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)

spoonman Mar 1, 2014 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme (Post 6473988)
I think we have a winner in Ballpark Village. The renderings show a quality, pedestrian-oriented development with a focus on aesthetic details. It is designed as a place "to go" with points of interest.

This could easily have become just another condo tower and pedestal, a mid-rise megablock.

This project is exciting. Very much an LA Live vibe, which will help o activate that portion of the EV

SDfan Mar 1, 2014 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 6473955)
All great points. Give me a second while I pour your piss out of my cheerios. :)

I don't mean to piss on anyone's parade, I just don't like unrealistic ideas. No offense.


Quote:

Regarding NIMBYism, I think (well hope), that will change over time. With the projected growth in population for San Diego over the next 20-40 years...density is going to have to happen.
I hope this happens. Hope. But we are running the risk of becoming Santa Barbara or San Louis Obispo with our current culture. That is, stagnate. Density doesn't have to happen. We would just like it to. We may end up with ridiculous living costs instead of real, progressive development. :/

Quote:

By then, a lot of the 'old school' who still cling to SD being a sleepy Navy town from the 60s will be gone. My hope is the next generation embrace smart growth. But I think it's going to take some serious leadership as well.
Hopefully.

Prahaboheme Mar 1, 2014 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6474420)
I don't mean to piss on anyone's parade, I just don't like unrealistic ideas. No offense.




I hope this happens. Hope. But we are running the risk of becoming Santa Barbara or San Louis Obispo with our current culture. That is, stagnate. Density doesn't have to happen. We would just like it to. We may end up with ridiculous living costs instead of real, progressive development. :/



Hopefully.

I'm not sure I see the parallels with Santa Barbara / San Louis Obispo.

The truth of the matter is the the market dictates density as much as the "culture" of the city will. There is still an endless amount of infill opportunity in San Diego and until that does become scarce, it will be unlikely that the "higher buildings" folks win the battle at city hall. To counter the argument and in despite of unreasonable high limits in the county, the city continues to rebound strongly with development proposals and groundbreaking.

If there is an area of stagnation, it is mass transit expansion. San Diego should be California's most aggressive trolley expansion city due to the relatively compact nature of the urban area and yet it is a far "third" when we compare the "big 3".

Northparkwizard Mar 1, 2014 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme (Post 6474652)
I'm not sure I see the parallels with Santa Barbara / San Louis Obispo.

The truth of the matter is the the market dictates density as much as the "culture" of the city will. There is still an endless amount of infill opportunity in San Diego and until that does become scarce, it will be unlikely that the "higher buildings" folks win the battle at city hall. To counter the argument and in despite of unreasonable high limits in the county, the city continues to rebound strongly with development proposals and groundbreaking.

If there is an area of stagnation, it is mass transit expansion. San Diego should be California's most aggressive trolley expansion city due to the relatively compact nature of the urban area and yet it is a far "third" when we compare the "big 3".

^ What he said.

The irony of much of the comments here is the NIMBY/anti-growth sentiment, from a "skyscraper page". The market dictates the majority of what is being proposed and built around the city, with a few spec exceptions. No one would risk 10's/100's of million dollars on anything less than a sure thing and lenders(banks) nowadays aren't in the business of losing money on development projects that do not make financial sense.

That's the disconnect between community planning groups(basically this forum) and the real world. Risk. Nobody builds a project unless they think it can succeed and that's a great thing for private developers. However using the same methodology at city hall just doesn't work. Being a big city and acting like one are two distinctly different things, until San Diego leadership and the development service department puts his/her big boy/girl pants on we're going to continue to be small minded about transportation(trolley expansion, protected bike lanes, street cars), large civic projects(EV stadium, new city hall), and height limits(Wilshire Grand). That's a shame.

staplesla Mar 1, 2014 7:49 PM

At the County Administration Center's 75th anniversary last year, Supervisor Greg Cox said the new park going around it would "set the whole building off in a much more attractive setting." That was last July. A lot has happened on site since, as the $46.5 million park has begun to take shape ahead of its expected opening this May.

http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm...ear+completion

SDfan Mar 2, 2014 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 6474804)
^ What he said.

The irony of much of the comments here is the NIMBY/anti-growth sentiment, from a "skyscraper page". The market dictates the majority of what is being proposed and built around the city, with a few spec exceptions. No one would risk 10's/100's of million dollars on anything less than a sure thing and lenders(banks) nowadays aren't in the business of losing money on development projects that do not make financial sense.

