SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[aerogt3]

Yeah, I wish someone would build that. It would be iconic. Bosa may actually have the gravitas to pull it off if he wanted to.

I don't think anyone - even Bosa - could sell farmland at $1,000 a sq. ft. (~45 million/acre) when you can buy arable land for $1,000 an acre.

[spoonman]

I don't think anyone - even Bosa - could sell farmland at $1,000 a sq. ft. (~45 million/acre) when you can buy arable land for $1,000 an acre.

It's a tough sell, but people might buy for the cool factor, and grow some veggies while they're at it. I don't think the target residents for a project like that are the same people that would go buy a farm in Bakersfield

[mello]

Aero: You aren't "selling farmland" obviously you've never worked in marketing. This is an opportunity for some wealthy liberal "greenie" to live in on of the most unique structures in the world and the only one of its kind in the world. And it is right in the middle of a fairly vibrant downtown with a good amount of amenities and the waterfront close by with excellent weather.

I'm telling you people from Europe would come buy in this thing. Rich engineers from Germany or Denmark even Iceland would buy in this thing. There is simply nothing like it on earth and it is in a VERY desirable city. If you tried to sell these units in St. Louis or Dallas ehhhh no wouldn't fly but in DT SD and walking your dog on the waterfront or a quick drive to Coronado or Sunset Cliffs.... Oh yeah if marketed properly people will buy and word of mouth will spread quickly.

[spoonman]

^^ Well said...this would be a haven for architects and "greenies" alike.

[aerogt3]

Aero: You aren't "selling farmland" obviously you've never worked in marketing. This is an opportunity for some wealthy liberal "greenie" to live in on of the most unique structures in the world and the only one of its kind in the world. And it is right in the middle of a fairly vibrant downtown with a good amount of amenities and the waterfront close by with excellent weather.

I'm telling you people from Europe would come buy in this thing. Rich engineers from Germany or Denmark even Iceland would buy in this thing. There is simply nothing like it on earth and it is in a VERY desirable city. If you tried to sell these units in St. Louis or Dallas ehhhh no wouldn't fly but in DT SD and walking your dog on the waterfront or a quick drive to Coronado or Sunset Cliffs.... Oh yeah if marketed properly people will buy and word of mouth will spread quickly.

No one is "greenie" enough to waste $1k per square foot for space to grow vegetables. Because doing that is not green, it's stupid. It won't be built because anyone in a position to make it happen would agree with me - including very successful people who work in Marketing....

[SDfan]

Good transportation news:

Rebuilding historic U.S.-Mexico rail link

Advocates of cross-border freight train service are cautiously applauding moves by groups of U.S. and Mexican investors to rebuild two key rail links that connect Tijuana and Imperial County.

The projects are being formed separately, and it could be several years before any trains ferry product parts and finished goods from Tijuana’s maquiladora industry into the United States. But proponents said that taken together, the efforts could restore a significant link to the main U.S. rail system.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/11/tijuana-san-diego-railroad-tracks/?page=2#article-copy

[spoonman]

Good transportation news:

This would be good for the port, and the region.

[TeaPartyClive]

Good transportation news:

This would be a nightmare for BORDER SECURITY. I VOTE NO!.

[kpexpress]

What!!! Noooo this is just going to block Electra and not really add to the skyline much.... Damn I this whole time I thought it was for the office depot lot :(

When you are on Harbor Island and in Point Loma I hate that gap just to the South of Electra and I was really hoping to see that filled.

So why can't BOSA build that 500 foot tall vertical farm with condos at First and Island? I think if marketed properly you could attract international buyers that would pay a premium to own a unit in that building. It would obviously be the only one of its kind in the world in a nice downtown near the water with perfect weather. Seriously people from Scandinavia would buy there.

The footprint is actually purposefully offset from Electra so it fills in the skyline more nicely and doesn't block everyone's view.

[Derek]

This would be a nightmare for BORDER SECURITY. I VOTE NO!.



Now that's surprising.

[aerogt3]

This would be a nightmare for BORDER SECURITY. I VOTE NO!.

It [might] be easier to inspect rail cars vs. semis.

[Valyrian Steel]

This would be a nightmare for BORDER SECURITY. I VOTE NO!.

I thought with a name like "TeaPartyClive", you'd be all for it. ;)

[SDfan]

This would be a nightmare for BORDER SECURITY. I VOTE NO!.

You're not real.

Don't make me get in on this. I'll make an account called "MinuteManCletus."

[spoonman]

^^ Or it could be "Voice Of Reason". I haven't seen any comments from that poster in a while. :cheers:

[Derek]

^^ Or it could be "Voice Of Reason". I haven't seen any comments from that poster in a while. :cheers:


Ah, there's a good thought.

[S.DviaPhilly]

Went to the ccac website and they had pics of what the new office tower will look like on Island between 7th and 8th (Sempra's new home.) Just click on this link... A thick tower, but very cool looking!

http://www.ccdc.com/images/stories/downloads/meetings-and-events/event-calendar/2013/Cisterra_Drawings.pdf

[Derek]

Ohhhh I like that.



Short and thick isn't always a bad thing. ;)


That's a quality mid-rise.

[SDfan]

It's alright.

[spoonman]

It's hard to look like a major player with a stumpy building like that. I prefer their current building. This looks too much like the Comerica building already at the ballpark. Would be nice if they could increase the height, and add a few office tenants or condos.

[Derek]

Their current 70s dump of a building?

[spoonman]

^^It's International Style...I like it personally, but that wasn't my point. If image is what they're going for (which is, as I understand it), this misses the mark. Not a bad building, just not iconic. Guess I expected it to be taller, and more exciting. Hard to do at 15 floors. Also looks like the building already there at the ballpark. That said, I like it at street level...a little like their current building.

[mello]

Once again with this Cisterra building.... Hello Mixed Use anyone? Why can't they add 15 floors of condos to the top? Floor plate size? What is the issue. Like Leo the Dog said the inventory on condos downtown right now is almost ZERO... Why aren't developers moving forward with all those towers that died years ago. Now is the time to build while money is still cheap. I just don't understand why there isn't more construction activity and why mixed use isn't being considered for this site.

