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)

sandiego_urban Apr 24, 2007 1:00 AM

Great construction updates!:tup:



Here are a couple more to add -

Lofts at 707
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ment/gloft.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...3/lofts707.jpg

Children's Museum
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...wfromFront.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...%203/chill.jpg

Derek Apr 24, 2007 1:02 AM

^thanks for those


Children's Museum is coming along nicely:tup:

spoonman Apr 25, 2007 2:43 AM

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...a9/Grimace.jpg


This thread has been slow lately so I figured maybe I should post the Grimace again...

spoonman Apr 25, 2007 2:44 AM

BTW...I am really liking Aria:tup:

Derek Apr 25, 2007 2:45 AM

i like how sometimes, we cant stop posting...then others its just asleep

spoonman Apr 25, 2007 2:47 AM

Edit...bad idea...lol

bmfarley Apr 25, 2007 7:17 AM

FYI.....

Published Monday, April 23, 2007, by the Sacramento Bee

Column

Big-city airports near limit

By Dan Walters
Bee Columnist

California sorely neglected infrastructure investment decade after
decade -- with congested highways, deteriorating and overcrowded
schools, and overused parks among the consequences -- but the state's
locally operated airports were a shining exception.

With revenues generated from ever-increasing airline flights, local
airport authorities busily added runways and terminals during the
1980s and 1990s. Traffic soared past 150 million passengers a year in
the early 1990s and was nearing 180 million when the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks put a damper on Americans' willingness to fly.

The dot-com meltdown contributed to the decline. Between 2001 and
2003, California air travel plummeted by nearly 20 million passengers
a year. But as the economy recovered and travelers' fears lessened,
it revived and by 2005 had rebounded to pre-2001 levels. Moreover,
as the state's population and economy continue to grow, and as its
position as the gateway to the Pacific Rim expands, every
transportation planning agency expects that demand for air service
also will expand.

However, even as the state finally begins making multibillion-dollar
investments in new highways and other critical infrastructure, its
big-city airports face a looming crisis of capacity. Airport
expansion plans have fallen by the wayside in San Diego, Orange
County, Los Angeles and San Francisco, felled by local opposition,
environmental restrictions and other factors.

San Diego's dilemma typifies the situation. While its waterfront
airport, Lindbergh Field, is convenient for travelers, a single
runway and noise restrictions mean that Lindbergh is rapidly reaching
the saturation point. The city has been seeking an alternative for at
least 60 years and created a powerful government entity to resolve
the dilemma. But when a new airport commission proposed an airport on
Miramar Mesa, the site of a Marine Corps air base, it was rejected by
the military and two-thirds of voters. That leaves San Diego where it
has been for decades, with an airport that will soon reach its
absolute capacity.

Once-ambitious plans for expanding Los Angeles International have
been scaled back to near-zero, due to local opposition, and Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa wants to concentrate international flights at
LAX and depend on satellites, particularly Ontario International and
an underused airport at Palmdale, to shoulder the domestic load.

Ontario has added two new terminals in recent years, with plans for
at least two more, and has become a major freight hub, while the city
is trying to jump-start Palmdale by heavily subsidizing flights to
and from San Francisco. Millions of local and federal funds have been
pumped into the former Norton AFB near San Bernardino to convert it
into a full-service airport, but its proximity to Ontario make its
future iffy.

Los Angeles' emphasis on Ontario and Palmdale indicate the direction
that air travel is taking -- inland. With coastal airports already
congested and unable to expand, inland facilities will handle an ever-
greater share of the traffic. While LAX is still well shy of its pre-
2001 passenger load, for instance, Ontario is handling a half-million
more passengers annually than it was in 2000. And while San Francisco
International is 20 percent off its pre-2001 high and San Jose
International is down 17 percent, Sacramento International is 25
percent higher and planning for much more.

This diffusion of air travel, which mirrors trends in employment
and population, has an interconnectivity problem, however. If, for
instance, LAX concentrates on international service, how do
international travelers, both incoming and outgoing, connect with
domestic flights at Ontario or Palmdale? [BATN: high-speed rail]

Reach Dan Walters at (916) 321-1195 or dwalters@sacbee.com

Derek Apr 25, 2007 7:19 AM

i hope the next president can help us in obtaining Miramar for an airport:(

(somehow...)

keg92101 Apr 25, 2007 3:16 PM

Project fo Public Spaces
 
PPS, a Non-Profit organization that helps communities create vibrant public spaces, recently published an article regarding libraries and their role in the 21st century. Here is the link:

http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/a...es_that_matter

eburress Apr 25, 2007 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2793143)
The city has been seeking an alternative for at least 60 years and created a powerful government entity to resolve the dilemma.

How can they call it "powerful" when it has no actual power?

spoonman Apr 25, 2007 5:05 PM

The Airport Authority seemed more like a trial baloon for regional growth than a meaningful quest for a solution for airport expansion...

Crackertastik Apr 25, 2007 5:57 PM

it has to be the most maddening thing ever. I think a desert airport with a really cool maglev transport to and from or a floating airport are the only real permanent solutions. Miramar is never gonna be freed. and lindbergh is a crappy area for an airport.

sd is screwed.

roadwarrior Apr 25, 2007 6:41 PM

Hmmm, a floating airport, like Osaka is a great idea. I lived in SD for 6 years and totally agree that the airport down there is inadequate and is one of the key things that is stunting the city's economic growth.

