SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 [Archive] - Page 138

Will O' Wisp

Sep 8, 2018, 8:20 PM

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

Sure! By the way, do you have $30-50 billion+ I could borrow for a bit?

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.

The city actually heavily, heavily lobbied to take over Miramar in the 90s, which was the genesis of what eventually became Prop A in my opinion.

But, in the late 1940's the city did successfully negotiate a joint use agreement for Miramar. SD was stuck in a post-ww2 recession at the time and punted construction the required facilities for years until the Korean War rolled around and the Navy revoked the lease to build up Miramar into a master jet station.

Since I'm dropping just a ton of facts here, let me post a few sources. Here (https://www.scribd.com/document/388141557/ICRMP-Appendix-B-Detailed-History-of-Miramar) is a detailed history of Miramar, see page 48 for details of the 1940's joint use agreement. And here (https://www.scribd.com/presentation/388141912/6521715) is a presentation the USMC gave out in 2006 regarding the issues with joint use (the online preview doesn't let you see the notes attached to it, download for more info).

SDCAL

Sep 8, 2018, 8:34 PM

A couple points to add my two cents to the Miramar/Airport debate:

1. The military has their own agenda and it doesn’t necessarily include what’s best for the city. Our elected officials should be thinking about what’s best for our city.

2. Most economic stats I see are for SD County; if Miramar was to be relocated to Pendleton or somewhere else but still be in SD County, then I think there isn’t much of a “the economy is going to collapse because SD is a Military town” argument to make. To be honest, even if Miramar was relocated out of the county I think that argument would be far fetched. It’s kind of like how the Chargers leaving was going to hurt the region really bad economically. It didn’t. That was a scare tactic used to try and get the public to demand that they stay. The military uses similar tactics.

3. In order for the military to have the better argument to stay put, they would need to explain why that specific location has unique benefit that’s vital to national security. Could their operations not be done somewhere else? What is the national security reason they must stay located at Miramar forever even as SD continues to grow and urbanize? I’ve yet to hear a strong, rational argument for this.

4. The vote was in 2006. It was non-binding. That was over a decade ago. We have votes on things that lose again in a few years in this state. Some ballot measures get defeated and they turn around and put it on the ballot again the next year. Who is the one deciding the issue can’t be revisited? If we had strong competent leaders it could and would be re-visited. But San Diego has weak incompetent leaders who NIMBYs love because they are easily manipulated.

Crackertastik

Sep 8, 2018, 8:34 PM

Sure! By the way, do you have $30-50 billion+ I could borrow for a bit?

The city actually heavily, heavily lobbied to take over Miramar in the 90s, which was the genesis of what eventually became Prop A in my opinion.

But, in the late 1940's the city did successfully negotiate a joint use agreement for Miramar. SD was stuck in a post-ww2 recession at the time and punted construction the required facilities for years until the Korean War rolled around and the Navy revoked the lease to build up Miramar into a master jet station.

Since I'm dropping just a ton of facts here, let me post a few sources. Here (https://www.scribd.com/document/388141557/ICRMP-Appendix-B-Detailed-History-of-Miramar) is a detailed history of Miramar, see page 48 for details of the 1940's joint use agreement. And here (https://www.scribd.com/presentation/388141912/6521715) is a presentation the USMC gave out in 2006 regarding the issues with joint use (the online preview doesn't let you see the notes attached to it, download for more info).

In 2050, I just might, haha.

JerellO

Sep 8, 2018, 8:54 PM

ILUVSAT

Sep 8, 2018, 9:10 PM

You guys are funny!

spoonman

Sep 8, 2018, 10:21 PM

Are we really talking about the airport and Miramar?? It’s not moving guys 🙄 drop it. You’re taking up so much room in the forum about shit that doesn’t even matter anymore, at least not at the moment. We recently spent so much money at SAN and we’re not moving it anytime in the near or far future.

Spoken like a San Diego politician. “Don’t worry about it ‘till it happens, man”.

If someone wants to talk about development, great. Until then, seems the airport issue never fails to generate interest among most here.

SDCAL

Sep 9, 2018, 6:02 AM

Spoken like a San Diego politician. “Don’t worry about it ‘till it happens, man”.

If someone wants to talk about development, great. Until then, seems the airport issue never fails to generate interest among most here.

Hahahahaha, I agree, sounds exactly like our local politicians. Don’t like us talking about anything too big or “scary.” Just shut up and let them pour billions into Lindbergh and don’t ever question it.

SDCAL

Sep 9, 2018, 6:05 AM

Are we really talking about the airport and Miramar?? It’s not moving guys �� drop it. You’re taking up so much room in the forum about shit that doesn’t even matter anymore, at least not at the moment. We recently spent so much money at SAN and we’re not moving it anytime in the near or far future.

If there’s something new development related happening then post it, I’m sure we’d all rather discuss that instead. But not a lot was happening in here so what’s wrong with discussing the airport? Just because it’s not likely to move anytime soon doesn’t mean it’s not a valid topic. It’s a vital piece of infrastructure that has a big impact on our city.

JerellO

Sep 9, 2018, 7:51 AM

If there’s something new development related happening then post it, I’m sure we’d all rather discuss that instead. But not a lot was happening in here so what’s wrong with discussing the airport? Just because it’s not likely to move anytime soon doesn’t mean it’s not a valid topic. It’s a vital piece of infrastructure that has a big impact on our city.

In that case let’s also talk about how we could’ve built a BART- like system for San Diego county but ended up with the light rail system we have today, or how we as a city screwed up by removing our streetcars and extensively built highways in an attempt to rival Los Angeles’. Other topics we could talk about maybe the height limit in mission valley and national city. Increasing density in Hillcrest and North Park.

superfishy

Sep 9, 2018, 11:58 AM

Hahahahaha, I agree, sounds exactly like our local politicians. Don’t like us talking about anything too big or “scary.” Just shut up and let them pour billions into Lindbergh and don’t ever question it.

While buildings above 500' would be great, I think youre looking at the airport situation with a bit of a bias. I'm sure high-rise height is the last thing on their minds. Aside from a barely noticeable lack of office/residential space, I can't think of many other negative impacts on the economy. An airport in close proximity to the city center is a lot more beneficial to a city than having maybe one or two ~700 footers.

I personally don't blame them for improving on Lindbergh. I've flown to quite a few of airports around the world and SAN is one of the best I've experienced. I know the improvements being made now are probably more expensive than necessary, but that's a conversation for another time. Let's be honest with ourselves, re-locating would cost a ridiculous amount more than making admittedly expensive improvements on the current location. Don't fix whats not broken. Especially for billions of extra dollars. Imagine if we used that to fix the homeless issue. Now that would make a real positive change for this city.

SDCAL

Sep 9, 2018, 3:53 PM

While buildings above 500' would be great, I think youre looking at the airport situation with a bit of a bias. I'm sure high-rise height is the last thing on their minds. Aside from a barely noticeable lack of office/residential space, I can't think of many other negative impacts on the economy. An airport in close proximity to the city center is a lot more beneficial to a city than having maybe one or two ~700 footers.

I personally don't blame them for improving on Lindbergh. I've flown to quite a few of airports around the world and SAN is one of the best I've experienced. I know the improvements being made now are probably more expensive than necessary, but that's a conversation for another time. Let's be honest with ourselves, re-locating would cost a ridiculous amount more than making admittedly expensive improvements on the current location. Don't fix whats not broken. Especially for billions of extra dollars. Imagine if we used that to fix the homeless issue. Now that would make a real positive change for this city.

Interesting.

My opinion that the airport should be moved is biased, but your opinion that it should remain because you enjoy flying out of it isn’t?

The problem is the money being spent is on everything but additional runway space, since that’s not an option at the current location. We can spend billions to reorganize things, put in more parking, update the terminals, add nicer restaurants, etc .. but the one short runway isn’t changing with all these billions of dollars of improvements (yes, we are spending billions on the current airport).

By 2050 we are projected to have a million more people. Yes, airports in the middle of the city are convenient, but how practical are they for large cities? There’s a reason you don’t see them in the middle of large cities.

There’s also the growth issue. SD is growing and is limited in southern expansion by an international border, western expansion by the Pacific Ocean, eastern expansion by mountains and northern expansion by a military base and OC. The area around Miramar keeps urbanizing and how practical is it to have a military base there? Do Military operations pose a more dangerous/unnecessary danger to an urban area than commercial flight operations?

There’s been several incidents at Miramar including this one where a fighter jet crashed into a house and killed a family in 2011:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-7n9jetdown13318-pilot-ejects-seconds-impact-child--2008dec09-story,amp.html

Does SD really have the luxury of keeping both Lindbergh and Miramar as they are as our region struggles to accommodate a million more people over the next few decades?

