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)

dales5050 Nov 16, 2013 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6340088)
I don't like Alvarez because he seems anti-jobs & anti-development. I did not like his stance on Barrio Logan. Shipbuilding brings in high paying jobs, and is the major use of our harbor (as opposed to being a cargo port). We shouldn't have to mess that up to appease people that bought houses in a sh!tty neighborhood. I shouldn't be able to move somewhere crappy, then have the legislature fix it to get my property values up. Sorry for the rant.

Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.


Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6340088)
Falconer supported my stance on the Barrio Logan issue. That said, he came out in favor of the 30ft coastal height limit in Voice of SD. His explanation rubbed me the wrong way, in that he seemed in lock step with the aging boomer set, intent on preserving "their" views, and driving up home prices. I believe the coastal limit should not stretch to the 5, but maybe only 1/2 a mile. All that said, he is a republican, and so he may be a friend to developers (which is good), but may not be a friend to well planned development (not good).

Fletcher seems a wild card. Despite what people say, I like the fact that he is in the pocket of Qualcomm. If nothing else, just to see what Qualcomm is looking to get out of the city. No single company has done more for the city in recent history. He may be the guy to push a stadium or arena through...than again, who knows.

If I had to vote today, I would pick Fletcher, with Falconer as second choice.

My challenge with Falconer is not only has he been 'purchased' by the aging boomers but also is a pawn for the Downtown Partnership. A group that while serving a crucial need for downtown is horribly corrupt.

spoonman Nov 16, 2013 5:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6341346)
Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.




My challenge with Falconer is not only has he been 'purchased' by the aging boomers but also is a pawn for the Downtown Partnership. A group that while serving a crucial need for downtown is horribly corrupt.

Yeah, it's tough to know with these guys. I guess that is nothing new.

Even Filner had his good moments. He was ultra combative, but seemed at least a straight shooter. (no harassment puns intended). I really liked what he was trying to do with Tijuana, and believe that some of that mentality has carried on to a lesser extent under Gloria. Of course, the next thing you know the guy is shutting down a Jack in the Box, and scolding the developers of One Paseo. It's always a mixed bag...

Northparkwizard Nov 16, 2013 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6341346)
Just my opinion but there is no need to say sorry for this. You're 100% right.

To pile on, another trend is for people who rely on government subsidies to live feel they have a right to live in a specific are even if that area has seen gentrification. While some may argue with this, my take is that gentrification, especially urban gentrification, is good. It increases the tax base to pay for more services like low income housing. Where it breaks is when the taxpayers are forced to pay more than they need to in an effort to keep low income folks in an area that is now too expensive. I think if this notion was dropped, a lot more low income housing and services could be provided due to the savings.

Here's the Shipbuilding industry's response to the new community plan which was approved by a majority of city council members, VOSD.

Seems like the Shipbuilding industry/General Dynamics and, something that they don't mention in the article, a little thing called the United States Navy are going to fight tooth and nail to try and keep things status quo in Barrio Logan and National City. Which is going to be interesting to say the least, seeing that there's so many majorly interested parties involved; Developers, Shipbuilders/Longshoremen, US Navy, Port of San Diego, City of SD, and the general community, etc..

I think we're still a long way from any type of consensus on the future of Barrio Logan, and unfortunately with all those groups involved I doubt the winners will be those who live there now.

202_Cyclist Nov 18, 2013 5:04 PM

Cross the Border, Then Fly (Wall Street Journal)
 
Cross the Border, Then Fly

By Conor Dougherty
Nov. 17, 2013
Wall Street Journal

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...1117190609.jpg
Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

"SAN DIEGO—This city has spent decades looking for ways to expand its cramped, one-runway airport. Today the region is edging closer to a solution, but it comes with a catch: It's in Mexico.

Developers backed by a group of U.S. and Mexican investors said they are close to breaking ground on a privately owned pedestrian bridge that would allow Americans and foreign travelers to cross the border directly into and out of Tijuana's General Abelardo L. Rodriguez International Airport, or TIJ.

