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)

mello Apr 8, 2007 7:50 PM

Stumpy Legend
 
Why didn't they make the Legend Taller?? At only 24 floors it barely clears the scoreboard and lighting structure of Petco so only the top 6 floors have great southerly views. They should have made it a 38 to 42 floor tower. I really don't see it being that marketable with only a handfull of units getting a great view to the south.

Plus it doesn't give the people inside the ballpark a dramatic view of a highrise since it only sticks out a little bit above the lighting stand. BOSA pussed out on the Legend lets admit it :yuck:

eburress Apr 8, 2007 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <ak/> (Post 2751740)

This is really a larger debate about growth. San Diego is deeply divided about whether it wants to be a big city or a very large suburb. The airport is part of that debate. Many people here don’t want the growth that an airport produces, particularly in their backyard..."

This is what absolutely burns me up about this town. These are the people who keep San Diego mediocre...and it is the spineless, inept city government that lets them.

bmfarley Apr 8, 2007 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2752142)
This is what absolutely burns me up about this town. These are the people who keep San Diego mediocre...and it is the spineless, inept city government that lets them.

In a related matter, the State of California adopted legislation a few years ago, maybe 10, that each jurisdiction is required to plan to accomodate their fair share of statewide projected population gain; California grows by 400k to 750k each year.

What the legislation means is that the weight/pressure of the current population can no longer influence the creation of no growth or slow growth measures on a city wide basis. Each city is now responsible for where must those additional numbers be located and the type of housing to be planned. So, whether San Diego slow growth citizen's like it or not (like Donna Frye?), SD is to grow. As I understand it, because I am kinda a newbie to SD, is that city entities selected downtown as one of those areas where future populations should be located.

eburress Apr 9, 2007 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 2752229)
In a related matter, the State of California adopted legislation a few years ago, maybe 10, that each jurisdiction is required to plan to accomodate their fair share of statewide projected population gain; California grows by 400k to 750k each year.

What the legislation means is that the weight/pressure of the current population can no longer influence the creation of no growth or slow growth measures on a city wide basis. Each city is now responsible for where must those additional numbers be located and the type of housing to be planned. So, whether San Diego slow growth citizen's like it or not (like Donna Frye?), SD is to grow. As I understand it, because I am kinda a newbie to SD, is that city entities selected downtown as one of those areas where future populations should be located.

That is very interesting - I'm glad you posted it. I think that goes back to what I mentioned before. The "official" policy may be growth, but so many residents didn't get the memo, and consequently do everything they can to stifle growth. If the city had balls, it would stand up to the slow/no-growth types, but it doesn't, so we're are left in the mess we're in.

On the bright side, I am glad that the city had the foresight to do what they could to encourage downtown residential growth. Like I said before though, now they need to follow up by doing what they can to encourage corporate expansion (spelled: n e w a i r p o r t). People need places to work. ;)

OCtoSD Apr 9, 2007 1:09 AM

City Probably would not let Bosa go higher
 
I think bosa only did 24 floors on the legend because that is all he was allowed to do. If you look at all the buildings going up touching the ballpark they are of a relatively similar height. Even the portion of the omni right across the street is stepped down. So I think that means there was a height limit on the buildings right next to the park. Maybe they were afraid of shadows on the stadium. Further evidence of a height limit is the fact that the next block down from the legend all has proposals and buildings that are much higher, the new mixed use complex, cosmo square, and the mark.

Derek Apr 9, 2007 1:35 AM

holy cow...the game was intense!! i had great seats too...section 131:tup:

anyways, i have to disagree, i think The Legend and Diamond View and Omni, Park Terrace, ICON etc...all look great with the surroundings...and im hoping Cosmo Square, Library Tower and the new main library (fingers crossed on all three...) can tie everything together into a beautiful community

bmfarley Apr 9, 2007 5:00 AM

So I have been thinking the past couple days how I dislike the chain-link fences on the I-5 overpasses downtown, particularly on the ones going north to Bankers Hill. And Park Blvd too. Are they on Park? I am assuming they are.

Caltrans began intalling them statewide a bit over 10 years ago after an incident or two involving people/kids throwing things off them and hurting motorists below. I think there were some deaths involved.

Anyway, they are unsightly and I offer-up that they could be replaced rather easily by some nice iron wrought fencing, or something. Maybe some nice vintage street lights too. Wouldn't that look sweet? It's not like the parking decks are going to happen any time soon, are they?