I would also argue our airport has hindered the region economically. We have one of the least globally connected airports for a city our size and that influences the relocations/headquartering of companies in many industries here. Some of it is due to proximity to LA, yes, but not all of it. Philadelphia is in close proximity to NYC, but their international network is far greater. It’s a fact we’ve been hindered by being the last major city in the country to obtain overseas flights due to the one short runway at Lindbergh. It’s also a fact that companies consider connectivity when they decide on where to locate. It’s a stated consideration for Amazon’s HQ2 hunt and it’s a consideration for smaller companies too.

I believe our lack of global connectivity has hampered our economy and that we could have received more benefit from foreign investment and tourism here had we been better connected globally.

As far as I am aware, the FAA still has projections for Lindbergh reaching capacity at some point. What then? We have to spend billions relocating the airport after sinking billions into improving Lindbergh. Wouldn’t it be nice if our short-sighted city leaders and residents actually thought long-term for a change? Why does the airport relocation have to come at the last minute when people are scrambling and we are starting to see long waits at Lindbergh? If we wanted to have the airport relocated in the 2050 timeframe, we’d have to start talking about it and planning it now because that’s how long things take, especially something this major. But San Diego prefers to bury our head in the sand and wait until the 11th hour and, as we see on this very board, even tries to discourage people from even discussing it.

By the way, how many times in this post or the recent posts I’ve made regarding the airport have I mentioned building height? None. Because you’ve mischaracterized my opinion about moving the airport to be solely or even largely on wanting the building height downtown raised. That’s not my primary reason, nor would I consider that reason alone to be a valid reason for moving an airport. Knowing this town the airport could move and NIMBYs would still prevent buildings >500 ft from going up.

Finally, you end your post by throwing in a “what if” about an issue unrelated to the airport: the homeless issue. What if, what if, what if. What if instead of spending billions of dollars to give you nicer restaurants and more space to sit and wait at Lindbergh we used THAT to help the homeless issue?? If you want to discuss the homeless issue make a separate thread instead of throwing some random nonsense out in a debate the airport. There are many things our city can be doing better on that issue, but it’s not related to he airport discussions.

sixonenine

Sep 9, 2018, 4:45 PM

spoonman

Sep 9, 2018, 5:26 PM

Interesting.

My opinion that the airport should be moved is biased, but your opinion that it should remain because you enjoy flying out of it isn’t?

The problem is the money being spent is on everything but additional runway space, since that’s not an option at the current location. We can spend billions to reorganize things, put in more parking, update the terminals, add nicer restaurants, etc .. but the one short runway isn’t changing with all these billions of dollars of improvements (yes, we are spending billions on the current airport).

By 2050 we are projected to have a million more people. Yes, airports in the middle of the city are convenient, but how practical are they for large cities? There’s a reason you don’t see them in the middle of large cities.

There’s also the growth issue. SD is growing and is limited in southern expansion by an international border, western expansion by the Pacific Ocean, eastern expansion by mountains and northern expansion by a military base and OC. The area around Miramar keeps urbanizing and how practical is it to have a military base there? Do Military operations pose a more dangerous/unnecessary danger to an urban area than commercial flight operations?

There’s been several incidents at Miramar including this one where a fighter jet crashed into a house and killed a family in 2011:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-7n9jetdown13318-pilot-ejects-seconds-impact-child--2008dec09-story,amp.html

Does SD really have the luxury of keeping both Lindbergh and Miramar as they are as our region struggles to accommodate a million more people over the next few decades?

I would also argue our airport has hindered the region economically. We have one of the least globally connected airports for a city our size and that influences the relocations/headquartering of companies in many industries here. Some of it is due to proximity to LA, yes, but not all of it. Philadelphia is in close proximity to NYC, but their international network is far greater. It’s a fact we’ve been hindered by being the last major city in the country to obtain overseas flights due to the one short runway at Lindbergh. It’s also a fact that companies consider connectivity when they decide on where to locate. It’s a stated consideration for Amazon’s HQ2 hunt and it’s a consideration for smaller companies too.

I believe our lack of global connectivity has hampered our economy and that we could have received more benefit from foreign investment and tourism here had we been better connected globally.

As far as I am aware, the FAA still has projections for Lindbergh reaching capacity at some point. What then? We have to spend billions relocating the airport after sinking billions into improving Lindbergh. Wouldn’t it be nice if our short-sighted city leaders and residents actually thought long-term for a change? Why does the airport relocation have to come at the last minute when people are scrambling and we are starting to see long waits at Lindbergh? If we wanted to have the airport relocated in the 2050 timeframe, we’d have to start talking about it and planning it now because that’s how long things take, especially something this major. But San Diego prefers to bury our head in the sand and wait until the 11th hour and, as we see on this very board, even tries to discourage people from even discussing it.

By the way, how many times in this post or the recent posts I’ve made regarding the airport have I mentioned building height? None. Because you’ve mischaracterized my opinion about moving the airport to be solely or even largely on wanting the building height downtown raised. That’s not my primary reason, nor would I consider that reason alone to be a valid reason for moving an airport. Knowing this town the airport could move and NIMBYs would still prevent buildings >500 ft from going up.

Finally, you end your post by throwing in a “what if” about an issue unrelated to the airport: the homeless issue. What if, what if, what if. What if instead of spending billions of dollars to give you nicer restaurants and more space to sit and wait at Lindbergh we used THAT to help the homeless issue?? If you want to discuss the homeless issue make a separate thread instead of throwing some random nonsense out in a debate the airport. There are many things our city can be doing better on that issue, but it’s not related to he airport discussions.

THIS. 1000% Anyone who thinks SAN is a viable long term solution is deluding themselves. But, best not to think about it.

spoonman

Sep 9, 2018, 5:28 PM

what if Brown Field and Tijuana airport worked together as a binational airport given their close proximity. It would be like two airports in one and it would take a load off of SAN, or replace it completely if possible. Just throwing out ideas at this point but it probably would be a stretch

Good thinking. However, San Diego had a chance to do exactly what you mentioned, but shit the bed on that too. Instead, they developed the land into industrial uses, so now there is not sufficient space for such a project.

Thankfully we have the TIJ cross border terminal, thanks to a private developer. Also, the Airport Authority has done a nice job with what they have at SAN, but it isn’t enough long term and has already hurt the city.

superfishy

Sep 9, 2018, 9:57 PM

@SDCAL

I guess my point is that when our airport will be expected to accommodate the growing population of SD County (projected at closer to 700,000 than 1 million by 2050), ~2050 would be a good time to consider re-location. Until then, in terms of population, SAN reasonably represents the city. Anyone who's flown out of the airport can tell it lacks, for the most part, the crowded hustle and bustle of many other airports. With that being said, a hasty re-location would just be pointless when any real threat to our airport's demographic viability lies decades ahead.

Economically, and I know this discussion is heavily opinionated, but with LA so close, the regional need for a transportation hub is already taken care of. Without trying to re-tread on past discussions too much, I do think it's true that San Diego needs to 'know its place' economically. We'll never be an LA or NYC. We have a relatively stable niche in the economy, and while a healthy amount of ambition is good for any city, we need to be realistic.

My only intent on bringing up the homeless situation is that there are more pressing matters to attend to than an airport re-location.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 10, 2018, 4:35 AM

Wow, what sort of argument hath we unleashed?

@mello: I'm not qualified to speak as to if NAS North Island is suitable or unsuitable for FCLP, you'd need to ask someone more experienced in military flight training. Certainly conducting those sorts of operations regularly would have severe noise impacts on Coronado, Point Loma, and downtown though, I can't stress just how loud those jets are.

The Marines conduct some training at Brown and Long Beach Airports on weekends, holidays, and other times to reduce the noise impacts on the University City area. At Brown it's usually every weekend, to the point it's been nicknamed Miramar South.

@SDCAL: 1. True, but that argument is a dual edged sword. The military's main concern is national security, which means its needs can override local economic concerns.

2. Pendlton and North Island couldn't handle the traffic if Miramar shut down, those units would definitely have to be shifted outside the county. From an economic aspect this would be a far larger deal than losing the Chargers. For the Chargers SD would've had to spend millions upon millions of its own money to build them a new stadium, and much of the resulting resulting income would ultimately come from within SD itself (local fans, etc). The military funds its own facilities, and its income come down from federal taxes. If we assume SD was going to have to pay those anyway regardless of if there was a military base within the region (fairly likely, that's how it works for the rest of the nation after all), you can almost think of military income as free money. LA, NYC, and Huston are paying millions upon millions to local SD construction companies to build new hangers at Miramar, to military contractors to build factories in Sorrento Valley, and to thousands of servicemen for living expenses. All that money flows right into the SD economy, where it pays for a second tier of people to provides services to the above and so on. All told it's over 40% of the SD economy, if the military moved out it's likely half the thread would lose their jobs.

3. Primarily, the fact that both the Navy base and Pendlton are here. The marine guys talk a lot about how necessary that is, the ability to have all their components in one place so they're ready to deploy at any time. They mentioned there's only one other area comparable to SD for them, on the east coast, so SD is holding up America's defense of everything from California to Washington state.

4.There's no rule that it can't be brought up again (I've even heard a rumor the authority is running a study on relocation right now). But the issues haven't changed at all since 2006, a new vote would probably have the same outcome while holding back the development of Lindbergh in the process.

