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)

malsponger May 14, 2008 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3550637)
Sweet observation. I looked at GE yesterday and didn't notice. Maybe it occured in the past 24 hours.

Now... pick the date images were captured! I'll estimate sometime in February or March 2008.... before daylight savings took effect, and before the homeles tent at Tailgate Park downtown was taken down.
I notice there is activity inside Petco and the pool for Fit Athletic isunder construction. I believe it lloked like that in February or early March.

Additionally, it's a weekday. Probably before 3 or 3:30pm.

Interestingly, it looks like only the downtown area was updated. San Ysidro definately was not. And, some photo stitching puts 2 planes landing at Lindbergh at only 0.70 miles apart on their approach.

They actually do a pretty good job at merging images together. It looks like they might be using roads to do this which is clever. To the north I think the new image ends at University Avenue (????) because Mission Valley has also not been updated but Hillcrest has (Mi Arbolito). Funny enough I also noticed that airplane thing.

Judging from Breeza and Bayside I would have to say its sometime at the start of the year. I have a folder with pictures of Breeza from 3/9 and it was topped out with the "smokestack" thing already in place. In the GE shot it looks like theyre about to poor another floor slab. Based on the shadows, Sapphire couldn't have been much higher than 11-13 floors. On 3/9 it was at about 24 floors. I would have to guess its more around January. As far as time of day and week. You're spot on. Early afternoon. Ah yes, and the ice skating rink is still there. Didn't they take that out early this year?

IconRPCV May 14, 2008 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban (Post 3550492)
Well said!

Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but it appears that the crane for Vantage Pointe might be 50'-75' taller than Symphony Towers (499') on the left and no planes have crashed into it so far....

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...bCam/last1.jpg

It is no illusion. I drive up 11th street every day. That crane must be 600 or more feet at its top. If the crane can be there without interfering than why can't a building. I keep imagining what a building as tall as the crane would look and feel like to the rest of downtown. It is quite amazing how much more of a presence those 100 feet make. It seems like you can see the crane peaking over buildings no matter where you are in the east village, whereas the 500 foot Symphony Towers is not nearly as much of a presence.

malsponger May 14, 2008 5:53 AM

Yeah first the 5 messing up Balboa Park. Then the airport messing up the skyline. This city has issues. I took an urban geography class in college and we touched a lot on San Diego's history and how there were such great plans for Balboa Park to make it similar to Central Park in New York. Then the 5 comes in and splits the whole darn thing up. While its still close, having to cross over a freeway is not pedestrian friendly by any means. What will be San Diego's next decision. This city is great I won't deny that. But it could also be so much greater.

staplesla May 14, 2008 7:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malsponger (Post 3551362)
Yeah first the 5 messing up Balboa Park. Then the airport messing up the skyline. This city has issues. I took an urban geography class in college and we touched a lot on San Diego's history and how there were such great plans for Balboa Park to make it similar to Central Park in New York. Then the 5 comes in and splits the whole darn thing up. While its still close, having to cross over a freeway is not pedestrian friendly by any means. What will be San Diego's next decision. This city is great I won't deny that. But it could also be so much greater.


Dallas was facing the same problem and they've decided to build a park deck over the freeway connecting Downtown Dallas and Uptown. Maybe the same thing could be done over the 5.

http://www.wrpproject.com

HurricaneHugo May 14, 2008 8:37 AM

there are plans to do just that here, but it costs money...

malsponger May 14, 2008 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 3551490)
Dallas was facing the same problem and they've decided to build a park deck over the freeway connecting Downtown Dallas and Uptown. Maybe the same thing could be done over the 5.

http://www.wrpproject.com

While that would be just dandy. The area around the park has already been built up so it seems like it will never officially be an extension of downtown. Not to mention it sits directly under the flight approach path so it's not like much could go up anyways.

