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)

keg92101 May 20, 2007 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 2846674)
To me this is the most challenging part of downtown right now, Retail! There is so much vacant space and, one would have to have guess that the rents are out of line with business models. For downtown to grow and prosper, and become more of a 'neighborhood' retail rents have to fall/correct.

I applaud CCDC for requiring ground floor retail, but I think it might become neccessary for CCDC to require developers to subsidize retail rents to encourage growth. I think Seattle and Portland have programs like this. Just requiring it (retail) doesn't make it happen.

I also understand that a critical mass of residents and workers are necessary for any retail to succeed as well. I have heard a statistics that it takes 1600 people per urban city block to make retail successful. I don't think our current densities offer this. Any one have any info on that?

As far as Trader Joe's is considered their business model is driven by LOW RENT. They do not pay market rents in most of their markets. I think a savvy downtown commercial investor might consider offering them some space in conjunction with a larger commercial project to 'get it going'. I am sure if the price is right, Trader Joes would be in Downtown.

I notice a lot of the older buildings are starting to get retail (Along 9th/10th Ave near Market and G... That is nice to see.

Any thoughts?

These are my thoughts exactly. A developer could place a trader joes on a building's ground floor as an amenity for the building, and a marketting tool. I mean, if I did not yet live downtown, and was looking for a unit, all things equal and one building had a trader joes on the ground floor, I'm buying at that building. Unfortunately, developers don't seem to get this, otherwise we would have tons of specialty retail shops already.

All that being said, major retail outlets are paying north of $4 per sf at some locations, so it must work...

SDCAL May 20, 2007 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 2846734)
These are my thoughts exactly. A developer could place a trader joes on a building's ground floor as an amenity for the building, and a marketting tool. I mean, if I did not yet live downtown, and was looking for a unit, all things equal and one building had a trader joes on the ground floor, I'm buying at that building. Unfortunately, developers don't seem to get this, otherwise we would have tons of specialty retail shops already.

All that being said, major retail outlets are paying north of $4 per sf at some locations, so it must work...

I agree - one location that crosses my mind is the lower level of the tr produce building. It's such a cool project, and everytime I walk by and see the vacant lower level I wonder what/when something will go in there. It is still a blank slate, looks like one big open space that would be about the right size for a small market, but you know the rent has got to be through the roof!!! Whole Foods is generally higher end and pays for higher profile places. In one swanky upsclase high-rise development project I was reading about in Miami, whole foods is actually being named upfront as a retailer, I guess they made an agreement before the project even got started.

bmfarley May 20, 2007 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 2846674)
I also understand that a critical mass of residents and workers are necessary for any retail to succeed as well. I have heard a statistics that it takes 1600 people per urban city block to make retail successful. I don't think our current densities offer this. Any one have any info on that?

Any thoughts?

1600 people per block seems high to me. Could it be for larger blocks... thinking San Diego's urban ones are a bit smaller. With over 300 city blocks downtown... 1600 per block as an average would equate to a downtown population of about 480,000.

For a 12 by 12 grid... thinking of a square mile... and 144 city blocks. That would equate to over 230,000. Even that seems high for a square mile. San Francisco has over 800,000 people across about 49 square miles... or over 16k per square mile. Although SF has a much higher daytime population than 800k.

sandiegodweller May 20, 2007 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2809601)
Todays Paradise in progress:

Marriott Residence Inn Construction Begins
Construction of the 12-story, 185-room hotel at Sixth Avenue and J Street will start next week with the installation of fencing and the beginning of dewatering and shoring. On street parking on the south side of J and east side of Sixth next to the project will be eliminated for the length of construction. The hotel is expected to open in the summer of 2009.

This hasn't happend yet.

Derek May 20, 2007 9:57 PM

^:no:

ucsbgaucho May 21, 2007 5:09 PM

So 1.5 miles north and east is the 500' limit? Here's where that would reach, if you took the measurement from the extreme eastern edge of the airport, basically Laurel St and Pacific Hwy. Doesn't even reach Petco.
http://www.chrisaustinphotography.com/temp/airport.jpg

spoonman May 21, 2007 5:52 PM

Maybe North Island is the killer?

