With regard to land use, I've heard from a legitimate source that the FAA has no power what-so-ever. The FAA is merely an advisory board. The city really does have the ultimate say so. The FAA only has two options in any situation. 1) Close the airport, or 2) Work around the problem. Since the city approved these buildings already, the only way these 2 floors will ever come down is with a city mandate. If that happens, the city will owe Sunroad a hell of a lot of money for their fuck-up. I don't know if any of you know, but there are two more towers scheduled to start construction there. This is the shortest one. They are to be 12, 14, and 16 floors. I believe the others are on the opposite side of the 12 floor tower in relation to the airport, so they may be ok, but I'm not sure.

good report:tup:

from CCDC :tup:

SAN DIEGO, CA— Downtown San Diego’s Ballpark and Neighborhood Revitalization Project was chosen as one of 23 finalists for the 2007 Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Awards for Excellence from among a broad mix of projects – 167 in all – from North and South America. A jury panel will review all finalists and select up to 10 to receive awards at ULI’s International Conference to be held this May in Chicago.

Yeah, like that damn parking structure right under the approach, I think that thing alone bumps back the runway approach a couple hundred feet, and the FAA didnt do anything about it except shorten the usable landing runway. Based on what spoonman mentioned and what you see, it seems that if San Diego wants to keep using Lindbergh, then they cant mess with the airspace in the vicinity because then the FAA would render it useless and then the city is forced to get a new airport. That would be an awesome tactic lol, but Im just guessing here.

Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge
 

some updates on the bridge situation:
http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resour...ian_Bridge.pdf

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...a/dt/hdpb2.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...a/dt/hdpb1.jpg

i cant wait for that thing to get underway:tup:

At least they havent started construction on the other two yet.

That's interesting info on the FAA. For some reason I thought they had more say because of set height restrictions and all. The city really screwed this one up and now they are trying to make it seem like the builder is the one in the wrong when all theyve done is keep it legal. I heard a representative from the Pilots Association saying (on the news) that they are working with the FAA on this one and for now have informed pilots about the building (as if they hadn't noticed it) and told them to "fly around it". I thought that was a funny statement. You can even see that in the picture I posted with the news story, the building isn't even in the flight path.

Anyway, it's good news that the FAA isn't the Iron Fist I thought they were. That means the city better get crackin on raising those height restrictions in east village (at least)!

Oh you did? I totally missed it!! hahaha I didn't mean to steal your stuff! :)

no no, i dont mind. i just thought you liked Donna Frye..thats why i said something.

at least someone agrees;)

It's exciting to think that other buildings might soon go up in that Kearny Mesa area. Outside of a few small pockets, there's not much height in SD, but it's nice to see that might change.

^we need more in Mission Valley!! id love to see more highrises there!

I guess that would be OK, but since stuff can't be taller than the valley's rim, it makes me wonder what's the point. hahaha

^id sacrifice density for height in that neighborhood anyday;)

how tall is the valleys rim anyways?

its about 380 feet ASL on both sides where most of the highrises are. the valley floor is 50ft above sea level so that would make the maximum building height approx. 330ft. thats still a good sized tower.

ive never heard that rule before. where did you hear that the buildings had to be below the rim?

id rather see any and all highrises built downtown. in fact, id like to transplant some of the cool ones from mission valley and sorrento mesa to downtown.

This came up sometime last year when some of us wondered why CalTrans didn't use some kind of suspension bridge for I-805 where it intersects with I-8. Besides the obvious cost issues, somebody said that there was an ordinance (or something along those lines) that limited the height of structures in Mission Valley.

i gotta disagree, i think diversity is good, but i do agree with focusing highrise construction downtown

oops! i made a typo...i meant to say id sacrifice height for density in that neighborhood anyday;)




:(