Its pure imaginative but how great would it be if Cortez Hill was not as much of a transition as it is and instead was all high rises, and those high rises continued nroth on 6th and 5th outlining Balboa Park. So in essence, yes like Central Park.

sandiego_urban May 14, 2008 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IconRPCV
It is no illusion. I drive up 11th street every day. That crane must be 600 or more feet at its top. If the crane can be there without interfering than why can't a building.

Exactly! As bmfarley said, it was the FAA who approved the height of the crane, so what's the problem here?!?


Quote:

Originally Posted by malsponger (Post 3551897)
While that would be just dandy. The area around the park has already been built up so it seems like it will never officially be an extension of downtown. Not to mention it sits directly under the flight approach path so it's not like much could go up anyways.

Its pure imaginative but how great would it be if Cortez Hill was not as much of a transition as it is and instead was all high rises, and those high rises continued nroth on 6th and 5th outlining Balboa Park. So in essence, yes like Central Park.

If the proposed freeway lid between Cortez Hill and Balboa Park ever gets built, Cortez Hill could end up being downtown's most desirable neighborhood. As it is now, CH seems pretty isolated but I bet it's residents like it that way.

Here's a link to info about the proposed parks for downtown that includes a great map on Page 3. A brief summary of the freeway lids can be found on Page 5.

http://www.ccdc.com/planupdate/pdf/04_SDCP_Parks.pdf

sandiego_urban May 14, 2008 6:53 PM

Finally, some good news from today's U-T ......


COUNCIL APPROVES FUNDING FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

May 14, 2008

SAN DIEGO: Downtown San Diego will get its iconic pedestrian bridge over Harbor Drive, after the City Council approved the $26.8 million price tag yesterday.

The bridge will extend from Petco Park to the Port of San Diego's recently built public parking garage. The budget has grown since the original estimate of $12.8 million in 2005.

The funding was approved by the council, although Councilwoman Donna Frye said, “It's kind of a tough call to authorize that kind of money for a bridge, quite frankly.”

Councilman Jim Madaffer suggested that, in the future, the downtown redevelopment agency should leave bridge building to the city's engineering department or the California Department of Transportation.

The cost will be offset by federal and state grants and a contribution from Padres owner John Moores' real estate company. Downtown agency officials said they are trying for another government grant of $8.4 million. –J.S.

HurricaneHugo May 15, 2008 6:02 AM

that is way too much for a bridge

i can design one for 1/4 the cost

keg92101 May 15, 2008 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiego_urban (Post 3552390)
Exactly! As bmfarley said, it was the FAA who approved the height of the crane, so what's the problem here?!?



If the proposed freeway lid between Cortez Hill and Balboa Park ever gets built, Cortez Hill could end up being downtown's most desirable neighborhood. As it is now, CH seems pretty isolated but I bet it's residents like it that way.

Here's a link to info about the proposed parks for downtown that includes a great map on Page 3. A brief summary of the freeway lids can be found on Page 5.

http://www.ccdc.com/planupdate/pdf/04_SDCP_Parks.pdf

My wife is doing her Master's Thesis at the NewSchool of Architecture on a Freeway lid over I-5 between Sherman Heights and East Village. The book will include design, feasablitiy, etc... If anyone is interested in a copy, let me know!

staplesla May 15, 2008 10:19 PM

My spouse works for the company who is overseeing the proposed California High Speed Rail. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

bmfarley May 16, 2008 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 3555298)
My spouse works for the company who is overseeing the proposed California High Speed Rail. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

It's a good project and I support it. Because travelers will be diverted to it rather than driving cars or flying, it mitigates future roadways congestion and the need to build more highways and airports (or runways and terminal gates). It also can be credited for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases AND help wean the State and country away from foreign oil from unstable countries. In a sense, it supports national security and provides independence.

Its capital construction is expensive, but anticipated ridership indicates it will collect more fare revenue than cost to run operations. Thus, it makes money. It will provide an economic stimulus for the State at a time when it is needed most... as over 100,000 jobs will be created.

It really seems like a huge win-win.

