SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Will O' Wisp]

Contrary to popular belief, the FAA doesn't set a general limit on building height near airports. There's a required 7460 notification of anything above 200' AGL (this rule is broken so often it hurts) or less if you're closer than 15,000' from the airport like Lindbergh, which fall under the "imaginary surfaces".

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A699A195-38E7-418A-B1CB-48FFF681A078/0/Civil_Airport_Imag.gif

The FAA then does an Obstruction Evaluation study, which 90% of the time clears you to build. If they didn't, downtown would practically be flat. Caltrans though requires you get a permit from them if your structure both penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces and is taller than 500' AGL, a permit which they never give, not even if the FAA clears you. So this whole 500' limit only applies in California, which is why Boston's downtown still has skyscrapers of nearly 800' when their airport is close as or closer to their downtown than ours.

I have zero clue who gave the Tribune this garbage info about MSL, clearly someone whose never had to build anything near an airport before.
Source: me, someone whose had to build way too many things near an airport before.

[mello]

Does the Balboa Park redo still include those really nice reflecting pools that renderings used to have? I also think they could make the fountain a bit more grand and add some greenery in Plaza de Panama.

Also how has no one brought up the convention center expansion missing the ballot this year? I thought we would have a lot of discussion on that.

[SDfan]

Contrary to popular belief, the FAA doesn't set a general limit on building height near airports. There's a required 7460 notification of anything above 200' AGL (this rule is broken so often it hurts) or less if you're closer than 15,000' from the airport like Lindbergh, which fall under the "imaginary surfaces".

The FAA then does an Obstruction Evaluation study, which 90% of the time clears you to build. If they didn't, downtown would practically be flat. Caltrans though requires you get a permit from them if your structure both penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces and is taller than 500' AGL, a permit which they never give, not even if the FAA clears you. So this whole 500' limit only applies in California, which is why Boston's downtown still has skyscrapers of nearly 800' when their airport is close as or closer to their downtown than ours.

I have zero clue who gave the Tribune this garbage info, clearly someone whose never had to build anything near an airport before.
Source: me, someone whose had to build way too many things near an airport before.

OHemgee, thank you. So, theoretically, a developer would need to lobby Caltrans instead of the FAA on this?

[The Flying Dutchman]

What's the reasoning for Caltrans rejecting an FAA approved height waiver? States have total say in anything not enlisted in the Constitution, so what's the deal? Specifically, CA. Thanks Will

[Will O' Wisp]

OHemgee, thank you. So, theoretically, a developer would need to lobby Caltrans instead of the FAA on this?

I mean sure, theoretically. Theoretically I if I kept pounding my face against a brick wall I could knock it down, but in reality I'd just end up with a busted nose and a bunch of broken dreams. This rule has been in place for decades, the ALUCP* even advises you that you won't be able to get a permit. I don't think anyone's even tried for years and years.

*Airport Land Use Comparability Plan

What's the reasoning for Caltrans rejecting an FAA approved height waiver? States have total say in anything not enlisted in the Constitution, so what's the deal? Specifically, CA. Thanks Will

*mumble mumble* safety *mumble mumble* potential hazard to aerial navigation *mumble mumble*

Permitting structures is actually a state/local responsibility, not a federal one. The FAA requires states to issues laws requiring compliance with its rulings, but state/local governments are free to tack on any additional restrictions they'd like. San Jose set a limit at 300', so things could very well be worse.

[Streamliner]

Caltrans though requires you get a permit from them if your structure both penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces and is taller than 500' AGL, a permit which they never give, not even if the FAA clears you. So this whole 500' limit only applies in California, which is why Boston's downtown still has skyscrapers of nearly 800' when their airport is close as or closer to their downtown than ours.

So if the limit is because Caltrans rejects anything above 500' AGL, why are all of these new towers seemingly capping out at 500' above MSL? As a specific example, the Pacific and Broadway tower by Bosa has this limit: Link (https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/pc16006.pdf)

[Will O' Wisp]

The development standards for this site are defined in the DA including official policies governing the permitted uses of land, density, design, and improvement of the site and to the extent they are consistent with the terms of the DA; the 1992 CCPDO, as amended through 2004, is also applicable. Specific development regulations for this site include the following:
[...]
• Maximum building height of 500 feet above mean sea level;


Oh I see, sorry I don't do as much work downtown so I don't know every one of the ins and outs. Everything I said previously about the FAA, Caltrans, and the 500' AGL limit is still true, but it seems there's also a provision in the Centre City Planned Development District that limits height to 500' MSL. That limit would only apply in downtown SD (abit all of it, so no 2,000' towers in East Village even if Caltrans and the FAA say okay). That's how must of these regulations go, they get more restrictive the more local you get.

A planned development district is pretty much just a fancier local zoning code, so that particular limit could be waived with just a majority vote from the city council. I suspect the amount of extra height you'd get from that would hardly be worth the trouble though.

The SDUT article still makes zero sense though, no one in the world measure building height from sea level. Otherwise all the tallest buildings in the US would be in Denver.

[Streamliner]

Oh I see, sorry I don't do as much work downtown so I don'y know every one of the ins and outs. Everything I said previously about the FAA, Caltrans, and the 500' AGL limit is still true, but it seems there's also a provision in the Centre City Planned Development District that limits height to 500' MSL. That limit would only apply in downtown SD (abit all of it, so no 2,000' towers in East Village even if Caltrans and the FAA say okay). That's how must of these regulations go, they get more restrictive the more local you get.

A planned development district is pretty much just a fancier local zoning code, so that particular limit could be waived with a majority vote from the city council. I suspect the amount of extra height you'd get from that would hardly be worth the trouble though.

The SDUT article still makes zero sense though, no one in the world measure building height from sea level. Otherwise all the tallest buildings in the US would be in Denver.

What you said about FAA, Caltrans, and the 500' AGL limit all makes a ton of sense, so thanks for providing that insight. I am just frustrated that there seems to be an additional 500' AMSL limit downtown. And now that you clarified the FAA/Caltrans rules, it seems so arbitrary. :hell:

[Nv_2897]

Savina will have a beautiful presence on the skyline.
https://i.imgur.com/MM0Ttgq.jpg

[Streamliner]

Savina will have a beautiful presence on the skyline.


The surroundings on that rendering are so old. The new park wasn't even built. That same view in April (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7218154,-117.1731686,3a,53.5y,140.47h,96.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4c1tfo5dhLLyV_VsECNGIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

[Nv_2897]

The surroundings on that rendering are so old. The new park wasn't even built. That same view in April (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7218154,-117.1731686,3a,53.5y,140.47h,96.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4c1tfo5dhLLyV_VsECNGIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Yeah you're right the rendering is old now with Pacific gate and the waterfront park and the Lane field hotels I think the waterfront looks much better now and will look stunning after, once the Manchester Pacific Gateway, Pacific Gates Companion Tower and Seaport San Diego are done

[Will O' Wisp]

Yeah you're right the rendering is old now with Pacific gate and the waterfront park and the Lane field hotels I think the waterfront looks much better now and will look stunning after, once the Manchester Pacific Gateway, Pacific Gates Companion Tower and Seaport San Diego are done

Not to mention the longer term opportunities north of the new Marriott and Intercontinental on Ash and replacing the office depot/substation on E St. Once those are finally don't I'll challenge any city to claim they have a better looking waterfront.

[staplesla]

Don’t get me wrong, I love taller buildings. But I’m glad that downtown SD has grown the way it has. Otherwise we’d currently have a few more taller buildings with less density and more empty blocks scattered around downtown. The density creates vibrancy and adds to the quality of life for those downtown.

[HurricaneHugo]

Hello all,

I was looking at the trolley's 2050 plan and it looks like the Mira Mesa extension is next?

Is that true?

Why would it be before the North Park line?

I mean I guess lots of UCSD students would use it to go to/from school but...