It's not a done deal, but if the final hurdles are cleared, the for-profit project—whose investors include real-estate mogul Sam Zell—would be the latest in a series of border improvements that have strengthened the economic ties between the neighboring cities..."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...96370226844190

spoonman Nov 18, 2013 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 6343507)
Cross the Border, Then Fly

By Conor Dougherty
Nov. 17, 2013
Wall Street Journal

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...1117190609.jpg
Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

"SAN DIEGO—This city has spent decades looking for ways to expand its cramped, one-runway airport. Today the region is edging closer to a solution, but it comes with a catch: It's in Mexico.

Developers backed by a group of U.S. and Mexican investors said they are close to breaking ground on a privately owned pedestrian bridge that would allow Americans and foreign travelers to cross the border directly into and out of Tijuana's General Abelardo L. Rodriguez International Airport, or TIJ.

It's not a done deal, but if the final hurdles are cleared, the for-profit project—whose investors include real-estate mogul Sam Zell—would be the latest in a series of border improvements that have strengthened the economic ties between the neighboring cities..."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...96370226844190

This is an exciting project. This project actually broke ground back in September, and is supposed to be completed in late 2014. The Wall Street Journal is a little late on this.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/oct/08...rminal-ground/

http://www.airport-technology.com/ne...order-terminal

tyleraf Nov 18, 2013 6:00 PM

Yea. The cross border terminal is exciting. Also it'll be interesting to see the results of the Mayoral election tomorrow.

Derek Nov 18, 2013 6:13 PM

I don't like the WSJ's declaration of this being a "solution".

It helps people who are flying into or out of destinations in Mexico (or Shanghai), but Tijuana in general is a tiny airport with a single runway similar in size to San Diego's.


This is far from a "solution". After reading the articles, this project benefits people flying into TIJ more so than alleviating any traffic at SAN.

eburress Nov 18, 2013 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6343553)
This is an exciting project. This project actually broke ground back in September, and is supposed to be completed in late 2014. The Wall Street Journal is a little late on this.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/oct/08...rminal-ground/

http://www.airport-technology.com/ne...order-terminal

What I would consider to be exciting would be a new airport built at Miramar that brings in billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the local economy, while at the same time allowing the city to close Lindbergh, removing downtown building height limits and allowing the Little Italy neighborhood to expand northward, essentially all the way to Liberty Station. That's exciting.

I really fail to see anything exciting about a pedestrian bridge to TJ's airport though. Maybe I just need to have a more San Diego-appropriate level of expectations about things. haha

spoonman Nov 18, 2013 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6343712)
What I would consider to be exciting would be a new airport built at Miramar that brings in billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the local economy, while at the same time allowing the city to close Lindbergh, removing downtown building height limits and allowing the Little Italy neighborhood to expand northward, essentially all the way to Liberty Station. That's exciting.

I really fail to see anything exciting about a pedestrian bridge to TJ's airport though. Maybe I just need to have a more San Diego-appropriate level of expectations about things. haha

Haha, yeah. Manage your expectations...lol.

I would love to see the airport move, and get all of the benefits you outlined. BUT, the Tijuana airport project is cool because it will allow people in this area to get access to numerous intra-Mexico flights. It could also be useful for certain international destinations not offered at SDIA, such as China. On the flip-side, business people in China may be more encouraged to come do business in the SD/TJ area, instead of LA, due to the improved access that the bridge and US terminal affords them. The additional international access at San Diego Int'l hasn't hurt either.

I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

Streamliner Nov 18, 2013 10:36 PM

Derek's right that this isn't a solution to our airport troubles. It's very good for San Diego, but it's not some savior for SAN.

I am very excited for this project. It's such a simple idea that should bring a lot of benefits. Now they just need to finish the San Ysidro crossing expansion and make smoother transitions between our two cities. Also, fix the rail line from SD-Imperial via Mexico. There's so much potential on our border.

eburress Nov 19, 2013 7:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6343816)
Haha, yeah. Manage your expectations...lol.

