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)

Streamliner Feb 27, 2019 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8488866)
I actually have a bit of personal knowledge about this incident...

Thanks for your insight on all of these airport/FAA issues. It's really helpful.

Will O' Wisp Mar 1, 2019 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8489354)
Thanks for your insight on all of these airport/FAA issues. It's really helpful.

You're welcome, I view is a my little public service.

For any activists, developers, planners, or general concerned citizenry it's always important to know who is the one making the decisions. When you submit a 7460-01 obstacle evaluation form to the FAA, all it does punch in the Lat/Longitude and height into a GIS database that spits out if that single point in space is too close to the aircraft landing path. It doesn't even do an investigation to check if the developer lied. And unless the obstruction will utterly close down the airport the FAA will probably just force aircraft to fly over and around it, no matter how many delays or cancelled flights this will cause.

The FAA doesn't even evaluate what the building will be used for, if a city wants to build an orphanage directly under the flight path and expose dozens of children to sleepless nights that's its business. And the FAA also doesn't evaluate the paths of aircraft on takeoff, only mandates that airline certify that in the event of an engine failure they won't stray closer than 35 feet to any obstacles. If that means that a long haul flight would have to take off half empty for it to climb fast enough, the FAA isn't going to stop a city from making transcontinental flights economically infeasible (as San Jose is currently contemplating right now).

The Best Forumer Mar 1, 2019 5:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8491370)
You're welcome, I view is a my little public service.

For any activists, developers, planners, or general concerned citizenry it's always important to know who is the one making the decisions. When you submit a 7460-01 obstacle evaluation form to the FAA, all it does punch in the Lat/Longitude and height into a GIS database that spits out if that single point in space is too close to the aircraft landing path. It doesn't even do an investigation to check if the developer lied. And unless the obstruction will utterly close down the airport the FAA will probably just force aircraft to fly over and around it, no matter how many delays or cancelled flights this will cause.

The FAA doesn't even evaluate what the building will be used for, if a city wants to build an orphanage directly under the flight path and expose dozens of children to sleepless nights that's its business. And the FAA also doesn't evaluate the paths of aircraft on takeoff, only mandates that airline certify that in the event of an engine failure they won't stray closer than 35 feet to any obstacles. If that means that a long haul flight would have to take off half empty for it to climb fast enough, the FAA isn't going to stop a city from making transcontinental flights economically infeasible (as San Jose is currently contemplating right now).

holy carp!

The Best Forumer Mar 1, 2019 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8489354)
Thanks for your insight on all of these airport/FAA issues. It's really helpful.

i concur... we appreciate this forumer.

Nv_2897 Mar 3, 2019 10:17 PM

Credit to steevosd on instagram

It looks like they are starting to assemble the construction crane to start working on the Navy headquarters building from the looks of it

https://i.imgur.com/9JJkepN.png

Will O' Wisp Mar 5, 2019 2:00 AM

San Diego City Council votes to eliminate parking requirements for new housing developments in transit priority areas

https://images.kusi.com/wp-content/u...quirements.png

Nerv Mar 5, 2019 2:28 AM

Just me but I wouldn’t buy anything that didn’t have decent amount of parking tied to it. I’m all in on mass transit but we currently lack a system that would allow most people here to be car free.

I’m curious with this decision to see if any developers have any issues selling their product if it doesn’t come with perceived “realistic parking” for their owners.

SDfan Mar 5, 2019 3:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 8494560)
Just me but I wouldn’t buy anything that didn’t have decent amount of parking tied to it. I’m all in on mass transit but we currently lack a system that would allow most people here to be car free.

I’m curious with this decision to see if any developers have any issues selling their product if it doesn’t come with perceived “realistic parking” for their owners.

Lol, I'm the exact opposite. I'd totally buy or rent a space without parking if it meant it was less $$$. I live and work where transit is great, so it's not an issue for me. Anything else is a cheap lyft ride away.

And that's for the individual developers to decide. NIMBYs were screaming today that there would be no parking, but developers build based on market demand. If there is no demand for parking-free housing, guess what? There's going to be parking, and vice versa.

Nerv Mar 5, 2019 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 8494602)
Lol, I'm the exact opposite. I'd totally buy or rent a space without parking if it meant it was less $$$. I live and work where transit is great, so it's not an issue for me. Anything else is a cheap lyft ride away.

And that's for the individual developers to decide. NIMBYs were screaming today that there would be no parking, but developers build based on market demand. If there is no demand for parking-free housing, guess what? There's going to be parking, and vice versa.


Yeah, I’m not sure how it’s going to work out one way or another but if it gets the city moving forward more aggressively with any mass transit that’s a win I guess.

joemamma Mar 6, 2019 4:24 PM

I think, initially, new developers will simply build less (then currently required) parking spaces, not zero parking. Parking will just be sold separately from housing units. Buyers "choose" to not have parking vs. no parking is available.

I have a rental property in East Village where the tenant doesn't use their parking at all. They walk to work/fun. They take the trolley to school. I am considering lower the units rent and leasing the parking separately.

What areas of San Diego do you guys think would be best for first zero parking development?