[SDCAL]

Don’t get me wrong, I love taller buildings. But I’m glad that downtown SD has grown the way it has. Otherwise we’d currently have a few more taller buildings with less density and more empty blocks scattered around downtown. The density creates vibrancy and adds to the quality of life for those downtown.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If we had 2 or 3 buildings that were over 500 feet, I don’t think that would take away from density that much and it would add some much needed diversity to the skyline.

[SDCAL]

Hello all,

I was looking at the trolley's 2050 plan and it looks like the Mira Mesa extension is next?

Is that true?

Why would it be before the North Park line?

I mean I guess lots of UCSD students would use it to go to/from school but...

I agree it makes zero sense. SANDAG is incompetent. I’m guessing one reason might be the topography and density for a North Park line would be difficult, but it would also be a lot shorter than the Mira Mesa line so I would think the costs might come out about the same?

[staplesla]

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If we had 2 or 3 buildings that were over 500 feet, I don’t think that would take away from density that much and it would add some much needed diversity to the skyline.

It’s simple math. If you move the square footage higher then you decrease the amount that is spread out.

[spoonman]

If you want to use a real comparison, we could look at one of the many twin tower developments in DTSD. If we have a twin tower project (each tower ~40 stories) on a podium in a city block, we could take that tower and combine it to make a single 80-90 story tower, which would likely have a similar podium (possible it could take less of the city block). The result is a dramatically taller building with roughly the same street life (same-ish podium). However, there would obviously be 1 tower instead of two.

I think the "density" argument holds only if you are talking about more buildings in the skyline, but there is probably not much change at street level. As some have said, I would gladly trade some (but not all) twins for a single larger tower.

If someone has free time and is good at photoshop, I would love to see a mockup of a couple twins turned into to double height singles.. :drooling:

[Will O' Wisp]

Hello all,

I was looking at the trolley's 2050 plan and it looks like the Mira Mesa extension is next?

Is that true?

Why would it be before the North Park line?

I mean I guess lots of UCSD students would use it to go to/from school but...

I thought the Mira Mesa extension was cancelled (or at least postponed past the planning period of 2050). Next up was supposed to be another extension of the blue line, this time to the Sorrento Valley train station, followed by a new line up the 805 corridor from San Yisidro to Kearny Mesa.

[SDCAL]

I thought the Mira Mesa extension was cancelled (or at least postponed past the planning period of 2050). Next up was supposed to be another extension of the blue line, this time to the Sorrento Valley train station, followed by a new line up the 805 corridor from San Yisidro to Kearny Mesa.

It’s confusing because SANDAG is always changing their “long term plans.” That agency is extremely unreliable and I’ve learned it’s useless to rely on their long term plans because they will alsmost certainly change. Example, as someone pointed out, the North Park line was on their long term plan for many years. It kept getting pushed-out until the latest long term plan where it’s not even there anymore. Instead it’s the “purple line” which I think is the Mira Mesa line.

[Nv_2897]

Was in downtown san diego and I saw the old office tower located in 1010 Second Avenue that had asbestos and i was surprised that it didn't get demolished it is getting a new facade and it looks much better than what it was. It is scheduled to open September 2018. Sorry I didn't get any photos of the progress but heres how it looks on google maps (April 2018) https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7157789,-117.1638483,3a,75y,52.02h,117.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7v-h4mEouCQkWxM-_HK0aA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Before
https://i.imgur.com/6eWI4YH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cFJRHqk.jpg

After
https://i.imgur.com/vDvqhVy.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/7jbQSpE.jpg

[Dale]

WOW! Isn't that the Wickes building ? An old SD icon.

[Nv_2897]

Savina looks rather tall for being 414 feet
https://i.imgur.com/BNZY3Au.jpg

[SDfan]

I walked down Broadway today and snapped these pics. I don't think 1010 Second is going to be done in September lol. Also Bosa's block has two cranes now.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/SDfan12/Public/IMG_20180822_102204.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/SDfan12/media/Public/IMG_20180822_102204.jpg.html)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/SDfan12/Public/IMG_20180822_125350.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/SDfan12/media/Public/IMG_20180822_125350.jpg.html)

[JerellO]

I honestly wish they could’ve preserved the look of the tower :/ we’re getting another glass tower that look like everything else being built today. The old facade has that white and gold look to it.. it’s something that we’re gonna wish we preserved later in the long run and the next generation is gonna wonder what the hell we were thinking. They don’t build towers like that anymore.. so why destroy it?

[SDfan]

I honestly wish they could’ve preserved the look of the tower :/ we’re getting another glass tower that look like everything else being built today. The old facade has that white and gold look to it.. it’s something that we’re gonna wish we preserved later in the long run and the next generation is gonna wonder what the hell we were thinking. They don’t build towers like that anymore.. so why destroy it?

Eh. Aesthetics. I think it was an ugly POS in need of a makeover. :haha:

[Will O' Wisp]

First rendering of the Horton Plaza redo! The new name is "The Campus at Horton"

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b7f1e94/turbine/sd-1535057552-mmkyru7qy1-snap-image/750/750x422
Source: SDUT (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-hortonplaza-sale-20180823-story.html)

Is that a new highrise I see? :coolugh:

[Nv_2897]

Does anyone have a rendering or know what is going on at the 500 West hotel site next to emerald plaza
Credit to Google Maps 2018
https://i.imgur.com/8e232Tx.jpg
Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7157228,-117.1681821,3a,75y,38.68h,115.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc-UtZbX_nqACf-OSt9kS2g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dc-UtZbX_nqACf-OSt9kS2g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D332.1134%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[JerellO]

Eh. Aesthetics. I think it was an ugly POS in need of a makeover. :haha:

Thats what people used to say about all the historic ornamentation on older buildings back in the day before they modernized them to the plain and uninspiring POS we see today. The same can be said about this tower and turning it into another glass building.

[JerellO]

First rendering of the Horton Plaza redo! The new name is "The Campus at Horton"

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b7f1e94/turbine/sd-1535057552-mmkyru7qy1-snap-image/750/750x422
Source: SDUT (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-hortonplaza-sale-20180823-story.html)

Is that a new highrise I see? :coolugh:

I love that they’re finally doing something about this place, but I wish they could save at least SOME architectural details and incorporate them into the new design instead of completely gutting the entire thing. Just as a nod to what the space used to be. Maybe save the grand staircase that leads down to the plaza park?... it reminds me of the staircases I climbed in Europe (Greece and Italy).. or the Bunker Hill steps in DTLA.

[HurricaneHugo]

First rendering of the Horton Plaza redo! The new name is "The Campus at Horton"

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b7f1e94/turbine/sd-1535057552-mmkyru7qy1-snap-image/750/750x422
Source: SDUT (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-hortonplaza-sale-20180823-story.html)

Is that a new highrise I see? :coolugh:

Oh nice!

You gotta wonder if that site is the perfect site for an Amazon campus...

[The Flying Dutchman]

Anyone notice the insane timeline for this? The company plans to have tenants in by 2020. Also, everything will be torn down to the bare studs, according to the UT article.

[Streamliner]

I love that they’re finally doing something about this place, but I wish they could save at least SOME architectural details and incorporate them into the new design instead of completely gutting the entire thing. Just as a nod to what the space used to be. Maybe save the grand staircase that leads down to the plaza park?... it reminds me of the staircases I climbed in Europe (Greece and Italy).. or the Bunker Hill steps in DTLA.

While I disagree with you about 1010 Second Ave (I think it's ugly and not going to be historically or aesthetically significant), I definitely agree with you about Horton Plaza. It's a mess of a mall, outdated, and hemorrhaging money, but the architecture of the mall is very significant, IMO. It's distinctive, zany, and has a very 1980's style that's not overused.

I hope they save at least some of that central area and incorporate it into the campus, I think a little bit of this would be very much at home in a modern tech-oriented campus:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/HortonPlaza2.jpg/1920px-HortonPlaza2.jpg

[spoonman]

One could hope that if Horton Plaza is no longer used for retail, we could get more street level retail throughout downtown. It would be great if a retail district could form somewhere...not sure where...6th or 7th avenue?