@JerellO: SD's airport issues are like squaring the circle, no matter how you figure it the solution is going to come out a little irrational. Because there isn't an "ideal" answer, or even one significantly superior to the others, all anyone can do is try to argue why the downsides of their particular plan are less than the alternatives. But imo every option is equally crappy, which is why we keep ending up with the status quo.

@spoonman: In addition to the whole "selling off the land" thing, there was a lot of concern about a cross border airport being a major avenue for drug smuggling.

NYC2ATX

Sep 10, 2018, 5:56 AM

It is absolutely true that tall buildings do not a city make. Because of the height restrictions downtown, San Diego, in a roundabout way, benefits from dense, walkable development closer to the ground in a way that most cities in California and the West fall short.

However, in this day and age, a city's primary airport(s) is more than just a means of travel. It is a significant component of a metro area's economic engine. IMO, this is a major failure of leadership on all levels not to make relocating San Diego's main hub to a larger facility elsewhere their first if not only priority. Other US hubs like DFW, O'Hare, and even LAX contribute massively to the metropolitan economies of their respective regions. One could argue that an airport such as Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta is partially responsible, or at the very least, supportive, of the staggering growth there. The same argument could be made for Dallas-Fort Worth. Such airports have even begun to result in "aerotropolises," which host regional or national headquarters of companies that value ease of air travel for their employees.

San Diego is a top-ten major American city on the Pacific Coast, and straddles the Mexican border. There's no excuse for it to not offer far more direct flights to Asia, Latin America and even Australia. This greatly expands the reach of tourism initiatives for the region, which is already a popular travel destination. It also makes it easier for immigrants from beyond Mexico to migrate, settle in, study in, and generally add to the local culture. Furthermore, this also makes it more attractive to the type of foreign investment that can be credited with boosting the current building boom in downtown Los Angeles. Businesspeople with packed schedules are immediately less interested when connecting flights factor in. Hell, Korean Air was a major player in the construction of the Wilshire Grand Tower. Of course, I'm not saying San Diego needs to or should be anything like LA, but could you imagine the benefits of having a true world-class gateway to the region.

Also, as was said above, there's no way to say for certain that moving the airport would immediately spark an surge of buildings over 500' in the downtown area. To truly consider what that would look like, you'd need to take into account all the other reasons why such towers might not come along, from economics to NIMBYism, to name just a few. Really, moving the airport is just the smart thing to do to advance the region to a greater position on the national and world stage. Simple as that.

HurricaneHugo

Sep 10, 2018, 6:42 AM

@SDCAL

I guess my point is that when our airport will be expected to accommodate the growing population of SD County (projected at closer to 700,000 than 1 million by 2050), ~2050 would be a good time to consider re-location.

Problem with that is that a new airport would take a decade or so of planning and funding and building. SD would probably take longer, just take a look at the Mid-Coast Trolley Extension.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 10, 2018, 7:46 AM

Problem with that is that a new airport would take a decade or so of planning and funding and building. SD would probably take longer, just take a look at the Mid-Coast Trolley Extension.

For a major international airport it would take closer to 15-20 years of planning. Denver International, the last airport built in the US, took 15 years 1980-1995. Given current forecasts Lindbergh will reach capacity by 2035, now would be the time to plan (of course, those forecasts are filled with so many assumptions we can't really know when Lindbergh will really reach capacity)

The problem though isn't time, or even money, there just isn't a suitable area left within an acceptable distance of downtown that hasn't already been claimed by the military. Every scrap of flat land west of the peninsular range has been developed already, there's nothing but housing or mountains from the sea to ~45 miles inland. The only exceptions are the military bases, which is why most discussions tend to revolve around taking one of them over. The alternatives are relocating thousands of people and jobs to make space, utterly destroying one of SD's prized beaches or the bay to dredge up new land, or building a multi-billion dollar airport in some farmer's field 2+ hours away from the city it's supposed to serve. None of those are particularly appetizing options, and as we've been discussing there's some pretty serious economic repercussions to taking over Miramar, so SD keep circling around to keeping Lindbergh.

Boatguy619

Sep 10, 2018, 10:49 PM

A quick little photoshop I did. I prefer the plateau, like a Vancouver with out the rain. Anything over 700ft at this point would ruin the skyline IMO.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1864/29666175837_951abca989.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/McuUwi)DSC_0145-Edit-Recovered (https://flic.kr/p/McuUwi) by kevinbeatty (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29362128@N08/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1900/44554303832_15f340fc0f.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2aT7shh)DSC_0139 (https://flic.kr/p/2aT7shh) by kevinbeatty (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29362128@N08/), on Flickr

touching on the airport discussion. I've seen some cities where they built an elevated airport above traffic and waterways, probably the only solution aside from Miramar. But I think by the time the airport is relocated, air travel will have changed to the point runways may no longer be needed or at least shortened (Thinking of the new F22's). A hyperloop from SAN to LAX would benefit the region more imo. San Diego shouldn't compete with LA, rather complement it and tap into LA's international draw. Most people who come to Cali from abroad visit more than just LA.

Nv_2897

Sep 10, 2018, 11:22 PM

^Wow what a cool edit and perspective I think that if we had a tall skyscraper or a few they would look good more in the back rather than just up front like where Horton plaza is but i like out skyline just the way it is :)

spoonman

Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 PM

1 taller tower would certainly make the skyline look weird, but if the limit were higher, we would quickly have multiple new taller towers, which would complement what is already in place. We have so many twins that we could easily have multiple 800-900ft+ towers without a 500ft height limit.

On the airport issue...business travelers who visit SD don't want to pass through LA. Just like San Diegan's don't want to pass through LA. In some cases it could make sense for certain international leisure travelers to pass through LA if they are visiting SoCal as a whole. Business travelers, however, want to come and do a meeting, then leave. Conversely, businesses that would consider locating in San Diego want easy access to the rest of the world. Leisure travelers are great, but business travelers should also be the focus.

Crackertastik

Sep 11, 2018, 4:22 AM

Will O' Wisp

Sep 11, 2018, 6:23 AM

I could see a future where SD has two, a larger international airport to serve and SAN. Like DC has with Dulles and DCA.

If you ask me the most likely development pattern will be the usage of Brown Field, McClellan-Palomar, Lindbergh and TJ airports in a manner that (inefficiently) replicates a single larger airport. That's more or less how things are progressing already as it is. Brown has the MAP project to transform it into more of a cargo center, TJ is working on adding air cargo to the CBX, McClellan-Palomar's master plan with its runway extension will finally make commercial service viable, and as we all know Lindbergh is building itself up. That's 4 runways in total, which if run efficiently could keep up with capacity demands. But it won't make SD an airline hub, since passengers won't easily be able to transfer between them. SD will more or less stay where it's at, no real improvements but no real losses either.

spoonman

Sep 11, 2018, 7:07 AM

Willo', do you have any more information you can share on the latest happenings at Brown Field?

202_Cyclist

Sep 11, 2018, 3:35 PM

With this discussion of San Diego's airport, California Pacific Airlines will be starting service to Reno, San Jose, Phoenix, and Las Vegas from Carlsbad this November using Embraer 145 aircraft.

New airline California Pacific ready for West Coast takeoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/09/06/california-pacific-west-coast-flights-carlsbad-palomar-san-diego/1196107002/

Streamliner

Sep 11, 2018, 5:02 PM

202_Cyclist

Sep 11, 2018, 5:46 PM

Wow! I had been following this airline way back when it was first announced. I assumed it was dead after multiple failed starts. I didn't realize it was back.

I hope this carrier is successful and there are a lot of residents in southern Orange Co. and northern San Diego Co. for this airline to attract. The airline purchased the operating certificate of a small regional carrier based in Georgia that provided Essential Air Service flights from Denver to two communities in South Dakota.

Cranky Flier also provided his analysis of this airline.

California Pacific Will Fly November 1, But For How Long?
https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/10/california-pacific-will-fly-november-1-but-for-how-long/

Will O' Wisp

Sep 11, 2018, 5:58 PM

Willo', do you have any more information you can share on the latest happenings at Brown Field?

There's a variety of news articles up about the Metropolitan Airpark (MAP) project so I won't get too into the weeds, but basically the idea is a P3 will develop a series of industrial facilities, distribution centers, and FBOs (think gas stations for aircraft) across 300 some acres over the next 15-20 years.

http://www.sandiegometro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Metropolitan-Airpark.jpg

I've heard the end result described as being fairly similar to Ontario or San Bernardino airports in concept, although a bit more limited in that the ~8000' runway won't allow 747Fs or 777Fs (before you ask, a runway extension has been proposed and studied. The Navy has expressed concerns that lumbering jumbo jets would interfere with operations at Imperial Beach and arrivals coming into North Island, and the FAA is worried that missed approaches would interfere with arrivals into Lindbergh because they'll have to be rerouted in that direction due to terrain concerns. The option remains open however).