I'm not a NIMBY, nor have any growth-sentiment. I'm merely stating the facts on the ground. The market does dictate what is in demand, but the community dictates what can actually be built. San Francisco would be booming with high-rise development on it's tiny, unit-needy peninsula, but it's not. Not because of a lack of market force, but because the communities in the city aren't having it.

No one would risk their money if a project didn't pencil out financially, nor would they risk their money if their was no chance for their development to be approved or be profitable with regulatory hurtles.

And I'm not talking about high-rise development. I'm talking about basic 3-6 story, mid-level, ground floor retail projects. Real, workable, development.

I do agree, better leadership is needed. I think the new planning director, Fulton, will be a positive force for good.

SDfan Mar 2, 2014 4:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme (Post 6474652)
I'm not sure I see the parallels with Santa Barbara / San Louis Obispo.

The truth of the matter is the the market dictates density as much as the "culture" of the city will. There is still an endless amount of infill opportunity in San Diego and until that does become scarce, it will be unlikely that the "higher buildings" folks win the battle at city hall. To counter the argument and in despite of unreasonable high limits in the county, the city continues to rebound strongly with development proposals and groundbreaking.

If there is an area of stagnation, it is mass transit expansion. San Diego should be California's most aggressive trolley expansion city due to the relatively compact nature of the urban area and yet it is a far "third" when we compare the "big 3".

"Endless" is really a different word than what most developers and realtors are saying right now. In fact, if you read articles about these things you notice these common themes:

1. A lack of large land areas for single family home communities (not too sad about this personally, less suburban style development the better)

2. Limited land availability in urban neighborhoods to pursue infill developments

3. Regulatory and NIMBY hurdles in developing infill projects

Essentially, there isn't much land, and for developers, with what does exist there are significant issues that can hinder any infill project, namely incomplete community plan updates, community opposition, archaic regulation, the actual cost of the land, possible historical or preservation issues, environmental concerns, and unclear direction from city planning and development services.

The market is a force, but the community can knock out a project with a simple stroke of a pen or ballot box regardless of demand.

As for mass transit, I couldn't agree with you more. We are so far behind. I hope the Cleveland National Forest group is able to get SANDAG to adjust it's 40 year plan's priorities in court. Our environment and future development depend on a more robust mass transit system.

SDCAL Mar 2, 2014 7:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6474412)
This project is exciting. Very much an LA Live vibe, which will help o activate that portion of the EV

I wish. LA live is a 2.5 billion dollar endeavor with a Ritz Carleton and JW Marriott and better architecture. I know I sound like the negative nelly on here but I think this ballpark village project is mediocre at best. I really don't see it being anywhere near LA Live. I know the parking lots suck, but pretending that putting anything on them turns them into world-class entertainment districts is unrealistic.

dales5050 Mar 2, 2014 4:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6474420)
I don't mean to piss on anyone's parade, I just don't like unrealistic ideas. No offense.

No offense taken at all. :)

Nerv Mar 2, 2014 9:51 PM

LA Live feels artificial to me.

Cities should assist with a vibe, not create it.

I don't like using Los Angeles as a model for future downtown San Diego either.

Let LA be LA and San Diego something else.

I prefer the more organic feel I see in places like Chicago, New York, or even parts of San Francisco. I lived in Los Angeles long enough to not want it here.

bobbyv Mar 2, 2014 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 6475970)
LA Live feels artificial to me.

Cities should assist with a vibe, not create it.

I don't like using Los Angeles as a model for future downtown San Diego either.

Let LA be LA and San Diego something else.

I prefer the more organic feel I see in places like Chicago, New York, or even parts of San Francisco. I lived in Los Angeles long enough to not want it here.

Are you talking about LA downtown core to SD downtown core? Because if you are LA's is much more, lively, gritty , dense, older stock, and yes organic than San Diego could ever dream of, you actually think LA live is representative of the rest of downtown:???:

Crackertastik Mar 2, 2014 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyv (Post 6476039)
Are you talking about LA downtown core to SD downtown core? Because if you are LA's is much more, lively, gritty , dense, older stock, and yes organic than San Diego could ever dream of, you actually think LA live is representative of the rest of downtown:???:

I sort of agree.

