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 Dec 3, 2011 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDuderino (Post 5501113)
That really doesn't make any sense at all. The Bay Area and LA are California's two largest population centers. Millions of people travel between the two each year, many do it multiple times. The whole point of the HSR is to link the two area to relieve future traffic and to give people an alternative to flying. HSR is not meant to be a commuter rail like BART. It just provides quick transportation between the major population centers. It would be nice to eventually have HSR between LA and SD, but it makes no sense to build that before LA to SF.

This makes no sense. There is much more travel between SD and LA than LA and SF.

First, the 8 lane freeways between SD and LA are constantly clogged with cars.

Second, the Amtrak line in between SD and LA is the 2nd busiest in the US.

Last, this does not even include the Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail connections, which move many more additional passangers DAILY.

This may be the only section that would actually pay for itself, although this would also be at the expense of the current modes of transportation.

HurricaneHugo Dec 3, 2011 11:48 PM

How does that compare to the LAX-SFO route?

pesto Dec 4, 2011 12:44 AM

Total traffic between LA and the Bay Area is very small compared to LA and SD. As noted, the North County suburbs have close connections to the Irvine area for employment. There is a massive traffic jam here every morning and evening. Alleviating this, plus getting tourists and visitors to downtown SD or the beaches or to LA would be an immediate and real benefit of HSR.

In general, traffic within the LA/SD region and within the SF/SJ/Sacto region is poor and needs transit to relieve the serious freeway congestion. Relief is needed between LA and the Bay Area. There are 3 major highways that move freely almost all of the time; and 6 major airports in SoCal and 4 in NorCal providing local service. Air beat HSR on speed (cost is irrelevant to business travellers) and cars beat them on cost.

bmfarley Dec 4, 2011 6:43 AM

Worth repeating. Don't be in denial or delusional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5500049)
I can provide two solid reasons why the Valley segement for the Los Angeles to San Francisco section was selected first, and not Los Angeles to San Diego.

1) The Valley provides a nice long straight and flat stretch of land to provide a test track. Mile for mile, it should also be cheaper. And, provide more options for a less costly maintenance and storage facility. A test track is ncessary for testing vehicles and burning them in, which is required before vehicles go into service. Each vehicles needs to be tested up to the planned top speed before they are 'commissioned' and go into service.

2) The Valley is in the center of the State and center of the planned system. It provides both geographic and political equity. Neither SoCal or NorCal is first... and being in the Valley provides the opportunity for political support for each end of the system to support double-ended extensions if pursued at the same time.

Yes, I agree LA to San Diego provides a logical answer if ridership alone were considered. But after taking other things into consideration, the Valley has a lot of merit too. Plus, San Diego really has not done itself any favors for earning consideration, has it? San Diego has not given the project more than luke-warm reception (routed miles inland versus the shorter coastal route), and, the answer for a terminal station is at Lindbergh Field - a location that does not get to downtown and has zero synergy with air travel into San Diego.


staplesla Dec 7, 2011 6:46 AM

Historic post office proposed redo includes rentals
 
The historic E Street post office downtown could be redeveloped with the addition of a 20-story, apartment tower under plans due soon to the city's Historic Resources Board.

The developer, Pacific Equity Partners of Rancho Santa Fe, is proposing to retain much of the 1930s post office, including its Art Deco facade, and build 360 apartments by the end of 2014 if all goes well, according to the project architects, Eric Davy and Richard Bundy.

Cathy Winterowd, who heads the city's historic review office, said she expects a preliminary review to begin in about two weeks.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...cludes-rental/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...e0b2d025cf5799

Derek Dec 7, 2011 7:32 AM

I actually like it.

tyleraf Dec 7, 2011 5:13 PM

I kinda like it too. It could make a unique addition to the skyline.

kpexpress Dec 7, 2011 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 5507622)
The historic E Street post office downtown could be redeveloped with the addition of a 20-story, apartment tower under plans due soon to the city's Historic Resources Board.

The developer, Pacific Equity Partners of Rancho Santa Fe, is proposing to retain much of the 1930s post office, including its Art Deco facade, and build 360 apartments by the end of 2014 if all goes well, according to the project architects, Eric Davy and Richard Bundy.

Cathy Winterowd, who heads the city's historic review office, said she expects a preliminary review to begin in about two weeks.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...cludes-rental/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...e0b2d025cf5799

I think the base, as a first rendition, looks okay. The top of the towers aren't really doing it for me. I wish they weren't so symmetrical and bulky. It's not too elegant. I do like how the colors contrast well with the historic post office facade.

HurricaneHugo Dec 7, 2011 9:01 PM

Just make it taller.