[eburress]

I agree. I think it would be a bummer if they didn't keep at least some aspect of the former mall. It was groundbreaking in its time and was a big part of Downtown's turnaround.

[eburress]

One could hope that if Horton Plaza is no longer used for retail, we could get more street level retail throughout downtown. It would be great if a retail district could form somewhere...not sure where...6th or 7th avenue?

I wonder if they wouldn't orient some retail around the perimeter of the new development so it's not so walled off like it is now.

[SDfan]

I think there will be retail opportunities for some folks in the adjacent Gaslamp, but they're going to cater more towards tourists than anything else. I work part time in retail, and our outpost at Horton is stupidly reliant on tourists, and cruise and naval ship dockings. Locals aren't much of a factor.

[SDfan]

Thats what people used to say about all the historic ornamentation on older buildings back in the day before they modernized them to the plain and uninspiring POS we see today. The same can be said about this tower and turning it into another glass building.

True true, I can't deny that. Still think it was a POS. :D

[spoonman]

Great picture of SD from centreforaiviation.com

https://images.cdn.centreforaviation.com/stories/SAN-DIEGO-AIRPORT-1024x.jpg

[mello]

Too bad its missing Pacific Gate, Savina, Ballpark Village and then it cuts off so you can't see the Hyatt towers. Great shot though:cheers:

[IconRPCV]

I honestly wish they could’ve preserved the look of the tower :/ we’re getting another glass tower that look like everything else being built today. The old facade has that white and gold look to it.. it’s something that we’re gonna wish we preserved later in the long run and the next generation is gonna wonder what the hell we were thinking. They don’t build towers like that anymore.. so why destroy it?

i agree with you 100%

[Steadfast]

Lots of activity in East Village today...
First bug concrete poured at Bosa's Broadway & 7th site. I counted 25+ cement trucks lines up down the street.
Also saw a crane go up at the site behind Smart Corner.
Probably another due for that site soon

[SDfan]

Lots of activity in East Village today...
First bug concrete poured at Bosa's Broadway & 7th site. I counted 25+ cement trucks lines up down the street.
Also saw a crane go up at the site behind Smart Corner.
Probably another due for that site soon

Just saw the crane at 11th and Broadway as well. That's Pinnacle's other twin tower complex.

[joemamma]

Lots of activity in East Village today...
First bug concrete poured at Bosa's Broadway & 7th site. I counted 25+ cement trucks lines up down the street.
Also saw a crane go up at the site behind Smart Corner.
Probably another due for that site soon

Anyone know what is going up behind Smart Corner? That pit has been there for years with many projects thrown around. Is this still Park and C? 6 stories? or 36 stories?

[mello]

So to be clear cranes are up at the pinnacle site and the pit that has sat there for 2 years? Just confused thanks for clarifying. Glad to see that inactive site finally moving forward.

[embora]

There is a crane at 11th & Broadway (bound by 11th, Park, Broadway, and E Street).

There is no crane at the block bound by Park, 13th, C, and Broadway.

[S.DviaPhilly]

K1 (330 13th)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/IMG_4069_zpshehwe7ft.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/Spiewak/media/IMG_4069_zpshehwe7ft.jpg.html)


Pinnacle Phase II - The red is going up or as I like to say the ketchup to the mustard

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/IMG_4115_zpsj0ahj9bk.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/Spiewak/media/IMG_4115_zpsj0ahj9bk.jpg.html)

[spoonman]

K1 (330 13th)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/IMG_4069_zpshehwe7ft.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/Spiewak/media/IMG_4069_zpshehwe7ft.jpg.html)



Standard High Line NYC Anyone?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.archinect.net%2Fimages%2F1200x%2F3d%2F3d2jm4azmtq59yc9.jpg&f=1
Credit to architect.com

[Streamliner]

Standard High Line NYC Anyone?

It's uncanny. Just stick K1 on stilts and shave off those balconies. I like the building, but hate that it took such a good location.

[spoonman]

What you said 100%.

PS: If you look close ours even has stilts too, albeit more subtle.

[Nv_2897]

Savina looks almost finished (exterior wise)
https://i.imgur.com/GM4dI0U.jpg
Credit to Skyline Webcams

[SDfan]

Savina looks like a lego brick. Definitely lacks the elegance of Pacific Gateway. But whatevs.

[joemamma]

What you said 100%.

PS: If you look close ours even has stilts too, albeit more subtle.

K1 was built with high line park in mind. I read in an article when project first announced. I'm not sure if that is what you are already referencing.

[joemamma]

There is a crane at 11th & Broadway (bound by 11th, Park, Broadway, and E Street).

There is no crane at the block bound by Park, 13th, C, and Broadway.

Regarding Park and C:

City did not approve plans for the 36-story tower and has asked the developer to address amount of parking spaces, or change plans. To date the developer has not submitted any amended plans to the City.

I guess it'll be a pond for at least another rainy season......

[mello]

So the developer wanted to build a 36 floor tower with very little parking, that's not going to fly. Funny how our whole society is falling apart due to parking, that will be the downfall of America not constructing our cities in such a matter where you don't need so much parking :haha: Then to build proper housing for our citizens parking makes the costs go up so much. Sad...

[SDfan]

Regarding Park and C:

City did not approve plans for the 36-story tower and has asked the developer to address amount of parking spaces, or change plans. To date the developer has not submitted any amended plans to the City.

I guess it'll be a pond for at least another rainy season......

Do you know the source for this? There is an active debate on parking minimums and I'd like to share with peeps who are working on this.

[SDCAL]

While not directly related to development, I thought this is interesting and indirectly relates to downtown:

Senate Bill 905 would require the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to conduct a pilot program to allow licensed businesses to sell alcohol until 4 am. Currently, the cut-off time is 2 am. The pilot program would start between January 1, 2021, and last until January 2, 2026. It would only cover in select cities: Sacramento, San Francisco, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, and West Hollywood.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/31/bill-to-extend-last-call-until-4-am-passes-california-senate/amp/

I think it’s interesting that San Diego, the state’s second largest city and a huge tourist destination, is not included in the pilot.

The 2am last call is something I’ve heard many visitors from large cities like NYC and Miami complain about, and especially people from Europe where they don’t have this 2am last call.

It seems San Diego is being cast as the state’s bedroom community. A family-friendly destination for people looking to haul the kids into a mini-van and drive from Phoenix to visit theme parks, but definitely not a sophisticated international destination with world class nightlife. Even Sacramento is piloting this. I wonder why SD is left off? Perhaps our local politicians were against it?

[spoonman]

Just another way our city is content to let LA and SF (and even Sacramento) pass us by, when we should be leading the way in nightlife.

[IconRPCV]

Just another way our city is content to let LA and SF (and even Sacramento) pass us by, when we should be leading the way in nightlife.

OMG I am so sick of everyone on this forum bitching about San Diego and how it is being left in the dust by every other city in the world. As a San Diegan who had to move to LA for work I just want to say, yea LA has a bunch of bigger buildings, but it is a huge mess. I know San Diego can seem provincial and I agree with almost all of your complaints about how NIMByism and endless regulations and lawsuits are holding the city back, especially the lawsuit against the Balboa Park's no car plaza project; that one really pisses me off. In spite off all this I would move back in a heart beat. Live someplace else for awhile and you will realize how much San Diego has and perhaps it is the way it is supposed to be.

[Will O' Wisp]

^This so damn much. I've lived in LA, OC, SF, nowhere even compares in livability to SD. SD's economy is still growing at a huge rate compared to just about anywhere else, there's plenty of new development, more than LA in some areas. The geography and economy of SD don't lend it to being a Tier 1 city like NYC, LA, or SF, better to concentrate on keeping on with being the absolute best Tier II city out there like SD already is than obsessing over trying to be something we're not.