[Derek]

Why aren't there more apartment developments in downtown San Diego?

[spoonman]

I believe there are a pretty good amount of apartments, but not as many as condos. Isn't Blue Sky apartments? That plus Vantage Point and Treo are easily over 2,000 units, just in 3 buildings.

From the digging around I've done, it seems like condo building is definately on the upswing. Bosa is still chipping away, there are 2 projects in Little Italy, and 2+ in EV currently under construction. It appears many more have sought approval recently.

[Derek]

I guess I'm just use to Portland construction patterns now, we have tons and tons of new apartment buildings popping up, but not many condo buildings. :)

[SDfan]

We should see more activity within the next year. Unfortunately a lot of the previous projects proposed before the recessions are now being re-processed as smaller projects now.

[aerogt3]

Once again with this Cisterra building.... Hello Mixed Use anyone? Why can't they add 15 floors of condos to the top? Floor plate size? What is the issue. Like Leo the Dog said the inventory on condos downtown right now is almost ZERO... Why aren't developers moving forward with all those towers that died years ago. Now is the time to build while money is still cheap. I just don't understand why there isn't more construction activity and why mixed use isn't being considered for this site.

Inventory is definitely zero. I think the reason nothing is going up 1.) they are going up, they're just not in construction phase, so it's coming soon. 2.) developers may not be confident that things will be the same upon completion in 2-3 years. Remember the buildings that came on the market right as everything exploded in 2008? :eek:

Why mixed use isn't utilized more is beyond me :koko:

[S.DviaPhilly]

I believe there are a pretty good amount of apartments, but not as many as condos. Isn't Blue Sky apartments? That plus Vantage Point and Treo are easily over 2,000 units, just in 3 buildings.

From the digging around I've done, it seems like condo building is definately on the upswing. Bosa is still chipping away, there are 2 projects in Little Italy, and 2+ in EV currently under construction. It appears many more have sought approval recently.

Treo is not rentals, they are condos. Plus they are building Ariel Suites in Little Italy (32 stories), the 6 story apartment complex at 13th and Market is almost all framed out, they broke ground on another 6 story apartment complex behind Albertsons at 15th and Market, not sure if the towers at 15th and Island were converted to rentals, but construction has started there, and they knocked down all the buildings except the restaurant supply store to start building that 5 story building at Park and G st. I think there are enough rental complexes going up. So far there are ZERO condo projects that are in the construction phase.

I think the 1st one that will start is the Bosa building in front of Electra later this year. Right now there are 148 condos for sale in 92101. I do not understand why more construction has not begun either on condos?!?! Construction costs are down and it is not like they will finish a highrise in months, its going to take years to complete. I think they should consider converting Strata at 10th and Market from rentals to condos!

[Urbanize_It]

Treo is not rentals, they are condos. Plus they are building Ariel Suites in Little Italy (32 stories), the 6 story apartment complex at 13th and Market is almost all framed out, they broke ground on another 6 story apartment complex behind Albertsons at 15th and Market, not sure if the towers at 15th and Island were converted to rentals, but construction has started there, and they knocked down all the buildings except the restaurant supply store to start building that 5 story building at Park and G st. I think there are enough rental complexes going up. So far there are ZERO condo projects that are in the construction phase.

I think the 1st one that will start is the Bosa building in front of Electra later this year. Right now there are 148 condos for sale in 92101. I do not understand why more construction has not begun either on condos?!?! Construction costs are down and it is not like they will finish a highrise in months, its going to take years to complete. I think they should consider converting Strata at 10th and Market from rentals to condos!

Drove by 15th and Island this morning…the crane is going up!!! I think this tower and adjacent park will be huge for the area. So excited! :D

[spoonman]

15th & Island is 45 floors...nice

http://ccdc.com/scripts/gis/webportal/common/download.aspx?id=1065

[spoonman]

As I understand it, the airport height limit does not extend to the area east of the 5/south of the 94. As buildings like 15th & Island are pushing east, does anyone know if it will be possible to build taller in that area (Sherman Heights, etc)?

[SDfan]

15th & Island is 45 floors...nice

http://ccdc.com/scripts/gis/webportal/common/download.aspx?id=1065

This project is going to anchor the Eastern side of East Village. So excited!

[SDfan]

As I understand it, the airport height limit does not extend to the area east of the 5/south of the 94. As buildings like 15th & Island are pushing east, does anyone know if it will be possible to build taller in that area (Sherman Heights, etc)?

:hahano:

No. Never. Not going to happen. Golden Hill has a 3 story, 30 foot limit. Barrio Logan is struggling to figure out if anything over 6 stories is acceptable. I can guarantee you, Sherman Heights will be nooooooooooooo different. As tragic as that is.

:gaah:

[S.DviaPhilly]

The Signage is up on the library!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/photo-322_zps568b03e3.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Spiewak/photo-323_zps9ae4df2e.jpg

[spoonman]

:hahano:

No. Never. Not going to happen. Golden Hill has a 3 story, 30 foot limit. Barrio Logan is struggling to figure out if anything over 6 stories is acceptable. I can guarantee you, Sherman Heights will be nooooooooooooo different. As tragic as that is.

:gaah:

Frustrating how hamstrung we are sometimes. Between all of the different airspace regulations, the coastal commission, and the NIMBY's, it's seemingly impossible to push past the limit anywhere. Maybe National City...lol

[staplesla]

San Diego County officials are examining an elaborate addition to the Coronado Bay Bridge -- a two-mile bike and pedestrian path suspended underneath the bridge.

"I think it would be something that people would come to want to ride, like going to the St. Louis Arch or the Seattle Space Needle," said local architect Lew Dominy.

Dominy said the gigantic steel tube would cost roughly $50 million and be a part of the county's Bayshore Bikeway. The bikeway is already 60 percent finished, and when completed, it would be a continuous pathway around the southern part of San Diego Bay. The bridge tube would be a huge addition.

http://www.10news.com/news/elaborate-pedestrian-tube-proposed-for-coronado-bay-bridge-021413

http://media.10news.com/photo/2013/02/14/bridge_bike_path_artist_rendering1_1360894266193_373728_ver1.0_320_240.jpg

[spoonman]

^^That's bizarre, but actually a really good concept.

