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)

bmfarley May 16, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2839224)
The say the FAA, but I thought there was a local law?? I wonder if developers can challenge the height restriction? Obviously if it's an FAA restriction they would never OK something really tall, but even if we could start with something 550-600 ft at least it would give the skyline some depth!!!

I've never heard of it being from a local law. I always heard it was an FAA thing because of Lindbergh.

bushman61988 May 16, 2007 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2839224)
By Mike Freeman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

"The Federal Aviation Administration sets height limits on buildings because of downtown's proximity to Lindbergh Field. Many towers are roughly the same height, giving the city's skyline less vertical contrast than those of some other cities".


A nice way of saying our skyline is starting to look like a plateau with no dramaric height. At least the mainstream media is acknowledging it, maybe it will start getting people to think about the potential of our skyline if a few over 500ft buildings were allowed to punctuate it

The say the FAA, but I thought there was a local law?? I wonder if developers can challenge the height restriction? Obviously if it's an FAA restriction they would never OK something really tall, but even if we could start with something 550-600 ft at least it would give the skyline some depth!!!

It just makes NO sense to me whatsoever to have that 500 foot height limit over the ENTIRE downtown area...no sense at all..

Look how high buildings are that airplanes fly so close to, such as the Symphony Towers. Why would they place a height limit over the rest of downtown that is nowhere near the flight path?..I mean, even in an emergency, planes shouldnt be flying over downtown b/c the runway is oriented much more east-west and if a plane did need to fly over downtown, i cant see how it could possibly align itself and land on the runway.

The FAA should have kind of a stepped height limit approach, with height limits for 500 feet for the areas close to the runway approach, and the height limit should increase the farther from the flight path it is.

why the hell don't any developers challenge this ridiculous limit?

SDCAL May 16, 2007 7:55 PM

Los Angeles - - proposed resdiential/hotel complet, taller tower will be over 70 stories, will be the tallest residential building west of Chicago, supposed to break ground next year - - what do you think, LA's newer architectural renderings better than SDs??

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...nfigId=1000837

SDCAL May 16, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2839306)
Los Angeles - - proposed resdiential/hotel complet, taller tower will be over 70 stories, will be the tallest residential building west of Chicago, supposed to break ground next year - - what do you think, LA's newer architectural renderings better than SDs??

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...nfigId=1000837

dammit, image didn't show up - - anyway, here is the link:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...ews_view_popup

www.parkfifth.com

SDCAL May 16, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 2839301)
It just makes NO sense to me whatsoever to have that 500 foot height limit over the ENTIRE downtown area...no sense at all..

Look how high buildings are that airplanes fly so close to, such as the Symphony Towers. Why would they place a height limit over the rest of downtown that is nowhere near the flight path?..I mean, even in an emergency, planes shouldnt be flying over downtown b/c the runway is oriented much more east-west and if a plane did need to fly over downtown, i cant see how it could possibly align itself and land on the runway.

The FAA should have kind of a stepped height limit approach, with height limits for 500 feet for the areas close to the runway approach, and the height limit should increase the farther from the flight path it is.

why the hell don't any developers challenge this ridiculous limit?

i agree but no developer wants to spend the time/money on legal challenges to a Federal agency, why do it when you can just develop in a larger city without the height restrictions?? there are even shorter restrictions closer to the airport, there is a building now that is in a bunch of legal wrangling that is right next to the airport and it went a floor or two over and now there are all these lawsuits with the city, FAA, etc it's a mess and I don't blame a developer for not wanting to go through the hassle

SDCAL May 16, 2007 8:04 PM

CAN SOMEONE HELP

Not to sound like complete moron, but could someone please post directions for inserting pictures from other sources onto these posts? when i try, they never come out :(

thnks

SDDTProspector May 16, 2007 8:05 PM

the 6th avenue office project.....
 
FEHLMAN & LABARRE website has picture of the 13 Floor Office project...

Can't find a way to add the links... so here is the website

http://www.fehlmanlabarre.com/#projects

Crackertastik May 16, 2007 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2838901)
That's going to be the "mystery tower" we've seen in so many renderings.


which renderings?

Derek May 16, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2838901)
That's going to be the "mystery tower" we've seen in so many renderings.

I hope we see it soon!;)

Derek May 16, 2007 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 2838542)

On today's Union-Tribune:

Officials would like to attract NBA team
By Tanya Sierra
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

May 16, 2007

NATIONAL CITY – Now that the Chargers won't be relocating to National City, city officials are shifting their efforts to building a sports arena near the waterfront.


Advertisement City officials have been talking with Ernie Hahn II, who operates the San Diego Sports Arena, about bringing an arena to the 67-acre site the Chargers were considering.
Although no one would discuss details, Hahn said they would like the venue to house a National Basketball Association team.

The city's arena plans are preliminary. Officials need to secure financing, get buy-in from the Port of San Diego, which owns a majority of the site, and develop a land-use plan for the bayfront.

“There's always a struggle when you don't have a franchise, a team,” said National City Redevelopment Director Brad Raulston. “There's this chicken and egg between the team and the building. You need to have a building to lure the team.”

Officials say they prepared to develop the site as part of their stadium proposal. They surveyed residents and business owners and met with representatives of waterfront companies.

“The site has transportation advantages, a good location, and we understand the concerns of the maritime folks,” City Manager Chris Zapata said. “Coupled with the questionnaire, we realize there has to be a balance that is industry-and visitor-serving.”

Hahn started looking for new arena sites in 2003. He considered National City and Chula Vista, and said National City has the will and creativity to make an arena possible.