[Phil McAvity]

OMG I am so sick of everyone on this forum bitching about San Diego and how it is being left in the dust by every other city in the world. As a San Diegan who had to move to LA for work I just want to say, yea LA has a bunch of bigger buildings, but it is a huge mess. I know San Diego can seem provincial and I agree with almost all of your complaints about how NIMByism and endless regulations and lawsuits are holding the city back, especially the lawsuit against the Balboa Park's no car plaza project; that one really pisses me off. In spite off all this I would move back in a heart beat. Live someplace else for awhile and you will realize how much San Diego has and perhaps it is the way it is supposed to be.
So you're sick of people bitching about San Diego even though they're right? :jester:

I've always thought San Diego has a pretty weak skyline but this shot actually makes it look pretty good, like a slice of New York:

https://i.imgur.com/GM4dI0U.jpg
Credit to Skyline Webcams

[spoonman]

The point is not that there is anything wrong with SD in and of itself, it’s that SD is content to let itself get behind other cities when it doesn’t have to be that way. Look at Seattle, it is roughly the same size, but is thought of much more highly on a national level. I’d rather live in SD, but much of SD’s situation is self inflicted. The airport (although improving), height limit (probably only important to us geeks, but places like Austin having taller buildings is just sad and lowers SD’s stature), losing Chargers and NBA, potentially losing conventions due to ineptitude, lost leadership position in LRT, lost airline service at Carlsbad, etc. I’ve lived in a number of other cities as well, but have never seen a city mess up so completely and thoroughly. Perhaps what is remarkable is that SD is great despite all of this. But damn, this stuff is just hard to watch.

[patriotizzy]

So the developer wanted to build a 36 floor tower with very little parking, that's not going to fly. Funny how our whole society is falling apart due to parking, that will be the downfall of America not constructing our cities in such a matter where you don't need so much parking :haha: Then to build proper housing for our citizens parking makes the costs go up so much. Sad...

I have an answer for this: Automated vehicles. I work for a company that is developing vehicle automation, and by 2020 we will see this come to fruition. What will automated vehicles do? They will remove the need for personal cars, along with the parking lots and large roads.

[SDCAL]

^This so damn much. I've lived in LA, OC, SF, nowhere even compares in livability to SD. SD's economy is still growing at a huge rate compared to just about anywhere else, there's plenty of new development, more than LA in some areas. The geography and economy of SD don't lend it to being a Tier 1 city like NYC, LA, or SF, better to concentrate on keeping on with being the absolute best Tier II city out there like SD already is than obsessing over trying to be something we're not.

What do you mean that our geography doesn’t lend us to being a tier 1 city? We have a deep natural harbor, we are on the Pacific Rim, we are on the border of Latin America. Our city has many geographical assets other cities don’t have and we should be a tier 1 city. The problem is that these assets haven’t been used to their potential.

[Will O' Wisp]

What do you mean that our geography doesn’t lend us to being a tier 1 city? We have a deep natural harbor, we are on the Pacific Rim, we are on the border of Latin America. Our city has many geographical assets other cities don’t have and we should be a tier 1 city. The problem is that these assets haven’t been used to their potential.

The SD harbor is extremely shallow compared to LA's (50' vs 80') and very narrow. SD lacks a direct rail connection with the east coast and the rest of the country, meaning that all cargo entering via the port of SD has to pass through LA anyway (in the past there was a eastbound railroad at times. Nicknamed "the impossible railroad" due to the engineering feats it took to cross the peninsular range, the tracks would regularly wash out during rainstorms and were eventually abandoned). SD also has a dearth of flat developable land, and what land there is can be difficult to access due to the numerous canyons crossing the landscape, but in comparison that issue is relatively minor.

There just aren't any major avenues to propel SD upward that aren't already being tapped. Even if we kicked out the Navy, which provides for 30% of the SD economy btw, we wouldn't be able to outpace LA in trade. SD already tries to compete in service industries like SF in Tech and NYC in finance, and usually loses out to more established centers. The only thing SD could really do is double down on tourism, a finicky industry as it is already.

[Nv_2897]

Does anyone know when cranes will go up on the Manchester Pacific gateway project I know they still have to demolish one more building

[Dale]

The SD harbor is extremely shallow compared to LA's (50' vs 80') and very narrow. SD lacks a direct rail connection with the east coast and the rest of the country, meaning that all cargo entering via the port of SD has to pass through LA anyway (in the past there was a eastbound railroad at times. Nicknamed "the impossible railroad" due to the engineering feats it took to cross the peninsular range, the tracks would regularly wash out during rainstorms and were eventually abandoned). SD also has a dearth of flat developable land, and what land there is can be difficult to access due to the numerous canyons crossing the landscape, but in comparison that issue is relatively minor.

There just aren't any major avenues to propel SD upward that aren't already being tapped. Even if we kicked out the Navy, which provides for 30% of the SD economy btw, we wouldn't be able to outpace LA in trade. SD already tries to compete in service industries like SF in Tech and NYC in finance, and usually loses out to more established centers. The only thing SD could really do is double down on tourism, a finicky industry as it is already.

Man, you make it sound like SD is Shantytown. Other reports say it's going, glowing and growing.

[joemamma]

Do you know the source for this? There is an active debate on parking minimums and I'd like to share with peeps who are working on this.

This was from someone at Smart Corner. I don't know who from the civic board is keeping them in the loop but they seem to constantly getting information about this and other adjacent projects. Smart Corner knows its going to be losing its view on all sides eventually.

[joemamma]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cRyolKlCfDd24nSH4mnGAN6Mz7-2pgv_15pzkClmuV4nTG3vN69CMNjXMamc53ERgyTthtRDYhB3Pr3CLPTiqr2aXlTAIThKeeEw-c92nv2YLhRaFATXYX79_1fnNICk6ycqkgHdxg20snm21w4Caz9F_vShI6iDvpuYC5ONBeF7_l7X7NW8Dk97mHfZRLozxCkTdWzeok9xDQKN5d-jh41EVX7QNNR39ZvU7P76KCL33alSW2-iwar4WDuBdzLO9nOlfyjCfnBlZGexLkUYeS6isqeTM8gkKUU1tXaGPm5xe90Pj80VogtOze9lruL3DDB-ai77aZQ2i1FXVPBHHuW5gLKCn6Au928u6bMSaByApQclgBn06gatQTY0xxDmdNTOSy2J7p4F6TpQXfqrRhWoGuzWnYjlq08UBbeMYm44RlBiFj8hDDDDtSSbEomf0oe-FRNkaraVjoSjFb3K2FenWKrWooxFfpTzsiw1yO_GL4TdqTvtZp3RFznWb3m6GUE98LQjVyjUqbNfq2B_BwFWJihIcgDwmmDB71VaMtidZdNfhs-RNvgFn3ac3RwERfz3oAiQI1UnnnY15OiOignp-JtZgCgzzGLp93f9e05RIhHRYdJdpdBUKfDh3K1W=w1619-h910-no

[joemamma]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KTCXiBYM4qSYaUG-nPXJB8QwXty4Hjh-FffWwoLyd9WlFSMl_7VabON3kJc2TxWot4vnBCmLSuljhTZZzpt31UYhJnHjGjA_gBmun5toT4xb4ijYPpIDJBMekSNw576G7Q-FMHycCq5ElNPT7b4kFPe1GAIr3IrOXqavOiOBjkIUKfWW2vHeiSxWPJreDP4iIAydJsUV5x6NuGyOLqO4e274liU74tJ-8dA2tbKz3QrFC9nTJIjMFBgZCiltlLs04yfbhNBQzTMahpToONdyirt0bKoV5vgMew17pUOoZcnpIyd9uMPAs9CPXs7MrVgdwwsv_Ht5Y55zGJGFVduHfc0UGPHXJR0Ni_Hfx72OWKKrrOEb8e11zmMwUlYDKA1h0rOAPdVNLnVXvZ-2UXSd7T67nm_rgt6rbIV6csqVj5PEEmXjWEPiukfDjWMsxawiGqmapwJeIPTtx2IuK_OR3IoPEPcZEaq3atCC-2fZcBbCVCb46TNpHkDB6zcQYCoU4YMDyLPv5ahfkou-b4F-Db1Vozw0FQRg6EnrBLRlX7yz4Rd-b3QyUeSe-NvkkN-XHNLblQN0iU7p5m05aZPa93mS1VLLys8P_OFXy7BvVbT-tXvznIQPgeiCN3NLVy6q=w978-h910-no