Things are progressing slowly atm because the funding is being provided by half a dozen separate companies with sometimes conflicting demands, the city airport div's lack of manpower to devote to the project, and the general environmental/permitting issues with a development of this size. It'll probably happen eventually, but it takes time.

mello

Sep 11, 2018, 8:36 PM

202_Cyclist

Sep 11, 2018, 9:01 PM

spoonman

Sep 11, 2018, 9:52 PM

US airlines have recently been cutting flights to China. Slots at Chinese airports are difficult for US airlines to obtain and when they can obtain them, they are often at bad times.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-china/two-u-s-airlines-cut-china-routes-as-state-backed-rivals-turn-up-heat-idUSKCN1L61JP

Additionally, San Diego is a great city, fantastic weather and scenic, but the metro area only has approximately 3.5M residents and San Diego isn't a hub for any airline, whereas LAX, SFO, and Seattle all have significant connecting traffic.

Seattle is about the same size as San Diego population wise, but their economy is booming more than SD's and they get more international service as they are geographically closer (more on the way) than San Diego to Asia and Europe. Most people wouldn't know it, but if you go to Great Circle Mapper, you will see that although San Diego appears to be "on the way" to Asia, it is actually out of the way. This is one reason why SFO is such a big hub for Asia. Flights to Asia from SAN and LAX bascially pass San Francisco on the way to Asia.

202_Cyclist

Sep 11, 2018, 9:55 PM

Seattle is about the same size as San Diego population wise, but their economy is booming more than SD's and they get more international service as they are geographically closer (more on the way) than San Diego to Asia and Europe. Most people wouldn't know it, but if you go to Great Circle Mapper, you will see that although San Diego appears to be "on the way" to Asia, it is actually out of the way. This is one reason why SFO is such a big hub for Asia. Flights to Asia from SAN and LAX bascially pass San Francisco on the way to Asia.

That is part of it but SFO and Seattle are also hubs (United and Delta, respectively), so they have significant amounts of connecting traffic, in addition to the origin & destination traffic.

Also, more of the passengers coming to San Diego are probably leisure travelers, making it difficult for airlines to charge the higher fares for nonstop flights that business travelers would pay.

spoonman

Sep 11, 2018, 10:07 PM

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Its not like the airport is at capacity and everyone is saying "we could have better service if we had a big facility at Miramar". So what is keeping us from having a Beijing/Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, etc. flight now?? Our Europe coverage I guess could be a bit better maybe adding a Paris or Amsterdam but as it stands it is decent I suppose.

Its not like all the gates are always full so what gives? Like ATX guy said we are a major destination and the Airport Authority is always reaching out to these foreign airlines saying "hey remember us, we are San Diego please fly here!!"

Are they not coming here because we don't have 2 parallel runways? When you look at our terminal layout there are lots of gates after the T2 expansion and more coming with T1. :shrug:

**** Example Note: SeaTac according to the count I just did has 78 gates, SAN has 56 (I'm counting all spots where planes can dock, from twin prop stuff for hopping to LAX or Emirates gates flying to Dubai) SeaTac does 2.5 the passenger load SAN does with only 22 more gates so there is room for us to add more International Flights.

I'm not the authority on airline operations, but there are other factors besides gates and runways that impact service.

Below are a number of factors...many of which SAN fairs poorly. A relocated airport would solve almost all problems, except feeder traffic, but solving these problems would create the conditions for more feeder traffic. Essentially, a relocated airport could solve virtually every issue.

1. Airport Hours/Curfew (result of location of SAN)
2. Space for overnight aircraft (minimal at SAN)
3. Space for aircraft maintenance (minimal at SAN)
4. Local O&D traffic (not really a problem San Diego is a decent size market)
5. Feeder traffic (feeder traffic supports additional international flights...however not being a hub hurts feeder traffic relative to hub airports)
6. Gates (SAN has a respectable number of gates)
7. Crew bases (SAN is not a hub, so minimal crew bases)
8. Payload capability (certain aircraft like 747/A340, etc are weight restricted out of SAN, meaning they have to carry less people or cargo. This makes routes less profitable and can be the difference between getting or not getting a route)

HurricaneHugo

Sep 12, 2018, 1:22 AM

Isn't the main factor the size of our runway?

As in 747s and others can't take off with a full passenger and fuel load?

Derek

Sep 12, 2018, 2:13 AM

I think the more modern 747s can takeoff and land safely at SAN. British Airways has flown a few 747s on the LHR-SAN route over the past couple of years.

202_Cyclist

Sep 12, 2018, 2:14 AM

Isn't the main factor the size of our runway?

As in 747s and others can't take off with a full passenger and fuel load?

No, domestic carriers and many international carriers aren’t flying 747s now. San Diego’s runway should be sufficiently long for a 787 or an A350.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 12, 2018, 5:16 AM

I think the more modern 747s can takeoff and land safely at SAN. British Airways has flown a few 747s on the LHR-SAN route over the past couple of years.

747-200/400s and 777-300s can only take off with enough fuel to reach Phoenix Sky Harbor when filled with PAX. 747-8s can't take off at all with an economically useful load, although they can land with one (Atlas Air occasionally flies in outsize cargo and leaves empty).

787s are almost perfectly sized for KSAN though, and have really been driving the increase in widebody traffic and international flights.

Derek

Sep 12, 2018, 5:39 AM

747-200/400s and 777-300s can only take off with enough fuel to reach Phoenix Sky Harbor when filled with PAX. 747-8s can't take off at all with an economically useful load, although they can land with one (Atlas Air occasionally flies in outsize cargo and leaves empty).

787s are almost perfectly sized for KSAN though, and have really been driving the increase in widebody traffic and international flights.

Back in the 90s the flight made a stop in PHX but the new flights from the past few years have not. BA has flown both the 747-400 and the 777-300ER nonstop between SAN and LHR.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 12, 2018, 6:47 AM

Back in the 90s the flight made a stop in PHX but the new flights from the past few years have not. BA has flown both the 747-400 and the 777-300ER nonstop between SAN and LHR.

Note I said "when filled with PAX". With no belly cargo and a reduced passenger load they can make it, but at max gross takeoff weight they both need a 10,000'+ runway.

SDfan

Sep 12, 2018, 2:49 PM

Any development news, anyone? :)

spoonman

Sep 12, 2018, 3:06 PM

This is correct. 747s are usually weight restricted, impacting financial viability but British Airways has made it work on SAN to LHR, but LHR is one of the “closer” Long haul destinations compared to Tokyo, Frankfurt, Beijing, etc.

As mentioned earlier, 787s are excellent for long hauls to Asia (this is what JAL uses from SAN to NRT) but carry fewer pax than 777s and 747s. Not a big issue though.

777s seem to do fine to LHR, but not sure about Asia do to additional fuel loading requirements. Anyone know what Lufthansa and Edelweiss use at SAN?

Streamliner

Sep 12, 2018, 3:38 PM

Anyone know what Lufthansa and Edelweiss use at SAN?

Lufthansa (SAN-Frankfurt) and Edelweiss (SAN-Zurich) both use Airbus A340-300s. Condor Airlines used Boeing 767-300ERs (SAN-Frankfurt) before they left.

Nv_2897

Sep 12, 2018, 10:39 PM

Any development news, anyone? :)
^

Will O' Wisp

Sep 12, 2018, 11:30 PM

Any development news, anyone? :)

Oh yeah!

Lindbergh dropped AECOM for the Terminal 1 redesign and is now going with Jacobs.
The Brown Field MAP project is going to present at the Smart Growth Committee on the 27th, the last stop on the way to City Council
Miramar started construction on the new faculties for the F-35, mainly on the NE corner of the ramp.
McClellan-Palomar released an addendum to their EIR showing that moving the approach lighting won't negatively impact any biological resources.

That's what you're looking for, isn't it? :whistle:

mello

Sep 12, 2018, 11:40 PM

I have seen the British Airways 747 take off on a Santa Ana evening last November with the flight path reversed. Obviously they don't go to PHX anymore so maybe some restriction has changed. I have written this here before, that night I was astounded at how little runway the BA 747 needed to lift off and it pulled up steeply as well and cleared Bankers Hill like a champ.

** This account was viewed from the top of the new rental car structure.

SDfan

Sep 13, 2018, 1:40 AM

Oh yeah!

Lindbergh dropped AECOM for the Terminal 1 redesign and is now going with Jacobs.
The Brown Field MAP project is going to present at the Smart Growth Committee on the 27th, the last stop on the way to City Council
Miramar started construction on the new faculties for the F-35, mainly on the NE corner of the ramp.
McClellan-Palomar released an addendum to their EIR showing that moving the approach lighting won't negatively impact any biological resources.

That's what you're looking for, isn't it? :whistle:

:haha::haha::haha:

superfishy

Sep 13, 2018, 2:40 AM

Are Frankfurt, Zurich, London, and Tokyo the only direct flights from SAN outside of North America?

spoonman

Sep 13, 2018, 3:44 AM

Are Frankfurt, Zurich, London, and Tokyo the only direct flights from SAN outside of North America?