However, how would the city finance such a venture? I can imagine that type of construction would end up being in the multiples of billions of dollars. To top it off, I would imagine a huge amount of protests by environmentalists. That's what happened here in SF when they proposed adding an additional runway by filling in the bay.

SDCAL Apr 25, 2007 9:49 PM

[QUOTE=roadwarrior;2794109]Hmmm, a floating airport, like Osaka is a great idea. I lived in SD for 6 years and totally agree that the airport down there is inadequate and is one of the key things that is stunting the city's economic growth.

I'd have to go back on the net and try to find the article, but I remember reading about the floating airport proposal and the costs as well as environmental issues were not as bad as one would think - As i recall, the cost savings would result from incorporating Lindbergh field into the plan and just have an additional runway floating, which could be comparable in cost to building an entirely new airport from the ground up in some other location.

The main problem would be convincing a conservative city with conservative leaders that this is actually doable and not some "radical" idea.

I am very confused about what exactly is going on now with the airport discussions - if anything. Since the vote last year, the only news I hear about regarding SDs airport are proposals to "improve" Lindbergh and it seems as though the discussion of a new airport has been completely shut-down or at least put on the back-burner. I am concerned that we are going to wait until we are FORCED to build a new airport due to Lindbergh reaching capacity, and if that happens we will probably end up with some poorly planned, quickly put together piece of sh** :(

I have started, and others here might consider, writing to city officials, congressmen/women, airport officials and even opeds in newspapers asking what is being done about a future airport post-Miramar vote. Writing on here is a good way to vent but if we ever want to actually get something done these lame officials need to hear from the public and need to be held accountable for ignoring the issue that our current airport is not equipped to handle growth.

I heard that the main reason the Miramar site was rejected was not because people want Lindbergh to remain, but rather because many people in affluent North County neighborhoods such as La Jolla were scared they would be in a flight path or hear airplane noise, so apparently there was a big counter-push by North County officials such as the county supervisor for that district to vote against it

Derek Apr 25, 2007 9:57 PM

^dude, i agree, we should right letters...unfortunately politicians dont always care about what we say:(


you got a point there though...nice job

Trvlr Apr 25, 2007 11:51 PM

I was surprised to find my civil engineering professors to be very optimistic about the idea of an offshore airport in San Diego. They brushed aside environmental concerns with the idea that the airport could be used as an artificial reef.

At any rate, I think push will come to shove when LAX maxes out. There is a legislatively-mandated passenger cap at LAX, which limits to 78 million the number of passengers going through the airport each year. LAX is currently about 13 million passengers away from that, and the LA basin really doesn't have any other options.

Since (it is said) up to 30% of San Diego's air traffic demand is satisfied by LA-area airports, you can bet that our friends up north will turn their attention to San Diego's own airport problems sooner or later, and basically tell us to pound sand. Currently, our airport debate is dominated by the notion that our demand can be satisfied by airports such as LAX, especially if a high-speed rail system is built. Although it will be controversial, there are ways to penalize San Diego-area passengers for using LA's airports. Only then can we be sure that there will be movement on the issue.

eburress Apr 26, 2007 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadwarrior (Post 2794109)
Hmmm, a floating airport, like Osaka is a great idea. I lived in SD for 6 years and totally agree that the airport down there is inadequate and is one of the key things that is stunting the city's economic growth.

However, how would the city finance such a venture? I can imagine that type of construction would end up being in the multiples of billions of dollars. To top it off, I would imagine a huge amount of protests by environmentalists. That's what happened here in SF when they proposed adding an additional runway by filling in the bay.

There is no sense in worrying about it because it wouldn't happen in a MILLION years.

Like the article above mentioned, LA will likely look inland as it tries to address its airport situation. I imagine this is what SD would be forced to do as well...if they ever get their heads out of their asses long enough to do anything at all.

bmfarley Apr 26, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2794671)
^dude, i agree, we should right letters...unfortunately politicians dont always care about what we say:(


you got a point there though...nice job

I have written Kehoe twice with a tie-in to the airport dilemma. However, the letters were for support of High Speed Rail as proposed by the California High Speed Rail Authority and currently being discussed in Sacramento as part of the FY08 budget negotiations. When implemented (I am optomistic), HSR will replace the majority of in-state flights made today... similarly to what has occurred in Germany and France. HSR is very competitive with air travel when flights are in the 250-600 mile range... or some range similar to that.

Derek Apr 26, 2007 12:13 AM

^Regarding that, is the HSR strongly supported by the people in the state? I'm not really up to date on that stuff.


(But I strongly favor it!:tup:)

SD_Phil Apr 26, 2007 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trvlr (Post 2795043)

At any rate, I think push will come to shove when LAX maxes out. There is a legislatively-mandated passenger cap at LAX, which limits to 78 million the number of passengers going through the airport each year. LAX is currently about 13 million passengers away from that, and the LA basin really doesn't have any other options.

This is just false. I don't think SD should pin it's hopes of updating the airport on the LA area's airports reaching capacity. There are several major regional airports in LA County (and environs) that are nowhere near capacity. Even if LAX were to somehow reach 78 million passengers a year AND not be able to change its legislatively mandated limits (a BIG if) there are still enough regional airports to handle the overflow. If SD waits on all those to fill it'll be another 60 years before anything happens!


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.