[kpexpress]

It's hard to look like a major player with a stumpy building like that. I prefer their current building. This looks too much like the Comerica building already at the ballpark. Would be nice if they could increase the height, and add a few office tenants or condos.

We all know that the spec-office market is not there....they're asking for the leniency to go between 14-17 floors.

[kpexpress]

Why aren't there more apartment developments in downtown San Diego?

What are you talking about? That's all that's being built in downtown San Diego right now. Blue Sky is 939 units. 13th/Market, 15th/Market, Ariel Suites, Urbana, Pinnacle, etc..... all apartments.

[Derek]

I guess I was thrown off by the recent condo talk mentioned the last couple pages.


I, unfortunately, don't check this thread as often as I used to since I moved so I'm not quite in the loop on ALL the projects. I apologize. :)

[bushman61988]

Frustrating how hamstrung we are sometimes. Between all of the different airspace regulations, the coastal commission, and the NIMBY's, it's seemingly impossible to push past the limit anywhere. Maybe National City...lol


Actually, National City had a ton of great high rise proposals before the market crashed. And the community (at least the planning department, elected officials) embraced the density, w/ several projects being 20-24 stories.
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070329/news_lz6e29qa.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3787/1562/1600/Revolution-R2.jpg

Unfortunately, only 2 of the proposed projects actually were built, Centro (4 stories) and Harborview (5 stories).



15th & Island is 45 floors...nice

http://ccdc.com/scripts/gis/webportal/common/download.aspx?id=1065

I went by the site last week and asked one of the construction workers if they were doing soil remediation and he said no, they were building the parking garage for one of the high rise towers. Hopefully this will be the taller one, and definitely extend the skyline further southeast. Exciting! I like the unique colors of these buildings too.



Went to the ccac website and they had pics of what the new office tower will look like on Island between 7th and 8th (Sempra's new home.) Just click on this link... A thick tower, but very cool looking!

http://www.ccdc.com/images/stories/downloads/meetings-and-events/event-calendar/2013/Cisterra_Drawings.pdf


This new Sempra Headquarters/Cisterra office building is definitely a downgrade and a disappointment from the Cosmopolitan proposal several years ago. And it looks almost identical to Diamondview Tower, in height, bulk, and architecture..

I think having an office tower is better for that site than the condos or mixed-use condo-hotels because it ensures the Ballpark neighborhood remains active 24-7, and I the neighborhood already has its share of hotels and residential units.

I just wish they could have made had the Sempra Headquarters in that Cosmo-style sleek 480-foot tower that was proposed...

[spoonman]

We all know that the spec-office market is not there....they're asking for the leniency to go between 14-17 floors.

So it is not officially going to be 15 floors? It could decrease to 14, or increase to 17?

This just occurred to be, but the Cosmopolitan was the same style as the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas, which was originally slated to be mostly condos. Our Cosmo project imploded the same way that the Vegas Cosmo project imploded, though the Vegas project was ultimately saved by Deutshe Bank.


San Diego
http://ccdc.com/scripts/gis/webportal/common/download.aspx?id=65

Las Vegas
http://www.vegascondoscene.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/33/files/2008/03/cosmopolitan-las-vegas.jpg

[SDfan]

Actually, National City had a ton of great high rise proposals before the market crashed. And the community (at least the planning department, elected officials) embraced the density, w/ several projects being 20-24 stories.
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070329/news_lz6e29qa.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3787/1562/1600/Revolution-R2.jpg

Unfortunately, only 2 of the proposed projects actually were built, Centro (4 stories) and Harborview (5 stories).

I was going to say, National City could be our one savior in the SD region for anything over 500 feet. They don't have a height limit, and they are much more willing to go up (thanks to their lack of land for development).

[bushman61988]

I was going to say, National City could be our one savior in the SD region for anything over 500 feet. They don't have a height limit, and they are much more willing to go up (thanks to their lack of land for development).

Well...let's not go nuts... ;)

I think there will come a time someday when the market or someone in San Diego challenges the FAA's nonsense blanket 500-foot limit. And while there's no height limit in National City, there's not the market demand for even a 300+ foot building. Also, there's really no high rises in National City except for the Bayview Condos 120 feet and the former Holiday Inn (100 feet).

[HurricaneHugo]

As I understand it, the airport height limit does not extend to the area east of the 5/south of the 94. As buildings like 15th & Island are pushing east, does anyone know if it will be possible to build taller in that area (Sherman Heights, etc)?

SH is my hood, so hopefully!

Couple of buildings along Imperial Avenue would be nice

[HurricaneHugo]

http://media.10news.com/photo/2013/02/14/bridge_bike_path_artist_rendering1_1360894266193_373728_ver1.0_320_240.jpg

It all depends on how it looks from other views.

The Coronado Bridge looks pretty iconic and don't want to mess that up.

This is great forward thinking though!

[SDfan]

Well...let's not go nuts... ;)

I think there will come a time someday when the market or someone in San Diego challenges the FAA's nonsense blanket 500-foot limit. And while there's no height limit in National City, there's not the market demand for even a 300+ foot building. Also, there's really no high rises in National City except for the Bayview Condos 120 feet and the former Holiday Inn (100 feet).

Didn't really go nuts. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I doubt anyone in San Diego would challenge the FAA over height issues. That would take strong leadership and an organized effort on the part of developers, politicians, and community groups - an effort not likely to materialize in SD any time soon.

[spoonman]

Damn. This thread is dead. We have a lot of activity starting up, but not a lot of action here...bummer

[mongoXZ]

Because we're all enjoying the great weather before it pours!

Haven't visited this site for the longest time. So after catching up and reading a few pages, SDfan: since when did you become such a cynic?:P

[mongoXZ]

Oh and I like that Coronado bridge proposal. That thing needs a little sprucing up. What happened to the fancy lighting proposal? Couple that with the bike lane and we've got a winner right there!

[Derek]

Oh and I like that Coronado bridge proposal. That thing needs a little sprucing up. What happened to the fancy lighting proposal? Couple that with the bike lane and we've got a winner right there!




