-
|
^^^ i agree, if the market can't sustain the per sqf cost it doesn't make sense to build the building at all, not to say well 450 ft is profitable but 500 ft isn't. Generally once projects get started and theres no turning back they want to go higher because it is more profitable to have more units if they have already determined a market exists for the product, even if they might take longer to sell. I agree with the posters above that the sole reason for the building heights not being increased is the imposed height limit, and if that weren't in existance some of these projects would certainly be higher
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We will use a net worth of $100,000 as the baseline. I would say that the ratio is 10,000 to 1. The next 40 years will certainly show a population increase. One thing to consider is that if you are planning to sell your McMansion in 20-25 years and retire on the proceeds, you may have trouble finding qualified buyers. Population trends indicate that the largest growing segment of the population/workforce will become less educated (by choice) and there will be higher competition for the lower paying jobs translating into less buying power per capita. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/futu...-achanging.pdf http://pewhispanic.org/topics/index.php?TopicID=4 |
Quote:
There are too many reasons why an airport isn't going to happen, IMO. |
The average person is going to say NO to a new airport because they'll never feel the effects of an airport that is too small and too crowded. How often does the average person fly? twice a year maybe? And that's usually maybe once in the summertime and once during the holidays. Delays and stuff during the holidays they'll play off as just the normal holiday rush, in the summertime, it must be all the vacationers. So to them, the delays don't make much of a difference because they only experience them once or twice a year. Unfortunately, those are the people that have the vast majority of the power and voice in this matter. The business travelers that come in and out of san diego once a week know exactly why a new airport is needed, but they are such a small percentage, they won't get their way.
I would think that a new airport out at sea wouldn't necessarily need a public vote, or a countywide ballot measure... I dont know. Same reason why a new airport out in the desert would be fairly easy, it directly doesn't affect THAT many people with construction and land. In the desert, you have to use eminent domain to make way for the HSR line, but out to sea, it would probably be easier.... except for the Coastal Commission of course. |
Hotel in Ballpark Village alarms housing advocates
By Jeanette Steele UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER July 19, 2007 DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The biggest hotel in San Diego County is being proposed for one of the city's most-discussed downtown properties: Ballpark Village, where people expected to see swanky condominiums, offices, shops and 35,000 square feet of affordable housing next to Petco Park. Drawings of a $1 billion, 1,650-room Marriott convention hotel are being circulated by JMI Realty, the property development company of Padres Chairman John Moores. The 500-foot-tall, twin-tower hotel already has attracted critics. Not only had JMI earlier envisioned condominiums, it signed a 2005 agreement with a labor and affordable-housing coalition saying there was “no intention” of putting a hotel there. Some coalition members are crying foul. They say the roughly 1,900 hotel positions created will be “poverty jobs” that will create more names for the city's affordable-housing lists. The agreement with JMI said most Ballpark Village employees would earn $10 an hour plus benefits, or more, but it's unclear whether that requirement would affect the hotel, they said. “We obviously will oppose this hotel as vigorously as possible unless they pay a living wage,” said Richard Lawrence, co-chairman of the San Diego Affordable Housing Coalition. Others, including city officials, are wondering what the change means for the rest of the 7-acre Ballpark Village site and what's ahead for the affordable housing promised there. Controversial project Ballpark Village became controversial in late 2005 after a city-brokered deal requiring JMI and its partner Lennar to include low-income housing in the project was on the verge of approval by the San Diego City Council. The developers and the labor-affordable housing coalition suddenly came forward with an alternate scenario that called for more affordable housing – but it would be elsewhere in East Village. Advertisement The compromise, after much rancor, was to put 35,000 square feet of affordable units at Ballpark Village as well as build some off-site housing. The off-site housing is now under construction. JMI Realty President John Kratzer says his company hadn't planned a hotel until Marriott approached with a deal worth pursuing. The spirit of the agreement with the labor coalition, Kratzer said, was that if JMI changed its mind about a hotel, the coalition was free to oppose it. “If the city doesn't want the hotel, we won't build it,” Kratzer said this week. “But it seems to me if there was an opportunity to generate $13 million or $14 million in (hotel taxes) for the city, that would be something they are interested in.” He also said JMI is not backing away from the on-site affordable housing requirement. It will be built elsewhere on the 7 acres, as was always expected, Kratzer said. Marriott International, based in Washington, D.C., has at least 15 properties in San Diego, including two