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)

eburress Jul 17, 2007 5:12 AM

One of the MANY problems with an airport in the freaking Pacific Ocean is that people don't want to "look to the west and see an airport on the horizon." That would be every NIMBYs worst nightmare.

The logistics of getting to the airport would be one of the deal-breakers for me. It would take a LOT of money to get my onto one of those light rail trains!

Derek Jul 17, 2007 5:26 AM

Like I said, Miramar is pretty much the only option. The international terminal or whatever is crap too, you are not getting me to go to the Tijuana airport of all places.

keg92101 Jul 17, 2007 5:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2955338)
That would make sense to move the Hard Rock Cafe to the Hard Rock Condotel building as well.

Not really. The Hard Rock Cafe is more of a tourist spot, where this is going to be a destination. Rande Gerber bar (Wiskey Bar, W Hotels) Nobu, and 4th floor pool deck.

Red UM Rebel Jul 17, 2007 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 2955443)
Not really. The Hard Rock Cafe is more of a tourist spot, where this is going to be a destination. Rande Gerber bar (Wiskey Bar, W Hotels) Nobu, and 4th floor pool deck.

Very true. They will not move the Hard Rock Cafe unless it is in a bad location. The Hard Rock Hotel in Chicago does have restaurants, but not a cafe. I would actually not be surprised at all if they did put in a nightclub/lounge done by Gerber Group. Gerber Group just put in a club/lounge in the new Hard Rock Hotel in Biloxi and commented that they enjoyed working with the atmosphere that HR produces.

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 3:47 PM

!

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 2952006)
If you go back a few pages on this thread, someone informed us that the Cosmo site is being "quitely shopped", meaning the developers are trying to unload the site. I honestly doubt any new residential projects in the East Village will start over the next year and a half. However, Hotel Indigo will break ground at the end of this year, the Marriott Residence Inn has recently broken ground, as has the affordable housing portion of Ballpark Village (16th & Market). The only residential project that could start over the next year and a half would be the 7th & Market site, and that is only because the Related Companies has so much cash, they can get financing when others cannot. I am more excited, living in the area, about more and more retail coming to the area.

http://eastvillagesandiego.blogspot.com/

I see that you have a blog for East Village. I want to start a blog/message board that would allow more interaction from the masses (similar to SDLookup.com). I want to have discussions about new retaurants and reviews, new leases/tenants, development rumors and general East Village living. Does anyone have a suggestion about a service that hosts something like this?

ucsbgaucho Jul 17, 2007 4:06 PM

I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

bushman61988 Jul 17, 2007 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho (Post 2955913)
I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

I completely agree. U guys criticizing should at least give some more legit reasons for criticizing than calling it "crap". I think u guys should look at the positive aspects of it...i admit it would be kind of terrifying going under an underwater tunnel, especially when that tunnel is in the freakin Pacific Ocean, but i think they would also have ferries that take off from ports like downtown, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Lindbergh Field, and Oceanside.

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushman61988 (Post 2956010)
I completely agree. U guys criticizing should at least give some more legit reasons for criticizing than calling it "crap". I think u guys should look at the positive aspects of it...i admit it would be kind of terrifying going under an underwater tunnel, especially when that tunnel is in the freakin Pacific Ocean, but i think they would also have ferries that take off from ports like downtown, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Lindbergh Field, and Oceanside.

This 10 mile offshore airport idea with underwater tunnels and ferry's is the most Rube Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) thinking that I have heard yet.

Question: Say that I live in Fallbrook,Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Poway,etc. Why would I even consider flying into an offshore airport off of Point Loma? I would fly into Orange County or Ontairo.

If you have ever taken a ferry to Catalina from Long Beach (26 miles), it takes about 45 minutes (on the water). Add another 30 minutes to board on and off. Point Loma to Oceanside would take at least that amount of time. Who would fly into San Diego when it would take hours to get to shore?

Nevermind the fact that it would cost a family of 4 $100 bucks to ride the ferry.