If done, it could add much to the romantic alure of downtown. After-all, over 100,000 cars pass under the bridges each weekday. Maybe more? People would remember them and eventually want to get off and visit downtown... not that more visitors are need... I am just saying. over SR 163 is an example. A poor example, but one nevertheless.

The Laurel Street bridge in Balboa Park is an example, although bad one.

Derek Apr 9, 2007 5:16 AM

^how about lids that cover the freeways;)

spoonman Apr 9, 2007 6:44 AM

FYI: There was definately a cap on the heights of the buildings immediately surrounding the ballpark. I remember there was much debate about this before and during construction of the park. The developers wanted to go both fat and tall to capitalize off the location. The "public" stupidly wanted short buildings, but the developers argued that the buildings would be fat as a result, causing more issues than if they were tall. In the end the buildings ended up about as wide as the developers originally wanted, but a bit shorter.

Derek Apr 9, 2007 6:45 AM

the buildings dont seem that wide to me...

spoonman Apr 9, 2007 6:51 AM

^that's the idea, they aren't as wide as they could have been :cheers:

Derek Apr 9, 2007 7:05 AM

gotcha:cheers:

i didnt read it right the first time...

bmfarley Apr 9, 2007 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 2753170)
FYI: There was definately a cap on the heights of the buildings immediately surrounding the ballpark. I remember there was much debate about this before and during construction of the park. The developers wanted to go both fat and tall to capitalize off the location. The "public" stupidly wanted short buildings, but the developers argued that the buildings would be fat as a result, causing more issues than if they were tall. In the end the buildings ended up about as wide as the developers originally wanted, but a bit shorter.

If that restriction is true, I know it does not include the temporary traingular lot bounded by Park, 12th, & Imperial. Nor the lot to the south of Imperial between Petco and the trolley. That area is 500 feet.

Derek Apr 9, 2007 7:12 AM

^i thought the port restricted height down there...?

Derek Apr 9, 2007 7:36 AM

do you guys think the city of SD will incorporate 4S Ranch? im just curious as to what you guys think...

spoonman Apr 9, 2007 7:52 AM

The land BMFarley is talking about isn't restricted as I understand it. That is where "Ballpark Village" was/is supposed to go. The project was to include aprox. (3) 500'-ish buildings, so I don't see how it could have any sort of meaningful cap.

HurricaneHugo Apr 9, 2007 8:46 AM

Holy shit, US Open on Torrey Pines and the Del Mar Fair overlap by three days...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1n8delmar.html

I-5 will be the world's largest parking lot for those 3 days...

Urban Sky Apr 9, 2007 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 2752378)
That is very interesting - I'm glad you posted it. I think that goes back to what I mentioned before. The "official" policy may be growth, but so many residents didn't get the memo, and consequently do everything they can to stifle growth. If the city had balls, it would stand up to the slow/no-growth types, but it doesn't, so we're are left in the mess we're in.

On the bright side, I am glad that the city had the foresight to do what they could to encourage downtown residential growth. Like I said before though, now they need to follow up by doing what they can to encourage corporate expansion (spelled: n e w a i r p o r t). People need places to work. ;)

Lindberg is the busiest single runway in the nation. And probably ranks up there in the world rankings. Why? Because we are operating at capacity. This means that we could afford to have another runway. Unfortunately, we don't have the space. It IS time to move the airport. Once the airports growth is no longer stunted, I think we will see some really positive changes in the way the airport operates and the business it brings to the city. Really, it's a positive thing no matter how you look at it. I'm not understanding why people dont get it!! :shrug:

Urban Sky Apr 9, 2007 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 2751847)
^Tijuana does too, but i dont support the floating airport, because of environmental and accesibility issues...Miramar (IMO) is the only viable site in SD county...screw the desert...im not going that far...

I second this motion.

spoonman Apr 9, 2007 6:39 PM

I agree about Miramar, I just don't think the military will ever give it up. San Diego as we all know has no flat land left, which doesn't give us many other options. Does anyone think Montgomery may be workable? I don't think they'd have to tear down too many properties to make it work. Maybe they could run the 163 freeway under the runway, tear down that In-N-Out shopping center and a few other businesses for a paralell or cross runway.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:02 AM.

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