Remember, this is San Diego.

[mongoXZ]

And I love it!

[SDfan]

SDfan: since when did you become such a cynic?:P

hahaha :haha:

You can thank my masters thesis research for that. I have a very in-depth knowledge of SD urban development history. Couple that with 10 years of tracking SD city planning and you end up being less than enthusiastic at times.

PS, I've been reading this forum since 2003... 10 years! I feel a bit old.

[spoonman]

Urbdezine San Diego referenced and commented on posts in this forum. They botched up whatever the were trying to say. Interesting nonetheless.

http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/

[Derek]

Urbdezine San Diego referenced and commented on posts in this forum. They botched up whatever the were trying to say. Interesting nonetheless.

http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/

San Diego has one of the more active Skyscraperpage forums and there's a nice discussion of the revised (shorter) towner & new Sempra HQ at 15th & Island, with a link to the staff report and renderings for project. Just don't try and tell this forum group that great cities occur at the street level.




Except we say that every single day.

[mello]

That urbdezine site is interesting but all we are saying is that the highest and best use for that Cisterra project should be a tower at least 400 feet tall that is also top notch at street level.

Regarding Golden Hill having a 30 foot height limit??? WTF, just another reason why every parcel in Downtown should be built out to maximum density if all of the surrounding hoods will shit a brick over anything above 30 to 65 feet (Hillcrest) it looks like we will really have to concentrate everything in downtown. I think that crappy grocery store on 30th in South Park is a perfect location for a new grocery with 5 to 8 levels of apartments on top but it looks like that will never happen.

I guess its all about Downtown and National City then for packing in towers. The Chula Vista Bayfront is also a good place to start going above 400 feet as well, so much room down there and no residents anywhere close by to complain.

[SDfan]

Will the kind people of Urbdezine please come and share their wisdom with us so that we will no longer be ignorant of new urbanism?

Please. We already know the importance of good street level activity, that's a basic tenant we don't need to keep repeating on this forum. What we want is increased density in downtown projects, because I can assure you, no where else could there be such developments in the city of San Diego.

You can be as "creative" as you want with your architecture and "dezine" when dealing with zoning ordinances, but you won't be able to make an actual dent in the region's housing crisis unless increased density (which includes height) is more widely accepted in the cities urban neighborhoods.

In basic:

Urbdezine -elaborate, otherwise, we already know. :rolleyes:

[SDfan]

That urbdezine site is interesting but all we are saying is that the highest and best use for that Cisterra project should be a tower at least 400 feet tall that is also top notch at street level.

Regarding Golden Hill having a 30 foot height limit??? WTF, just another reason why every parcel in Downtown should be built out to maximum density if all of the surrounding hoods will shit a brick over anything above 30 to 65 feet (Hillcrest) it looks like we will really have to concentrate everything in downtown. I think that crappy grocery store on 30th in South Park is a perfect location for a new grocery with 5 to 8 levels of apartments on top but it looks like that will never happen.

I guess its all about Downtown and National City then for packing in towers. The Chula Vista Bayfront is also a good place to start going above 400 feet as well, so much room down there and no residents anywhere close by to complain.

Love your ideas, but a side note:

The CV bayfront is currently zoned for an allowance of 300ft or less. The Coastal Commission allowed for heights up to 300ft, but not a single foot more. Give the practicalities of high-rise construction, I'm going to guess that the highest anything on the CV bayfront will get is around 240ft to 250ft.

San Diego county is boxed in when it comes to high-rise development. It's downtown (uh... Lindbergh) or National City (economic limitations). University City is nearly built out (exceptions for 7 more towers, all of which will be less than 24 stories, majority around 15 story mid-rises). Chula Vista's "Milenia" or East Urban Center won't be much in terms of high-rise development (I believe they're capped out at 15 stories or less). Oside and North County are 8 stories and less. East County is a joke. And our urban neighborhoods are revolting granny flats, let alone multifamily housing.

But hey, we'll deal with it, right?

Sorry folks. :(

[wadams92101]

Bill here from UrbDeZine, author of the offending comment. I'm a fan of your active and informed discussions, and didn't mean to offend. I was just pointing out that membership of the forum reflects the title of the website, whereas other groups may focus more on other aspects of new urbanism, not that your group disputes the value of street level activity - perhaps inartfully stated. Sorry for the offense and keep up the great discussions.

[Derek]

Bill, this a large forum with dozens of sections, mostly all of them relate to urbanism in some way. You should check them out. ;)

[SDfan]

Bill here from UrbDeZine, author of the offending comment. I'm a fan of your active and informed discussions, and didn't mean to offend. I was just pointing out that membership of the forum reflects the title of the website, whereas other groups may focus more on other aspects of new urbanism, not that your group disputes the value of street level activity - perhaps inartfully stated. Sorry for the offense and keep up the great discussions.

Thank you.

PS, I registered with your site.

[wadams92101]

Thank you.

PS, I registered with your site.
Your welcome and thank you for registering! BTW, please sign my petition - stop demolition for parking lots: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-san-diego-stop-demolition-for-parking-lots

[spoonman]

Your welcome and thank you for registering! BTW, please sign my petition - stop demolition for parking lots: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-san-diego-stop-demolition-for-parking-lots

Signed

[Derek]

Your welcome and thank you for registering! BTW, please sign my petition - stop demolition for parking lots: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-san-diego-stop-demolition-for-parking-lots



Now that's worthwhile. :tup:

[SDfan]

Signed.

[SDfan]

Bittersweet.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/23/san-marcos-smart-growth-palomar-station-sprinter/

Work starts on 'smart growth' project
SAN MARCOS — Crews have begun clearing the way for Palomar Station, a long-stalled residential and retail project next to the Palomar College Sprinter Station in San Marcos.

...

The project stalled during the real estate crash until Newport Beach-based Integral Communities purchased it in 2010. The company revised plans to reduce retail space, lower the project’s height from five stories to three, add more landscaped areas and lessen traffic compared with the original proposal.

[spoonman]

Bittersweet.