La Live is no more artificial than time square or Chinatown in DC. I think contemporary entertainment districts lean toward that feel. San Diego's entertainment district, the gas lamp quarter, is much more "real" feeling than la live. But still caters to that kitschy feel by utility. The rest of downtown la feels more organic than the rest of downtown San Diego. But that is as much a bad thing as a good thing. I hate when people use grit and unkempt conditions and lack of uniformity as a quality unconditionally. It can be amazing and ideal when it is coupled with diverse use, reduced dead space and scary sections, and is safe. Otherwise it's just unfinished. I'll take current San Diego over current la because currently Los Angeles lacks a lot of I mentioned. But in 5-10 years I think the comment easily flips. It'll have the utility of downtown San Diego in a more organic setting.

Bertrice Mar 3, 2014 12:10 AM

What ever Organic means describing inorganic matter like buildings. LA 's downtown can't hold a candle to san diego or SF. maybe oakland.
LA 's best parts are still Hollywood hills, santa monica, venice , hancock park etc. its just a spread out nightmare as you can get.

SDCAL Mar 3, 2014 12:31 AM

LA Live is definitely higher-end with luxury brand hotels. Not all of DTLA is ike that, you have everything from skid row, the nations largest concentration of homeless people, to LA Live and everything in between.

I guess I should clarify my comment above regarding not agreeing with the comparison of the BPV plan to LA Live.

I am not saying the BPV plan needs to be that higher-end to be good, not at all. I just don't like the plan period. Maybe I'll be proven wrong if/when it gets off the ground, sometimes you just don't know how something is going to work at street level until its here.

The project I am most excited about to see get off the ground is the IDEA District first phase. Does anyone know the status of that and when it might break ground?

That particular area of downtown has an immense amount of potential to become really great. My hope is for more low-key, arts-minded creative zone (something with a vibe similar to North Park with non-chain creative venues but with a more dense/Industiral/downtown urban feel) that is an alternative to the more frat-like atmosphere of the gaslamp and immediate ballpark area. This is one reason I am against the chargers stadium being built right next to petco park. We need variety. I want EV to be distinct and not just an extension of the gaslamp/ballpark area.

SDCAL Mar 3, 2014 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6476123)
What ever Organic means describing inorganic matter like buildings. LA 's downtown can't hold a candle to san diego or SF. maybe oakland.
LA 's best parts are still Hollywood hills, santa monica, venice , hancock park etc. its just a spread out nightmare as you can get.

Agree somewhat, but things are improving in downtown Los Angeles. I think there is potential and agree with what another person said about there being more history and more stock of historic industrial buildings. But they will never have something that we have no matter how hard they try - a downtown right on the water.

Of course the counter-argument to that is what good is having a downtown right on the water when our waterfront is an under-utilized joke.

The completion of north embarcadero phase I, Lane Field, and hopefully sometime navy broadway complex can't come soon enough ;)

bobbyv Mar 3, 2014 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6476123)
What ever Organic means describing inorganic matter like buildings. LA 's downtown can't hold a candle to san diego or SF. maybe oakland.
LA 's best parts are still Hollywood hills, santa monica, venice , hancock park etc. its just a spread out nightmare as you can get.

Sorry its the other way around, DTLA is much much more urban, bigger, more pedestrian activity and "big city" than San Diego will ever be, SD reminds me of a bigger Santa Monica, SD has no answer for DTLA, whenever I'm in SD it feels sleepy and cookie cutter to be quite honest, LA is in another league, SD needs to look up to Denver before it is ever mentioned in the same breathe as LA.

spoonman Mar 3, 2014 3:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyv (Post 6476196)
Sorry its the other way around, DTLA is much much more urban, bigger, more pedestrian activity and "big city" than San Diego will ever be, SD reminds me of a bigger Santa Monica, SD has no answer for DTLA, whenever I'm in SD it feels sleepy and cookie cutter to be quite honest, LA is in another league, SD needs to look up to Denver before it is ever mentioned in the same breathe as LA.

Hmmm...even though there are way fewer people living in DTLA. ok troll. LA Live is all you have and it is a manufactured environment.

tyleraf Mar 3, 2014 5:35 AM

Lane Field North will be a Springhill Suites and Residence Inn combo. Here's hoping for a Ritz Carlton for Lane Field South. Here is the a article. http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm...y#.UxQT4ZK9KK0

Derek Mar 3, 2014 5:40 AM

Ritz Carlton with the current NBC as it's neighbor would be an embarrassment to say the least. I can't believe nothing has happened with the NBC yet.

SDfan Mar 3, 2014 5:49 AM

Good news Lane Field. I don't know if a Ritz would go in though.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:09 PM.

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