hotels being built or proposed in downtown separate from Ballpark Village. It declined to comment on the latest project. Rooms are welcomed The Marriott project, which includes 60 condominiums, tops the list of at least five large hotels in the downtown pipeline. Hospitality industry officials say San Diego's booming convention business can use the beds, and the new supply might push down room rates in what has become an extremely expensive market. “We typically are universally supportive of advancing the room inventory,” said Steve Johnson, San Diego Convention Center vice president. “It adds flexibility for our sales team to book business.” Namara Mercer of the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association said, “When you have an increase in room inventory, the average daily room rates may go down. But the (hotel tax) to the city will go up.” It is also a possible signpost of the drooping housing scene downtown. Other projects once planned to be condominiums have stalled or the sites are up for sale. With 1,650 rooms, the proposed Marriott, once completed, would be the county's largest hotel by about 25 units. The Manchester Grand Hyatt on Harbor Drive has 1,625 rooms. Marriott calls its proposal a “convention hotel,” with 175,000 square feet of meeting space. A Hilton being built on port land across Harbor Drive follows the same concept, with 1,200 rooms and 165,000 square feet of convention space. Johnson said the meeting space in these hotels is too small to compete with the convention center and won't derail its argument for expansion. Center officials have said the convention complex, which has 1.1 million square feet of meeting space, runs at capacity and needs more room. Information sought The Marriott proposal has a long way to go before heads could hit pillows. The Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, last week asked JMI for more information about how the hotel would affect development on the rest of the site. The developer also is asking for at least six points of departure from the site's master plan, which will require CCDC approval. The Ballpark Village plan calls for 300,000 square feet of office space, 115,000 square feet of retail or commercial space and 35,000 square feet of affordable housing on the site. It allows the developer to decide where to put the affordable housing and whether to build condominiums or hotels. Kratzer said his company intends to meet those guidelines. CCDC Chairman Fred Maas said he is open to considering the hotel, but that the affordable-housing commitment must be honored. The Center on Policy Initiatives, a pro-labor think tank that was part of the Ballpark Village coalition, also is worried about commitments. “We made a deal with them, and now they want to redo this deal,” research director Murtaza Baxamusa said. |
Someone from the California forum told me to come here to post information about a San Diego meet we're doing on August 11. Details in the link to the thread below:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=134463 |
Quote:
|
A floating airport still seems a bit far-fetched to me. It'll be interesting to see how the idea moves forward.
I'd agree that it would be more practical to have passenger baggage check-in/pick-up and screening, and what-not, at a land-based location. A floating airport does not need lookee-loos getting in the way. Passengers and luggage should then proceed to the floating facility along a secured path so security issues are not a concern. If it's 10 miles off the coast... it should also be fast to cut down on time. If the amount of time it takes between check-in and take-off is too extended... the less attractive of a service it becomes for users. I am afraid a ferry driven method would be too slow. A ferry also looks more vulnerable to variations in weather and quite possibly security. As for some type of rail service to transport users, baggage, employees, and airport supplies/freight to the floating facility... that would be exhorbantly expensive. I'll guess $500m per mile to construct. 10 miles and we're talking $5 billion for the rail line. I am sure travel time to the airport would be at least 5 minutes, maybe 10 or more depending on the design speed and technology used. All-in-all, I'd favor rebuilding a replacement to Miramar for the military at a site of their choosing (other than Lindbergh)... and then once the military is functional elsewhere... to redevelop Miramar into a commercial airport. In the absence of any solution really in sight, certianly nothing before 2015 or 2020... I remain steadfast about support for California High Speed Rail as an option to reduce demand for take-offs and landings for in-state air travel between the major metropolitan areas and push-out the projected date when Lindbergh would reach its expected capacity. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oh goody, twin towers:yuck:
I think our city would win in a thread about which city has the most sets of twin towers (not that it's a good thing of course). New York might win though because of all the commieblocks. |
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.floatinc.com/Floatport%20color.jpg |
Quote:
Unfortunately, I do believe that the overall population will get younger, poorer and less educated in the next 25-40 years (based on population trends) in all of the US and especially in Southern California. |
Quote:
|
Regarding the construction of a multi staged airport, with parking and security and checkin in a location separate from the actual terminals and planes... the first one/two stages would be identical regardless of whether the airport were in the ocean or in the desert.