SDDTProspector May 21, 2007 6:15 PM

A long time ago (about 2 years ago)
 
I remember the rumor that someone was going to challege the 500Ft height limit with a building in the somewhere in the east village, never heard any details and I think it never got past the intial planning stages....

I wonder if they would of proposed it if it would of gotten past the FAA?

Miami is currently challenging the FAA about the building heights in D-town, the developers are claiming that is the airlines that are the biggest complainers becuase they will used more jet fuel to take off and land..... In san Diego's case the planes are only landing......

Crackertastik May 21, 2007 7:16 PM

maybe it is 1.5 miles from anywhere along the flight path?

that would effectively kill all of downtown if you drew a straight line southeast from airport runway and then made a series of 1.5 mile circles from along the flight path.

maybe that is how they produce the height limit for the area

druna974 May 21, 2007 8:31 PM

Hotel Indigo
 
I can't wait for this project to start. The NE block of 9th and Island might be the worst blight in the ballpark district...[IMG]http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z...otelindigo.jpg[/IMG]

SDDTProspector May 21, 2007 9:03 PM

I got the answer.......
 
It may be possible to put a plus 500 plus ft building in east Village... I have the official document that shows it (Pages 51 thru 53) (has a nice little illustration too) There may a slice land in east Village just south of Petco park. JMI's project "ball park village". Here are some points of interest...

http://www.san.org/documents/aluc/SDIA_ALUCP.pdf

- City of San diego actually set the high limit at 500ft

-The zone is actually 2.3 miles from the runway

-There has to be a 300ft buffer height added

Even a better document..........

Talks about how a runway was retired in Lindberg field in 1994 and the Height Limit zone was never updated, It would free up space outside the far Southwest side of downtown,....

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-com...rtapproach.pdf


ACTUALLY THE AIA (airport Influence Area) for San Diego International Airport exceeds the Airport Environs Overlay Zone.. In a Nutshell... The city of San Diego made their height limit lower than the FAA requires..... FAA recommeds a 200 ft buffer zone, instead of 300ft that the city uses.......... I maybe reading it wrong but I might be correct....

http://www.sdairfields.org/Portals/0...eas-pgs1-4.pdf

SDCAL May 21, 2007 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDDTProspector (Post 2848819)
It may be possible to put a plus 500 plus ft building in east Village... I have the official document that shows it (Pages 51 thru 53) (has a nice little illustration too) There may a slice land in east Village just south of Petco park. JMI's project "ball park village". Here are some points of interest...

http://www.san.org/documents/aluc/SDIA_ALUCP.pdf

- City of San diego actually set the high limit at 500ft

-The zone is actually 2.3 miles from the runway

-There has to be a 300ft buffer height added

Wow, I have been looking for official concrete documentation for some time, I have to hand it to you, ecxellent research in finding this!!!!!

It looks like some of East Village is outside that radius (see map on page 6 of the document, page 52 of the PDF and text on the previous pages)

The document seems pretty clear to me that the FAA restrictions only include areas within the radius

It also specifies that if structures propose to go higher within the radius this would require "new analysis of the circling approach minima" with the possibility of raising the circling approach minima to accomodate "construction of new buildings or changes to existing buildings resulting in higher obstructions of the circling approach".

The flexibility seems to be in that the circling minimum is a number that can vary, and for Lindbergh field it is 800 ft. Since a 300 ft buffer is required, the 500ft structure limit was established. The wording of this document makes it sound like there could be future consideration to raise the 800ft minima to allow for higher structures. It looks like this is periodically reviewed and ammended slightly, the most recent being 4-Oct-2004 according to the document.

This might explain why in the future renderings of the San Diego Skyline for 2030, it look slike there are taller buildings. Maybe it is assumed that as the city grows, even if Lindbergh does not move, the need for taller structures will arise and the FAA may need to ammend the minimum circling height

As for the areas of East Village not in the circling radius, it looks like they should be able to go above 500ft now if they wanted!!?

Derek May 21, 2007 11:39 PM

Excellent research!

eburress May 21, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2848496)
Maybe North Island is the killer?

Yes, I think North Island is the killer.

