Remember, this is San Diego.

And I love it!

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.

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/

Except we say that every single day.

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.

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:

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. :(

Apology
 

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.

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

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...r-parking-lots

Signed

Now that's worthwhile. :tup:

Signed.

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?

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/get...OT=50045650620

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.

"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.

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:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Good news!

@Travis

So you think people would rather have this
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...sLGPV0XQyuJ6IA

As opposed to this...
http://images3.flipkey.com/img/photo...1355470386.jpg

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

This is great.

Moving suburbia toward a more urban fabric...
 

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/20...FloridaSuburbs

How to Make Suburbs Work Like Cities

http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/20...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?

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:

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.

^ 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. :order:

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.

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/...wn-apartments/

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...9efbd88a38372c

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...9efbd88a38372c

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...9efbd88a38372c

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

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

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

http://www.bridgehousing.com/sites/d...h-broadway.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.