[joemamma]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yeKsdOB6ks8mWXBgsubOrGSDgiFiTD4sjmzSmJK_jUx7R2vMy_7lSDKlwaNDNJ2phnH7sb9BtHqQykJgMmK-BqoblHKI-UufuBRPLvLLYE7LuIY1BGm_fOPfFOvxT5tFQ_sopOqa92W579SWYukQykkraZd8o6SaaJnJXXtWjkKjGGorfpro17eHXLNcmTPjOsabCIbVHZ7qiiCeAY5U1ZyhuxSBXvqewK4cMVBi8SHcNprA4RLFitDY0zwMKZ2zsXx2UrAQYPH5O3Mq0PlgG-BT3xvsuLm7h5JdMYRCxsVWxLNzGxG7RYtAbJBJmV15sxLKdnJPzLON9ccpJVU6JWt20gknmRHv_FD6x3hjcwValMZFyMnBT8x3-fprxswkUPsBU0yDcO_QRx4OS7yR-QFBE6HiXDHazgk8rZ5cBJnibRnKJqnBIpEQL3MZyc4tXrOubExBvaVr0K3hRltgCKST_DK21z9JH0gn6XccI0jOSgDCj6A9UeyIhckwpILRq6X3Ef8IhAQsaHulpJiexsMxfJ5KGiaOGSQXs2r7ArLNJMNVo25K2weEhDty_s7ghE95z9dSl5Lzl102RMn0aiWWWTn8JSPp78LMSR29IqUvhwihsFgpUmVV7zOTrLFN=w1619-h910-no

[joemamma]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Aytb9__VmYxcPZ_w5WdTsQKol-TRBfuXlxfzlL6fE7QAq68GuZrLyWXTEyebrj6re2qVZD3CH6sWr53cF5pFfuhiHKIMMka8nCP0AyZ26_sybKHMvklHhz48mwfFxMTOYMoXgzUUN0S4XLVqisNYxdRg9csKr2B6HSOwwZGLo8jdlkU8TDb-iOU16I-eQphQNigV941WHcFx6i96ZNsTVkPPwBwXF_8ihwJsix_2PgW4NtTJPEa_YvxcRIXFNKhYVngKkufIyrTdPffp-hiLu3tVDDVG66VjvUrBjitqmQNrib7YmrMvqzVgZxowmThUAdJJx_3vX1w4zGSqSPKI0rMyT4MjndIPerTIqNFTUj96aiL37qlUHQI6Q718Mmja5LieI-K34PT99KNCC1WqXgEPQ35k4H5b5dTHYx3UN-Rxsc_wJUpgUb4MpP30WyN7ZJWGbbv7oz08JwifuRRz6tzQ5djha01GYfjV43iN5_1i0-YHRsK3D3N0wHI01d-pt6le09icj1G5E-jFiO_p7Ehx-f31hX5Wb5WJBFBqVF3dyXpJ0lAX55wMKJRkhAne1NeYA4uYWMg7ILtyClS5E3pcI1vouQhLONAbU-fHDI52w4VbnGtcH22vA8p1Ltfo=w513-h910-no

[Will O' Wisp]

Man, you make it sound like SD is Shantytown. Other reports say it's going, glowing and growing.

All in perspective my friend. SD has the largest concentration of military forces on the planet, with all the wealth of defense based industries that implies. SD is an internationally recognized leader in drone technology, biotech, and wireless communications. The beach weather is good nearly all year round, the parks/museums/zoos are world class, and SD is one of the America's top tourist destinations in any month.

SD is by no means a shantytown, our economy is growing faster than it ever has in fact, but there are limits to this growth. SD is never going to exceed SF or LA in sheer economic output, it's better to run our own race rather than try to compete in an arena we'll always lose out in.

Also joemamma, all your images you linked are being blocked by their host. Try saving them to your desktop and uploading them elsewhere before linking.

[JerellO]

As someone who has lived in LA and SD (current and hometown), I can say that San Diego is fine... I still travel between SD and LA a lot. Just got back from the City of Angels last night actually. SD is not perfect, but I wouldn’t live anywhere else. Growing up I wanted to live in the big city with all the hustle and bustle... but as I got older that just doesn’t seem appealing anymore. San Diego is not TOO quiet, but it’s definitley not LA, thank goodness. Los Angeles has become my getaway city for the weekend. It’s become my NYC, I wouldn’t live there.. just a place to visit. But I’m actually more excited about developments going on in LA because there’s so much going on lol from skyscrapers to building more rail, exciting stuff.

I think we should be glad that we live next door to the second largest city, if we want our big city fix we can just drive 2 hours north, then come back when we’re over it lol

Would be really nice if San Diego could be included in the after hours of alcohol thingy, San Diego has a bigger nightlife crowd than some of the cities included. And especially with our military here, many from NYC and Florida, they always complain about it stopping at 2AM.

[mello]

Ok lets stick to facts LA Metro area is 4 times bigger than SD with a pre War Fabric maybe 4 to 5 times the size of ours. Our "urban older hoods" have a pretty small footprint. Downtown to Mission Hills out to La Mesa then SW to Sherman/Logan and National City is actually quite old on the West side. That's it! What would you guys say LA's Pre War footprint is at least 3 times that size.

So.... Of course LA and the Bay Area are going to have a lot more going on they are much bigger AND have more of a grided out Pre War footprint that has been established for 80 years and willing to add density. They will be building more infill, transit, and vertical buildings than SD just out of sheer size. Plus their traffic has been horrendous for 30 years while ours is just starting to get bad. The citizenry of LA said "DO SOMETHING" when they passed Measure R 12 years ago because the traffic was such a nightmare.

I think for our size we are doing a decent amount of urbanizing of course it could be better and it would be nice if we were constructing 2 light rail lines right now instead of just one.

Now comparing to Seattle :( Why are we lagging? Lack of corporate presence and our big industries don't locate Downtown. Seattle is the king of its region while San Diego is just the little buddy to the two Kings up North. Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon for SEA.... Qualcomm and tons of medium sized tech and biotech for us... In Seattle for some reason a bunch of their stuff gets located downtown. Could you imagine if just 40% of Qualcomm and 10% of SD County's biotech was downtown? We would have 70,000 more middle class workers downtown in about 12 million more square feet of office space...

This would mean more vibrant core and a badass skyline. So there you go guys that is why we are what we are. Overall our food scene is good, you have vibrant Tijuana just to the south and its so easy just park at Las Americas and walk across PedWest. People from all over the world love Little Italy, meet LA people there all the time and they sing its praises. Mobility is still great here its such a manageable city compared to Bay/Los Scandalous.

[spoonman]

Good points by everyone. For clarification, I never felt like SD wasn’t a good city. In fact, I’m quite a booster. What is frustrating is the continuous misses on large opportunities not only to improve the city and its image, but even to maintain the status quo. This is more of an issue of leadership than environmental, economic, or geographical reasons. It seems that the city’s leadership has failed to sell important ideas to the public, such as sensible density, new airport, finding a way to keep pro sports, doubling down on nightlife, etc. This is a great city and is both comparable and unique at the same time when compared to LA. However, it is the leadership that continues to stand still (or move backwards) when everyone else is moving forward.

[Dale]

FWIW, I first visited California, in 1990, and SD was my first stop. SD was what I expected LA to be like. For whatever reason, I attached the nostalgia I had for film culture (and California) to SD. LA is another animal altogether, but SD is my "California city."