Yes. You can also get to Shanghai via CBX/TIJ.

I’d suggest that these (London, Tokyo, Frankfurt (not so much Zurich)) are arguably the best routes in the world if one had to pick 3, for continuing travel to other destinations in Europe or Asia (BA, JAL, and Lufthansa hubs).

I’ve heard that SAN is also extremely likely to get service soon to Panama on Copa (connectivity to all of a South America), Korean Air to Seoul is also likely , and possibly additional European routes to Paris or Amsterdam (probably one or the other).

Will O' Wisp

Sep 13, 2018, 5:23 AM

Yes. You can also get to Shanghai via CBX/TIJ.

I’d suggest that these (London, Tokyo, Frankfurt (not so much Zurich)) are arguably the best routes in the world if one had to pick 3, for continuing travel to other destinations in Europe or Asia (BA, JAL, and Lufthansa hubs).

I’ve heard that SAN is also extremely likely to get service soon to Panama on Copa (connectivity to all of a South America), Korean Air to Seoul is also likely , and possibly additional European routes to Paris or Amsterdam (probably one or the other).

I've heard all the same things, and also heard Manila and Taiwan floated as a potential destinations. Lindbergh badly wants a direct flight to China, but the Chinese government has limited the number of slots to/from North America and has said it considers the SD region's to be taken by TIJ. Hopefully we can get something eventually, maybe in HK or Beijing if China wants regional destinations "spread out".

That's likely to be the limit on Asian destinations, seeing as everything else outranges the 787 and Singapore Air probably isn't to expend one of their precious 350-900ULRs on a route to SD.

SDCAL

Sep 13, 2018, 6:12 AM

[QUOTE=Will O' Wisp;8312940]I've heard all the same things, and also heard Manila and Taiwan floated as a potential destinations. Lindbergh badly wants a direct flight to China, but the Chinese government has limited the number of slots to/from North America and has said it considers the SD region's to be taken by TIJ. Hopefully we can get something eventually, maybe in HK or Beijing if China wants regional destinations "spread out".

That's likely to be the limit on Asian destinations, seeing as everything else outranges the 787 and Singapore Air probably isn't to expend one of their precious 350-900ULRs on a route to SD

I hadn’t heard the Panama one. That would be good to expand our reach into Latin America as Spoonman mentioned. I don’t think we currently even have a flight to Mexico City which is pretty shocking.

spoonman

Sep 13, 2018, 6:34 AM

Volaris was flying SAN to MEX but moved the flight to CBX/TIJ when CBX opened. Probably makes more sense as it is then an intra-National flight which is less costly to operate. Also any SAN feeder traffic is probably not necessary given the Mexican population in SD. On their website they list it as San Diego via CBX/TIJ.

IIRC, Alaska May add MEX as part of their growing ops at SAN. Not 100% sure about this though.

SDfan

Sep 13, 2018, 3:35 PM

Speaking of CBX/TIJ, I heard TIJ is a dump.

SDfan

Sep 13, 2018, 3:46 PM

Alexan Little Italy is nice. Whatever the fuck they're proposing in Makers Quarter is not.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-fifth-ash-20180912-story.html#

spoonman

Sep 13, 2018, 4:46 PM

Speaking of CBX/TIJ, I heard TIJ is a dump.

Meh. Looks nice enough.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flamesacourier.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2FTIJ-Airport-Concourseweb.jpg&f=1
LaMesa Courier

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-1473012360%2Fturbine%2Fsdut-a.l.-rodrguez-international-ai-20160904%2F837&f=1
SDUT

spoonman

Sep 13, 2018, 4:49 PM

Alexan Little Italy is nice. Whatever the fuck they're proposing in Makers Quarter is not.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-fifth-ash-20180912-story.html#

Wow, Alexan Little Italy looks nice. Did it get taller?

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b999c6e/turbine/sd-1536793706-rhygk9a8ms-snap-image/750/750x422
SDUT

Streamliner

Sep 13, 2018, 4:50 PM

spoonman

Sep 13, 2018, 4:58 PM

Alexan Little Italy is nice. Whatever the fuck they're proposing in Makers Quarter is not.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-fifth-ash-20180912-story.html#

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b999d0d/turbine/sd-1536793857-ve6zhyl9t1-snap-image/750/750x422
SDUT

You're right about the Marker's Quarter development. This looks like it belongs on the UCSD campus as student housing. Check out what the Civic SD design committee had to say about the project. Love that they are taking density so seriously. That said, maybe the city needs to upzone these areas instead of arbitrarily telling developers they can't build proposed projects. Not that I want this project, just wondering the best way to achieve a fair/predictable outcome. Not sure.

Jefferson Makers Quarter
The only project to get noticeable disdain from the committee was the seven-story Jefferson Makers Quarter that takes up an entire city block in East Village.

Of primary concern was that the project calls for 318 apartments, even though the site could potentially hold more than 900 units. The committee said efforts to increase density downtown, especially in downtown, were of the utmost importance and this project’s relatively small number of apartments was not what they expected.

“This project’s not big enough,” said Kilkenny. “We are constantly shoehorning in huge projects into tiny, small pieces of (lots) to achieve the density we want. While I think this project is beautiful in a lot of ways, for me, it’s not big enough.”

Nv_2897

Sep 14, 2018, 4:07 AM

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b999c6e/turbine/sd-1536793706-rhygk9a8ms-snap-image/750/750x422

WOW what a nice design! Im surprised its not shorter due to Little Italy being so close to Lindberg Field

Will O' Wisp

Sep 14, 2018, 7:41 PM

I know it's kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I appreciate this.

Infrastructure projects can often be larger and more impactful than skyscrapers, although I must say tend to be less pretty to look at. I'll expand on each to give a little context.

>Lindbergh dropped AECOM for the Terminal 1 redesign and is now going with Jacobs.
The airport authority is a pretty harsh taskmaster by most accounts, they pay out well but they expect the world from their developers. From what I've heard AECOM couldn't keep up with the numerous improvements they requested to the design, and Jacobs showed themselves well during the design/build of the new customs facility. One thing's for certain, the new terminal will set a new standard for customer experience and environmental stewardship if the authority gets its way.

>The Brown Field MAP project is going to present at the Smart Growth Committee on the 27th, the last stop on the way to City Council
After 12 years it's finally happening, the development that will utterly change the Otay Mesa region and potentially all air cargo in SD. After a CEQA odyssey nearly as bad as the Manchester Pacific Gateway and holdups waiting for the road infrastructure to be built out, by December construction should be underway (or the whole thing will dissolve in a mess of lawsuits).

>Miramar started construction on the new faculties for the F-35, mainly on the NE corner of the ramp.
With the basing of roughly a quarter of the Marines' F-35 fleet and potentially a new marine training squadron too, this multi-billion dollar project will ensure a continued military presence in SD for the foreseeable future. And it'll open just in time for the new Top Gun movie!

> McClellan-Palomar released an addendum to their EIR showing that moving the approach lighting won't negatively impact any biological resources.
That was pretty much the last step in ensuring the runway extension will pass its EIR, eventually. Sure, they'll probably be a few CEQA lawsuits, but in 20 years a flying from Carlsbad to domestic locations in the US will be a fairly routine thing.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b999c6e/turbine/sd-1536793706-rhygk9a8ms-snap-image/750/750x422

WOW what a nice design! Im surprised its not shorter due to Little Italy being so close to Lindberg Field

You'd be surprised how small the FAA imaginary surfaces are, they more or less only apply to Little Italy and Banker's Hill in the downtown area. If it weren't for the 1.5 mile 500' limit, most of downtown wouldn't have any height restrictions.

Streamliner

Sep 14, 2018, 10:44 PM

Could downtown's building boom be coming to an end?
San Diego Union-Tribune
September 14, 2018
Link to Article (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-material-labor-costs-20180914-story.html)

Costs for construction materials used in San Diego’s newest buildings are rising fast, and some in the industry say it might slow the building boom that has altered downtown’s skyline since the end of the recession.

Slowed rent growth and increased labor costs are also seen as problems for the building industry.

The price of steel — crucial for residential skyscrapers and high-tech office buildings — has risen dramatically since the Trump administration announced tariffs in March on nations importing to the United States.

The benchmark price for steel this week was up 31 percent from the beginning of the year, said commodities tracker S&P Global Platts. Prices for aluminum also shot up when tariffs were announced but have stabilized to about where they were at the start of the year.

There are enough major building projects ongoing, especially downtown, that it might be a while before anyone notices a slowdown in construction. Companies like Canadian-based Bosa Development have no option but to continue construction on major projects, such as its planned tower off Broadway that will be the tallest residential building in San Diego County’s history.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Nat Bosa, president of the company, said of steel price increases. “It’s costing us a few million bucks more.”

Streamliner

Sep 14, 2018, 10:46 PM

Infrastructure projects can often be larger and more impactful than skyscrapers, although I must say tend to be less pretty to look at. I'll expand on each to give a little context.