“I think they've got a very proactive management team from the mayor's office all the way down to redevelopment, which is always a positive,” Hahn said.

Although Hahn said he is focused on improving the San Diego Sports Arena, he's open to meeting with National City officials.

Last week, after Mayor Ron Morrison announced the city was dropping its bid to host a Chargers stadium, he said “discussions with a number of people” about a sports arena were under way.

Other than Hahn, city officials would not reveal names.

“There have been discussions and people are interested, but nobody is comfortable with going public on bringing a team to town,” Raulston said.

Past local sports arena proposals – in Chula Vista in 1973 and in downtown San Diego and Sorrento Valley in the early '90s – have failed.

In 2003, Hahn's Arena Group 2000 hired Raulston to help search for a new arena location. Raulston said that even without an arena, National City is poised to change its marina district.

“We need to figure out a way to make it more efficient, more lucrative and more recreational,” he said.

Raulston said an arena requires 5 to 7 acres, far less than a football stadium.

Members of the Working Waterfront Group, a coalition of maritime-industrial businesses, opposed a stadium at the site because they say it would harm their businesses. They also disapprove of an arena, said Sharon Cloward, executive director of the San Diego Port Tenants Association.

“We don't have enough land down there now,” Cloward said.

Morrison said the site is one of the last sites in the county that can accommodate an arena because of its freeway and public transportation access. He said he wants a comprehensive plan for the entire waterfront.

“We do not want the waterfront association or the maritime groups to think we're digging into their territory,” he said. “We're not. We want to make it better for them.”

That's good!:tup:

As long as it is called the San Diego [insert team name here].

Derek May 16, 2007 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crackertastik (Post 2839407)
which renderings?

NBC renderings mainly, there is a tower behind it that isn't defined.

eburress May 16, 2007 10:57 PM

^^ It COULD be the San Diego Supersonics, which sounds VERY good! And works with the whole military town/Top Gun angle.

mello May 16, 2007 11:04 PM

Exactly !!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2839258)
This was a national study by the FAA, do these fools who are against a new airport think people are making this up??????????????? !!!!

Things like this simply infuriate me :hell: How can people blindly say that "oh no lindbergh is fine for generations" Where is Jerry Sanders, where is the County Supervisor?? This is there damn job to get things like this figured out.

People just go through there lives not thinking about the future. What happens when companies stop coming here or companies start leaving?? Then they will think "oh yeah wish we'd done something 50 FUCKING YEARS AGO"!!!!!

Do people understand the BILLIONS of dollars we give to metro LA's economy year after year after year because of our antiquated one runway airport.

**** Don't even get me started on our commercial shipping port. More billions we just say "here you go LA". Thanks may I have another. :whip:

eburress May 16, 2007 11:19 PM

^^ It's the growth conversation again, and SOOOO many people in San Diego don't want it. They want to keep SD the cozy little town it used to be.

Derek May 16, 2007 11:22 PM

Well...

Screw those people.:)



P.S. And yes, San Diego Supersonics sounds good, but I am a Clippers fan and would love to see them down here.;)

(Isn't Seattle currently fighting to keep the Supersonics in town?)

mello May 16, 2007 11:32 PM

It is so funny, though because this metro area is beyond the threshold of saying "Oh I'm anti growth". It isn't like we are talking about Boise, Spokane, Reno, Albaquerque, Las Cruces, Tucson, etc.

Metros of those size can still realistically have the conversation about growth and whether or not they want to move up in the world. San Diego is already a large established metro area of 3.5 million people. It is in the top 15 metros of a nation of 300 million people.

Our airport is so clearly antiquated and undersized for a metro of this size it is laughable.

Look at: Salt Lake City, Orlando, and Charlotte. Much smaller metros with airports that handle 10 million more passengers a year then SAN (if not much more than that).

Maybe the fact that LAX and Ontario are "fairly close" has kind of been like our crutch. Imagine if LA were 200 miles away instead of 100. Do you think we would have had a true dual/parallel runway international airport by now? I think so.

OCtoSD May 17, 2007 12:30 AM

The renderings of the 13 story building look great. It just looks weired next to the tacky ballpark self storage. That thing will hopefully get redeveloped soon. Its land is worth millions.

sandiego_urban May 17, 2007 12:43 AM

Ok, so let's not all get too excited about this, but I just saw this bit article from the online edition of the SD Daily Transcript. What could this be? New tallest? With the airport still there?

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm...de=20070516cxa



Company purchases land, proposes plans for tallest project in downtown San Diego

By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The Daily Transcript
Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A mixed-use development at 1270 Columbia St. in downtown San Diego is being planned for a local record-size 47-story tower with hotel and residential components, as well as a possible timeshare.

Derek May 17, 2007 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCtoSD (Post 2839867)
The renderings of the 13 story building look great. It just looks weired next to the tacky ballpark self storage. That thing will hopefully get redeveloped soon. Its land is worth millions.

I agree! That thing needs to go!:yuck:

mongoXZ May 17, 2007 1:21 AM

Quote:

Company purchases land, proposes plans for tallest project in downtown San Diego

By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The Daily Transcript
Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A mixed-use development at 1270 Columbia St. in downtown San Diego is being planned for a local record-size 47-story tower with hotel and residential components, as well as a possible timeshare.

Isn't this the land where the cancelled Elle tower was supposed to be? And wasn't there a rendering called "Columbia Tower" posted earlier from the CW Kim website? That white one??????
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...rojectsst9.png

LADY'S AND GENTLEMEN I PRESENT TO YOU OUR FUTURE TALLEST!

Yeah, right. . .:sly:


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:14 AM.

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