Why don't we take the $20 billion and give it to Boeing. They can develop a plane that lands on water and then transforms into a ship that takes the passengers to shore. It has about the same chance of being successful.

northbay Jul 17, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho (Post 2955913)
I don't think an offshore airport would be THAT bad of an idea... And at 10 miles out, you wouldn't even be able to see it. It's not like it's going to be situated just outside the surf break. Catalina is 20 miles offshore, and it doesnt loom in the horizon when looking from LA. And I think you'd have a lot less problems convincing residents of an airport located 10 miles away where no planes would have to fly over any homes, vs Miramar which is less than 8 miles away from La Jolla and planes would be coming over that area dozens of times a day. Yes, Miramar is ideal, but when you might have to wait 10-20 years before even being able to CONSIDER that location, and then another 10-15 years of design, hearings, approvals, votes, and construction... something offshore looks enticing.

Plus, if you develop a BART-style connection with several trains running at the same time, even a marina next to the airport where the wealthier people can just take their yachts out to the airport, you wouldn't have a problem with access. You could set up a network of ferries too, leaving from say Encinitas, Mission Bay and Imperial Beach.... How cool would it be, if you weren't in a rush to reach a flight at the last minute, to take a boat out to the airport and cruise along the coast to get a great view along the way?!

I definitely think it's worth listening to and considering. San Diego is out of room for an airport the size that they really need. Without Miramar, you go east, or you go west. Going west is a lot closer.

even if you COULD see the airport, would it matter? 10 miles sounds too far though - could they build a bridge that far? this kind of proposal reminds me of kansai airport in osaka (though it was built on aritificial islands in a bay).

in my mind - the IDEAL location for an airport is where approaching planes (low-flying) are far (or as far as possible) from where people live but where the airport is close enough to the center of population and commerce - a delicate balance. placing the airport on the water is perfect. even access is not an issue as bridges and ferries can easily serve the need (the number of people using the ferries = that much not on the freeway driving to the airport). tolling the bridge would generate xtra revenue and encourage use of the ferries or rail (rail bridge should be built). already theyve built many airports next to the water here in cali, seems like the next logical step is ON the water.

works in japan. only thing is, they had the $$.

SDCAL Jul 17, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 2956072)
This 10 mile offshore airport idea with underwater tunnels and ferry's is the most Rube Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) thinking that I have heard yet.

Question: Say that I live in Fallbrook,Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Poway,etc. Why would I even consider flying into an offshore airport off of Point Loma? I would fly into Orange County or Ontairo.

If you have ever taken a ferry to Catalina from Long Beach (26 miles), it takes about 45 minutes (on the water). Add another 30 minutes to board on and off. Point Loma to Oceanside would take at least that amount of time. Who would fly into San Diego when it would take hours to get to shore?

Nevermind the fact that it would cost a family of 4 $100 bucks to ride the ferry.

Why don't we take the $20 billion and give it to Boeing. They can develop a plane that lands on water and then transforms into a ship that takes the passengers to shore. It has about the same chance of being successful.

th e idea is far-fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. Obviously the points you bring up would be addressed if the idea ever went to a serious consideration. The would obvioulsy not build such an advanced airport and rely on a slow moving ferry to tranfer passengers or charge 100 dollars to get to the airport. Bottom line is there would be A LOT of concerns to hurdle, but the idea is not crazy. Japan has some kind of man-made island airport. I just think the idea would be even harder to get off the ground in SD than in other cities because people seem more resistant to out of the box thinking here than in other cities

eburress Jul 17, 2007 6:54 PM

I think the only way SD would be able to get a new airport anytime in the (relatively) near future would be to build a modal airport that would consist of three parts.

1. The Welcome
Parking, ticketing, baggage, rental car operations, and security checkpoints built somewhere here in-town...maybe even at Lindbergh since much of the infrastructure is already there.

2. The Link
Once folks get through security, they hop onto HSR trains which take them to the the planes.

3. Da plane! Da plane!
Somewhere in the middle of nowhere is the rest of the aiport - the runways, airplanes, control tower, and gates.