I don't understand why towers aren't more generally accepted outside of downtown for residential.

Many of the types of housing you see being built in Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and elsewhere is that 3-4 story townhome stuff with a tangle of little driveways so everyone can have their own garage. These places are so juxtaposed, that they offer terrible views, pathetic balconies, and hideous architecture. They also take up a shit ton of land.

Why don't more developers build a nice 10-15 story building, with a basement garage, and a nice open space/pool/grass on top of the podium. This affords better views, inherently better architecture, takes less land, and would create more walkable neighborhoods.

Does anyone know why this isn't being done? Is it that much more expensive, even with land saved?

[XtremeDave]

I don't understand why towers aren't more generally accepted outside of downtown for residential.

Many of the types of housing you see being built in Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and elsewhere is that 3-4 story townhome stuff with a tangle of little driveways so everyone can have their own garage. These places are so juxtaposed, that they offer terrible views, pathetic balconies, and hideous architecture. They also take up a shit ton of land.

Why don't more developers build a nice 10-15 story building, with a basement garage, and a nice open space/pool/grass on top of the podium. This affords better views, inherently better architecture, takes less land, and would create more walkable neighborhoods.

Does anyone know why this isn't being done? Is it that much more expensive, even with land saved?

It all comes down to the zoning. San Diego's zoning is designed to placate NIMBYs who want to limit density and development, so outside of Downtown and University City (am I missing any other neighborhoods?), its illegal to build towers. I can't say that I have a huge problem with restricting 10 story buildings in places like Kearny Mesa, but a lot of this zoning is designed to make 4-6 story construction illegal. San Diego's NIMBYs have decided that its much better for people to live and commute from Santee, Escondido, or Temecula than to let San Diego grow into a denser city. This must change, and the restrictions on urban construction must be heavily reformed.

[spoonman]

It all comes down to the zoning. San Diego's zoning is designed to placate NIMBYs who want to limit density and development, so outside of Downtown and University City (am I missing any other neighborhoods?), its illegal to build towers. I can't say that I have a huge problem with restricting 10 story buildings in places like Kearny Mesa, but a lot of this zoning is designed to make 4-6 story construction illegal. San Diego's NIMBYs have decided that its much better for people to live and commute from Santee, Escondido, or Temecula than to let San Diego grow into a denser city. This must change, and the restrictions on urban construction must be heavily reformed.

Good points. That said, if they can build 10 story office in Kearny Mesa why not 10 story residential?

It would make a lot more sense to have these type of buildings (see below...I know this is an old building) scattered around , which actually leave room retail, etc, than the full block 5 story stucco boxes we are being accustomed to.

I guess what I'm also trying to get at is that people have this perception that living in a 4 floor stucco box is less dense or crowded than an evil high-rise. Fact is that a high-rise affords better views, less people per floor, and more open space at street level.

This example is in LA, but looks like it is near Balboa Park or similar environs.

http://csmedia.mris.com/platinum/getmedia?ID=97781179338&LOOT=50045650620

[travis bickle]

It all comes down to the zoning. San Diego's zoning is designed to placate NIMBYs who want to limit density and development, so outside of Downtown and University City (am I missing any other neighborhoods?), its illegal to build towers. I can't say that I have a huge problem with restricting 10 story buildings in places like Kearny Mesa, but a lot of this zoning is designed to make 4-6 story construction illegal. San Diego's NIMBYs have decided that its much better for people to live and commute from Santee, Escondido, or Temecula than to let San Diego grow into a denser city. This must change, and the restrictions on urban construction must be heavily reformed.

You know I crack up sometimes by the comments here. Developers build what the market demands. It's that simple. My company is betting on urban, infill projects. Not because of any government or planners decree, but because we feel that the market is there for these types of projects. The environmental and lifestyle benefits are great and we wouldn't do these kinds of projects if we didn't feel they contributed to our community, but if there weren't a market for them, we wouldn't be developing at all. Zoning plays a role, as do the NYMBYs of course, but it's the market that rules.

[spoonman]

You know I crack up sometimes by the comments here. Developers build what the market demands. It's that simple. My company is betting on urban, infill projects. Not because of any government or planners decree, but because we feel that the market is there for these types of projects. The environmental and lifestyle benefits are great and we wouldn't do these kinds of projects if we didn't feel they contributed to our community, but if there weren't a market for them, we wouldn't be developing at all. Zoning plays a role, as do the NYMBYs of course, but it's the market that rules.

What type of buildings is your company interested in building?

Drives me nuts that many builders think that everyone wants some type of a Spanish or Tuscan ranch house, especially when it comes to condo projects.

[travis bickle]

What type of buildings is your company interested in building?

Drives me nuts that many builders think that everyone wants some type of a Spanish or Tuscan ranch house, especially when it comes to condo projects.

"Spanish or Tuscan ranch" may not be for you, and it's certainly not for me. But it's not for you or I to dictate taste or lifestyle to others. If people didn't want that type of housing, then no one would have bought them.

So the trick is not to demonize those who have chosen a lifestyle you don't approve of and blame them for all of society's ills. The trick is to create a lifestyle that, while respecting both the environment and the community, is so attractive that it becomes a viable alternative for most and an eager first-choice for many.

That is the type of building my company is "interested in building," and has.

[spoonman]

"Spanish or Tuscan ranch" may not be for you, and it's certainly not for me. But it's not for you or I to dictate taste or lifestyle to others. If people didn't want that type of housing, then no one would have bought them.

So the trick is not to demonize those who have chosen a lifestyle you don't approve of and blame them for all of society's ills. The trick is to create a lifestyle that, while respecting both the environment and the community, is so attractive that it becomes a viable alternative for most and an eager first-choice for many.

That is the type of building my company is "interested in building," and has.

It is incorrect of you to suggest that anyone is demonizing or dictating other's housing choices. Ironically though, these builders who build what they believe the masses want, in a way, dictate what many people will buy, as new construction is very limited in this market.

[travis bickle]

It is incorrect of you to suggest that anyone is demonizing or dictating other's housing choices. Ironically though, these builders who build what they believe the masses want, in a way, dictate what many people will buy, as new construction is very limited in this market.

