Quote:
|
I tried calling BOSA and 800 Broadway Tower is for sale....
Concerning the Semi cousin to Pacific Gate BOSA is very tight lipped, when it was originally talked about in the UT in late 16 early 17 I believe the article said it was penciled in for groundbreaking in 2019. Spoonman: The Block project is rentals so that won't keep him from starting this one on water front. They probably want to make sure Savina is all sold out first or something then proceed on this one. BOSA is so rich he could just start building anytime (just googled networth 3 billion in late 2016).
Just got an email from Commercial Real Estate guy and the 41 floor 800 Broadway project is now for sale with full entitlements to build. I wonder if they market these projects to billionaires in Asia or Brazil lol. |
Does anyone know when cranes will appear on the Manchester pacific gateway i know they still have to continue demolition on one last building
|
Ive noticed that in downtown San Diego there are so many buildings that are getting renovated which is surprising because i thought they would demolish them but hey if you can then why not
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What's rising on northside of Market St between 11th and 12th?
It's already above ground |
Quote:
The grass always looks oh so very greener my friend.... For a coastal Californian city, SD is reasonable well-managed and fairly development oriented. In SD the city government cheers on major projects, in LA no one really cares and in SF they fight you unless you bend over backwards for them. Everything in SEA is subject to the infamous "Seattle process", i.e. community meeting after community meeting until everyone is so sick of hearing about your project they finally approve it. It's honestly not a development culture I would choose to replicate, and it's scarring most of the companies you cite away (Boeing moved to Chicago in 2001, Amazon is halting its growth with HQ2, and Microsoft is HQed in Redmond rather than the city itself). One of SD's big advantages is actually that it's generally cheaper to build here than in most west coast cities. It certainly isn't Texas, but at the rate things are going Texas isn't going to stay "Texas" for very much longer. It's always worth keeping in mind that local leaders are supposed to represent the current residents of their city, not the hypothetical citizens who might move there if radical changes to the economy were put in place. SD is growing about as fast as it can without damaging the industries most people living here currently rely on. You can't relocate the airport without jeopardizing the military's presence in SD, sports teams generally lose money for their city, and doubling down on nightlife might just lose us our tourism image (it also might not, but it won't kill us to take a wait and see approach before we end up with a reputation like we did back in the stingaree days). Lemme tell ya, when you're actually in the thick of it things aren't cut and dry. There isn't a "press here to double your economy" button, every choice has risks. Domestic tourism and the military are safe bets, people are always going to love 80 deg weather and America is always going to need a presence in the pacific. That's a security many cities would envy. Quote:
|
Quote:
In other cities you have liberals who are all for density, and thinking big and bold with regards to iconic architecture and investing in infrastructure. But in SD, you have old crank liberals who actually think like the old crank conservatives I mentioned above when it comes to development. These aren’t the progressive minds fueling the tech industry in the Bay Area, or even the arts in other cities, these are dried-up NIMBYs who choose SD because they think LA, SF and NYC are too busy and fast for them. Anyway, I don’t mean to be too negative or stereotype, but these are my honest impressions of SD compared to other large cities. I CHOOSE to live here because I think the positives outweighs the negatives, but I’m also not going to pretend SD is managed well like some posters are suggesting. I agree with you, it’s not. I mean look at all the corruption and problems with SANDAG, who can say that’s managed well. The politics here, and I stress again on BOTH SIDES, are ridiculous. Here’s an example of what I mean: the people promoting the 4am booze curfew are Democrats in the legislature (the author of the bill is from the Bay Area). Democrats across the state support it. But one of our Democratic representatives, Lorena Gonzales, is apparently a large part of the reason SD isn’t included. She is actually quoted as saying “nothing good happens after midnight” when asked about her opposition to the bill. It sounds like she doesn’t even like having a 2am curfew. So she goes against her liberal colleagues and sides with the old cranks who want SD to be a sleepy bedroom community. It’s like SD has its own brand of old crank NIMBYism that straddles the Republicans and Democrats here. |
Quote:
1. I firmly believe that the decision to not move the airport to Miramar hurt our city tremendously. It was also hideously mismanaged. The city put out a half-assed vote that wasn’t even legally binding, it was more like a “feeler” to see what people thought, but it ended-up determining the fate of our airport for the rest of our lifetimes. That was not good management 2. I also submit to you as poor management of our city the agency of SANDAG. I won’t go into all the gory details here, but that agency has been mired in scandal and one only has to look at their decades of failed proposals and our poor transit network to see how incompetent they are. I don’t consider our region’s primary transportation agency being a joke to be good management of a city. We no doubt have things that other cities don’t that I love. SD is, in my opinion, the most balanced large city in the country. By that I mean it has a bit of everything. You have outdoor/beach/recreation as well as decent urban life, it’s like the best of both worlds. So I do share your enthusiasm for this great city, but I cannot agree it’s well managed. It’s really not. |
