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)

bushman61988 Jul 29, 2007 8:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber (Post 2978910)
You've got good renderings and great angle shots of each new buildings. The camera you've used takes the worst pictures I've ever seen! What are you using for those awful looking pictures? It's a shame to see how your pics turned out after all the hard work it must have been to get those great shots.

The best thing to happen to San Diego was the new baseball stadium. Great town even if the new buildings are starting to look a little bland.

LOL...that was SO NOT my camera. It's from the downtown webcams that are perched atop of Petco Park, Symphony Towers, and One America Plaza, and that's why the quality is so poor.

Marina_Guy Jul 30, 2007 4:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2978659)
So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures? Huh?

I don't think I said 'evil developers'. Developers take advantage of situations. They are human beings acting on incentives. And I do not think you can honestly conclude that City officials are not influenced by the development community.

I think it is obvious we don't have enough revenue, or not allocated correctly (which is less true) than what is needed for the community. Can you agree with that?

We have a huge infrastructure backlog and we don't spend any funds on civic buildings. (I am not talking stadiums here)... That is a choice San Diegan's have made. Instead the public sector looks to the private sector to build what the PUBLIC would like to have, but can't afford and we get things like the development in the South Embarcadero, and now NBC. And in the process we surrender public lands to private interests with little benefit to the citizen.

The only HOPE out there is the North Embarcadero (where lots of PUBLIC funds are pledged), but already the Port is messing with that grand plan by accepting a poorly designed project at Broadway and Harbor Drive (Lane Field).. (which is the source of the funds they are supposed to contribute to North Embarcadero)

I wonder if San Diegans will ever 'consider' opening their wallets to fund public buildings.. It appears unlikely. When will San Diego ever get a 'Mayor Daley' who is passionate about urban areas and finds the money to make it happen???

Derek Jul 30, 2007 7:16 AM

San Diegans are too conservative to open up like that. I hate most San Diegans. Luckily we have cute, tan women.;)


You guys are safe though. :)

ShekelPop Jul 30, 2007 7:20 AM

Just to chime in on this public space/private space conversation - lets not forget this is a YOUNG city. its nice to take pictures of New York and Paris and want what they have, and deciding what kind of public spaces we want is an indefinite process that should continue, but these cities are in their gajillionth iteration at this point whereas SD is rebuilding our downtown into a livable city for maybe a second(?) time. it takes time to shape the built environment. we'll get it at some point, but I dont think we need to have increased blood pressure because our city leaders arent on the same page as the public right now. at some point they will be.

eburress Jul 30, 2007 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 2979517)
I think it is obvious we don't have enough revenue, or not allocated correctly (which is less true) than what is needed for the community. Can you agree with that?

Yes, it is clear that San Diego doesn't have enough money, and it is the lame-ass people who live here who deserve every bit as much blame for that.

Maybe a stronger mayor/city government could better compel people to get on-board with efforts to encourage growth (e.g., a new airport) and to loosen their purse strings in order to pay for some of these grand civic structures, but our inept mayor/city government can only do so much. At some point, the people who live here are going to need to stop shackling San Diego with their desire to keep it small and quaint.

ucsbgaucho Jul 30, 2007 9:05 PM

Ahhhh, to not have a height restriction downtown:

This is SanFran, with renderings of some proposed new buildings, all the way up to 1500'. Granted, that type of height would look waaay out of place in SD, but I dont think 1000' feet would be out of line.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...umoredshrp.jpg

dl3000 Jul 30, 2007 10:38 PM

^Wait till the next big earthquake comes along if those are built. San Diego is the most fit for tall buildings as it historically has not as many significant earthquakes. How ironic that we have the shortest buildings.

ucsbgaucho Jul 30, 2007 10:45 PM

Just playing around, stealing buildings from other cities.... San Diego circa 2030
http://www.chrisaustinphotography.co.../sd_future.jpg

spoonman Jul 31, 2007 4:37 AM

^^^That's barely far fetched, just the added height. We have a great skyline that is denser than many cities. It's too bad though, we have a height limit. Otherwise we'd have one of the better skylines.

eburress Jul 31, 2007 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho (Post 2980564)
Ahhhh, to not have a height restriction downtown:

This is SanFran, with renderings of some proposed new buildings, all the way up to 1500'. Granted, that type of height would look waaay out of place in SD, but I dont think 1000' feet would be out of line.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...umoredshrp.jpg

1500' foot buildings wouldn't look out of place here if there were also plenty of 750', 1,000', and 1,250' buildings.

eburress Jul 31, 2007 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2980298)
Yes, it is clear that San Diego doesn't have enough money, and it is the lame-ass people who live here who deserve every bit as much blame for that.

Maybe a stronger mayor/city government could better compel people to get on-board with efforts to encourage growth (e.g., a new airport) and to loosen their purse strings in order to pay for some of these grand civic structures, but our inept mayor/city government can only do so much. At some point, the people who live here are going to need to stop shackling San Diego with their desire to keep it small and quaint.