Thanks for that! I worked on a small piece of one of these projects, so it's nice to see things chugging along. I really should follow up on these more. Where do you go to keep up with this news?

Will O' Wisp

Sep 15, 2018, 2:13 PM

Thanks for that! I worked on a small piece of one of these projects, so it's nice to see things chugging along. I really should follow up on these more. Where do you go to keep up with this news?

Haha, there's a distinct possibility we've met before then :D

Wish I had a more formal answer, but most of it's just straight up old school office gossip plus having enough friends and colleagues in the industry that most news filters my way eventually. Since you're already in the industry, try asking your coworkers and supervisors about projects they know about. You'd be surprised how small SD can seem, there's a pretty good chance somebody knows somebody and you'll get another small bit of info.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 16, 2018, 10:27 PM

mello

Sep 17, 2018, 8:11 PM

I read that article and I just think that was Phillip Molnar needing to pump out content. "Look guys tons of cranes on horizon, but will it stop??" So many people who live in SD county never even go near downtown so he is probably just updating them that new highrises are coming downtown lol.

Why would Trump kill the construction/infrastructure industry just to make tiny coal/steel industy's happy?? Makes no sense especially because he is a developer. Total jobs related to construction is probably 20 times that of coal and steel combined. Hopefully this trade war tariff stuff ends soon and steel prices normalize.

spoonman

Sep 17, 2018, 9:37 PM

Will O' Wisp

Sep 18, 2018, 1:41 AM

Why would Trump kill the construction/infrastructure industry just to make tiny coal/steel industy's happy?? Makes no sense especially because he is a developer. Total jobs related to construction is probably 20 times that of coal and steel combined.

Because he's an idiot

The idea is that by temporarily implementing tariffs on you'll force companies to invest in manufacturing infrastructure stateside, which will make manufacturing cheaper in the US when the tariffs are removed. Which might be a good idea, if labor wasn't the primary cost of production, if the US economy based on importing physical goods and exporting non-tangible services, and if all the manufacturing companies didn't know that Trump is going to bow to political pressure eventually. So for now the maim effect has been to force American to buy higher priced goods from overseas.

202_Cyclist

Sep 18, 2018, 2:39 AM

Agree. Someone needed to write an article and what better to do than bash the President.

Short term steel increases are a small price to pay for correcting a decades long trade imbalance.

Please stick with discussing development because you have the economics completely wrong. This completely unnecessary steel tariffs are raising the prices of raw materials, leading to adverse impacts for users of raw materials. Whirlpool, stock declined 15% in one day earlier this summer as a direct result of Trump’s tariffs. So much winning!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/whirlpool-stock-plunges-as-tariffs-hit-suppliers-steel-costs.html

Trump’s completely unnecessary trade war has also created a crisis for America’s agricultural sector, which has been our second or third largest export. In fact, Trump gave a $12B bailout to these freeloading farmers.

spoonman

Sep 18, 2018, 3:00 AM

Because he's an idiot

The idea is that by temporarily implementing tariffs on you'll force companies to invest in manufacturing infrastructure stateside, which will make manufacturing cheaper in the US when the tariffs are removed. Which might be a good idea, if labor wasn't the primary cost of production, if the US economy based on importing physical goods and exporting non-tangible services, and if all the manufacturing companies didn't know that Trump is going to bow to political pressure eventually. So for now the maim effect has been to force American to buy higher priced goods from overseas.

The primary reason for tariffs is to pressure China and other countries to renegotiate better trade agreements, with the goal of reducing trade barriers (import tariffs) for US goods into these countries. This pressure is already forcing Canada and Mexico back to the table regarding NAFTA.

spoonman

Sep 18, 2018, 3:06 AM

Please stick with discussing development because you have the economics completely wrong. This completely unnecessary steel tariffs are raising the prices of raw materials, leading to adverse impacts for users of raw materials. Whirlpool, stock declined 15% in one day earlier this summer as a direct result of Trump’s tariffs. So much winning!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/whirlpool-stock-plunges-as-tariffs-hit-suppliers-steel-costs.html

Trump’s completely unnecessary trade war has also created a crisis for America’s agricultural sector, which has been our second or third largest export. In fact, Trump gave a $12B bailout to these freeloading farmers.

Judging by all the crap in your signature, you probably can’t be reasoned with, but correcting trillion dollar annual trade deficits are more important than short term stock changes. If stocks are your focus I guess you can thank the president for the tremendous growth in the market (I’m sure you are big enough to give credit since you can give criticism...you probably can’t though).

Surely you can realize that the tariffs are a strategy to renegotiate trade agreements. That is obvious. If you are not in favor of that, please share your ideas on how to renegotiate trade rules between the US and China.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 18, 2018, 4:51 AM

While I'm more than willing to gum up the thread with SD region airports, when we're getting random people jumping in to make political posts I think the expiration date on the discussion has passed. Suffice to say, there are some difficulties in the current economic environment and hopefully SD can work past them.

Back to our regularly scheduled programing...

San Diego approves plan to improve sports arena area with housing, parks, bay-to-bay trail
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-sports-arena-20180917-story.html

Hundreds of acres surrounding San Diego’s aging sports arena would slowly be transformed into dense housing, modern commercial projects, 30 acres of parks and a bay-to-bay trail under a plan the City Council approved on Monday.

The plan is to make the community more resident-friendly and less industrial by chopping up its oversized blocks with new, smaller streets featuring bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly plazas.

The population of the area, known as the Midway District, would rise from 4,600 to 27,000 because land with large commercial projects would be re-zoned for housing, spiking the number of units from just under 2,000 to more than 11,000.

The 52-year-old arena could remain as it is, be replaced by mixed-use development or be replaced by a more modern arena, although any new structure higher than 30 feet would require voter approval in a referendum.

While the new plan would increase traffic in the area, it would only be about 1 percent more congested than under a 1991 development blueprint for the area that is being replaced by the plan approved on Monday, officials said. That’s primarily because many of the area’s commercial projects bring more regional traffic into the area than the housing that would replace them under the new blueprint, which is called a community plan update.

Congestion would also be eased by dozens of road upgrades, including new freeway onramps and greater use by residents of the nearby Old Town Trolley station and some rapid bus routes.

In addition, the plan includes a bay-to-bay trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, which would connect San Diego Bay at Laurel Street to Mission Bay at the San Diego River and Interstate 8.

“This will set the stage for the type of development we want to see in the Midway area, like more housing and jobs for residents and a revitalized entertainment district that all San Diegans can enjoy,” Mayor Kevin Faulconer said in a news release. “We’re doubling down on our strategy of focusing new development around transit and job centers as we rebuild our city for the future.”

Critics said the plan should include more subsidized housing for low-income residents and should do more to help San Diego achieve its climate action goals of having more people commute by mass transit, biking and walking.

Some council members said those criticisms have merit, but the council still approved the plan unanimously after a two-hour public hearing at City Hall.

Councilwoman Lorie Zapf of Bay Ho, whose district includes the 1,324 acres affected by the plan, said it would dramatically upgrade the character and ambience of the area.

"It's been an embarrassment because it's been so blighted," she said. "With this new plan, we can say goodbye to the red light district of yesteryear and welcome in a new era of better transportation, more housing options, park and recreation facilities and a fantastic balance of mixed-use properties."

The plan was also praised by several private property owners in the area, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego Unified Port District and leaders from nearby U.S. Navy facilities.

"In addition to expanding housing opportunities with shorter commutes for Navy personnel throughout the San Diego area, this plan's timing couldn't be better," said Capt. Brien Dickson, commanding officer of Navy Base Point Loma.

Navy officials plan to redevelop their Old Town complex and SPAWAR, two large properties along Pacific Highway in the Midway District, which is bordered by San Diego International Airport, Interstate 5, Interstate 8, Laurel Street and the eastern edge of Point Loma.

"The Navy will strive to ensure our land use and development stays consistent with this plan and compatible with the surrounding community development as it continues to improve," Dicksen told the council.

Some critics said the zoning in the plan should require developers to make a significant portion of the housing units, perhaps 20 percent, subsidized for residents who meet income restrictions.

Mike Hansen, the city’s planning director, said officials prefer to make such requirements citywide instead of neighborhood by neighborhood.

He said an “inclusionary” housing policy with such rules is in the works and that it would apply to the Midway District and all other parts of the city.
Housing crisis prompts San Diego to pursue 'inclusionary' legislation opposed by developers

“We feel that the best way to address that issue is through citywide policy,” Hansen said. “Although we share your goal, we feel that adding it to one community planning area is not the right solution.”

On the climate action plan, Sophie Wolfram of Climate Action Campaign said it was frustrating that none of the 10 community plan updates adopted in recent years meet the city’s climate goals.

Councilman Chris Ward agreed, criticizing the plan for its projection that 89 percent of commutes would remain by automobile under the plan. That’s far more than the climate action plan, which calls for automobile commutes to drop below 80 percent by 2020 and to 50 percent by 2035.