I've been reading "NIMBY" here for a long time and I always thought it was some official oversight committee or something. Then I finally decided to look it up lol
|
Quote:
Prop A proposed some form of joint use as a "compromise", which needless to say still wasn't going to be vary feasible when you have a dozen fighter jets swinging around the airport in tight little circles. The whole thing was a farce really, even if the measure had passed nothing would've happened seeing as only the federal government has the authority to close or transfer a military base. tbh, I'm 90% sure the whole thing was just a vehicle to create a Airport Authority (the airport was badly mismanaged by the port by many accounts) and give that new Authority a mandate to make comprehensive improvements to Lindbergh (which at that point had only been getting "temporary additions until we find a site for a new airport" since the 1960s). 2. Okay, that was a little F'd up. SANDAG really misjudged the timing on the 2008 recession when they planned out Transnet. But, surprisingly, it looks like they might be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. Latest funding reports I've seen show the full buildout as still feasible, provided SB-1 survives. Without it the frequency improvements to the Blue line and possibly the Orange line will be cut, but we'll still get all the highway improvements. Yay, I guess? :shrug: We're probably seeing all the same sort of things, the only difference is I see all of SD's mismanagement and more in places like SF and SEA. At a certain point you can't expect perfect government, just a level of incompetence that doesn't hassle you too much. By that account at least SD is reasonable well managed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Specifically the committee failed to consider airspace considerations and concentrated solely on land use planning, and it ignored the training and readiness requirements of the USMC/USN (and how they differ from Air National Guard units like the ones at airports you cite). In response to your opinion that Miramar has "a tremendous amount of land" I would present the following image which lays out the accident prevention zones for FCLP operations. https://image.ibb.co/kM1Mh9/Miramar_APZ.png (I know this is from the Ricondo and Associates proposal, which I know the committee disavowed. This particular data is from the marines though.) I work a few miles from Miramar nowadays, just watching 6 F/A-18s doing hairpin turns around the pattern like this should convince you that this is no place for a lumbering airliner. The alternative would be to shift the pattern northwards, with unacceptable safety and noise effects on Mira Mesa, or to build a runway north of the currents ones directly over the landside areas of the base (so you could add the cost of effectively rebuilding Miramar to the already substantial costs of building an international airport). The other two proposed locations locations in the Scrips Ranch area still suffered from the same problems, IFR approaches and missed approaches stretch for miles and miles and they'd be pointed directly over the Miramar runways. The proposed "queuing" was also a non-starter. Trying to direct military aircraft around commercial ones (and vice versa) would lead to your average training mission spending over half its time flying in circles waiting for another pass and likely worse delays than Lindbergh already experiences for the airliners. Again, I respect immensely the work you and the committee did but from top to bottom the whole thing was implausible from the start. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ultimately this discussion is purely academic anyway, the military ran a very successful campaign against Prop A in 2006 and prevented even a symbolic victory for joint use. San Diego's airport is San Diego's airport, at least for the foreseeable future. |
Quote:
|
I’ve learned to love SAN, the fact that its right next to downtown is super convenient. A super tall would be nice but they don’t make a city, what makes a city is the ground floor interaction with the population. I think our downtown has that Goldilocks height.. it’s not too tall and not too short. It’s tall enough that you see and feel that you’re in a city, but it also doesn’t make you feel small and caved in like in the skyscraper canyons of other cities. Some of the great European cities don’t even have buildings as tall as San Diego, but because of the density and pedestrian activity on the street level, they are vibrant. Paris, Amsterdam and Rome are good examples. When I was stationed in Greece I stayed on the island of Crete in a small town called Chania, their downtown had more pedestrian activity than downtown San Diego day and night because it was their center. Outdoor cafes and restaurants along with retail and nightclubs lined the streets.
Downtown Sam Diego just needs all the neighborhoods to have that cohesive pedestrian energy to tie it all together with a bigger population, all the shops, restaurants and stuff to bring it all together. |
WilloWisp,
It seems you are making the argument that San Diego tried to push for joint use of Miramar, it failed (for good reason in your opinion), and that as a result we shouldn’t claim that SD has failed on this and other issues. Your points on Miramar May be valid but are moot. The reality is San Diego had a chance to get Miramar for free in the 90’s due to BRAC and completely blew the opportunity. This is the city’s version of turning down the Louisiana purchase or deciding not to buy Manhattan from the Indians. The city punted on this like they normally do and did nothing. Classic. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.