with the mistake that Lennar/Centex is plodding through, Eureka Ranch), it will be years until that market stabilizes.

staplesla Aug 9, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 3721614)
Don't you think that the airport is vital to Downtown's economy? Southern California isn't particularly a downtown friendly area.

The airport is vital to San Diego as a whole, not just downtown. You don't have to have the facility located blocks from downtown for it to be viable. Look at Dallas/Fort Worth, NYC, Atlanta. Each of those cities airports are located 15+ minutes from downtown. And each has a much bigger facility with the capacity to handle much larger planes and more planes at any given time via longer runways, more runways, and more terminals.

It really irks me that people think that renovating the current terminals or building a new one off of I-5 will solve future issues. Though there is a current downturn in air travel, things will bounce back, as will the economy eventually. People will always be flying and as the metro region continues to grow so does the need for more gates and planes.

If San Diego leaders were smart they would move the airport to a large enough space suitable for future growth. Look at what Dallas/Fort Worth did. They purchased 18,000 acres thinking about future growth. Now the airport has grown to 7 runways and 5 terminals with plans for more.

San Diegans are missing out on much needed revenue that could come from a true international airport, justified by San Diego’s proximity to Mexico, the cruise ship terminals, convention business, and best climate in the nation. Plus the great climate would mean little to no travel delays in comparison to other international airports.

It would take bold actions though which I don’t think our current leaders are willing to undertake.

laguna Aug 9, 2008 5:26 AM

airport
 
It isnt that nobody is smart enough to think that the city needs a larger airport, its been a topic of discussion for over 40 years. The problem has always been where do we put a new one, not 'do we need a new one', obviously we do. When land was available in the past, money wasnt. Now there is not a piece of land big enough to do the job properly that is available in a good location. If you go further east toward the desert, the environmentalist's lawyers will tie it up forever and that is about the only unoccupied land of that size left in the area.

The Miramar idea has been debated ad nauseum. The Navy said emphatically NO! You cant vote to take it away, just because you want it, that is naive, they own it. The referendum was only to use as a bargaining tool with congress, who had little interest in the subject. Also, the neighbors to Miramar were emphatically in favor of the Marines staying put. Unless you have a dictatorship, you have various peoples interests to consider in any possible location.

The plans to expand Lindbergh is a poor idea. Doing nothing to expand capacity is an even worse idea.

Wishful, unrealistic thinking is what got us into the mess we are in.

Jobohimself Aug 9, 2008 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3717035)
As an interested party who owns two rental properties in Escondido, I will say that Escondido is the biggest cesspool in the region. To compare it to Carlsbad is a joke.

The dregs of society that congregate there are alarming.

If you don't believe me, come along next time I go and collect rent.

Oh, please. It's not like this place is Elsinore, Fallbrook, or Vista.

I will totally compare it to Carlsbad. We have a vibrant downtown, nice art galleries... Carlsbad is largely recent, bland suburban sprawl.

It may not be a Bellevue or Astoria, but it's a nice little city. Because a few irresponsible renters inconvenience you doesn't mean you should attribute their actions to 142,000 other people.

dl3000 Aug 9, 2008 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laguna (Post 3724071)
It isnt that nobody is smart enough to think that the city needs a larger airport, its been a topic of discussion for over 40 years. The problem has always been where do we put a new one, not 'do we need a new one', obviously we do. When land was available in the past, money wasnt. Now there is not a piece of land big enough to do the job properly that is available in a good location. If you go further east toward the desert, the environmentalist's lawyers will tie it up forever and that is about the only unoccupied land of that size left in the area.

The Miramar idea has been debated ad nauseum. The Navy said emphatically NO! You cant vote to take it away, just because you want it, that is naive, they own it. The referendum was only to use as a bargaining tool with congress, who had little interest in the subject. Also, the neighbors to Miramar were emphatically in favor of the Marines staying put. Unless you have a dictatorship, you have various peoples interests to consider in any possible location.

The plans to expand Lindbergh is a poor idea. Doing nothing to expand capacity is an even worse idea.

Wishful, unrealistic thinking is what got us into the mess we are in.

Then what do you propose?

NYC2ATX Aug 9, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 3724849)
Then what do you propose?