I would love to see the airport move, and get all of the benefits you outlined. BUT, the Tijuana airport project is cool because it will allow people in this area to get access to numerous intra-Mexico flights. It could also be useful for certain international destinations not offered at SDIA, such as China. On the flip-side, business people in China may be more encouraged to come do business in the SD/TJ area, instead of LA, due to the improved access that the bridge and US terminal affords them. The additional international access at San Diego Int'l hasn't hurt either.

I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

I'm not meaning to be a Debbie Downer about this, but I just don't see it. If I were a business person, Asian or otherwise, a pedestrian bridge to a Mexican airport would further underscore/reinforce the reasons I am NOT doing business in San Diego.

Is flying into TJ, making the LONG walk over a pedestrian bridge to Chula Vista, and then driving up to Sorrento Valley really easier than flying directly into LA, Dallas, Chicago, etc? Of course not.

spoonman Nov 19, 2013 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 6344434)
I'm not meaning to be a Debbie Downer about this, but I just don't see it. If I were a business person, Asian or otherwise, a pedestrian bridge to a Mexican airport would further underscore/reinforce the reasons I am NOT doing business in San Diego.

Is flying into TJ, making the LONG walk over a pedestrian bridge to Chula Vista, and then driving up to Sorrento Valley really easier than flying directly into LA, Dallas, Chicago, etc? Of course not.

I really don't see it. SD is a pacific rim city, and the walk doesn't seem worse than any other airport. While it is a deficiency that we could not just go ahead and build a single new airport due to our land availability issues, in time I think that the bridge to TIJ could be viewed as positive. It should be marketed as a new SECONDARY gateway to SD.

Leo the Dog Nov 19, 2013 4:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6344603)
I really don't see it. SD is a pacific rim city, and the walk doesn't seem worse than any other airport. While it is a deficiency that we could not just go ahead and build a single new airport due to our land availability issues, in time I think that the bridge to TIJ could be viewed as positive. It should be marketed as a new SECONDARY gateway to SD.

Agreed.

San Diegans don't know what an asset the location of SAN really is.

dales5050 Nov 19, 2013 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6343816)
I also like that the airport will have a rental car facilities, ground transportation, etc, on the US side, really making it a virtual second airport, except that it is only useful for certain international destinations (because, as an example, it would be too expensive to fly from Tijuana to "Cleveland" or "New York" from TIJ due to the flight being international).

I like the 'idea' of the terminal in TJ but you're correct on the cost making the airport useless to many.

Searched flights.google.com from SAN to EWR (Newark) between 1/10 > 1/17 and found a ticket for $356. Modified the search to TIJ to EWR (Newark) for the same dates and the cost was $1172.

I know the last thing the various authorities are going to want is for TIJ to go into a price war with SAN but 3X the cost is nuts.

Maybe they could pass some type of legislation that allows for TIJ flights to US cities to not pay the same international rate as they currently do. Maybe tack on a $150 fee or something. So the price point would be $350ish US to $500 TJ?


Regardless, while I love the new Terminal 2....they really. missed. the. boat. on moving the entire terminal set over to the other side of the runway and adding a second lane. :(

I know some want the airport to be in Miramar but honestly, the proximity to downtown is one of the main selling points for conventions.

While it would be nice to have taller buildings downtown if the airport restrictions were removed...consider that the trend to build massive towers really does not exist anymore. If DT were to add 1 70 story tower, odds are that would prevent two other blocks from being filled in. Personally, I would be fine with every block being filled with buildings that were between 5-30 floors with a couple 40 mixed in.

Urbanize_It Nov 21, 2013 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 6344732)
Agreed.

San Diegans don't know what an asset the location of SAN really is.

I could not agree with you more Leo. The only "solution" I will ever support keeps SAN up and running. Although, I know that’s not a popular statement here…

For anyone wanting to see how inconvenient a brand new mega hub airport placed in the middle of nowhere is, move to Denver for a year. It sucks. We have TJ close to the south and OC/LA to the north. We don’t need a hub airport. We only need an efficient rail line connecting each of these from downtown LA through to TJ. Period.