Some will say the State cannot afford it right now. But, the November bond initiative only approves the barrowing. The larger debt will not actually be created until the Authority is ready to begin construction, which will be in phases and not for 2-5 years from now. Initial payments will also be small. And, there is zero connectivity to the immediate fiscal year 2008-2009 state budget.

I believe it's in California's future; it's only a matter of time.

For San Diego... the region vetted the best alignment and station location a few years ago; Santa Fe Depot and as an aerial structure. That will probably need to be revisited with all the condo developments that have gone up there. But, for downtown I would think the business, commercial and retail should see a huge boost. After all, about 36,000 people would use the station on a daily basis; or about half as many as Lindbergh does presently.

By the way, CHSR is on page 44 on another thread on this site.

I recommend this blog site for learning more.

State Alignment and Expected Travel Time/Comparisons
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...l/ModeTime.jpg

Southern California Alignment
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n.../HSR-SoCal.jpg

San Diego Region
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...ail/HSR-SD.jpg

malsponger May 16, 2008 4:49 AM

I would definitely be for a high speed line connecting San Diego to Los Angeles Metro. It's funny how there is strong consideration on a toll road that runs pretty much parallel to an already existing freeway (????) By yielding to drivers you only encourage driving when what should be encourage are alternatives.


Let's not spend hundreds of millions widening freeways to handle more volume, or building new ones. Spend it to eliminate the need to drive.

HurricaneHugo May 16, 2008 5:23 AM

You mean spend it so that SF and LA get their toys while SD gets nothing.

SDCAL May 16, 2008 5:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3555725)

I am surprised the direct link is through Riverside and not Irvine. That increases the time to downtown LA.

I used to commute to Irvine and know many, many people do for jobs as well. I suppose alot also commute to Riverside, I am just cruious why the link through Riverside was deemed better than up the coast through Irvine. To get to Irvine would mean going east through Riverside, then through LA and back down, very impractical

bmfarley May 16, 2008 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 3556068)
You mean spend it so that SF and LA get their toys while SD gets nothing.

I wouldn't call it a toy. Lindbergh is not one why should this project be considered simply b/c it's not yet a reality here yet?

By the way AB 3034 is before the legislature right now. It'll likely pass. That bill will allow any segment of the systm to move forward with prioritization to available funding and likely success (ridership). LA - SF as a first phase will no longer be the legislatively prioritized first phase and San Diego should be well positioned.

bmfarley May 16, 2008 6:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 3556104)
I am surprised the direct link is through Riverside and not Irvine. That increases the time to downtown LA.

I used to commute to Irvine and know many, many people do for jobs as well. I suppose alot also commute to Riverside, I am just cruious why the link through Riverside was deemed better than up the coast through Irvine. To get to Irvine would mean going east through Riverside, then through LA and back down, very impractical

I'd agree. I believe San Diego County coastal communities objected to HSR through their bergs. Maybe Southern Orange County objected too?

I'd like to see a more direct link too... perhaps cut over from Temecula or Murrieta to Irvine... assuming topography allowed with relatively limited financial risk.

IconRPCV May 16, 2008 8:16 PM

I think the alignment up the 15 is meant to alleviate some of the congestion on the 15 from downtown to Temecula. There is commuter rail going up the 5. I for one am glad to see this alignment. If this comes to fruition then SD's two major north south corridors will be serviced by rail.

malsponger May 17, 2008 6:14 PM

This might have been discussed on here already but how about that empty space behind America Plaza on Kettner and B. I know it's underground parking. I am assuming Irvine Company owns that too? Is anything planned to go on top of that? What a waste of great space.

IconRPCV May 17, 2008 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3556190)
I wouldn't call it a toy. Lindbergh is not one why should this project be considered simply b/c it's not yet a reality here yet?

By the way AB 3034 is before the legislature right now. It'll likely pass. That bill will allow any segment of the systm to move forward with prioritization to available funding and likely success (ridership). LA - SF as a first phase will no longer be the legislatively prioritized first phase and San Diego should be well positioned.

So is the SD to LA segment no longer regulated to the second phase? If this is so then this is great news.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 PM.

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