I expect that the most expensive and potentially infeasible aspect would be the HSR line, but at least the thing is not floating in the middle of the freaking ocean! :)

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 2955315)
I think its a completely new building.

Interesting news about airport stuff, very far fetched though, I doubt this claim will go without complaint because it is a bit ridiculous, if the dude wants space for an airport, he'd only claim space for the airport and a little vicinity. This seems like a joke.

Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight

POSTED: 5:51 pm PDT July 16, 2007
UPDATED: 6:33 pm PDT July 16, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
SAN DIEGO -- Could an offshore airport be in San Diego's future? A local businessman took the first step Monday in his quest to bring an offshore alternative to Lindbergh Field.

Images: Floating Airport Proposal Takes Flight
Watch Video

Adam Englund, an Encinitas attorney and CEO of Ocean Works Development, sent certified letters to federal, state and local government agencies, notifying them that he is staking claim on a 40,000-square-mile area of the Pacific Ocean. The area in the claim covers Point Conception in the north to the Mexican border in the south, from three miles off the coast to the Continental Shelf to the west.
Adblock


According to Englund, his design is unprecedented. The airport would be located ten miles off the coast of Point Loma. It would be secured to the ocean floor and could be accessed by a 10-mile light-rail tunnel, built 1,200 feet under the water. The line would likely have its mainland opening at Lindbergh Field, Englund said.

Construction would take place in China and the airport would be towed across the ocean, then pieced together.

SURVEY
Should San Diego build an offshore airport?
Yes
No
Results | Disclaimer

Englund told NBC 7/39 he formed his corporation several years ago with the goal of building an offshore airport. His Web site contains an artist's rendition of his proposed idea.

He said he believes the planning for a new airport has been "shortsighted," and said when he is on the coast, he looks to the west and sees an airport on the horizon. He said claiming an area of the ocean for development is unprecedented.

"By making the claim we're giving notice out to everybody that we intend to go forward with this project -- on a realistic business-like basis. And if anyone has a problem, they should let us know now because we're going to be moving forward," Englund said.

Englund estimates the cost of his design at $20 billion.

Last year, voters rejected a proposal to relocate airport operations to MCAS Miramar. The Airport Authority has included the option of an offshore airport it its site relocation studies, but has not followed through to the extent that Englund has done.

Offshore airports are currently in use in Japan, which has five. However, their construction differs a bit from what Ocean Works Development is proposing, in that they all have an above-ground connection with the mainland.

Any challenges to Englund's claim need to filed in federal court by October 16.

Lindbergh Field has served as the region's main airport for nearly 80 years.

Copyright 2007 by NBCSandiego.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

If you really had $20 Billion to spend on a new airport, you could offer to buy Tijuana Airport and everything in the flightpath across the border to Brown Field and have about $15 Billion left over.

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 2956241)
th e idea is far-fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. Obviously the points you bring up would be addressed if the idea ever went to a serious consideration. The would obvioulsy not build such an advanced airport and rely on a slow moving ferry to tranfer passengers or charge 100 dollars to get to the airport. Bottom line is there would be A LOT of concerns to hurdle, but the idea is not crazy. Japan has some kind of man-made island airport. I just think the idea would be even harder to get off the ground in SD than in other cities because people seem more resistant to out of the box thinking here than in other cities

Are Japan's floating airports in a protected bay or are they 10 miles offshore in unprotected Pacific Ocean waters?

The Coastal Commission won't even let anyone drill for crude oil offshore. I can't see them allowing an airport complex to sit offshore.

ucsbgaucho Jul 17, 2007 7:25 PM

The main big Japanese airport, Kansai, that sits out in the water is protected in a big bay, but is right in the middle of typhoon country.