[continuing my rant]

If there are problems with San Diego's city government, it is because they are representative of the people who live here.

SDCAL Jul 31, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 2979714)
Just to chime in on this public space/private space conversation - lets not forget this is a YOUNG city. its nice to take pictures of New York and Paris and want what they have, and deciding what kind of public spaces we want is an indefinite process that should continue, but these cities are in their gajillionth iteration at this point whereas SD is rebuilding our downtown into a livable city for maybe a second(?) time. it takes time to shape the built environment. we'll get it at some point, but I dont think we need to have increased blood pressure because our city leaders arent on the same page as the public right now. at some point they will be.

It's not all about SD being young, other west coast cities are young too and they still have more civic development than us. As others are pointing out, alot has to do with politics and SD has a more conservative "anti-tax" populace than other cities of it's size. While the demographics are changing, the hideous leadership is lagging behind and not changing.

I don't know much about Paris' history, but if you look at the history of New York, even as a very young city it was much more civic-minded and the public held the local government accountable WAY more than San Diego is doing now. It was the direction NY took in it's infancy that, in-part, makes it what it is today, not simply the fact it's an "older" city.

I respectfully disagree about sitting back and doing nothing thinking "we'll get there some day". That kind of laid-back SD attitude is one reason our city politics are so F-d up at the current moment, because the public sits back and is not critical. People who don't like the direction of the local government NEED to speak out, because assuming things will get better as San Diego "matures" is very naive indeed, just my opinion though ;)

laguna Jul 31, 2007 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by eburress
So, the problem is that San Diego doesn't sufficiently tax its residents and is therefore at the mercy of the evil developers? San Diego doesn't have money for its infrastructure, services, or anything else but if it were to raise taxes, it would be able to pay for all of that as well as grand, World-class civic structures?

Whenever I hear people talk about not being taxed enough, I immediately get a mental picture of a person who doesnt make much money and would just like to have grand dreams of spending other peoples. Property tax is high in SD, I am buying a downtown condo and just about didnt buy it because the property taxes are so high. Taxes, if too high Stop development, not encourage it. Developers are required to put in infrastructure surrounding their development, I have talked to our developer and know it cost him plenty.

The problem for the airport is mostly, where to put it, more than the bonding etc. However, SD has a lousy bond rating because they spent money unwisely in the past. Dont look to government to create Eden for you.

SDCAL Aug 1, 2007 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laguna (Post 2983011)
Whenever I hear people talk about not being taxed enough, I immediately get a mental picture of a person who doesnt make much money and would just like to have grand dreams of spending other peoples. Property tax is high in SD, I am buying a downtown condo and just about didnt buy it because the property taxes are so high. Taxes, if too high Stop development, not encourage it. Developers are required to put in infrastructure surrounding their development, I have talked to our developer and know it cost him plenty.

your mental picture is a sterotype that is not always accurate. I make a decent salary, well above the median, and own a condo downtown. I would favor reasonable taxes in-line with other large cities because I want more civic facilities in my neighborhood, downtown. It's about the community pitching-in to do their part, and San Diego's populace does not contribute in the manner other sizable urban cities do. I'm sure your developer gave a nice sob story from his perspective, but I gurarntee he or she is not hurting in the money department i'm sure

eburress Aug 1, 2007 12:37 AM

If San Diego's tax rate is consistent with that of other major US cities, then that's obviously not the answer. The city would need to find some other way(s) to become profitable.

Marina_Guy Aug 1, 2007 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2983175)
your mental picture is a sterotype that is not always accurate. I make a decent salary, well above the median, and own a condo downtown. I would favor reasonable taxes in-line with other large cities because I want more civic facilities in my neighborhood, downtown. It's about the community pitching-in to do their part, and San Diego's populace does not contribute in the manner other sizable urban cities do. I'm sure your developer gave a nice sob story from his perspective, but I gurarntee he or she is not hurting in the money department i'm sure

Amen. San Diego gets what it 'elects'... I'd love to see the 'City' break up. It is too big and if you look at the map, it doesn't really resemble a city. Each council district represents more people than a typical city! And often those 'districts' have many different needs. San Diego is so funny, it won't even vote to raise the TOT tax (hotel tax) and only tourists pay it!

HurricaneHugo Aug 1, 2007 2:44 AM

Phoenix's CityScape....525'

http://www.nitnelav.com/CityScapeCon...eNewRender.jpg

Man....

Derek Aug 1, 2007 4:15 AM

That sucks.

dl3000 Aug 1, 2007 4:33 AM

Damnit first they get us on population, now the tallest building. It was only a matter of time.

Derek Aug 1, 2007 4:39 AM

That was no surprise in population though. 515 square miles of sprawl.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.