1. you would have residents of their area of the county park and take express transit to the main security and check in hub. (residents could also drive straight to it and park if they'd prefer) 2. hub would take luggage and transport it to the airport where you would just await your check in time and get on and get going. http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1...portmapuo2.gif The only question is which of the final spots for the airplanes and main hub is preferable. This debate is on the final location of the runways and planes. Desert: Pros- on land, land would be cheap, lack of residential noise, room for expansion, likely safe approach, good level of security Cons- to create a route to the airport you would either have to go through the hilly east county or around the hills. It would take a long time, and track length would increase cost. Not ideal "entrance" to san diego. Ocean: Pros- great welcome to san diego, innovative and instantly world famous, high security protection, infinite room for expansion, no noise for residents, easiest approach in the world completely flat, possible environmental pluses Cons- possibly very expensive, unproven at this scale technology, the how to get there debate, tunnel etc., possible environmental dangers |
I actually think placing all the security/check-in on land will actually pose a greater threat to security.
|
I suppose my only question is... is this topic the right place for this thread? I thought there was some sort of 'fantasy' forum or something. I reviewed the float.com web site... and because it is so shallow I cannot take it too seriously at all. I am afraid the idea of an ocean airport, although supported my an apparent legitimate company (???), will never float.
|
Quote:
I admit this board has been spending quite some time on the issue, but: (1) theres not a whole heck of a lot else going on development-wise here; if people have interesting stuff post it and our minds will wander from the floating airport (2) the situation our city is in with regards to the airport is leading people to explore alternatives, which I think is healthy. Even if the floating airport doesn't happen maybe some of the concepts and ideas could evolve into a more practical solution Since we will never have a skyscraper that can compete with the likes of a Sears Tower, Potronas Towers, Empire State Building, etc, and since the Coronado Bridge is nowhere near as asthetically pleaseing as the golden gate, maybe a floating airport is just what SD needs to put us on the map and be our architectural icon. If we are the first in the world to do it, it would definately make out city look great worldwide if it's a success. Many of the worlds greatest structural achievements that are admired and looked at as icons today were thought of as being loony far-fetched wastes of time and money being proposed by a bunch of crazies by NIMBYs of days past. I guarantee a floating airport WILL exist somehwere in the world in the next 50 years (a true floating airport as opposed to the current man-made island airports in Japan), so SD can either forge forward and take the challenge or wait and have Dubai or Sydney or Osaka or some other seaside city take the plunge. :fruit: |
Quote:
|
|
It's a little outdated (2005), but I really like the idea! It goes out to densely populated areas that the trolley system doesn't really serve.
|
Here's a map of where the monorail routes would go. Notice the connection to Coronado.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1...system_map.gif I like the Fifth Avenue line from Hillcrest all the way down to Petco Park, but I'm not sure how they were thinking to pull that off. In Seattle, the supports for their monorail system are placed in the center median of the road, and there certainly isn't enough room to do that here on Fifth. |
Floating airport???
Monorail??? Floating airport with monorail...awesome :upload_71700: |
Quote:
The plan mentioned actual specifics like where the supports would go. They said they would go in the lane which is used for parking and would claim only (only?) 1 out of 4 spaces. They also mentioned the details for the Coronado route such as building a Caltrava bridge. |
^Oh I missed it! Thanks for the information there. I'm totally for it though.
