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)

SDDTProspector Aug 8, 2007 8:57 PM

Does anyone have a opinion about how much the NBC design regressed from it orginal designs, even 4 months ago. I never liked the NBC proposal but now it even looks like a cheap stripmall. I wouldn't be suprised if a Pat & Osscars would anchor the far south corner of the project. I remember even seeing a 1990 conceptual plan of what could be proposed.... to what Mancheter and Tucker Saddler in Proposing is TRASH...Thorw it out!!!! Shame on the those two firms.

SDCAL Aug 8, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2997856)
Good point.

only proposals i've seen that come close to "signature towers" were library tower and (especially) cosmo square. I think both proposals did a good job considering the f'd up height restrictions they were dealing with.

now that those two are apparently dead, I have a very gloomy outlook for the east village skyline. Maybe when things pick up the projects will resurect, or maybe even better things will take shape, but right now dt development has seemed to hit a depressing and gloomy low in the quality of projects :sly:

Derek Aug 8, 2007 10:00 PM

I agree with you definitely about those two towers, and I pray that they will be ressurected.

bushman61988 Aug 8, 2007 10:59 PM

:previous: Wow, really? While Agree with you guys about the Cosmopolitan Square, which would have definitely been on of the most awesome, definitive towers in the skyline and would've looked GREAT from Petco Park, I personally don't think the Library Tower was all that great. Sure, it was tall and slender, but that exterior IMO was awful...it also looked gray, so the tower seemed to me like it could've came out as this long slender slab of exposed concrete w/ balconies...eww...but at least it would've added some height to the area.

Derek Aug 9, 2007 12:14 AM

I don't know. I have just always liked the Library Tower. Cosmo Square was definitely the most gorgeous proposal that I have seen. It's a shame it won't go up (at least anytime soon).


Maybe if the Main Library was built, the Library Tower might get a small jumpstart?

spoonman Aug 9, 2007 1:40 AM

Personally I really liked both towers and I have been very critical of many of downtown's recent developments.

Does anyone else believe that the speed at which these projects came out may have had something to do with the quality of the designs. I suspect that many of these developers just tried to push their buildings through during the boom. When towers were selling like hotcakes there wasn't much incentive to build impressive or overly fancy buildings. Since the market has toughened up perhaps this will change soon. I'm not saying this was the sole reason for a lot of the desings, but it may have something to do with it. Anyone else think so? Maybe that's what happened to Miami??

BTW; doesn't anyone consider Shapery Park Tower a signture tower? I know some people don't think it's an attractive building, but many people think Transbay is ugly too.

Derek Aug 9, 2007 1:45 AM

Transbay is 1000% times better than Shapery Park. And Transbay isn't too pretty.

mongoXZ Aug 9, 2007 2:49 AM

i know it's all subjective but CMON! SOM's proposal for SF is a beauty! what more can you ask for? There was a good amount of imagination and effort put into the architecture especially when you compare it to SD's more recent proposals.

And I wasn't suggesting to pare it down to meet San Diego's 500 ft limit but to inspire those sorry architects and planners who thought up the Irvine proposal or NBC complex. Sure, Transbay has no height restrictions but that doesn't mean all 500ft (or less) buildings have to look like crap. . . which what they look like.

Just look at the renderings of the Irvine tower or NBC complex and place them next to the renderings of Transbay. SD's proposals look EXTREMELY amateurish IMO.

mongoXZ Aug 9, 2007 3:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2998966)

BTW; doesn't anyone consider Shapery Park Tower a signture tower? I know some people don't think it's an attractive building, but many people think Transbay is ugly too.

I forgot about Shapery Park and I think it is probably the closest we can get to a new signature tower. But remember One America Plaza was supposed to be our skyline's icon but is now further lost in the crowded 500ft plateau.

Spinnaker, as much as everyone hates it, can be a signature tower simply because of its dynamic shape and location.

spoonman Aug 9, 2007 5:02 AM

Quote:

I forgot about Shapery Park and I think it is probably the closest we can get to a new signature tower. But remember One America Plaza was supposed to be our skyline's icon but is now further lost in the crowded 500ft plateau.
One America Plaza has served the city well as an icon for the last 15 years. It's too bad it's become lost in the shuffle. Our city does have a lot of tall buildings downtown though even if they aren't supertalls, most people other than us nerds probably don't even notice things like that. Most people would notice things like the feel of the city. Whether it is one of those downtowns which is like an office park, or if it has activity, uniqueness and character.