Will O' Wisp Mar 7, 2019 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemamma (Post 8496541)
I think, initially, new developers will simply build less (then currently required) parking spaces, not zero parking. Parking will just be sold separately from housing units. Buyers "choose" to not have parking vs. no parking is available.

I have a rental property in East Village where the tenant doesn't use their parking at all. They walk to work/fun. They take the trolley to school. I am considering lower the units rent and leasing the parking separately.

What areas of San Diego do you guys think would be best for first zero parking development?

Other than downtown I don't see any area where it would be feasible right now. Maaaybe UTC after the Mid-Coast Trolley extension opens up next year, definitely North Park after a trolley line connecting it to either downtown or Sorrento Valley is completed in the 2030s. In the meantime there isn't quite enough critical mass in either density or public transit to see any large scale zero parking development.

staplesla Mar 7, 2019 9:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemamma (Post 8496541)
I think, initially, new developers will simply build less (then currently required) parking spaces, not zero parking. Parking will just be sold separately from housing units. Buyers "choose" to not have parking vs. no parking is available.

I have a rental property in East Village where the tenant doesn't use their parking at all. They walk to work/fun. They take the trolley to school. I am considering lower the units rent and leasing the parking separately.

What areas of San Diego do you guys think would be best for first zero parking development?

I live in UTC and our complex is one of the largest, charges $50/month extra if you want one parking spot. Roughly 70% of the garage is empty.

Fozcat Mar 7, 2019 4:11 PM

Horton Plaza Food Hall
 
I walked through Horton Plaza last weekend, and found this posted at the old Lager Tap House. Looks like the food hall may be adjacent to the park after all?

https://i.imgur.com/W2ZEN6x.jpg

SDfan Mar 7, 2019 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8497393)
Other than downtown I don't see any area where it would be feasible right now. Maaaybe UTC after the Mid-Coast Trolley extension opens up next year, definitely North Park after a trolley line connecting it to either downtown or Sorrento Valley is completed in the 2030s. In the meantime there isn't quite enough critical mass in either density or public transit to see any large scale zero parking development.

Do any of you folks take transit now? I am completely car independent and see there are LOTS of place where we could go parking free. If you live and work anywhere in the old grid or along a BRT line, you're good to go.

Will O' Wisp Mar 8, 2019 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 8498182)
Do any of you folks take transit now? I am completely car independent and see there are LOTS of place where we could go parking free. If you live and work anywhere in the old grid or along a BRT line, you're good to go.

I take transit all the time. But the problem isn't that I can't go to lots of places via transit, it's that I can't to the places I need to go in a timely fashion. For instance, I drive 15 mins to work everyday. To get there via transit would take me over an hour and a half and require a half mile walk. There are places to live within a 30 minute transit ride of my work or less, but none of them are dense and walkable enough to consider not having a car in.

So even though I live in a dense, transit rich area going carless isn't an option for me. And that's pretty typical for most people in SD right now, the majority of jobs aren't well connected to the walkable urban areas.

Will O' Wisp Mar 8, 2019 5:35 AM

News time!

First off, the city has released a new set of maps detailing the proposed new Transit Priority Areas, which will have lowered parking minimums.

https://i.imgur.com/uv5a3Hu.jpg

Full image here. Additional info from the city here

Second, YIMBYs swept the vote in the Uptown Planners community planning group. Rise Up Town rode to victory taking all 7 of the open seats this election, instantly gaining nearly half the seats of the 17 member committee. Uptown Planners has long been one of the the most NIMBY of the community planning groups, repeatedly demanding proposed developments downsize and even going so far as to sue the city for upzoning sections of Hillcrest. Another 7 seats are open for election next year.

http://datasurfer.sandag.org/api/est...cpa/uptown/map

Map of the Uptown Planners' community boundary.

Streamliner Mar 8, 2019 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8498894)
News time!

Seeing the TPAs visualized like that really shows how big of an impact this decision will be.

And great to see Uptown having a stronger YIMBY presence. Let's hope that it continues next year.

Northparkwizard Mar 8, 2019 8:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8499200)
Seeing the TPAs visualized like that really shows how big of an impact this decision will be.

And great to see Uptown having a stronger YIMBY presence. Let's hope that it continues next year.

Urban infill development in the city is going to open up a can of whoop-ass on these NIMBYs. It's the best thing the city council has done in a very long time.

Northparkwizard Mar 9, 2019 3:07 AM

777 Beech Street Drawings.
https://i.imgur.com/zQBWWfa.jpg

Park and Broadway Drawings

https://i.imgur.com/ETRcQKU.jpg

Will O' Wisp Mar 9, 2019 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 8499592)
Urban infill development in the city is going to open up a can of whoop-ass on these NIMBYs. It's the best thing the city council has done in a very long time.

Seriously. Being the skyscraper buffs we are there's a tenancy for this thread to focus on downtown, but DTSD is comparatively tiny compared to the rest of the city. Adding loads of affordable multi-family housing in North Park, Uptown, Mission Valley, and UTC will do far more to alleviate our housing crisis than attempting to cram absolutely everyone into downtown (which has a practical capacity of 150-200k, or roughly 3-4x what it has now)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.

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