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)

metrocity567 Jan 14, 2015 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 6873924)
The stupid Ferris Wheel survives its first test:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...heel-port-bay/

Looking forward to seeing this observation ferris wheel in downtown San Diego. I am very glad my favorite city is looking very beautiful.

Bertrice Jan 15, 2015 5:26 PM

lane field park

https://coolsandiegosights.files.wor...pg?w=474&h=350

courtesy of https://coolsandiegosights.wordpress.com/

nezbn22 Jan 15, 2015 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6875989)

Thanks for the pic Bertrice! That baseball diamond themed park is especially appropriate today as MLB has awarded San Diego the 2016 All Star Game!

Even if you don't care for baseball, it should give projects like the Pendry Hotel a hard deadline for completion. They won't want to miss that opportunity...

SDCAL Jan 17, 2015 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6871601)
After having sunk a bunch of new money into the airport, it will be at least that long before the city could justify moving it.

True. I guess my question is if it's reasonably possible to build a super tall downtown with some sort of "exception" that would need to be granted by the FAA and local government. Would one super tall downtown really create a safety hazard for incoming/outgoing planes? Has anyone tried to get approval for something over 500 ft? I guess I'm just surprised that no developer has, to my knowledge, at least TRIED to get approval for something taller. It would add a lot of prestige to a hotel or condo tower or office building to be the tallest building in the city. But developers seem surprisingly content just staying within the 500 ft maximum and contributing to the ugly plateau effect. Maybe its because they know the process of getting something taller approved would be too costly/time consuming/ difficult?

SDfan Jan 17, 2015 6:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 6878494)
True. I guess my question is if it's reasonably possible to build a super tall downtown with some sort of "exception" that would need to be granted by the FAA and local government. Would one super tall downtown really create a safety hazard for incoming/outgoing planes? Has anyone tried to get approval for something over 500 ft? I guess I'm just surprised that no developer has, to my knowledge, at least TRIED to get approval for something taller. It would add a lot of prestige to a hotel or condo tower or office building to be the tallest building in the city. But developers seem surprisingly content just staying within the 500 ft maximum and contributing to the ugly plateau effect. Maybe its because they know the process of getting something taller approved would be too costly/time consuming/ difficult?

The developers of One America Plaza tried to get a 150' height variance for the project from the FAA back in the 80's, but they were shot down. Imagine if they'd gotten that extra 150'... uhhhh.

SDfan Jan 17, 2015 6:57 AM

In other news, some nice (and not so nice) infill development is moving forward downtown and Encanto.

PS, as I suspected, the proposed project on F street is tragically underutilized.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...to-apartments/

mello Jan 17, 2015 8:29 AM

F-11 is a joke, article said developer is proposing smaller number of units to limit risk... Economy is looking good its time to strike while the iron is hot. That is such bs, that building belongs in Civita or North Park but not a prime location like 11th and F.

Walked around the 5th and Spruce project today in Bankers Hill. If that stretch had about another ten high rise to midrise projetcs it would be a sweet corridor of density. The one going up looks almost done. Nice from some angles pretty ugly when driving North and looking at south side.

Leo the Dog Jan 17, 2015 4:45 PM

Does the FAA actually have any power over local projects or is it just a guideline?

I've heard they have zero power before, but cities follow their guidelines to avoid pricey lawsuits from NIMBYS.

bushman61988 Jan 17, 2015 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6878751)
Does the FAA actually have any power over local projects or is it just a guideline?

I've heard they have zero power before, but cities follow their guidelines to avoid pricey lawsuits from NIMBYS.

I know we've been over this issue a thousand times on this forum, but the 500-foot height limit seems pretty arbitrary, and I seriously doubt that anyone has really tried to challenge the FAA's authority on that.

Yes, the developers of One America Plaza might have originally submitted a design for 650 feet, but it sounds like they immediately gave up without any attempt to challenge it.

SDCAL is right, it doesn't make any sense why there's a blanket 500-foot limit instead of a gradual increase/step down the closer you get to the flight path. The other small runway at Lindbergh Field is defunct, so that shouldn't affect the height limits. And none of the Navy aircraft ever pass over Downtown so that shouldn't be an issue either.

This sounds like a classic case of the federal government over-regulating, and I'm surprised that our local republican leaders haven't taken issue with this over the past few decades.

metrocity567 Jan 17, 2015 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 6878798)
I know we've been over this issue a thousand times on this forum, but the 500-foot height limit seems pretty arbitrary, and I seriously doubt that anyone has really tried to challenge the FAA's authority on that.

Yes, the developers of One America Plaza might have originally submitted a design for 650 feet, but it sounds like they immediately gave up without any attempt to challenge it.

SDCAL is right, it doesn't make any sense why there's a blanket 500-foot limit instead of a gradual increase/step down the closer you get to the flight path. The other small runway at Lindbergh Field is defunct, so that shouldn't affect the height limits. And none of the Navy aircraft ever pass over Downtown so that shouldn't be an issue either.