[eburress]

The point is not that there is anything wrong with SD in and of itself, it’s that SD is content to let itself get behind other cities when it doesn’t have to be that way. Look at Seattle, it is roughly the same size, but is thought of much more highly on a national level. I’d rather live in SD, but much of SD’s situation is self inflicted. The airport (although improving), height limit (probably only important to us geeks, but places like Austin having taller buildings is just sad and lowers SD’s stature), losing Chargers and NBA, potentially losing conventions due to ineptitude, lost leadership position in LRT, lost airline service at Carlsbad, etc. I’ve lived in a number of other cities as well, but have never seen a city mess up so completely and thoroughly. Perhaps what is remarkable is that SD is great despite all of this. But damn, this stuff is just hard to watch.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s an unfortunate irony that such a well-positioned city is so poorly managed, and it doesn’t help that much of its populace seems to prefer stagnation to growth. I’m constantly frustrated by what goes on here but despite the best efforts of the bunglers and NIMBYs, there are still occasional glimmers of hope.

[Nv_2897]

I know this rendering might be off but i feel that its kind of a Bummer that the Manchester Pacific Gateway will block Pacific Gate but at least it will bring some much needed density to the skyline and, add much needed office space to SD.
https://i.imgur.com/XPSGQPT.jpg

[Nv_2897]

Also does anyone know when this tower will break ground or is it a dead proposal
https://i.imgur.com/DEeFGFK.png

[spoonman]

Also does anyone know when this tower will break ground or is it a dead proposal
https://i.imgur.com/DEeFGFK.png

This project is very much alive and is the other "bookend" tower to Pacific Gate. Someone else may have more detail, but I would guess Bosa will build this one after the project on Broadway/6th[?].

[mello]

Concerning the Semi cousin to Pacific Gate BOSA is very tight lipped, when it was originally talked about in the UT in late 16 early 17 I believe the article said it was penciled in for groundbreaking in 2019. Spoonman: The Block project is rentals so that won't keep him from starting this one on water front. They probably want to make sure Savina is all sold out first or something then proceed on this one. BOSA is so rich he could just start building anytime (just googled networth 3 billion in late 2016).

Just got an email from Commercial Real Estate guy and the 41 floor 800 Broadway project is now for sale with full entitlements to build. I wonder if they market these projects to billionaires in Asia or Brazil lol.

[Nv_2897]

Does anyone know when cranes will appear on the Manchester pacific gateway i know they still have to continue demolition on one last building

[Nv_2897]

Ive noticed that in downtown San Diego there are so many buildings that are getting renovated which is surprising because i thought they would demolish them but hey if you can then why not

[spoonman]

Concerning the Semi cousin to Pacific Gate BOSA is very tight lipped, when it was originally talked about in the UT in late 16 early 17 I believe the article said it was penciled in for groundbreaking in 2019. Spoonman: The Block project is rentals so that won't keep him from starting this one on water front. They probably want to make sure Savina is all sold out first or something then proceed on this one. BOSA is so rich he could just start building anytime (just googled networth 3 billion in late 2016).

Just got an email from Commercial Real Estate guy and the 41 floor 800 Broadway project is now for sale with full entitlements to build. I wonder if they market these projects to billionaires in Asia or Brazil lol.

Very interesting, Mello. Maybe we’ll see something happen with 1st&Island. That’s the only other large tower BOSA has that I’m aware of. Although I thought I remember that he acquired a parcel near Smart Corner. Anyone know?

[Nv_2897]

Very interesting, Mello. Maybe we’ll see something happen with 1st&Island. That’s the only other large tower BOSA has that I’m aware of. Although I thought I remember that he acquired a parcel near Smart Corner. Anyone know?
^I think bosa also owns the office depot site next to Pacific Gate

[HurricaneHugo]

What's rising on northside of Market St between 11th and 12th?

It's already above ground

[Will O' Wisp]

Good points by everyone. For clarification, I never felt like SD wasn’t a good city. In fact, I’m quite a booster. What is frustrating is the continuous misses on large opportunities not only to improve the city and its image, but even to maintain the status quo. This is more of an issue of leadership than environmental, economic, or geographical reasons. It seems that the city’s leadership has failed to sell important ideas to the public, such as sensible density, new airport, finding a way to keep pro sports, doubling down on nightlife, etc. This is a great city and is both comparable and unique at the same time when compared to LA. However, it is the leadership that continues to stand still (or move backwards) when everyone else is moving forward.


The grass always looks oh so very greener my friend....

For a coastal Californian city, SD is reasonable well-managed and fairly development oriented. In SD the city government cheers on major projects, in LA no one really cares and in SF they fight you unless you bend over backwards for them. Everything in SEA is subject to the infamous "Seattle process", i.e. community meeting after community meeting until everyone is so sick of hearing about your project they finally approve it. It's honestly not a development culture I would choose to replicate, and it's scarring most of the companies you cite away (Boeing moved to Chicago in 2001, Amazon is halting its growth with HQ2, and Microsoft is HQed in Redmond rather than the city itself). One of SD's big advantages is actually that it's generally cheaper to build here than in most west coast cities. It certainly isn't Texas, but at the rate things are going Texas isn't going to stay "Texas" for very much longer.

It's always worth keeping in mind that local leaders are supposed to represent the current residents of their city, not the hypothetical citizens who might move there if radical changes to the economy were put in place. SD is growing about as fast as it can without damaging the industries most people living here currently rely on. You can't relocate the airport without jeopardizing the military's presence in SD, sports teams generally lose money for their city, and doubling down on nightlife might just lose us our tourism image (it also might not, but it won't kill us to take a wait and see approach before we end up with a reputation like we did back in the stingaree days).

Lemme tell ya, when you're actually in the thick of it things aren't cut and dry. There isn't a "press here to double your economy" button, every choice has risks. Domestic tourism and the military are safe bets, people are always going to love 80 deg weather and America is always going to need a presence in the pacific. That's a security many cities would envy.

^I think bosa also owns the office depot site next to Pacific Gate
Oh please be true. I want a 15-20 story tower there and a 10-15 story tower replacing the harborview apartments next door (juuust enough to peek over the new Navy building). That will give a really solid presence to the rightside skyline from the west.

[SDCAL]

I couldn’t agree more. It’s an unfortunate irony that such a well-positioned city is so poorly managed, and it doesn’t help that much of its populace seems to prefer stagnation to growth. I’m constantly frustrated by what goes on here but despite the best efforts of the bunglers and NIMBYs, there are still occasional glimmers of hope.

Part of the problem is SD has the perfect storm of NIMBYs on both sides of the political spectrum. In other cities you have conservatives who are pro business, growth, and development, but here the conservatives are more old cranks who moved here from the Midwest, many are retired military, and they don’t want anyone else coming here to “spoil” their paradise. They believe “if you don’t build it, they won’t come” which we all know is faulty logic.

In other cities you have liberals who are all for density, and thinking big and bold with regards to iconic architecture and investing in infrastructure. But in SD, you have old crank liberals who actually think like the old crank conservatives I mentioned above when it comes to development. These aren’t the progressive minds fueling the tech industry in the Bay Area, or even the arts in other cities, these are dried-up NIMBYs who choose SD because they think LA, SF and NYC are too busy and fast for them.

Anyway, I don’t mean to be too negative or stereotype, but these are my honest impressions of SD compared to other large cities. I CHOOSE to live here because I think the positives outweighs the negatives, but I’m also not going to pretend SD is managed well like some posters are suggesting. I agree with you, it’s not. I mean look at all the corruption and problems with SANDAG, who can say that’s managed well. The politics here, and I stress again on BOTH SIDES, are ridiculous.

Here’s an example of what I mean: the people promoting the 4am booze curfew are Democrats in the legislature (the author of the bill is from the Bay Area). Democrats across the state support it. But one of our Democratic representatives, Lorena Gonzales, is apparently a large part of the reason SD isn’t included. She is actually quoted as saying “nothing good happens after midnight” when asked about her opposition to the bill. It sounds like she doesn’t even like having a 2am curfew. So she goes against her liberal colleagues and sides with the old cranks who want SD to be a sleepy bedroom community. It’s like SD has its own brand of old crank NIMBYism that straddles the Republicans and Democrats here.

[SDCAL]

The grass always looks oh so very greener my friend....