“I’m not sure what the disconnect is here,” he said.

Alyssa Muto, the city’s deputy director of environment and mobility planning, said the city would come closer to meeting the goals in upcoming community plans for more transit-friendly areas, such as Mission Valley.

Community leaders, including the Midway Community Planning Group, have spent 11 years working on the plan that was approved on Monday.

“This is an exciting day for our community,” said Cathy Kenton, chair of the planning group. “Your action today signals the start of a new beginning for Midway.”

Kenton said she’s pleased the plan includes upgrades to about 20 intersections and new freeway onramps. They would include a connector from I-5 south to I-8 west, from I-8 east to I-5 north and from Barnett Avenue to I-5 north.

Kenton said those ramps would alleviate congestion because it would eliminate the need to take surface streets to make those connections.

The changes envisioned in the plan would likely happen gradually over the next two decades, but officials said they could accelerate if more than 100 city-owned acres around the arena – branded as the Valley View Casino Center -- get redeveloped quickly and serve as a catalyst to other projects.

Most of the leases for the city-owned land expire in 2020, and city officials have declined to discuss renewals so that ambitious redevelopment of the area can move forward quickly and smoothly.

A developer is also proposing an upscale office complex on the former site of the defunct postal complex on Midway Drive, which could be a catalyst.
Upscale office complex could spur revitalization of sports arena area

City officials say the area is ripe for development because of its central location between downtown, the airport, Mission Bay Park and the city’s beach communities.

The Midway District also has strong freeway access and proximity to mass transit and includes the site of a transportation hub serving the airport that is being planned by the San Diego Association of Governments.

SDfan

Sep 18, 2018, 4:50 PM

Ohmygawd stfu on trade issues ppl

As for Midway, I'd like it more if it included a referendum on raising the height limit there.

spoonman

Sep 18, 2018, 5:19 PM

Ohmygawd stfu on trade issues ppl

As for Midway, I'd like it more if it included a referendum on raising the height limit there.

Exactly. Can't build the needed level of density without increased building heights. Liberty Station is great and all, but 30' heights would make the Sports Arena area Liberty Station 2.0.

PS: Does anyone have any info/updates on the projects in Mission Valley (Riverwalk, Hazard Center expansion, etc?). Would love to see some of these happen.

SDfan

Sep 18, 2018, 5:34 PM

Exactly. Can't build the needed level of density without increased building heights. Liberty Station is great and all, but 30' heights would make the Sports Arena area Liberty Station 2.0.

PS: Does anyone have any info/updates on the projects in Mission Valley (Riverwalk, Hazard Center expansion, etc?). Would love to see some of these happen.

I know the road that is going to connect Fashion Valley with Hazard Center is being dug under the 163 right now. That was a major sticking point for the HZ expansion back in the day. But that proposal is nearly a decade old. Market conditions have changed. Hell, they built a BJs where one of the proposed towers was supposed to go.

As for Riverwalk, they're dealing with some complications. MTS doesn't want them to build a trolley stop in their project because it will slow down the route. They also want the developer to build a connector road right through the property connecting Linda Vista and Camino Del Rio South, which would essentially be a bridge (think freeway on-ramp style) right through the middle of the property. Of course, those are project killing proposals, so the developer is trying to get MTS to embrace an actual transit oriented development.

Not to mention MTS has land right next to Riverwalk and the FV trolley stop that they're sitting on because why not have an empty parcel in a transit priority area?

Fu*king A our transit agency sucks.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 19, 2018, 3:46 AM

I know the road that is going to connect Fashion Valley with Hazard Center is being dug under the 163 right now. That was a major sticking point for the HZ expansion back in the day. But that proposal is nearly a decade old. Market conditions have changed. Hell, they built a BJs where one of the proposed towers was supposed to go.

As for Riverwalk, they're dealing with some complications. MTS doesn't want them to build a trolley stop in their project because it will slow down the route. They also want the developer to build a connector road right through the property connecting Linda Vista and Camino Del Rio South, which would essentially be a bridge (think freeway on-ramp style) right through the middle of the property. Of course, those are project killing proposals, so the developer is trying to get MTS to embrace an actual transit oriented development.

Not to mention MTS has land right next to Riverwalk and the FV trolley stop that they're sitting on because why not have an empty parcel in a transit priority area?

Fu*king A our transit agency sucks.

I can kinda see their point though, at a certain point adding stations to a line actually reduces ridership as it starts to slow down the route as a whole, and Friars Rd is notoriously overloaded with traffic (which is why SANDAG is fighting to connect up the northern end of Civita to Phyllis Pl).

SDfan

Sep 19, 2018, 1:52 PM

I can kinda see their point though, at a certain point adding stations to a line actually reduces ridership as it starts to slow down the route as a whole, and Friars Rd is notoriously overloaded with traffic (which is why SANDAG is fighting to connect up the northern end of Civita to Phyllis Pl).

Sorry, but I'm going to have to politely smack this down.

We need to achieve 50% alternate ride share to meet our legally binding Climate Action Plan goals. Blocking new transit and building more roads is not how we reach our CAP and reduce GHG emissions (let alone provide housing that's sustainable and more enviro-friendly). And, no, EV is not a realistic alternative due to cost and adoption trends. We need to get people out of their cars and onto trolleys, in bike lanes, and on sidewalks.

MTS is a notoriously anti-transit organization, and their actions at Riverwalk exemplify this reality completely.

Hopefully smarter minds will turn MTS around. CM Georgette Gomez, the new-ish MTS Board Chair is working hard to change the culture there, and an MTS bond ballot initiative is coming in 2020 to help build more trolley lines and provide more frequent service.

As for your points on slower trolleys, and traffic on Friars, providing an accessible and reliable transit option for 4k+ new homes (8-10k residents) at Riverwalk is leagues better than a flyover causeway that will end up being congested anyways by induced demand. Road and highway expansion in Southern California is a proven model of failure. We need real alternatives now.

eburress

Sep 19, 2018, 3:37 PM

I know the road that is going to connect Fashion Valley with Hazard Center is being dug under the 163 right now.

I realize this was a side note and not the overall point, but FWIW I'm really happy about this new road. It should take some of the pressure off Friars, making it easier to get around in Mission Valley.

Nv_2897

Sep 19, 2018, 3:48 PM

I honestly hope the construction boom does not slow down. San Diego has so much demand for housing that it should keep up for a few more years hopefully.

mello

Sep 19, 2018, 6:03 PM

I honestly hope the construction boom does not slow down. San Diego has so much demand for housing that it should keep up for a few more years hopefully.

I think the issue is of course there is huge demand for housing here but can people afford the price points developers need to make their projects pencil. If you built 2000 decent quality 2 bed 2 bath apartments at Civita and they were only $1800 dollars per month they would go like hot cakes, but Sudberry will need 2800 to 3200 a month to make it work...

Do you guys think the market can keep absorbing more and more units at these high prices? Along with the Riverwalk mega development you also will have the Stone Creek project in between Miramar Rd and Mira Mesa that is 2000 units, then the huge 12,000 unit mega project just east of it.

I would say for a huge chunk of the county's population there is about a 30 to 40% disconnect in the price they can afford to pay for these newly built housing units and what the developers want to charge to make their projects pencil out.

SDFAN: and an MTS bond ballot initiative is coming in 2020 to help build more trolley lines and provide more frequent service. Haven;'t heard about this kindly share more details.

Streamliner

Sep 19, 2018, 6:27 PM

Regarding new housing, I just noticed while driving on the 8 that a large development has gone up in Grantville, (A specific plan area east of Qualcomm Stadium that opened a lot of area for new housing/dense development). The development is called Hanover Mission Gorge. They're all luxury apartments (of course), but it's still good to see these Community Plan and Specific Plan areas quickly allowing more development following their updates.

Do you guys think the market can keep absorbing more and more units at these high prices? Along with the Riverwalk mega development you also will have the Stone Creek project in between Miramar Rd and Mira Mesa that is 2000 units, then the huge 12,000 unit mega project just east of it.

Are you referring to the 3Roots development? It's to the west, and is only around 1,800 residential units. I haven't heard much from the Stone Creek project in awhile. Seems to be moving slowly.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 19, 2018, 7:03 PM

Sorry, but I'm going to have to politely smack this down.

We need to achieve 50% alternate ride share to meet our legally binding Climate Action Plan goals. Blocking new transit and building more roads is not how we reach our CAP and reduce GHG emissions (let alone provide housing that's sustainable and more enviro-friendly). And, no, EV is not a realistic alternative due to cost and adoption trends. We need to get people out of their cars and onto trolleys, in bike lanes, and on sidewalks.

MTS is a notoriously anti-transit organization, and their actions at Riverwalk exemplify this reality completely.

Hopefully smarter minds will turn MTS around. CM Georgette Gomez, the new-ish MTS Board Chair is working hard to change the culture there, and an MTS bond ballot initiative is coming in 2020 to help build more trolley lines and provide more frequent service.