:notacrook:

eburress Nov 21, 2013 7:09 PM

Lindburg's location is convenient, but it's definitely not an "advantage." LAX, O'Hare, DFW, and Hartsfield are HUGE economic growth engines, and are not hurt in the least by the fact that they're not immediately adjacent to those cities' downtowns.

Speaking on the topic of economic growth, I just read that Fort Worth's alliance airport has had a $38.5 billion economic impact on Tarrant and Denton counties since 1990. Now that is an advantage. :)

Northparkwizard Nov 21, 2013 9:43 PM

Interesting topic. SAN is an outlier, you can't judge it on the same metric as other airports because there really isn't (as far as I know) another standard to judge it against. Denver, SF, LA, JFK, they're all miles away from the city core. Does that help or hurt those airports? I think the answer is both.

When I visit those cities it's a pain in the ass to get to the "city" that I supposedly flew into. Cab, train, or rental it's going to take at least an hour+. SAN doesn't have that problem. Once you land, even with the lack of light rail or subway, you're in the heart of the city in less than an hour (you actually land in the city you're flying into which is nice).

Look, I think it was a silly choice in the first place to put the airport where it is but having a 1 runway airport in the center of a city, as a visitor is probably optimal. As a resident and business owner, not so much.

My pie in the sky idea is to take over 1 runway at North Island and use it exclusively for international and cargo operations with underground transportation... that's never going to happen.

Bertrice Nov 21, 2013 11:51 PM

http://djcoregon.com/files/2012/05/0...er_macy_01.jpg

This article article claims the park is to be completed by december 2013. any new info?

http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/05/15...thouse-square/

eburress Nov 22, 2013 2:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6348345)
Interesting topic. SAN is an outlier, you can't judge it on the same metric as other airports because there really isn't (as far as I know) another standard to judge it against. Denver, SF, LA, JFK, they're all miles away from the city core. Does that help or hurt those airports? I think the answer is both.

When I visit those cities it's a pain in the ass to get to the "city" that I supposedly flew into. Cab, train, or rental it's going to take at least an hour+. SAN doesn't have that problem. Once you land, even with the lack of light rail or subway, you're in the heart of the city in less than an hour (you actually land in the city you're flying into which is nice).

Look, I think it was a silly choice in the first place to put the airport where it is but having a 1 runway airport in the center of a city, as a visitor is probably optimal. As a resident and business owner, not so much.

My pie in the sky idea is to take over 1 runway at North Island and use it exclusively for international and cargo operations with underground transportation... that's never going to happen.

The question isn't about Lindbergh Field vs. other similar airports because that's a debate about who's the tallest vertically challenged person* in Dubuque and the question also isn't which airport is hurt by its location because all of the World's most economically "valuable" airports are far from their respective cities' downtowns. The question is what is Lindbergh Field's effect on San Diego...what is its economic impact vs. the economic impact of a larger, world-class airport.

It might be convenient to us having the airport so close to downtown, but what's good for some people in the region isn't necessarily what's good for the region as a whole, and frankly it's that thinking (what's good for me vs. what's good for the whole) that has left SD with such a turd of an airport to begin with.


*Gotta be PC

SDfan Nov 22, 2013 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanize_It (Post 6347733)
I could not agree with you more Leo. The only "solution" I will ever support keeps SAN up and running. Although, I know that’s not a popular statement here…

For anyone wanting to see how inconvenient a brand new mega hub airport placed in the middle of nowhere is, move to Denver for a year. It sucks. We have TJ close to the south and OC/LA to the north. We don’t need a hub airport. We only need an efficient rail line connecting each of these from downtown LA through to TJ. Period.

:notacrook:

I agree to a point. I don't think a huge airport in the Imperial Valley would not be ideal either.

But I don't think San Diego is going to reach it's optimal economic potential by relying on Tijuana and LAX for it's air transport needs. It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline. If you mean high speed, you might as well be asking for an off shore airport - at least that's what I gather from most of the transportation planners I've talked to.

The debate is pretty much divided between whose interests do we want to serve? The communities preference for direct access to SAN, or the business/economic communities need for greater air transport growth?

That's a tough call. I'm not sure I have an answer just yet. :shrug:


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:09 AM.

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