|
|
Quote:
I like his description saying that "Most of the worlds monorail systems are in the Orient...". Are these trains being operated by Orientals? 21st Century thinking done by a guy with a 19th Century vocabulary. |
Looks like NBC is moving closer to happening. Design-wise, it looks like something you'd see along the 405 in Orange County...:yuck:
Larger and more renderings: http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resour...1Submittal.pdf http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resour...s_20070702.pdf Panel Advances Navy Broadway Plan Downtown project OK'd amid concerns By Jeanette Steele SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER July 21, 2007 DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – The massive Navy Broadway project won pivotal approvals from San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency yesterday – though officials worried that it might become a playground for wealthy customers of designer shops and luxury hotels, not for the average person. The vote by a Centre City Development Corp. committee means developer Doug Manchester nearly has an approved master plan for 2.89 million square feet of hotels, offices, shops and a museum on a premier eight-block site between Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway. The issue must return to the agency for a formal vote next week. Four of the seven buildings he proposes also passed the first of four stages of approvals. But construction won't begin until after several lawsuits are settled, said Perry Dealy, Manchester Development president. The cases aren't expected to be heard until year's end. The $1.2 billion Navy Broadway project is being driven by a 1992 agreement between San Diego and the Navy, which owns the land. The Navy gave Manchester a 99-year lease to redevelop the property, but critics have argued – and sued – saying the 15-year-old agreement is outdated. If everything goes his way, Manchester hopes to start next summer on the project's first four pieces: a new Navy headquarters, a hotel, an office building and a twin-tower hotel and office structure. Most CCDC board members criticized and praised the master plan yesterday. “It's still not (supermodel) Heidi Klum, but it's not a gorilla either,” Chairman Fred Maas said. The board particularly liked the wide outdoor terraces shown on the lower floors of some buildings, which would let visitors enjoy the weather and bay views. If there's a San Diego style of architecture, some said, this is it. The agency had green-lighted an earlier version in November, but the developer pulled it back to tweak some aspects. One change was to narrow the central pedestrian paseo, or plaza, to 55 feet, instead of the earlier 80 to 115 feet. Some board members had felt it needed a more intimate feel. The loudest dissenter on the board was Teddy Cruz, a visual-arts professor at the University of California San Diego. He knocked the plan for channeling visitors into the paseo, surrounded by shops, instead of toward the bayfront. Cruz also said the museum site, at the south end, should be next to the 1.9-acre public park on the north end. If not, Cruz said, “this park just becomes the lobby for a hotel or office space.” He also said public agencies or arts-related groups should have been given a place. “Otherwise, this will become a shopping venue, another mall, that compromises the civic character of this site.” Board members shared some of Cruz's concerns about public access. The focus turned to the paseo, which Manchester revealed will be lined with high-end fashion stores. If that becomes San Diego's Rodeo Drive, it may make average people feel left out, some said. Board member Jennifer LeSar said that means the park, which the city will develop, must make residents of all classes and cultures feel welcome. San Diego's business community came out in force to support Manchester's project. “Make our front door something to be proud of,” said Scott Alevy of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. One of the few people voicing opposition was Bankers Hill resident Al Weiss. “We've missed the basic question,” he said. “Do we want something for us, a present to the citizens of San Diego? Or do we just want to maximize the commercial development of this piece of ground?” http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...03/navy430.jpg http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...03/navy430.gif |
I'll be there for demolition. ;)
|
I like the scope of the project but those renderings are uninspiring.
I also think this: Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?proj...rojects.detail |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
RE: NBC
When I saw the latest renderings after reading the article this morning I couldn't help but wonder how in the hell NBC's project design is getting worse as newer renderings come out. I now find myself longing for the original rendering that I irresponsibly derided. Tilt-up anyone? My only hope is that street life there is activated enough to divert your eyes from anything above ground. (And building one, the hotel/office tower is fine, but how do they manage to refer to the other hotel as spanish colonial?) Its like Gensler saw Cobb's Irvine Co. tower and said, "you call this a box?" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The trolley adds a certain special attribute to the city, but I agree about the cargo train track, that thing needs to be submerged or diverted or something. They always send them at the best times, too. Like a half hour before Padres games, or as soon as the game is over. It is quite annoying. I wonder how many complaints the city recieves every year regarding these trains.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Either way it will help out a lot. I drive shuttles for UCSD and both of our city routes are always PACKED with people (and not everybody showers or wears deodorant..). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought Schwarzenneger supported HSR.
|
Quote:
|
Guess what happened after the Padres game! They send a 46276134 mile long train out! Seriously, that needs to stop.
|
Quote:
I agree the trolley is important to our city but how seriously can you take mass transit that can be halted by two drunk hoochies in the middle of the street?? :lmao: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.