Oh really? Have you not read some of the posts here and elsewhere on this forum? And here's a newsflash, builders who don't build what people want, go out of business real fast.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. If you think supplying a product that no one wants is a sustainable business model, well, you knock yourself out... :cheers:

[SDfan]

"Spanish or Tuscan ranch" may not be for you, and it's certainly not for me. But it's not for you or I to dictate taste or lifestyle to others. If people didn't want that type of housing, then no one would have bought them.

So the trick is not to demonize those who have chosen a lifestyle you don't approve of and blame them for all of society's ills. The trick is to create a lifestyle that, while respecting both the environment and the community, is so attractive that it becomes a viable alternative for most and an eager first-choice for many.

That is the type of building my company is "interested in building," and has.

Someone is being presumptive (and rude). :chillpill:

[SDfan]

Oh really? Have you not read some of the posts here and elsewhere on this forum? And here's a newsflash, builders who don't build what people want, go out of business real fast.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. If you think supplying a product that no one wants is a sustainable business model, well, you knock yourself out... :cheers:

You know, you can make a point without sounding like a pretentious asshole. :rolleyes:

[dl3000]

XtremeDave has a point because the market certainly doesn't dictate EVERYTHING about development or anything for that matter. It operates within the confines of government policy and regulation like zoning in this case.

So no matter how many willing buyers would purchase a condo in a 20 story high rise in somewhere like Old Town (just an example, I'm not saying people actually would), they would need some serious political clout to make it happen because the law as it stands prevents that from happening.

[eburress]

You know I crack up sometimes by the comments here. Developers build what the market demands. It's that simple. My company is betting on urban, infill projects. Not because of any government or planners decree, but because we feel that the market is there for these types of projects. The environmental and lifestyle benefits are great and we wouldn't do these kinds of projects if we didn't feel they contributed to our community, but if there weren't a market for them, we wouldn't be developing at all. Zoning plays a role, as do the NYMBYs of course, but it's the market that rules.

I think he's referring to the height limits throughout parts of San Diego which limit buildings to less than four stories.

[aerogt3]

What type of buildings is your company interested in building?

Drives me nuts that many builders think that everyone wants some type of a Spanish or Tuscan ranch house, especially when it comes to condo projects.

This is in fact what most people want, which is why so many are built. A 15 story building in mission valley may be desirable on a place called skyscraperforum, but the average American doesn't want it. The only exception to that is when people want things that are illegal.

[Leo the Dog]

It all comes down to the zoning. San Diego's zoning is designed to placate NIMBYs who want to limit density and development, so outside of Downtown and University City (am I missing any other neighborhoods?), its illegal to build towers. I can't say that I have a huge problem with restricting 10 story buildings in places like Kearny Mesa, but a lot of this zoning is designed to make 4-6 story construction illegal. San Diego's NIMBYs have decided that its much better for people to live and commute from Santee, Escondido, or Temecula than to let San Diego grow into a denser city. This must change, and the restrictions on urban construction must be heavily reformed.

We don't need towers to accomplish density. Isn't north Park one of the most densely settled areas of San Diego?

I would argue that because high rise construction is nearly impossible to build here outside of DT, it has actually given us a great urban DT core that is walk-able, transit friendly etc...there is still plenty of room in DT to grow and mature.

If SD over zoned for high rise construction then we would end up like DT Phoenix...vacant lots, land banking for decades.

[SDfan]

Good news!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/25/I-805-express-lanes-carpool-construction-caltrans/

Work to start on new I-805 'express lanes'
SORRENTO VALLEY — Construction is expected to start this week on two new “express lanes” along a congested 4-mile stretch of Interstate 805 between Sorrento Valley and University City, according to the California Department of Transportation.

The $86 million project would add one express lane -- open to carpools, motorcycles, buses and fee-paying solo drivers -- along each direction of I-805 from State Route 52 to Mira Mesa Boulevard, Caltrans said.

[spoonman]

@Travis

So you think people would rather have this
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ36U0yiXzxfaJ9ftyuvkC-PJFro7ka9wGvYBsLGPV0XQyuJ6IA

As opposed to this...
http://images3.flipkey.com/img/photos/4403/524403/luxurioushighrisecondowrooftoploungeamazingviews/large_524403-luxurioushighrisecondowrooftoploungeamazingviews-001-1355470386.jpg

BS. That is a combination of builders doing the minimum, and NIMBY zoning. Not the "market demand" that apparently only you understand.

[spoonman]

Good news!

This is great.

[travis bickle]

Hmmm… not sure why my post was deleted last time, but I’ll try it again. Seems this forum is still a land of thin skins…

Here are two links that some of you may find helpful. They both deal with moving suburbia toward a more urban model.

Urban in this context primarily increasing densities. These articles help show how this might be done. The key is convincing the planning/development and neighborhood stakeholder communities what the benefits of increased densities are, how those benefits are good for them and that they have nothing to fear by increasing densities.

This will be one of the great development challenges of the next decade.

The Fading Differentiation between City and Suburb

http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2013/Jan/FloridaSuburbs

How to Make Suburbs Work Like Cities

http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2013/Jan/FloridaSuburbs

Btw spoonman – that last photo you posted is of a project with which I am very familiar as it is very close to my home and I am acquainted with the rehab designer. The latest listing there shows a 1bd/1ba for about $450k. HOA fees come in at just over $500/mo. It’s a lovely building in a lovely neighborhood.

Anyone who can afford it can live there. Those who can’t find another place: usually cheaper. Some may have to choose that wretched complex you show in your top photo. And when they can afford to leave, they probably will. People making their own choices trying to get the most value for their money based on their own individual wants and needs. And that’s how “market demand” works. Now you know!:cheers:

Your friend,

P.A.

Edit - Spoonman, why did you remove the photo of 3200 6th Ave?

[spoonman]

Some may have to choose that wretched complex you show in your top photo. And when they can afford to leave, they probably will.

Why would anyone leave that place? As you keep saying, people prefer those dwellings.

