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)

The Flying Dutchman Jul 1, 2017 1:09 AM

Good Friday, all

Just thought I would post some news regarding the 13th, Park and C lot that has been vacant/partially demo'd for years now. The old developer apparently sold the rights to another developer that is now turning the lot into affordable housing on a much larger scale (a ~19 story tower vs. the old ~6 story shorty).

They are doing this to avoid including affordable units in another tower, I suspect this is Bosa's doing with all his west side construction going on (Pacific Gate, Savina, etc.)

Wish I had concrete sources to provide, but there will be updates on July 21, 6 p.m. at the next EVRG meeting by CivicSD. Not sure what type of affordable housing it will be, but the entire game is changing now in lieu of the many policies initiated by the City to increase housing affordability. Expect more density along transit!

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jun/21...ives-homeless/

chris08876 Jul 2, 2017 1:11 PM

I want to live in San Diego.

If anybody wants to donate to the "Save a Chris Foundation" , please do so.

You can even sponsor a Chris too. Your daily contribution of just $100, can help save a Chris from the hot, and humid wasteland of NJ, into the chill, and beautiful SD region.

(Sad music playing in background)

Boatguy619 Jul 2, 2017 7:23 PM

Is there even a possibility of UTC getting a real skyscraper? La Jolla has to be the most nimby city in the country, and there's plenty of room for more mid-rises before the need to build taller. Regardless of a height limit I don't see that skyline growing up.

joemamma Jul 2, 2017 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman (Post 7851619)
Good Friday, all

Just thought I would post some news regarding the 13th, Park and C lot that has been vacant/partially demo'd for years now. The old developer apparently sold the rights to another developer that is now turning the lot into affordable housing on a much larger scale (a ~19 story tower vs. the old ~6 story shorty).

They are doing this to avoid including affordable units in another tower, I suspect this is Bosa's doing with all his west side construction going on (Pacific Gate, Savina, etc.)

Wish I had concrete sources to provide, but there will be updates on July 21, 6 p.m. at the next EVRG meeting by CivicSD. Not sure what type of affordable housing it will be, but the entire game is changing now in lieu of the many policies initiated by the City to increase housing affordability. Expect more density along transit!

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jun/21...ives-homeless/

Thanks for info on this. I was curious how this block's plan would affect Smart Corner across the street.

HurricaneHugo Jul 3, 2017 7:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7852716)
Is there even a possibility of UTC getting a real skyscraper? La Jolla has to be the most nimby city in the country, and there's plenty of room for more mid-rises before the need to build taller. Regardless of a height limit I don't see that skyline growing up.

La Jolla Commons was supposed to be 40 stories tall or so and I don't remember much NIMBYism about it

spoonman Jul 3, 2017 4:39 PM

The new resedential tower at UTC will be around 26 floors. Not bad for secondary high rise district IMO. Would love to have seen the 40 story Mandarin Oriental built at La Jolla Conmons that was proposed before the crash. I'm sure we'll see more proposals like this in the future after the new LRT line is completed. There are still some underutilized parcels in the UTC area.

chris08876 Jul 3, 2017 10:33 PM

Some nice towers rising aka Ballpark Village and its surroundings.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4287/...27a1ed71_b.jpg
San Diego, California by San Diego, California, on Flickr

chris08876 Jul 3, 2017 10:42 PM

One more u/c update if I may. I found this angle and photo amazing.

Growing skyline. Can see some crane action. SD's skyline IMO is very proportional. Granted a plataeu I presume due to fight patterns, but it works. And it has the Mountains, and being near the water, the topography works in sync to create a beautiful city scape.

As more density fills the outlying fringes of the skyline mass, it will appear not only wide, but deep, and depth is important for a downtown. Makes if feel grandiose.

https://cdn-standard.discourse.org/u...b825e9cdc3.jpg
Credit: Rick Sunamoto

SDfan Jul 3, 2017 11:36 PM

Thank you, Chris. And if a relocation fund were to ever exist, you should definitely climb aboard. :)

IconRPCV Jul 4, 2017 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7853716)
One more u/c update if I may. I found this angle and photo amazing.

Growing skyline. Can see some crane action. SD's skyline IMO is very proportional. Granted a plataeu I presume due to fight patterns, but it works. And it has the Mountains, and being near the water, the topography works in sync to create a beautiful city scape.

As more density fills the outlying fringes of the skyline mass, it will appear not only wide, but deep, and depth is important for a downtown. Makes if feel grandiose.

https://cdn-standard.discourse.org/u...b825e9cdc3.jpg
Credit: Rick Sunamoto

Amazing pic!!

I have no problem with our skyline except this caveat: I wish One America Plaza was like 700 feet tall instead of 500. It would make the skyline so perfect if it rose above the rest, as it is it is lost in the plateau.

HurricaneHugo Jul 4, 2017 5:15 AM

Yeah i think our skyline looks better than many that have 700 footers.

We just got to bridge the gap between the Hyatt and the Marriott.

Hopefully 7th and market does the trick...

SDCAL Jul 4, 2017 8:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7853996)
Yeah i think our skyline looks better than many that have 700 footers.

We just got to bridge the gap between the Hyatt and the Marriott.

Hopefully 7th and market does the trick...