I'm not from San Diego, but has anyone ever considered building it on a manmade island out in the water? ...something similar to the very successful Kansai Int'l Airport near Osaka, Japan, perhaps...

A LINK to the Wikipedia page on Kansai. :tup:

dl3000 Aug 9, 2008 9:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237 (Post 3724872)
I'm not from San Diego, but has anyone ever considered building it on a manmade island out in the water? ...something similar to the very successful Kansai Int'l Airport near Osaka, Japan, perhaps...

A LINK to the Wikipedia page on Kansai. :tup:

Tough to do in the open ocean, Kansai is in Osaka Bay where currents aren't as strong as the open coast off San Diego. The big idea there is the megafloat idea of having like a giant aircraft carrier anchored out there. This site has the proposal specific to san diego to give you an idea of what they have in mind, check out the slide show. It's pretty cool. San Diego is too short sighted to pull something like this off, they shot this idea down in the first phase of the comprehensive Airport Authority study and tried to bring it back to phase two where it was declined again. Every study looks to Miramar without fail. Apparently way back in the day they had set aside some land for a bigger airport which was downsized and became present Montgomery Field, but then the adjacent land must have been sold to developers.
http://www.euphlotea.com/

laguna Aug 9, 2008 10:49 PM

Its easy to say 'if they were smart, they would do this or that with the airport.' I gave you a very brief history of some of the problems and events that put us where we are. The biggest event that has happened over the years is that San Diego has grown and available space has disappeared. There are no easy solutions at this point in time. Hopefully, wiser people than you and me are making the plans.

sandiegodweller Aug 10, 2008 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobohimself (Post 3724334)
Oh, please. It's not like this place is Elsinore, Fallbrook, or Vista.

I will totally compare it to Carlsbad. We have a vibrant downtown, nice art galleries... Carlsbad is largely recent, bland suburban sprawl.

It may not be a Bellevue or Astoria, but it's a nice little city. Because a few irresponsible renters inconvenience you doesn't mean you should attribute their actions to 142,000 other people.

Lets put it up to a vote.

All of those in favor of living in Carlsbad, say Aye.

All of those in favor of living in Escondido, say Nay.

Derek Aug 10, 2008 5:46 PM

Aye. :P

Jobohimself Aug 10, 2008 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3725988)
Lets put it up to a vote.

All of those in favor of living in Carlsbad, say Aye.

All of those in favor of living in Escondido, say Nay.

I fail to see how that addresses the point at hand. But if you want to turn this into a pissing contest, go right ahead.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2008 9:23 PM

The airport problem

We need to focus on the problem, which is the ONE, SHORT runway.

The plans to expand Lindbergh don't address the matter at all, and if you go on the Airport Authorities website it says in black and white there are no plans to add another or extend the current runway. The plans all deal with better transportation, more gates, etc, which is all nice but do we want to sink millions into an airport that will eventually be doomed?

Some may argue that spending millions to make Lindbergh more convinient for the next 20-25 years is a good thing, and that since we can likely get by with the ONE, SHORT runway for about 20 more years we might as well just put off the issue. As others have mentioned, there is no simple solution and if you were a politician knowing you will be retired by the time the ONE, SHORT runway is no longer able to serve our needs, why bother going through the headache now of trying to solve this problem that has no easy solutions.

My theory, however, is that we should step up and address the problem now. As others have mentioned, space becomes MORE of an issue, not less as San Diego grows.

There are basically three options for San Diego after the year 2030

(1) keep Linbergh where it is and use imminent domain or the floating airport to add another runway

(2) move the airport somewhere else in our county

(3) keep Linbergh where it is and don't extend or add another runway, but instead utilize regional airports to absorb the excess international travel; namely, one idea has been using Tijuana airport as San Diego's local ong-haul oversees flight hub


Every one of these scenarios has major road blocks and will take years if not decades of overcoming beurocracy, planning and political cat fights. BUT, wouldn't it make more sense for someone to have the cajones to PICK which route we want to take NOW, and then begin the decades-long struggle to get there?