Dickle - Maybe you should think next time before jumping down everyone's throats. I was attempting to start a dialogue about why we build the way we do before you began working yourself into a lather about things people MIGHT have or have not inferred. :tup:

[aerogt3]

@Travis

So you think people would rather have this
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ36U0yiXzxfaJ9ftyuvkC-PJFro7ka9wGvYBsLGPV0XQyuJ6IA

As opposed to this...
http://images3.flipkey.com/img/photos/4403/524403/luxurioushighrisecondowrooftoploungeamazingviews/large_524403-luxurioushighrisecondowrooftoploungeamazingviews-001-1355470386.jpg

BS. That is a combination of builders doing the minimum, and NIMBY zoning. Not the "market demand" that apparently only you understand.

If they are paying for the home themselves, they are overwhelmingly going to choose the first image. Have a look at median household income for SD city and then you will see why most do not want to pay $800/sqft.

[spoonman]

^ OK. So the bottom building is priced higher. Should it be? Sure, it is much higher quality, but has many more units on much less land. One might argue that if these projects weren't as scarce, they might be of comparable cost to the building on top. I may have used an example that is of too high of quality for the high rise, but I believe that if this type of construction was more abundant outside of downtown, there would be more buyers, and lower price points. Problem is it is not offered as an alternative.

[travis bickle]

^ OK. So the bottom building is priced higher. Should it be? Sure, it is much higher quality, but has many more units on much less land. One might argue that if these projects weren't as scarce, they might be of comparable cost to the building on top. I may have used an example that is of too high of quality for the high rise, but I believe that if this type of construction was more abundant outside of downtown, there would be more buyers, and lower price points. Problem is it is not offered as an alternative.

Spoonman - What you "believe" means nothing. If the higher quality building has no buyers, the price will come down until people are willing to buy/rent. If the price drops to much, the developer loses his shirt.

Residential high rises (and even mid-rises of 6 stories+) work best if there is a surrounding neighborhood of services, preferably within walking distance. Without that kind of neighborhood support structure, it doesn't matter how an area is zoned. No one will risk their money building a highrise where it can't be economically feasible. Zoning is a factor, but it is negligible. The market is the overwhelmingly decisive factor.

Right now, your zoning argument works best in Hillcrest, where the newly approved 65' height limit is probably artificially low, and along the coast, where the 30' height limit is undeniably low. But both of those are high-value locations where anything built would be out of most people's price range anyway. Those are distinct exceptions.

Development, like politics, is the art of the possible. You keep whining about something that for the foreseeable future, is simply impossible.

You must just want to stir the pot here. No one is this stupid...

[spoonman]

My contention has never been that there would be high rises everywhere if zoning wasn't a restriction. Nor am I suggesting that buildings should be built which do not pencil out. I'm raising the question of whether buildings could build up versus out (for the comparable price), as this may potentially be a more attractive alternative from a resident and city standpoint.

If you think that high rise construction on smaller lots is more expensive that 3 story construction on X times more land, then you just offered your opinion to the question I posed. It's very possible current land prices are likely not high enough to tip the scales in most locations. All that said, it would be nice to see many home builders try a different approach, where feasible. Maybe they have, I wouldn't know. From an outsiders perspective, it looks like they are building the same stuff they have for decades because they can get away with it due to the perpetual lack of inventory.

[SDfan]

I really like this discussion between travis and spoonman, but travis you really don't know how to tone down the jack ass-ery, do you?

While we aren't always so polite, I would appreciate it if you would make your points (good points, I might add) without putting others down without warrant.

[aerogt3]

but I believe that if this type of construction was more abundant outside of downtown, there would be more buyers, and lower price points. Problem is it is not offered as an alternative.

This makes no sense at all. You are saying that an undesirable product which is out of peoples' price range will become more desirable if more of them are built? This completely flies in the face of pretty much all economic principles.

That's like telling GM: even though the Pontiac Aztec had zero public interest, horrible sales figures, and was wildly unpopular, the solution is to just build more of them. Because eventually, once there are enough Aztecs out there, people will buy them. The reality is that no one would buy them and would instead go buy Fords or Toyotas. Which is exactly what happened.

YOU want dense construction in that area. The people who actually live there don't, and as a result, no one can make money building the type of buildings that you want. You can "believe" what you want, but everyone with the data, information, and money believes something completely different. If a developer built the type of building you're advocating, they would have no demand, and would have to drop the price to the point that they went out of business.

You can zone all of SD in it's entirety for towers of unlimited height, and you will still see them being build in the same places they are now.

[SDfan]

This makes no sense at all. You are saying that an undesirable product which is out of peoples' price range will become more desirable if more of them are built? This completely flies in the face of pretty much all economic principles.

That's like telling GM: even though the Pontiac Aztec had zero public interest, horrible sales figures, and was wildly unpopular, the solution is to just build more of them. Because eventually, once there are enough Aztecs out there, people will buy them. The reality is that no one would buy them and would instead go buy Fords or Toyotas. Which is exactly what happened.

YOU want dense construction in that area. The people who actually live there don't, and as a result, no one can make money building the type of buildings that you want. You can "believe" what you want, but everyone with the data, information, and money believes something completely different. If a developer built the type of building you're advocating, they would have no demand, and would have to drop the price to the point that they went out of business.

You can zone all of SD in it's entirety for towers of unlimited height, and you will still see them being build in the same places they are now.

I don't agree with this completely.

I don't think urban living is undesirable, if you look at many of the projects built over the last few years both downtown and in other areas - dense, smart growth projects have become more desirable.

Unfortunately for you aero, San Diego is going to have to somehow fit in another million people within the next 40 years, and in case you haven't noticed, we have no where to grow outwards. Tract home development is basically done in SD county.

So, for those people who live in neighborhoods who are against dense development, all I have to say is, what then? Do we stop building homes so that you can maintain your "quality of life" while our children, businesses, and growth are forced out of the region? I always think its a fanciful and selfish idea for a California craftsman home owner in Hillcrest or Bankers Hill or South Park to think that their communities should remain stagnant when what we need is smart infill development in places where they could be most successful.

It is not just spoonman who wants density increased. Its our future residents, our economic security, and our regions affordability that demands it.

Saying otherwise is simply putting ones head in the sand.