This sounds like a classic case of the federal government over-regulating, and I'm surprised that our local republican leaders haven't taken issue with this over the past few decades.

I agree. The FAA should lift that 500ft height restriction limit so San Diego would get supertall skyscrapers in it's downtown area.

tyleraf Jan 17, 2015 6:28 PM

I know that Miami has fought and they have gained some ground on height limits. Although I know that the FAA has been giving them grief again over the past few years. I think with some aggressive lobbying that the FAA may give some concessions. The FAA didn't set the 500 foot blanket, that was actually the city. The problem is that the FAA can shut down the airport if they deem a building too tall or dangerous for flights.

SDfan Jan 17, 2015 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 6878798)
I know we've been over this issue a thousand times on this forum, but the 500-foot height limit seems pretty arbitrary, and I seriously doubt that anyone has really tried to challenge the FAA's authority on that.

Yes, the developers of One America Plaza might have originally submitted a design for 650 feet, but it sounds like they immediately gave up without any attempt to challenge it.

As far as I know, they did try, and they didn't get approval. There isn't much you can do after that either. A public referendum wouldn't be popular (let's make the city liable for something we know is unsafe? NIMBYS?) and legally since developers aren't experts in aviation safety compared to federal regulators at the FAA (the whole point of the FAA) I'm pretty sure any challenge would be laughed out of court. So, yeah, case closed there.

Quote:

SDCAL is right, it doesn't make any sense why there's a blanket 500-foot limit instead of a gradual increase/step down the closer you get to the flight path. The other small runway at Lindbergh Field is defunct, so that shouldn't affect the height limits. And none of the Navy aircraft ever pass over Downtown so that shouldn't be an issue either.

This sounds like a classic case of the federal government over-regulating, and I'm surprised that our local republican leaders haven't taken issue with this over the past few decades.
While I would love to join this chorus it's been done too many times here. Thems the breaks folks.

SDfan Jan 17, 2015 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6878819)
I know that Miami has fought and they have gained some ground on height limits. Although I know that the FAA has been giving them grief again over the past few years. I think with some aggressive lobbying that the FAA may give some concessions. The FAA didn't set the 500 foot blanket, that was actually the city. The problem is that the FAA can shut down the airport if they deem a building too tall or dangerous for flights.

The bigger issue is with insurance. If the FAA says that any structure is over a restricted height limit, the property owners is liable in full and no insurance company would dare do business with them. The FAA can't stop a project, but they can essentially condemn it financially. The city just adds an official level of oversight by enacting a local ordinance forbidding anything over 500', which can stop a project (as we've seen in Kearny Mesa at Spectrum Center).

Leo the Dog Jan 18, 2015 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 6878798)
SDCAL is right, it doesn't make any sense why there's a blanket 500-foot limit instead of a gradual increase/step down the closer you get to the flight path. The other small runway at Lindbergh Field is defunct, so that shouldn't affect the height limits. And none of the Navy aircraft ever pass over Downtown so that shouldn't be an issue either.

This sounds like a classic case of the federal government over-regulating, and I'm surprised that our local republican leaders haven't taken issue with this over the past few decades.

I've seen Phoenix maps of FAA height limits and its a stepped system. Literally a block to the west or north will result in higher height limits in their downtown.

tyleraf Jan 19, 2015 12:47 AM

What is strange, is how San Diego has a blanket height limit, whereas Miami's tallest proposals are reviewed on a case by case basis.

SDCAL Jan 19, 2015 5:30 AM

What I've heard is that the 500 ft limit isn't even based on the standard flight paths but rather on secondary paths that might need to be used for extenuating circumstances like weather problems or something. Agree with SDFan that no developer would touch anything > 500 ft due to the liability issues and some sort of higher limit would need to be approved by the FAA and the city for a developer to proceed. It does seem like a daunting task for one developer to take on for a specific project, but I'm surprised many developers on a general level and thinking of the future haven't come together to petition the city to re-evaluate this. It looks like that did happen in Miami based on what Tyler posted. I just think it's ridiculous to think that the last time someone raised the issue was 30 years ago. Wow things turn slowly in SD.

SDCAL Jan 19, 2015 5:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6880131)
What is strange, is how San Diego has a blanket height limit, whereas Miami's tallest proposals are reviewed on a case by case basis.

This would make WAY more sense!

SDfan Jan 19, 2015 6:09 AM

Old article on San Diego high-rises from SD Reader 2006

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...chines-living/

embora Jan 19, 2015 5:47 PM

On the topic of 7th & Market, here is a link to a rendering from Austin Veum Robbins Partnership. Though would this be the project that was contemplated several years ago before being killed in 2008 by CCDC, or would this be a current proposal?

http://www.avrpstudios.com/portfolio/item/7th-market/#!gallery[1378]/2/

tyleraf Jan 19, 2015 7:59 PM

Embora: that is an old render. Hopefully CivicSD gives us some information soon regarding this and Park and Market.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:48 AM.

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