What's going on with that project?? Seems impossible to get any updated information. I hope it's not dead like the previous proposals for that site. :shrug:

mello Jul 4, 2017 9:36 PM

The perfect spot for a 700 to 800 footer would be where the old courthouse is getting demolished on Broadway, City will be putting that out to RFP soon. That would be right in the center of the skyline and rise out of the plateau beautifully.

(Speaking of that spot on Broadway whats up with the old YMCA building its a gem just sitting there empty shouldn't it be converted to residential?)

The SD skyline has a lot of potential I think the 7th/Broadway and 11th/Broadway Pinnacle project will really improve that section of the Cityscape. If those get built along with 7th/Market the other Bosa Tower across from Pacific Gate and Navy Complex our skyline is going to be pretty bad ass!!

Also would love it if JMI finally built that monster hotel behind Petco now that project has been crickets for years. :shrug:

MyCitySFO Jul 5, 2017 12:40 AM

New to this forum. Not too familiar with San Diego, even though I have lived my whole life in California (Northern). So if the problem is the airport, why not build a new terminal further away from the CBD? Miramar? Otherwise, I assume, any dreams of a 700 footer is just a pipe dream. Or is it a moot point? The plateau will continue to spread out. City leaders have no plans to move the airport, do they? Couldn't another city nearby have a 700 footer built there? Chula Vista? National City? Tijuana?

spoonman Jul 5, 2017 1:04 AM

Correct, the airport is the reason no towers can be over 500ft. If the height limit wasn't in place the city could go 600, 700, 800ft and beyond. SD has a number of existing (and proposed) twin tower buildings that are around or above 40 stories. With a higher height limit, projects like these could be consolidated into one tower in many cases pushing heights into the 700-900+ range (60-90 floors).

The reason the height limit topic comes up frequently is that there is widespread speculation on this board that the city may have some wiggle room in the height limit in certain parts of downtown (particularly those areas closest to the bridge and Barrio Logan). Essentially many are hoping that the city could possibly bump the limit higher as land becomes more scarce. This entire premise is based on the idea that the city actually imposes the height limit and not the FAA.

HurricaneHugo Jul 5, 2017 6:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyCitySFO (Post 7854729)
New to this forum. Not too familiar with San Diego, even though I have lived my whole life in California (Northern). So if the problem is the airport, why not build a new terminal further away from the CBD? Miramar? Otherwise, I assume, any dreams of a 700 footer is just a pipe dream. Or is it a moot point? The plateau will continue to spread out. City leaders have no plans to move the airport, do they? Couldn't another city nearby have a 700 footer built there? Chula Vista? National City? Tijuana?

The city kinda half assed asked voters to vote on a non-binding resolution to kick out the military from Miramar but it failed.

That's really the only option we have since there's very little flat land left in San Diego.

Although we could be innovative for once and build a floating airport lol

SDCAL Jul 5, 2017 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 7854997)
The city kinda half assed asked voters to vote on a non-binding resolution to kick out the military from Miramar but it failed.

That's really the only option we have since there's very little flat land left in San Diego.

Although we could be innovative for once and build a floating airport lol

Not only was it non binding, it was over a decade ago. Would be interesting to have a poll done to see if public opinion changed at all.

spoonman Jul 6, 2017 2:56 AM

^A poll is an interesting thought.

My perception is that more people have come to the realization now that Miramar is the only real option and are now more supportive of the idea. At the same time, SAN has improved tremendously in the past decade in terms of facility growth, improvements, and destinations. I suspect for some folks this is "evidence" that a new airport is not needed (since they are incapable of imagining the future).

Boatguy619 Jul 6, 2017 4:51 AM

I can't imagine san diegans kicking out the Marines in favor of a new airport when we're throwing so much at the current one. There's really no need for a larger airport here, LAX is a few hours away, no other cities in America have two major hubs so close. Most our visitors coming from abroad are on long trips visiting all the CA cities not flying into and leaving from SAN. You can fly into SAN from almost any city in the US, and Tijuana internation airport supports 4+ million a year. The only thing the our airport is holding us back on is our downtown height limit, which isn't a big enough deal to move an airport.

CaliNative Jul 6, 2017 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7856191)
I can't imagine san diegans kicking out the Marines in favor of a new airport when we're throwing so much at the current one. There's really no need for a larger airport here, LAX is a few hours away, no other cities in America have two major hubs so close. Most our visitors coming from abroad are on long trips visiting all the CA cities not flying into and leaving from SAN. You can fly into SAN from almost any city in the US, and Tijuana internation airport supports 4+ million a year. The only thing the our airport is holding us back on is our downtown height limit, which isn't a big enough deal to move an airport.

I agree. SD has a very nice & increasingly dense skyline capped at 500'. Prior to 1966, No California city had a building over 464' (LA City Hall). The tallest bldg. in S.F. in 1966 was under 500' (Hartford Bldg., 463', 33 stories). Only after 1966 did towers above 500' emerge in LA & SF. Height isn't everything. The only negative to a height limit is a "plateau skyline" or "tabletop" effect where many of the buildings rise to the same height. In San Diego this isn't that noticible, since there is a variety of building heights and shapes. With a 500' limit residential buildings can rise to 40-50 stories and that seems enough. If SD had a higher height limit we might end up with higher but fewer new buildings. A denser, but lower skyline might be better than one with a few really tall ones. Tourists must like the convenience of Lindbergh Field being so close in. No long cab rides.

In the future we might see buildings above 500' rise in the UTC area and Mission Valley.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.