I don't think San Diego will see the day where 10-20 story towers will dot the urban landscape. San Diego is slow to change - I think travis' ideas are more likely to come to fruition. But I do know that the NIMBY's in the urban rings are going to have to compromise more when it comes to urban infill, otherwise we're going to end up with an even less affordable, less sustainable, and less economically attractive community in the decades to come.

[spoonman]

This makes no sense at all. You are saying that an undesirable product which is out of peoples' price range will become more desirable if more of them are built? This completely flies in the face of pretty much all economic principles.

That's like telling GM: even though the Pontiac Aztec had zero public interest, horrible sales figures, and was wildly unpopular, the solution is to just build more of them. Because eventually, once there are enough Aztecs out there, people will buy them. The reality is that no one would buy them and would instead go buy Fords or Toyotas. Which is exactly what happened.

YOU want dense construction in that area. The people who actually live there don't, and as a result, no one can make money building the type of buildings that you want. You can "believe" what you want, but everyone with the data, information, and money believes something completely different. If a developer built the type of building you're advocating, they would have no demand, and would have to drop the price to the point that they went out of business.

You can zone all of SD in it's entirety for towers of unlimited height, and you will still see them being build in the same places they are now.

I never claimed we'd have towers everywhere if only XYZ. Get a grip. I'm saying hey guys, why do you think we build the way we do? As there MAY (this is the fucking hypothesis) be other ways to build economically viable buildings without repeating the past again and again. And again, if you think all people want to live in are stucco boxes, then great, you just lent your opinion. And I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. And yes, it's not about what 1 or 2 people want, but what is "popular"

PS: High-rise living has become very popular...look how many have been built and sold downtown in the last 10 years. Mid-rise buildings MIGHT be even more popular in UTC, Kearny Mesa, etc, (with people that want to live in them, not with the NIMBY's) as it MIGHT be a less radical move for people used to single family homes in the burbs than moving downtown with the homeless and other things they may not be used to. They would enjoy better views, shorter commutes, better amenities, etc. But we don't know because nobody has tried building one. Have they researched it? Don't know. Seemed to work along the beach before the Coastal Commission was formed, but to their credit, those locations had awesome views and beach access.

I'm about done with this discussion, because it has been anything but. I consider most of the regulars on here as friends, and bashing each other isn't why I'm here. This is not an professional industry forum, this is a hobby for most here, and it is the appropriate place to raise questions, and not get angry and jump to conclusions. Again, I posed the question of why we build what we build in this city, and offered my opinion that the form factor of these buildings could be different to improve the experience for the occupants, and city alike, and at a similar price point, and that nobody has tried to do this outside downtown. My opinion is that developers have been happy woth the status quo because it pencils out. No need to get angry. That is my opinion.

[SDfan]

I'm about done with this discussion, because it has been anything but. I consider most of the regulars on here as friends, and bashing each other isn't why I'm here. This is not an professional industry forum, this is a hobby for most here, and it is the appropriate place to raise questions, and not get angry and jump to conclusions.

Agreed. :order:

[Chapelo]

They've fenced off the site for the new Irvine Company tower in UTC, across the street from La Jolla Commons (at Executive and Judicial). Brush clearing is underway, looks like we could see construction real soon.

[spoonman]

Blue Sky is moving forward. The East tower will be complete in 2015, followed by the West tower in 2017.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/27/blue-sky-project-downtown-apartments/

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/02/27/Cover_Sheet_Perspective_t940.jpg?13521e6083d8523caab49d2c279efbd88a38372c

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/02/27/A_Street_Park_t940.jpg?13521e6083d8523caab49d2c279efbd88a38372c

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/photos/2013/02/27/B_Street_Plaza_from_8th_t940.jpg?13521e6083d8523caab49d2c279efbd88a38372c

[spoonman]

They've fenced off the site for the new Irvine Company tower in UTC, across the street from La Jolla Commons (at Executive and Judicial). Brush clearing is underway, looks like we could see construction real soon.

You can follow the progress here
http://www.earthcam.com/client/hines/

[spoonman]

9th and Broadway has broken ground...it will be 17 floors

http://bridgehousing.com/news-media/celadon-groundbreaking

http://www.bridgehousing.com/sites/default/files/prop_9th-broadway.jpg

[aerogt3]

I don't agree with this completely.

I don't think urban living is undesirable, if you look at many of the projects built over the last few years both downtown and in other areas - dense, smart growth projects have become more desirable.

Urban living is highly desirable to me. But it's not highly desirable to Americans or San Diegans. You can point to projects that have been built, but as a percentage of the population it's very small.

Unfortunately for you aero......

It's not unfortunate for me. You are preaching to the choir on this one. It's unfortunate for the people who like the cheap, stucco clad tuscan ranch crap that gets built inside the city center. They are the majority. Americans, particularly those with families, like single family homes and dislike dense urban living. THAT is the reason this stuff is built, not because developers have some kind of bias towards it.

My point is not anti-urbanization, I'm simply pointing out to spoonman that this stuff is built because it's what people want, not because developers have some kind of agenda.

[aerogt3]

PS: High-rise living has become very popular...look how many have been built and sold downtown in the last 10 years.

A lot of downtown condos are second homes, etc. That said, the percentage of San Diegans living in dense high rises is..... extremely small. They are hardly "popular." They are very popular with downtown residents, and very popular to me, and very popular on this forum. But they are not popular with San Diegans in general.

Mid-rise buildings MIGHT be even more popular in UTC, Kearny Mesa, etc, (with people that want to live in them, not with the NIMBY's) as it MIGHT be a less radical move for people used to single family homes in the burbs than moving downtown with the homeless and other things they may not be used to. They would enjoy better views, shorter commutes, better amenities, etc. But we don't know because nobody has tried building one. Have they researched it? Don't know.

This is where you go wrong. Developers drop hundreds of millions of dollars into housing projects. They have boards, investors, and lenders to convince. They do not blindly go "let's churn out some highrises/midrises/single family homes and see how it goes." Developers cater to demand and they know what buyers and build what buyers want. Lack of DEMAND is responsible for not having midrises in UTC, not developers.