We often let our height limit get in the way of appreciating how much our center city area has returned to livability. The vibrancy that has been brought back has become a model for other cities. Yes, there are other cities with taller buildings, but that doesn't matter on the ground, only when you are away from the very area you wish to be. I know we all like tall buildings but lets not overlook the area where we do better than most.

[Gets down from soapbox]

Quote:

Spinnaker, as much as everyone hates it, can be a signature tower simply because of its dynamic shape and location.[/
Sorry, no offense MongoXZ, but I can think of anything more amateurish than a sail shaped Dubai knockoff that isn't even 400 feet tall.

Derek Aug 9, 2007 5:06 AM

I agree with Mongo about Spinnaker though. It's different.

mongoXZ Aug 9, 2007 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2999442)
Sorry, no offense MongoXZ, but I can think of anything more amateurish than a sail shaped Dubai knockoff that isn't even 400 feet tall.

None taken. I personally don't see it as amateurish but more of an opportunity for the skyline to have a separate focal point from different angles. Much like the way the Statue of Liberty does for New York and the Coit tower does for San Fran.

And I, too, realize that SD has come a long way to serve as a model for vibrancy and revitalization. I'm just disappointed whenever I see other cities get to have grand designs like Transbay and we're stuck with an Irvine tower that belongs to UTC.

eburress Aug 9, 2007 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDDTProspector (Post 2998218)
Does anyone have a opinion about how much the NBC design regressed from it orginal designs, even 4 months ago. I never liked the NBC proposal but now it even looks like a cheap stripmall. I wouldn't be suprised if a Pat & Osscars would anchor the far south corner of the project. I remember even seeing a 1990 conceptual plan of what could be proposed.... to what Mancheter and Tucker Saddler in Proposing is TRASH...Thorw it out!!!! Shame on the those two firms.

I really like the NBC buildings. I just wish the buildings further away from the water (especially the tallest one) were a little taller.

Marina_Guy Aug 9, 2007 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShekelPop (Post 2994069)
I'm glad you brought up these two items - the wow factor, and those Irvine towers.... you're familiar with Donald Bren's notoriously specific design and color palate.

Irvine Company = Travertine. Do they own a travertine plant somewhere?

Orange County Bland, oh and conservative and safe too. Beige is safe.

They just finished (or about to) the NBC building in Horton Plaza. A mid-century classic... now covered in travertine.

Only hope for Irvine is that they bring some big employers downtown. We will see.

eburress Aug 9, 2007 3:04 PM

^^ I think their building is OK. Not great and certainly not "signature," but not entirely bad either. On the bright side, its unadventurous design will make much more timeless.

Derek Aug 9, 2007 6:01 PM

It would be a perfectly fine tower if it weren't for it's location, in my opinion.

HurricaneHugo Aug 10, 2007 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 2999177)
Spinnaker, as much as everyone hates it, can be a signature tower simply because of its dynamic shape and location.

If only it was taller.

Derek Aug 10, 2007 12:58 AM

Speaking of Spinnaker, has anybody even heard any news on it?

bmfarley Aug 10, 2007 2:02 AM

I am interested in seeing some pictures of locally proposed projects about now. It's been awhile since we've seen anything, right?

The CCDC project list page motivated me. I saw that the list was updated on August 7th. But, for the life of me I could not locate the projects that were updated or are new. I did find a couple new pictures. like:

E82... either its 14th & K or it's 15th & Market (Construction expected to begin in late 2007)
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyI...ndering_72.jpg

E57... Hotel Indigo at 9th & Island(Construction expected to begin in Winter 2007. Is that this December? Or suppose to be last January?)
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyI...61027_CCDC.jpg
Okay, this image is not knew. But, I like it.

I'd love to see this one get build; L30...Pier (Construction expected in late 2007)
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyI...er%20Grape.jpg

Sadly, I don't think CH8...Atmosphere will be completed. It has been a whole in the ground for several months with zero activity. I wonder if the project sponsor is paying for the meters that cannot be used because of the barrier put up?
http://www.ccdc.com/images/propertyI...s_on_fifth.jpg

Derek Aug 10, 2007 2:59 AM

I thought Hotel Indigo started construction?


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 AM.

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