Boom.

eburress Dec 7, 2011 9:13 PM

I hate it when buildings get wider towards the top. It almost never works aesthetically. Ughhh.

mongoXZ Dec 7, 2011 11:45 PM

It's a good infill project regardless of design. It's in a non-prominent, blighted area of the Core. If it has some commercial spaces at ground-level then it's density done well IMO.

mongoXZ Dec 8, 2011 1:03 AM

Convention center expansion moves forward
The Convention Center expansion is one step closer to becoming a reality after the San Diego City Council approved a plan Tuesday that would require hotel guests to shoulder the bulk of the cost, despite criticisms from some hoteliers that the current setup is unfair.

The council voted 6-2 to create a special financing district that would add up to 3 percent onto the hotel bills for those staying in the city of San Diego. Hotels in downtown would be assessed 3 percent; Mission Valley, Mission Bay and Harbor Island properties would add 2 percent to hotel bills; and all others 1 percent.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...053cbc530c46a8
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...moves-forward/

HurricaneHugo Dec 9, 2011 12:45 AM

What do you guys think of the Civita development?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...use-at-civita/

spoonman Dec 9, 2011 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5509894)
What do you guys think of the Civita development?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...use-at-civita/

I wish this were higher density. Too suburban for MV

Leo the Dog Dec 10, 2011 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 5508649)
Convention center expansion moves forward
The Convention Center expansion is one step closer to becoming a reality after the San Diego City Council approved a plan Tuesday that would require hotel guests to shoulder the bulk of the cost, despite criticisms from some hoteliers that the current setup is unfair.

The council voted 6-2 to create a special financing district that would add up to 3 percent onto the hotel bills for those staying in the city of San Diego. Hotels in downtown would be assessed 3 percent; Mission Valley, Mission Bay and Harbor Island properties would add 2 percent to hotel bills; and all others 1 percent.

While it's great that the Convention Center expansion is moving forward, it does seem somewhat unfair for hotels to finance this city project even though hotels would benefit from an expanded CC. Everybody (especially bars/restaurants) in SD/DT would benefit from an expanded CC, but hotels are the only ones targeted.

Source: http://www.sandiego.org/article_set/Visitors/6/53
Quote:

What is the room tax for San Diego Hotels?
The transient occupancy tax (10.5% in the City of San Diego) is a tax primarily used for the purpose of promoting San Diego and is levied on hotel and motel rooms.

Tourism Marketing District (TMD). Effective January 1, 2008, and applicable to properties within the city of San Diego with a minimum of 70 rooms, the TMD will levy a 2% assessment on hotel room nights sold in the city.
Looks like it'll be an additional 3% tax increase. How much is too much?

mongoXZ Dec 11, 2011 7:29 PM

I just stumbled upon this yearly reader's poll (NOT scientific) from Travel & Leisure. There's a feature where you can pit two cities against each other to see how well they stack up on all the categories. San Diego does pretty well in this with only San Fran, New Orleans, and San Juan PR? doing better.

The usual suspects as to why SD excels in this poll: Best times to visit, Most Beautiful, Athletic people, Best Types of trips, Quality Experience etc etc.

Things SD needs to improve on: Culture and of course Affordability.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/amer...te-cities/2011

LosAngelesDreamin Dec 11, 2011 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5509894)
What do you guys think of the Civita development?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...use-at-civita/

I think mission valley should build taller, no supertalls or anything above 500ft... just a 400ft height limit??... i mean there are only a few tall buildings in the valley, everything else is short and stubby.... imagine driving on the 805 crossing the valley and seeing a skyline between two mountain hills w.e you call it... views would be amazing IMO

why build 3-4 story apts or condos in a spread out horizontal area.. when you can save room and build 20-30 story building... you save room for more development.

spoonman Dec 12, 2011 3:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin (Post 5512634)
I think mission valley should build taller, no supertalls or anything above 500ft... just a 400ft height limit??... i mean there are only a few tall buildings in the valley, everything else is short and stubby.... imagine driving on the 805 crossing the valley and seeing a skyline between two mountain hills w.e you call it... views would be amazing IMO

why build 3-4 story apts or condos in a spread out horizontal area.. when you can save room and build 20-30 story building... you save room for more development.

There are at least 15 buildings over 10 floors there already. Not saying we can't have more. There are more planned for Hazard Center...two 25-ish floor towers.

HurricaneHugo Dec 12, 2011 5:51 AM

Stupid valley rim height limit...would be nice to get a 500+ footer anywhere

SDfan Dec 12, 2011 9:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5513130)
Stupid valley rim height limit...would be nice to get a 500+ footer anywhere

Come to think of it, I think every potential high-rise site in this city has a height limit imposed on it. Downtown with Lindbergh, Mission Valley with the rim, west of the I-5 with the 30ft limit, and then UTC has Miramar right next door.

We're screwed.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:17 AM.

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