I'm afraid that if we ignore the issue, we will default to option 3, which in my opinion is the worst option because it will take alot of potential revenue from San Diego and give it to Mexico

Option 2 may still include Miramar, which is in a good position now to resist but may not be in another 15-20 years. Right now, the average passenger at SAN does not really notice the crunch and naive people are content with our "little convinient" airport. In another 10-15 years, people WILL start to notice the crunch. When the average citizen is going through major headaches to fly out of SAN, public pressure could force Mirimar to change it's mind. But, by the time that would happen, we would be in such bad shape that a new airport would need to be constructed quickly and would probably be built as a quick, cheap mess of an airport

If the city decides Miramar IS the best option for San Diego's future, then they should publicly declare that is what our plans are - regardless of what the military says or wants. We have a good 15 years to lobby congress, the military and to educate the public, and it would definately take about that long to have an effect big enough to force the military out

Another option is of ocurse a combination of (2) and (3), building a new airport on the border and sharing terminals with TJ. Again, this would take years of planning and beurrocratic red tape with the governments of two countries, and would need to start being planned out now. So, if THIS is determined as the best option for the city, we should decide NOW as it will take at least a decade to plan, convince the public, work out the logisitcs etc, etc,

If the plan is to keep Lindbergh where it is (which seems to be where public opinion and the city are at now), then serious plans regarding the expansion of the RUNWAY and ADDITION of another runway need to be taken now. If THIS is determined as the best solution for our city, again a decade + years of planning will be needed to either enact imminent domain around Lindbergh, and/or convince the military in the area to leave. If the plan is for a floating ocean runway, again we will need 10-20 years to work out the logistics, planning, finances, public opinion, politics, etc.

Bottom line, ANY option will take 1-2 decades to work out the logistical red tape. We have about 20 years, according to the FDA, before our current ONE, SHORT runway is no longer viable. Wouldn't it make sense for the city and Airport Authority to sit down, decide which option is best, knowing that any option will seem impossible now, and decide on it so the long, difficult process can begin?

By choosing to focus only on cosmetic changes to Lindbergh that themselves will take years to complete, the cowardly city leaders have decided to leave the real challenge of runway space to city leaders of the future while they waste more time with bandaid fixes. It is a disaster waiting to happen and will end up hurting us in the long run by setting an issue aside rather than tackling it now simply because it's a difficult issue

bmfarley Aug 10, 2008 9:57 PM

This is a sign that things are slow... when posters are vetting the merits of one community over another.

bmfarley Aug 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Concerning the airport, I use to be in the camp that we needed a new airport; preferably at Miramar.

I am a big advocate of proper planning... it prevents poor performance.

However, I have changed my position of late and I feel more information is needed concerning future passenger demand. Right now, I associate the need for airport improvements with total traveller throughput, rather than bigger planes to reach further locales. An update to future demand is needed and here is why:

1) Energy sector challenges and implications to the cost of air travel and associated passenger demand may put off for many many years when the true need for a larger and longer runway airport is needed.

2) Additionally, high spped rail, if passed by voters in Proposition 1, could/would result in a competing mode that could entirely mitigate in-state demand for air travel. In-state commuter flights could go the way of the Dodo bird.

sandiegodweller Aug 10, 2008 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobohimself (Post 3726262)
I fail to see how that addresses the point at hand. But if you want to turn this into a pissing contest, go right ahead.

"Escondido and Oceanside definitely eclipse Cbad.

I am from Escondido, and we continue to grow, economically and by population."

Your quote started this "pissing contest".

Piss seems an interesting description in relation to Escondido because it basically smells like piss and I would stop to piss on it if it was in flames.

Jobohimself Aug 11, 2008 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3726564)
Piss seems an interesting description in relation to Escondido because it basically smells like piss and I would stop to piss on it if it was in flames.

My final reply on this subject:

My statement was based on established fact, whereas yours was based on elementary-school toilet humour and pig-headedness. And before throwing your blanket assumptions onto a city that is one of the powerhouses of North County, whether you like it or not, spend more time here than collecting your rent from crackhead tenants. Those are a definite minority of the population.

bmfarley Aug 11, 2008 2:36 AM

Where's admin.. It's time to close this thread.

Jobohimself Aug 11, 2008 3:11 AM

Sorry about the tangent. I hope I was not overly out of line.

Regarding the airport, it's just a shame that SDCC and this county's voters are reactive and not proactive. This problem should have been addressed (and solved?) many, many years ago.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.