For a coastal Californian city, SD is reasonable well-managed and fairly development oriented. In SD the city government cheers on major projects, in LA no one really cares and in SF they fight you unless you bend over backwards for them. Everything in SEA is subject to the infamous "Seattle process", i.e. community meeting after community meeting until everyone is so sick of hearing about your project they finally approve it. It's honestly not a development culture I would choose to replicate, and it's scarring most of the companies you cite away (Boeing moved to Chicago in 2001, Amazon is halting its growth with HQ2, and Microsoft is HQed in Redmond rather than the city itself). One of SD's big advantages is actually that it's generally cheaper to build here than in most west coast cities. It certainly isn't Texas, but at the rate things are going Texas isn't going to stay "Texas" for very much longer.

It's always worth keeping in mind that local leaders are supposed to represent the current residents of their city, not the hypothetical citizens who might move there if radical changes to the economy were put in place. SD is growing about as fast as it can without damaging the industries most people living here currently rely on. You can't relocate the airport without jeopardizing the military's presence in SD, sports teams generally lose money for their city, and doubling down on nightlife might just lose us our tourism image (it also might not, but it won't kill us to take a wait and see approach before we end up with a reputation like we did back in the stingaree days).

Lemme tell ya, when you're actually in the thick of it things aren't cut and dry. There isn't a "press here to double your economy" button, every choice has risks. Domestic tourism and the military are safe bets, people are always going to love 80 deg weather and America is always going to need a presence in the pacific. That's a security many cities would envy.


Oh please be true. I want a 15-20 story tower there and a 10-15 story tower replacing the harborview apartments next door (juuust enough to peek over the new Navy building). That will give a really solid presence to the rightside skyline from the west.

You make some good points but I have to disagree on two things:

1. I firmly believe that the decision to not move the airport to Miramar hurt our city tremendously. It was also hideously mismanaged. The city put out a half-assed vote that wasn’t even legally binding, it was more like a “feeler” to see what people thought, but it ended-up determining the fate of our airport for the rest of our lifetimes. That was not good management
2. I also submit to you as poor management of our city the agency of SANDAG. I won’t go into all the gory details here, but that agency has been mired in scandal and one only has to look at their decades of failed proposals and our poor transit network to see how incompetent they are. I don’t consider our region’s primary transportation agency being a joke to be good management of a city.

We no doubt have things that other cities don’t that I love. SD is, in my opinion, the most balanced large city in the country. By that I mean it has a bit of everything. You have outdoor/beach/recreation as well as decent urban life, it’s like the best of both worlds. So I do share your enthusiasm for this great city, but I cannot agree it’s well managed. It’s really not.

[superfishy]

I've been reading "NIMBY" here for a long time and I always thought it was some official oversight committee or something. Then I finally decided to look it up lol

[Will O' Wisp]

You make some good points but I have to disagree on two things:

1. I firmly believe that the decision to not move the airport to Miramar hurt our city tremendously. It was also hideously mismanaged. The city put out a half-assed vote that wasn’t even legally binding, it was more like a “feeler” to see what people thought, but it ended-up determining the fate of our airport for the rest of our lifetimes. That was not good management
2. I also submit to you as poor management of our city the agency of SANDAG. I won’t go into all the gory details here, but that agency has been mired in scandal and one only has to look at their decades of failed proposals and our poor transit network to see how incompetent they are. I don’t consider our region’s primary transportation agency being a joke to be good management of a city.

We no doubt have things that other cities don’t that I love. SD is, in my opinion, the most balanced large city in the country. By that I mean it has a bit of everything. You have outdoor/beach/recreation as well as decent urban life, it’s like the best of both worlds. So I do share your enthusiasm for this great city, but I cannot agree it’s well managed. It’s really not.

1. Miramar is the most feasible option for a new airport in the SD region, by a long shot, but to take it from the military would wreck havoc on SD's entire defense sector. The Navy and Marines do Field Carrier Landing Practice at the base, basically every pilot who deploys on one of the carriers out of North Island has to do a bunch of practice runs at Miramar beforehand. They have to do this before every single deployment, and there's nowhere else in the region to do it. North Island has too many operations already, El Centro is too small, and Yuma too far. No qualified pilots means no carriers, and with no carriers the entire naval presence in SD is rendered pointless.

Prop A proposed some form of joint use as a "compromise", which needless to say still wasn't going to be vary feasible when you have a dozen fighter jets swinging around the airport in tight little circles. The whole thing was a farce really, even if the measure had passed nothing would've happened seeing as only the federal government has the authority to close or transfer a military base. tbh, I'm 90% sure the whole thing was just a vehicle to create a Airport Authority (the airport was badly mismanaged by the port by many accounts) and give that new Authority a mandate to make comprehensive improvements to Lindbergh (which at that point had only been getting "temporary additions until we find a site for a new airport" since the 1960s).

2. Okay, that was a little F'd up. SANDAG really misjudged the timing on the 2008 recession when they planned out Transnet. But, surprisingly, it looks like they might be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. Latest funding reports I've seen show the full buildout as still feasible, provided SB-1 survives. Without it the frequency improvements to the Blue line and possibly the Orange line will be cut, but we'll still get all the highway improvements. Yay, I guess? :shrug:

We're probably seeing all the same sort of things, the only difference is I see all of SD's mismanagement and more in places like SF and SEA. At a certain point you can't expect perfect government, just a level of incompetence that doesn't hassle you too much. By that account at least SD is reasonable well managed.

[eburress]

I've been reading "NIMBY" here for a long time and I always thought it was some official oversight committee or something. Then I finally decided to look it up lol

hahaha - that's awesome, and you weren't too far off. :) The NIMBYs are the unofficial, me-first committee for keeping things as they once were.

[staplesla]

1. Miramar is the most feasible option for a new airport in the SD region, by a long shot, but to take it from the military would wreck havoc on SD's entire defense sector. The Navy and Marines do Field Carrier Landing Practice at the base, basically every pilot who deploys on one of the carriers out of North Island has to do a bunch of practice runs at Miramar beforehand. They have to do this before every single deployment, and there's nowhere else in the region to do it. North Island has too many operations already, El Centro is too small, and Yuma too far. No qualified pilots means no carriers, and with no carriers the entire naval presence in SD is rendered pointless.

Prop A proposed some form of joint use as a "compromise", which needless to say still wasn't going to be vary feasible when you have a dozen fighter jets swinging around the airport in tight little circles. The whole thing was a farce really, even if the measure had passed nothing would've happened seeing as only the federal government has the authority to close or transfer a military base. tbh, I'm 90% sure the whole thing was just a vehicle to create a Airport Authority (the airport was badly mismanaged by the port by many accounts) and give that new Authority a mandate to make comprehensive improvements to Lindbergh (which at that point had only been getting "temporary additions until we find a site for a new airport" since the 1960s).

The plan was never to replace the military at Miramar, but to jointly use it. This is how St. Louis, Kansas City, and others manage their airports. Miramar has a tremendous amount of land that would have allowed for both the city and military uses to operate independent of each other. Btw, I served on the committee overseeing studies for the move and was in favor of it.

[Will O' Wisp]

The plan was never to replace the military at Miramar, but to jointly use it. This is how St. Louis, Kansas City, and others manage their airports. Miramar has a tremendous amount of land that would have allowed for both the city and military uses to operate independent of each other. Btw, I served on the committee overseeing studies for the move and was in favor of it.

I actually did my senior thesis on the relocation proposal back in the day, as part of which I reviewed virtually every scrap of documentation your committee ever put to paper and interviewed several high ranking USMC officers specifically regarding their thoughts on the feasibility of joint use. Acknowledging the great deal of hard work the SDCRAA did under often difficult conditions, the committee received a lot of complaints that it failed to approach the military in good faith during the initial selection process, that it refused to acknowledge the numerous safety and operational issues associated with joint use at Miramar, and that its decision-making process placed a higher value on local political concerns than on technical feasibility, some of which I found well-founded.