I think the San Diego airport would have to abandon the idea of underwater tunnels and just concentrate on ferries. Unless they built it closer to the coast. But think, you could do all your check-in and security at the numerous departure points in SD, then the ferry takes you right there. You hop off, hop onto a tram or moving walkway that takes you right to your terminal. Security would be much better, as the airport itself would never be in danger from a car bomb or someone wanting to blow up the terminal area before crossing through security. The airport itself would be easier to patrol with boats. It could handle the largest of airplanes, constant cargo trips, and would have unlimited space to expand.

The ferries would be operated by and paid for by the airport, if you fly from SD you dont pay for the ride to the airport. You wouldnt need huge long-term parking lots, you wouldn't have so many cars on the road all trying to get to one place. Sure, you can drive from Oceanside to OC or Long Beach for a flight, but wouldn't you rather drive 5 minutes, park your car, and then take a free boat ride?

dl3000 Jul 17, 2007 10:02 PM

The thing about the article I thought was crazy was that the attorney guy is claiming SO MUCH space. Point Conception to Mexico? Ridiculous obviously it won't happen.

I agree with eburress, the separated airport is the most logical option, landside centrally located, and airside somewhere say out in the desert or maybe in the ocean if need be.

Also, Japan is not a good example because there aren't any operational FLOATING airports, maybe prototypes but no real ones. Japanese airports are on dirt and they are only something like a mile or two offshore so bridges are still simple and all are in bays so they still are in more shallow waters. The floating airport isnt too crazy to me, but 10 miles offshore is a bit far, they could probably use the suspension tunnel (a tube floats in the water just above the sea floor while being tethered down by cables) to carry the train which is cheaper, though this is also new technology.

keg92101 Jul 17, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 2955890)
I see that you have a blog for East Village. I want to start a blog/message board that would allow more interaction from the masses (similar to SDLookup.com). I want to have discussions about new retaurants and reviews, new leases/tenants, development rumors and general East Village living. Does anyone have a suggestion about a service that hosts something like this?

Check out Yelp. It is a review blog that is covers everything across the country. You can specify your city when you sign up.

http://www.yelp.com

sandiegodweller Jul 17, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 2956857)
Check out Yelp. It is a review blog that is covers everything across the country. You can specify your city when you sign up.

http://www.yelp.com

Yelp looks good. Thanks.

Crackertastik Jul 18, 2007 3:04 AM

eburress has it absolutely correct. The airport would have to be in sections.

1. welcome, 2. transport to the planes, 3. DA planes!

1. i think the welcome can even be divided further. Welcome terminals and check in/parking could/should be in multiple locations. one in chula, one in downtown sd, one in say encinitas. then you transport them each to the airport via rail way east or way west.

2. The transport to the planes is going to be expensive and is GOING to have be quick and efficientwhether it is way in the desert or in ocean. The desert will be a much greater distance, though mountains, underground, or through purchased land. the tracks will need to be flat and straight to allow for fast transport. The ocean will be expensive because you will need to create that submerged suspended tunnel. I do not think ferries are a good idea at all. In fact a horrible idea. Rough weather, speed, offloading and loading all complicate things. it would be a much shorter distance for the rail though, less difficulty in routing. Just as expensive however and difficult.

3. The Planes - are GOING to have to be far from civilization leaves the desert way east, and the ocean way west. The placement in the desert will have to be in location that is flat or made flat, with good approaches from multiple directions. Feasible for sure. The WELCOME to the city of San Diego is less than ideal. The heat would be horrid. The technology for the floating airport is there, and actually tests show the larger the complex the MORE stable the structure gets. It is ideal because of flat approaches from every direction. Due to size, the ocean would have no effect. For the NIMBYs it would be too far off shore to see, and would actually create harbor for sea life because it is floating. Like a manmade kelp bed. However, marine layer may be an issue as well as rain. I am not sure statistics on off shore san diego weather. The welcome would be rediculously awesome, and more SAN DIEGO than a desert, not to mention world first and famous.

My vote is for the ocean airport. It is possible, daring, and could be the best airport in the world. EASILY!

Derek Jul 18, 2007 3:21 AM

Downtown LA?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 PM.

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