I had mistook the Spire replacing Ruocco Park-- you're correct it is this Blue Campus/Aquarium that will directly replace it.
The Waterfront Park is very active because of its proximity to the large amount of apartments and condos in Little Italy (where there are fewer hotels in comparison to other areas like Seaport Village). I think Lane field, and Ruocco Park would be better used if there were more residential units near them. They are too far for activities like walking your dog. I live in Little Italy and frequent the Waterfront Park but Lane Field is just far away enough that it is inconvenient to get there--and it is also poorly programmed. If Lane/Ruocco had a play ground I bet you'd see more people. The playground aspect of Waterfront is always being used. Grassy fields don't attract a crowd--programmed elements like sculptures, fountains, playgrounds, dog parks attract users. I was not aware about the legalities barring residential buildings on those blocks, it does not make a lot of sense to me to allow hotels but not apartments. I suppose it is what it is. Thank you for your informative response, Will O'Wisp |
SDSU West looks like it will pass with Soccer City looking at a massive defeat
|
The crane for Savina has been taken down
https://i.imgur.com/VIRo98S.jpg *Credit to skyline webcams for the imagery |
That is one good looking skyline!
Imagine when Manchester's plan is complete Can it expand further to the left or does the FAA stop it? |
So... I don't know San Diego much.
Anyway care to explain why it hasn't broken the 600ft/200m mark yet? It is an FAA thing with the airport nearby? Cos that would suck... A little peak here and there wouldn't hurt. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Specifically, it's because airplanes should fly to their left when aborting a landing at the last minute. That puts their path over downtown. Many can make the argument that the southern portion of East Village wouldn't be in the path and the FAA could raise the limit a lil bit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And GAWD!!! That is so frustrating... Cities and airports you know! San Diego, Seattle, London... :uhh: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
From an air operations standpoint all that's really necessary is a sort of cone descending towards the airport, and when you're will to edge up on those limits airliners can end up far closer to the tops of downtown skyscrapers than in SD (as this airport in Brazil demonstrates). Honestly, I mostly put it down to perceptions. Even if covering downtown north of little italy in 800 footers wouldn't prevent safe operations at Lindbergh, getting so close to the tops of buildings while in an aircraft tends to freak people out. So CALTRANS limits building within 1.5 miles of an airport to 500' above the ground and the city limits (most) buildings to 500 feet above seal level. |
FAA is the agency to that determines permissible heghts in the vicinity of airports, through its obstruction analysis review. The FAA will look at distance from the airport and the height of the proposed buildings.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp This analysis is largely driven by ensuring that an aircraft can clear any potential obstacle if it has one engine inoperable during takeoff. https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...1_Overview.pdf |
Quote:
http://www.doav.virginia.gov/Images/...urfacesmed.jpg The FAA does not have any direct methods to enforce compliance upon developers, but since the FAA is allowed to decertify an airport for air travel state and local governments are heavily incentivized to refuse permitting of structures violating these boundaries, at least if they want to keep their airport from being shut down. The FAA even has even already written up a law for cities to pass just to make that easier for them. The Part 77 surfaces define what the FAA considers necessary for safe aircraft operations, but they're not exactly going to complain if your local municipality wants to be more restrictive than that. To that end when CA passed the California Aeronautics Act it required the Caltrans Div of Aeronautics to give approval to any structure taller than 500' AGL within 1.5 miles of an airport, which it never has and probably never will. This is why One America Plaza tops out at exactly 500 feet. However, portions of the East Village are further than 1.5 miles away from Lindburgh and the Part 77 FAA surfaces after taller than 500 feet in the area. But because the City of SD has decided that would just look silly the Centre City PDO limits building heights to 500 feel above sea level across all of downtown. Although the City Council can overrule this and has done so in the past, unless your project is going to be iconic as One America Plaza (or the Seaport Village observation tower hopefully!) they're probably going to say no. |
|
Quote:
I don't know how I missed that one |
Quote:
http://pvp.trb.com/4880098443001/201...=4880098443001 https://officeinsight.com/wp-content...k-Market-3.jpg http://www.ideadistrictsd.com/wp-con...hbors-UCSD.png |
I thought that tower was supposed to be ~42 floors. Did it change? If I recall, that is the tower that was conceived by another developer and sold to Bosa?
|
That first photo isn't Park and Market. Thats the Bosa development "Broadway Block" also going up nearby. Park and Market is the UCSD extension right? Too many big projects to keep track of, I love it.
Will Savina have anything on its rooftop? It sure look's like theres going to be something up there, hopefully not just for tenants. SD really lacks good rooftop bars/ clubs. |
I hope the Seaport redevelopment gets going before the next economic lull.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.