Specifically the committee failed to consider airspace considerations and concentrated solely on land use planning, and it ignored the training and readiness requirements of the USMC/USN (and how they differ from Air National Guard units like the ones at airports you cite). In response to your opinion that Miramar has "a tremendous amount of land" I would present the following image which lays out the accident prevention zones for FCLP operations.

https://image.ibb.co/kM1Mh9/Miramar_APZ.png


(I know this is from the Ricondo and Associates proposal, which I know the committee disavowed. This particular data is from the marines though.)

I work a few miles from Miramar nowadays, just watching 6 F/A-18s doing hairpin turns around the pattern like this should convince you that this is no place for a lumbering airliner. The alternative would be to shift the pattern northwards, with unacceptable safety and noise effects on Mira Mesa, or to build a runway north of the currents ones directly over the landside areas of the base (so you could add the cost of effectively rebuilding Miramar to the already substantial costs of building an international airport). The other two proposed locations locations in the Scrips Ranch area still suffered from the same problems, IFR approaches and missed approaches stretch for miles and miles and they'd be pointed directly over the Miramar runways.

The proposed "queuing" was also a non-starter. Trying to direct military aircraft around commercial ones (and vice versa) would lead to your average training mission spending over half its time flying in circles waiting for another pass and likely worse delays than Lindbergh already experiences for the airliners. Again, I respect immensely the work you and the committee did but from top to bottom the whole thing was implausible from the start.

[staplesla]

I actually did my senior thesis on the relocation proposal back in the day, as part of which I reviewed virtually every scrap of documentation your committee ever put to paper and interviewed several high ranking USMC officers specifically regarding their thoughts on the feasibility of joint use. Acknowledging the great deal of hard work the SDCRAA did under often difficult conditions, the committee received a lot of complaints that it failed to approach the military in good faith during the initial selection process, that it refused to acknowledge the numerous safety and operational issues associated with joint use at Miramar, and that its decision-making process placed a higher value on local political concerns than on technical feasibility, some of which I found well-founded.

Specifically the committee failed to consider airspace considerations and concentrated solely on land use planning, and it ignored the training and readiness requirements of the USMC/USN (and how they differ from Air National Guard units like the ones at airports you cite). In response to your opinion that Miramar has "a tremendous amount of land" I would present the following image which lays out the accident prevention zones for FCLP operations.

https://image.ibb.co/kM1Mh9/Miramar_APZ.png


(I know this is from the Ricondo and Associates proposal, which I know the committee disavowed. This particular data is from the marines though.)

I work a few miles from Miramar nowadays, just watching 6 F/A-18s doing hairpin turns around the pattern like this should convince you that this is no place for a lumbering airliner. The alternative would be to shift the pattern northwards, with unacceptable safety and noise effects on Mira Mesa, or to build a runway north of the currents ones directly over the landside areas of the base (so you could add the cost of effectively rebuilding Miramar to the already substantial costs of building an international airport). The other two proposed locations locations in the Scrips Ranch area still suffered from the same problems, IFR approaches and missed approaches stretch for miles and miles and they'd be pointed directly over the Miramar runways.

The proposed "queuing" was also a non-starter. Trying to direct military aircraft around commercial ones (and vice versa) would lead to your average training mission spending over half its time flying in circles waiting for another pass and likely worse delays than Lindbergh already experiences for the airliners. Again, I respect immensely the work you and the committee did but from top to bottom the whole thing was implausible from the start.

Given my position with the committee and my current work with the city it would be inappropriate for me to comment much further on this topic. What I can say is that many of your comments are not factual. For your info, there are currently 10 civilian/Air Force joint use airports in the U.S. today, 10 army/civilian, and one joint use airport with the Navy in the U.S., many with with much less land space than that of Miramar. Additionally, I’d suggest you consider your own comments with regard to missed approaches and land space around Miramar to the current approaches at Lindbergh over Bankers Hill and takeoffs over Pt. Loma.

[Will O' Wisp]

Given my position with the committee and my current work with the city it would be inappropriate for me to comment much further on this topic. What I can say is that many of your comments are not factual. For your info, there are currently 10 civilian/Air Force joint use airports in the U.S. today, 10 army/civilian, and one joint use airport with the Navy in the U.S., many with with much less land space than that of Miramar. Additionally, I’d suggest you consider your own comments with regard to missed approaches and land space around Miramar to the current approaches at Lindbergh over Bankers Hill and takeoffs over Pt. Loma.

We can agree to disagree then, I'll just add that all of my facts came directly from military/government sources and were confirmed by an exhaustive reviews of the applicable FAA FARs, Part 150 ACs, and TERPS. I know about other joint use facilities including Yuma, which I'd consider the closest existing analogy to a joint use Miramar, they undergo a lot of struggles just to run a small regional airport within a larger base that doesn't conduct FCLP. And I'm well aware of KSAN's steep, obstacle filled approaches. It's the sort of thing that could never be done today unless it was grandfathered in. But I'm just an engineer who's done his homework, the board can have a dozen just as qualified as me for an expert opinion with little more than a snap of its fingers (although I should warn you private sector guys hate to say "that's impossible" outright to anything a client proposes, they'll be happy to conduct study after study and make alteration after alteration to their proposal until funding runs out instead).

Ultimately this discussion is purely academic anyway, the military ran a very successful campaign against Prop A in 2006 and prevented even a symbolic victory for joint use. San Diego's airport is San Diego's airport, at least for the foreseeable future.

[Crackertastik]

We can agree to disagree then, I'll just add that all of my facts came directly from military/government sources and were confirmed by an exhaustive reviews of the applicable FAA FARs, Part 150 ACs, and TERPS. I know about other joint use facilities including Yuma, which I'd consider the closest existing analogy to a joint use Miramar, they undergo a lot of struggles just to run a small regional airport within a larger base that doesn't conduct FCLP. And I'm well aware of KSAN's steep, obstacle filled approaches. It's the sort of thing that could never be done today unless it was grandfathered in. But I'm just an engineer who's done his homework, the board can have a dozen just as qualified as me for an expert opinion with little more than a snap of its fingers (although I should warn you private sector guys hate to say "that's impossible" outright to anything a client proposes, they'll be happy to conduct study after study and make alteration after alteration to their proposal until funding runs out instead).

Ultimately this discussion is purely academic anyway, the military ran a very successful campaign against Prop A in 2006 and prevented even a symbolic victory for joint use. San Diego's airport is San Diego's airport, at least for the foreseeable future.

Floatport 2050! Lindbergh becomes the new downtown and has a boom like Pudong in Shanghai. I run for President and win.

[JerellO]

I’ve learned to love SAN, the fact that its right next to downtown is super convenient. A super tall would be nice but they don’t make a city, what makes a city is the ground floor interaction with the population. I think our downtown has that Goldilocks height.. it’s not too tall and not too short. It’s tall enough that you see and feel that you’re in a city, but it also doesn’t make you feel small and caved in like in the skyscraper canyons of other cities. Some of the great European cities don’t even have buildings as tall as San Diego, but because of the density and pedestrian activity on the street level, they are vibrant. Paris, Amsterdam and Rome are good examples. When I was stationed in Greece I stayed on the island of Crete in a small town called Chania, their downtown had more pedestrian activity than downtown San Diego day and night because it was their center. Outdoor cafes and restaurants along with retail and nightclubs lined the streets.

Downtown Sam Diego just needs all the neighborhoods to have that cohesive pedestrian energy to tie it all together with a bigger population, all the shops, restaurants and stuff to bring it all together.

[spoonman]

WilloWisp,

It seems you are making the argument that San Diego tried to push for joint use of Miramar, it failed (for good reason in your opinion), and that as a result we shouldn’t claim that SD has failed on this and other issues.

Your points on Miramar May be valid but are moot. The reality is San Diego had a chance to get Miramar for free in the 90’s due to BRAC and completely blew the opportunity. This is the city’s version of turning down the Louisiana purchase or deciding not to buy Manhattan from the Indians. The city punted on this like they normally do and did nothing. Classic.