As for your points on slower trolleys, and traffic on Friars, providing an accessible and reliable transit option for 4k+ new homes (8-10k residents) at Riverwalk is leagues better than a flyover causeway that will end up being congested anyways by induced demand. Road and highway expansion in Southern California is a proven model of failure. We need real alternatives now.

While I understand and to a certain extent agree with all your points, given the current state of SD's transit system building out a dense residential area without some level of road improvements may be counterproductive.

Lets just imagine for a moment we build this housing out without the street improvements. I'd give it around 3-5 years or so if we really hit the ground running today. So, it's 2025 and we have a few thousand more people living along Friars Rd, who are going to need commute to work. Say someone living there gets a job in Sorrento Valley, not an odd idea considering it's the largest employment center in SD. Well, the blue line will still be on the other side of the 805 in 2025. So for someone to commute from this new development to the largest employment center in SD, when it opens in 2025, the fastest way to get there would probably be to take the green line in the opposite direction to old town, catch the coaster to the SV station, then take the free shuttle to their workplace. At best MTS could set up a BRT or Shuttle line from UTC to SV, but no matter how you space it they'll be at least three transfers and likely a 30min+ commute. The more likely answer is that a they're going to commute via car and be stuck in traffic trying to get on the 15.

It's not that I'm against transit oriented development, SD just doesn't have the infrastructure for completely transit reliant development yet and won't for years. Even if the city approved the development in this form, it wouldn't pass muster in the EIR due to traffic impacts.

Nv_2897

Sep 20, 2018, 1:13 AM

I think the issue is of course there is huge demand for housing here but can people afford the price points developers need to make their projects pencil. If you built 2000 decent quality 2 bed 2 bath apartments at Civita and they were only $1800 dollars per month they would go like hot cakes, but Sudberry will need 2800 to 3200 a month to make it work...

Do you guys think the market can keep absorbing more and more units at these high prices? Along with the Riverwalk mega development you also will have the Stone Creek project in between Miramar Rd and Mira Mesa that is 2000 units, then the huge 12,000 unit mega project just east of it.

I would say for a huge chunk of the county's population there is about a 30 to 40% disconnect in the price they can afford to pay for these newly built housing units and what the developers want to charge to make their projects pencil out.

SDFAN: and an MTS bond ballot initiative is coming in 2020 to help build more trolley lines and provide more frequent service. Haven;'t heard about this kindly share more details.
I agree we need to create more affordable housing options

HurricaneHugo

Sep 20, 2018, 4:56 AM

City Is Poised to Back Down on Plan to Increase Height Limit – Again

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/city-is-poised-to-back-down-on-plan-to-increase-height-limit-again/

Streamliner

Sep 20, 2018, 4:24 PM

City Is Poised to Back Down on Plan to Increase Height Limit – Again

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/city-is-poised-to-back-down-on-plan-to-increase-height-limit-again/

Ugh, this makes me so angry. The people in this neighborhood are among the worst NIMBYs. Does anyone remember the story where they heckled a young woman at a town hall?

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/city-council/an-unruly-clairemont-crowd-asks-leave-us-in-peace/

“Live somewhere else!” “Come back when you have a mortgage!” “That’s not reality!”

Those were some of the things people shouted at 23-year-old Clairemont resident Gina Schumacher during a Wednesday town hall meeting after she said she liked the city’s plan to allow more homes and taller buildings around a planned trolley station in the neighborhood.

There were probably other insults, but it was hard to hear over the chorus of boos.

It was clear before Schumacher even grabbed the mic that the 300-plus crowd wasn’t on her side. Residents who couldn’t fit in the packed Bay Park Elementary auditorium peered in through windows. Signs saying “Bay Park isn’t Manahattan” and “No to Towers of Terror” dotted the seating area.

“Right now, I feel like this room doesn’t want me to live here,” said Schumacher, who said she lives with her parents and rides a bike because she can’t otherwise afford to live in the neighborhood.

By the time she said that the plan was meant to get people to drive less, to ride bikes and transit and pass one another on the streets, “instead of getting in our cars and going to go to work and be very anti-social people,” the crowd had heard enough.

It erupted in laughter, followed by the cascading boos that chased her from the stage and followed her out of the room.

spoonman

Sep 20, 2018, 4:38 PM

Does this affect the Morena/Linda Vista station area, or just farther north by Clairemont Dr/Balboa Ave? Morena/Linda Vista station area is ripe for taller buildings as it is more urban/industrial right near an existing transit stop in a semi-walkable area.

Will O' Wisp

Sep 21, 2018, 1:21 AM

Nv_2897

Sep 22, 2018, 4:53 AM

Does anyone have any development updates?

Will O' Wisp

Sep 24, 2018, 6:25 AM

Found a post on reddit with the most perfect aerial shot of Manchester Pacific Gateway Progress

https://i.redd.it/qkf9qohe42o11.jpg
Courtesy Matt_Skywalker on reddit

I was out there myself the other day, I'd estimate that the entire site has been dug up by 5-6 feet and those deeper pits are closer to 30'. Underground parking perhaps?

HurricaneHugo

Sep 24, 2018, 7:43 AM

How does a plane fly that pattern?

With Lindbergh and North Island there...

Will O' Wisp

Sep 24, 2018, 4:31 PM

How does a plane fly that pattern?

With Lindbergh and North Island there...

It's a very popular VFR transition through the Lindbergh/North Island class B airspace called the bay tour.

Nv_2897

Sep 25, 2018, 2:47 AM

Will O' Wisp

Sep 25, 2018, 3:26 AM

^WOW the Manchester Pacific Gateway is huge! I wonder why they are taking so long to demolish the first building

The Navy Broadway complex is still an active military installation and the overall HQ for all navy bases in the Southwest. Part of the deal the USN made with Papa Doug was that before demolishing the current building they're in he'd build them a brand new high rise office on the lot. Looks like most of the excavations are in the area slated for that, I'm guessing it will be the first part of the projected to be completed.

Alan in Clairemont

Sep 25, 2018, 6:32 PM

Will O' Wisp....That's correct....The first building to be finished will (supposedly) be the new Navy Headquarters building. They will then demo the old building and build a park in it's place. There are something like 50,000 truck loads of soil supposedly being excavated and they're building the whole project at once...I was down there a few weeks ago and the scale is impressive.

eburress

Sep 25, 2018, 6:54 PM

Ugh, this makes me so angry. The people in this neighborhood are among the worst NIMBYs. Does anyone remember the story where they heckled a young woman at a town hall?

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/city-council/an-unruly-clairemont-crowd-asks-leave-us-in-peace/

THIS right here is what I can't stand about so many of the people in SD. Bay Park is nice enough...it's fine...but as a random hodgepodge of mostly unattractive uses/structures, it's not like a few taller buildings are going to ruin some picturesque aesthetic. These people need to get over themselves.

Streamliner

Sep 26, 2018, 6:18 PM

Went downtown the other day and got to fulfill a childhood dream to go up into One America Plaza. Got this photo from one of the upper floors. Great view of Savina under construction. I would post a larger version but it's too big.

https://i.imgur.com/ObbLFoAh.jpg

Larger version here:
https://i.imgur.com/ObbLFoA.jpg

JerellO

Sep 27, 2018, 3:18 AM

Anyone know why they destroyed the facade of that one movie theater on 6th and G street?? :( I loved the architecture and now it’s this modern white looking thingy. Sad.

case_architect

Sep 27, 2018, 3:39 AM

Nv_2897

Sep 27, 2018, 3:44 AM

When the hell are they gonna get rid of Park Row and Harborview Apts across from the Manchester site? Such a waste of space.
^ Ive been thinking the same thing!

Will O' Wisp

Sep 27, 2018, 5:24 AM

When the hell are they gonna get rid of Park Row and Harborview Apts across from the Manchester site? Such a waste of space.

We can only dream....

Park Row is the single most NIMBY section of downtown. Built in the early 80s as one of the first postwar residential developments in downtown, the complex is laid out like a fortress with only a few gated entrances. It deliberately breaks up the street grid too, all to keep out the "riff-raff" of downtown. The average age of the condo owners is somewhere in the 70s as well, so they've got a lot of free time to sue. And sue they do, over the Midway and the Embarcado and the MPG (and I'm sure they'll sue over the Seaport Village redo too).

Amongst other things, they managed to have both the southern part of Park Row and the Harborview Apts height limited as part of the Marina District PDO. The Harborview Apts site could be raised to the same height as the embassy suits next door, but that'd just barely peak over the MPG and wouldn't effect the skyline much. The Park Row site itself is even more height limited, can't build anything over 5 stories. My guess is that the area is going to be mostly skipped over in this cycle. One wonders how much longer they'll be able to hold out though, at this point they're literally surrounded by skyscrapers and all this commercial/retail development will mean they'll be swamped with tourists trying to find a way between the waterfront and the gaslamp.

But, the office dept site and the substation yard north of F St both fall outside the PDO and aren't height limited in any special way. With all the development going on in the area I suspect someone is going to make a go on those lots pretty soon, NIMBYs be damned.