SDDTProspector May 22, 2007 12:13 AM

I don't height limits are effected by North Island
 
Here is The North Island feasibilty study for the airport replacement....

There is NO "verbage" about Height Restrictions, unlike the Lindberg field proposal.... Just talks about Noise Polution

http://www.san.org/documents/aluc/NA..._ALUCP_NOC.pdf

My observation is that North island would be very bad choice for an airport replacement if you read it!!!!!!:tup:

eburress May 22, 2007 12:50 AM

^^ An airport on Coronado is such an absolute waste. I look forward to North Island closing and I hope that's not where SD eventually decides to build a new airport (not that SD is ever going to build a new airport anyway).

SDCAL May 22, 2007 12:58 AM

It doesn't look like Miramar will be available anytime in the near, or according to this a-hole form the navy, long-term future

Winter to San Diego: Miramar is off limits

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 21:14:10 EDT

SAN DIEGO — Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter thought he heard the last of the fury last year from local officials who’ve long been hot to get their hands on Miramar Marine Corps Air Station to convert into an international airport.

But when he arrived for a breakfast meeting of the regional business group on Wednesday, among the fact sheets and other items of note Winter saw was an issuance from the regional airport authority, the de facto leader of the still-unsuccessful fight to get Miramar and convert it for civilian use.

During his first visit here last year as Navy secretary, Winter tackled numerous questions about Miramar and possibilities of joint or civilian use. Local voters rejected the idea in a countywide ballot last year, which was a symbolic gesture since Navy officials weren’t offering Miramar for any alternate uses.

But the first question posed to him during Wednesday’s question-and-answer session with chamber members was an echo of the recent past: Will Miramar fit into the region’s long-term plans for a larger airport?

The question came a day after the Federal Aviation Administration singled out San Diego’s Lindbergh Field, a single-runway downtown airport, as one of 14 civilian airports nationwide that will need more capacity between now and 2025.

“There are no plans whatsoever,” responded Winter, speaking before several hundred attending a monthly gathering of the San Diego Military Affairs Council at the Admiral Kidd Club. “Miramar is now and forever will be critical” to support the Navy and the Marine Corps.”

Years of base closures and realignments have left little room to change that view since the Navy and Marine Corps have fewer air bases and airfields for training and operations, he explained. “We have truly lost the elasticity of the facilities,” he noted. “We just don’t have the flexibility that we used to.”

Sitting down with several reporters after the breakfast, the Miramar question remained on Winter’s radar.

“I really thought the Miramar issue was behind us,” he said, surprised at the lack of understanding some community members have of the military.

Miramar’s importance, he said, isn’t just to support the short-term needs of the Marine Corps and other military forces continuing to fight and operate in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf region. The services must deal with the long-term demands of supporting and sustaining military operations and missions on a global scale, more so “than we did in the Cold War” era

eburress May 22, 2007 2:57 AM

Those dirty DOD/Department of the Navy/Marine Corps BASTARDS!!!*







*as a former Marine/DON/DOD person, I get to talk trash :)

Derek May 22, 2007 4:04 AM

Shouldn't the Marines have a little compassion? After all, we allow them to use our city land.

spoonman May 22, 2007 4:06 AM

Quote:

SDDTProspector;2848819]It may be possible to put a plus 500 plus ft building in east Village... I have the official document that shows it (Pages 51 thru 53) (has a nice little illustration too) There may a slice land in east Village just south of Petco park. JMI's project "ball park village". Here are some points of interest...

http://www.san.org/documents/aluc/SDIA_ALUCP.pdf

- City of San diego actually set the high limit at 500ft

-The zone is actually 2.3 miles from the runway

-There has to be a 300ft buffer height added

I've been on this forum a long time, and I recall having a discussion about 2 years ago that was about the city raising the height limit from 500' to 700', but that the FAA still was stuck on 500'. I believe somewhere in the downtown plan on CCDC it mentions this, but I could be wrong. From what you have told us, it sounds as though the FAA could be on board but that the city is dragging it's heels. How typical would it be for San Diego if the city was ok with 700' and the FAA was ok with taller buildings too, but nobody stopped to figure it out...how very San Diego!


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:21 AM.

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