SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

bushman61988 Feb 15, 2013 8:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6015665)
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/..._lz6e29qa.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3...olution-R2.jpg

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



Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6014958)

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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by S.DviaPhilly (Post 6012570)
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/d...a_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 Feb 15, 2013 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 6015847)
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/webporta...oad.aspx?id=65

Las Vegas
http://www.vegascondoscene.com/wp-co...-las-vegas.jpg

SDfan Feb 15, 2013 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 6015927)
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/..._lz6e29qa.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3...olution-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 Feb 16, 2013 3:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6016823)
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 Feb 16, 2013 7:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6015033)
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 Feb 16, 2013 7:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 6015674)

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 Feb 16, 2013 8:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 6017125)
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 Feb 19, 2013 1:47 AM

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

mongoXZ Feb 19, 2013 3:13 AM

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 Feb 19, 2013 3:17 AM

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 Feb 19, 2013 3:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 6020025)
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 Feb 19, 2013 3:28 AM

And I love it!

SDfan Feb 19, 2013 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 6020020)
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 Feb 20, 2013 4:15 PM

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 Feb 20, 2013 5:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6021906)
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/

Quote:

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 Feb 20, 2013 7:07 PM

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 Feb 21, 2013 6:14 AM

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 Feb 21, 2013 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 6022155)
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 Feb 22, 2013 6:19 AM

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.

Derek Feb 22, 2013 6:31 AM

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.